[nichifanlema]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Radar I believe they're the 7509.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiPi V7 are like the 900ST, yes. http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showt...1&highlight=V7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Scarpitti No, the 7509 is the V900.

what the heXX

so many suggestions..............

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver However, the CR plot fot the V6's failed to pick up the serious treble boost at about 10kHz. (It's strange that CR only showed graphs for the V6's and a Sony headphone which rated much lower than even the V6's.)

1st, the audibility of an abberation can be generally predicted relative to it's amplitude, band and width. I don't even remember how wide that spike was, but a spike of less then 1/3 octave would not be obvious, and even one that is 1/2octave would have small change on sound. 2nd, the spikes/nulls in the upper treble are often results of the physical distance of the earphone from ear, pad to pad spacing, total ear structure interaction, etc.


Quote:

And I think that the DIY plots by j-curve are much closer to the actual truth than any of the lab measurements, as far as Sony V6's are concerned. And I may be starting to agree with j-curve's plots on the CD2000's, as well

At least headoom's meaurements are made on a calibrated system and have a nuetral point of reference. J-Labs were mde under the worst possible conditions: the frequency response of the mic is not known, done with inserted mics in ears(how did he consistantly place themin the exact depth every time?), he applied a transfer function to ever curve based on the HD580 -- so the curves you see are not even direct measurements.

These are more useful then headroom's measurments?

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Scarpitti Yes, there are too many. Some people can't hear, and they post here anyway. Some people can't argue their way out of a paper box, yet they argue here. Such people think affirming the consequent makes their premises true. Nope.

Are you one of those that can't argue their way out of a cardboard box? Just wondering since all i've heard so far is a repeated declaration of dislike for the headphone. Oddly, though, you seem to believe that you should impose your opinion of like/dislike on others. This is perplexing. Especially at this forum where tyically its about nothing but subjective like or dislike. Do you realize different people may like different sound? I don't see anything for you to argue. How does one argue/disagree with someone's purely subjetive opinion such as headphone sound preference? So, if John Doe likes item X and you don't like item X. Item X thus must suck too everyone because you don't like item X?

-Chris

 

[PeterR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Scarpitti Such people think affirming the consequent makes their premises true. Nope.

Sounds like someone we know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle Driver I agree with you and archosman also, that there are too many A-holes F'ing up forums such as these. You can't reliably measure(...)

I'm more than open to discussing the validity of measurements, but somehow I'd have expected a certain level of civility from a long time member and moderator of this forum. Guess not.
I'm outta here.

 

[Mr.Radar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nichifanlema what the heXX so many suggestions..............

What happened was I posted that I though the V7's were the 7509's, but then JiPi corrected me by posting that they were the 900ST's and then Mike further corrected me by posting that the 7509 are the V900's.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx Are you one of those that can't argue their way out of a cardboard box? Just wondering since all i've heard so far is a repeated declaration of dislike for the headphone. Oddly, though, you seem to believe that you should impose your opinion of like/dislike on others. This is perplexing. Especially at this forum where tyically its about nothing but subjective like or dislike. Do you realize different people may like different sound? I don't see anything for you to argue. How does one argue/disagree with someone's purely subjetive opinion such as headphone sound preference? So, if John Doe likes item X and you don't like item X. Item X thus must suck too everyone because you don't like item X? -Chris

I bought them twice, because I thought they had some merits. The flaws, however, outweigh their merits. If you're so poor that $65 is all you can afford, you should not be arguing about headphones at all. Only in relation to much better products and lesser-priced ones can one form an intelligent opinion about the merits of this one. My first car was a Volkswagon Beetle. In 1973 I thought it was the best thing in the world, but I now know better....

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterR Sounds like someone we know? I'm more than open to discussing the validity of measurements, but somehow I'd have expected a certain level of civility from a long time member and moderator of this forum. Guess not. I'm outta here.

Do you know the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent? It can also be called the fallacy of false causes.

Here's a vaild argument:

1. It's snowing.
2. It can only snow when it's cold enough to snow.
2. Therefore, it's cold enough to snow.

Here's an invalid one:

1. It's cold enough to snow.
2. It can only snow when it's cold enough to snow.
3. Therefore, it's snowing.

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Scarpitti Only in relation to much better products and lesser-priced ones can one form an intelligent opinion about the merits of this one. My first car was a Volkswagon Beetle. In 1973 I thought it was the best thing in the world, but I now know better....

You avoided what I actually said....okay.

I would agree with what you say in this post, about comparing 'better' products, but that's it. You can not nescarrily correlate cost with absolute 'bettter'. This does not address anything I said in the last post.

-Chris

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx You avoided what I actually said....okay. I would agree with what you say in this post, about comparing 'better' products, but that's it. You can not nescarrily correlate cost with absolute 'bettter'. This does not address anything I said in the last post. -Chris

I actually bought them twice.

There are two aspects of this that I'd like to clarify: the matters of fact and the matters of opinion.

I ended up not keeping them BECAUSE they DO have serious irregularities in their frequency repsonse: boosted, flabby bass, and shrill upper midrange/high end. That is NOT a matter of opinion. 'Liking' or 'not liking' them is a matter of personal taste, but their frequency-response is certainly a matter of fact. I actually find the bass boost interesting for certain material, but I cannot take the shrillness, so I got rid of them a second time.

 

[WmAx]

Why don't you subject yourself to this standard?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Scarpitti Do you know the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent? It can also be called the fallacy of false causes. Here's a vaild argument: 1. It's snowing. 2. It can only snow when it's cold enough to snow. 2. Therefore, it's cold enough to snow. Here's an invalid one: 1. It's cold enough to snow. 2. It can only snow when it's cold enough to snow. 3. Therefore, it's snowing.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Scarpitti I actually bought them twice. I ended up not keeping them BECAUSE they DO have serious irregularities in their frequency repsonse: boosted, flabby bass, and shrill upper midrange/high end. That is NOT a matter of opinion. 'Liking' or 'not liking' them is a matter of personal taste, but their frequency-response is certainly a matter of fact. I actually find the bass boost interesting for certain material, but I cannot take the shrillness, so I got rid of them a second time.

Boosted compared to what? You can only do this relatively(and not very accurate since it must be done sighted -- no way to DBT headphones). I understand your proclomatins about to other headphones; but as to actual accuracy?

I was very specific and stated my experimental conditions for evaluating the mid/treble balance and was extremely specific as in relation 'to what' previously in this thread. You did not; and I expect you made this as most do: with recordings you were not in attendance when made, nor in knowledge of the mods made to the recordings nor the mics used or the mic positions used.

-Chris

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx Why don't you subject yourself to this standard? -Chris

I believe I do.

Can you claim that I do not? If so, point that out to me, please. I'm open to criticism.

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Scarpitti I believe I do. Can you claim that I do not? If so, point that out to me, please. I'm open to criticism.

Stax thread: you are concluding your 'percieved' speed/detail is becuase of the mass without evidence that specifically substantiates this conclusion. But, if you are operating on an improper premise that mass is the decided factor for 'speed' then you may be justified for your false conclusion and have not violated your own standard.

-Chris

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx Boosted compared to what? You can only do this relatively(and not very accurate since it must be done sighted -- no way to DBT headphones). I was very specific and stated my experimental conditions for evaluating the mid/treble balance and was extremely specific as in relation 'to what' previously in this thread. You did not; and I expect you made this as most do: with recordings you were not in attendance when made, nor in knowledge of the mods made to the recordings nor the mics used or the mic positions used. -Chris

Compared to 'flat'. Compared to all the other headphones and speakers I own (or have owned) whose accuracy (or lack thereof) is known to me. I own some pretty good stuff, including Stax Lambdas, D-77 Eggos, and Yamaha NS1000M studio monitors, so the failings of any product will stand out pretty stongly.

The D-77 Eggos are very flat overall, for instance, when used properly for their intended application (portables).

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx Stax thread: you are concluding your 'percieved' speed/detail is becuase of the mass without evidence that specifically substantiates this conclusion. -Chris

I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. I understand how the Stax work, and I can hear the benefits when I use them.

When I first acquired Stax SRX-III's in 1977, I was astonished at their speed and clarity. I read up about them so I would understand how they work. What fallacy do you find in this? Anyone who is interested in learning about how electrostatic headphones work is free to read the published material.