Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
lexs
117
May 18, 2019
How on earth can they claim the ER4XR have a so called 'extended response' and then have a range that cuts off at –16 kHz ?? Also, how can you claim they are 'reference' with so much potential audio information missing. This baffles me ? Anyone?
JJayJJ
472
May 18, 2019
lexsIt's extended to the low-end, not high end. Also anything above 16kHz is pretty much inaudible at normal listening levels for anyone past their teenage years. This idea of "lost potential audio information" is preposterous to the overall enjoyment of the music itself as no one is making 17kHz+ heavy music that would differ any serious way if that 17kHz+ was removed. I say this under the presumption you're not one of those folks who believes 192kHz audio is having some sort of "electrical psychological effect on the brain" or other such voodoo.
lexs
117
May 18, 2019
JJayJJIts not extended at all as it only goes to 20Hz - so there is no 'extension' at all. There is a bass boost but that is very different. To answer your question. I've been a sound engineer for many years so lets just say the quality and way I listen, it would seem is different to your own. I would love to discuss further the difference between how differing levels of bit depth and sample rates effects how one 'experiences' audio but TBH most people have no desire to discuss with those who talk from experience. They would much rather put all their faith in a graph or from something they have read somewhere :) Thanks for taking the time to answer though
JJayJJ
472
May 18, 2019
lexsThank you for the civility. Firstly, I just have to reiterate again, when they say "extended" they mean extended down into the lower frequencies(meaning you will hear more of the sub-bass when compared to their non-extended-range version). In the same when when you extend a piece of gum, it can extended in both directions when you pull it. I don't know of a better, nor simpler way to explain the diction of the word any further. I'm sorry if I come off as abrasive but as a "sound engineer" your knowledge is owed to the folks who pioneered the scientific methodologies that allow you to the the work you do today, all the gear you use today are based on priciples and verification testing by those same scientific principles. Your subjective experience can be used to create the artistic merits of having a product that exists as such. But your subjective experience can never be used to denounce the decades of psysics of how sound is explained on paper (what you deem graphs). You only have the capacity for example as a painter, to use paint and mix it in a way to produce new colors each individual paint color is unable to do on it's own. What you can't do is subjectively exclaim with scientific conviction you're able to mix the paint in a way to produce colors not visible to the human eye, or change the chemistry of the paint itself where our eyes will suddenly start seeing what X-rays and Gamma rays color is.. That was done in a scientific setting, through the culmination of all knowledge on optics, chemistry, etc... Not a persons "experience" on the matter. As for the specifics of bit-depths, and sample rates. There is no need to talk about this, as it is outside the scope of audibility in relation to the specific claim of at what point there is no concern for frequency response. Also, there is no need to talk about this, as it has been talked about to death, with one side talking about how they are capable of hearing the difference between 24 vs 32 bit-depth (also 16-bit while it does have an audible limit, with dithering, it's basically a non-issue). Also the folks that talk about being able to percieve sample rates well into the ranges afforded by some formats and upsamplers that go well past the preposterous 700kHz range (the only actual benefit of upsampling is you don't need to design the complex hardware of a DAC that is required when natively trying to support lower sample rates with hardware acceleration so to speak). The final reason there isn't a need to talk about that stuff is, there are bounties out there willing to pay folks that can relably discern between something like sample rates or bit-depth, or even more preposterous things like audio differences created due to cable differences. Not a single one of these "golden ears" or "experienced" folks can discern this stuff. Sure there are trained folks like yourself who I assume have specific tones you've been trained to listen to where you might be able to discern between bitrate(not sample rates, or bit depth), but that was never a point of contention, even I can discern between things like 256kbps and lossless FLAC given enough time and training on what cues to listen out for. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying your experience has no place or value. But don't imply that experience can out-do scientific realities that superceed any single persons experience simply due to the sheer man-hour experience it required to get to these scientific truths. Looking at graphs will not tell a person whether they will enjoy something. But attributing "enjoyment" or the "experience" of a product doesn't fall to it's scientificly verified performance, it simply tells you one aspect of the item you can use to make a more informed decision, not base your whole decision on it. Some people for instance want to buy items that look and feel great, even if their distortion numbers are not good (see tube-sound lovers).
lexs
117
May 18, 2019
JJayJJThanks for clarifying that - Its appreciated To be fair we are in opposing camps in relation to the rest of your comments. Of course i very much appreciate your points about the evolution of audio from a scientific point of view and i wouldn't disagree per-se but I would add that there is a whole other side of audio beyond what can be graphed or captured in a digital manner. If you will indulge me . . . You can say we 'hear' audio with our ears but we 'experience' audio with our consciousness though various causes and conditions coming together >including< the various physical elements of the ear. I say this because unlike mere physical things the mind in itself is limitless because it is not form! As there are no instruments that can measure consciousness I would humbly suggest that we should at least consider that there is more to what can merely seen with the eyes or ears. Of course I fully appreciate there are people who have a very scientific - 'if I cant see it, it doesn't exist' mentality. I respect that being as its people experience - but alas I am not one of them. Working with audio there are in general parameters and certain rules but the more I work with it the more I see how 3 dimensional it is and how there is SO much more than be measured. Some of the finest ever recordings / headphones etc where created many years before, for example, the digital age and were achieved through the 'ears' and experience of sound engineers the like of which I think we don't really see any more :/ Its clear where your beliefs lie and how you personally quantify many aspects in this area. Its fine to disagree. All I ever ask / beg, is for more 'scientifically minded' people to at least try to have some small degree of open minded-ness or at least to trust your own ears beyond what someone has written somewhere :) Just a final point - There is no scientific 'truth' as scientific truths are always being defunct, or evolving or being re-thought (a point that always seems to be conveniently forgotten) Besides, there is on 'inherently' existing things existing from their own side. Everything is a dependant relationship. Every object is directly related to the mind perceiving it and although there are obviously commonalities that we all share when you start to look more deeply what previously appears to be fixed and solid . . . Anyway, as I say we are coming from completely different view points and experiences so its all good. I would not like to say i am right and you are wrong or vice a versa. From my own side though all I can say is that if I relied [totally] on some of the things I have read instead of my own direct experience working with audio I would not be very good at my job!
(Edited)
JJayJJ
472
May 18, 2019
lexsNot a problem, I indulge anyone so as long as they're not spamming profanity at every sentence, so you're most welcome to speak freely as long as you feel comfortable. See, one egregious issue outsiders and detractors of the scientific method have, is they believe scientifically oriented people are as you described them: "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist". This is a massively erroneous label that has no place in the scientific realm, nor proponents of scientific tendency. Anyone that exclaims with generality "if I can't see it, it don't exist" or "graphs > all" and other such stupidities isn't actually scientifically oriented. They are posers that have no place in objective or good-faith discourse. Now the issues with the whole concept of consciousness, and how it relates to the audio realm and how science is incomplete (all of which I agree, and it is that incomplete-ness that makes science leaning folks the most open minded, and welcoming to be proven wrong) is the specifics. I know there are things science doesn't have the answer for (which is why I don't comment on things like "experience of something"). But that is a far cry comparison to say a statement like: "0dbFS is louder than -22dbFS". There is no "experience" or deliberating a sentence like this. Those are the sorts of things set-in-stone that there cannot be anymore deliberation about. In the same way there is no amount of "conciousness" or "experience" that one could exploy to get over the need of using oxygen to survive as a human being. See, those are the sorts of things that need to be off-limits, as they have been demonstrated to be objectively true beyond a shadow of a doubt. The things that can be debated is "how much" or "what concentration" of oxygen is required for example. Another issue with this whole conciousness ordeal, is if you don't have the tools that were established with scientific discovery, how can you ever tune an unknown consciousness metric? Lets say you are someone who wants to start building speakers. There is no amount of "unknown consciousness" you could ever have that will allow you to create a driver capable of replicating sound. There is no speaker that will play a track without the use of electrical energy for instance. But all of these concepts to create this are ALL based on what scientific discovery has made commonplace now. With specific respect to our original discussion. You say there is a sort of aspect about "the consciousness". Okay, sure, I agree, but can you demonstrate what that is? I'm not asking for a scientific explanation for the mechanistic occurrence. I am asking something as simple as: If there is an effect on conciousness of listening to 192kHz sound, compared to listening 44.1kHz, explain to be what manifestations occur in people when exposed to each. What are the things that happen to them differently when you put into practice what your claim is preaching. If you can't provide this, then I can make equally as open-ended, and seemingly pointless claims like: "listening to 900kHz sound has an effect on people, don't ask me what the effect is, but I just know there is something our mind is capable of, but we don't know what that actual thing is, and because we can never know, I don't ever have to demonstrate or prove anything, because I say it's impossible, because we will never know conciousness, and we will never reach the limits of it, because I say it's limitless" Claims like these are what I call 'declaratory statements', as in - you're simply saying something is the way it is, with ZERO explanation, demonstration, or repeatable testing. When someone makes statements like that, they aren't really saying anything. They're just 'claiming' and don't want to be asked anything for specificity. It's like saying "water is amazing" and not letting anyone ask you what you mean because your pre-condition closed off all questions when you for example say: "it's amazing, and because we can't prove reality is actually occuring and we're not a simulation, and so I don't have to explain anything because it's pointless, and you should open your mind to everything" I hope you can understand the extent of what constitutes a valid claim (one that can be elaborated on), or one that is made outside the context of anything tangible. Finally, I just want to see if you'll agree with me here, that being: To make extraordinary claims, it's essentailly required there be extraordinary evidence. So when you say audio has an effect on the conciousness (and conciousness is unlimited for whatever reason as you say), you have to explain what this is in precise detail, you have to explain what conciousness is, how you observe the effect that audio has on it, explain what "unlimited consciousness" itself is, and then explain how I can demonstrate to someone the truth of statements like that who is skeptical. Ss to the personal qualities you've ascirbed to be. As I said before (though you might have missed it), graphs and quantification of things isn't the end-all-be-all. It's simply a tool. In the same way we can't really say a food we haven't tried tastes better at 90degrees C, or 25degrees C out of a microwave, it's nice to know what Celsius means so we don't burn ourselves. But just because you enjoy a burger that is pipping hot, some people might like the burger not so hot, so as not to heat up the things like ketchup, or sauces, or the pickles. Again, I have to state, just because something can be measured as "audibly transparent", doesn't mean everyone will enjoy that. And some folks don't want to hear the music the way it sounded in the studio, some people like a little warmth, etc.. That has nothing AT ALL to do with objective measurements. The measurements simply tell you certain things about the quality of the product's performance in the same way 24k Gold tells you how much gold you can expect out of a certain piece of jewelry, and that makes it soft enough to break easily. That doesn't mean 24k Gold is the best thing everyone should expect out of their jewelry for instance. Oh and the last bit that I forgot, about science evolving, being defunct, etc... This is precisely the beauty of it. No matter what gets proven wrong eventually, it always leads to expanded understanding. This is why there is no chance of going back to ideas like "Flat Earth", and why everyone now benefits from knowing how the Earth and gravity work. It's precisely the people who keep saying "I KNOW WHAT SOUNDS GOOD, my experience superceeds your measurements" are the folks who are close minded, and stagnate ANY progress toward objective understanding. Like what do we get from those people CONSTANTLY claiming a 2 foot audio cable built to specification sounds different that the other cable that has silver plating instead of copper? They constantly claim this, yet NEVER given proof. But scientists entertain them by saying "Okay so we can't measure it with our instruments, how about then doing blind tests on a large population, or any of your friends who believe the same, so you can demonstrate this trait we can't measure?" They deny even this request, or take it and fail to demonstrate the claims they make. So in conclusion, it is precisely the scientific community that is open minded to more things, than any other. What they aren't open minded, is debating the basics of life every single day (like my example earlier talking about 0dbFS being louder than -22dbFS). And even if there are things that can't be measured, we still provide ways of proving the claims with testing. So no bias exists, yet all the bias exists with people making the claims, who are unable to prove them, and still persist with making claims they can't prove, NOR demonstrate.
lexs16K is just the end of their reference spec for the response. Most headphones will mimic the human ear response and taper highly past 10K. Their measured behavior above 10K is good (https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/EtymoticER4SR.pdf). If anything Ety's might generally be considered a bit bright and detailed (hence introducing the bassier XR variants this current gen). . . the ER4-B isn't even tapered for the loudspeaker mastering in redbook (it's made for pure binaural recordings). Indeed, if you delve into audio research into the upper extents of human hearing, you will likely come across the usage of medical grade balanced armature probes made by Etymotic that are used to generate high frequency in canal coupling. These consumer phones are largely a byproduct of their medical business funnily enough. TLDR: These are highly accurate to the known thresholds of human hearing - which they helped chart ;) 
lexs
117
May 19, 2019
JJayJJThanks for the lengthy & well considered reply. There is a lot there - I will to read it a few times to digest it I don't disagree with you at all except in the sense that - if I share what I have experienced many times I don't 'need' to or 'have' to prove anything. Why should I? We are not in a court of law, nor am I trying to present a paper :) On occasion I will share something. Never to disprove or to somehow out-do anyone but out of a love and passion for audio and music. I never say to people 'you are wrong because you have not experienced the same thing I have because that would be ridiculous! So here is the thing - I don't >'claim'< anything - I simply share what I have experienced because it has brought me pleasure and I would like other people to also enjoy what I have. Thats what nice about the audio community - we are in essence all enjoying the same thing What irks me though is that there are some people out there who seem to find it unacceptable that someone has experienced something they have not. Not only that, but based on their own complete lack of experience with the topic in question, will then demand that the person somehow 'has to' or 'needs to' Prove [what they have experienced] and further that they are WRONG - why? Because they themselves have not experienced it ?? TBH, I find this behaviour rude and frankly arrogant (not you - just in some cases) For example, some people report 'cable burn in' where the cable will change the sound over a period of time. Now this is not something I personally have found but I am perfectly happy and interested in their own findings. They don't need to prove anything to me?! I appreciate the essence of your point but perhaps where we have a different take revolves around the concept of making claims, be they extraordinary or not. I think your'e right in that information to expand on whatever point has been raised should be included Anyway.. I wish we could meet in person to talk - there just isn't enough space here to really or maybe accurately express everything. To answer your question about consciousness - Ive been studying & meditating on the the inner science of the mind (Lorig) for over twenty years. Because I also work with sound Ive found some fascinating insights about the nature of and the relationship between objects and the mind that perceives it, especially in the case of sound Unfortunately, such insights and experiences are not the same as say adding sugar to tea - that you can also do and then report back and say "oh yes, i see what you mean"!! :D All I can say is - One very interesting thing I have found is - the higher the bit rate and sample depth goes the more my mind is able to effortlessly mix with it. Im not claiming I can always hear a 'better' quality necessarily between 16/44 & 24/96 but more that the experience of the listening itself is different between lower and higher bit depth/sample rates Ive found that trying to concentrate on, for example low bit rate mp3's is almost impossible. So all I am saying is that is I have found there is a marked different experience in the quality of listening from the lowest quality mp3 to the highest quality DSD for example. (that is an extreme but you get my point?) I have no wish or desire to prove this but I wish I could, because then if other people found the same results and then went on to find a more pleasurable musical experience that would be amazing - to share something that I enjoy with other people. The whole topic of the mind itself, its nature and function and how that relates to sound... that's a whole big jar of cookies :) In conclusion - I appreciate your conclusion and agree but . . . I feel all I can ever do is observe my own experiences and upon occasion share my findings, be they provable or not Thanks again for your reply. Some great points
JJayJJ
472
May 19, 2019
lexsIt's refreshing to see someone that actually understands words. Like can comprehend whole sentences and the ideas of those sentences. My problem that I run into at times is I come across people that LITERALLY do not understand the meaning of something I say. I tell them "this is bad, because etc....", and they start talking about properties of a different topic. Totally devoid of any rationale or relation to what I am saying. So thank you for actually responding to precisely what I was saying. I usually don't see many folks do that. The whole discussion isn't formatted for discussing here for sure, sorry about making it this unwieldly, but all I ever try to do when talking online is AT LEAST make myself perfectly clear, so there is no confusion. But as you can see, it requires insane amount of elaboration. EDIT: One thing I gotta say about mixing with higher bit-rates. 100% absolutely agree, you need higher bit-depths/bit-rates. It makes the editing process so much easier so you're not running into potential clipping issues, so for professional use, I fully support the need and idea that using higher quality formats is not a luxury, or something unneeded, you 100% MUST use higher level formats for easier mastering/mixing.
(Edited)
lexs
117
May 19, 2019
JJayJJ:) I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to make your points so clearly. I need to read them again a few times. Ive had a similar conversation with a few people of late so there must be something here I need to take on board & learn! These days its not easy to debate or even discuss anything because one needs to express ones points and then to listen and respond..and to not only try to defend your points to your dying breath but to be open to what the other person is trying to communicate. Even amongst friends its rare for one to be able to finish a single sentence before the other person has stopped talking !! :D No-one seems to want to listen anymore but maybe with the sate of the world this shouldn' be a surprise? Im happy with my audio related beliefs & experiences as you can tell! and will happily try to explain why but Im also equally happy to drop them immediately if someone points out how they are incorrect. (I hope anyway!) What I find difficult i think is that for me [or anyone] my belief or understanding or what my actual experience is, is as true to me as anything can be. I don't understand the strong needs of people for my experiences to be provable so thank you for taking the time to explain your points. It helps a lot. I hope or at least I aspire that I can accept people and their views completely as they themselves hold them but it sure is tricky when people hold different views :) Thanks aagin
PRODUCTS YOU MAY LIKE
Trending Posts in Audiophile