or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Hifiman HE1000 Planar Dynamic Flagship
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hifiman HE1000 Planar Dynamic Flagship - Page 179

post #2671 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by up late View Post

thought the context was folks not comprehending other folks interests and the amount of money they spend on them

 

That was one of the contexts of the conversation, but I meant the context of my statement.

post #2672 of 8606
which is incorrect
post #2673 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by up late View Post

which is incorrect

 

Not at all, unless you interpret "essentially jewelry" as "not a timepiece anymore." :rolleyes:

 

Technically, all watches are simultaneously timepieces and jewelry. A headphone covered in diamonds is also essentially jewelry, even though it does not cease to be a headphone. The English language is far more brilliant than you give it credit for.

 

Remember, kids, the Alchemist is always right! =D


Edited by Music Alchemist - 3/22/15 at 7:28pm
post #2674 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Alchemist View Post
 

Most (or all) of the differences between headphones are objective and can be measured. Our perception of the sound waves is the only thing that is subjective.

 

Since we have so many other devices that can tell time, wearing a watch is more jewelry than timepiece nowadays. People don't buy expensive watches because they need to spend that much to tell what time it is; they buy them because they look nice or have fancy features.

 

 

I agree that we have measuring equipment to measure every aspect of sound that is audible to human ears. However, it is much harder to measure subjective preference or the emotional enjoyment that music brings to individuals. It is possible to do a large sample size observational study for preference or perhaps measure the blood flow to the nucleus accumbens and dopamine blood levels per individuals to kind of objectively test for emotional enjoyment, but seems pointless as the easiest way is to simply ask the person what they like. 

 

A key component that people forget when focusing on measurements is that not all measurements are done equally well. There will be inherent discrepancies in measurements from different sources due to different set-ups and measurement techniques. I approve of more objective data correlating to headphone performance, but I find it hilarious when random modders post their home-made graph showing the slightest difference between another graph and claim xyz.

 

Was that difference beyond the scope of measuring variability or manufacturer variations between drivers or even random chance? Was that value statistically significant? Is that difference in value within the threshold of human hearing being even able to detect?

 

There are a lot of unanswered questions in this hobby and a lot of pseudo-science passed off as objective information without proper statistical analysis. There isn't even an universal controlled measuring standard or procedure for audio components. It is no wonder a lot of people view this hobby to be a bit sketchy at times.

 

Yes, there are people that just buy what they like, but for some of us looking for sonic improvements that can be quantified, there is a dearth of information within this hobby. imo.


Edited by money4me247 - 3/22/15 at 7:11pm
post #2675 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post
 

I agree that we have measuring equipment to measure every aspect of sound that is audible to human ears. However, it is much harder to measure subjective preference or the emotional enjoyment that music brings to individuals. It is possible to do a large sample size observational study for preference or perhaps measure the blood flow to the nucleus accumbens and dopamine blood levels per individuals to kind of objectively test for that, but seems pointless as the easiest way is to simply ask the person what they think. 

 

A key component that people forget when focusing on measurements is that not all measurements are done equally well. There will be inherent discrepancies in measurements from different sources due to different set-ups and measurement techniques. I approve of more objective data correlating to headphone performance, but I find it hilarious when random modders post their home-made graph showing the slightest difference between another graph and claim xyz.

 

Was that difference beyond the scope of measuring variability or manufacturer variations between drivers or even random chance? Was that value statistically significant? Is that difference in value within the threshold of human hearing being even able to detect?

 

There are a lot of unanswered questions in this hobby and a lot of pseudo-science passed off as objective information without proper statistical analysis. There isn't even an universal controlled measuring standard or procedure for audio components. It is no wonder a lot of people view this hobby to be a bit sketchy at times.

 

Yes, there are people that just buy what they like, but for some of us looking for sonic improvements that can be quantified, there is a dearth of information within this hobby. imo.

 

It is for this reason that I intend on using these resources

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/413900/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial
http://www.head-fi.org/t/587703/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial-part-2
http://www.head-fi.org/t/615417/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-advanced-tutorial-in-progress

 

to equalize my headphones instead of guessing based on graphs that may have been improperly measured, had a different frequency response to my particular unit, and so on. We need to compensate for human hearing either way, and that must be done on a personal level.

 

By the way, for those who don't know, the Harman-Olive HRTF curve is based on playing various tunings of speakers to a large number of people and finally finding that the vast majority of people prefer a neutral/balanced/accurate frequency response, or at least something very close to it.


Edited by Music Alchemist - 3/22/15 at 7:15pm
post #2676 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Alchemist View Post

Not at all, unless you interpret "essentially jewelry" as "not a watch anymore." rolleyes.gif

Technically, all watches are simultaneously timepieces and jewelry.

A Beats headphone covered in diamonds is also essentially jewelry, even though it does not cease to be a headphone.

Remember, kids, the Alchemist is always right! =D

a watch can be worn as jewellery but that isn't what it is - "essentially". its essential purpose/function is to keep time regardless of its styling and how it's worn.

same goes for your beats example - it is "essentially" a headphone adorned with jewels. but if it doesn't function as a headphone then it isn't one or it's broken or it could be mistaken for opulent ear muffs.

so you're not right on this occasion kid wink.gif
Edited by up late - 3/22/15 at 7:51pm
post #2677 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by up late View Post

a watch can be worn as jewellery but that isn't what it is - "essentially". its essential purpose/function is to keep time regardless of its styling and how it's worn.

same goes for your beats example - it is "essentially" a headphone that is designed to look fashionable and be desirable. but if it doesn't function as a headphone then it isn't one or it's broken or should be marketed as ear muffs.

so you're not right on this occasion kid wink.gif

 

Words have more than one meaning. Just because it's one thing doesn't mean it can't be another thing.

 

You can misrepresent my statements all you want, but it will not change the point I am conveying.

 

Watches are essentially jewelry in this context due to the simple fact that they are unnecessary to tell time and happen to also be jewelry.

 

If you spend thousands on a nice-looking watch, your essential intention beneath the surface is not merely to tell time, but to look fancy and so on. "Essentially", in this case, is not referring to its function as a timepiece, but as a jewelry piece due to the fact that you spent so much money on something that you didn't need to to perform the same function of telling time. "Essentially" is referring to your intention and the effect it has.

 

A headphone covered with diamonds is essentially jewelry because it doesn't need to be covered with diamonds and has been relegated to that identity. The fact that it is still a headphone, which "essentially" plays music, is beside the point. You are using a different definition of "essentially" than I am and thus totally missing the point and manipulating the context of what I am saying.

 

When people say things like "Beats are essentially a fashion accessory.", the meaning should be obvious. They are not implying that they are not a headphone with the "essential" purpose of playing music. Look up the multiple definitions of the word "essentially" if you still aren't willing to accept that there is more than one meaning to the word.

 

Are you always so sarcastic and condescending?


Edited by Music Alchemist - 3/22/15 at 8:07pm
post #2678 of 8606

On behalf of everyone who isn't you two:

 

post #2679 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulder01 View Post
 

On behalf of everyone who isn't you two:

 

Yeah, I agree. I'm only arguing further because he misrepresented my statements.

post #2680 of 8606
^ lol was just thinking the same thing. Take it to PM guys, if it's that important to you.
post #2681 of 8606
sorry guys

@music alchemist - i didn't misrepresent what you said. anyways it's there for all to see.

moving on.
post #2682 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by up late View Post

i didn't misrepresent what you said.

 

Yes, you did, and blatantly so. If you hadn't, you would agree with me, because you would have agreed with my point, which you clearly did not get, due to erroneously assuming that there was only one possible meaning for the word "essentially". It's simple.

post #2683 of 8606
Gosh I hate clicking on a thread and going through 2 pages of a pissing match about, well, who even knows at this point. I clicked on this thread to read about the HE-1000
post #2684 of 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldendarko View Post

Gosh I hate clicking on a thread and going through 2 pages of a pissing match about, well, who even knows at this point. I clicked on this thread to read about the HE-1000

 

In more epic news, I am working on a thread with more headphone power requirement stats.

post #2685 of 8606
I think I'm set for my power requirements with the Ragnarok. Haven't heard a headphone yet it can't drive well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Hifiman HE1000 Planar Dynamic Flagship