I bet consistent tensioning would be pretty difficult. I'd think very small variances could lead to significant differences in sound. And you're right about Google's search results. For lots of sites, theirs is better than the site's own search. Some sites have truly horrible search functionality.
Listening conditions can definitely be confounding factors. And maybe they do change a good bit with differing upstream gear, but it seems like, eventually, a more cohesive view of a headphone's sound signature usually arises. I was just wondering if anyone had seen such a thing yet.
This is getting to be like the EL8 threads. Wildly different characterizations of the sound signature. Some saying the Ether has great slammin' bass, others saying it's bright and anemic in the bass region. Anybody read about these more widely than me, maybe at other sites, too? Is there anything close to a consensus view on the sound signature of these 'phones?
Ah, okay. That's interesting. That's how I felt about the NAD HP50 at first, but then I think brain-burn set in. I find them pretty groovy now. Is the sound a little soft maybe? Every so often, I'll still hear a song with the NADs and think to myself, "well, the edges of everything seem well-defined, but those edges are round instead of sharp."
When people describe a headphone as "clinical" or "analytical" or say they're good for monitoring, the headphone they're describing tends to be a bit brighter than headphones people describe as "musical." But I've seen several times now people describing the Laylas as both "clinical" and "warm." Weird. Can anyone describe what it is about the sound that makes them seem clinical to you?