Am I (sonically) blind

[Dogmatrix]

@gregorio Thank you for considering my musings I find your comments inciteful and well considered as always

My thinking is less specific more an attempt to illustrate a scale than make definitions

On a theoretical scale of fidelity between dream state and total sensory depravation the distance between $50 worth of stuff and $5000 worth of stuff is very small

 

[hakunamakaka]

No he doesn’t, he didn’t say he believes he’s hearing exactly what the band recorded in the studio. He said he’s hearing the master approved by the artists!

And who would even want to hear exactly what the band recorded in the studio? Consumers do not want to hear a week’s worth of unedited, unmixed and unmastered individual takes and over-dubs.

Everything is there what's to be heard with decent enough audio equipment. Different presentations comes through various setups, but thinking that fidelity is superior and brings closer to artists than others is just to boost your own ego

 

[bigshot]

Fidelity is fidelity. Something is either accurate to a particular standard, or it isn't. Thankfully, fidelity is easy. Even inexpensive equipment has a high degree of fidelity.

Ego boosts manifest with claims that one can hear things other humans can't hear, and buying expensive equipment as a status symbol. I think that both of those things are pretty silly.

 

[PhonoPhi]

Fidelity is fidelity. Something is either accurate to a particular standard, or it isn't. Thankfully, fidelity is easy. Even inexpensive equipment has a high degree of fidelity.

Ego boosts manifest with claims that one can hear things other humans can't hear, and buying expensive equipment as a status symbol. I think that both of those things are pretty silly.

What is the way you would convincingly prove "fidelity" for your "calibrated" system? Any blind tests?

 

[gregorio]

Different presentations comes through various setups, but thinking that fidelity is superior and brings closer to artists than others is just to boost your own ego

You seem to be confusing science with a “boost to your own ego”. Reliable evidence has been presented to you in the past, demonstrating that most listeners prefer higher fidelity. So why do you keep stating the opposite, contrary to that evidence, and without any reliable evidence to support your assertion? Now THAT is “just to boost your own ego”!

Furthermore, there are various reasons people try to attain the highest practical fidelity reproduction, which has nothing to do with ego. For example, those who create audio content or study it.

G

 

[hakunamakaka]

It may get closer to a particular standard, but it won’t be accurate. Otherwise you would be able to push all different transducers to sound the same.

You seem to be confusing science with a “boost to your own ego”. Reliable evidence has been presented to you in the past, demonstrating that most listeners prefer higher fidelity. So why do you keep stating the opposite, contrary to that evidence, and without any reliable evidence to support your assertion? Now THAT is “just to boost your own ego”!

Furthermore, there are various reasons people try to attain the highest practical fidelity reproduction, which has nothing to do with ego. For example, those who create audio content or study it.

G

What reliable evidence ? I can give you exact opposite evidence and claim that with popularity of beats people
prefer bassy/unbalanced sound. I’m ignoring you, you’re too unstable and will start to write long paragraphs full of caps lock words

 

[bigshot]

He’s just trolling. That’s why he keeps clinging to dumb.

 

[hakunamakaka]

I hope so.

 

[taffy2207]

It may get closer to a particular standard, but it won’t be accurate. Otherwise you would be able to push all different transducers to sound the same.



What reliable evidence ? I can give you exact opposite evidence and claim that with popularity of beats people
prefer bassy/unbalanced sound. I’m ignoring you, you’re too unstable and will start to write long paragraphs full of caps lock words

That's evidence that Marketing works, Beats are marketed more as a fashion accessory. Every time I see a Football player before a game they're inevitably wearing Beats.

 

[the1andonly]

I know little about IEMs but I say your hearing is working fine

I think(or should hope, I should say) Crinacle is pretty good judge of iems, he rates those two(at least the MK1 version I guess) around the same overall, with technical performance and tone grade being somewhat different but not to terrible far apart and both good.... That said I hate to call any bodies gear mid-fi, the muh hi-fi supremacy in some places is kind of cringe but generally use of the dongle and of bluetooth with BTR5 are pretty non colored and detail oriented applications IMO with no real notable resolution advantages.... That is to say they should sound the same, also I use buds pro and know they have soundstage, I am guessing most IEM's have some but even on most good ones it's not much better or different than the buds pro which I think it very good for it's price.

Also custom cables do very little IMO, sue me.

 

[bigshot]

What is the way you would convincingly prove "fidelity" for your "calibrated" system? Any blind tests?

All of my electronics measure balanced out of the box and I do a quick controlled listening test for verification of that to make sure they aren't defective. My speaker system was calibrated using YPAO to create a balanced baseline response, and I made some small tweaks to that to suit my personal taste. You are free to adjust coloration to your taste, you should just start from a baseline of balanced so your experimentation is anchored, rather than random flailing about.

 

[Redcarmoose]

This thread, the whole board is powered by ego. All of Head-Fi is based on ego. Everything. The best part is sound science is guided and has concepts all based on ego. I’m also a big part of the ego when I post. Also everyone else is too, even if they fail to notice it or not.

The whole idea of fidelity is actually based on ego. To try and understand it is still based on ego. Thus my fidelity is my ego, your fidelity is “best” due to your own ego. That’s all it is in the end.

Same as recording studios. They feel they are able to capture the sound played, again is all ego. Another different studio records the band or individual musician and it sounds different, again another best recording. But still it’s questionable and to what’s best......again it’s all down to ego, not always fully science.

If everything was based on actual sound quality (if people could agree) then stuff would be standardized. But again studios are not standardized so every recording is different.

There basically is no fidelity in the world. Simply circles of confusion generated by a non-standardized recording process. All is not losses though? We accept that every recording sounds slightly different and still enjoy it, regardless of the inconsistencies at hand.


So there are no calibration for the infinity of playback. The actual musical event recorded is gone. It was never captured in the first place. To think you have the ability to regenerate it again is all ego.

Blind tests will not help also as the actual musical event in gone. All we have is an example of one interpretation of how it should sound.

The OPs question is if he found IEMs or not, and if he found his own subjective fidelity? Hopefully he will report in?

 

[bigshot]

I think rather than go off on theoretical tangents into philosophy, we should keep grounded with the common goal of making our systems *more* accurate, not get bogged down in *absolute* accuracy. Our ears are fallible. It isn't a huge deal to be accurate to the level of our ears. And the sound embedded in the digital file is what we are playing, not a live performance, so accuracy as it relates to the signal itself is all we need to concern ourselves with. Anything beyond that is just mental monkey spanking. It won't accomplish anything useful.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I think rather than go off on theoretical tangents into philosophy, we should keep grounded with the common goal of making our systems *more* accurate, not get bogged down in *absolute* accuracy. Our ears are fallible. It isn't a huge deal to be accurate to the level of our ears. And the sound embedded in the digital file is what we are playing, not a live performance, so accuracy as it relates to the signal itself is all we need to concern ourselves with. Anything beyond that is just mental monkey spanking. It won't accomplish anything useful.

While there is obviously better and worse sounding systems, some truth can be found in just the existence of that fact. Still it’s quite fascinating to have a pre-judgement scan of all of Head-Fi. We don’t necessarily look for the ego in posts, but it’s the basis motivation for almost every single post. Even if we think we are helping someone it’s all ego in the end. In a sense all music is also guided by ego in the creation of it. If you take a look, it’s all people bragging about their equipment!

You seem to be confusing science with a “boost to your own ego”. Reliable evidence has been presented to you in the past, demonstrating that most listeners prefer higher fidelity. So why do you keep stating the opposite, contrary to that evidence, and without any reliable evidence to support your assertion? Now THAT is “just to boost your own ego”!

Furthermore, there are various reasons people try to attain the highest practical fidelity reproduction, which has nothing to do with ego. For example, those who create audio content or study it.

G

Again it’s all ego, everyone’s posting.

To think each recording studio comes up with a different rendition of the artist. One studio sounds one way and another sounds another way. Each thinks they are best? But the moment the recording is as played it was lost in time. It’s only our egos that tell us we are truly experiencing true playback. I’m as guilty as anyone. But at least I know I am.

 

[bigshot]

More accuracy is better than less accuracy. It’s a spectrum, not binary.

By the way, I’ve worked with a lot of recording studios. They are all calibrated to the same specs. They don’t have a house sound. Producers and artists dictate the creative choices in the mix that define differences in sound.

I’m here to help people get the best sound they can out of their system, and still get bang for the buck. That’s my motivation. It’s hard though because a lot of people with different motivations and little practical experience think they need to compete with me. I’m not into that. My focus is on the readers, not the posters.