How do u expline to a earlet that this really is worth 5k
>>109799472kino
>>109799472>>>/x/
>>109799472whats with the weird twisty cable? seems like it would be an issue staying together, looks like it's already a problem too with the plastic sleeves
This is $1-$10 worth of hardware you’re paying a $4989 markup.
>>109799909Im sure u spent more than 3 seconds actually looking into it
>>109800317more time than you did
I'd have no issue spending that kind of money on IEMs if it weren't for the fact they sound and fit worse than $20 chinkshit.
>>109799472These people are utterly deranged:https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/empire-ears-x-astell-kern-novus.28108/reviews>Some may hear the NOVUS as having a midrange that is mostly balanced with the other frequencies, and I'd be inclined to agree. However, I personally prefer a more forward vocal presentation, so to my ear, the midrange is ever so slightly recessed for my usual preferences. The lower midrange, though, is well represented, and both male and female artists are equally great. Instruments and vocals are still clear and concise, but they may lack a little energy and engagement for some, myself included. The level of detail and precision is honestly nothing short of fantastic.
>>109799472You don't It's notAudiophiles are uniformly retarded, you are no exception to this rule
>>109804602why is that deranged?>>109802849some of them do, some don't
>>109799472If you want unironic explanation, personal audio is, uhm, personal and very subjective hobby where people individually create their diminishing returns threshold. And some of these people find value in what it has to offer that you don't find in cheaper competition. Nobody forces you to pay 5K for IEM and stops you from using Vidos or your smarthone or laptop speakers for music.Also nepo babies and nouveau riche buying status symbols.
>>109805132Diminishing returns is cope. Shit straight up gets worse after $1k.
>>109805132noo worth is an intrinsic property of the object and if its worth it for anyone its worth it for everyone! why are you introducing so much complexity>>109805183>i dont hear improvements after x so that's reality
>>109802849t. I went to audio show and heard all the nice things I can't afford and I'm shitposting out of spite with the same pic for weeks
>>109805260>he misread "worse" as "don't hear improvements"The absolute state of audiofools.
>paid shills: most of the time there are improvement with price increase>manufacturers: most of the time there are improvement with price increase>wannabe eceleb reviewers: most of the time there are improvement with price increase>audiofools: most of the time there are improvement with price increase>one faggot on /g/: nonono akchually you are wrong and I'm rightokay sweaty
>>109805376>massive IEM nozzles are nice because they just are, okay
>>109805439>'all' expensive IEMs have big nozzles>this is also bad for 'everyone'sounds right to me
>>109805426>yes, you're all wrong
do first worlders really pay this much for earphones
>>109805458Finally you see the problem.
>>109805477Do you ever wonder why you're so privileged to see through all this stuff? surely you're not smarter than all of them. Just rng i guess? a lot of factors coming together to privilege a sort of Neo pov. I'm not saying you should have a good answer but i'd be curious to hear your thoughts
sometimes i imagine what it must be like to walk on a canjam showfloor for people like yourself. Must be completely surreal and bizarre
>>109805439Gee I wonder how all the tubes and crossovers work. Imagine being an earlet or a manlet and having issue with 6mm nozzles, lmao.
>>109805529Experience, studying and training of course. Imagine picking a CPU by vibes instead of benchmarks. In audio this is acceptable for some reason.
>>109805426https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2017/02/
>>109805601>2016I don't know what are you trying to prove here. For reference Starfield was released in Dec 2019. MMK1 and B2 in 2020.
>>109805596>In audio this is acceptable for some reason.Mental illness
>>109805624And $10 panasonic shitbuds were released in 2010 and have the same objective sound quality. Your point?
>>109805596 yeah. It's always a very externally oriented technical pov that says these things. Where things are only as real as the degree to which they can be defined and operationalized. Maybe combined with a unwillingness to model other ways of seeing. Kind of the same instinct as saying a psychedelic experience is "just chemicals". i think our disagreement is far upstream to audio >In audio this is acceptable for some reason yeah imagine that in a subjective hobby
>he found $10 trick to solve music reproduction, audio companies hate him
>>109799472who the fuck is this even fornot even the most autistic audiophile isn't going to pay over 500$ for head- or earphonesis this for musicians or something? does this have any qol functions when you're on stage? is it made out of exotic materials that can't ever failnigga why the fuck is this 5 grand?
>>109805676When a thing you "hear" disappears when you can't see the product then you don't hear that thing, sorry.
>>109805772failing a blind test doesn't mean the percept wasn't based on a actual difference. Sorry
>>109805908If the difference isn't perceptible to human ears, then there's no practical difference.
>>109805908>the difference was real in my mind
>>109805426indeed
>>109805928It's possible to fail a blind test because of skill issue or hearing damage. Nothing wrong with that. It's failing them and then coping that blind tests are le bad that's hilarious.
>>109805930you should turn that scrutiny around onto what's obviously real in your own mind some time. This is essentially the issue>>109805928That's not what I said.
>>109805426What side are you even on?>paid shills>manufacturers>reviewersThose are all shills.>audiofools'nuff said.Nice bait, though.
>>109799472Fool and his money are easily parted
>>109799472>$1,399+ tax+tips
>>109799472Epstein was right about the goyim
>>109804602I dont listen to music with vocals so nm I gues
Do people in this threat working manual labor or something? Chimping out of vee the fact that money buys u quality is a bad look
>>109807460>its cheap so the parts and engineering is good quality
>>109799472>dude the audio gear from some ali/temu knockoff is worth money at all trust me bro
>>109809468I trust you
what's a more reddit hobby: iems or mechanical keyboards
>>109811921I wouldn't describe either as redditiems are inherently luddite blue collar technologymechanical keyboards are low iq techie larpboth are on the same level as reddit, but both are the dumbfuck edgelord mirror side of it
10 bucks for the actual device and an equaliser give results similar to this price.
>>109805601This chart is a nightmare to read
>>109799472if you don't buy them then someone else will who will have better headphones than you and they might not even appreciate it properly.
>>109799472you really need a different set of IEMs for each genre you listen to. sub-genre even, you're not going to find one set that's good for power metal and grindcore
>>109813021I thought like this until I learned to EQ.
>>109805601What the fuck is this chart? What's the horizontal axis? Which vertical legend is what?
>>109799472
>>109813617they didnt even listen btw. it's just predictions from measurements
>>109799472>mogged by 20$ pos with eqsound is not made out of balls you know.
>>109813736>mogged by 20$ pos with eqfor you, you mean? or for everyone if they were honest with themselves and what they're hearing?
>>109813797For everyone if they were honest with themselves and what they're hearing.
there you go lol
>>109813797literaly for everyone, if you knew anything about sound engineering you'd know the only difference between different iems is FR and THD, provided a low enough THD (which almost all have), you can literaly eq any iem to sound like any other (or better).there is nothing other than FR at the eardrum and it can entirely be eq'd.
>>109813952i think you're epistemically naive and i hope you grow out of it
>>109814163no u.you don't understand the math behind it and why that's true, even if that may seem unintuitive, go learn something for once.any sound engineer worth his salt would tell you the same thing and the reasons behind it are not actualy that hard to understand.
>>109814206Nah, he just genuinely thinks "it was real in my mind" is a valid argument >>109805908
>>109814206how do you know you're not just compressing? it's something i see from your camp over and over. something is predictive and useful? now it's exhaustive. something is difficult to measure? now it doesn't exist. blind tests are very useful? the standard blind test now decides whats real or not. price and quality correlation weak and noisy? now its unrelated, or even negative, extrapolated from a listening test based on measurement... this is how you get people thinking you can just eq a 20 dollar iem to any flagship, that every source and cable sounds the same (because the differences arent big enough to become stable, so they're nulled instead) and that the entire hobby is "obviously" a scam. i think this happens so far upstream experientially that you dont even notice it as compression, its just how things appear to be to you. and if one critiques the absoluteness of any of these claims, one is immediately located as holding the opposite view, which is of course the same compression pattern again. and of course you're aligned with the science that converts phenomenology into measurement, thats what it necessarily has to do. but having to do it isnt proof that the resulting model exhausts the thing being measured, that is the leap you make over and over. this is why arguing individual audio claims never get anywhere because the agreement is far upstream of it, its about what counts as evidence, how much compression we tolerate and how much useful/successful models can be mistaken for the thing itself. you can talk about "people being honest about what they're hearing" but i dont think you've actually considered why you hear what you hear. its just reality itself, and other people are deaf and retarded and just not getting it yet>>109814218you dont even understand what you're quoting
>>109805722>why the fuck is this 5 grand?Because people with too much money and too little brain want to feel special
>>109814313this wasn't about you specifically btw, maybe more other people near the end
>>109805722>not even the most autistic audiophile isn't going to pay over 500$ for head- or earphonesyou can't even get decent non chink planars for less than $500 now that drop is dead, and thats generally about the range most peoples second headphone is. For iems yeah it's probably uncommon to spend that, but speakers/headphones it wouldn't raise any eyesbrows to drop $1-2k usd>nigga why the fuck is this 5 grand?every field of consumerism needs items at X price for the soul reason of someone will go into a store with exactly that much and want to spend exactly that much, portable audio fags are no different. There are walkmans that are $4k for whatever reason and it's mostly just people who want to spend a lot who buy themstill not nearly as bad as shit i see regularly locally, boomers will have $75k speakers for whatever reason and pre amps that are $12k+, and i imagine it's mostly for the reasons i already layed out
>>109814313>i dont think you've actually considered why you hear what you hearI don't think you did. Most of what you "hear" doesn't come from your hearing. You're projecting differences that only exist in your mind on real hardware. And when blind tests remove that hallucination you blame blind tests lol.
>>109799472audiofools are the biggest goyim on the planetthere is no reason to spend more than 100 dollars on headphones
>>109799472Does anyone show measurements for these things?At least with headphones and loudspeakers there are actual measurements that can be used to objectively compare performance IEM measurements should be trivial in comparison
>>109799472It's proven that sound deteriorates as you age, yet all the audiophiles reviewing $10k+ gear are 60+ year olds. That's why I stopped going that route and bought value "good enough" audio gear. I have spent thousands on diminishing returns and straight up "same quality just different for 10x the money" hobbies but never audio gear.I wear my "didn't fall for any audio scams" badge with pride.
>>109814404ironically this is all in your mind. all i've said is that failing a blind test does not necessarily mean there was no real percept based on actual difference before. can you not imagine any way this could occur? you can say it doesnt matter anyway but thats retarded, because someone could misidentify something they're actually hearing. i'm not gonna start buying pepsi because i can conceivably mistake it for coke in a blind test.it doesn't mean i don't think people let experience harden into fact too quickly a lot of the time, and it doesnt mean i think blind tests arent useful or bad>>109814521i agree that spending very carefully and being careful is better than not when it comes to this hobby. i just would never say that buying anything expensive is necessarily a mistake or anything like that, as so many are tempted to do and presumably you wouldnt either. but that's a accepted position on here. not only that, but many would say spending more money necessarily makes it sound worse and its not even bait
>>109814521>It's proven that sound deteriorates as you age, yet all the audiophiles reviewing $10k+ gear are 60+ year olds. That's why I stopped going that route and bought value "good enough" audio gear. I have spent thousands on diminishing returns and straight up "same quality just different for 10x the money" hobbies but never audio gear.most audio reviewers are grifters who do it to get paid off by companies, even if it just means they get to keep some $1k headphone they can resell, there were a few good ones who in their entire careers barely ever said something in the kilobuck region was ever worth buying, but they are either dead or retired and only the retards are left>>109814576>but many would say spending more money necessarily makes it sound worse and its not even baitmost famous example in recent times was probably the clear>utopia, in which focal just killed the clear because $1699 was less than the $4k utopia
>>109814576When you treat audio like technology there's "the best" product and everything more cheap and more expensive than that is necessarily worse. When you treat audio like something to hallucinate about then anything goes.
>>109814685i understand it looks like this if you think of audio solely as a simple engineering optimization problem, and i understand how price is irrelevant once you've identified the metrics that define the optimum. you'd probably accept it regardless of price, i respect this. i just don't think the map is complete enough yet to where it is solved and we can treat everything outside of it as hallucination, even if i acknowledge this is theoretically possible
>>109814414Basically this, but with the addendum that it is literally impossible for IEMs to outperform over-ear headphones.
I thought this was going to be a good old fashioned audiophile autism thread with images.
>>109799597Typical chinkshit e-wasteIt's already coming apart before even being sold
>>109814313i'm definitely not reading all that, you are wrong that's all i can say.yes, you can EQ a 20$ pos to sound like any other iem, there is no "techs" or other bullshit, all there is to sound quality in a minimum phase device is FR at the eardrum, if you understood fourier transforms and how sound works you'd know that it is the case. >the standard blind test now decides whats real or noton blind tests people can't tell the difference or which iem is more expensive than the other.besides we all have different HRTF so an iem that sounds amazing to you can sound terrible to someone else.paying more for an iem is basicaly just paying for a different EQ profile.granted some iems have smoother FR and thus are easier to EQ to a specific target / eleminate sibiliance, but there is no technical limitation preventing you to EQ it to whatever target.if you had a microphone at your eardrum you could literaly autoeq a 20$ pos to sound exactly like any other iems even on a blind test.but you shouldn't aim for "the same" you should aim for better given your own preferences.>something is difficult to measure?it isn't, we can measure that there is no differences, but we don't even need measurment because we have mathematical proofs that it is the same.audio is just math with extra steps, there is no magic sauce to a soundwave.
>>109816866>it is literally impossible for IEMs to outperform over-ear headphonesit's actualy the opposite.they'll have better bass because the ear canal is sealed.and you'll have a more linear relationship between the FR at the iem and FR at the eardrum.in fact if you had the right measuring equipment (microphone at the eardrum) you could eq a 20$ pos iem to sound exactly like the 50K HE-1 to any specific person.but the iems can actualy sound better because there is less loss between the driver and the eardrum and less space for sound to do interference with itself.speakers will give you the most horseshit audio specificaly because they aren't minimum phase, BUT, they can give you a body feeling no iem or headphone can.the best setup in terms of audio quality would be a pair of iems paired with a bunch of subwoofers.
>>109816866>>109817540Well it is true that headphones are "better" than IEMs, but if you consider this type of "better" then monitor speakers would also be way better than headphones. The thing is that with a $20 IEM + EQ you can get to actual endgame, and the endgame for monitor speakers would probably cost +$20k because now it's not just about buying good speakers, the room also becomes part of the sound. You're essentially comparing $20 vs $20k (1000x cost) when comparing IEM endgame vs monitor speakers endgame
>>109816866Yeah, nothing gives you hair and hearing loss quite like headphones.
>>109818365>Well it is true that headphones are "better" than IEMsno, that's literaly false
>>109819768Driver size does matter, let's not sizelet cope
>>109819789the only thing that matters is FR at the eardrum which is completly unrelated with driver size, in fact bigger drivers will have higher THD for the same reasons that it's easier to snap a big stick than a small one.also there is more audio loss and interference between headphones and your eardrum than between in ears and your eardrum.in ears WILL give you better bass and better detail / clarity, as sound will have less time and space to be absorbed, reflected and interefere with itself.the worse of them all will be speakers as they are not even minimum phase devices anymore.only advantage they have is that they can sound more "natural" because they don't bypass your HRTF but that can be simulated via software.you seem to think soundwaves are some kind of magic or something, but no, a smaller driver will actualy tend to produce a more accurate to source soundwave than a bigger one, especialy if measured at the eardrum, that's just basic physics.
