Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Head-fi to analytical?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head-fi to analytical?

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
Is it just me or are many head-fi members too analytical when it comes to headphones? I feel that sometimes when someone asks for a specific headphone many ppl get really detailed on high's rolling off or how the mid's are. I say if the music sounds fantastic through the cans then i could care less if they have textbook highs. I think maybe sometimes you begin to get too nit picky and it is swaying how you think a certain phone sounds.

just ease down a notch and listen to the MUSIC, not the headphones.
post #2 of 62
Thanks, just in case i forgot

Seriously, that's surface deep when describing sound audiophile wise- it then comes to things that doesn't make sense, frequencies and graphs
It's easier to find the headphone you like when you know your sound preference

Eg. mine is mids slightly forward, highs slightly attennuated and a tiny boost on bass

'Fantastic' sounds different to everyone, that's why we have to describe the sound
post #3 of 62
You have a point

On the other hand, having spent £400+ on phones and one amp (pending!!!), I appreciated the in-depth responses and the perspective people have. I have to admit I myself have done it as well (gone all analytical) (see UM2 and E4C comparison in the Westone appreciation thread). I actually bought the E4 and then the UM2 based on other owners who had similar taste in music to me. I have to say all that was said was true
post #4 of 62
you'll get used to it, and before you know it, you'll be the one making such comments like "those are refined highs, punchy midbass, deep soundstage, etc."
post #5 of 62
But if everybody just said "these are... good" and didn't vary their response in any way, then this site would be pointless. The whole point of this site is for people to discuss the differences between the headphones, so they can find the "right" pair... or pairs... often lots of pairs... for them.

Yes often the group here can be critical, but you assume in your post that that's all anybody ever does with their gear, listen to flaws in it. With a few notable exceptions, that is NOT the case. Yes, we look for better stuff and analyse the stuff we have to better make those judgements, but it is ALL about enjoying the music.
post #6 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgnr View Post
Is it just me or are many head-fi members too analytical when it comes to headphones? I feel that sometimes when someone asks for a specific headphone many ppl get really detailed on high's rolling off or how the mid's are. I say if the music sounds fantastic through the cans then i could care less if they have textbook highs. I think maybe sometimes you begin to get too nit picky and it is swaying how you think a certain phone sounds.

just ease down a notch and listen to the MUSIC, not the headphones.
People here are analytical when describing headphones because everybody's tastes differ. Yes, if it sounds fantastic to you, then who cares about rolled off highs and what not. HOWEVER, the minute your headphone is being recommended to somebody else, you NEED to mention those rolled off highs and what not (Because the headphone won't necessarily sound fantastic to others just because it sounds fantastic to you).

Save for Patrick, I think we all pretty much listen to the music. Just because we're so analytical in describing headphones and their sound reproduction here doesn't mean that we don't listen to the music in the real world.
post #7 of 62
Thread Starter 
well the reason i say this is because ever since i've been coming to this forum and since i got my hd280's (which are only OK, and i'm getting the sr60's instead), I have pretty much only been focusing on the SQ of my music and the headphones...i haven't really ENJOYED the music. And this is all coming from a relatively new member, I can only imagine how some of you vets listen to your music.
post #8 of 62
divide all positive remarks by two. do the same to negative remarks.

that's my formula for looking at headphones review here- like people calling bose unlistenable. they suck but are defintiely better than ibuds!
post #9 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgnr View Post
I can only imagine how some of you vets listen to your music.
With enthusiasm and passion for the music? Your case is unique and doesn't mean that everybody experiences what you're experiencing when joining Head-Fi (Which is a faulty foundation to make a conclusion on how "vets" listen to music).
post #10 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
People here are analytical when describing headphones because everybody's tastes differ. Yes, if it sounds fantastic to you, then who cares about rolled off highs and what not. HOWEVER, the minute your headphone is being recommended to somebody else, you NEED to mention those rolled off highs and what not (Because the headphone won't necessarily sound fantastic to others just because it sounds fantastic to you).
For once I agree with you.
post #11 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
For once I agree with you.
Awesome. Fitz brownie point +1
post #12 of 62
I've noticed that my listening generally falls into one of two categories. If I listen with my MS-1s I normally listen to the music. If I listen with my MS2i I normally LISTEN TO THE MUSIC!!

It's not even a consious effort; if I'm listening to the MS2i, they just pull me deeper into the sounds.

I think that if the phones sound right, then that's great. It just becomes a point of trying to put it into words so that if someone asks about a particular set of cans, then a person can try to explain. On the other hand; if something is not quite right, then trying to explain THAT becomes rather important too.

The hard part is trying to get the point across in degrees. We've all heard that can "A" is 80% of can "B" which is 5% inferior to can "C" but what does that mean...really....? The hard part is to get the point across without blowing it all out of proportion.

Some folks over-emphasize while some folks aim quite low.

Just gotta read a lot and take lots of notes!!
post #13 of 62
So by your criteria... Heres my super-detailed review for some of my cans...

RS1=
HD580=
HF1=
A250=
PK1=
SR60=
DT770=
HD280=

Heck, why even have a discussion forum? We can communicate with smileys

**edit**
On a serious note though... Detailed communication is what separates us from babies and little kids. Baby is upset or hungry and its . Little baby is happy and its . Members should try and explain what they hear in detail for this forum to thrive and continue being what it is.
post #14 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramer5150 View Post
So by your criteria... Heres my super-detailed review for some of my cans...

RS1=
HD580=
HF1=
A250=
PK1=
SR60=
DT770=
HD280=

Heck, why even have a discussion forum? We can communicate with smileys
Good review Kramer, now I know what my next cans are gonna be.
post #15 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgnr View Post
Is it just me or are many head-fi members too analytical when it comes to headphones? ... I say if the music sounds fantastic through the cans then i could care less if they have textbook highs.
Head-fiers may come off as analytical, but that's a symptom of trying to describe the differences we hear. Language isn't well-suited to describing music (or we'd not need such complicated ears, we could just talk out a symphony!).

It's important that the music sounds fantastic when choosing cans *for you* but it's just as important to try to describe as analytically as possible what you hear in cans when explaining them to *other people.* That is why we get tied up with "rolled highs" and "tight lows" and so on and so forth -- not because we are ignoring the music but because we are trying to describe our experiences and share our love of music with others.

--Chris
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Head-fi to analytical?