CM Storm releasing new Pitch gaming earphones

[LAwLz]

I never said that you said "IEMs are bad for gaming" either, but the way you describe them makes them seem undesirable. It's like if you said "luxury cars generally aren't a good purchase", sure you aren't saying that all luxury cars shouldn't be purchased but you're saying that they mostly aren't, save for a few. What I'm saying is that they're better than you think, to be completely honest it doesn't sound like you have much experience with using them in games at all.

Using what in games? IEMs? No I use my K702s (also got Shure SRH440, Corsair 1500 and a few other, but I don't use them) for movies/gaming/whatever, and my IEMs (Sennheiser CX 400-II among others) for when I am using my phone. I have used IEMs when gaming from time to time though, but I don't really see what this has to do with the discussion (you're not trying to build up an ad hominem argument are you?). You seem to think that I dislike all IEMs, and say that they are crap. They aren't, and it seems like you are projecting waaay too much here, reading into things which aren't there, and interpreting my posts the wrong way/not reading my full posts.

 

 

Battlefield 3 is the epitome of a good sounding game that would benefit from a wide soundstage. It's not like I'm choosing some random game and saying that they work fine, hundreds of thousands of people still play this game actively.

 

We already do, what we don't agree on is that IEMs are better for gaming than you think.

Surround sound in Battlefield 3 might enhance the feeling of the game, and the game is well designed for it, but that's not the same as you greatly benefiting from it. Like you said yourself, you didn't benefit from using an audio setup with great soundstage. You are, yet again, arguing against yourself here. That's because you got so many other ways of locating enemies in Battlefield, and there are so many different sounds so it's very hard to actually use sounds to your advantage (again, just compare the Quake video where a huge part of it is just dead silence, when you can easily locate an enemy, vs the Battlefield 3 video where someone is firing or explosions are occurring 99% of the time). The amount of people who play that game has absolutely nothing to do with if it's a game where accurate sound positioning is to your advantage or not.

 

 

I have never said anything about how good IEMs are for gaming. The only thing I said is that they are not the absolute best you can get. That is all. Everything else you think I have said is your interpretation of my posts, and you reading into things which aren't there.

Do you agree that IEMs are not the absolute best you can get for a gaming setup? If you say yes, then you agree with me, because that's what the whole discussion started with, me saying that IEMs aren't really optimal for gaming either. Remember, optimal = the best you can get.

 

 

I wasn't aware that there is a limited number of quotes you can put in a single post.

[Hyydrah]

Those were some of the first results I got when I searched for the IEMs YOU personally picked out (and yes, you did by definition cherry pick those 3 IEMs, there is no denying that at all). Even your own link YOU posted shows that the waste majority of users on Head-Fi agrees with me. I have no idea where you got that quote from by the way, because I have never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that they are generally not as good as full sized headphones for things such as soundstage, which is true. That's where this whole debate started, because you seem to think that IEMs are better (not just at soundstage but frequency response and comfort as well, which is just wrong on so many levels).

I am not trying to describe them unfavorably, I am actually citing a lot of people who own several high end headphones as well as IEMs. You on the other hand have just made empty statements and only posted a single source, which mostly agrees with my claims. I find it insulting that you keep making empty claims with no sources whatsoever.

I'm not denying that, I'm arguing that you shouldn't accuse others of things you're guilty of yourself. And yes, you actually did say that  only in some instances are they actually good, albeit in different wording.

 

I don't "seem to think that IEMs are better", I'm arguing that they're better than you seem to think. From the way you describe them, you make them sound like very poor performers except on a few select occasions, which simply isn't true. You're trying to prove me wrong on an argument that I'm not even making.

 

Yes, I said that IEMs usually aren't optimal for gaming because their soundstage are often not that good, which is true (again, the link you personally posted agrees with that, except for a few quite rare cases where the IEMs actually have a good soundstage, but they are rare and you have to cherry pick when mentioning them). I have also already explained why the other "factors" (actually just one objective and one subjective) aren't really worth talking about. Again, frequency response accuracy is not really needed for gaming and comfort is subjective. If you can think of another factor other than soundstage, frequency response and comfort then sure I'll talk about that as well if you want.

What makes you think that soundstage is so important? For (at least) the third time, it doesn't even make much of a difference in FPS games like Battlefield 3, and that's coming from a player with 700 hours+ of game time. You on the other hand are simply saying that if headphones have a narrow soundstage they're automatically exempt from the title of "gaming" headphones, even though it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as you think.

 

I didn't say that frequency response accuracy is important, I said that sound quality is to the point of being able to hear and distinguish sounds like footsteps (from other noises and whatnot). I don't know why you keep pointing out that comfort is subjective either when sound quality is as well.

 

Just because they need an AMP to show their full potential does not necessarily mean they are bad value. this statement also heavily implies that IEMs are good value because they don't benefit from an AMP, as you said in this before:

Please note how you say "on average IEMs seem to hold a superior value, especially considering how the vast majority of IEMs hardly benefit from an amp". You are flat out saying that they are better value, because they do not benefit from an AMP. By the way, you don't need to buy an AMP for many headphones. If you don't want to buy an AMP then there are plenty of great options for you. If you want something high end though, then you are going to need an AMP (and no, high end IEMs doesn't come anywhere near very high end headphones so don't give me that "aha, you agree with me because you said high end IEMs often does not need an AMP while full sized headphones will need one")

I said that they seem to because it's one less component that you'll need to reach adequate sound levels for gaming.

 

And by the way, there are people on both sides of the fence that say "IEMs sound better/worse than over ear headphones" in those threads that were linked, which is contrary to what you're saying. At the end of the day it's really up to the listener, why not take your own advice and not talk about subjective factors like sound quality and soundstage?

 

No, sound quality is not subjective. You can very accurately measure things such as frequency response and harmonic distortion and with that make actual numbers on how a set of headphones sound. That's what people who know audio refers to when they talk about how the sound quality of audio equipment is. Even if you do want colored sound, neutral headphones will generally be better because you can then tweak them accurately with an EQ.

I'm referring to sound quality as in what makes people choose one headphone over another because of how it sounds. In that case it is subjective (a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view).

 

There is no such thing as something sounding "better" without there being an opinion (which is what is meant by "quality" in this case) unless you're referring to how well it reproduces an audio sample or that sort of thingand if there's an opinion, that makes it subjective. What you're referring to is how well the audio sample is reproduced, which would be objective, but I'm not talking about that. This is why a headphone may seem to have better sound quality than another because it sounds more punchy rather than realistic.

 

Well I guess it depends on what you are used to. I am used to games with very clear and distinct sounds for each thing (such as Quake) while Battlefield 3 does have a lot of muddy sounds and a lot of them playing at the same time. Yes I used to play Battlefield 3. It's also different on how you play the game. In Battlefield you usually got 15 or so teammates who makes a lot of sounds, and then 16 enemies which also makes sounds. Compare that to 1vs1 in Quake where you only have to listen for a single person. You have to admit that it is a lot more chaotic with 31 other players all making different sounds, vs only a single other person making sounds. That's when it's very important to be able to determine where someone is.

Listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlbIIcvqr0g

Notice the huge amount of complete silence? Now compare that to this (especially at around 1 minute in when he gets into combat, the sound is not nearly as clear as in Quake):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8hbv4lsHQ

And that's without factoring in that in you should be speaking to the other players when playing Battlefield 3, which adds even more sounds.

 

I was telling an anecdote when I said the sound was drowned out. Reread that part again please. I wasn't quoting you when I said "being able to distinguish footsteps from other noises does not equal good sound quality", that was a statement I made, and I explained the reasoning behind it as well.

 

 

Well the discussion became mostly soundstage oriented because you said that IEMs had better soundstage than full sized. Here is a quote:

I just used that as an example of why IEMs aren't optimal for gaming. I have never said that it's the only thing that matters ever. I was just making an example of where IEMs falls short compared to a lot of full sized headphones, in an area which is important to games. I guess you could say that for gaming, you don't really need that great headphones/IEMs at all really. That does not mean that IEMs are the crème de la crème for gaming though.

If we are talking about what's optimal for something, when why bring in value? Again, I could completely switch this conversation around (putting you in my current position, and vice versa) by starting to argue that omnidirectional mics are optimal for gaming, compared to highly directional mics. Again, I never said that IEMs are necessarily bad for gaming, just that they are usually not optimal.

I didn't play in noisy servers, actually. You do realize that you linked a Youtube video that's in a very lossy format, right? Not to mention that the way the person recorded the footage often drastically affects not only the sound but also the visual outcome.

 

I agree that over ear headphones are probably more often optimal for gaming, but the way that you said it made it sound like good gaming IEMs are a slim choosing, which is what I disagree with. To make it clear, I wasn't arguing that IEMs are generally better for gaming, just that they are more than you seem to think. (As a side note, if I were to make a decent gaming setup from scratch, headphones wouldn't be my priority, but rather other hardware like the mouse, monitor and GPU.)

 

I would welcome an argument that omnidirectional microphones are better, because they can be, it's just that the majority of the time they aren't.

[boggle4321]

looks good, i probably break them in what, 4 or 5 days? they'd last longer than my apple earpods 

[Hyydrah]

Using what in games? IEMs? No I use my K702s (also got Shure SRH440, Corsair 1500 and a few other, but I don't use them) for movies/gaming/whatever, and my IEMs (Sennheiser CX 400-II among others) for when I am using my phone. I have used IEMs when gaming from time to time though, but I don't really see what this has to do with the discussion (you're not trying to build up an ad hominem argument are you?). You seem to think that I dislike all IEMs, and say that they are crap. They aren't, and it seems like you are projecting waaay too much here, reading into things which aren't there, and interpreting my posts the wrong way/not reading my full posts.

I don't think that. As I've said several times, what I'm arguing is that IEMs are better for gaming than you seem to think. Also, what you refer to as an ad hominem was justified since you don't seem to have much experience with Battlefield 3 by saying that it sounds so bad.

 

Surround sound in Battlefield 3 might enhance the feeling of the game, and the game is well designed for it, but that's not the same as you greatly benefiting from it. Like you said yourself, you didn't benefit from using an audio setup with great soundstage. You are, yet again, arguing against yourself here. That's because you got so many other ways of locating enemies in Battlefield, and there are so many different sounds so it's very hard to actually use sounds to your advantage (again, just compare the Quake video where a huge part of it is just dead silence, when you can easily locate an enemy, vs the Battlefield 3 video where someone is firing or explosions are occurring 99% of the time). The amount of people who play that game has absolutely nothing to do with if it's a game where accurate sound positioning is to your advantage or not.

 

 

I have never said anything about how good IEMs are for gaming. The only thing I said is that they are not the absolute best you can get. That is all. Everything else you think I have said is your interpretation of my posts, and you reading into things which aren't there.

Do you agree that IEMs are not the absolute best you can get for a gaming setup? If you say yes, then you agree with me, because that's what the whole discussion started with, me saying that IEMs aren't really optimal for gaming either. Remember, optimal = the best you can get.

I brought up the fact that there are so many players that actively play the game because you said that I was cherrypicking. I'd agree that it would be cherrypicking if I picked a random unpopular game and brought up the fact that soundstage doesn't matter, my point is that it's a game that was optimized well for headphones with good soundstage and yet my scores weren't noticeably affected even with headphones that have a poor soundstage.

 

You're cherry picking again by choosing a video with

 

a ) lossy audio to "prove" that it's muddy, etc.

 

b ) heavy action that isn't necessarily how the game actually is (and it wasn't for the majority of the time that I played).

 

I may be reading things that aren't explicitly there, but they definitely seem to be implied. You could argue that "you're reading things that aren't there" after someone said "I wish gays had rights. LOL", it's the implication that's often the most important part of a quote.

 

Do I agree that IEMs aren't the absolute best for gaming? It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean in general, then yes, but there are situations where they will outperform over ear headphones.

[Hyydrah]

Double post.

[LAwLz]

I'm not denying that, I'm arguing that you shouldn't accuse others of things you're guilty of yourself. And yes, you actually did say that  only in some instances are they actually good, albeit in different wording.

When did I cherry pick? All I did was goggle the name of the IEMs you picked, and then posted quotes from the review regarding soundstage.

 

 

I don't "seem to think that IEMs are better", I'm arguing that they're better than you seem to think. From the way you describe them, you make them sound like very poor performers except on a few select occasions, which simply isn't true. You're trying to prove me wrong on an argument that I'm not even making.

Pretty much your whole argument is based on you projecting and reading into things that aren't there. I said that IEMs aren't optimal for gaming and you act as if I insulting your mother or something. You are overreacting and exaggerating everything I say.

 

 

What makes you think that soundstage is so important? For (at least) the third time, it doesn't even make a difference in FPS games like Battlefield 3, and that's coming from a player with 700 hours+ of game time. You on the other hand are simply saying that if headphones have a narrow soundstage they're automatically exempt from the title of "gaming" headphones, even though it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as you think.

 

I didn't say that frequency response accuracy is important, I said that sound quality is to the point of being able to hear and distinguish sounds like footsteps. I don't know why you keep pointing out that comfort is subjective either when sound quality is as well.

OK let me ask you this. What makes headphones "gaming headphones"? If it's not soundstage, and it's not the mic (which you pointed out I should add) and it's not the sound accuracy. What is there left? I don't give a damn how many hours you got on Battlefield 3 because it does not matter at all for this conversation. It's just another logical fallacy you are trying to shoehorn in to cover up your complete lack of sources for you claims.

No, sound quality is not subjective like I pointed out before. You can accurately measure how well headphones reproduce different sounds and create graphs showing it. If a headphone is all over the frequency response then it's bad, if it is very neutral then it is good. Like I said before, even if you like colored sound you will still be pleased with neutral headphones since they will accurately response to EQ settings, the same can not be said for colored headphones and a user who wants neutral sound though. Anyway I have already said that good sounding headphones are not really needed for games, as long as you don't use something very bad.

 

 

I said that they seem to because it's one less component that you'll need to reach adequate sound levels for gaming. I've heard about how many on ear headphones basically require an amp in order to hear quieter sounds like footsteps.

 

And by the way, there are people on both sides of the fence that say "IEMs sound better/worse than over ear headphones" in those threads that were linked, which is contrary to what you're saying. At the end of the day it's really up to the listener, why not take your own advice and not talk about subjective factors like sound quality and soundstage?

I never said that all people in the thread agreed with me, but I quickly scanned through it and read some of the posts and it seems like the majority does.

You can't be serious when you say soundstage is subjective... It seems like you don't really understand a lot of terms I have used though (more on that later) so I am starting to question why I am wasting my time here, since you won't change your mind (in before "oh but you're not changing your mind either", that's because you are not arguing against my claims, you are just making strawman arguments and attacking those).

Your argument to why they were better value was, in fact, because they don't benefit from an AMP. I don't see any other way of interpreting what you said. You said that the IEMs seems to be better value, because they don't benefit from an AMP. You didn't say it seems like they don't benefit from an AMP, you said they seem better BECAUSE they don't benefit from an AMP. There is a huge difference.

 

 

 

I'm referring to sound quality as in what makes people choose one headphone over another because of how it sounds. In that case it is subjective (a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view).

 

There is no such thing as something sounding "better" without there being an opinion (which is what is meant by "quality" in this case), and if there's an opinion that makes it subjective. What you're referring to is how well the audio sample is reproduced, which would be objective, but I'm not talking about that. This is why a headphone may seem to have better sound quality than another because it sounds more punchy rather than realistic.

Well sound quality and sound reproduction are synonymy if you ask me, but when you put it like that I can kind of agree that sound quality is subjective. It is sound reproduction that is important though, because that's what determines the sound quality.

 

 

I didn't play in noisy servers, actually. You do realize that you linked a Youtube video that's in a lossy format, right? Not to mention that the way the person recorded the footage often drastically affects not only the sound but also the visual outcome.

 

And if you play Quake, that makes sound quality all the more important even if what you're saying about Battlefield 3 being muddy is true.

What does lossy format have to do with anything? You seem to think that muddy = low bitrate encode, which isn't true. Muddy audio can be caused by a badly encoded audio, but they are not the same thing. Since tech people seem to like car analogies I'll do one too. A car with a broken engine might not go very fast, but a car not going very fast does not necessarily have a broken engine. Muddy audio means that sounds are poorly defined. If you listen to Battlefield 3 you will notice that a lot of sounds are very similar. I doubt that you could distinguish the MP443 and the M9 while other people where shooting around you, explosions where occurring and so on. In Quake 3 though, all sounds are very well defined and unique. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the sounds in Battlefield 3 are bad, I would have a very hard time finding a game with as good or better sound effects. They are muddy though (which it should be, since it's realistic) and far from well defined, especially when you got ~20 other people shouting and shooting around you. It seems like the people over at Head-Fi agrees with me yet again.

I am not sure why that would make sound quality more important. Can you please elaborate?

 

 

I agree that over ear headphones are probably more often optimal for gaming, but the way that you said it made it sound like good gaming IEMs are a slim choosing, which is what I disagree with. To make it clear, I wasn't arguing that IEMs are generally better for gaming, just that they are more than you seem to think. (As a side note, if I were to make a decent gaming setup from scratch, headphones wouldn't be my priority, but rather other hardware like the mouse, monitor and GPU.)

So you realize that you are arguing about something I never said? Again, I never said they were bad for gaming, it's just the way you read my posts. It all started when I said IEMs are most likely not the best for gaming, which you seem to agree with. So why are we arguing if we agree with each other? Why do you keep saying that I said things I have never said? You seem to think that I dislike IEMs for some reason, which I don't. The only reason why I have talked a lot of negative things about IEMs in this thread is because you said they are usually better than full sized and over ear. Quote:

They can outperform over ear headphones by quite a substantial amount, look at the Westone ES5's or 4/4R's for example. From my experience their performance/dollar ratio is superior to that of over ear headphones, actually.

 

 

I don't think that. As I've said several times, what I'm arguing is that IEMs are better for gaming than you seem to think. Also the ad hominem is justified since you don't seem to have much experience with Battlefield 3 by saying that it sounds "muddy".

No, ad hominem are never justifiable, because it's a logical fallacy. If you must know, I got 68 hours of playtime on Battlefield 3, that's more than enough time to realize that the sounds are quite muddy.

[LAwLz]

I brought up the fact that there are so many players that actively play the game because you said that I was cherrypicking. I'd agree that it would be cherrypicking if I picked a random unpopular game and brought up the fact that soundstage doesn't matter, my point is that it's a game that was optimized well for headphones with good soundstage and yet my scores weren't noticeably affected even with headphones that have a poor soundstage.

 

You're cherry picking again by choosing a video with

 

a ) lossy audio to "prove" that it's muddy, etc.

 

b ) heavy action that isn't necessarily how the game actually is (and it wasn't for the majority of the time that I played).

 

I may be reading things that aren't explicitly there, but they definitely seem to be implied. You could argue that "you're reading things that aren't there" after someone said "I wish gays had rights. LOL", it's the implication that's often the most important part of a quote.

I wasn't talking about you cherry picking the game, I was talking about how you cherry picked IEMs with good sound stage. I said that IEMs usually have quite bad soundstage, you cherry picked 3 IEMs with supposedly good soundstage and then posted those as a counter argument.

Here is the definition of cherry picking: cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Did you or did you not pick those three IEMs and posted those because they got good soundstage? If yes, then you did unquestionably cherry pick them.

I wouldn't say Battlefield 3 is optimized for headphones with wide soundstage by the way, since as the Head-Fi people pointed out, a lot of the sounds aren't even directional. Just to be clear, that's not to say that it's badly designed either.

 

a) It's very easy to hear that the audio in Battlefield 3 is far muddier than Quake 3 and a lot of other games. I don't really see how you can even argue against that. Are the sounds realistic? Yes they are. Are they muddy? Yes they are.

 

b) Well it depends on what levels you play. I usually played the indoors levels because I prefer action over camping and getting killed by a vehicle because nobody wants to play anti-tank. The audio has a tendency to echo in the levels such as metro, which further makes the sounds muddy and gimps the ability to detect where the sounds came from.

 

It was not my intention to imply that IEMs are bad. All I am trying to do is show that they are not usually better than other solutions which you explicitly said they were before.

 

 

Do I agree that IEMs aren't the absolute best for gaming? It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean in general, then yes, but there are situations where they will outperform over ear headphones.

Good that we agree, because that's what exactly what I said in my first few posts in this thread (and has since then been repeating over and over and over).

Can we please leave this now? It seems like we are agreeing but still arguing for some reason.

[Hyydrah]

When did I cherry pick? All I did was goggle the name of the IEMs you picked, and then posted quotes from the review regarding soundstage.

This must be the third time I've said how, why not take your own advice and read the posts above?

 

Pretty much your whole argument is based on you projecting and reading into things that aren't there. I said that IEMs aren't optimal for gaming and you act as if I insulting your mother or something. You are overreacting and exaggerating everything I say.

In what way am I overreacting?

 

As I said earlier (what is it, the second time?), it doesn't matter if they're said explicitly or not, they can still be read implicitly.

 

OK let me ask you this. What makes headphones "gaming headphones"? If it's not soundstage, and it's not the mic (which you pointed out I should add) and it's not the sound accuracy. What is there left? I don't give a damn how many hours you got on Battlefield 3 because it does not matter at all for this conversation. It's just another logical fallacy you are trying to shoehorn in to cover up your complete lack of sources for you claims.

No, sound quality is not subjective like I pointed out before. You can accurately measure how well headphones reproduce different sounds and create graphs showing it. If a headphone is all over the frequency response then it's bad, if it is very neutral then it is good. Like I said before, even if you like colored sound you will still be pleased with neutral headphones since they will accurately response to EQ settings, the same can not be said for colored headphones and a user who wants neutral sound though. Anyway I have already said that good sounding headphones are not really needed for games, as long as you don't use something very bad.

What makes headphones "gaming headphones"?

 

How about we consider what games will actually be played? Since audio equipment rarely excels under all usage scenarios (especially at this price point), we have to determine what games will be played first. You're assuming that they will benefit from soundstage enough to warrant the purchase of these headphones, even though games like Battlefield 3 don't benefit as much as you say they will. If they're playing League of Legends, soundstage is practically meaningless from a score standpoint. And yes, the amount of hours I have in Battlefield 3 is relevant since it's necessary to test whether it makes any noticeable difference to my score when gaming with headphones that have a narrow soundstage.

 

Like I said earlier, it depends on what you mean by sound quality. It seems like it can be subjective or objective, depending on how it's measured. I agree that sound quality isn't necessarily that important for gaming just as soundstage isn't always either, but it can be and it's another factor to consider (which is my point).

 

What does lossy format have to do with anything? You seem to think that muddy = low bitrate encode, which isn't true. Muddy audio can be caused by a badly encoded audio, but they are not the same thing. Since tech people seem to like car analogies I'll do one too. A car with a broken engine might not go very fast, but a car not going very fast does not necessarily have a broken engine. Muddy audio means that sounds are poorly defined. If you listen to Battlefield 3 you will notice that a lot of sounds are very similar. I doubt that you could distinguish the MP443 and the M9 while other people where shooting around you, explosions where occurring and so on. In Quake 3 though, all sounds are very well defined and unique. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the sounds in Battlefield 3 are bad, I would have a very hard time finding a game with as good or better sound effects. They are muddy though (which it should be, since it's realistic) and far from well defined, especially when you got ~20 other people shouting and shooting around you. It seems like the people over at Head-Fi agrees with me yet again.

I am not sure why that would make sound quality more important. Can you please elaborate?

Muddy can mean "poorly defined", which is what lossy audio can cause. I can actually tell the difference between all of the weapons, including the MP443 and M9. And even if lossy audio didn't cause muddy audio, you still aren't accounting for the capture card used to record the video, which often makes a drastic difference.

 

There are two people that agreed on that page, and one that disagreed, that's not incredibly convincing evidence. Anyway, I've played both games thoroughly and can say that Battlefield 3 definitely sounds more convincing. It's all subjective though, take your own advice and stop talking about it since everyone has their own opinion.

[naca1227]

[Hyydrah]

So you realize that you are arguing about something I never said? Again, I never said they were bad for gaming, it's just the way you read my posts. It all started when I said IEMs are most likely not the best for gaming, which you seem to agree with. So why are we arguing if we agree with each other? Why do you keep saying that I said things I have never said? You seem to think that I dislike IEMs for some reason, which I don't. The only reason why I have talked a lot of negative things about IEMs in this thread is because you said they are usually better than full sized and over ear.

Holy crap, you haven't been reading my posts, have you? It's because you're implying that IEMs are rarely a good choice, that's what I disagree with. When did I ever say that IEMs are usually better than full sized and over ear headphones? "Stop putting words in to my mouth".

 

Me: "They can outperform over ear headphones by quite a substantial amount, look at the Westone ES5's or 4/4R's for example. From my experience their performance/dollar ratio is superior to that of over ear headphones, actually." (not always).

[Hyydrah]

No, ad hominem are never justifiable, because it's a logical fallacy. If you must know, I got 68 hours of playtime on Battlefield 3, that's more than enough time to realize that the sounds are quite muddy.

Me: "What I'm saying is that they're better than you think, to be completely honest it doesn't sound like you have much experience with using them in games at all."

 

I'm not trying to attack you (if that's considered attacking at all). It's a relevant point since you act like you know these games when you're just quoting what other people say and ignoring posts that disagree with you. I'm not trying to attack you (if that's considered attacking at all).

 

You still haven't proven that the sounds so muddy. You back it up by saying that other people agree with you even though there are people that disagree as well. If that isn't cherry picking, what is?

 

I wasn't talking about you cherry picking the game, I was talking about how you cherry picked IEMs with good sound stage. I said that IEMs usually have quite bad soundstage, you cherry picked 3 IEMs with supposedly good soundstage and then posted those as a counter argument.

Here is the definition of cherry picking: cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Did you or did you not pick those three IEMs and posted those because they got good soundstage? If yes, then you did unquestionably cherry pick them.

I wouldn't say Battlefield 3 is optimized for headphones with wide soundstage by the way, since as the Head-Fi people pointed out, a lot of the sounds aren't even directional. Just to be clear, that's not to say that it's badly designed either.

 

a) It's very easy to hear that the audio in Battlefield 3 is far muddier than Quake 3 and a lot of other games. I don't really see how you can even argue against that. Are the sounds realistic? Yes they are. Are they muddy? Yes they are.

 

B) Well it depends on what levels you play. I usually played the indoors levels because I prefer action over camping and getting killed by a vehicle because nobody wants to play anti-tank. The audio has a tendency to echo in the levels such as metro, which further makes the sounds muddy and gimps the ability to detect where the sounds came from.

 

It was not my intention to imply that IEMs are bad. All I am trying to do is show that they are not usually better than other solutions which you explicitly said they were before.

"Soundstage is above average.  The UE Triple.Fi 10 is the only IEM I own with a larger soundstage.  However the TF10 makes you feel about 15 rows deep at a concert and the W4 seems to bring you closer, maybe to within 5 rows."

 

"Other attributes that bear mentioning, soundstage on the Westone 4 is very good. "

 

"Soundstage

Feels like the band is just infront of me!"

 

http://www.head-fi.org/products/westone-4-true-fit-earphones

 

Those were just the first three in chronological order, sorted from most helpful first. From my experience I didn't find sounds to not be directional other than when they're an echo, which is understandable since echos change where the sound is perceived to be coming from...

 

If you want to prove that the sounds are muddy, Youtube videos are a biased way of doing so. At LEAST present less lossy audio samples rather than a link to some poorly recorded Youtube video.

 

Good that we agree, because that's what exactly what I said in my first few posts in this thread (and has since then been repeating over and over and over).

Can we please leave this now? It seems like we are agreeing but still arguing for some reason.

We agree on some things, not all. We can leave it at that.

[LAwLz]

Sigh... This entire discussion is based on "I think you are implying things so you are wrong!". I am done. I was writing another long reply but my browser crashed and I lost it, and this conversation isn't going anywhere anyway.

Your trump card in this discussion is "you never said this, but I am going to say that you implied it, which means I can argue against it!" which is just flat out stupid and I have no way of defending against it (since you're just putting words in my mouth and arguing against that, it doesn't matter what I say at this point). Your posts are so filled with fallacies that I can barely count them on my hands anymore, and you go back and add words to your previous posts when you are quoting yourself (so not only do you say I am implying things I never implied, you also change what you said in the past when you realize you were wrong).

It's seriously like arguing with a child. I am leaving this thread now.

 

 

Holy crap, you haven't been reading my posts, have you? It's because you're implying that IEMs are rarely a good choice, that's what I disagree with. When did I ever say that IEMs are usually better than full sized and over ear headphones? "Stop putting words in to my mouth".

I never implied that, at all. I have said it over and over again, and I have been very careful with my wording to include things such as "rarely, usually, often" and so on so that nobody would think that I was talking about all IEMs, yet you still manages to misinterpret and miss my points completely.

 

Good bye.

[Hyydrah]

Sigh... This entire discussion is based on "I think you are implying things so you are wrong!". I am done. I was writing another long reply but my browser crashed and I lost it, and this conversation isn't going anywhere anyway.

Your trump card in this discussion is "you never said this, but I am going to say that you implied it, which means I can argue against it!" which is just flat out stupid and I have no way of defending against it (since you're just putting words in my mouth and arguing against that, it doesn't matter what I say at this point). Your posts are so filled with fallacies that I can barely count them on my hands anymore, and you go back and add words to your previous posts when you are quoting yourself (so not only do you say I am implying things I never implied, you also change what you said in the past when you realize you were wrong).

It's seriously like arguing with a child. I am leaving this thread now.

 

 

I never implied that, at all. I have said it over and over again, and I have been very careful with my wording to include things such as "rarely, usually, often" and so on so that nobody would think that I was talking about all IEMs, yet you still manages to misinterpret and miss my points completely.

 

Good bye.

So you're saying that if someone told you "HA! Nice haircut.", it's stupid to argue against that? Just because you didn't explicitly say something doesn't mean that there isn't an implied message.

 

I hate to ask since it'll probably just make the argument last longer, but when did I "change what I said"? You have clearly been changing the quoted text, which is something that should probably be fixed soon...

 

And finally, I never said that you were talking about all IEMs, and I understand that you aren't. We've both misinterpreted each other's posts at one point or another, it's silly to point out that I did when you have just as many times.

[DLM_012]

I honestly don't take earbuds seriously for anything other than music but that's just me. If I'm gaming, I want a headset with massive drivers to deliver some impressive sound.