Edit to add - sonic preferences are subjective, hearing things that don’t exist due to other stimuli is just perceptual error.
Beyond just subjective, easily fooled, much more so than sight for example.
We can easily “hear” (actually perceive) differences that don’t even exist.
We don’t usually have such dramatic perceptual differences with sight by comparison because, for the most part sight is more reliable, logically because it was a more important sense for historic survival.
How many people believe you need to “break in” a new set of reading glasses ?
I am not going to extend the conversation because we know where that leads, but it frustrates me when people criticise someone like @MRSallee when he and the guy at No Theme Reviews actually make a proper effort to differentiate perception from hearing.
Folks talk a big game about their “hearing ability” in audiophile land without ever actually having genuinely tested “hearing” versus perception.
Beyond just subjective, easily fooled, much more so than sight for example.
We can easily “hear” (actually perceive) differences that don’t even exist.
We don’t usually have such dramatic perceptual differences with sight by comparison because, for the most part sight is more reliable, logically because it was a more important sense for historic survival.
How many people believe you need to “break in” a new set of reading glasses ?
I am not going to extend the conversation because we know where that leads, but it frustrates me when people criticise someone like @MRSallee when he and the guy at No Theme Reviews actually make a proper effort to differentiate perception from hearing.
Folks talk a big game about their “hearing ability” in audiophile land without ever actually having genuinely tested “hearing” versus perception.
If our job were to use our ears to measure air pressure waves, I’d agree with you. But we’re listening to music, not making scientific measurements.
As for your comparison to vision, you’re actually incorrect. Our vision is even more subjectively constructed than is our hearing (and is an area of research I specialize in), but that conversation would go well off topic. Our senses don’t need to be accurate in order to be useful for survival. They merely need to be juuust accurate enough. Our brains fill in (“hallucinate”) the rest.
As for hearing or not hearing differences between different amps, it seems to matter how often one listens to different amps. What might seem like negligible or nonexistent differences to one person will sound stark and obvious to another. But as a rule, I think it’s a bad idea to tell other people what they are or are not hearing. We all hear what we hear.
If our job were to use our ears to measure air pressure waves, I’d agree with you. But we’re listening to music, not making scientific measurements.
As for your comparison to vision, you’re actually incorrect. Our vision is even more subjectively constructed than is our hearing (and is an area of research I specialize in), but that conversation would go well off topic. Our senses don’t need to be accurate in order to be useful for survival. They merely need to be juuust accurate enough. Our brains fill in (“hallucinate”) the rest.
You are overextending the intention of my comments and argument, I am talking about things at a very basic level.
People can hear differences in sound between two identical devices if they don’t know they are identical, other factors such as expectation fool the auditory system.
People don’t see two different cars when they are the exact same cars but someone tells them they are different cars.
As I edited above, music and sound enjoyment is most definitely subjective, hearing differences that don’t exist is perceptual error.
If you ask @Jaytiss, he'd say no. In my personal opinion, it's doesn't hold up as better than it's little brother, the ISN H60. So is it TOTL sonically capable? Everyone will have their own opinions, but mine is that the H60, Elysian Noir, and Lime Ears Terra are better, but again, that itself could be debatable.
If our job were to use our ears to measure air pressure waves, I’d agree with you. But we’re listening to music, not making scientific measurements.
As for your comparison to vision, you’re actually incorrect. Our vision is even more subjectively constructed than is our hearing (and is an area of research I specialize in), but that conversation would go well off topic. Our senses don’t need to be accurate in order to be useful for survival. They merely need to be juuust accurate enough. Our brains fill in (“hallucinate”) the rest.
As for hearing or not hearing differences between different amps, it seems to matter how often one listens to different amps. What might seem like negligible or nonexistent differences to one person will sound stark and obvious to another. But as a rule, I think it’s a bad idea to tell other people what they are or are not hearing. We all hear what we hear.
%. Agree. My Clarinet sounds different from my FiiO Q1 III from my N3U from my Sony A55 from my R3 II from my Nunchaku. If you can't differentiate any of them sonically, that just your problem. Not mine. Less friends and connections?
You are overextending the intention of my comments and argument, I am talking about things at a very basic level.
People can hear differences in sound between two identical devices if they don’t know they are identical, other factors such as expectation fool the auditory system.
People don’t see two different cars when they are the exact same cars but someone tells them they are different cars.
Expectation bias cuts both ways. If you expect no difference, you are more likely not to hear one. If you expect a difference, you are more likely to hear one.
But, like I said, our senses are only juuust accurate enough to keep us from mistaking a lion’s roar from an engine roaring. But most of that has to do with context, not with the sound itself. Our senses are not merely “easily fooled,” they have been honed over eons of evolution to fool themselves.
What we hear in any context, not just with audio gear, is determined far more by context than by our ears. That’s survival at work.
Expectation bias cuts both ways. If you expect no difference, you are more likely not to hear one. If you expect a difference, you are more likely to hear one.
But, like I said, our senses are only juuust accurate enough to keep us from mistaking a lion’s roar from an engine roaring. But most of that has to do with context, not with the sound itself. Our senses are not merely “easily fooled,” they have been honed over eons of evolution to fool themselves.
What we hear in any context, not just with audio gear, is determined far more by context than by our ears. That’s survival at work.
However, we are talking about something very simplistic - believing one hears a difference with audio electronics or cables for example when the auditory experience/perception is inevitably coloured by other factors.
Your last sentence above pretty much agrees with that position yet you nor others are comfortable to admit that what difference they hear between say DAC/amp A and B might in fact only be due to perception error because, for example, one costs a lot more than the other.
I don’t care if people want to believe something that isn’t real but it pisses me off when they slag off someone like Mark at Super Review who actually makes an effort to identify genuine differences versus perceived differences and infers he is a deaf idiot.
Anyway, I got into this more than I intended so I will leave it there before anyone gets upset !!
I haven't heard the Loki. I've been fortunate to spend time with both the EBC80 and Omnium, though, and what I'll say is that they are too different to directly compare, besides pricing. To me, the EBC80 is a more relaxed, smooth IEM. It delivers very well; I quite enjoyed it. In it's price point I think it's very competative. The Omnium is completely different- a little less bass quantity, but the details are there, and the bass texture is better and more nuanced. The mids excel, and the treble details are miles apart from the EBC80 without being excessive.
However, we are talking about something very simplistic - believing one hears a difference with audio electronics or cables for example when the auditory experience/perception is inevitably coloured by other factors.
My point is that according to science (your preferred measure), there is no such thing as hearing without being “inevitably colored by other factors.” As an interesting aside, many experiments have been conducted since the mid-20th century that attempt to completely isolate one sense from the others. What happens? Every single subject hallucinates the other senses! It’s impossible for our brains to “isolate” a single sense from those “other factors.” Our brains are literally incapable of it.
Your last sentence above pretty much agrees with that position yet you nor others are comfortable to admit that what difference they hear between say DAC/amp A and B might in fact only be due to perception error because, for example, one costs a lot more than the other.
My point (and maybe others’) is that it’s not a “perception error.” That is our hearing working exactly the way it’s been evolutionarily engineered to work. Context is everything when it comes to our senses.
I don’t care if people want to believe something that isn’t real but it pisses me off when they slag off someone like Mark at Super Review who actually makes an effort to identify genuine differences versus perceived differences and makes statements like they are deaf idiots.
I disagree with some of Mark’s takes, but that doesn’t mean I think he’s a bad person or something. He and I regularly go back and forth on this stuff. We don’t all need to agree on everything in order for us to get along. It just means recognizing that not everyone hears what you do. And that’s okay.
My point is that according to science (your preferred measure), there is no such thing as hearing without being “inevitably colored by other factors.” As an interesting aside, many experiments have been conducted since the mid-20th century that attempt to completely isolate one sense from the others. What happens? Every single subject hallucinates the other senses! It’s impossible for our brains to “isolate” a single sense from those “other factors.” Our brains are literally incapable of it.
My point (and maybe others’) is that it’s not a “perception error.” That is our hearing working exactly the way it’s been evolutionarily engineered to work. Context is everything when it comes to our senses.
I disagree with some of Mark’s takes, but that doesn’t mean I think he’s a bad person or something. He and I regularly go back and forth on this stuff. We don’t all need to agree on everything in order for us to get along. It just means recognizing that not everyone hears what you do. And that’s okay.
And I am not trying to tell other people what they hear per your edit above.
Again, my point is extremely simple despite how nuanced you want to try and extend the discussion to become.
People say they “hear” differences in sound with all sorts of things. Believing they hear something is very real for them but it doesn’t make it real in the manner that most people talk about this stuff on forums like this.
I suspect they don’t even consider the impact of their other senses at all and don’t consider for a moment that their perception might not be due to genuine differences in electronics or cables for example.
If I say in a public forum that amplifier A sounds much better than B but my perception is due to something that exists only in my head and has no basis in the electronics or the signal reaching the drivers nor the sound waves exiting the drivers what value is that to anyone else ? I have fooled my auditory system but am passing on the sonic experience to others as being genuinely due to the amplifier differences, when there probably are none.
In my mind that would be literally deceiving people, and I use the term “literally” in the literal sense not in the more usual way literally meaning figuratively
Yet that scenario happens more or less constantly on Head Fi.
Someone talking about amazing synergy between headphone A, cable B and amplifier C are not often due to genuine electronic and electrical influences the synergy is in the majority of cases, not the outliers, only perception due to other factors.
Head meet brick wall discussion so let’s leave it there
Having things organized and at reach is the only way to keep one's sanity in this hobby. It all gets too messy too quickly.
While I'm currently better-half-less, I don't quite understand why so many seem to hide their passions from each other. And I get that it's mostly meant in jest, but some aren't. If the financial influx is great enough to cover bare necessities, save some for the unpredictable future, and on top of that have any leftovers, then why the heck not spend some on these little thrills in life.
Haha yikes! Do you have them labelled or is every session a guessing game?
Project M be looking at you like frequency dip at 10kHz??!
Sheer quantity of those DAPs never ceases to amaze me. Do you have a planned rotation for them or do you just grab what you fancy?
O-oh ... that's endgame talk right there.
Got these alongside @bithalver's Volare, since both will be travelling his way next. They fit well, look good, and come with a cable that's a gorgeous shade of blue and supple, but the sound was so subpar that I packed them back up in a matter of minutes.
As the fancy grabs I have a pretty good memory of which iem has the best synergy with which source. I'm Mr ADHD *actually on the spectrum. Hyperfocus is a blessing and a curse. Along with impulse control (lack of)
Edit
Also I have a huge music library so I split it between sources
And I am not trying to tell other people what they hear per your edit above.
Again, my point is extremely simple despite how nuanced you want to try and extend the discussion to become.
People say they “hear” differences in sound with all sorts of things. Believing they hear something is very real for them but it doesn’t make it real in the manner that most people talk about this stuff on forums like this.
I suspect they don’t even consider the impact of their other senses at all and don’t consider for a moment that their perception might not be due to genuine differences in electronics or cables for example.
If I say in a public forum that amplifier A sounds much better than B but my perception is due to something that exists only in my head and has no basis in the electronics or the signal reaching the drivers nor the sound waves exiting the drivers what value is that to anyone else ? I have fooled my auditory system but am passing on the sonic experience to others as being genuinely due to the amplifier differences, when there probably are none.
In my mind that would be literally deceiving people, and I use the term “literally” in the literal sense not in the more usual way literally meaning figuratively
Yet that scenario happens more or less constantly on Head Fi.
Someone talking about amazing synergy between headphone A, cable B and amplifier C are not often due to genuine electronic and electrical influences the synergy is in the majority of cases, not the outliers, only perception due to other factors.
Head meet brick wall discussion so let’s leave it there
But it’s not so “simple.” Hearing doesn’t work the way you think it does. All hearing and sound exists only in our minds. Otherwise, you’re just talking about pressure waves. There is no sound “in reality” separate from what our brains conjure up. That is sound. In reality.
And, yes, everyone else in the thread is rolling their eyes and/or adding us to their ignore lists.
But it’s not so “simple.” Hearing doesn’t work the way you think it does. All hearing and sound exists only in our minds. Otherwise, you’re just talking about pressure waves. There is no sound “in reality” separate from what our brains conjure up. That is sound. In reality.
And, yes, everyone else in the thread is rolling their eyes and/or adding us to their ignore lists.
I am well aware that hearing is a function of our brain and how our auditory experience is the sum of a number of factors, that is the very essence of my argument.
I feel like you want to find an argument for the sake of arguing rather than try to understand my point in the manner I intend. Or we just communicate differently.
Like I said, if my listening experience is influenced by factors other than the electrical properties of amplifier A but I believe it is all due to amplifier A and tell others that amplifier A made a genuine improvement, what value is there in that to others ? That was my experience based on factors other than the electrical properties yet I tell others it is due to the electrical properties.
I describe that as a perception error, you describe it as simply perception and how hearing works. The description is semantics but the reality is people discuss this stuff like it is a technical improvement due directly to the electronics when a lot of the time it is an improvement to them due entirely to psychological factors.
I don’t mind if people aren’t interested in this stuff, they are very welcome to skip right past.
And I am not trying to tell other people what they hear per your edit above.
Again, my point is extremely simple despite how nuanced you want to try and extend the discussion to become.
People say they “hear” differences in sound with all sorts of things. Believing they hear something is very real for them but it doesn’t make it real in the manner that most people talk about this stuff on forums like this.
I suspect they don’t even consider the impact of their other senses at all and don’t consider for a moment that their perception might not be due to genuine differences in electronics or cables for example.
If I say in a public forum that amplifier A sounds much better than B but my perception is due to something that exists only in my head and has no basis in the electronics or the signal reaching the drivers nor the sound waves exiting the drivers what value is that to anyone else ? I have fooled my auditory system but am passing on the sonic experience to others as being genuinely due to the amplifier differences, when there probably are none.
In my mind that would be literally deceiving people, and I use the term “literally” in the literal sense not in the more usual way literally meaning figuratively
Yet that scenario happens more or less constantly on Head Fi.
Someone talking about amazing synergy between headphone A, cable B and amplifier C are not often due to genuine electronic and electrical influences the synergy is in the majority of cases, not the outliers, only perception due to other factors.
Head meet brick wall discussion so let’s leave it there
Someone talking about amazing synergy between headphone A, cable B and amplifier C are not often due to genuine electronic and electrical influences the synergy is in the majority of cases, not the outliers, only perception due to other factors.
You want to leave it be there, but you very subtly but perceivably throw shade on not just me, but many others here, who talk about our synergy discoveries. It doesn't go unnoticed, my friend. You are discrediting people, or more accurately, trying to discredit what people say they hear, and coating it with "clever scientific word scrambles", but this is a dismissive. I'm sure the majority can agree on that, but we won't get drawn into escalations, because we've been here before.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
%. Agree. My Clarinet sounds different from my FiiO Q1 III from my N3U from my Sony A55 from my R3 II from my Nunchaku. If you can't differentiate any of them sonically, that just your problem. Not mine. Less friends and connections? 
