Why the compulsion - and I think compulsion is the key word - to prove that the AKG 701 is a superior headphone?

I think if we understood that, we'd all relax a little.

If there are underlying issues that we don't understand, please feel free to share them with us, so that we can understand.

Originally Posted by drarthurwells:
I'm not espousing any theory of music. The musical instruments I play have nothing to do with this discussion.

You should listen in a quiet environment, using a good HP system, to music recorded so that the mikes pick up direct sounds, rather than sound reflected less than 10 milliseconds relative to the direct sounds, if you want to reduce phase distotion and interaural distorion. This will maximize sharp imaging with reduced muddy or blurred tones to provide maximum clarity - superior to the imaging and clarity of live music in a seat some distance from the instruments.

And yes, generalizations can be valid - such as the above statement.

If I really want to hear all the inner detail of an orchestra, with the greatest clarity, I prefer well-recorded to live music any day.


Quote:




Art: Where did I ever say all fundamental tones were in the 2 to 6 KHz range? That is absurd as it would leave out most of the midrange and all of the bass tones. Show me where I stated this absurdity.

Quote:



DrAW: I didn't think you would ever figure that out.

Quote:




There are no fundamental bass tones at 2khz.

drarthurwells: The anemic and pitiful weak upper midrange and treble response of the HD650 is shown. This rolloff starts in the upper midrange and it very much affects the midrange, since midrange timbre is largely described by overtones extending into the trenble range.

Yes the midrange FR of the K701 and HD650 are practically identical - doesn't mean they sound the same in the midrange -which they don't.

Daverose: Where is "The anemic and pitiful weak upper midrange and treble response of the HD650" shown... I don't see it?? I especially don't hear it on my system: which is pretty accurate in source (ie "veiled" Senns

DrAW: Look at the dip of the HD650 between 3KHz and 6KHZ, which is a dip much below its average overall FR, then look at the K701 that rises in this range to be close to its average overall FR. This range is a critical overtone range for midrange and upper bass tones, as well as for fundamental tones of the lower treble region. Many treble fundamental tiones are in this critical 3KHz to 6KHz range. The overtones in this range describe upper bass and midrange timbre to a large degree. Here the HD650 is anemic and pitifully weak compared tot he K701. I think thls is why the K701 has better inner detail in the midrange than the HD650.


Davesrose: This was after hciman77 showed you that the HD650 was flat in the 2-3khz region and that the k701 had a hump in that area. The HD650 is flatter in the mids.


A: No, hciman's point in showing the graphs was the close similarity of the midrange FR of the HD650 and the K701. He empjhasixzed this similarity rto discount Cotdt's idea that the K701 had a better midrange sound quality (which I agree with). The midrange FR of the HD650 and K701 are both plus or minus 1.5 DB and that is considered flat for a HP or speaker. The midrange SQ of the K701 is still superior for me in spite of a similar FR to the HD650, and I have described why I think so.

Art: Where did I ever say all fundamental tones were in the 2 to 6 KHz range? That is absurd as it would leave out most of the midrange and all of the bass tones. Show me where I stated this absurdity.




Quote:



Art: Who ever said there were?

Look again at my statement.

Tones below 2KHz include all bass tones, and most of the midrange tones, correct?

Originally Posted by drarthurwells:
That is why recorded sound is better than live


Quote:




Art: You mean this snippet is worth quoting out of context. Here is the what I said on the subject:

You should listen in a quiet environment, using a good HP system, to music recorded so that the mikes pick up direct sounds, rather than sound reflected less than 10 milliseconds relative to the direct sounds, if you want to reduce phase distotion and interaural distorion. This will maximize sharp imaging with reduced muddy or blurred tones to provide maximum clarity - superior to the imaging and clarity of live music in a seat some distance from the instruments.

And yes, generalizations can be valid - such as the above statement.

If I really want to hear all the inner detail of an orchestra, with the greatest clarity, I prefer well-recorded to live music any day.



Quote:




Art: Some select seats in a live hall do enable you to hear the live music without too much phase distortion and loss of high frequencies. Recording engineers generally do a better job at reducing phase distortion and capturing live frequencies than is done by even the best seats in a concert hall. Recorded music can be more pure and clear as a result.

Quote:



Some people do have a compulsion for truth and validity. Others have a need to let other people know the best components for the money, to help others avoid buying mistakes.

Some people could care less about the truth or about helping others make the best purchase.

Quote:



Apparently you did .... although I could care less if you did or didnt.

Read my statement .... that was my point.

Quote:



Hi Jahn,

Could you tell me what are the names awe inspiring tube amps and solid state amps? What are the price point? I hate myself for keeping upgrading continuously. I prefer to save up and try to get the best but once and for all.

Thanks,

Quote:



no haven't tried hybrid amp before. Any recommendations?

Quote:



Art, when are you going to start on your promise to multiquote????

You're still making crap up. At least now you're admitting this is all your opinion "The midrange SQ of the K701 is still superior for me in spite of a similar FR to the HD650, and I have described why I think so."

The HR graphs show that the midrange of the k701 and HD650 are not that dissimilar, so now you're trying to say that all timbre for every note is effected in the 2khz to 6 khz region. Even bass notes. Do you know where middle C lies on a piano Art? It's around 261.6HZ. Is that anywhere close to 2khz-6khz?? If you had bothered to look at the link I've included to show FR of each individual instrument, the piano goes from 27.50 - 4,186.00hz. That's the largest range of any instrument....and treble is going from 261.6HZ to 4,186HZ. Not 2,000-6,000 HZ.

Since you only guage music by locking yourself in an isolated room, I'll have to clue you in about timbre. Timbre is the intonation you get when you strike a note. It has an initial attack and then a decay. It's effected by the actually instrument as well as which note is being played. If you bother to look up the FR of each instrument, you'll see that most do not fall anywhere around 2-6khz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre

http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/frequency_e.html

Quote:



Look at your self in the mirror....Art, drarthurwells, whoever I'm writing to now. This whole thread started with someone wanting to know what tube amp might be better for a Grado. That a SS was sounding better. Instead of helping anyone, you've launched into tirads about why your k701 and tube amp is better then anything else. That anything else is inferior.

So how about starting to actually trying to be open to the truth. The truth that you've admitted you don't like real music as a source. Go outside from your isolated room every once in awhile. You might actually get a sane perspective then.

PS. The main reason why I find it hard to equate Dr. AW and Art together is that doctors usually have a more sane, professional demeanor.

Art: Where did I ever say all fundamental tones were in the 2 to 6 KHz range? That is absurd as it would leave out most of the midrange and all of the bass tones. Show me where I stated this absurdity.

sacd lover: There are no fundamental bass tones at 2khz.

Art: Who ever said there were? Look again at my statement. Tones below 2KHz include all bass tones, and most of the midrange tones, correct?

sacd lover: Apparently you did .... although I could care less if you did or didnt. Read my statement .... that was my point.

Art: Your statement that, "There are no fundamental bass tones at 2khz." ?
I think we all know that. What is your point in this statement?

Quote:



RS-1 sound signature changes considerably with tuberolling EMP. It almost feels like you are not listening to RS-1 at all. With EMP you can make the harshness RS-1 disappeared dramatically, making it very airy, floaty, laid back, with big soundstage. It's Sooo Smooth that you can listen to your RS-1 for hours without fatigue. I find that RS-1 has a very good synergy with EMP especially with those Amperex 7308 and GEC A2900.

With GS1000, I'm not really sure. GS1000 is not like any other Grado. If I were to only choose between GS-1000 or RS-1, I would choose RS-1 over GS-1000. With RS-1 I can make it aggressive, I can also make it very smooth, laidback and relaxing. Not so much with GS-1000 which is very picky with recording, and overall system.

Quote:



My point .... you apparently didnt seem to know that. At this point you have everyone so confused no one is clear what you say.