• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

V-Moda M200 Headphone Review

Rate this headphone:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 126 85.1%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 15 10.1%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 3 2.0%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 4 2.7%

  • Total voters
    148

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
They measured at 82-100 dB. Goes to show headphone distortion can't really be assumed to necessarily monotonically (in the mathematical sense!) increase with SPL over all frequencies, and distortion at lower SPLs should probably be measured as it could in fact be higher than at higher SPLs (dependent on headphone and frequency), in addition to considering most of a music track is around the lower average rather than peak level, and distortion audibility is actually greater at lower levels as a higher signal level will better perceptually mask its harmonic distortion products.
If Sean's assertion of it being due to heating in the diaphragm is correct, it should be straight-forward to remove it as a bias from the measurement. This would be to run a few seconds of pink noise at the nominal specified signal level the distortion measurement is to be made at just prior to running the sine sweep to measure distortion. This would, in principal, remove it as a bias from the HP distortion measurements if the drivers are subject to that sort of behavior. I don't know how Amir's test software is configured, but it could even be automated as part of the test procedure, namely to have it run the pink noise for a set duration, then immediately make the sweep for the measurement. One could make the argument that it will not necessarily be representative of music that only has brief SPL excursions, but at least the measurement would be more consistent. Its even more relevant in that with the log sine sweep, the low frequencies are the first thing the driver is subjected to, and with the short duration there is little time for any sort of heating or substantial movement in the suspension. Either way it would be an interesting experiment to see what differences remain before and after exercising the drivers.
 

kencreten

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
122
Likes
151
It doesn't hurt you that consumers are willingly enabling such corporate strategy by emptying their wallet en masse?
Consumers.... I love that. You mean the general society? I graduated in Sociology. It is not a Science. Because Science has great trouble describing almost any aspect of a society that you might name. For the most part, what society is, is and is not, is not something that can be described scientifically. So, almost anything said, or thought about society in general is at best an analogy, or a guess. So no, I don't "hurt" because "consumers" don't make "incorrect" decisions. We don't, know for sure, who "consumers" are. One thing we do know is, "did they buy it or not?" I do not have expectations of what society at large ought to be, regarding headphone quality, because that would be an ignorant position, by definition.

This is not the case for a company that specifically puts together a headphone that they know is faulty in the sense of performance. V-Moda does not go around telling people honestly about the actual poor performance of their headphones (easily demonstrable by measuring) compared to other headphones. Why do they do this? Because they can. Business cares about law. There are no laws that specify that, "you'll be in big trouble if you're headphones do not measure as well as others," unless those performance measures are claimed in some type of legal agreement with people or another company. And that's what it takes with business people - they must be forced to do the right thing (see Ford Pinto). Try that with a new car, which legally cannot be sold in the United States except in special circumstances without broadly available crash test data. Also, a car's mileage must be made clear to the public by law. No one dies or loses large sums of money if they buy a poorly performing set of headphones, so the government doesn't put a lot of money into "getting those lying headphone manufacturers." If that was the case, everyone in charge of Bose would be in jail.

But these makers of expensive headphones know exactly what they are doing, down to the penny, if they are managing their company properly. You know it, and I know it. Who's to blame for a company putting out a product which they know is substandard compared to another? I have fairly expensive Shure headphones and they measure fairly well, because Shure made that happen. It's knowable, and you can find out if necessary who made which decisions regarding the production of the headphones. You cannot find this information - who's to blame, in the general public, without extensive polling and even then, there are problems with collecting this kind of data.

If you believe that there is some aspect of "society" that you don't like, fine. That's up to you, but don't call any of that kind of knowledge beyond simple polling, scientific. With companies that make headphones that measure poorly, specific decisions are made as to the performance of said headphones. Sometimes companies will publish performance data on very high-end headphones, but most do not. The ones who do not, might tell you, "this sounds great," and they do that because they can get away with it, and no one dies, because of the decision to offer poorly performing headphone products. So no, I do not have a concept in my head of "how much a given member of society ought to be educated about the performance of headphones in general," and therefore that "hurts."

No. Bad headphone companies generally aren't killing people, but they often are liars who take people's money for poor products without remorse. And in this case, quite a bit of money. These people can be specifically identified. These are some reasons why, to some degree, the government regulates the legal behavior of businesses. Because some businesses people will do almost anything for money. Therefore, regulations have often necessarily been foisted on businesses by the government, because that legal hand was - forced by the behavior of conniving leaders of companies, and sometimes the behavior of their workers.

There is no known group scheming to buy themselves substandard headphones because they are ignorant about it. There is no, "white makes right," groups supporting bad headphones. No one is out there lynching people because they use the wrong set of headphones. And no one is coming after headphone manufactures who are blatant liars, because it does not address something that is otherwise dangerous for society.

You can blame society (consumers) for whatever you wish if it helps you sleep at night. Just don't call your conclusions scientific.
 
Last edited:

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,718
Likes
1,768
Location
Scania
Consumers.... I love that. You mean the general society? I graduated in Sociology. It is not a Science. Because Science has great trouble describing almost any aspect of a society that you might name. For the most part, what society is, is and is not, is not something that can be described scientifically. So, almost anything said, or thought about society in general is at best an analogy, or a guess. So no, I don't "hurt" because "consumers" don't make "incorrect" decisions. We don't, know for sure, who "consumers" are. One thing we do know is, "did they buy it or not?" I do not have expectations of what society at large ought to be, regarding headphone quality, because that would be an ignorant position, by definition.

This is not the case for a company that specifically puts together a headphone that they know is faulty in the sense of performance. V-Moda does not go around telling people honestly about the actual poor performance of their headphones (easily demonstrable by measuring) compared to other headphones. Why do they do this? Because they can. Business cares about law. There are no laws that specify that, "you'll be in big trouble if you're headphones do not measure as well as others," unless those performance measures are claimed in some type of legal agreement with people or another company. And that's what it takes with business people - they must be forced to do the right thing (see Ford Pinto). Try that with a new car, which legally cannot be sold in the United States except in special circumstances without broadly available crash test data. Also, a car's mileage must be made clear to the public by law. No one dies or loses large sums of money if they buy a poorly performing set of headphones, so the government doesn't put a lot of money into "getting those lying headphone manufacturers." If that was the case, everyone in charge of Bose would be in jail.

But these makers of expensive headphones know exactly what they are doing, down to the penny, if they are managing their company properly. You know it, and I know it. Who's to blame for a company putting out a product which they know is substandard compared to another? I have fairly expensive Shure headphones and they measure fairly well, because Shure made that happen. It's knowable, and you can find out if necessary who made which decisions regarding the production of the headphones. You cannot find this information - who's to blame, in the general public, without extensive polling and even then, there are problems with collecting this kind of data.

If you believe that there is some aspect of "society" that you don't like, fine. That's up to you, but don't call any of that kind of knowledge beyond simple polling, scientific. With companies that make headphones that measure poorly, specific decisions are made as to the performance of said headphones. Sometimes companies will publish performance data on very high-end headphones, but most do not. The ones who do not, might tell you, "this sounds great," and they do that because they can get away with it, and no one dies, because of the decision to offer poorly performing headphone products. So no, I do not have a concept in my head of "how much a given member of society ought to be educated about the performance of headphones in general," and therefore that "hurts."

No. Bad headphone companies generally aren't killing people, but they often are liars who take people's money for poor products without remorse. And in this case, quite a bit of money. These people can be specifically identified. These are some reasons why, to some degree, the government regulates the legal behavior of businesses. Because some businesses people will do almost anything for money. Therefore, regulations have often necessarily foisted on businesses by the government, because that legal hand was - forced by the conniving leaders of companies, and sometimes their workers. There is no known group scheming to buy themselves substandard headphones because they are ignorant about it. There is no, "white makes right," groups supporting bad headphones. No one is out there lynching people because they use the wrong set of headphones. And no one is coming after headphone manufactures who are blatant liars, because it does not address something that is otherwise dangerous for society.

You can blame society (consumers) for whatever you wish if it helps you sleep at night. Just don't call your conclusions scientific.
I'm hoping the weight of the world isn't crushing you.

Have you though of why you started talking about blame and nefarious actions? These are ideas that hold a history in religion, as well as the never ending discussion of what should be considered good and evil acts that you touch upon. The types of ideas that can't be utilized unless enforced by the state or social conditioning. The Third Reich put much effort to this avenue of though. As did Mussolinis government and Stalins.

Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" around 150 year ago. Knowledge from evolution has been accepted into the field of Psychology only in the last few decades. Psychology is considered a soft science together with Sociology, apparently your area of expertise. Judging by your response it will take another 150 year for Sociology to accept knowledge from evolution.

The main flaw in your argument is inserting a your rigid model of two parties, the victims, and those that exploit them. And you're annoyed by me pointing out how the "victims" are willing participants of the relationship in your very model. I will tell you about my model which is simpler and more accurate, I think. There's only one actor: Human nature, that's all.
 

kencreten

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
122
Likes
151
I'm hoping the weight of the world isn't crushing you.

Have you though of why you started talking about blame and nefarious actions? These are ideas that hold a history in religion, as well as the never ending discussion of what should be considered good and evil acts that you touch upon. The types of ideas that can't be utilized unless enforced by the state or social conditioning. The Third Reich put much effort to this avenue of though. As did Mussolinis government and Stalins.

Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" around 150 year ago. Knowledge from evolution has been accepted into the field of Psychology only in the last few decades. Psychology is considered a soft science together with Sociology, apparently your area of expertise. Judging by your response it will take another 150 year for Sociology to accept knowledge from evolution.

The main flaw in your argument is inserting a your rigid model of two parties, the victims, and those that exploit them. And you're annoyed by me pointing out how the "victims" are willing participants of the relationship in your very model. I will tell you about my model which is simpler and more accurate, I think. There's only one actor: Human nature, that's all.
I'm not claiming god-like knowledge, so don't attempt to claim it for me. I'm saying some headphone manufacturers are lying bastards. It's not personal. Don't make comments about what constitutes my overall belief system unless you inquire with me.

Charles Darwin's work is but a kernel to modern Evolutionary study. My wonder ex Wife is a professor of Genetic Epidemiology. She had taught me, there is no agreed upon evolutionary tenets of the behavior of society. Period. So your sentence, "Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" around 150 year ago. Knowledge from evolution has been accepted into the field of Psychology only in the last few decades. Psychology is considered a soft science together with Sociology, apparently your area of expertise. Judging by your response it will take another 150 year for Sociology to accept knowledge from evolution," is nonsensical. There's no agreed upon evolutionary knowledge about society. Evolution is a process that specifically deals with the "evolution of biology over time." Society changes over time, but it is specifically - not "Evolution." Clear? Most, unfortunately do not understand what Evolution is, and mistake the colloquial uses of the word evolution, for actual Evolution.

Ask 100 people, or 100 professors, or 100 psychologists, or 100 various religious leaders, or 100 various business leaders about what they think, "human nature is," and how many kinds of different definitions of "human nature," do you think you would get?

If you think "human nature" is simple, you're being simple about the idea of human nature. If this is the case, I would not believe you understand what it might actually take to have any kind of dependable definition of human nature.

How responsible should general society be regarding their knowledge of Worldwide headphone manufacturing and claims? Who's talking? Depending on who's talking - that's the biases that you'll end up with in their own - story, about it.

Also, I have not attacked you, but I sense you might like to attack me. I request that you deal with the intellectual information I am offering in a reasonable way and not resort to ad hominem attacks.

In my view, we should work to protect consumers from otherwise nefarious manufacturers. That why the US has UL, why we have crash tests, why we list car mileage, why we have food inspections, and requirements, etc etc, at least on those things that could directly affect people's continued existence. I would like it if we could protect people from nefarious audio manufacturers, but audio manufactures know that if they are lying bastards, they can get away with it. In fact, you could make an argument that they could survive better if they are lying bastards.

I'm saying basically that I think being a lying bastard is a bad thing. Do you object? I'll add this. If someone thinks it is moral and perhaps ethical to lie to customers about a product for the sake of profit or other motives, I disagree.
 
Last edited:

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,718
Likes
1,768
Location
Scania
I'm not claiming god-like knowledge, so don't attempt to claim it for me. I'm saying some headphone manufacturers are lying bastards. It's not personal. Don't make comments about what constitutes my overall belief system unless you inquire with me.

Charles Darwin's work is but a kernel to modern Evolutionary study. My wonder ex Wife is a professor of Genetic Epidemiology. She had taught me, there is no agreed upon evolutionary tenets of the behavior of society. Period. So your sentence, "Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" around 150 year ago. Knowledge from evolution has been accepted into the field of Psychology only in the last few decades. Psychology is considered a soft science together with Sociology, apparently your area of expertise. Judging by your response it will take another 150 year for Sociology to accept knowledge from evolution," is nonsensical. There's no agreed upon evolutionary knowledge about society. Evolution is a process that specifically deals with the "evolution of biology over time." Society changes over time, but it is specifically - not "Evolution." Clear? Most, unfortunately do not understand what Evolution is, and mistake the colloquial uses of the word evolution, for actual Evolution.

Ask 100 people, or 100 professors, or 100 psychologists, or 100 various religious leaders, or 100 various business leaders about what they think, "human nature is," and how many kinds of different definitions of "human nature," do you think you would get?

If you think "human nature" is simple, you're being simple about the idea of human nature. If this is the case, I would not believe you understand what it might actually take to have any kind of dependable definition of human nature.

How responsible should general society be regarding their knowledge of Worldwide headphone manufacturing and claims? Who's talking? Depending on who's talking - that's the biases that you'll end up with in their own - story, about it.

Also, I have not attacked you, but I sense you might like to attack me. I request that you deal with the intellectual information I am offering in a reasonable way and not resort to ad hominem attacks.

In my view, we should work to protect consumers from otherwise nefarious manufacturers. That why the US has UL, why we have crash tests, why we list car mileage, why we have food inspections, and requirements, etc etc, at least on those things that could directly affect people's continued existence. I would like it if we could protect people from nefarious audio manufacturers, but audio manufactures know that if they are lying bastards, they can get away with it. In fact, you could make an argument that they could survive better if they are lying bastards.

I'm saying basically that I think being a lying bastard is a bad thing. Do you object?
I attacked your ideas, maybe you are too attached to them if you take it personally. Either way I said all there is to say and this is OT...

EDIT: If you were skilled att reading between the lines, you would extract the message that it's hard to regulate the regulators, and slippery slopes are not worth going down in hindsight, so consider what your ideas are leading you toward. Assuming the ideas you subscribe to allow you that luxury. :)
 
Last edited:

PeteL

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
3,303
Likes
3,838
Wow, you guys gave it a lot of thoughts...
Seriously, The Idea that a relatively small manufacturer would be motivated by a malicious desire to fool people is a bit surreal... Sorry, but this sounds like paranoia to me, Like the big bad industry is out to get me and they are criminals... Come on. Who in this right mind will go and say hey, let's do a product with a frequency response that is generally disliked so we will make money since people are stupid? Right....

I will give you some ideas that are more likely:

-Incompetence.
-Some engineers actually like how this sound.
-trying to appeal to a niche that they studied and that don't like Harman.
-Ran out of money in dev and felt it was ok enough
-Actual bad decision to chose a driver from Roland and this is actually their best effort of what they could do with it.
-Trying to enlarge their audience by offering a variety of sound signatures.

That last one is quite common. Peoples have different tastes that's a fact, depending on parts of the world, depending of cultures, depending of preffered music styles All headphone manufactures have more than one sonic signature in their products, You chose as a customer what works for you. This whole conspiracy stuff really it gets old....
 
Last edited:

usern

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
487
Likes
499
I was looking for information about driver material on V-Moda website and discovered that they do not sell wired only M200 any more. Perhaps they have fixed response mismatch and other deficiencies with the wireless M200 version.

Sony XM4 DSP fixes low frequency mismatch for example:
index.php
index.php

Status Flagship ANC is another one that fixes things with DSP
index.php
index.php
 
Last edited:

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,718
Likes
1,768
Location
Scania
Wow, you guys gave it a lot of thoughts...
Seriously, The Idea that a relatively small manufacturer would be motivated by a malicious desire to fool people is a bit surreal... Sorry, but this sounds like paranoia to me, Like the big bad industry is out to get me and they are criminals... Come on. Who in this right mind will go and say hey, let's do a product with a frequency response that is generally disliked so we will make money since people are stupid? Right....

I will give you some ideas that are more likely:

-Incompetence.
-Some engineers actually like how this sound.
-trying to appeal to a niche that they studied and that don't like Harman.
-Ran out of money in dev and felt it was ok enough
-Actual bad decision to chose a driver from Roland and this is actually their best effort of what they could do with it.
-Trying to enlarge their audience by offering a variety of sound signatures.

That last one is quite common. Peoples have different tastes that's a fact, depending on parts of the world, depending of cultures, depending of preffered music styles All headphone manufactures have more than one sonic signature in their products, You chose as a customer what works for you. This whole conspiracy stuff really it gets old....
Agreed. Don't know if you gave @kencreten six more reasons to invoke state regulation of the industry, though.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
Agreed. Don't know if you gave @kencreten six more reasons to invoke state regulation of the industry, though.
Given those who are tasked with enacting and enforcing said regulation are often even more morally bankrupt than those they are seeking to regulate, I think I will stick to measurements. You know, human nature being what it is and all :p
 

BinkieHuckerback

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
716
Likes
1,055
The scientific method is the thing, rather than 'science' (let alone Science with a capital 's'). And social sciences can still use a scientific method to interrogate phenomena.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
And that's what it takes with business people - they must be forced to do the right thing (see Ford Pinto).
As an interesting side-note I have heard some analyses done later that seemed to indicate that the risk from death from fire was not really any worse in a Pinto than anything else at that time. My mother was nearly killed by her Toyota in ann anccident around that period due to there being no structure around the cabin and poor seat-belts. Much like audio equipment of old, the knowledge of how to make cars safe was lacking, and most old cars were unsafe, some surprisingly so. It was the wild-west of automotive safety with driving cars being about as safe as playing Russian roulette in earlier eras. The 88 Sports Coupe in my avatar was fortunate enough to at least have benefited from crash testing and crumple zones, so they actually scored reasonably well at the time. Today, though, I’m fairly confident that models of F-bodies from that time period with airbags tested today would get a marginal rating at best, namely due to the weak floor pan and roof structure. While we desire things to be a certain way, we also have to be cognizant of other circumstances surrounding them. This would be doubly-so with audio since there are subjective aspects to it, and much of the body of knowledge on psychoacoustics is empirical in nature. Due to the huge loss in human life we know with a high degree of certainty what g-loads and forces will kill someone, and this can be built into safety regulations. However, things like the Harman curve are not exact, and some people still like sub-optimal headphones for use with sub-optimal recordings, or certain genres of music. Best you could do would mandate publishing of measurements, but a democratic society would demand that the manufacturers also be allowed to form their own representative body or entity to have a say as well as consumers and regulators in such regulation. The whole thing tends to be convoluted at best, and regulation requires regulators to be the most honest ones in the room, despite them having all the same types of faults, desires, and temptations as those being regulated. They are, after all, human as well.
 

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,718
Likes
1,768
Location
Scania
Heightened regulations would probably be an effective way to wipe out smaller operations like DCA and Focal. I'm picturing applications fees, certifications, processing times. But no doubt would create some cozy government jobs.
 

BinkieHuckerback

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
716
Likes
1,055
Heightened regulations would probably be an effective way to wipe out smaller operations like DCA and Focal. I'm picturing applications fees, certifications, processing times. But no doubt would create some cozy government jobs.
...so cozy private industry jobs replaced by cozy government jobs
 

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,718
Likes
1,768
Location
Scania
...so cozy private industry jobs replaced by cozy government jobs
No, surely that's not all. After the small dogs get eaten up extra jobs will be created in both sectors. Inspections, book keeping and other compliance measures will be at the companies expense too. Unprecedented lobbyism will be incentivized by the new regulations, because that will be the remaining avenue to the break the governments default veto. You may think that's either a funny outcome, or sad one. Moral of the story: The government decides, you won't.

But seriously let's not.
 
Last edited:

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
...so cozy private industry jobs replaced by cozy government jobs
Most private industry jobs are not so cozy, anymore. This is esp. true in today's business environment. This in in contrast to my aunt and her husband who were heads two agencies in my state. Their combined pensions are close to $400k USD. At my last company, I got in just as the pensions ended, and most people would not be able to stay with a company these days for them to be of any real use just due to the shorter employment cycles, or tiring of the work environment. That and many government jobs are not so rosy these days, either. Even those are starting to suffer in some places.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
Unprecedented lobbyism will be incentivized by the new regulations, because that will be the remaining avenue to the break the governments default veto.
Having had to deal with regulations I can say that the government's role needs to be fairly limited in scope. They are needed, but they must not be frivolous, be applied only when absolutely necessary, and be transparent and open to change. Air travel, electrical and fire safety, and automotive crash safety would be good examples since they impact so many people and are quite complex and some form of regulation is needed to ensure best practices are followed. However there is also a proliferation of bad actors across the board in all forms of private and government life these days, so I'm not so enthusiastic about regulations now.
 

kencreten

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
122
Likes
151
As an interesting side-note I have heard some analyses done later that seemed to indicate that the risk from death from fire was not really any worse in a Pinto than anything else at that time. My mother was nearly killed by her Toyota in ann anccident around that period due to there being no structure around the cabin and poor seat-belts. Much like audio equipment of old, the knowledge of how to make cars safe was lacking, and most old cars were unsafe, some surprisingly so. It was the wild-west of automotive safety with driving cars being about as safe as playing Russian roulette in earlier eras. The 88 Sports Coupe in my avatar was fortunate enough to at least have benefited from crash testing and crumple zones, so they actually scored reasonably well at the time. Today, though, I’m fairly confident that models of F-bodies from that time period with airbags tested today would get a marginal rating at best, namely due to the weak floor pan and roof structure. While we desire things to be a certain way, we also have to be cognizant of other circumstances surrounding them. This would be doubly-so with audio since there are subjective aspects to it, and much of the body of knowledge on psychoacoustics is empirical in nature. Due to the huge loss in human life we know with a high degree of certainty what g-loads and forces will kill someone, and this can be built into safety regulations. However, things like the Harman curve are not exact, and some people still like sub-optimal headphones for use with sub-optimal recordings, or certain genres of music. Best you could do would mandate publishing of measurements, but a democratic society would demand that the manufacturers also be allowed to form their own representative body or entity to have a say as well as consumers and regulators in such regulation. The whole thing tends to be convoluted at best, and regulation requires regulators to be the most honest ones in the room, despite them having all the same types of faults, desires, and temptations as those being regulated. They are, after all, human as well.
I agree with what you are saying. And, my first four cars were Pintos, one was a kind of a racer Pinto - they made a lot of road racing parts for those way back. I think your comment on things being very convoluted is accurate. Perhaps the difference with Ford was, that there was a specific problem that they could have corrected cheaply, didn't, and people died specifically from that decision. And of course, that seems convoluted, in light of overall safety of cars at the time.

It's personal with me and audio. It's almost like a religion with me. So, while some might fib about some other area, and it might not bother me. If someone seems to fib in audio, my reaction is sort of out of proportion for the input. LIARS! Part of why I like being into audio so much is that no one dies, and I can complain loudly about it - and it isn't important. I avoid most political news because a lot of the topics are very serious, and sometimes things happen that I think might be actually deleterious for the population. And I be would guessing about that. But when I complain loudly about audio, either I hear a pin drop, or someone disagrees. I like having my sort of religion being audio, and me imagining myself as the protector of audio truth! In fact I'm just an old guy and an avid audio hobbyist.

My overall judgement about audio is really, if people like it, then that's the measure. Some people really like Bose Wave radios, and I think they are trash. But this is much more like, "who's team is best," than anything else. In my audio religion, Bose is close to satanic, even though they are very successful and have some ... ok products.

The entire idea of regulation of business or human activity is fraught with humans as you point out. I have a motto and that is, people are the problem. No people; no problem. But I'll keep on my my mostly useless quest for honestly and transparency in audio, mostly because I enjoy it.

I appreciate your comment about the Harman curve. I know probably the least about what constitutes good headphone measurements. I have a pair of Shure SRH1840 headphones I love. They sound great, and are built like tanks even though they are not very heavy (to me) and are very very comfortable. Also replacement wires and earpad are reasonably priced.
 

kencreten

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
122
Likes
151
Agreed. Don't know if you gave @kencreten six more reasons to invoke state regulation of the industry, though.

Having had to deal with regulations I can say that the government's role needs to be fairly limited in scope. They are needed, but they must not be frivolous, be applied only when absolutely necessary, and be transparent and open to change. Air travel, electrical and fire safety, and automotive crash safety would be good examples since they impact so many people and are quite complex and some form of regulation is needed to ensure best practices are followed. However there is also a proliferation of bad actors across the board in all forms of private and government life these days, so I'm not so enthusiastic about regulations now.
I would love for that to be the case. Unfortunately there's people at all ends of the equation, and they are all correct. All we need to do is ask them. It's a mass of ideas all pulling against each other. I can't possibly correctly gauge whether one or another regulation is required. But... someone coming after me because... "I'm a regulation hawk." I don't really even care about that stuff.
 

kencreten

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
122
Likes
151
As an interesting side-note I have heard some analyses done later that seemed to indicate that the risk from death from fire was not really any worse in a Pinto than anything else at that time. My mother was nearly killed by her Toyota in ann anccident around that period due to there being no structure around the cabin and poor seat-belts. Much like audio equipment of old, the knowledge of how to make cars safe was lacking, and most old cars were unsafe, some surprisingly so. It was the wild-west of automotive safety with driving cars being about as safe as playing Russian roulette in earlier eras. The 88 Sports Coupe in my avatar was fortunate enough to at least have benefited from crash testing and crumple zones, so they actually scored reasonably well at the time. Today, though, I’m fairly confident that models of F-bodies from that time period with airbags tested today would get a marginal rating at best, namely due to the weak floor pan and roof structure. While we desire things to be a certain way, we also have to be cognizant of other circumstances surrounding them. This would be doubly-so with audio since there are subjective aspects to it, and much of the body of knowledge on psychoacoustics is empirical in nature. Due to the huge loss in human life we know with a high degree of certainty what g-loads and forces will kill someone, and this can be built into safety regulations. However, things like the Harman curve are not exact, and some people still like sub-optimal headphones for use with sub-optimal recordings, or certain genres of music. Best you could do would mandate publishing of measurements, but a democratic society would demand that the manufacturers also be allowed to form their own representative body or entity to have a say as well as consumers and regulators in such regulation. The whole thing tends to be convoluted at best, and regulation requires regulators to be the most honest ones in the room, despite them having all the same types of faults, desires, and temptations as those being regulated. They are, after all, human as well.
I attacked your ideas, maybe you are too attached to them if you take it personally. Either way I said all there is to say and this is OT...

EDIT: If you were skilled att reading between the lines, you would extract the message that it's hard to regulate the regulators, and slippery slopes are not worth going down in hindsight, so consider what your ideas are leading you toward. Assuming the ideas you subscribe to allow you that luxury.
I attacked your ideas, maybe you are too attached to them if you take it personally. Either way I said all there is to say and this is OT...

EDIT: If you were skilled att reading between the lines, you would extract the message that it's hard to regulate the regulators, and slippery slopes are not worth going down in hindsight, so consider what your ideas are leading you toward. Assuming the ideas you subscribe to allow you that luxury.
OK.
 

kencreten

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
122
Likes
151
I attacked your ideas, maybe you are too attached to them if you take it personally. Either way I said all there is to say and this is OT...

EDIT: If you were skilled att reading between the lines, you would extract the message that it's hard to regulate the regulators, and slippery slopes are not worth going down in hindsight, so consider what your ideas are leading you toward. Assuming the ideas you subscribe to allow you that luxury. :)
 
Top Bottom