[theveterans]

@gregorio I agree, that explains why so many variations in IEM tuning exist and garner their niche consumer bases, each tuning caters to different room EQs and HRTFs. I have accepted that my feel for correct sound is going to have to be enough at this point.

Different strokes for different folks hence why so many countless IEMs on the market have unconventional tunings to make the sound perception, more spacious, more aggressive, more laid-back, more tactile/slam etc.

 

[KinGensai]

Research that is utterly wrong. Go look up how they came up with that curve.

Sorry if you made this argument before, I haven't seen your version of it. What is your issue with it? Is it the methodology or results that is the issue?

From what I see, the 2019 IE curve seems a bit weird due to the excessive 4k to 8k energy it seems to imply. There also is a bit of failure to disclose what & why the engineers finalized the target the way they did. I'd like to hear you elaborate a bit on why you think this is utterly wrong, that's quite a strong conclusion.

 

[gregorio]

I agree, that explains why so many variations in IEM tuning exist and garner their niche consumer bases, each tuning caters to different room EQs and HRTFs.

I’d be hesitant to say “each tuning caters to different room EQs and HRTFs” because they don’t, strictly speaking. Some manufacturers do not use diffuse field tunings and even those who do, often derive a diffuse field that’s quite different to actual rooms. Also, they don’t really cater to HRTFs, only at best to limited/very limited number of HRTF parameters. I believe in most (if not in all) cases they’re only relying on “some” data and employing that along with personal/company experience to arrive at a tuning that’s at least partially arbitrary, what they think it should be.

I have accepted that my feel for correct sound is going to have to be enough at this point.

There’s even an element of that when using monitors in a highly designed/treated studio but add in all the additional variables of HP/IEM use, the variables of how (and with what) the mixes and masters were created and the individual variables of fit, HRTFs and personal preferences, and there’s no real alternative to your quote. This fact doesn’t seem to register with some audiophiles though, unfortunately.

G

 

[KinGensai]

@gregorio
Ok sure, maybe it's not done intentionally in every instance, but free market forces tend to filter out the misses over time, leaving tunings that hit the right combination of room EQ/pinna gain tuning to appeal to the niche audiences that want them.

The problem I experienced is that people don't really explain any of this, so most newcomers who try to dive in this rabbit hole end up spending a bunch of money figuring out their own preferences, let alone how they compare to others. Marketers don't help either because they use sales language to state that their product is definitively the best or whatever.

 

[castleofargh]

@gregorio
Ok sure, maybe it's not done intentionally in every instance, but free market forces tend to filter out the misses over time, leaving tunings that hit the right combination of room EQ/pinna gain tuning to appeal to the niche audiences that want them.

The problem I experienced is that people don't really explain any of this, so most newcomers who try to dive in this rabbit hole end up spending a bunch of money figuring out their own preferences, let alone how they compare to others. Marketers don't help either because they use sales language to state that their product is definitively the best or whatever.

It's simple, haven't you read the reviews? Just about anything they like is called neutral at some point, no matter how vastly different the FR is from some other stuff being called neutral and good, and no matter how many times experts will explain that one universal neutral on headphones or IEM doesn't exist.
And also, for stuff they don't like, they can often call it neutral, meaning boring.
You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of doublethink, and all becomes clear.

 

[KinGensai]

It's simple, haven't you read the reviews? Just about anything they like is called neutral at some point, no matter how vastly different the FR is from some other stuff being called neutral and good, and no matter how many times experts will explain that one universal neutral on headphones or IEM doesn't exist.
And also, for stuff they don't like, they can often call it neutral, meaning boring.
You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of doublethink, and all becomes clear.

Oh lawd lol, there is a heck of a lot of that. I forgot how rampant the use of the term "neutral" was in reviews because I tuned them out real quick. A few guys doing reviews have more of an understanding of what's going on, and I ended up settling on gizaudio, super reviews, and HBB as the opinions I took seriously. They all helped in their own ways to supplement my homework, so thankfully the damage to my wallet hasn't been overwhelming... yet.

 

[gregorio]

Ok sure, maybe it's not done intentionally in every instance, but free market forces tend to filter out the misses over time, leaving tunings that hit the right combination of room EQ/pinna gain tuning to appeal to the niche audiences that want them. …

Marketers don't help either because they use sales language to state that their product is definitively the best or whatever.

These two quotes are contradictory! Given a free market, then it would seem likely that the best tunings would succeed more than the poor tunings, as you stated. However, the market isn’t entirely “free”, in the sense that the whole reason marketing exists is to influence/skew the market. So consumers buy according to brand name, fashion, price, appearance, as well as tuning and ALL of these are heavily influenced by marketing: The actual overt marketing the company puts out, along with the reviews and testimonials that are “presented” as completely independent, honest opinions/impressions, all of which leads us back to what @castleofargh just stated. Much of what audiophile consumers buy has no “tunings” because it makes no difference at all or no audible difference, from green marker pens to audiophile cables, fuses, pebbles, etc., but that doesn’t stop audiophiles from believing or experiencing these marketing induced “tunings”.

The problem I experienced is that people don't really explain any of this, so most newcomers who try to dive in this rabbit hole end up spending a bunch of money figuring out their own preferences, let alone how they compare to others.

The problem is that it’s quite a complex “rabbit hole”, one where the answer varies for each individual and which at least somewhat conflicts with the marketing interests. So as a generalisation, the audiophile community doesn’t know much “of this” and therefore either just doesn’t “explain any of this” or explains it in terms of misleading marketing rather than the actual facts. And, many audiophiles accept it because they don’t know any different, they at least somewhat trust some of the marketing/reviewers and the answers presented are far more satisfying than the actual answer (“it depends” and “varies for each individual”, there is no one right answer).

G

 

[KinGensai]

@gregorio
Oh interesting, I agree with misinformed consumers being mislead by marketers into making poor spending decisions, but that in no way denotes whether the market is free or not. Ethically speaking, as long as use of force is not utilized to violate the moral agency of a sentient being, the interaction is free. What you are talking about belongs in the realm of aesthetics because we are talking about how people aught to behave within the bounds of ethical behavior, which capitalist schools of thought are not concerned with generally, especially if they are of the anarcho-capitalist variety.

My personal view is that marketing in the modern age does tend to weaponize mass psychology, but as long as no force is used, it doesn't fall into the realm of ethics, thus doesn't affect whether a market is free or not.

 

[gregorio]

Ethically speaking, as long as use of force is not utilized to violate the moral agency of a sentient being, the interaction is free.

That’s why I said: “in the sense of …”! It’s ”free” in the sense that it’s not a monopoly (or a cartel), “force is not utilised” and consumers can choose whatever they want but it’s less free in the sense that “whatever they want” can be/is manipulated with marketing and I would argue that if that marketing is deliberately false/misleading then it does “fall into the realm of ethics” (specifically, a lack of ethics!).

G

 

[KinGensai]

Ok, that's fine, lying is not intrinsically an unethical action because there is no detrimental reliance inherent to the action. Misleading is getting there as that is defined as fraud, which I agree exists and can be justification for a forceful response, but that's not unique to just audiophilia and certainly does not disqualify an economic system as being a free market system.

I do agree it's not nice seeing people led astray from a lack of knowledge, but in my opinion the consumer has a duty to be vigilant and inform themselves when acting in the market. Science isn't the only place we should practice skepticism.

 

[redrol]

I talk about sound stage all the time in relation to my IEMs. Everyone that hears them say they do indeed give the perception of having outside-the-ears sound. Sure its not real, but if it fools you enough to enjoy that feeling, why not go with it.

Truth is some people don't hear it at all and some hear it greatly.

 

[old tech]

@gregorio
Oh interesting, I agree with misinformed consumers being mislead by marketers into making poor spending decisions, but that in no way denotes whether the market is free or not. Ethically speaking, as long as use of force is not utilized to violate the moral agency of a sentient being, the interaction is free. What you are talking about belongs in the realm of aesthetics because we are talking about how people aught to behave within the bounds of ethical behavior, which capitalist schools of thought are not concerned with generally, especially if they are of the anarcho-capitalist variety.

My personal view is that marketing in the modern age does tend to weaponize mass psychology, but as long as no force is used, it doesn't fall into the realm of ethics, thus doesn't affect whether a market is free or not.

Your definition of a free market is contestable. Discrimination, just to name one aspect, is not force yet hardly ethical. To further complicate things, force can be an attribute of a free market.

 

[KinGensai]

Your definition of a free market is contestable. Discrimination, just to name one aspect, is not force yet hardly ethical.

My view on the free market is informed by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, amongst other scholars of the Mises Institute and more loosely of the Austrian school of economics, so I guess you can direct your critique of the definition of free market economics to them. I'm primarily working on the heuristic of praxeology in conjunction with my formal education in psychology, so hopefully that puts my thoughts into some context.

The purpose of ethics is to determine how a body politic will normatively govern the use of force, whether that normative standard is teleologically based or deontologically based is the main paradigm up for debate. You correctly identify that discrimination as an action is not force, yet it is not self evident that such an action is not ethical in any way, thus you have to make an argument as to why you believe it should be teleologically unethical. I think the deontological argument for deeming discrimination unethical is unsustainable because the very argument is predicated on discrimination in order to stop it, in effect one must discriminate against discrimination because discrimination is unethical, thus one must not discriminate against discrimination because discrimination is unethical. This is an internal logical contradiction.

Ontologically speaking, discrimination can not be unethical because it is a requisite action necessary to exercise individual property rights, specifically free association. Modernist society normatively emphasizes advocacy for enfranchisement of the minority, with most modernist societies then arguing that the individual is the smallest minority. Deeming discrimination unethical would complicate other areas of ethics because it interferes with free association, then runs afoul of the non aggression principle that is one of the premises of capitalism.

To further complicate things, force can be an attribute of a free market.

No, force exists as a fact of nature, ethical systems only normatively govern how moral agents will utilize it.

 

[KinGensai]

I talk about sound stage all the time in relation to my IEMs. Everyone that hears them say they do indeed give the perception of having outside-the-ears sound. Sure its not real, but if it fools you enough to enjoy that feeling, why not go with it.

Truth is some people don't hear it at all and some hear it greatly.

That's mostly a function of frequency response isn't it? Certain IEMs will sound more spacious to certain people because it more closely matches their pinna gain response. I guess there can be some other factors involving how sound is delivered from the driver to the nozzle. 64 Audio does their tubeless design thing for this reason, don't they?

 

[theveterans]

That's mostly a function of frequency response isn't it? Certain IEMs will sound more spacious to certain people because it more closely matches their pinna gain response. I guess there can be some other factors involving how sound is delivered from the driver to the nozzle. 64 Audio does their tubeless design thing for this reason, don't they?

Some manufacturers deliberately design wacky phase responses as function of impedance and frequency in order to delay some of the frequencies and make them appear distant and spatial by nature (Just look at Campfire Audio's marketing with their IEMs). Also, tips such as the Pentaconn Corier Brass somehow at least based on listening allows for CSD of transient response to reverberate longer due to metal reflecting rather than absorbing the reflections leading to a more speaker-like resonances.