[Currawong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will looking into getting a REF 7 and Phoenix in the summer and then just stop with audio upgrades and tweaks and just focus more on my cd collection and listening to music . I will be reterminating any of my headphones that can to a 4 pin XLR, as I simply refuse to spend absurd amounts of money on recables if I can simply solder 4 wires myself . how are the REF 1 and phoenix for bright phones specifically?

They have absolutely no trace of harshness and they let the music through as if the components aren't there at all.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah I made a thread about neutrality due to the Research Methods class I am taking at my college. That class is really shedding a ton of light on a lot of stuff... But ignorance of facts, or dismissal of facts goes very deeply into our society, and affects things much more important than head-fi... like our politics, government policies.. public opinion.. Take a look http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/let...s-fact-477739/ SA5K are not bassy, but graph aside, you do end up hearing a lot of it and it is quick to change notes, much more so than other headphones. But it does require constant effort.

It's funny that you mention Research Methods. I took three semesters of Research Methods in University and if I had to single out a single series of classes that really highlight the scientific method, and produce life-changing ways of thinking, those would be it.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Music is only emotional because it evokes emotion in humans... by nature it is not emotional... it is just sine waves. Just because your perception doesn't match whats on paper, doesn't mean its correct. Life as we know it is an improper interpretation of the world... we don't see infrared, we don't see ultraviolet, we can't perceive time outside the scale of our lives... etc etc. Science serves to quantify things that are otherwise hard to get a grasp on, or get an honest answer about. Science also does not strive to be right, it strives to be accurate and probable/repeatable. Science never claims to be set in stone or the ultimate answer, just the best currently available. IMO if people were able to better see the difference between their personal EQ and factual, data things would be much better. Hell, if we could SEE sound, it would be easier . Whether or not one chooses to actually use the info to get the sound they desire does not have to change for our standards to be better :/.

BRAVO BRAVO! Well said - I could not have said it better.

That's the second best description of science I've seen - Richard Dawkins had the best.

 

[k3oxkjo]

I see you chose not to address any of my brilliant points in my previous post, but no matter...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it is important to remember that measurements give us a standard, and remove the subjective. Without measurements you couldn't: Drive a car (mmm...I think I'm going below the speedlimit) Turn on a TV Build a house Make it to work Call a friend Type this message etc etc etc.

Funny, I do many of these things every day without making a single measurement. I think what you mean was that someone at one point had to make measurements to make these things possible. True that.

Measurements are just measurements. I know that because I used to do them for a living. The question is how to interpret the results and there can be considerable subjectivity there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you tell me something is "bassy" and I disagree with you, the only way to tell the truth about it is to apply an objective standard such as: The signal is attenuated by 3db at 250hz. But words like that are totally frowned upon by people at head-fi. Do you know how many arguments could be resolved if we stuck to measurements?.

Even the people who determine the standards argue about how a headphone should measure! If you have read this already, forgive me, if not this may shed some light.

Stereophile: Between the Ears: the art and science of measuring headphones

And if you told me "the signal is attenuated by 3db at 250hz" I would ask relative to what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Conversations about how "bassy" a headphone is would be totally unnecessary because then it would only be relative, and psychoacoustics (a confounding variable) would be eliminated.

Psychoacoustics is not a "a confounding variable" to scientists in the field, it is part and parcel of the science (and part and parcel of the "thing itself", human hearing and perception), but I guess it is to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif This isn't rocket science - I'm actually amazed at how many head-fiers are actually anti-science. You wouldn't have anything to listen to if it weren't for science, nor would we be having this discussion in such a way as we are now.

As a physicist friend of mine used to say, "Rocket science is not rocket science, you know".

I don't know how many people on Head-fi are "anti-science" and I am not aware of any study done on this. Perhaps you see anti-scientists under every rock, but I am not anti-science. I have worked in technical and scientific fields most of my life. But I don't have to make measurements to listen and comment on headphones and I can respect other people's perceptions.

In the case of the measurements on Headroom, while I am grateful for them and do consult them, are not anything like peer reviewed. Scientific papers would require measuring multiple samples and much more stringent measurement conditions. But that's not what the Headroom measurements are, they are "for educational and entertainment purposes only, please, no wagering".

And I treat them as such.

Kevin

 

[haloxt]

By anti-science he means we're not trusting measurements as much as he'd like. But it's not that simple, he has to reconsider his belief that measuring headphones with a microphone is 100% accurate, which can only be true if every person on the planet has the same exact ear shape, or the measuring method is just that amazing. If he can scientifically prove that everyone has the same exact ear shape or that headroom's SA5000 graph is 100% accurate for every ear shape, then I'll say he's right.

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Music is only emotional because it evokes emotion in humans... by nature it is not emotional... it is just sine waves..

True, nothing has any "meaning" without a mind assigning meaning. But music is not "just sine waves". It is particular combinations of sine waves. Some evoke emotion and meaning, some combinations don't. It's their arrangement by a thinking mind that counts. People who see music as "just a bunch of sine waves" miss a lot of enjoyment and beauty in their lives, in my view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just because your perception doesn't match whats on paper, doesn't mean its correct. Life as we know it is an improper interpretation of the world... we don't see infrared, we don't see ultraviolet, we can't perceive time outside the scale of our lives... etc etc.

Hmmm... can a person's perception be incorrect? It's just their perception. It may differ from a external standard but... ahhh too philosophical for a Saturday morning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Science serves to quantify things that are otherwise hard to get a grasp on, or get an honest answer about. Science also does not strive to be right, it strives to be accurate and probable/repeatable. Science never claims to be set in stone or the ultimate answer, just the best currently available. IMO if people were able to better see the difference between their personal EQ and factual, data things would be much better.

The "factual data" is important to designers, reserchers and wise asses like me, but the ultimate purpose of music is not to have something for us to measure. It's to evoke emotions and reactions in the mind of the listener.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hell, if we could SEE sound, it would be easier .

Well, it wouldn't be sound then, would it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whether or not one chooses to actually use the info to get the sound they desire does not have to change for our standards to be better :/.

The sound they desire is the sound they desire. Some people desire a literal re-creation of the original musical event. Some people desire a reproduction of the recording, for better or worse. Some people want a beautiful sound that evokes a pleasureable sensation. They are all reasonable approaches to the enjoyment of music with their own strategies to achieve their goal. I respect them all...

Kevin

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif True, nothing has any "meaning" without a mind assigning meaning. But music is not "just sine waves". It is particular combinations of sine waves. Some evoke emotion and meaning, some combinations don't. It's their arrangement by a thinking mind that counts. People who see music as "just a bunch of sine waves" miss a lot of enjoyment and beauty in their lives, in my view. Hmmm... can a person's perception be incorrect? It's just their perception. It may differ from a external standard but... ahhh too philosophical for a Saturday morning. The "factual data" is important to designers, reserchers and wise asses like me, but the ultimate purpose of music is not to have something for us to measure. It's to evoke emotions and reactions in the mind of the listener. Well, it wouldn't be sound then, would it? The sound they desire is the sound they desire. Some people desire a literal re-creation of the original musical event. Some people desire a reproduction of the recording, for better or worse. Some people want a beautiful sound that evokes a pleasureable sensation. They are all reasonable approaches to the enjoyment of music with their own strategies to achieve their goal. I respect them all... Kevin

I think you took what I wrote too literal. I was just trying to prove some points. Of course I recognize the ultimate goal of music as enjoyment... any other idea would be stupid... but that doesn't mean we go about everything perfectly.

A few of my sentences were formatted wrong, or you interpreted them wrong.
Of course someones perception can be wrong, thats what I meant.

Also, you rebuttal to my last paragraph was exactly what I said.. but in other words... People want what they want and will chase it, but that does not mean we cannot develop better standards on how to understand things, or what is true, and not preference..

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you took what I wrote too literal. I was just trying to prove some points. Of course I recognize the ultimate goal of music as enjoyment... any other idea would be stupid... but that doesn't mean we go about everything perfectly. A few of my sentences were formatted wrong, or you interpreted them wrong. Of course someones perception can be wrong, thats what I meant. Also, you rebuttal to my last paragraph was exactly what I said.. but in other words... People want what they want and will chase it, but that does not mean we cannot develop better standards on how to understand things, or what is true, and not preference..

Sorry, but I didn't mean what I wrote as rebuttal, just as an exchange. And, believe it or not, I actually agree with you quite a bit and try to inject a bit of the science of things (as I have come to understand it) into my posts, anything that fosters greater understanding is certainly a good thing, which is presumedly why people post on Head-fi.

My point is that none of this invalidates poster's experiences (and I suspect you would agree with this). Experience is how we get from where we are to where we are going and as people learn more I think they tend to integrate the science and art of the matter more.

There is every level and strategy of understanding here on Head-fi. I think there is something to learn from all of it, though I would never insist that they are all of equal value. Which is, in itelf, a subjective assessment, I guess...

Kevin

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif And if you told me "the signal is attenuated by 3db at 250hz" I would ask relative to what. Kevin

I'm short on time so I'll answer your most basic question. The signal attenuated at 3db at 250hz is relative to the input signal on the recording. Simple as that. Arguing that science is wrong because measuring devices are innacurate is a cheap way out of a scientific discussion. It's the best apparatus we have, and certainly more accurate than human ears.

All human ears are different, as are all human test subjects, but you can't control for them perfectly; the best you can do is sample enough of them, create an artificial standard, or cancel that variable out. Saying "we can't argue this because everyone's ears are different" creates a reality whereby you can't falsify a hypothesis, and therefore you can't have a scientific discussion. It's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.

 

[haloxt]

We're not arguing that science is wrong "because measuring devices are inaccurate", just that a one-size fits all headphone measurement isn't easy to do when considering everyone has unique hrtf's that can be very different. Dr. Florian Koenig, the lead engineer of Ultrasone, says that which headphone is best for you would depend very much on your individual hrtf, and that he uses an old HFI-2000 adapted to his individual hrtf as opposed to say one of Ultrasone's top tier studio headphones.

If you grilled Koenig or the engineers at Sony about why their headphones often have crazy graphs and the subjective impression of a recessed midrange, I'm sure they could provide you with their scientific data, assuming they cared enough to.

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm short on time so I'll answer your most basic question. The signal attenuated at 3db at 250hz is relative to the input signal on the recording. Simple as that.

You still haven't really told me anything. Is this a high Q, sharp resonance or a wideband dip? Very different things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Arguing that science is wrong because measuring devices are innacurate is a cheap way out of a scientific discussion. It's the best apparatus we have, and certainly more accurate than human ears.

I am not arguing that the science is "wrong" concerning headphones, just that it's incomplete. The idea that our measuring devices have inaccuracies, that there can be errors in measurement technique and that there is no real consensus in the literature on how a headphone SHOULD measure is the heart of the scientific matter, at least at the present state of the art.

In the meantime, our ear/brain system is the "thing itself", it's the reason we make and care about measurements in the first place. The point is not to ignore measurements, but to understand their limitations. Listening is in the great scientific tradition of observation, we need to understand the limitations there, also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif All human ears are different, as are all human test subjects, but you can't control for them perfectly; the best you can do is sample enough of them, create an artificial standard, or cancel that variable out.

So you are saying that measurements are not definitive. I agree!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Saying "we can't argue this because everyone's ears are different" creates a reality whereby you can't falsify a hypothesis, and therefore you can't have a scientific discussion. It's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.

We can (and do) argue technical standards and we are right now having a scientific discussion, therefore there is no logical fallacy. But we can't argue away the idea that everyone's ears are different, that is a scientific fact, both observable and measurable. From a scientific viewpoint, that (and other factors concerning our perception of sound through the medium of headphones) complicates our models, to be sure. The complications are enough that the reserchers in this field haven't come to firm conclusions (as noted in the article I referenced earlier), so I am not so egotistical as to think I can

.

Kevin

Kevin

 

[hagatha]

Greetings,

These are a special HP... I'm about 1/2 way thru my burn in... I've been listening to every thing from Mozart, to ACDC... I love them...

What I believe is called the sound stage is some where around row 10, right now... I expect to get to row 6... The clarity is WOW... on the bright side... The bass is there but will pick up as they age... I'm using a FUBAR 4+ amp thru my computer sound card... I'll report back on these SA5000's later on...

I'm burning some of my CD's to both 320 & FLAC... I really can't tell any difference...

hagatha

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagatha /img/forum/go_quote.gif Greetings, These are a special HP... I'm about 1/2 way thru my burn in... I've been listening to every thing from Mozart, to ACDC... I love them... What I believe is called the sound stage is some where around row 10, right now... I expect to get to row 6... The clarity is WOW... on the bright side... The bass is there but will pick up as they age... I'm using a FUBAR 4+ amp thru my computer sound card... I'll report back on these SA5000's later on... I'm burning some of my CD's to both 320 & FLAC... I really can't tell any difference... hagatha

Glad to read you are enjoying such a nice pair of headphones.

Regarding file quality, I think the more you become aware of everything the SA5K can pick up, the more you will want to rip them to lossless just to be on the safe side. Some recordings show it more than others, but the SA5K is not afraid to let you know when it wants higher fidelity.

What kind of soundcard are you using?

 

[crumpler]

I've just pulled the trigger on a pair of new MDR-SA5000s and they are on their way here as we speak!

I've been looking for a pair of full-sized cans that share the exact same qualities as the UM3X that i so dearly love and after reading this thread as well as the other 2 MDR-SA5000 impressions threads, i'm really looking forward to them arriving sometime early next week.

With terms like transparency, detail, clarity, speed, resolution tossed around and used so liberally in describing these cans, i think i may just have gotten my own personal holy grail of full-size cans.

Only time will tell!

 

[ford2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crumpler /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've just pulled the trigger on a pair of new MDR-SA5000s and they are on their way here as we speak! I've been looking for a pair of full-sized cans that share the exact same qualities as the UM3X that i so dearly love and after reading this thread as well as the other 2 MDR-SA5000 impressions threads, i'm really looking forward to them arriving sometime early next week. With terms like transparency, detail, clarity, speed, resolution tossed around and used so liberally in describing these cans, i think i may just have gotten my own personal holy grail of full-size cans. Only time will tell!

Not to mention comfort and looks.