Empire Ears - Discussion & Impressions (Formerly EarWerkz)
Jul 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Post #14,761 of 40,614
Really like how you showed that IEMs don't have to be more expensive to suit a preference.

Price often doesn't mean better in audio. It's so subjective, that some expensive gear really isn't even good. I was in shock when I listened to a 10k or so IEM the folks raved about, but I didn't 'get them'. I just didn't understand why it costs what it does and why it didn't even sound as good (to me) than the new IEM's from EE or 64 or CA or......

I like Phantom over Legend X. My preference where Pinky LOVE the X. I like to think we both have 'good' ears and appreciate many of the good IEM's, but we like different things. I do wonder how the X would have sounded if it had been broken in first. Maybe I would have gone that route instead, but I love the Phantom over all the other IEM"s that are priced above it from most of the companies out there that I was able to listen to.

You all have similar stories I'm sure. That's why these threads are a blast to read and I've enjoyed all the posters adn what they share. Thanks all.
 
Jul 17, 2018 at 3:55 PM Post #14,762 of 40,614
A big reason why I like to think it's all so subjective - much like 'do we see the same colors?' - is what if the 1kHz tone that I hear sounds different than the 1kHz tone you hear?

You know, similar to the 'higher than giraffe pu**y kind of stoner banter @tim0chan will be having with an actual giraffe* if he goes the 'new iem' route

*
turns out it was just a long-necked deer #neverletpropertenseruinthejoke

EDIT - Apologies to the only lady here. You seem cool, but sorry still
 
Last edited:
Jul 17, 2018 at 5:54 PM Post #14,763 of 40,614
It's all subjective, as brain processing of sound (and vision, for that matter) is relative to each individual person (leaving out for a minute the actual functional aspects of how our ears work, since they are sending a signal to the brain to be in some manner decoded). Yes, some people may have "perfect hearing," whatever that means, but I'd wager if you put ten of those people in a room together they'd have differences among themselves as well. Frame of reference (trained or casual listener, musician or layman, etc) also enters into it. And then throw in source, source files (without opening that whole can of worms), cable, amp if applicable, and you get so many variables that it's amazing we can define anything about the music and/or musical devices we hear/use. Maybe we should just remember that it's all relative, and when asked our preference for or our response to a specific device always couch our answer within the parameters of our individual experience.

Or maybe people should just buy and sell devices until they find what they like and then just enjoy it.

Nah.
 
Jul 17, 2018 at 5:57 PM Post #14,764 of 40,614
how can i demo these in NYC audio46 is out
 
Jul 17, 2018 at 8:54 PM Post #14,765 of 40,614
I like Phantom over Legend X. My preference where Pinky LOVE the X. I like to think we both have 'good' ears and appreciate many of the good IEM's, but we like different things.

Don't try and understand Pinky. There be monsters in them waters.
 
Jul 17, 2018 at 10:58 PM Post #14,766 of 40,614
Hey,

Would you recommend the U18 or LX for EDM (Mainly House like Youmb Bombs, etc) What should I go for? I'm looking for clarity but also that feeling that makes you feel the music. It needs the bass. How does the bass compare and the soundstage?

Would pick the LX in a heartbeat. The U18 would simply be too tiring for EDM not cos of the bass (which is less punchy than LX but fairly accurate) but cos of the raised hi-mids / lower-highs where the synth riffs usually lies. The first few tracks will likely sound exciting and engaging but guess you can't get passed the 5th without feeling a bit stressed at the eardrum. The LX is pretty neutral up to the highest end and is never tiring, and O the bass is badass in quality (out of the box it's a bit too much but a quick settling down of about 20 hours or so would solve that).
 
Jul 18, 2018 at 5:53 AM Post #14,768 of 40,614
Jul 18, 2018 at 6:09 AM Post #14,769 of 40,614
A big reason why I like to think it's all so subjective - much like 'do we see the same colors?' - is what if the 1kHz tone that I hear sounds different than the 1kHz tone you hear?

You know, similar to the 'higher than giraffe pu**y kind of stoner banter @tim0chan will be having with an actual giraffe* if he goes the 'new iem' route

*
turns out it was just a long-necked deer #neverletpropertenseruinthejoke

EDIT - Apologies to the only lady here. You seem cool, but sorry still
It's all subjective, as brain processing of sound (and vision, for that matter) is relative to each individual person (leaving out for a minute the actual functional aspects of how our ears work, since they are sending a signal to the brain to be in some manner decoded). Yes, some people may have "perfect hearing," whatever that means, but I'd wager if you put ten of those people in a room together they'd have differences among themselves as well. Frame of reference (trained or casual listener, musician or layman, etc) also enters into it. And then throw in source, source files (without opening that whole can of worms), cable, amp if applicable, and you get so many variables that it's amazing we can define anything about the music and/or musical devices we hear/use. Maybe we should just remember that it's all relative, and when asked our preference for or our response to a specific device always couch our answer within the parameters of our individual experience.
The reason why there are such large differences between listeners is indeed only partially because of biological hardware, that can lead to different sensitivities.

A more important factor is that when the brain processes sensory information, it does not simply 'mirror' internally what we hear or see; it needs to rebuild the image from the ground up. At the lowest level, a single cell only responds to a dot (black/white contrast) in a tiny location of the visual field. One level higher, several dots form a line. Then a square, then a house etc. Since this is such a demanding process, it only filters the relevant information of each level during that process, and 'colors' the missing information with a calculated projection to give us the feeling we are not missing anything, even though we are only consciously processing a fraction of the possible information. For example, when you are walking down a busy street with your girlfriend, you might notice gift shops for an upcoming birthday present for her, or a restaurant if you happen to be hungry, or perhaps other ladies (not me of course, I don't even know they exist). She in turn might be looking at the architecture, or a cute little doggy, etc.

The same is true within audio. While processing audio, the brain automatically selects on a lower level what you find relevant, based on previous experience and preference. This happens subconsciously, in other words, before we are aware - we only hear the end result of that process. So for some people that means attention is diverted to bass, or vocals, or treble etc. It is simply impossible for our brain to process everything all at once, even though we are given that illusion. This is why it is often very difficult to understand why other people hear so different; "I know what I hear, nobody can tell me otherwise." The brain is primarily focused on a narrow selection of the possible information, and this selection has been made subconsciously. Someone else's brain in turn makes their own pre-selection. As a result, everyone creates their own mental image, regardless of the source, music etc.

The brain tends to be rigid; it wants to hold on to what it knows, as this provides certainty. Of course, we can counter the implicit 'bottom-up' processing with conscious 'top down' processing, i.e. manually diverting our attention to other aspects, like you do with analysis. But changing that implicit process requires new experiences or active training. Either way we are 1) restrained to processing limited amounts of audio at one time, 2) never fully aware what we are and aren't missing.

How was this relevant again? Oh yeah, smoking grass. That definitely helps to divert and expand attention, even at the subconscious phase (again, not me of course, I have no idea what it does) :D
 
Jul 18, 2018 at 6:41 AM Post #14,770 of 40,614
I hear everything. That which is there, and that which is not.
 
Jul 18, 2018 at 6:52 AM Post #14,771 of 40,614
I hear everything. That which is there, and that which is not.

we said that it's ok to smoke some grass , not get paranoid from cocaine :o2smile:
 
Jul 18, 2018 at 8:38 AM Post #14,773 of 40,614
The reason why there are such large differences between listeners is indeed only partially because of biological hardware, that can lead to different sensitivities.

A more important factor is that when the brain processes sensory information, it does not simply 'mirror' internally what we hear or see; it needs to rebuild the image from the ground up. At the lowest level, a single cell only responds to a dot (black/white contrast) in a tiny location of the visual field. One level higher, several dots form a line. Then a square, then a house etc. Since this is such a demanding process, it only filters the relevant information of each level during that process, and 'colors' the missing information with a calculated projection to give us the feeling we are not missing anything, even though we are only consciously processing a fraction of the possible information. For example, when you are walking down a busy street with your girlfriend, you might notice gift shops for an upcoming birthday present for her, or a restaurant if you happen to be hungry, or perhaps other ladies (not me of course, I don't even know they exist). She in turn might be looking at the architecture, or a cute little doggy, etc.

The same is true within audio. While processing audio, the brain automatically selects on a lower level what you find relevant, based on previous experience and preference. This happens subconsciously, in other words, before we are aware - we only hear the end result of that process. So for some people that means attention is diverted to bass, or vocals, or treble etc. It is simply impossible for our brain to process everything all at once, even though we are given that illusion. This is why it is often very difficult to understand why other people hear so different; "I know what I hear, nobody can tell me otherwise." The brain is primarily focused on a narrow selection of the possible information, and this selection has been made subconsciously. Someone else's brain in turn makes their own pre-selection. As a result, everyone creates their own mental image, regardless of the source, music etc.

The brain tends to be rigid; it wants to hold on to what it knows, as this provides certainty. Of course, we can counter the implicit 'bottom-up' processing with conscious 'top down' processing, i.e. manually diverting our attention to other aspects, like you do with analysis. But changing that implicit process requires new experiences or active training. Either way we are 1) restrained to processing limited amounts of audio at one time, 2) never fully aware what we are and aren't missing.

How was this relevant again? Oh yeah, smoking grass. That definitely helps to divert and expand attention, even at the subconscious phase (again, not me of course, I have no idea what it does) :D

Great write up as always Nic, thanks. So if I understand you correctly, when I walk with my wife, she's looking at some hot young woman to invite over for drinks? Thanks for teh clarification. This is my own brains interpolation. This is what I call subjective. Your brains may all think differently. See Nic, I listen to everything you post man!!! :wink:.
100553-97934.jpg
 
Jul 18, 2018 at 10:38 AM Post #14,774 of 40,614
Yes. The interesting thing about the brain is that it IS selective. EVERYTHING our senses deliver to it (and that means everything we see, hear, taste, feel on our skin, etc.) is filtered to prevent us from sensory overload. If we were consciously aware of EVERYTHING around us we couldn't tell what was important (the tiger in the bushes) and what was not (the attractive woman walking down the street while we are walking with our wife). So our brain filters it into conscious, semi-conscious and unconscious. We then train ourselves to recognize the various sensory states that are important, (the tiger rustling in the bushes, a flash of tiger color) and file away those that seemingly aren't (a pretty woman we see while walking with our wife). This is why the olfactory sense is so interesting and we have responses to a specific smell that our memory was seemingly unaware of until we smell it again and go, oh! I remember that smell, and the memories flood in.

Of course we can train ourselves not to stare at other attractive people when we are with our spouses, even though we are aware of them. And most of us are no longer in dangers from tigers. But we ARE hardwired to be aware of dangers. As for music, those of us in this hobby listen to so much of it that our senses may be more attuned to nuances in it than our casual brethren. And for the most part we listen more critically, and demand more of our musical devices as well.

Drugs certainly impact senses and memory. Different drugs create different responses, which is why, generally, meth users don't listen to Joni Mitchell and grass users don't listen to AC-DC (though of course there are exceptions). There are bands I no longer listen to now that I loved when I was in, shall we say, my prime. Jimi Hendrix is a great example, though I have finally gotten to be able to listen to him again by making an effort to do so. But the overall effect of his music is VERY different to me than it was in 1967.

:)
 
Last edited:
Jul 18, 2018 at 1:12 PM Post #14,775 of 40,614
Would pick the LX in a heartbeat. The U18 would simply be too tiring for EDM not cos of the bass (which is less punchy than LX but fairly accurate) but cos of the raised hi-mids / lower-highs where the synth riffs usually lies. The first few tracks will likely sound exciting and engaging but guess you can't get passed the 5th without feeling a bit stressed at the eardrum. The LX is pretty neutral up to the highest end and is never tiring, and O the bass is badass in quality (out of the box it's a bit too much but a quick settling down of about 20 hours or so would solve that).


You kinda breaking my heart. I thought the U18 or Fourtes were my ENDGAME. Ur telling me the legend X is better than both of those? i need just as much as musicality and that’s punch and oomph iems give you that makes you feel the music. (why i liked the vegas over the andromedas even tho clearly i liked the separation and technicial aspects of the andros and loved the clarity)

so my question is, which one would you say is still the best fit for me. it’s hard to believe that’s the $1000 difference price range has to make a noticeable difference in which the fourtes or u18tzar are better (except the bass like u mentioned)

out of the two u18t and fourte which one would you go for? (also looking for huge soundstage is the u18’s better?)
and ou of the 3 you would still go for the x? imagine if they were all the same price
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top