[Zalithian]

This is all pretty much irrelevant. What's musical to one person is not musical to another. Some people like flat response, some people like coloring in their music. If someone doesn't like a low sugar cake and someone likes a cake with 2x the normal amount of sugar - it's all personal preference. Let each person enjoy music how they like it, no point arguing over which is more musical.

A movie like Glengarry Glen Ross is pretty boring to most people, but in terms of film making I'd consider it a very good movie. It's pretty artistic even though it doesn't have sex scenes and explosions everywhere. Other people prefer movies with poor acting (usually, not always) and just tons of action. Some people prefer horror movies with a lot of violence and gore.

Point is who cares what one person considers musical, or artsy, or whatever. The only person who should matter in regards to that is the person listening. Defining something to one person when it can vary from person to person is kind of silly, just imo.

Back on topic, Sigh @ Voltage.

 

[MaloS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dookiex /img/forum/go_quote.gif Malos, you're right, I totally do not understand oarnura. For some reason, I don't think that listening to music is the same as monitoring a mix which oarnura certainly feels is the same thing. By the way, I love Kiss In what ways does the Kiss albums sound horrible apart from you preference in genres? Sigh. I'll say this from my own experience, only time I want accuracy and neutrality during a mix is to check for the recording of each track and being able to adjust my levels. In other words, I'm using it to make sure that my recordings are good and not flawed. The final listen of how good a mix sounds is still done on standard listening equipment. Here lies the issue: Monitoring equipment is used differently than equipment used to listen to music. They also have different characteristics. If you can't comprehend that and insist on them being the same and interchangeable, then I can't help you there. Good luck with that.

1. There is nothing wrong with liking Kiss as music (well, maybe there is, but that has nothing to do with point at hand).
2. Kiss is poorly mastered. Bad reference of good recording work.

3. Monitoring equipment can be used however you want, sure. But strictly speaking, a set of monitors is supposed to be as resolved and as flat as possible. Why? ... I am crying why I have to tell you this...
If we want to have a reproduction (yes, reproduction of music), we want it to sound like the original (again, r e p r o d u c t i o n). That means we want: equipment used to record the signal as neutral as possible. Equipment used to play it back as neutral as possible. Because we take that - we reference using flat, yes, flat monitors. Good, highly resolved monitors and a properly done mix (plenty of those exist in classical, jazz, electronica...) - you hear things exactly, clearly, as a reproduction of the idea. If your music does not sound good on neutral monitors, you either ****ed up the recording or your music sucks. Translation: if your music is music, you don't need a colored system to fix it...and no amount of color is going to turn poor music into good music.

4. You don't quite have things straight. Recordings are referenced and played back on mediocre systems by alot of engineers because they are trying to achieve certain sound on listener's system. That is technically stupid, because consumer systems, apart from boosted midbass, don't sound alike at all. What they probably can achieve is not having their recording suffer from overblown midbass, and probably make it louder at the cost of resolution (since low-end consumer systems don't have much of it anyways). By the way - that is popular with recordings that are then put on the radio. Make it as loud as possible so the song stands out from the rest...business is business.

5. For certain genres there will be less effort to tailor it to absent-minded consumer (not even his system, keep in mind, mastering for car systems and such is specifically to get the consumer to buy the record), everything is done such that it truly shines on a neutral system.

6. Where would a warm system be preferable? Where the recording is for some reason flawed. Warmer, more midrange/bass oriented systems help mask problems. Appropriate for older recordings (pre-80s), or recordings that just weren't done with actual listening experience on high end systems in mind (tailored to absent-minded consumer...again).

7. Mind you - if noone mixed things to stand out on low-end systems, there would be no problems. Quality recording sounds better than poor ones on poor systems also - but it is far less apparent. But because someone figured out a trick to make their stand out somehow in that market, going by standard game theory result about how competing manufacturers behave, many people have to follow similar suit.

"Monitoring equipment is used differently than equipment used to listen to music. They also have different characteristics. If you can't comprehend that and insist on them being the same and interchangeable, then I can't help you there. Good luck with that."

Suburban myth. Well...unless all your records have sucky mastering. =)

 

[MaloS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zalithian /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is all pretty much irrelevant. What's musical to one person is not musical to another. Some people like flat response, some people like coloring in their music. If someone doesn't like a low sugar cake and someone likes a cake with 2x the normal amount of sugar - it's all personal preference. Let each person enjoy music how they like it, no point arguing over which is more musical. A movie like Glengarry Glen Ross is pretty boring to most people, but in terms of film making I'd consider it a very good movie. It's pretty artistic even though it doesn't have sex scenes and explosions everywhere. Other people prefer movies with poor acting (usually, not always) and just tons of action. Some people prefer horror movies with a lot of violence and gore. Point is who cares what one person considers musical, or artsy, or whatever. The only person who should matter in regards to that is the person listening. Defining something to one person when it can vary from person to person is kind of silly, just imo. Back on topic, Sigh @ Voltage.

Well yes, the plot itself is up to taste. But everyone prefers HD =). Also I have a hard time imagining why someone would find all movies better just because all characters are fatter.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zalithian /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is all pretty much irrelevant. What's musical to one person is not musical to another. Point is who cares what one person considers musical, or artsy, or whatever. The only person who should matter in regards to that is the person listening. Defining something to one person when it can vary from person to person is kind of silly, just imo. Back on topic, Sigh @ Voltage.

You are missing the point. Dookiex claimed that all BA based IEMs are flawed because the technology itself is clinical sounding. Dynamics, especially his EX700, are perfect because Dynamics are "musical".

Also making a claim that Accurate/Neutral sounding gear isn't "musical" is not a preference.

Both of what was said above are not preferences. They are claims that don't stand up to scrutiny or reason.

Like Malos pointed out. Stuff that sounds great on very revealing gear will sound great on lesser consumer oriented gear.. stuff that only sounds great on lower end consumer gear will only sound great on lowerend gear. But will sound horrible on high end gear.

Most new popular recordngs are mastered loud and designed to be played on low end gear. They sound terrible on neutral/revealing gear.

Claiming that low end gear or colored gear is "musical" because it makes bad recordings sound great is nonsense.

A mcdonalds burger and a Kobe beef top of the line burger will sound the same if drowned in lots of ketchup. The ketchup will mask the lack of taste of mcdonalds burger while killing the nuances of the Kobe beef burger. The Kobe beef burger will still taste better even with the ketchup. Remove the ketchup and the lack of taste in the Mcdonalds burger is more apparent.

Coloration to make something "musical" is like adding ketchup to Kobe beef steak.

 

[dookiex]

SOOOOOOOO long story short. You match your equipment to make what you listen to sound good. THUS, let me say this again, unless all you listen to are material suitable with your neutral and analytical phones, your points equates to... nothing. Why? Because the majority of us do not listen to that tiny fraction of music that are suitable for just the neutral and analytical phones. Sigh. You can wave your flag at me all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that a neutral and analytical sound is just not suitable for most music, thus back to my point, the BAs are lacking in this department. I can understand if you are making your judgment call on that niche genre of music (whichever that is, I am not all that familiar with, but even malos has stated, popular music are recorded differently, but then again, that's popular music isn't it? the majority in this case would be buying equipment to listen to popular music, so why are you forcing the neutrality and analytical argument?!?). Enough, once again Head-Fi has turned into a breeding ground of what amounts to a lot of nonsense when it comes to most users listening habits.

oarnura, your argument still amounts to zilch as you keep making it sound like you've ran the gamut of listening thoroughly to dynamics and BAs but the long and short of it is that you're making you call based off of apparently just the Turbines. You also brought up the point of the IE7s being $300 as if I was competing with you on who has the most expensive phones. Just because malos came on to define the details of recording and mastering music, you've took it upon yourself to try to say that whomever does not agree that neutral and analytical is the only way to listen to music is ridiculous. Apparently you feel that there's coloration on all dynamics because you are familiar with Turbines and Bose. Sad state of affairs I must say.

 

[Zalithian]

I don't agree with Dookie that BA's are flawed and don't sound musical, but I also don't agree that adding coloration can't make something sound more musical.

I don't think I'm missing the point either Oarnura. This argument seems to be what is musical and what is not. It varies from person to person. Nobody here really has the right to claim what is musical or not for every person.

Dookie probably should have used more careful wording, or he really just doesn't feel that BA's are musical. If he does feel that way, I disagree with him strongly as well but I feel that's his opinion. If you want to argue his claim you're free to do so, but I really feel it's more of a misunderstanding. I think what he's trying to get across is BA's are boring (to him) and he prefers dynamic drivers to spice up his music.

Nobody knows exactly how the artist really intends for music to sound. You can play a song on 1000 different devices and with the combinations of headphones, speakers, iems, file quality etc and it will never sound exactly the same - especially person to person. That's why I feel it's pointless to argue or claim BA's tend to be more how the artist intends it to sound.

A Mcdonalds Burger may indeed pale in comparison to a Kobe beef burger, but someone may like the Mcdonalds burger better with the extras it comes with. That lettuce, tomato, ketchup etc add flavor. Some people just might like cheaper tasting stuff better. I regularly eat buffalo tenders and I dip them in Bleu Cheese. Is that some kind of crime because I'm not enjoying the pure taste of the Buffalo Tenders? No, not really. I do it because I enjoy it more so than just the plain old tenders. That's no different than adding coloration to music to make it more palatable, in my opinion.

You like chicken tenders with no sauce? That's fine. Dookie likes chicken tenders with a ton of sauce on the side? Cool. Each person has a different interpretation of things such as music, art, food, etc. There's no point arguing over what is considered musical. Music is meant to be enjoyed, and I feel that arguing over what someone enjoys or does not enjoy as music is just stupid. As long as someone enjoys the music, who cares if they used an EQ or have certain frequencies boosted to enjoy it?

And to reiterate, I understand where you're coming from Oarnura but I do think it was just poor wording on Dookie's part and it's nothing to waste further time on. I love some of my BA phones I've had, and I love some of my dynamic phones as well. I listen to what is the best for my mood, music, dap, and other factors. Nobody has to choose between BA or Dynamic, although some people might prefer. It's kind of dumb to say one is superior or inferior to the other as a state of fact. As an opinion, it's really just a preference as far as I'm concerned.

Hopefully we can get back on topic if necessary. If everyone involved had simply added in my opinion, none of this would be an issue. I think the opinions are just coming out in the wrong fashion so it seems as if it's not one.

 

[dookiex]

Amen Zalithian, I've created a mountain out of a ant hill with my laziness to not go over carefully what I type, but then again, I'm glad I did make my posts as I've grasped some ideas and shared it on Head-Fi. These ideas I thought about before but never bothered to post. Mainly the reason BAs are so popular and dynamics haven't been until recently especially with the Senns. Again, think about this:

BAs became popular because Ety's bought a niche to a broader audience. Then comes Shure and UE. What do they all have in common? They've built their companies by investing heavily in BA technology. No way in hell are they going to reinvest in dynamics until they really can't squeeze all they can out of BAs. Same goes for a company like Sony, they've made their investments in dynamics thus they haven't put out any BAs. Let's take a look at Sennheisers, they've had the right sense to use dynamics because it achieves the sound they wish to produce. Is it a low end product with low end sound? I certainly hope not and apparently it's an excellent product that's comparing favourably if not better than the top tier BAs. Look at the trend now, new companies have slowly popped up and shifting to producing dynamic drivers again. In a few years I am willing to wager that dynamics would be on the forefront again with BAs fading into the background because honestly, they've tweaked and tweaked and I don't see how they are going to sound any better than they currently are (Westone 3s may be different as malos seems to love them, I need to get a pair in my ears first, who knows, maybe I'll see the "light"). There is however more growth for dynamics because only a short while ago nobody believed that a pair of, for the sake of simplicity, IE 8s could be possible. There's a lot of leg room for growth with dynamics yet BAs have more or less stopped out. Again, trends and the hype train.

FOR THE LAST TIME OARNURA: my point was that BAs make a much bigger compromise to get a nice equilibrium of warmth and detail while dynamics are able to make a much smaller compromise. It's not that BAs are always clynical and dynamics are not. We got to the clynical part because you thought that it would be nice to argue about accuracy and musicality (again, NOT THE SAME BLOODY THING, GEEZE). Get this in your head, get it right: BAs to sound both detailed and warm ='s compromise which is noticeable. Dynamics to sound both detailed and warm ='s less of a compromise. Which one makes less compromises? Dynamics. Bloody ell.

 

[Zalithian]

I suppose, but either way just because a majority of people like something doesn't make it better. Whether or not more people like BA's or Dynamics doesn't necessarily reflect how good they are. I don't think BA's will fade away, although they might lose some of their market share in a sense. There will always be room for improvement until some incredible technology replaces them. For now I'd consider dynamics an alternative more so than an improvement. For some they're better, for some they're not.

As for proof that the majority doesn't always determine quality - well, a walk around my college campus to see that almost everyone has an ipod and ibuds is proof enough for me.

 

[dookiex]

See Zalithian, here's the trouble on Head-Fi, if you don't subscribe to the trend on HEAD-FI then folks on here just figures that you are an idiot and lumps you with the kids with the iPods and stock buds on your campus. I pointed out my views and voila, out comes oarnura from the woodworks making these boisterous claims that dynamics are not good just because his experience has apparently been limited to Bose and the Turbines. Joy. If I was to make my posts about BA vs dynamics let's say a year from now when more high quality enthusiast market dynamics are out, I would not encounter this whole thing that I'm going back and forth with oarnura about. For all I care, he can make more comparison to foodstuff.

 

[Zalithian]

True, but unless I'm mistaken you also pretty much said BA's aren't musical among other things. To avoid this you should have added (in my opinion, to my ears, and maybe everyone else should too!) or something along those lines. Seems to take away some of my reasoning for coming here when there's arguments that I deem pointless but people can learn stuff from them occasionally so meh. It's not like I'm being forced to read them. Oarnura, Malos and yourself are big boys and can argue about whatever you like.

I don't see anything else in this thread for me so I probably won't be responding in here again. Sometimes debate is fun, but I didn't find this one worthwhile.

Hopefully we can all get along, but if not, nothing I can do about it

Bedtime. Good night!

 

[music_4321]

Sorry, wrong post.

---

 

[Arjisme]

Damn, what a serious bunch of thread crapping occurred in here.

 

[shigzeo]

i will admit to being a dynamic fan but i also like armatures. both are 'musical' in that they play music and can be melodious. both also can be harsh, untamed at rubbish. the argument that i read on this thread makes no sense. ournara is saying that low end systems cannot sound good and that only high end systems make real music and dookiex is saying that such a niche is too small to effect muscality of recordings.

i really don't get it.

ornaura: time and time again, mid to low fi stuff has been shown in blind tests to perform as well as high end stuff. high end stuff always sounds better when people know what system is playing the music. it always wins unless that specific brand is not in vogue. in fact, the same equipment can be used in a test and can be announced as a different better or worse equipment. as long as the equipment is announced differently, people will perceive a better or worse sound.

saying that dynamic is not neutral is admitting nearly every speaker, both high end and low is rubbish. what you don't like in dynamic phones (and not even all dynamics) is bass impact. impact has nothing to do with being neutral or not. music with bass and music without bass exists. if there is impact in the music, there had better be from your earphones. impact and texture is as much a part of the details as is sparkly treble.

what dynamics present is bass detailed music as they add another dimension to sound, visceral texture and resolution. what ba phones do well (generally and there are many exceptions to this) is presenting a great small but well placed sound stage and well spaced treble (generally).

dookiex: ba can be as musical but they will lack impact which is something vastly important to music from every headphone, every speaker and every part of sound. i dont' agree that ba phones are unmusical: that makes no sense. musicality means: "the quality of being melodious and tuneful" -this is accomplished by any speaker setup, any headphones setup or any hard disk array that makes music.

it has nothing to do with phones giving detail or impact. you can even tell that something is musical from another room without hearing it well. if we argue otherwise, we are giving meaning to a word that does not carry that meaning.

as for headfi: we are an audiophile community. audiophile is a hifi enthusiast. that means those who love treble, those who love mids, those who love bass; those who hate bass, those who hate treble, those who hate mids; those who hate bose, those who hate akg, those who hate krell; those who prescribe to other's opinions, those who only trust their own ears, those who follow trends. we are a community of beginners, wannabes, people who think they know, people who do, people who don't really care and then, arguers.

there is no argument that holds water that ba or dynamic phones are more or less musical or more or less nuetral. the ear then versus the body; the canal versus the outer ear. either way we argue: for sparkle, for lower resolution, for impact denies another part of the music.

speakers and systems with flat outputs will sound differently from headphones with flat outputs will sound different from iem's with flat outputs. each engage the ear, the body and the canal differently and thus the sound is changed, often completely.

 

[argada]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif there is no argument that holds water that ba or dynamic phones are more or less musical or more or less nuetral. the ear then versus the body; the canal versus the outer ear. either way we argue: for sparkle, for lower resolution, for impact denies another part of the music.

Well said!

Been following this argument all the way, although I don't really have a strong opinion for one or the other (BA/dynamic) I will say though, as far as argument goes, oarnura, you come off as being too aggressive. Making comments like:
Quote:

You argument doesn't hold water.

I don't believe your own arguments are much better to be honest. Lets break it down,

Quote:

The Dyanmics I have heard so far have been slow in transient response. The Turbines fail the bass resonance test on my test CD. Even the cheapest BA based phones fare a lot better. That has been my experience with the dynamic phones I have heard so far.

Quote:

All the dynamics I have heard sound fairly veiled to a certain extent.

Nothing wrong with using personal experience as a a premise of an argument, but these don't really hold a lot of weight when talking about dynamic technology in general, especially when you draw conclusions from these later on.

Quote:

Most don't use any headphones period. BA or dynamic doesn't matter.

Most? Sounds convincing when you stated it as a fact, but readers are given no evidence to support this claim.


Quote:

Riddle me this? Why is it that a vast majority of IEM manufacturers that sell in the pro market use BA or multiple BA. Where as consumer oriented brands and models use dynamic?

This does not entail one is superior to the other.


Quote:

Consumers think lots of boomy bass is good bass and musical. Most have never heard tight accurate bass. You will never get that from any headphone.

While most likely true, that is a pretty big statement you simply stated it without supporting evidence. Besides, you are in an argument with a person who clearly has more exposure to 'sound' than your average consumer, so it adds little to your argument.

Quote:

My tests are far more broad because I am using multiple data points vs your using two examples.

The fact that your tests are better than another poor test doesn't make it valid.

Quote:

No your claim is ludicrous and the vast majority the industry and people on head-fi seem to agree with me.

How do you know that? This topic has been pretty much you two back and forth, not very many people expressed their opinion. Even if the majority agree with you, doesn't mean he is wrong.

Quote:

EH! Most pro IEMs were BA. If dyanmics were truly a better technology as you posit. Why wouldn't companies invest in making them better for the pro market. It would be cheaper to develop one good dynamic driver than enclosures to house 3 BAs and crossover. Crossover design for IEMs probably are more expensive R&D wise than drive design.

Maybe they haven't gotten around to it? Well established production pipeline? recession? Maybe developing one good dynamic driver is not as easy as you think? There could be all sorts of reasons. You pretty much stated 3 BA and crossover is more expensive to develop than one dynamic driver. I don't design IEM's so I don't know for sure. But you see, as far as a valid argument goes, it is a lot easier for me to weaken your claim (it would be cheaper) than you to prove it.

Quote:

If your only reference for bass is the RSW-10D your really haven't heard clean, accurate musical bass. I am sorry. While it is a good sub it is not the best at producing great musical bass. ... We have already established that your reference for good bass isjust adequate.

So you don't own XXX gear, therefore you don't know what true sound is? Lets say a member here, owns a million dollar worth of audio equipment which obviously blows your RSW-10D out of the water, and this person said to you, "hey, you don't have my half a million dollar pair of speakers, therefore, you cannot know what REAL musical accuracy is, I am sorry." What would you say to that? Point is, a statement like that adds nothing to the argument.

Quote:

Prove this to me...Show me typical mastering equipment that isn't accurate or neutral but "musical".

I believe the burden of proof is in your court, he suggested there are mastering equipment that are musical, a more reasonable claim than your absolute one, i.e. all mastering equipment are accurate or neutral.

Quote:

A mcdonalds burger and a Kobe beef top of the line burger will sound the same if drowned in lots of ketchup. The ketchup will mask the lack of taste of mcdonalds burger while killing the nuances of the Kobe beef burger. The Kobe beef burger will still taste better even with the ketchup. Remove the ketchup and the lack of taste in the Mcdonalds burger is more apparent.

Now, like you said eariler, THAT is a pretty poor analogy.

Quote:

You are using one Dynamic and BA based phone to generalize what the entire technology type sounds like? Seriously!

You seem to be doing the same thing and most of your sentences start with "most people...", "most professionals..", "most companies...", these statement really lack any weight behind them.

Quote:

BAs have more clarity and precision than dynamics is is very obvious by just listening.

Quote:

BAs sound superior to dynamics end of story....A properly implemented BA based setup can out do any Dynamic.

And these conclusions are out of the blue, notice in your initial responses, you used terms like "in MY experience", now you are making generalized statements about the technology when you really haven't provided enough evidence to back these claims. Just because the topic is now 6 pages long and you typed a fair amount of text doesn't mean you can all of a sudden throw statements like these into the mix.

Quote:

I really can't read your posts unless you split them into paragraphs.

Irrelevant point, and his posts wasn't really that long anyway. Furthermore, you stated this multiple times, yet you are still here.

Quote:

I don't think there is such an IEM. (UE Triple.fi 5 Pros)

Also Irrelevant, and the fact that he got the model number wrong have no effect on the validity of his argument nor the strengths of yours.

 

[VoLTaG3]

[size=x-large]The Battle Of The Audiophiles: What Driver Is Better???[/size]