Moderator Headphoneus Supremus: Moderator and SHAman who knew of Head-Fi ten years prior to its existence
Originally Posted by gonglee
Especially true on violin - sounds tiny, and lacks body to the sound.
Funny, I always found the RS-1's did the violin the greatest merit, then the R10, particularly for tone and timber. Maybe all my violins have been broken? Or I have a tin ear, but I've played violin or viola for 15 years and think the sound is very close.
Headphoneus Supremus: His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
Originally Posted by Zanth
Funny, I always found the RS-1's did the violin the greatest merit, then the R10, particularly for tone and timber. Maybe all my violins have been broken? Or I have a tin ear, but I've played violin or viola for 15 years and think the sound is very close.
With the flats, the RS-1 makes a violin sound real and right there.
I couldn't agree more with the violin/strings signature on my Grados. "Lush" always comes to mind when I'm listening to a well recorded string ensemble or accoustic guitar.
I do love Grados on female vocal, but on some acoustic instruments, they fail to capture the magic. Especially true on violin - sounds tiny, and lacks body to the sound. Europians have done a better job with classical music instruments - after all, it's their culture...
Hi. I am hardpressed to find a finer example of proper psychoacoustics in a headphone when listening to the Violin or any stringed instrument than the Grado RS-1. This incl elect setups, the K1K, HE90/60, OmegaII, R10, HP1/2/3, and the O.
The RS-1 seems to be the most itimate and closest audible depiction to stringed instrumentation. I thought I had auditioned with failure most other European HP's, tell me gonglee, which Euro HP have done a better job with music intruments and on what model, am curious:blink:
__________________ Last four LP's acquired
The Black Angels ' passover ' 1st pressing
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club ' BRMC ' UK ' 1st pressing
Racanteurs ' Cosolers of the Lonely ' 180G 2LP '1st pressing
The Beatles ' abbey road ' EMI ' UK 1st pressing
Behind closed eyelids. In very many cases, the visionary quality, the quality of the vision so to say, spills over, into the external world, so that the experiencer, when he opens his eyes, sees the outer world transfigured
Moderator Headphoneus Supremus: Moderator and SHAman who knew of Head-Fi ten years prior to its existence
I'm really glad to be reading this offshoot. I've long thought that the RS-1's were very adept at reproducing the sounds of instruments with wooden bodies. The RS-1's have excellent detail (maybe not the most, but not the least and in the midrange, they are not far from the top of the heap) and along with their wooden driver housings, it seems one gets to hear everything that was meant to be played but in the proper time setting with the goodness of excellent tone and timbre. Really, save for the R10's, I can't think of a single phone that comes close (well now the GS-1000's do it too). I really want to listen to some L3000's to try them out, but I have always felt that closed phones overall, lack in comparison to open phones, so I'm not sure if the L3000's will be able to trump the R10's let alone the RS-1's, but certainly the RS-1's are remarkable, if they are not the best (best always being somewhat subjective).
Still, having played the violin for years as well as the clarinet, bass clarinet and soprano sax (though dabbled with the alto and tenor) I have to say, RS-1's are superior with the wooden bodied instruments. They are very fine with the saxophone too mind you, but the metalic resonance seems to fair better tonally on an HP-1 or PS-1. And among the phones capable of sounding like a real instrument, the RS-1's do it with the strings and clarinet/oboe. In fact, perhaps I'll go so far as to say this:
Most phones merely reproduce in approximation, what they are fed. Other phones are able to reproduce nearly everything and there is one phone that can do it as if fed the direct signal (HP-1000's, a flat flat phone) yet if there is some life-siphoning which occurred during the recording process, the RS-2's, RS-1's, GS-1000's and closely, the R10's, are able to bring life back to the recordings. In essence, I regard these headphones as instruments in conjunction with their playback ability. This means colourations, yes I don't deny that, but read the forums, and go to Headwize and Audioasylum and read pro reviews...notice how when folks write about RS-1's they immediately deal with the tone, timbre, the "realness" of the sound? Same with R10's which might be the most highly regarded of all phones. Distinctly coloured, yet true to life as well? How is this possible? Because recordings aren't perfect but people with experience know what these instruments can sound like in life.
I am not the best violin nor woodwind player in the world, not even the best in my city. I don't claim to have perfect tone, but I don't have horrible tone either. However, I am friends with Pinchas Zukerman, regarded as one of the last truly genius violinists in the world. He can apparently play the violin a little bit Anyhow, the point? The tone and timbre of the instrument, how I hear it when he plays, it is familiar to me, and the RS-1's and R10's like it, reproduce it remarkably well. If they do this because of their colourations, it means something is missing, something is extracted during the recording. Oh well, I'd rather approximate real life than a poor recording session. But that is just me.
Agreed. It comes down to parts selection etc. If John and John (the engineer) sat down for 10 days, 8 hours a day to listen to various parts to figure out what sounded best and to meet a certain price point, and their hourly rate is say...$100/hour? Does that sound fair? Maybe higher maybe lower, but for argument's sake, let's say 100 (the time is also likely far lower so it can even out but whatever) then that would be 160 man hours x 100, or $16k worth of R&D. Now, that may seem large for some, tiny for others, but it is still $16k that went into finding what worked best. If someone wants to invest their own time to figure it all out and then produce an amp then fine, but cloning for profit (and cloning a product so many crap on) was and is heinous. I don't blame him one bit for being po'd. Now then, we have Ray Samuels who disguises his opamp numbers and or removes the numbers outright so that this same thing can't happen. Other folks pot their designs like the RA-1 etc. Manufacturers need to protect their work, even if the circuit is well known, obviously parts selection comes into play.
Look at the Ear HP4. This amp retails for 4k thereabouts. $4k!!! Now, opening up the amp one sees excellent workmanship, superb layout, an excellent circuit implemented to near perfection with a hand-made transformer, specifically designed for the application..BUT the rest of the parts are plain jane. Yet, this amp is often said to be among the best in the world. Obviously with budget parts inside and the capacity to sound incredible against amps with premium parts, one pays a hefty sum for the circuit (in this case which was novel), the transformer (which is custom made) and the expertise of the designer, for (in this case) Tim's excellent ear. The same goes for John who in the end voices his gear with his ear.
Cloning for profit just plain sucks and I hate when I see it. It is policy here on Head-fi to delete threads promoting cloning for profit, a policy I wish did not have to exist because people would do their own leg work and discover somethign for themselves.
I dont agree, no matter what, its still about $20~$30 worth of parts in a wood box... what he charges for it is totally his decision, and if people pay it, then hey, more power to him... good for him... that is not my problem... and i know that many manufacturers go to great lengths to obfuscate their product designs... i remember the drama when gilmore called ray's hornet nothing better than a cmoy etc... I know the hornet sounds good, and i know the RA-1 sounds allright... but that is not what i was argueing... and i agree that there are MANY audio products out there which are grossly overpriced... which is why I build all my own AMPs and such... anyhow that also is not part of my problem with the interview statements...
my problem is he is claiming that he is offended that people have stolen "his" "design" which is the same is the same "design" that is almost exactly the same as every single op-amp data sheet from every single manufacturer... and every analog circuit design text-book since op-amps came into existance... so i dont see how he can take claim to the "RA-1" design when if you look at the design it is EXACTLY (and i dont mean close, i mean exactly) the same topology as one from Chu Moy's original article on headwise?
I do agree that selling an amp as an "RA-1 Clone" is wrong, and probably illegal, since you are infringing on the Grado copyright... but claiming that people "cloning" the RA-1 for personal use or whatever is so horrible is just wrong becuase anyone that build a cmoy has "cloned" the RA-1, just not called it an RA-1...
Anyhow, the point? The tone and timbre of the instrument, how I hear it when he plays, it is familiar to me, and the RS-1's and R10's like it, reproduce it remarkably well. If they do this because of their colourations, it means something is missing, something is extracted during the recording. Oh well, I'd rather approximate real life than a poor recording session. But that is just me.
nice interview
Linear Mode
