The Watercooler -- Impressions, philosophical discussion and general banter. Index on first page. All welcome.

[SBranson]

Perhaps "real" is when a natural sounding recording is played back accurately.

How 'bout them apples? LOL

My post could have used this kind of editing.. . Well put..

For me nothing comes close the the Elysium/M8/Plato though for “real”.

...yet... ha

 

[fzman]

Little green bae...

Dude! Your Shanling is haning out!

 

[fzman]

My post could have used this kind of editing.. . Well put..

For me nothing comes close the the Elysium/M8/Plato though for “real”.

...yet... ha

I wrote 5 drafts of a really long thought, and then just had an inspiration. I think it is amazing how genre can create such huge rifts on peoples' impressions of gear

 

[NewEve]

I have yet to sit down and do a solid comparison. But the Nio are warmer as they have a bit more mid bass and lower mids focus than the Jolene. Mids on the Jolene are a little more "natural" with that DD timbre, and treble feels like its more even on the Jolene. Theres a little bit of extra flavor on the Nio I guess owing to how 64 presents treble, with that dip after 10khz and then the rise again after 15khz. Soundstage is an interesting one too. I get a bit more of a "holographic" stage on the nio, though its small and mostly in head, but it feels like its in a little bubble, while the Jolene feels much wider, but withough maybe much depth or height. Its actually given me some weird sensations where I hear things in songs that I am not expecting, and think I heard something down the hall.

The Jolene is excellent, but I still love the Nio and I don't have any plans to get rid of it or anything. Its enough of a different sound to feel complimentary, plus I can definitely still see the benefits to keeping a nice pair of universals, especially with the apex tech, instead of just having one pair of customs.

Thanks, very interesting!

 

[fzman]

I never challenge whether people like or dislike a specific piece of gear-and am happy when folks fins stuff they love and really 'vibe' with. It's when people make seemingly objective pronoucements about how specific pieces sound, when they use 'articifically' created gentres that I take issue with. You can make comparative comments, as in X gives more bass than Y with such and such recording, but you have no way of knowing what's really on the recording.

as for the real vs natural stuff, acstic vs electronic instruments os one thing, where the 'middle ground' might be is in sound effects on movies. Bones are not really being broken (so I hope, at least). Does a better system convey the illusion that breaking celery coupled with certain visuals lets you believe it, or is the better system the one where you clearly can tell it's celery being broken on the Foley stage?

Al I know is I do not want cymbals to sound like bacvn frying.

 

[Rockwell75]

It's when people make seemingly objective pronoucements about how specific pieces sound, when they use 'articifically' created gentres that I take issue with.

I'd be curious to hear a specific example of this.

 

[fzman]

I'd be curious to hear a specific example of this.

I was speaking in general, across many sites blogs and in print

 

[SBranson]

I never challenge whether people like or dislike a specific piece of gear-and am happy when folks fins stuff they love and really 'vibe' with. It's when people make seemingly objective pronoucements about how specific pieces sound, when they use 'articifically' created gentres that I take issue with. You can make comparative comments, as in X gives more bass than Y with such and such recording, but you have no way of knowing what's really on the recording.

as for the real vs natural stuff, acstic vs electronic instruments os one thing, where the 'middle ground' might be is in sound effects on movies. Bones are not really being broken (so I hope, at least). Does a better system convey the illusion that breaking celery coupled with certain visuals lets you believe it, or is the better system the one where you clearly can tell it's celery being broken on the Foley stage?

Al I know is I do not want cymbals to sound like bacvn frying.

I would never infringe on the right of someone to prefer “a” over “b” and like you do not like “objective” statements. But, for the record, anything I say is “according to my preferences”, which kind of by definition I think are also correct.. ha ha.. If artificial descriptors includes my phrases of “real sounding” I guess I’m basing what I’m hearing based on experience. If I’m listening to this album:

...a recording using a historically significant instrument. I'm hoping to hear the instrument as realistically rendered as possible and I would rather a set up that did not confuse broken bones and broken celery..

 

[Verificateur]

Curious if it would be possible to get some impressions on CA Comet?

Looking for a wire-down IEM... and I guess the Comet comes up as an attractive option (price-wise), however not sure if this is where its attractiveness ends, perhaps it's worth extending to the Atlas?

As for use: looking to supplement my main IEM (UM Mest Mk2) with a comfortable, easy put-on/off & wire-down backup pair.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Sebastien Chiu]

Curious if it would be possible to get some impressions on CA Comet?

Looking for a wire-down IEM... and I guess the Comet comes up as an attractive option (price-wise), however not sure if this is where its attractiveness ends, perhaps it's worth extending to the Atlas?

As for use: looking to supplement my main IEM (UM Mest Mk2) with an easy put-on/off & on-the-go wire-down backup pair.

Thanks in advance!

Comet and Atlas are no comparison needed. Atlas is well worth the $500 you can easily find it for these days.

It's something I think you'd like quite well too signature wise considering you rock the MEST MK2

 

[Rockwell75]

I was speaking in general, across many sites blogs and in print

All good I was just curious what you meant by "artificially created genre".

Curious if it would be possible to get some impressions on CA Comet?

Looking for a wire-down IEM... and I guess the Comet comes up as an attractive option (price-wise), however not sure if this is where its attractiveness ends, perhaps it's worth extending to the Atlas?

As for use: looking to supplement my main IEM (UM Mest Mk2) with a comfortable, easy put-on/off & wire-down backup pair.

Thanks in advance!

I would 100% rec the Atlas over the Comet (I owned both...and actually the jump from the Comet to the Atlas was what kicked off my "audio journey" into full gear).

 

[Rockwell75]

May Update (Usual caveat that this is all subjective etc. etc.)

Just to be clear this list comes with no pretense of being an objective appraisal of these IEMs worth relative to one another (I'm not sure such a thing exists)-- it is merely a measure of how much I like each one based on my likes, wants, needs and preferences at this particular moment in time.

1) Vision Ears Elysium => Still the best due largely to its capacity to draw me in to a palace of bliss and intimacy.

2) Campfire Audio Dorado 2020 => I came for the bass but stayed for the fathomless depth and clarity and the naturally textured and bodied mids. The most transparently fun, solidly technical and irresistibly engaging IEM I've ever heard.

3) Campfire Andromeda 2020/MW10 => Possibly the most instantly and universally appealing IEM ever and still my #1 general rec for someone knowing nothing else of their particular tastes. As with the Dorado 2020 the use of ceramic gives the overall sound a sure-footedness and clarity that is quite addicting. IMHO the 2020 represents a refinement and improvement of the MW10 sound with some missing air and sparkle injected back in.

4) Sony IER Z1R => Similar in a lot of ways to #2 (wonderfully natural sound, bass is just as good) and just as fun...it loses points from me only because its FR is not as close to my personal target as the Dorado.

5) Campfire Solaris SE => I've gone back and forth with the Solaris and IER Z1R for much of my audio life. Solaris has my preferred FR, and I would say is slightly better techically, but the Sony has more natural and detailed treble and at its best is more fun to listen to which is why it ultimately pulled ahead for me for the time being. Solaris SE still has the nicest male vocals I've heard. The addition of a ceramic tuning chamber in the SE gives the overall sound, particularly the mids, a weight and body that elevates it above the OG for me.

6) Vision Ears VE8 => Wonderfully emotive, natural sig with some of the nicest BA bass and midrange in the game. I had previously experienced sibilance with the VE8 through my n6ii + E02 (a chip that tends to add glare and exaggerate sibilance) and am pleased to report that I did't hear any sibilance at all with the M8. Compared to the Andromeda 2020, the only other IEM I've had on hand, the VE8 feels a little congested in the mids. Perhaps that's part of the syrupy charm of the sound but I've really come to appreciate the depth and clarity of the Andromeda. I would probably also rank this IEM much higher if the Elysium didn't exist.

7) UM MEST Mk1 => Not as purely emotive as anything above but in terms of raw spectacle and "wow factor" it is probably near or at the top. Spellbinding to listen to and so much fun.

8) EE Legend X => King of the beasts of bass...and on its own terms it's still peerless in some respects. But it loses points as a generalist for me because I find the signature to be lacking in air over longer listening sessions. In terms of bass texture it's on par with though different than the Dorado 2020 and IER Z1R. (LX -> boom boom, Z1R -> woob woob, Dorado 2020 -> thump thump is the easiest way to distinguish the 3 to my ears...each excels at its own thing).

9) QDC Anole VX => My idea of a perfectly reference/technical sound that is minty fresh and imho super engaging...the only thing I'd change would be to lessen some of the vibrance in the upper mid/lower treble region.

10) UM MEST Mkii => My impressions of the MKii are that they clarified and pushed the mids forward but neutered the rest of the sound. Bass quantity and (imho) quality are a step down and what I described as the "chamber of secrets like staging" of the original is now totally gone. Ultimately a decently balanced and engaging IEM in its own right but has that "revised by a committee" feel to it and lacks soul and character of the OG.

11) 64 Audio Nio => A nicely balanced decently resolving signature with good bass. I found the mids to be lacking body/a little thin at times. I could easily get used to it and probably easily live with the Nio as my only IEM.

 

[Rockwell75]

 

[fzman]

All good I was just curious what you meant by "artificially created genre".

When, e.g., Kenny Garrett plays his specific alto sax in a room, with no mics, it's a very specific sound, based on his playing technique, the exact instrument he is playing, and the reed he is using. If you were to record that, then play it back in the same room right away, you would be able to compare the live sound to the reproduced sound. (It's quite another matter to figure out what part of the recorded sound is contributed by the mic, the rrecorder, the playback electronics, etc.)

(For music lovers, worrying about how to dermine the "sound" of audio gear or recordings is all a giant 'Don't care'. or for audphiles who want to talk about specific gear, vs conceptual or philosophical issues about evaluating that gear.)

Now, compare a keyboard player (I'll let you pick your own this time), playing an acoustic piano in front of you, vs, a synth keyboard which is NOT connected to any electronics. How does the piano sound compared to the synth?

Now, 'plug in' the synth and compare again. The difference will depend on the keyboard amp and speaker (but let's leave this asdde for the current thought-experiment) and the programming of the synth. Is it made up of purely elctronically created stuff, or live-recorded acoustic samples, or perhaps sampled electronic sounds (if there even is such a thing). Synths can produce sounds that cannot be made by any acoustic instrument,and they have tremendouos artisitic value, and are part of tons of awesome music.

My point is that, once you introduce these 'purely electronically produced souonds' (OK, perhaps I am coining a term here) you have no live, original referecne for them, against which to compare the r4eproduced sound, in order to tell whether your playback gear is oure, natural, ariticial, bright, dull or otherwise. I mena this purely in the epstemological sense (although I hope I don;t epist anybody off, lol).

I know this philosophy stuff good - I even have a picture of one of the shadows from Plato's Cave right here:

 

[Rockwell75]

When, e.g., Kenny Garrett plays his specific alto sax in a room, with no mics, it's a very specific sound, based on his playing technique, the exact instrument he is playing, and the reed he is using. If you were to record that, then play it back in the same room right away, you would be able to compare the live sound to the reproduced sound. (It's quite another matter to figure out what part of the recorded sound is contributed by the mic, the rrecorder, the playback electronics, etc.) In a lot of ways this is all a giant 'Don't care'.

Now, compare a keyboard player (I'll let you pick your own this time), playing an acoustic piano in front of you, vs, a synth keyboard which is NOT connected to any electronics. How does the piano sound compared to the synth?

Now, 'plug in' the synth and compare again. The difference will depend on the keyboard amp and speaker (but let's leave this asdde for the current thought-experiment) and the programming of the synth. Is it made up of purely elctronically created stuff, or live-recorded acoustic samples, or perhaps sampled electronic sounds (if there even is such a thing). Synths can produce sounds that cannot be made by any acoustic instrument,and they have tremendouos artisitic value, and are part of tons of awesome music.

My point is that, once you introduce these 'purely electronically produced souonds' (OK, perhaps I am coining a term here) you have no live, original referecne for them, against which to compare the r4eproduced sound, in order to tell whether your playback gear is oure, natural, ariticial, bright, dull or otherwise. I mena this purely in the epstemological sense (although I hope I don;t epist anybody off, lol).

I know this philosophy stuff good - I even have a picture of one of the shadows from Plato's Cave right here:

Thanks for elaborating my mind went to a totally different place. When you said "artificially created genres" I imagined someone saying something like "dude you're saying that's mid-tempo trap progressive tech-house when it's clearly dub trap minimal tech-- I don't know where you got the progressive from". All of this being established I'm basically in agreement with everything you're saying.

While there are certainly objective principles involved on some level the most dominant feature of one's impressions of/reactions to sound is their own subjectivity, and all that entails. Forgive me if I've shared this with you ad nauseum in the past but this profound scene from one of my favorite movies illustrates beautifully the idea that what we bring within our own consciousness to the act of listening to gear is the pre-eminent and most dominant factor.



It's nice to meet another philosopher-- it would have been my major in university if I didn't have so many bills to pay. On the topic of Plato's cave I happen to be wearing the perfect shirt today.