I am pleased to see journalists writing reviews from the big audio shows so I can get an idea of what is coming out in an area I love to play within. But sometimes they discuss characteristics of a product in a way which makes no sense whatsoever. Take a reviews of Audeze's new iSine 10 IEM on the website The Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/4/12791374/audeze-isine-10-hands-on-preview-ifa-2016
In the article he sets up the review by stating he didn't expect the fixed-magnet planer IEMs to perform well, but was surprised when he heard them, stating:
"Their soundstage is broad, their imaging’s precise, and their range extension, from deep sub-bass to high end treble, is outstanding."
Well, I am glad he liked them, but how does one IEM compare to any other IEM in terms "Soundstage" and "Imaging"? Those two terms refer to how well a reproducing transducer can give a sense of 3D space to the playback of a stereo signal and are typically used with loudspeakers in rooms where measurable characteristics such as power response, dispersion, and such play a huge role. Likewise, setup, placement, and room acoustics play a huge role in the soundstage and imaging. With any headphone, the sound is directed from each transducer to each ear without any crosstalk or dispersion characteristics. The sound enters the ear canal unaffected by any of the anomalies which can impact soundstage or imaging (by the way, both terms are practically identical in meaning, though one gets used more for the left to right blending of a stereo signal and the other is often used for how some stuff sounds further away, or even vertically placed).
So, to me at least, using terms like "soundstage" and "imaging" as two of the three redeeming characteristics of a pair of IEMs leads me to believe the author is not very good at communicating (maybe English isn't his first language), or perhaps he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about and cannot be trusted at all. Either way, the rest of the review is now questionable for me. How do I trust what he is saying is reflective in what actually happened, or what the IEMs sound like.
So, convince me I am wrong in this judgement.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/4/12791374/audeze-isine-10-hands-on-preview-ifa-2016
In the article he sets up the review by stating he didn't expect the fixed-magnet planer IEMs to perform well, but was surprised when he heard them, stating:
"Their soundstage is broad, their imaging’s precise, and their range extension, from deep sub-bass to high end treble, is outstanding."
Well, I am glad he liked them, but how does one IEM compare to any other IEM in terms "Soundstage" and "Imaging"? Those two terms refer to how well a reproducing transducer can give a sense of 3D space to the playback of a stereo signal and are typically used with loudspeakers in rooms where measurable characteristics such as power response, dispersion, and such play a huge role. Likewise, setup, placement, and room acoustics play a huge role in the soundstage and imaging. With any headphone, the sound is directed from each transducer to each ear without any crosstalk or dispersion characteristics. The sound enters the ear canal unaffected by any of the anomalies which can impact soundstage or imaging (by the way, both terms are practically identical in meaning, though one gets used more for the left to right blending of a stereo signal and the other is often used for how some stuff sounds further away, or even vertically placed).
So, to me at least, using terms like "soundstage" and "imaging" as two of the three redeeming characteristics of a pair of IEMs leads me to believe the author is not very good at communicating (maybe English isn't his first language), or perhaps he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about and cannot be trusted at all. Either way, the rest of the review is now questionable for me. How do I trust what he is saying is reflective in what actually happened, or what the IEMs sound like.
So, convince me I am wrong in this judgement.
Last edited: