Search results

After more than 2 years these continue to nail my personal preference curve without EQ. They are not bright, they are simply realistic. The timbres of instruments in well-recorded symphonic music are very true to what I hear in a concert hall. Maybe that's not what's needed in highly processed...

They're not close. I keep my ER2XR (which for me require quite a bit of EQ whereas I don't use any with the Salnotes) around for when I need serious isolation.

A year and a half now since I bought these. They continue to sound spectacularly natural with very minimal (and optional) EQ. They look like new even including the supplied red tips which I have been using all along. Really amazing value.

I'm talking about orchestral violins sections. I'm a Cleveland Orchestra subscriber and I play the violin in a community orchestra.

I just ordered a spare Salnotes Zero on Amazon for $15.99. I am really in love with how they sound, so that's where diminishing returns start for me. ;)

Your opinion. My concertgoing ears tell me otherwise.

Violins heard live are quite a bit brighter than the "smooth" sound many people seem to like.

You can replace a $20 IEM that falls apart 4 times and still have spent less than the cost of the unit under review. If the sound of the latter were even as good I could see paying more for visual aesthetics if that matters a lot to someone, but actually it's worse.

It's a marketing advantage. The market for 1DD IEMs costing much more than $20 is dead.

The tuning out of the box is nearly perfect- that is, realistic- for classical and other acoustic music. To me that should be the gold standard. People are then free to apply EQ as needed to make for more comfortable listening with other, heavily processed, genres.

Gee, yet another IEM that's objectively much worse than several models that cost 1/6 as much. How exciting.

You're over-complicating something quite simple. Preferences only need to be stated. Truth claims, meant to be accepted by others as valid, need to be supported. This is not a deep thought at all, it's very shallow. People tend to struggle with it when they have a strong belief which they can't...

This is more than fine! You paid a little extra for something you appreciate and you're enjoying it.

Why is a given SPL coming to your eardrums from an IEM any more or less dangerous than the same SPL coming from live music or speakers?

Your question makes no sense. If you want to state a preference, go right ahead. If you want to make a claim about reality that you expect others to accept, bring evidence. That's really all there is to say.

I am a trained scientist and a trained forensic scientist. Making a factual claim based only on my perception is something I am very highly conditioned not to do. And there are many sources of error besides bias. Stating preferences is fine, claiming that they're objectively correct without...

Imagine someone who had never seen or heard of a painting using perspective. They might think they can reach into that apparent depth, or alternatively if they're unfamiliar with the whole phenomenon of realistic paintings they might indeed just see an arrangement of paint on a canvas. The part...

If we're talking about audio, in the end you like what you like and that's fine. The trouble comes when people make what they insist are objective judgments based only on their subjective perceptions, usually in the service of insisting that the more expensive thing must be better.

It is a simple fact that you DON'T KNOW whether or not your perception is reliable unless you have additional evidence. Optical illusions are a very simple and educational example of that. I am a retired forensic DNA expert. One of the major effects of the development of DNA testing has been to...

Oh, there's plenty of reason for people to actively maintain their baseless perception long after spending the money. Nobody enjoys realizing that they spent $500 for what they could have gotten for $20, and the natural human tendency is to continue to insist- sometimes quite stridently, look at...