[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

 
Hmph, could have sworn you "overdogs" were the majority.  Maybe I haven't branched out enough into the other forums, but the only thing I have seen so far is the "overdogs" attacking/ganging up on the "underdogs" unprovoked, and a lot of times their attacks spill over onto the innocent who are here just trying to learn.
 
Funny how our biases can change our perspective of reality, huh?  

The fact you thinking I'm barking up any tree shows how overly-defensive and paranoid you are.  Suppose I was playing devil's advocate, but didn't actually expect to get Satan himself.  Sorry you're that sketched out to be here, but no need attacking random people because of unrelated negative experiences you've had.
 
How 'bout we split a Xanax?  You ready to hop on Skype?  PM your information.  The tone I'm getting from your text is pretty foul.  Perhaps body language can help clear some of that up, unless you have BO, get it?  Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck...

The word placebo is deemed offensive in head-fi and a worthy enough reason to get a thread locked. Should clearly illustrate who are the underdogs!

 

[gnarlsagan]

Maybe what Meremoth was trying to say is that sometimes people get overzealous promoting one particular sound signature as THE MOST ACCURATE REPRODUCTION OF SOUND IN EXISTENCE lol. And sometimes that happens. But remember there are competing standards (with headphones and iems not amps), and those standards sound different, like what was illustrated with the recent Olive-Welti tests. Some people have been insisting the old DF standard *sounded* wrong, and with these new studies they might be vindicated. This is just one (and maybe the only) example that I think fits what Meremoth was referring to.

Of course the testing is still the basis for all these findings, it's just when describing accurate sound signatures in headphones and iems we should be somewhat open to differing opinions, because no one standard explains accuracy.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

 
Equally valid?  Because 60 FPS full of runt and ghost frames is equal to 60 full frames?  Wrong.

 
How about 44,100 samples per second? Is that enough?
 
There is a limit to how much is enough.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

I guess I could have just said "science once said the earth was flat, now it's round", but that's a lot more general, overused, and fairly cliche.

I think you could say that the religious authorities who propagated the flat earth theory were subjectivists, and Magellan was an objectivist.

 

[Meremoth]

Underdogs, overdogs, agnosticdogs, and cartoon dogs... in the end we're nothing but a bunch of scroungy mutts.  
 
 
gnarlsagan got it!  Of course astrophysicists kinda gotta be open minded, don't they?    

 

[esldude]

Quote:

Underdogs, overdogs, agnosticdogs, and cartoon dogs... in the end we're nothing but a bunch of scroungy mutts.  
 
 
gnarlsagan got it!  Of course[size=12.666666984558105px] [/size][size=12.800000190734863px]astrophysicists kinda gotta be open minded, don't they?    [/size]

I am glad gnarsagan got it, and when I read your posts Meremoth, that is about how I thought you intended them.  That a standard of accuracy might be overbearing, and in the end not necessarily correct. I think what objectives try to do is be sure when something is heard there is really an objective difference, and the difference isn't due to factors unrelated to physical sound characteristics.  One can put forth a proposed goal of frequency response for accurate headphones.  That would be open to taste and other factors.  One can also put forth the idea something sounds different upstream.  If simple measurement show that the sound coming out of the headphone in fact did not change, then whatever happened upstream isn't responsuble for it.  Often the heard difference is not due to a physical sound difference, but due to other factors.  Objective minded audiophiles try and not fool themselves on such matters in order to make headway with actual problems or to implement genuine sound reproduction improvements.  
 
So objective audiophiles cannot tell you the one true way your headphones should sound best to you. Only you can decide that.  They can tell you however that changing the digital cable feeding your DAC didn't make any change in the sound you hear with your headphones.  Some people claim to hear those differences from changing an upstream cable, but those in fact don't usually change the signal at all so cannot be responsible for any heard difference.  

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Maybe what Meremoth was trying to say is [...]

Thank you for translating. I felt he talked about something completely different (like hearing differences between cables, amps, DACs ...), but I'm happy we finally somehow got it.
 
What personal preference for different sound signatures has to do with validity of DF... I really don't know.
 
Just like with the previous example, diffuse field equalization didn't somehow get "invalidated" or is now "wrong". No, it's still as valid as before.
Using it as equalization target for headphones might not be the best idea, and a quick comparison with calibrated speakers (if you even need that) will show that it's "off", but that doesn't change the result of a power sum of all HRTFs in 3D. Just by looking at the definition we can see that it's not an ideal target for headphones.
 
I always equalized my headphones and used crossfeed to sound like calibrated speakers. More or less DF equalized headphones are definitely a better starting point than headphones with a seemingly random response. But all of that just matters if you're interested in accurate reproduction and are not scared of DSP.

 

[miceblue]

Hi all, I'll be subscribing to this thread too. I'm interested in expanding my knowledge in the science of audio.
 
I'm guessing most of you know this already but Tyll of Innerfidelity just posted a new article on his website:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response
 
Quote:

My Closing Thoughts
I believe the work being done by Dr. Olive and his team brought out in these three papers represents a significant step forward in the development better headphone for us all. To summarize:

1. The first paper shows that there is a direct relationship between measured performance of headphones and the listening experience. Listeners strongly tend to prefer neutral, even amplitude response, and good bass extension.
2. The second paper shows that the long time diffuse-field target curve is not preferred by listeners. People prefer headphones that mimic the sound of good speakers in a good room.
3. The final paper describes a method for virtual double-blind headphone testing that is efficient and discriminating, allowing manufacturers and researchers a less onerous method for evaluating headphone performance.

I'll have to read the article and papers when I get the chance but those closing thoughts were interesting to me.

 

[uchihaitachi]

Hi all, I'll be subscribing to this thread too. I'm interested in expanding my knowledge in the science of audio.

I'm guessing most of you know this already but Tyll of Innerfidelity just posted a new article on his website:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-researchers-make-important-headway-understanding-headphone-response

I'll have to read the article and papers when I get the chance but those closing thoughts were interesting to me.

Have a read of Sean Olive's blog. It has a much more in depth analysis of the experiment mentioned on Tyll's website.

 

[Don Hills]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihaitachi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Quote:

That's a whole lot of processing going on, and it's actually not all that easy to fool. 

 
Doesn't seem to apply for audiophiles. 

 
Accurate identification of sounds and source directions is a positive surivival attribute, so it's not surprising that it's a hard to fool system.
You have to want to be fooled...

 

[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

 
Accurate identification of sounds and source directions is a positive surivival attribute, so it's not surprising that it's a hard to fool system.
You have to want to be fooled...

Darwinian evolution is trumped by head-fi indoctrination. 

 

[Meremoth]

Quote:

 
How about 44,100 samples per second? Is that enough?
 
There is a limit to how much is enough.

 
Your snide, spammy one liners are incredibly annoying.
 
You'd think after 10,000 posts someone would learn how to multi-quote instead of spamming 2-3 posts in a row... 

 

[bigshot]

It wasn't intended to be snide. You were talking about video frame rates and interlacing. The equivalent to that in digital audio is sampling rate. 44,100 samples per second / clean, no interlacing.

Just talk with us. We're happy to talk with you. No reason to get all huffy.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

It wasn't intended to be snide. You were talking about video frame rates and interlacing. The equivalent to that in digital audio is sampling rate. 44,100 samples per second / clean, no interlacing.

Just talk with us. We're happy to talk with you. No reason to get all huffy.

Pretty sure that's not quite what he's talking about. He better explain the analogy himself about how video cards cheating on benchmarks by spewing out half-finished frames (or whatever he's talking about) is relevant to whatever audio issue he wants to discuss (since not even that can be ascertained anymore) or he better not blame people here for not getting it or acting like he's winning the argument because we don't get it. This is not a computer gaming forum after all.

Pretty sure he's just stirring things up in this subforum for the lulz right now. He asked for my skype contact but never added me. Sounds like "BO" is something very insulting that I don't know about too. We should probably just start reporting his posts and see if the mods would lock him out of this threa, this subforum, or something. God knows hes got plenty of room to play outside here and they have banned enough of us from the whole forum outright...

 

[Meremoth]

Quote:

Pretty sure that's not quite what he's talking about. He better explain the analogy himself about how video cards cheating on benchmarks by spewing out half-finished frames (or whatever he's talking about) is relevant to whatever audio issue he wants to discuss (since not even that can be ascertained anymore) or he better not blame people here for not getting it or acting like he's winning the argument because we don't get it. This is not a computer gaming forum after all.

Pretty sure he's just stirring things up in this subforum for the lulz right now. He asked for my skype contact but never added me. Sounds like "BO" is something very insulting that I don't know about too. We should probably just start reporting his posts and see if the mods would lock him out of this threa, this subforum, or something. God knows hes got plenty of room to play outside here and they have banned enough of us from the whole forum outright...

 
All you have done is ignore my main point and focus on my analogy that was only meant to be an analogy.  What's your obsession of only focusing on that aspect of it and nothing else?  You keep posting over and over about it.  Are you finished?  Do you feel better now?
 
Also, what's the deal with you butting in when I'm talking to other people that has nothing to do with you?  Do you have no self control?  Are you that obsessed with my analogy?  You realize how hypocritical you're being, yes?
 
Just now saw your PM.  I'm getting on Skype right now, we're going to hash this out. 
 
Edit:  Don't dodge, Joe.  I'm waiting for you to accept my request on Skype.  You're not going to talk all big and bad and then shy away, are you?