Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The Reality Distortion Field, finally, has been located
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Reality Distortion Field, finally, has been located - Page 4

post #46 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post



I think it depends on your fashion aesthetic (or lack thereof?) - I happen to think most all of my headphones look "cool." Then again, I don't consider headphones a "fashion item" nor do I wear them out and about (I have probably the most generic looking pair of IEMs ever made, especially since the paint wore off).

 

This.

Most good headphones look, well... good. There are a few exceptions, but mostly they're all well made. But that doesn't mean they sound the same.

The ones made for fashion are clearly aimed at that audience.

post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

This.
Most good headphones look, well... good. There are a few exceptions, but mostly they're all well made. But that doesn't mean they sound the same.
The ones made for fashion are clearly aimed at that audience.

Regarding fashion headphones - I'm not sure how to break them down (okay this is a tangent but bare with me):

So you have fashion headphones like say, the Beats Studio, but are those really meant to be in the same category as say, the B&W P5? Or Monster Diamond Tears? They just seem so dramatically different to me. And then where do you fit the ATH-ESW, EW, and W series? Or Denon AH-A cans? And all of that is also supposed to be the same category that includes the Koss Ruk and Ultrasone Zino?

It just seems too broad to me.
post #48 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post


Regarding fashion headphones - I'm not sure how to break them down (okay this is a tangent but bare with me):
So you have fashion headphones like say, the Beats Studio, but are those really meant to be in the same category as say, the B&W P5? Or Monster Diamond Tears? They just seem so dramatically different to me. And then where do you fit the ATH-ESW, EW, and W series? Or Denon AH-A cans? And all of that is also supposed to be the same category that includes the Koss Ruk and Ultrasone Zino?
It just seems too broad to me.


I think fashion is eclectic, if you've seen the kind of stuff fashion designers make. Then you can always bring in Lady Gaga to justify the lunacy.

 

To me a Rolls Royce Phantom is fashion, but its not crazy. Its got class. Or maybe I'm getting old. The same with ATH-ESW, Denon d7000, even Sennheiser HD650.

 

There are some designs trying to be different (the former), and there are those that just seem to carry this belief (the latter).


Edited by proton007 - 11/9/12 at 12:28am
post #49 of 54

I used to have (*gasp*) a pair of the original Apple IEMs (not the newer ADDIEM one, but their first, dynamic driver model). They were pretty much atrocious, but a lot of people liked them because they said Apple and had the typical Apple aesthetic. In fact, I'd have to say that the original iBuds, and certainly the second generation iBuds (and probably the EarPods, which are supposed to be pretty good), sounded better then those IEMs. Also, the bloody things never stayed in my ears properly, no matter which of the included tips I tried.

 

I imagine a lot of people wanted to replace the iconic white iBuds with something that looked similar, saw that Apple made such a thing, and just bought them blindly. I myself picked them up because (A) they were on sale, and (B) I'll admit I was having a bit of an Apple product rush myself. That ended after I bought those IEMs, which were a pretty big disappointment. Granted, this was 2006, so it was a while before the explosion of these things we've got in the market today. Which IEMs were decent for $35 back then? (I'm actually curious).

 

I'll wrap this up by saying that there was probably a time when all of us were caught up in brand name hype. In fact, my choice of an iPod as my portable player was influenced in part by all the Apple commercials I saw for them. (I have no complaints about the device, BTW--my heavily abused 5G unit is still working and still gets decent battery life after almost seven years!). Part of getting the most value for your money, I believe, is divorcing yourself from the idea that a "brand name" is always going to be your best choice, or that if something looks cool and is expensive, it must be good. Sometimes, like in the case of my iPod, it works out all right. Other times, like with those IEMs, I'm sure there was probably something better out there for the money, even back in 2006.

 

Oh, well. Lesson learned.

post #50 of 54
Thread Starter 

I agree. The need for social approval is ingrained in our minds. Part of evolution. 

Its pretty hard to fight it, because it permeates all parts of our life, our lifestyles and beliefs.

And its not an easy road, being the outlier.

post #51 of 54

Even being an outsider is dependant, in a way, on the existence of an in-group. You see can see many people use the signalling of not belonging to one group (say, a Beats or Bose kind of person) as being the inclusion in another group. It's not that some people simply didn't choose to buy from a particular company (there's plenty of people who don't own Beats or Bose where this fact is inconsequential) it's that they, the anti-whatever people, actively avoid these products and consider it to have a meaning. 

post #52 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

Even being an outsider is dependant, in a way, on the existence of an in-group. You see can see many people use the signalling of not belonging to one group (say, a Beats or Bose kind of person) as being the inclusion in another group. It's not that some people simply didn't choose to buy from a particular company (there's plenty of people who don't own Beats or Bose where this fact is inconsequential) it's that they, the anti-whatever people, actively avoid these products and consider it to have a meaning. 

 

That's the best definition of a hipster I've ever read. biggrin.gif Also, an excellent point in general.

post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argyris View Post

I used to have (*gasp*) a pair of the original Apple IEMs (not the newer ADDIEM one, but their first, dynamic driver model). They were pretty much atrocious, but a lot of people liked them because they said Apple and had the typical Apple aesthetic. In fact, I'd have to say that the original iBuds, and certainly the second generation iBuds (and probably the EarPods, which are supposed to be pretty good), sounded better then those IEMs. Also, the bloody things never stayed in my ears properly, no matter which of the included tips I tried.

 

I imagine a lot of people wanted to replace the iconic white iBuds with something that looked similar, saw that Apple made such a thing, and just bought them blindly. I myself picked them up because (A) they were on sale, and (B) I'll admit I was having a bit of an Apple product rush myself. That ended after I bought those IEMs, which were a pretty big disappointment. Granted, this was 2006, so it was a while before the explosion of these things we've got in the market today. Which IEMs were decent for $35 back then? (I'm actually curious).

 

I'll wrap this up by saying that there was probably a time when all of us were caught up in brand name hype. In fact, my choice of an iPod as my portable player was influenced in part by all the Apple commercials I saw for them. (I have no complaints about the device, BTW--my heavily abused 5G unit is still working and still gets decent battery life after almost seven years!). Part of getting the most value for your money, I believe, is divorcing yourself from the idea that a "brand name" is always going to be your best choice, or that if something looks cool and is expensive, it must be good. Sometimes, like in the case of my iPod, it works out all right. Other times, like with those IEMs, I'm sure there was probably something better out there for the money, even back in 2006.

 

Oh, well. Lesson learned.

 

Great thread.  Caught my eye as I just read Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs.  Throughout the book Jobs was described as having his own "reality distortion field." He insisted that everyone and anything he was involved with should conform to his world.  This worked well for him in marketing and design not so much in his personal life or his health. The Apple brand seems to have created its own subculture. Some of my friends preferred the iPod ear buds over better IEM's because they were cool looking and "who cares what they sound like."

post #54 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUMAY408 View Post

Great thread.  Caught my eye as I just read Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs.  Throughout the book Jobs was described as having his own "reality distortion field." He insisted that everyone and anything he was involved with should conform to his world.  This worked well for him in marketing and design not so much in his personal life or his health. The Apple brand seems to have created its own subculture. Some of my friends preferred the iPod ear buds over better IEM's because they were cool looking and "who cares what they sound like."

I think the entire idea of the RDF originated in talking about Apple and Steve Jobs; at least that's where I most frequently see it mentioned/used.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The Reality Distortion Field, finally, has been located