IEMs close to Harman curve?

[MZKM]

It is one of those unwritten rules to not talk down about your competitor. Th

Tell that to Samsung with all their commercials bashing Apple (then again, Apple did have their “I’m a Mac” commercials).

 

[maxxevv]

You do realise that Harman is now owned by Samsung ? And under that umbrella are a few brands...

Dr Olive's disclosure of whatever the found from their measurements to per excellent products outside of their related brandss can seen as a negative to the parent company as a whole. So, the marketing department definitely has good reason to keep such things under the hood.

 

[Tks]

You do realise that Harman is now owned by Samsung ? And under that umbrella are a few brands...

Dr Olive's disclosure of whatever the found from their measurements to per excellent products outside of their related brandss can seen as a negative to the parent company as a whole. So, the marketing department definitely has good reason to keep such things under the hood.

I did not know. This is actually an argument to the contrary in that case. Samsung can afford any liability first and foremost. Also if you haven't noticed, there's no need to actually be bias against companies in the research lab, companies now openly advertise against one another (see things like mobile carriers ripping each other new ones constantly), or the Apple vs Windows ads of old.. Also if the results are repeatable, who cares if competitors sue once, all Samsung would need to do after demonstrating no foul play the first time in court, appeal to courts for burden of proof to fall upon the accuser, not the accused (which is how things normally work in most areas of the world, and not simply have companies perpetually suing one another overtime they come out with a new product by claiming stolen design every single product SKU for example).

 

[amirm]

Just wondering, who's Sean's competitor in this instance?

It is everyone who competes with Harman's brands which is Revel, JBL, AKG, etc.

Also don't you face the same liability. I see nothing to quell an effort to sue you for example for every single review, even if they knew they had no case, they can simply harass you with legal proceedings as is the usual case for someone ardent enough on spoiling your day irrespective of reason?

Not the same because I am not a competitor to these companies and freedom of speech/press provides a lot of protection that wouldn't for a company. That said, I am very careful in my conduct in how I perform my reviews. I seek feedback from companies, run new tests, listen to criticism, etc. The work is also professionally done and is reproducible.

But yes, there is precedence for companies going after websites. Can't let that interfere with what needs to be said and done.

 

[amirm]

I did not know. This is actually an argument to the contrary in that case. Samsung can afford any liability first and foremost.

No matter how big the company is, it doesn't want any more grief than it gets in regular course of business. If you do something wrong and causes a suit, it could very well impact your career.

 

[Tks]

No matter how big the company is, it doesn't want any more grief than it gets in regular course of business. If you do something wrong and causes a suit, it could very well impact your career.

You missed the logic. The scenario is this:

X companies are willing to risk some liability by making statements in order to garner consumer sentiment using very little proof for such claims.

if X company is willing to do something like this..

X company would be much more willing to jump on the chance to demonstrate to consumers with a more "seeing is believing" demonstration AND the usual statement they would otherwise make with little proof that they usually do anyway.

The fact that company X now believes it has far more demonstrable proof and truth to display and back up their claims, they would then be more willing to take this sort of liability vs the normal liability they take that is even riskier when they make silly nebulous claims. (feel like I repeated myself here, but I needed to drive the point on how this conclusion is made with logic deduction regarding normal behavior).

 

[amirm]

The fact that company X now believes it has far more demonstrable proof and truth to display and back up their claims, they would then be more willing to take this sort of liability vs the normal liability they take that is even riskier when they make silly nebulous claims. (feel like I repeated myself here, but I needed to drive the point on how this conclusion is made with logic deduction regarding normal behavior).

Companies don't want to come within a mile of any risks. Harman for examples makes billions of dollars in automotive audio. The luxury audio group that does this research is tiny business compared to that. No way do they want this small group create liability for them. A jury trial conducted in US with a plaintiff being a little US company that had to close up due to this kind of data could have the book thrown at Samsung. Punitive damages could be huge. This is what their lawyers and conservative managers would say in a large company.

They even have a bigger problem with Samsung owning them where language and cultural barriers add to the equation. Life is just hard in big companies. Look at what I get to do here when I am a one-man company versus all the constraints that a big company has.

 

[Tks]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't line up with actual events in reality. Sure the corporate lawyers would advise something like this, but that's their job, to give the lay of the land before litigation occurs, after litigation, a whole new set of trial lawyers are made use of.

Also "companies don't want to come within a mile of any risks", this is simply a declaratory statement, as simply running a company and allocating funds for various parts within the company is in of itself a risk. A new product is a risk, a new advertisement is a risk. It's all actually risks.

As I said, you have telecom companies doing things like this.. So unless you have some specific definition of risk that I'm not in line with, I'd like to understand how a company would be willing to proceed with something like that, and not see it as risk (or my prior example of telecoms like Verizon that will rip on T-Mobile with claims of superiority), but then you engage in a special plea by saying with ACTAUL proof of superiority - they wouldn't take the risk on making the same claim with published peer reviewed papers backing up the claims?

I'm sorry again, but that doesn't make sense.

 

[maxxevv]

I'm sorry again, but that doesn't make sense.

What you see/suggest here doesn't gel with how big corporations work.

I too have worked in a multi-billion dollar engineering group before my current employment status. Amir says it as exactly how things function in such corporations. You don't stir a hornet's nest unless absolutely necessary or if its in the greater interest of the company as a whole.

In this case, its neither.

 

[Hugo9000]

Keeping this research internal makes excellent sense to me, even when completely disregarding issues surrounding potential lawsuits. Why give your competitors any publicity? What if certain models by some competitors actually perform better than some of your own products? If the competitor isn't engaging in extensive research and testing of their own, why give them information that could put them on the right track to outperform your own products?

If the public knows your company spends significant time and money on research and testing, chances are good that many will assume your products do well in your tests (otherwise why would you even waste money continuing with this testing if it doesn't bear fruit for you), even if from time to time, your internal testing reveals that a competitor might beat you in some significant ways, or come very close to your best performing product but at a much lower price point. If you never reveal competitor specifics, you don't have to worry about these things.

Anywho, just my opinion on the matter. Presumably Harman's decision is based on all factors, legal, marketing, etc. I'm sure they have research on the best ways to perform and present their research haha!

 

[Tks]

What you see/suggest here doesn't gel with how big corporations work.

I too have worked in a multi-billion dollar engineering group before my current employment status. Amir says it as exactly how things function in such corporations. You don't stir a hornet's nest unless absolutely necessary or if its in the greater interest of the company as a whole.

In this case, its neither.

What do you mean? You're making a declaratory statement. Meaning you're just 'saying' "no", while I said the contrary and explained precisely and logically my reasoning for it. You're just simply stating "no" because "I work in corporations too", but don't address the logical deduction I made?

Even if it's true, and this is what occurs(which it doesn't). What is the counter-argument to operating in the way I said, even if that's not how companies operate currently? If they're taking risks regardless, and engaging with competitive behavior against other companies openly with borderline degrading advertisements to the competition. I need an explanation of why they wouldn't do the same when they had demonstrable proof for their claims?

Also an explanation of the statement that companies don't take risks. The only thing in this light that was presented "lawyers tell them what is risky" yeah, in an advisory capacity, nothing else.. otherwise courtroom lawyers wouldn't exist, because no company would be taking a risk (at the heed of lawyer advice), and there would be no reason to every be in court with respect to company vs company if none of them are taking risks.

This simply again, does not make sense..

 

[Tks]

Keeping this research internal makes excellent sense to me, even when completely disregarding issues surrounding potential lawsuits. Why give your competitors any publicity? What if certain models by some competitors actually perform better than some of your own products? If the competitor isn't engaging in extensive research and testing of their own, why give them information that could put them on the right track to outperform your own products?

The first portion is simple.. Why would you publish results if they're not in your favor? Well transparency, and if this is against the financial interests, then the reason for not publishing is literally the.. conflict of interest itself.

Also the research isn't reverse engineering products and publishing schematics of you parent company, and other companies. It's simply running benchmarks essentially or simply testing. This wouldn't aid them in outperforming your competitors.. That's like publishing 5G results of various phones, and showing a competitor had the better phone this year, or someone else next year. How does that help a competitor be put on the right track? They all are already on the race track for better 5G performance to begin with.

If the public knows your company spends significant time and money on research and testing, chances are good that many will assume your products do well in your tests (otherwise why would you even waste money continuing with this testing if it doesn't bear fruit for you), even if from time to time, your internal testing reveals that a competitor might beat you in some significant ways, or come very close to your best performing product but at a much lower price point. If you never reveal competitor specifics, you don't have to worry about these things.

This is fine to say, but the problem is, they're not publishing even their own findings for their own products. And also again, you lose mindshare by not publishing all the results, that would actually be full bias on display if people know you're testing other devices. So the total opposite of what your first sentence says. But if you do publish the results, and you have most people who don't look at peer review literature, then you still win on mindshare for people who don't even feel like confirming what performs best in those tests, but instead will buy your product on good-will alone as you alluded to in such situation.

Anywho, just my opinion on the matter. Presumably Harman's decision is based on all factors, legal, marketing, etc. I'm sure they have research on the best ways to perform and present their research haha!

Naturally, all I was doing is theoryrafting based on rational and logical deduction. I simply ask for any sort of reasoning to be presented, and reply with any objections I may have if someone aims to call that reasoning logical, but in fact isn't when evaluated is all. Like you, I just state my opinion of course. But in the same way people have opinions on what sounds better to them, we also attempt to debate opinions like that that also draw conclusions "because I can hear the difference between and Okto, and Mytek amp, it is also my opinion with my ability and powers of observation, that the Earth is flat".

I hope I wasn't unclear in what I'm talking about, and I mean no offense, nor anything like that if perceived.

 

[maxxevv]

What do you mean? You're making a declaratory statement. Meaning you're just 'saying' "no", while I said the contrary and explained precisely and logically my reasoning for it. You're just simply stating "no" because "I work in corporations too", but don't address the logical deduction I made?

Even if it's true, and this is what occurs(which it doesn't). What is the counter-argument to operating in the way I said, even if that's not how companies operate currently? If they're taking risks regardless, and engaging with competitive behavior against other companies openly with borderline degrading advertisements to the competition. I need an explanation of why they wouldn't do the same when they had demonstrable proof for their claims?

Also an explanation of the statement that companies don't take risks. The only thing in this light that was presented "lawyers tell them what is risky" yeah, in an advisory capacity, nothing else.. otherwise courtroom lawyers wouldn't exist, because no company would be taking a risk (at the heed of lawyer advice), and there would be no reason to every be in court with respect to company vs company if none of them are taking risks.

This simply again, does not make sense..

I'm just saying it as it is. That's how they think and work in such sort of corporations.

You're not wrong with your outlook towards such things, but it has no bearing on their decision making process, and directly, the operational directives in such corporations either.

 

[solderdude]

There is a gap between company based research and public based research.
The first one usually is not for the benefit of mankind but for product development with profit in mind.
The second one is for educational purposes. This could be 'free' info or paid for (think AES papers)

I don't like shoving things in my ears so can't offer any suggestions alas.

 

[amirm]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't line up with actual events in reality.

What do you mean? What real data do you have?

Have you not seen commercials for soap and such that say they are better than "Brand A" rather than naming it? WHy do you think they don't identify the other brand?

Why do they say "leading liquid bargain brand" instead of the name of that competitor?

Anyway, we are derailing the OP's thread. Let's move on.

 

[hetzer]

Earphones that have decent tone balance and ergonomic shape is good and adding a little bit of eq will make it perfect. This is what the experts should encourage people to do. Not making an absolute target that will save us. In fact, absolute flat target doesn't exist because a fixed target can't compensate the volume, HRTF and tone balance of the album.

 

[daftcombo]

Whatever you listen for when evaluating audio systems.

Some folks add more bass by EQing so that some kinds of music like electro sound better to them. But playing a classical piece afterwards with cello can show they went further from fidelity as the reproduction doesn't sound realistic.
Flat FR in an anechoic room is what a hi-fi guy should want. Not what he prefers for this or that track. We are not the sound engineers.

 

[amirm]

Some folks add more bass by EQing so that some kinds of music like electro sound better to them. But playing a classical piece afterwards with cello can show they went further from fidelity as the reproduction doesn't sound realistic.
Flat FR in an anechoic room is what a hi-fi guy should want. Not what he prefers for this or that track. We are not the sound engineers.

Listeners in the test were asked to say what they preferred. Listeners were from all walks of life and different ages. The summary reflects how all of them judged a headphone subjectively, just as well as you and I would if we had participated. The difference between trained and untrained listeners was not significant in what they prefered.

 

[daftcombo]

a fixed target can't compensate the volume

True, that's why even the RME ADI-2 DAC has a bass and treble compensation function according to the gain to complement the PEQ.

 

[solderdude]

That's basically what Harman is all about, averaged preference of listeners.
With there being a small Delta between the subjects this seems like a good way to test.
Do you happen to know at which average SPL these tests were done ?
Is it known how big of a delta there is between experienced listeners and casual non trained ones ?