[jdriver]

About this big:
 

 
Compared to UM3X. ES3 would be the same size because they're also customs.

 

[Lorias]

Quote:

   
There is no difference. Come back to me when you can pass a blind test using a "HiRes" file, and down sampled version of the "HiRes" file.

Been there, done that.. Passing such a test was so easy for me in fact, it didn't even make any sense to me to do a blind test anyway in the first place, and, consequently, I have uninstalled the ABX comparator component from my foobar2000. I think it's a pure waste of time because blind tests are, generally speaking, next to useless except if what you are trying to achieve is to determine when we (humans) stop hearing a distortion. The results of blind tests can be, and very often are, completely misinterpreted on top of that, mainly due to a lack of knowledge about psychoacoustics. I am well aware that there are certain people who choose to believe that none of this can ever be true, but my standard reply to this is that if you want to be taken seriously as an objectivist then you might as well come up with some reliable evidence :cough: to prove that I am being a liar when I say I can hear what I hear. Failing that, it would not only be your opposing theory versus my own theory, but also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashing_(pejorative) because then you would be claiming that all the people who truly can hear the difference are mass delusional, with no way for you to prove that they are. And, if you can't prove that they are, that would logically imply that you are just being a subjectivist who claims to be an objectivist.
 
On topic: I choose to believe that the Westone ES60 sounds fantabulous. So much so, I believe there's not very much point in talking about it a lot because, instead, in my own, personal, subjective opinion, less talk and more listening is all it takes to separate the pudding from the proof, and, believe it or not, this is coming from someone who, until recently, thought he'd never ever even really be tolerant enough to be capable to enjoy music through earphones (or even through headphones, for that matter........).

 

[senorx12562]

  Quote:
Been there, done that.. Passing such a test was so easy for me in fact, it didn't even make any sense to me to do a blind test anyway in the first place, and, consequently, I have uninstalled the ABX comparator component from my foobar2000. I think it's a pure waste of time because blind tests are, generally speaking, next to useless except if what you are trying to achieve is to determine when we (humans) stop hearing a distortion. The results of blind tests can be, and very often are, completely misinterpreted on top of that, mainly due to a lack of knowledge about psychoacoustics. I am well aware that there are certain people who choose to believe that none of this can ever be true, but my standard reply to this is that if you want to be taken seriously as an objectivist then you might as well come up with some reliable evidence :cough: to prove that I am being a liar when I say I can hear what I hear. Failing that, it would not only be your opposing theory versus my own theory, but also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashing_(pejorative) because then you would be claiming that all the people who truly can hear the difference are mass delusional, with no way for you to prove that they are. And, if you can't prove that they are, that would logically imply that you are just being a subjectivist who claims to be an objectivist.
 
On topic: I choose to believe that the Westone ES60 sounds fantabulous. So much so, I believe there's not very much point in talking about it a lot because, instead, in my own, personal, subjective opinion, less talk and more listening is all it takes to separate the pudding from the proof, and, believe it or not, this is coming from someone who, until recently, thought he'd never ever even really be tolerant enough to be capable to enjoy music through earphones (or even through headphones, for that matter........).

Nevertheless, it moves, Torquemada.

 

[Joe-Siow]

I used to own ES5, and love it for vocals. I believe ES60 should be an even better CIEM.
Only issue I have is the MMCX connector. I still prefer the old 2 pins Westone ones.

 

[JAG87]

Quote:

  
There is no difference. Come back to me when you can pass a blind test using a "HiRes" file, and down sampled version of the "HiRes" file.

Been there, done that.. Passing such a test was so easy for me in fact, it didn't even make any sense to me to do a blind test anyway in the first place, and, consequently, I have uninstalled the ABX comparator component from my foobar2000. I think it's a pure waste of time because blind tests are, generally speaking, next to useless except if what you are trying to achieve is to determine when we (humans) stop hearing a distortion. The results of blind tests can be, and very often are, completely misinterpreted on top of that, mainly due to a lack of knowledge about psychoacoustics. I am well aware that there are certain people who choose to believe that none of this can ever be true, but my standard reply to this is that if you want to be taken seriously as an objectivist then you might as well come up with some reliable evidence :cough: to prove that I am being a liar when I say I can hear what I hear. Failing that, it would not only be your opposing theory versus my own theory, but also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashing_(pejorative) because then you would be claiming that all the people who truly can hear the difference are mass delusional, with no way for you to prove that they are. And, if you can't prove that they are, that would logically imply that you are just being a subjectivist who claims to be an objectivist.
 
On topic: I choose to believe that the Westone ES60 sounds fantabulous. So much so, I believe there's not very much point in talking about it a lot because, instead, in my own, personal, subjective opinion, less talk and more listening is all it takes to separate the pudding from the proof, and, believe it or not, this is coming from someone who, until recently, thought he'd never ever even really be tolerant enough to be capable to enjoy music through earphones (or even through headphones, for that matter........).

Lol you're funny.

There is reliable scientific evidence that you are a liar, it's called the nyquist sampling theorem and it's scientifically proven, it can be demonstrated over and over again. I don't have to prove that you can't hear a difference, it's the other way around... And I certainly don't agree that blind tests are misinterpreted. There is nothing to misinterpret, you just listen to 2 files, one of which is supposed to sound better, and if you can't reliably identify which is which, then there is no audible difference. It's very straightforward, if you fail it then you're just a victim of visual placebo, you just refuse to admit it to yourself.

 

[senorx12562]

Lorias, I know you're probably not interested since it is rational and would cause too much cognitive dissonance with your apparent self-image as a golden-eared audio God, but I'll try:
 
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
 
Check it out. I would be interested to hear what you think after you read it.

 

[Lorias]

Lol you're funny.

There is reliable scientific evidence that you are a liar, it's called the nyquist sampling theorem and it's scientifically proven, it can be demonstrated over and over again. I don't have to prove that you can't hear a difference, it's the other way around... And I certainly don't agree that blind tests are misinterpreted. There is nothing to misinterpret, you just listen to 2 files, one of which is supposed to sound better, and if you can't reliably identify which is which, then there is no audible difference. It's very straightforward, if you fail it then you're just a victim of visual placebo, you just refuse to admit it to yourself.

The Nyquist theorem doesn't say a signal can be perfectly reconstructed if it (the signal) has a finite duration. What it does say, however, is that this signal has to be perfectly bandlimited below the sampling frequency divided by two. An analog sourced signal that has a finite duration cannot be perfectly bandlimited, in theory or in practice. Far more importantly on top of that, to be able to bandlimit a signal so that it will contain no spectral energy above the sampling frequency divided by two, a filter must be used. It is technically impossible to build such a filter, also known as an anti aliasing filter, except if a certain amount of ringing artifacts will be introduced by this filter, into the audible band. The Shannon version of the theorem goes into some specifics about what happens if the Nyquist criteria are not perfectly met, exactly because they can never be perfectly met in a real-world scenario. Furthermore, the Nyquist theorem does not apply to discrete signals. Instead, it describes a continuous signal so that, therefore, it does not take into account the quantization error that results from converting an analog signal to 16-bit digital. Finally, if you can't reliably identify which is which in a blind test, this does not reliably prove (or even unreliably prove, for that matter...) that the blind test is not so severely flawed that it (the blind test, as opposed to your hearing) is what prevents you from being able to reliably identify which is which.

 

[fiascogarcia]

Take it outside, boys!

 

[Spyro]

Just to try to get this thread back on track.....it is great that the OP loves the ES60.  Always a good thing to think that your money was well spent.
 
But I am tired of expensive  IEM's that have great bass but are only smooth and warm. That's BORING!  If I am spending $400+ I also want great detail and clarity IN ADDITION to those other traits, period.  This is where W30 really opened up my ears. 

 

[JAG87]

Lol you're funny.

There is reliable scientific evidence that you are a liar, it's called the nyquist sampling theorem and it's scientifically proven, it can be demonstrated over and over again. I don't have to prove that you can't hear a difference, it's the other way around... And I certainly don't agree that blind tests are misinterpreted. There is nothing to misinterpret, you just listen to 2 files, one of which is supposed to sound better, and if you can't reliably identify which is which, then there is no audible difference. It's very straightforward, if you fail it then you're just a victim of visual placebo, you just refuse to admit it to yourself.

The Nyquist theorem doesn't say a signal can be perfectly reconstructed if it (the signal) has a finite duration. What it does say, however, is that this signal has to be perfectly bandlimited below the sampling frequency divided by two. An analog sourced signal that has a finite duration cannot be perfectly bandlimited, in theory or in practice. Far more importantly on top of that, to be able to bandlimit a signal so that it will contain no spectral energy above the sampling frequency divided by two, a filter must be used. It is technically impossible to build such a filter, also known as an anti aliasing filter, except if a certain amount of ringing artifacts will be introduced by this filter, into the audible band. The Shannon version of the theorem goes into some specifics about what happens if the Nyquist criteria are not perfectly met, exactly because they can never be perfectly met in a real-world scenario. Furthermore, the Nyquist theorem does not apply to discrete signals. Instead, it describes a continuous signal so that, therefore, it does not take into account the quantization error that results from converting an analog signal to 16-bit digital. Finally, if you can't reliably identify which is which in a blind test, this does not reliably prove (or even unreliably prove, for that matter...) that the blind test is not so severely flawed that it (the blind test, as opposed to your hearing) is what prevents you from being able to reliably identify which is which.

Since you are obviously far more cultured than the Sony and Phillips engineers who settled that 44100 hz was enough to faithfully reproduce all audible frequencies, please describe in detail how we should go about setting up a flawless and unbiased test in which we can audibly distinguish that higher sampling rates are beneficial to digital music fidelity.

 

[Lorias]

Since you are obviously far more cultured than the Sony and Phillips engineers who settled that 44100 hz was enough to faithfully reproduce all audible frequencies, please describe in detail how we should go about setting up a flawless and unbiased test in which we can audibly distinguish that higher sampling rates are beneficial to digital music fidelity.

1. Study psychoacoustics, so that you might learn all listening is subjective, i.e., a listening test can never be completely flawless and unbiased.
2. Study psychoacoustics some more, so that you might also learn double blind listening tests are extremely difficult to correctly design and correctly conduct.
3. Study psychoacoustics far more still, until you feel confident that you can correctly interpret the test results.
 
Alternately, as was carefully suggested in my first reply to this thread, you could just see for yourself that the ES60 does not sound, like Spyro has described in the post above yours, boring or insufficiently detailed or not clear enough. The only thing boring, unsufficiently detailed and not clear enough is this socalled "reliable evidence" to support your claim we should be needing blind tests to verify that we hear what we hear, specifically when we listen in Hi Res because, else, you could also be claiming that listening to music is always unpleasant, the fact we think it is pleasant is all placebo, and we cannot reliably prove to you that the opposite is true........

 

[Lorias]

  Lorias, I know you're probably not interested since it is rational and would cause too much cognitive dissonance with your apparent self-image as a golden-eared audio God, but I'll try:
 
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
 
Check it out. I would be interested to hear what you think after you read it.

I have already read this white paper a very long time ago. You are obviously not the only one who has completely misinterpreted it.

The Sampling Theory paper does NOT suggest that there is any “permanent” bit depth limitation or any sample rate limitations. When I wrote the paper, I used the present day technology (8 bits at 100MHz or 16 bits at 1MHz) as a tool to point out that
{snip}

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/lavry-engineering-paper-hi-res-10776/index2.html#post133063
 
The optimum sampling frequency, as has been explained by Mr. Lavry himself in his official response that I linked above, has simply evolved as modern technology has also evolved.
 
P.S.: I am not an audio God, let alone a golden-eared one. That is, even though I must admit I sometimes envision God uses an iGod, also known as the Godded AK240.

 

[senorx12562]

  I have already read this white paper a very long time ago. You are obviously not the only one who has completely misinterpreted it.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/lavry-engineering-paper-hi-res-10776/index2.html#post133063
 
The optimum sampling frequency, as has been explained by Mr. Lavry himself in his official response that I linked above, has simply evolved as modern technology has also evolved.
 
P.S.: I am not an audio God, let alone a golden-eared one. That is, even though I must admit I sometimes envision God uses an iGod, also known as the Godded AK240.

While changing technology may have changed the theoretical optimum sampling frequency, it will always be theoretical unless advancing technology is going to make my ears better, and I think my ears are getting worse way faster than that technology is advancing (if it is at all). In fact, I would argue that the advent of digital filtering makes a sampling frequency over 44.1khz even more irrelevant, as it allows very low aliasing and smooth frequency response without the downsides of higher rates, especially 192khz, like IM distortion and increased storage requirements. All the study of psychoacoustics in the world is not going to change the audible frequency range of human hearing. For different reasons a bit depth over 16 is just as pointless, although at least there aren't any downsides soundwise. As to double-blind testing, in light of your implied claim that you can hear frequencies somewhere north of 22khz (in fact you even said that it was easy, which does not strengthen your claim) and that in addition to your canine-like hearing you are also unlike the rest of us in that you are not subject to the all-too-human phenomenon of confirmation bias (all of which I would call extraordinary claims, when made by you or others) as I said I shall remain agnostic on those claims barring such proof. The mass-delusion hypothesis is easier to swallow. Cheers mate. 

 

[garcsa]

   
There is no difference. Come back to me when you can pass a blind test using a "HiRes" file, and down sampled version of the "HiRes" file.

Oh bro, I'm in Hi Fi almost 40 years. I do not want "to come back to you" to prove anything. The difference is audible. This is a fact. But don't give up, enjoy music and Long Live R'n'R ! 

 

[Lorias]

  While changing technology may have changed the theoretical optimum sampling frequency, it will always be theoretical unless advancing technology is going to make my ears better, and I think my ears are getting worse way faster than that technology is advancing (if it is at all). In fact, I would argue that the advent of digital filtering makes a sampling frequency over 44.1khz even more irrelevant, as it allows very low aliasing and smooth frequency response without the downsides of higher rates, especially 192khz, like IM distortion and increased storage requirements. All the study of psychoacoustics in the world is not going to change the audible frequency range of human hearing. For different reasons a bit depth over 16 is just as pointless, although at least there aren't any downsides soundwise. As to double-blind testing, in light of your implied claim that you can hear frequencies somewhere north of 22khz (in fact you even said that it was easy, which does not strengthen your claim) and that in addition to your canine-like hearing you are also unlike the rest of us in that you are not subject to the all-too-human phenomenon of confirmation bias (all of which I would call extraordinary claims, when made by you or others) as I said I shall remain agnostic on those claims barring such proof. The mass-delusion hypothesis is easier to swallow. Cheers mate. 

No, I didn't say it was easy to hear north of 22 kHz, but an anti aliasing filter causes ringing artifacts that will occur not only above, but also in the audible band, i.e. far south of 20 kHz. Steeper the cut-off slope of the filter, more severe these artifacts. It is possible to reduce these artifacts, or make them less noticeable in pure terms of human audibility by building a better filter. However, to also make them, in every listening scenario that makes sense, perfectly inaudible, a higher than 44.1 kHz sampling frequency is required. Due to a combination of both modern tech and practical limitations, nowadays 192 kHz sampling frequency can be a very reasonable choice for playback of PCM files. Nevertheless, there are a lot of ADCs and DACs out there that are advertised as 192 kHz, but sound worse operating at 192 kHz than some of the ones that don't support 192 kHz operating at 96 kHz. Further, a bit depth over 16 is not always pointless for music playback because a live symphony orchestra can create peaks of 120 dB SPL at listening position so, attempting to accurately reproduce this, the noise floor of 16-bit PCM can become audible.