Muzeick
Aka: Bennyboy71
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Posts
- 145
- Likes
- 18
He's right, of course.
Try drawing Exile On Main Street on a graph.
Try drawing Exile On Main Street on a graph.
I lol'd hard at the pseudoscience in this thread. Most profound and neurally active experience? LOL
Determining what IEM hits the ear in the most pleasant manner is subjective by nature
Higher information content = higher sensory input = more profound experience.
I've heard pop pseudo-spiritual woo woo babble that is more intelligible than this. Nothing personal, sorry, but maybe you should start writing in English. Mixing and mashing words that sound "sciency" doesn't make them scientific nor even intelligent. Just makes you seem like you think you're on another tier of knowledge above everyone else. Not saying that that is you.
Huh? It's a perfectly straightforward statement, he's just saying that the more sensory information you get through your headphones, the more profound your experience will be. I don't see what's unintelligible here.
??? unintelligible
"Sound-stage is in the frequency response." Only partially true. You can bring certain frequencies more forward or farther back by changing FR, indeed. However, you can't give an IEM the soundstage of a headphone (at least not currently). This, of course, is only with respect with stereo recording. I don't have enough experience with binaural recordings to say much about it in terms of FR. One only has to listen to the SM3 and look at its graph and understand that decay does make a big difference. No documentation or "scientific evidence" required for something so obvious.
So where can I find the measurements of thin / dry, flat sound-stage, less resolution, body, height, contrast, color accuracy and realism.
Is it in some kind of telepathic channel or is it air.
How convenient.
Let me know when Buddha awakens.
How come nobody has ever managed to invent an interesting graph?
He used the word "higher," a subjective adjective that has no universal meaning, at least in the world of audio (except maybe audiophoolery). How does one even begin to concrete elaborate on what "higher information content" or "higher sensory input" means in the context of audio.
That's not necessarily true. Define sensory information - how do you measure it? Can I get 3 buckets of sensory information?
I am not illiterate in the slightest. I just hate graphs. Does that make me a pariah in this parish? So be it - I see nothing wrong with relying solely on how stuff sounds when it goes in my ears.