This. n.b. the 'you' here is not Deezil, just the generic 'you'. the "i" is, on the other hand, me specififcally)
I feel like many of the terms that Head-Fi-ers use to describe the sound are really names of colorations, and don't mean what I interepet them to mean, from context, a la the famous line from 'Princess Bride' "I don;t think that word means what you think it means!"
Since no component (iem) is perfect, it either adds or subtracts from the signal it is fed (or both). Gross changes in tonal balance can make things seem 'detailed' or 'warm' or 'organic' -- thosen terms, at least to me, signal an alteration of the music being performed by the iem under review..... When we are talking about a recording of acoustic instruments, i.e., a person playing a sax in front of a microphone, then we have a frame of reference.. the actual soujd of the sax. The mic and recording gear can and do alter that sound, but if you were in the room when that sax performance was being recorded, you can compare the recording to the sound of the sax itself. If you have ade many similar reordings in the same room, with the same mic and gear, then you have a range of data, from which to discern how 'close' to the actual sound the recording(s) is getting.
With electronic instruments (what I've decidede to call 'direct to voltage'), not so much. There is no sound, per se, jjust an intention on the part of the musician to make a recording that sonds a specific way. There's nothing wrong with that, just saying that you can only really say whether you lkike the way an iem makes them sound, not whether it is right or wrong--unless you are the artist, and it hits your target. When an audiophile or reviewer gets hold of these recordings and uses them to judge, evaluate, and describe the sound of gear, then things get interesting. If you are picking out stuff you like, then, awesome! Seek your bliss. I'm not gonna tell you not to put salt or pepper on all your food - make it taste the way you want it to.
If you are judging stuff on behalf of others, then there is some need to make sure you are using the words to mean what others think they do, and that you have a proper basis for being able to make these descriptive/reviewing claims. I agree that detail can be 'faked', or mistaken for salience. Tipped up tonal balance, or depressed low end can make other things stick out.... closing the car windows makes the radio sound louder, right? Perhaps it's just me being obtuse or stubborn, but when I hear things like intimate, or wide sooundstage, I wonder whether they mean that every recording sounds that way--if so, then the iem is acting as an editor--no thanks! That said, there's also a tendency for people to think that neutral, or resolving are bad things - I say don;t blame the messenger. I also agree that if something is too accurate to allow you to enjoy your music, then don;t buy it. Don't blame meteorologist when it rains (unless they promised you it wold not!).
In other words, I think I am agreeing with Deezel, and iirc, he is a recording engineer, so has real data to work from.
Onward!
- I actually really like this discussion as it puts perspective on some interesting things: 1) definitions - we say resolution - but what do we mean with that and do we use it the right way ? And do we understand the same thing when we say resolution or dynamics - I will have to reflect over that ... we could easily been already in a babylonian world - where we throw terms into a discussion and everybody has a different interpretation of what this means to himself...
