or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 32  

post #466 of 21760

Not sure if I've ever mentioned it before but I have a Facebook page. Feel free to add me I could use some friends on Facebook

post #467 of 21760

This (and the whole thread) is interesting: http://www.head-fi.org/t/627355/wich-iem-has-the-flattest-sound-signature/30#post_8699765

Seems like Anaxilus was worked up quite a bit with the recommendation of the 4.Ai being neutral/ flat-sounding.

 

If gear presented music naturally does that mean it is neutral?

post #468 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

Actually, I'm even born in Finland, or as they say: Winland. biggrin.gif

I think, to be honest, that Nokia has been in an economic crisis, and still are in somewhat bad shape. I remember their CEO making remarks about using Android is like pissing in the snow, or something like that. The thing is that they haven't flourished quite like the other mobile giants, and I think a major part is the lack of Android. While the other giants were thriving and selling phones to the left and right, Nokia were still experimenting with Symbians, Linux and whatnot. They've always made pretty and quality phones, but with the lack of Android, or some other big system, they just haven't been right on the inside, so to say. Code wise, that is.

Now, with Windows 8 I think that might change. I think it might mean that the ecosystem of Windows might actually grow. I can see a reason to buy a windows 8 phone, being that your tablet is windows 8 and desktop being it too. Who knows .. we'll just have to wait and see. As for apps, I'm not dependant on them - I want my phone to be a smartphone/PDA yes, but I can live without the thousands of games and fart machines that are out there now.

The Lumia 920 is quite unique and shows that Nokia is actually trying to do something new. I'm getting so tired of the usual Android/iPhone clones, so seeing what Nokia does now is not only refreshing, but also kind of stylish.

My phone right now is a feature phone. I had a cheap ZTE Android phone earlier until the screen broke, so I have to use my crappy feature phone until I buy something new. It works for calling though (though SMS is quite a hassle..), so no stress.

Fixed something for you. wink.gif

I guess there's something of an anchor when you're trying to keep compatibility of a rather old OS. I feel though, just based on my mediocre understanding of what's what with Nokia on a hobbyist level, that they did a misstep somewhere when adapting Symbian into a more modern OS. If they could make Nokia Belle (what is effectively still Symbian) 5 years ago, or even half of what Belle is back then, and with Qt, they could've made it okay. Maybe? I don't know.

There's that attempt at making Symbian more approachable to other manufactures by making it open source, but the subtle controlling done by Nokia to Symbian (e.g. Ovi store, the marketplace for Symbian, being exclusive to Nokia's Symbian-based phones, and not to Samsung's and Sony Ericsson's) simply made it fail. Also there was Maemo OS, which is rather very beautiful and powerful back then too. But then they went in bed with Intel to make MeeGo, and there's that obligation to the old Symbian core, and I thik making it a bit too tweaker orientated and no effort to 'mainstream'-ize it, that IMO made the Maemo/MeeGo thing didn't came to commercial fruition. There was a lot of potential in both Symbian and Maemo/Meego; it's a little sad to see them fail. Or at least one of them managed to be as great as it can before finally dying, IMO.

And yes, I remember that statement by the CEO. It was rather ballsy. I don't remember if it's the Finnish CEO or new Canadian one. If it's the old one, then it fall flat on its face, If it's the new one, then it seems to be working that Nokia went with WP and MS, and didn't take 'a piss to keep themselves warm in winter' with Android. Would they do great with Android? I think if they keep doing what they are doing right now aesthetic-hardware wise, then probably yes. There's that skinning Android part and updating it swiftly part, but probably that wouldn't be too much of a problem for them, I think. If only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoenixClaw View Post

This (and the whole thread) is interesting: http://www.head-fi.org/t/627355/wich-iem-has-the-flattest-sound-signature/30#post_8699765
Seems like Anaxilus was worked up quite a bit with the recommendation of the 4.Ai being neutral/ flat-sounding.

If gear presented music naturally does that mean it is neutral?

But what is natural and what is neutral? I still am getting my head around 'natural'. I can understand (a bit) of 'neutral'; in that the headphones/amp/DAC adds little to no colouration to the sound.
post #469 of 21760
Oh and FiiO's new upcoming E12 has a crossfeed: Big pic! (Click to show)
ee310a8e_E12.jpeg

Really. *sigh* IF they are going to be $200 ~ $300, then I don't feel too bad buying the UHA-4. All for the crossfeed, and more importantly, virtually no channel imbalance at low volume.
post #470 of 21760

.


Edited by music_4321 - 9/15/12 at 7:47am
post #471 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgray91 View Post


Fixed something for you. wink.gif
I guess there's something of an anchor when you're trying to keep compatibility of a rather old OS. I feel though, just based on my mediocre understanding of what's what with Nokia on a hobbyist level, that they did a misstep somewhere when adapting Symbian into a more modern OS. If they could make Nokia Belle (what is effectively still Symbian) 5 years ago, or even half of what Belle is back then, and with Qt, they could've made it okay. Maybe? I don't know.
There's that attempt at making Symbian more approachable to other manufactures by making it open source, but the subtle controlling done by Nokia to Symbian (e.g. Ovi store, the marketplace for Symbian, being exclusive to Nokia's Symbian-based phones, and not to Samsung's and Sony Ericsson's) simply made it fail. Also there was Maemo OS, which is rather very beautiful and powerful back then too. But then they went in bed with Intel to make MeeGo, and there's that obligation to the old Symbian core, and I thik making it a bit too tweaker orientated and no effort to 'mainstream'-ize it, that IMO made the Maemo/MeeGo thing didn't came to commercial fruition. There was a lot of potential in both Symbian and Maemo/Meego; it's a little sad to see them fail. Or at least one of them managed to be as great as it can before finally dying, IMO.
And yes, I remember that statement by the CEO. It was rather ballsy. I don't remember if it's the Finnish CEO or new Canadian one. If it's the old one, then it fall flat on its face, If it's the new one, then it seems to be working that Nokia went with WP and MS, and didn't take 'a piss to keep themselves warm in winter' with Android. Would they do great with Android? I think if they keep doing what they are doing right now aesthetic-hardware wise, then probably yes. There's that skinning Android part and updating it swiftly part, but probably that wouldn't be too much of a problem for them, I think. If only...
But what is natural and what is neutral? I still am getting my head around 'natural'. I can understand (a bit) of 'neutral'; in that the headphones/amp/DAC adds little to no colouration to the sound.

Well, there are too many "what if"s with Nokia at this point in time. I think they actually kind of lost it back then when they didn't jump on the Android ship. I guess they believed in what they were selling, but on the other hand, they must've realized somewhere that it's the biggest OS's that will survive and keep evolving. Now, I think things might change with the consumer oriented windows 8 (oh, it's business oriented as well, but the whole UI screams flashy animations and consumer-grade experiences, both good and bad). Also, the fact that it's Microsoft that's pulling the strings on windows 8 phone (let's just call it W8 for conveniece, mkay?) makes me believe that it won't just get scrapped for no good reason. Nokia can pull the plug on everything it makes, but they can't pull the plug on something that other people develop.

 

Oh we'll just wait and see. I believe that W8 can become something good, and with good devs, it may grow. If devs can't (or won't) develop to W8 as well as Android and iOS, things will get bad for both Microsoft and Nokia. But I think that may be a few years from now, and if I decide to get a Lumia 920, it would be time to change it anyway. In other words, I feel somewhat secure in putting my money on a W8 mobile for the moment, and as for the future, who knows, right? When W8 dies, my Lumia 920 will probably be dead and long gone anyway. Also, with the reboot of W8 and Windows 8, I have a feeling that the ecosystem of Microsoft software will be good, with all kinds of syncing and stuff.

 

We'll just see. One thing's for sure though, and it's that I really like the looks of the Lumia phone. cool.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgray91 View Post

Oh and FiiO's new upcoming E12 has a crossfeed: Big pic! (Click to show)
ee310a8e_E12.jpeg
Really. *sigh* IF they are going to be $200 ~ $300, then I don't feel too bad buying the UHA-4. All for the crossfeed, and more importantly, virtually no channel imbalance at low volume.

At least it's gorgeous! I've always fancied the industrial no-nonsense kind of design of FiiO products. The last thing I want my gear to be, is bling-bling. Colorful is one thing, blingy is another.

 

Also, when you read bling-bling you should read it like this lady says ling-ling:

 

 

Warning: LANG-LANG (Click to show)

post #472 of 21760

.


Edited by music_4321 - 9/15/12 at 7:47am
post #473 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

Well this is rather interesting our fearless leader MuppetFace and everyone's favorite reviewer Joker have become known as audio guru's in my neck of the woods.

 

I just came from a electronics box store called Futureshop. The conversation went roughly as follows

[snip]

 

Heh, Your stories always make me smile, DF. smily_headphones1.gif

post #474 of 21760
@ CdC, yep there's just too many 'what if's with Nokia. And I agree with you on their current state too. What would be sad to see if Nokia is going down is the radical innovations that they seem to be always doing, even if the tech blogs circlejerk doesn't agree with.

Also, I think WP7, and eventually W8, would make a better first-time smartphone than iPhone, if apps aren't an issue. Combine with Nokia's now very gorgeous and different aesthetic, legendary Nokia tankiness, it sure bodes well for this Symbian user.

Also on the camera-on-phone front, I'm surprised that Sony didn't push their camera tech in their phones as aggressively back when Android wasn't big enough yet. I still remember all those great cameraphones from Sony, the most iconic, and still remembered, for me being the Bond phone. biggrin.gif
post #475 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdiddypdler View Post

Heh, Your stories always make me smile, DF. smily_headphones1.gif

Agreed. I always enjoy DF's anecdotes here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgray91 View Post

@ CdC, yep there's just too many 'what if's with Nokia. And I agree with you on their current state too. What would be sad to see if Nokia is going down is the radical innovations that they seem to be always doing, even if the tech blogs circlejerk doesn't agree with.
Also, I think WP7, and eventually W8, would make a better first-time smartphone than iPhone, if apps aren't an issue. Combine with Nokia's now very gorgeous and different aesthetic, legendary Nokia tankiness, it sure bodes well for this Symbian user.
Also on the camera-on-phone front, I'm surprised that Sony didn't push their camera tech in their phones as aggressively back when Android wasn't big enough yet. I still remember all those great cameraphones from Sony, the most iconic, and still remembered, for me being the Bond phone. biggrin.gif

You know, speaking of the cameras-on-front, we actually had that back in the early 2000's over here. That was when 3G was new. I remember calling my dad on one of those phones (it's pretty cool, they actually had internet, mp3 players and video players as well) and the picture wasn't the best, but we could see eachother. It wasn't a big hit back then - other than the occasional camera call (I think that's what it was called) just to prove ourselves that the technology worked, no one really used it. At least not over here. People felt like idiots talking TO a phone, instead of INTO it like a normal person. This was before hands-free was big - in the beginning when people was adapting to hands-free, you'd think there were a lot of mentally ill people talking loudly to themselves.

post #476 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

 

Sorry.  I didn't mean to sound like I was talking down to you or something.  It's just with the lag inherent to posting on a message board I usually ramble on into tl;dr territory and I ended up responding to something you didn't even say.  I was a little unsure of your position and I was just trying to communicate that I didn't think that some sort of pilot study would be the answer to life, the universe, and everything because I wasn't sure if you thought I believed that or not.  It didn't come across like I intended.

 

I apologize.

 

 

No worries, I was in a grumpy mood when I wrote that response. It actually came across as more defensive and pissy than I intended it to, so sorry as well. My posts about the subject weren't exactly clear in a lot of places, and I tend to get several trains of through vying for expression at the same time, so that makes things more confusing.

post #477 of 21760

I don't know how many of you guys are into R&B, but this song is too good not to share. Miguel's bringing 80s R&B back.

 

post #478 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post


I wasn't planning on getting involved in the conversation but after your last post I can't help but ask this stupid question. Wouldn't a lesbian whose appearance is as others on here indicate and I quote "butch" be insulted being described as butch? An while we're on the subject why is it so many lesbian women who choose to portray themselves in a more masculine roll run out and get themselves Justin Bieber haircuts? Not trying to derail the topic but seriously what gives with that? You've even noticed it and commented on it once in a tongue in cheek manner.

 

I think it depends on the person. Someone who isn't trying to look butch, and / or is "just out of the closet" might get upset if you called her that. On the other hand, there are a lot of gay women who embrace that identity and the roles that go along with it. Some also see it as liberating, a way of breaking out of narrowly defined gender roles (though whether they then jump straight into another well defined role is another matter...). In the case of being butch, it's a way for some women to feel like they have more of a voice and are more assertive in their expression.

 

And then some women just are more butch. Modern theories of gender which are predominant these days tends to view "masculine" and "feminine" as sliding scales rather than polar opposites in a binary opposition. Some women are just more masculine than others. Some men are just more feminine than others. And visa versa.

 

As for the Justin Bieber cut, that's actually not a butch-cut stereotypically. Butch cuts would stereotypically be buzzcuts, mullets or rat-tails, sometimes mohawks, or just really short or cropped hair. The Justin Bieber thing is more of a middle ground between butch and femme, and as such it's common to see it among younger girls or girls who are just out of the closet. It's a way of blending in while still sending up a little red flag in some cases. But it's also a versatile and fun style in and of itself, so some just genuinely like it.

 

Again, these are all generalizations.

post #479 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

You know, speaking of the cameras-on-front, we actually had that back in the early 2000's over here. That was when 3G was new. I remember calling my dad on one of those phones (it's pretty cool, they actually had internet, mp3 players and video players as well) and the picture wasn't the best, but we could see eachother. It wasn't a big hit back then - other than the occasional camera call (I think that's what it was called) just to prove ourselves that the technology worked, no one really used it. At least not over here. People felt like idiots talking TO a phone, instead of INTO it like a normal person. This was before hands-free was big - in the beginning when people was adapting to hands-free, you'd think there were a lot of mentally ill people talking loudly to themselves.

I tried hands-free once, when I was in line for some food back in Malaysia. The area isn't that big on hands-free talking, since students doing that is kind of pointless. I did get a lot of staring once my call got connected and I started talking LOL. Never again. tongue.gif
post #480 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

 

From what's been said so far, I do get the sense that there seems to be a lot more variation in terms of what homosexuals find attractive vs what heterosexuals find attractive.  Perhaps being openly homosexual is breaking a societal norm in and of itself?  And hence lesser and more ancilliary constructs fall away as well?  Thus what is attractive tends to become a bit more open and liberal.

 

 

 

Well, I think one needs to keep in mind there's "what one finds attractive" and "what one is comfortable expressing openly." I think you may have a point insofar as the gay community may be more conducive to individuals being more open about their preferences. I think it's really hard to draw any generalizations however.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

 

I was actually thinking of an Electra complex possibility earlier but I dismissed it thinking that surely it can't be that simple.  While I can rationally accept multiple arguments, I must admit that I generally have a hard time trying to understand butch attraction on an intuitive level.  After all, if the simplification of homosexual women is girls liking girls, then why should they like girls with guy-like attributes?  I'm sure you see the basic disconnect I'm having here...  confused.gif

 

 

 

I think some of your difficulty is arising from too narrow a defined set of gender roles and sexual orientation. Even reducing female homosexuality down to "girls liking girls," one needn't define "girl" as "feminine." Butch girls are still very much girls. I'm sure at this point you're going to say you know this, but think about it for a moment. Are we talking about attraction to femininity or attraction to girls? That distinction is key, I think. There is certainly a lot of overlap, and both could apply to an individual, but then they aren't dependently linked.

 

Some girls are attracted to masculinity, but prefer women to men. Some girls are attracted to masculine women because of the contrast, because they find the idea of a butch girl itself appealing for one reason or another. Either because the dissonance itself is appealing, or because there's still a remainder. This gets into very complex territory: ie. arousal over trying not and quite succeeding or scenarios like "being tricked into thinking it was a guy." There's also an attraction to the idea of a dominant woman, and masculine trails and roles are often associated with this. A girl might be attracted to girls but like domination. Similarly some people are attracted to the idea of an "emasculated" man, that is a male who yields in a stereotypically feminine way --- and I think those types of scenarios raise interesting questions of the role of power in sex. See Foucault.

 

Also one could argue butch girls are a "transition" for some girls who are dealing with issues of identity, having grown up thinking they were supposed to like guys and are perhaps still attracted to the idea of heterosexuality. In that instance a butch girl is closer in their mind to being with a male and subsequently more "acceptable." Maybe they're still in denial, or maybe it's just more familiar. Not sure how much of this I accept, but it's an interesting idea.

 

Some girls are attracted to BOTH women and men. Some people will tell you that they're attracted to an individual and that trying to define that attraction in categories is doing it violence.


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/15/12 at 4:30am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2