Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton? - Page 145

post #2161 of 2166
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondears View Post


The psycho-acoustic bias can also be argued inversely---you've been told or led to believe that FR graphs doesn't reflect the true frequency reaponse of a HP in the real world, hence FR graphs indeed doesn't reflect true frequency response!

 

Sure. Then we agree that if you look at a frequency graph before you hear a headphone, it will affect how you hear the phone. Maybe that is why Tyll seems to do some critical listening before he measures the headphone.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondears View Post

 There is a reason why most kids like bass. It's bass heavy to some, but definitely flat to them. That is why the HD800 sounds bright to most young folks, and Beats/bassy sound signature they prefer.

I think you misunderstand why most kids like bass. It has to do with the rise of HipHop/Rap as the major influence on pop music. And of course after the success of Beats, they started mixing music to sound good on those headphones. Just like how some hit makers in the 60s and 70s would play the music on a transistor radio to check the mix... And in my experience most young people love a high end pair of phones when they finally get to hear one, even the HD800 which most certainly is not bass light.

post #2162 of 2166
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabta View Post

Sure. Then we agree that if you look at a frequency graph before you hear a headphone, it will affect how you hear the phone. Maybe that is why Tyll seems to do some critical listening before he measures the headphone.


I think you misunderstand why most kids like bass. It has to do with the rise of HipHop/Rap as the major influence on pop music. And of course after the success of Beats, they started mixing music to sound good on those headphones. Just like how some hit makers in the 60s and 70s would play the music on a transistor radio to check the mix... And in my experience most young people love a high end pair of phones when they finally get to hear one, even the HD800 which most certainly is not bass light.

No, I don't agree with you at all.
post #2163 of 2166
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondears View Post


No, I don't agree with you at all.

No doubt. But if the inverse is true, using the same logic... It is necessary to be able to think logically I suppose, but I am pretty sure that is within most headfiers capacity. ;)

post #2164 of 2166
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabta View Post

No doubt. But if the inverse is true, using the same logic... It is necessary to be able to think logically I suppose, but I am pretty sure that is within most headfiers capacity. wink.gif
That's the best thing about technology...you can measure everything and you can rely on and trust them, removes any or separates us from subjectivity...I think its a level up, and it's sad that some argues otherwise to support their subjective views. I think people should look at the objective measurements first, because they're reliable, and from there see if they are looking at what they want. I understand though that some looks first at the subjective aspect, and even favors it, which is perfectly ok.
post #2165 of 2166
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondears View Post


That's the best thing about technology...you can measure everything and you can rely on and trust them, removes any or separates us from subjectivity...I think its a level up, and it's sad that some argues otherwise to support their subjective views. I think people should look at the objective measurements first, because they're reliable, and from there see if they are looking at what they want. I understand though that some looks first at the subjective aspect, and even favors it, which is perfectly ok.

I agree that we should not dismiss objective data. But,  looking at objective data before you listen to a headphone and then making the claim that you are positive that you have never heard a headphone that contradicts the objective data, while not a false statement, is completely against the very logic that says we should accept objective data. I can imagine experiments we could try to determine whether or not an experience of listening to a headphone always agrees with the objective data presented that accounts for confirmation bias, it is just that you didn't do anything to normalize for it and so your statement is suspect. The same logic that infers:

"Originally Posted by diamondears View Post


The psycho-acoustic bias can also be argued inversely---you've been told or led to believe that FR graphs doesn't reflect the true frequency reaponse of a HP in the real world, hence FR graphs indeed doesn't reflect true frequency response!" 

 

Means that the opposite is also true: That looking at a graph before you listen to a headphone, will influence how you experience the headphone. 

 

There are lots of things that audiophiles hear that aren't yet measurable, for example, a holographic three dimensional soundfield when there is no special soundfield algorythms applied to the stereo (not 5.1) signal. Don't you sometimes hear depth in placement of instruments? Most people say they do, but we don't know how to measure that. So it could be that something else tricks us into believing we can. Just like audiophiles who first look at a graph and claim that everything they hear is accounted for when they later look at a headphone. I guarantee that if we try the opposite, you listen to a headphone and try to draw the graph, you graph will be filled with meaningful divergences from the actual measurement. Trying to argue against confirmation bias, but claiming that there are objective measurements that always are consistent with the perceived sound of a headphone is using your brain in one instance and turning the same part of your brain that you just used off in the second instance. My experience is that most people can't make logical jumps when to do so will contradict a cherished belief. There is a good deal of recent scientific evidence to back this up. Maybe just take a breath and think about what I said before writing the next post. It's not a big deal, I also get caught in this trap. It is human nature. 

 

Anyway, Sorry for going off thread topic.

post #2166 of 2166
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabta View Post

I agree that we should not dismiss objective data. But,  looking at objective data before you listen to a headphone and then making the claim that you are positive that you have never heard a headphone that contradicts the objective data, while not a false statement, is completely against the very logic that says we should accept objective data. I can imagine experiments we could try to determine whether or not an experience of listening to a headphone always agrees with the objective data presented that accounts for confirmation bias, it is just that you didn't do anything to normalize for it and so your statement is suspect. The same logic that infers:
"Originally Posted by diamondears go_quote.gif



The psycho-acoustic bias can also be argued inversely---you've been told or led to believe that FR graphs doesn't reflect the true frequency reaponse of a HP in the real world, hence FR graphs indeed doesn't reflect true frequency response!" 

Means that the opposite is also true: That looking at a graph before you listen to a headphone, will influence how you experience the headphone. 

There are lots of things that audiophiles hear that aren't yet measurable, for example, a holographic three dimensional soundfield when there is no special soundfield algorythms applied to the stereo (not 5.1) signal. Don't you sometimes hear depth in placement of instruments? Most people say they do, but we don't know how to measure that. So it could be that something else tricks us into believing we can. Just like audiophiles who first look at a graph and claim that everything they hear is accounted for when they later look at a headphone. I guarantee that if we try the opposite, you listen to a headphone and try to draw the graph, you graph will be filled with meaningful divergences from the actual measurement. Trying to argue against confirmation bias, but claiming that there are objective measurements that always are consistent with the perceived sound of a headphone is using your brain in one instance and turning the same part of your brain that you just used off in the second instance. My experience is that most people can't make logical jumps when to do so will contradict a cherished belief. There is a good deal of recent scientific evidence to back this up. Maybe just take a breath and think about what I said before writing the next post. It's not a big deal, I also get caught in this trap. It is human nature. 

Anyway, Sorry for going off thread topic.
Lol
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton?