SolidVictory
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Posts
- 524
- Likes
- 30
I would suggest IE8s since they sound different from most other IEMs out today.
Alternative consideration to Ultimate Ears TripleFi 10
syn_fx
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Posts
- 200
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
I think you may have missed the humour behind my post too, and similarly ignored my smiley.
Quote:
As you yourself admit, you don't claim to know the subject of statistics. For you to then state that I haven't employed any of the "methodologies that I've stated" is somewhat bizarre - I'd have to teach you the entire subject before you could understand, or even start to criticise any example I gave you. I clearly have no intention of doing that, it would probably take the best part of a month, and would be a waste of my time.
Therefore, when I try to help you educate yourself and further your understanding (one of the points of having an intellectual debate) by providing you with a good starting point, you decide to call it condescending? Interesting.
Ok, I fully appreciate that you don't have the time or you simply don't wish to learn more. However, no one on the internet is going to take their time to present it to you on a plate. The intuition is easy - "areas with degrees of subjectability can have methods applied to them such that the subjectability is reduced". The scientific, formal proof of the methods is long and tedious.
Calling specific statistical methods assertions just because you haven't done the relevant theory, is like calling 2*2=4 an assertion when you haven't done number theory and have enough tools to prove the statement is true. It does not make the statement any less true.
It's therefore particularly strange that you choose to call statistical inference "rubbery" - why even comment on something that you yourself claim you have no idea about?
Quote:
No I'm not, like I said this would be a waste of my time.
Quote:
There were no assertions made, again, I refer you to the above example. What you call "assertions" is fact, just because you don't have the scope at the minute to look it up, learn it and understand it, doesn't make it any less so.
Again, your reference to "pseudo science" is amusing. Calling something a name does not make it so.
-----------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, what really worries me is that new head-fiers who don't know better might read your posts, and be mislead into thinking that they can't gain anything (apart from sparking their interest as you say) from looking at people's comparisons of IEMs to pick out something more suitable for them.
This is just not true. If you really think this is the case, I invite you to make a poll, and see what people think. Just because it didn't work for you, for whatever reasons, doesn't mean it doesn't work for the majority of people. I believe you'll find most intelligent people will say that having read head-fi, they were in a better position to buy a better IEM for themselves.
| Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ Clearly my attempt at humour was lost on you. I did add a winking smiley in case you didn't notice. |
I think you may have missed the humour behind my post too, and similarly ignored my smiley.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't claim to have any knowledge of the use of statistical data or related methodologies; that would appear to be your area of interest. You chose to call upon this in order to bolster your position, which I consider to be tenuous. However, you have not employed any of the methodologies to which you refer in support of your argument. You merely cited them and then provided some unsophisticated examples of your own that simply didn't hold up under scrutiny. |
As you yourself admit, you don't claim to know the subject of statistics. For you to then state that I haven't employed any of the "methodologies that I've stated" is somewhat bizarre - I'd have to teach you the entire subject before you could understand, or even start to criticise any example I gave you. I clearly have no intention of doing that, it would probably take the best part of a month, and would be a waste of my time.
Therefore, when I try to help you educate yourself and further your understanding (one of the points of having an intellectual debate) by providing you with a good starting point, you decide to call it condescending? Interesting.
Ok, I fully appreciate that you don't have the time or you simply don't wish to learn more. However, no one on the internet is going to take their time to present it to you on a plate. The intuition is easy - "areas with degrees of subjectability can have methods applied to them such that the subjectability is reduced". The scientific, formal proof of the methods is long and tedious.
Calling specific statistical methods assertions just because you haven't done the relevant theory, is like calling 2*2=4 an assertion when you haven't done number theory and have enough tools to prove the statement is true. It does not make the statement any less true.
It's therefore particularly strange that you choose to call statistical inference "rubbery" - why even comment on something that you yourself claim you have no idea about?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well I'm afraid that you're going to have to do a little better than that syn_fx. |
No I'm not, like I said this would be a waste of my time.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif I invite you to develop a statistical methodology, apply it, and post the results in a new forum thread here at Head-Fi. I'd be interested to see the methodology explained, the data gathered and the conclusions that you draw from it, as I'm sure many other Head-Fiers would. In the meantime, I suggest that you refrain from attempting to assume an air of intellectual superiority based on unsubstantiated assertions, flawed argument and dodgy examples that don't even warrant the description of pseudo-science. |
There were no assertions made, again, I refer you to the above example. What you call "assertions" is fact, just because you don't have the scope at the minute to look it up, learn it and understand it, doesn't make it any less so.
Again, your reference to "pseudo science" is amusing. Calling something a name does not make it so.
-----------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, what really worries me is that new head-fiers who don't know better might read your posts, and be mislead into thinking that they can't gain anything (apart from sparking their interest as you say) from looking at people's comparisons of IEMs to pick out something more suitable for them.
This is just not true. If you really think this is the case, I invite you to make a poll, and see what people think. Just because it didn't work for you, for whatever reasons, doesn't mean it doesn't work for the majority of people. I believe you'll find most intelligent people will say that having read head-fi, they were in a better position to buy a better IEM for themselves.
iponderous
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Posts
- 1,654
- Likes
- 14
^ "As you yourself admit, you don't claim to know the subject of statistics. For you to then state that I haven't employed any of the "methodologies that I've stated" is somewhat bizarre - I'd have to teach you the entire subject before you could understand, or even start to criticise any example I gave you. I clearly have no intention of doing that, it would probably take the best part of a month, and would be a waste of my time."
I really do wish that you'd read my posts a little more closely before you fire off these missives. My point was that you made reference to methodologies but did not employ them to substantiate your argument. I don't require an in-depth knowledge of statistics in order to recognise when someone is making claims that have no evidentiary basis. Critical faculties can be effectively applied to any number of scenarios without the need for in-depth technical knowledge. I believe this happens in courts of law on a daily basis.
"Therefore, when I try to help you educate yourself and further your understanding (one of the points of having an intellectual debate) by providing you with a good starting point, you decide to call it condescending? Interesting."
It read as condescending to me. If it wasn't, then I suggest that you word your responses more carefully in future.
"Ok, I fully appreciate that you don't have the time or you simply don't wish to learn more. However, no one on the internet is going to take their time to present it to you on a plate. The intuition is easy - "areas with degrees of subjectability can have methods applied to them such that the subjectability is reduced". The scientific, formal proof of the methods is long and tedious.
Calling specific statistical methods assertions just because you haven't done the relevant theory, is like calling 2*2=4 an assertion when you haven't done number theory and have enough tools to prove the statement is true. It does not make the statement any less true."
Now this really is condescending. I'm not questioning the validity of statistical analysis per se, just the absence of it in support of your contention. I thought I'd already made that patently clear in my previous posts.
"It's therefore particularly strange that you choose to call statistical inference "rubbery" - why even comment on something that you yourself claim you have no idea about?"
This was not a serious point but a good natured dig, as I have already explained. Please refrain from using it in an attempt to win an argument.
"There were no assertions made, again, I refer you to the above example. What you call "assertions" is fact, just because you don't have the scope at the minute to look it up, learn it and understand it, doesn't make it any less so."
You did make assertions but don't take my word for it, just read over your posts and my responses to them. I'm not going to step you through it.
"Again, your reference to "pseudo science" is amusing. Calling something a name does not make it so."
Pseudo science was the kindest term that I could think of to apply to your examples.
-----------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, what really worries me is that new head-fiers who don't know better might read your posts, and be mislead into thinking that they can't gain anything (apart from sparking their interest as you say) from looking at people's comparisons of IEMs to pick out something more suitable for them.
I suggest that you don't concern yourself with that. I'm sure they're quite capable of making up their own minds based on the information available to them. That's what I have done here at Head-Fi and continue to do.
This is just not true. If you really think this is the case, I invite you to make a poll, and see what people think. Just because it didn't work for you, for whatever reasons, doesn't mean it doesn't work for the majority of people. I believe you'll find most intelligent people will say that having read head-fi, they were in a better position to buy a better IEM for themselves.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I presume it is in response to my invitation for you to provide some supporting evidence for your line of argument. And your response is to issue me with one in return? I think that pretty much sums up the level of this debate. As I have already said in a previous post, "I'm not the one who is trying to prosecute the argument that you can take an empirical approach to ascertaining the differences in sound signatures of earphones based on other people's posts in this forum; you are." Also, you are surmising here, which of course you are entitled to do but it is nothing more than that.
Look, we really have hijacked this thread for long enough. With respect, my interest in continuing this disagreement with you has rapidly diminished. You can have the final say if you wish, but I think that my time and energy would be better utilised elsewhere. So I suggest that we try to respect each other's viewpoint (as difficult as this may be) and leave it at that.
I really do wish that you'd read my posts a little more closely before you fire off these missives. My point was that you made reference to methodologies but did not employ them to substantiate your argument. I don't require an in-depth knowledge of statistics in order to recognise when someone is making claims that have no evidentiary basis. Critical faculties can be effectively applied to any number of scenarios without the need for in-depth technical knowledge. I believe this happens in courts of law on a daily basis.
"Therefore, when I try to help you educate yourself and further your understanding (one of the points of having an intellectual debate) by providing you with a good starting point, you decide to call it condescending? Interesting."
It read as condescending to me. If it wasn't, then I suggest that you word your responses more carefully in future.
"Ok, I fully appreciate that you don't have the time or you simply don't wish to learn more. However, no one on the internet is going to take their time to present it to you on a plate. The intuition is easy - "areas with degrees of subjectability can have methods applied to them such that the subjectability is reduced". The scientific, formal proof of the methods is long and tedious.
Calling specific statistical methods assertions just because you haven't done the relevant theory, is like calling 2*2=4 an assertion when you haven't done number theory and have enough tools to prove the statement is true. It does not make the statement any less true."
Now this really is condescending. I'm not questioning the validity of statistical analysis per se, just the absence of it in support of your contention. I thought I'd already made that patently clear in my previous posts.
"It's therefore particularly strange that you choose to call statistical inference "rubbery" - why even comment on something that you yourself claim you have no idea about?"
This was not a serious point but a good natured dig, as I have already explained. Please refrain from using it in an attempt to win an argument.
"There were no assertions made, again, I refer you to the above example. What you call "assertions" is fact, just because you don't have the scope at the minute to look it up, learn it and understand it, doesn't make it any less so."
You did make assertions but don't take my word for it, just read over your posts and my responses to them. I'm not going to step you through it.
"Again, your reference to "pseudo science" is amusing. Calling something a name does not make it so."
Pseudo science was the kindest term that I could think of to apply to your examples.
-----------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, what really worries me is that new head-fiers who don't know better might read your posts, and be mislead into thinking that they can't gain anything (apart from sparking their interest as you say) from looking at people's comparisons of IEMs to pick out something more suitable for them.
I suggest that you don't concern yourself with that. I'm sure they're quite capable of making up their own minds based on the information available to them. That's what I have done here at Head-Fi and continue to do.
This is just not true. If you really think this is the case, I invite you to make a poll, and see what people think. Just because it didn't work for you, for whatever reasons, doesn't mean it doesn't work for the majority of people. I believe you'll find most intelligent people will say that having read head-fi, they were in a better position to buy a better IEM for themselves.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I presume it is in response to my invitation for you to provide some supporting evidence for your line of argument. And your response is to issue me with one in return? I think that pretty much sums up the level of this debate. As I have already said in a previous post, "I'm not the one who is trying to prosecute the argument that you can take an empirical approach to ascertaining the differences in sound signatures of earphones based on other people's posts in this forum; you are." Also, you are surmising here, which of course you are entitled to do but it is nothing more than that.
Look, we really have hijacked this thread for long enough. With respect, my interest in continuing this disagreement with you has rapidly diminished. You can have the final say if you wish, but I think that my time and energy would be better utilised elsewhere. So I suggest that we try to respect each other's viewpoint (as difficult as this may be) and leave it at that.
syn_fx
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Posts
- 200
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
I think you'll find I was inviting you to see whose opinion the majority of HFers share, yours or mine. Like I said, there is no need for me to apply the methodology to head-fi as it is something most people do naturally and intuitively, without the use of statistics. That poll would most likely prove the case.
Yes, I could go on and apply the methodology, collect data, and construct statistics to be tested. But I'm not going to. It's a waste of my time. By saying my claims are "unsubstantiated" because I haven't gone out and done so, you are not getting any closer to the truth that people do intuitively do what I say. They read up, draw conclusions, and pick accordingly. If you don't think this is the case, but the majority of people do, what right do you have questioning me on why I asked someone for their music tastes? The chances are on my side that the OP would have benefited from my approach. But don't take my word for it, make the poll.
I'm quite content with knowing that the majority of people do adopt the approach of reading and making inferences on an intuitive level, without having to show you or anyone else how one could do so on a scientific level. That's of course not to say that it doesn't hold scientifically.
Again I don't need to convince you - the majority of people think like me. It's you who needs to convince the majority of people that they are wrong if you are to ask questions such as "why did you ask about his musical tastes" and then proceed to question the reasoning.
I have no need to have the last word, be it that I have done for the time being. I just wish that you gain some understanding that your opinion isn't the widely regarded one, and that you should be tolerant of what the majority of people have to say.
Of course, in all of this I have assumed the outcome of the poll. But that is really easy to check.
| Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is just not true. If you really think this is the case, I invite you to make a poll, and see what people think. Just because it didn't work for you, for whatever reasons, doesn't mean it doesn't work for the majority of people. I believe you'll find most intelligent people will say that having read head-fi, they were in a better position to buy a better IEM for themselves. I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I presume it is in response to my invitation for you to provide some supporting evidence for your line of argument. And your response is to issue me with one in return? I think that pretty much sums up the level of this debate. As I have already said in a previous post, "I'm not the one who is trying to prosecute the argument that you can take an empirical approach to ascertaining the differences in sound signatures of earphones based on other people's posts in this forum; you are." Also, you are surmising here, which of course you are entitled to do but it is nothing more than that. |
I think you'll find I was inviting you to see whose opinion the majority of HFers share, yours or mine. Like I said, there is no need for me to apply the methodology to head-fi as it is something most people do naturally and intuitively, without the use of statistics. That poll would most likely prove the case.
Yes, I could go on and apply the methodology, collect data, and construct statistics to be tested. But I'm not going to. It's a waste of my time. By saying my claims are "unsubstantiated" because I haven't gone out and done so, you are not getting any closer to the truth that people do intuitively do what I say. They read up, draw conclusions, and pick accordingly. If you don't think this is the case, but the majority of people do, what right do you have questioning me on why I asked someone for their music tastes? The chances are on my side that the OP would have benefited from my approach. But don't take my word for it, make the poll.
I'm quite content with knowing that the majority of people do adopt the approach of reading and making inferences on an intuitive level, without having to show you or anyone else how one could do so on a scientific level. That's of course not to say that it doesn't hold scientifically.
Again I don't need to convince you - the majority of people think like me. It's you who needs to convince the majority of people that they are wrong if you are to ask questions such as "why did you ask about his musical tastes" and then proceed to question the reasoning.
I have no need to have the last word, be it that I have done for the time being. I just wish that you gain some understanding that your opinion isn't the widely regarded one, and that you should be tolerant of what the majority of people have to say.
Of course, in all of this I have assumed the outcome of the poll. But that is really easy to check.
iponderous
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Posts
- 1,654
- Likes
- 14
^ You have just completely contradicted yourself with this post. This is like a bad joke and I feel like the butt of it. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What a pointless exercise and an utter waste of time! I hope this becomes hilarious soon.
syn_fx
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Posts
- 200
- Likes
- 10
So ignoring the above users frustrated comments, back to the original questions:
What are the OP's music preferences?
What are the OP's music preferences?
iponderous
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Posts
- 1,654
- Likes
- 14
^ Not frustrated. Incredulous!
Haven't bothered to read the whole argument going on here. All I would like to say FWIW, is that I have had some very useful, informed advice from iponderous in the past and look forward to more of the same in the future.
rev
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Posts
- 7
- Likes
- 0
Well thank you to everyone that replied.. I received my UE triples last night.
The final decision was based on:
Other peoples reviews of the products available in that price bracket.
Availability of product (why is everything out of stock).
Reputation of the retailer (after the problems returning my last set of phones).
I don't have a musical preference and will listen to any well performed and recorded genre of music but if I did, it might swing towards Jazz..
Last night I managed an hour of listening with most of the time experimenting trying to get the best seal (strangely comply's worked best for me; I've never got on with them before).
J J Cale "Anyway The Wind Blows"
Gerry Mulligan "The Jazz Soundtracks"
Plus
I know an hour isn't enough time to formulate an opinion so I won't even try other than to say I'm impressed, an improvement over the Custom 3 I had and I felt them to be a great set of IEM's..
Minus
Isolation didn't seem as good as the Custom 3's but this might improve as I get use to them.. I have to say UE's are big and has been mentioned before some will struggle to use them..
Once again thanks to all..
Rev
The final decision was based on:
Other peoples reviews of the products available in that price bracket.
Availability of product (why is everything out of stock).
Reputation of the retailer (after the problems returning my last set of phones).
I don't have a musical preference and will listen to any well performed and recorded genre of music but if I did, it might swing towards Jazz..
Last night I managed an hour of listening with most of the time experimenting trying to get the best seal (strangely comply's worked best for me; I've never got on with them before).
J J Cale "Anyway The Wind Blows"
Gerry Mulligan "The Jazz Soundtracks"
Plus
I know an hour isn't enough time to formulate an opinion so I won't even try other than to say I'm impressed, an improvement over the Custom 3 I had and I felt them to be a great set of IEM's..
Minus
Isolation didn't seem as good as the Custom 3's but this might improve as I get use to them.. I have to say UE's are big and has been mentioned before some will struggle to use them..
Once again thanks to all..
Rev
iponderous
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Posts
- 1,654
- Likes
- 14
I'm glad that you're enjoying listening to your Triple.Fi 10 Pro's. They're not the most discreet looking IEMs going around, nor are they a fine example of ergonomic design, but these are trade-off's that I'm prepared to accept for the way they reproduce the music that I like to listen to.
I do apologise for being one of the two parties that hijacked your thread, but I'd do it all again.
Cheers.
I do apologise for being one of the two parties that hijacked your thread, but I'd do it all again.
Cheers.
rev
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Posts
- 7
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
Nothing like healthy debate..
Rev
| Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do apologise for being one of the two parties that hijacked your thread, but I'd do it all again. Cheers. |
Nothing like healthy debate..
Rev
syn_fx
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Posts
- 200
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Glad to hear you like them - at the end of the day that is the only thing that really matters!
Quote:
Likewise!
| Originally Posted by rev /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well thank you to everyone that replied.. I received my UE triples last night. The final decision was based on: Other peoples reviews of the products available in that price bracket. Availability of product (why is everything out of stock). Reputation of the retailer (after the problems returning my last set of phones). I don't have a musical preference and will listen to any well performed and recorded genre of music but if I did, it might swing towards Jazz.. Last night I managed an hour of listening with most of the time experimenting trying to get the best seal (strangely comply's worked best for me; I've never got on with them before). J J Cale "Anyway The Wind Blows" Gerry Mulligan "The Jazz Soundtracks" Plus I know an hour isn't enough time to formulate an opinion so I won't even try other than to say I'm impressed, an improvement over the Custom 3 I had and I felt them to be a great set of IEM's.. Minus Isolation didn't seem as good as the Custom 3's but this might improve as I get use to them.. I have to say UE's are big and has been mentioned before some will struggle to use them.. Once again thanks to all.. Rev |
Glad to hear you like them - at the end of the day that is the only thing that really matters!
Quote:
| Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm glad that you're enjoying listening to your Triple.Fi 10 Pro's. They're not the most discreet looking IEMs going around, nor are they a fine example of ergonomic design, but these are trade-off's that I'm prepared to accept for the way they reproduce the music that I like to listen to. I do apologise for being one of the two parties that hijacked your thread, but I'd do it all again. Cheers. |
Likewise!
iponderous
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Posts
- 1,654
- Likes
- 14
^ Really? I would hope that your argument is consistent next time around.
Users who are viewing this thread
