[Music Alchemist]

thought the context was folks not comprehending other folks interests and the amount of money they spend on them

 
That was one of the contexts of the conversation, but I meant the context of my statement.

 

[up late]

which is incorrect

 

[Music Alchemist]

which is incorrect

 
Not at all, unless you interpret "essentially jewelry" as "not a timepiece anymore."

 
Technically, all watches are simultaneously timepieces and jewelry. A headphone covered in diamonds is also essentially jewelry, even though it does not cease to be a headphone. The English language is far more brilliant than you give it credit for.
 
Remember, kids, the Alchemist is always right! =D

 

[money4me247]

  Most (or all) of the differences between headphones are objective and can be measured. Our perception of the sound waves is the only thing that is subjective.
 
Since we have so many other devices that can tell time, wearing a watch is more jewelry than timepiece nowadays. People don't buy expensive watches because they need to spend that much to tell what time it is; they buy them because they look nice or have fancy features.
 

 
I agree that we have measuring equipment to measure every aspect of sound that is audible to human ears. However, it is much harder to measure subjective preference or the emotional enjoyment that music brings to individuals. It is possible to do a large sample size observational study for preference or perhaps measure the blood flow to the nucleus accumbens and dopamine blood levels per individuals to kind of objectively test for emotional enjoyment, but seems pointless as the easiest way is to simply ask the person what they like. 
 
A key component that people forget when focusing on measurements is that not all measurements are done equally well. There will be inherent discrepancies in measurements from different sources due to different set-ups and measurement techniques. I approve of more objective data correlating to headphone performance, but I find it hilarious when random modders post their home-made graph showing the slightest difference between another graph and claim xyz.
 
Was that difference beyond the scope of measuring variability or manufacturer variations between drivers or even random chance? Was that value statistically significant? Is that difference in value within the threshold of human hearing being even able to detect?
 
There are a lot of unanswered questions in this hobby and a lot of pseudo-science passed off as objective information without proper statistical analysis. There isn't even an universal controlled measuring standard or procedure for audio components. It is no wonder a lot of people view this hobby to be a bit sketchy at times.
 
Yes, there are people that just buy what they like, but for some of us looking for sonic improvements that can be quantified, there is a dearth of information within this hobby. imo.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I agree that we have measuring equipment to measure every aspect of sound that is audible to human ears. However, it is much harder to measure subjective preference or the emotional enjoyment that music brings to individuals. It is possible to do a large sample size observational study for preference or perhaps measure the blood flow to the nucleus accumbens and dopamine blood levels per individuals to kind of objectively test for that, but seems pointless as the easiest way is to simply ask the person what they think. 
 
A key component that people forget when focusing on measurements is that not all measurements are done equally well. There will be inherent discrepancies in measurements from different sources due to different set-ups and measurement techniques. I approve of more objective data correlating to headphone performance, but I find it hilarious when random modders post their home-made graph showing the slightest difference between another graph and claim xyz.
 
Was that difference beyond the scope of measuring variability or manufacturer variations between drivers or even random chance? Was that value statistically significant? Is that difference in value within the threshold of human hearing being even able to detect?
 
There are a lot of unanswered questions in this hobby and a lot of pseudo-science passed off as objective information without proper statistical analysis. There isn't even an universal controlled measuring standard or procedure for audio components. It is no wonder a lot of people view this hobby to be a bit sketchy at times.
 
Yes, there are people that just buy what they like, but for some of us looking for sonic improvements that can be quantified, there is a dearth of information within this hobby. imo.

 
It is for this reason that I intend on using these resources
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/413900/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial
http://www.head-fi.org/t/587703/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial-part-2
http://www.head-fi.org/t/615417/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-advanced-tutorial-in-progress
 
to equalize my headphones instead of guessing based on graphs that may have been improperly measured, had a different frequency response to my particular unit, and so on. We need to compensate for human hearing either way, and that must be done on a personal level.
 
By the way, for those who don't know, the Harman-Olive HRTF curve is based on playing various tunings of speakers to a large number of people and finally finding that the vast majority of people prefer a neutral/balanced/accurate frequency response, or at least something very close to it.

 

[up late]

Not at all, unless you interpret "essentially jewelry" as "not a watch anymore." :rolleyes:

Technically, all watches are simultaneously timepieces and jewelry.

A Beats headphone covered in diamonds is also essentially jewelry, even though it does not cease to be a headphone.

Remember, kids, the Alchemist is always right! =D

a watch can be worn as jewellery but that isn't what it is - "essentially". its essential purpose/function is to keep time regardless of its styling and how it's worn.

same goes for your beats example - it is "essentially" a headphone adorned with jewels. but if it doesn't function as a headphone then it isn't one or it's broken or it could be mistaken for opulent ear muffs.

so you're not right on this occasion kid

 

[Music Alchemist]

a watch can be worn as jewellery but that isn't what it is - "essentially". its essential purpose/function is to keep time regardless of its styling and how it's worn.

same goes for your beats example - it is "essentially" a headphone that is designed to look fashionable and be desirable. but if it doesn't function as a headphone then it isn't one or it's broken or should be marketed as ear muffs.

so you're not right on this occasion kid

 
Words have more than one meaning. Just because it's one thing doesn't mean it can't be another thing.
 
You can misrepresent my statements all you want, but it will not change the point I am conveying.
 
Watches are essentially jewelry in this context due to the simple fact that they are unnecessary to tell time and happen to also be jewelry.
 
If you spend thousands on a nice-looking watch, your essential intention beneath the surface is not merely to tell time, but to look fancy and so on. "Essentially", in this case, is not referring to its function as a timepiece, but as a jewelry piece due to the fact that you spent so much money on something that you didn't need to to perform the same function of telling time. "Essentially" is referring to your intention and the effect it has.
 
A headphone covered with diamonds is essentially jewelry because it doesn't need to be covered with diamonds and has been relegated to that identity. The fact that it is still a headphone, which "essentially" plays music, is beside the point. You are using a different definition of "essentially" than I am and thus totally missing the point and manipulating the context of what I am saying.
 
When people say things like "Beats are essentially a fashion accessory.", the meaning should be obvious. They are not implying that they are not a headphone with the "essential" purpose of playing music. Look up the multiple definitions of the word "essentially" if you still aren't willing to accept that there is more than one meaning to the word.
 
Are you always so sarcastic and condescending?

 

[mulder01]

On behalf of everyone who isn't you two:
 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  On behalf of everyone who isn't you two:

 
Yeah, I agree. I'm only arguing further because he misrepresented my statements.

 

[dxanex]

^ lol was just thinking the same thing. Take it to PM guys, if it's that important to you.

 

[up late]

sorry guys

@music alchemist - i didn't misrepresent what you said. anyways it's there for all to see.

moving on.

 

[Music Alchemist]

i didn't misrepresent what you said.

 
Yes, you did, and blatantly so. If you hadn't, you would agree with me, because you would have agreed with my point, which you clearly did not get, due to erroneously assuming that there was only one possible meaning for the word "essentially". It's simple.

 

[goldendarko]

Gosh I hate clicking on a thread and going through 2 pages of a pissing match about, well, who even knows at this point. I clicked on this thread to read about the HE-1000

 

[Music Alchemist]

Gosh I hate clicking on a thread and going through 2 pages of a pissing match about, well, who even knows at this point. I clicked on this thread to read about the HE-1000

 
In more epic news, I am working on a thread with more headphone power requirement stats.

 

[goldendarko]

I think I'm set for my power requirements with the Ragnarok. Haven't heard a headphone yet it can't drive well.