Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Do you consider any Grado headphone as High-end?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you consider any Grado headphone as High-end? - Page 3

post #31 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by recstar24 View Post
I cannot find the link or source but I do remember seeing a graph of the HP1000. Basically it looks like the senn 650 without that mild mid bass hump, very clean and smooth spectrum. Tyll is the man when it comes to that stuff, you may send him an email, I am sure he can comment, even if it is not online on the website.
Thanks for the suggestion. Is Tyll his nickname here or should I look for another nick to find his mail address?

I have a friend who has the right equipment to take those measurements, but he's very busy and I can't get him to do it. I've been trying for a couple of months to get the MD5000 measured, so go figure. Some day we'll have the graphs of all them to compare.

Rgrds.
post #32 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool_Torpedo View Post
Thanks for the suggestion. Is Tyll his nickname here or should I look for another nick to find his mail address?


Rgrds.

Tyll is the owner/proprietaor of Headroom. They sell headphone products and manufacture headphone amps. They have their own subforum as they are a premier sponsor of the site. You can send an email through the website at headroom or maybe post a question on his subforum.
post #33 of 60
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the prompt reply mate. I've already searched him by Tyll and found that what you comment, so I sent an e-mail using the forum's utility.
Did he reply with some graphs, I'd post them for your knowledge. I pointed him to this thread, so it might well be that he posted the graphs himself if he had them.

Rgrds
post #34 of 60
[QUOTE=majkel;4532107...This must be a joke. The GS1000's are even better than ...[/QUOTE]

We all hear differently, I can not stand the sound of the GS1000! All bass and highs w/ no mids. And I tried them through a few amps, all gave the same result. Oh, and I also let them burn in for 300 hours before making my determination. Some like vanilla, others chocolate.
post #35 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanth View Post
I believe, rereading some of the original impressions, folks like Hirsch even mentioned how they had the same resolution as the Omega II's (something I agree with and was able to verify later on when I had the Omega II's) but the presentation was obviously quite different.
Although I tend to agree with Zanth in most things and I consider his elaborated posts a great asset of this forums, I have to respectfully (but quite firmly) disagree on this one.

In my experience the PS-1 is probably the less resolving headphone that I consider High-End (which it is at least IMHO). L3000, R10, K1000, Qualia, HE90, HE60, SR-Omega, Omega2... are definitely more resolving and able to provide more detail. And the difference with some of these is pretty big (O2 included).

I really can't imagine what circumstances would make the PS-1 appear as resolving as the O2 because the difference for me between both is really big. Actually the O2 is one of the most resolving ones ever.

But then again, it's not all about resolution. The PS-1 does many things right, including a great tonal accuracy (if you work around some somewhat over-emphasized higher-bass, which is not biggie). I love the PS-1 and you can build a great system around them, up there with the best ones.

Cheers
post #36 of 60
I think it depends on what one means by resolving. I think the O2's are more articulate than the PS-1's but with both, it is easy to follow any note from its inception and onto its conclusion from initial attack to the final hint of its decay. What I find is the difference between the two is the amount of air surrounding the notes. The Omegas and well, any electrostat I've heard, does this far better than any dynamic headphone, including the R10's. This air helps separate notes and accentuate the articulation. This articulation helps in providing a biting attack and ideally a decent decay (though in my opinion the He60's fell quite short of the Omega II's which in themselves are rather bass shy compared with the best dynamics). Conversly, in my opinion, electrostats have a tendency to distort the sound of the music, creating a quantum experience rather than a waveform. I rarely feel as if I am an environment destined to produce art, rather I feel I'm in a lab being bombarded by sound, to the extent that compared with the best dynamics, it is an unnatural listening experience. From all that I've read, the HE90's take care of this to an extent but obviously those that go for R10's, L3000's or balanced X, Y or Z-dynamic seem to opt for something less articulate but as equally resolving.

Maybe I use resolution too loosely and should firm up the definition, converging more closely with articulation.

As for your other comments, indeed, building up a system to suit them is not only possible but quite enjoyable.
post #37 of 60
Thread Starter 
Interesting. IMO there're different kinds of resolution and some cans excel in one type or other, but rarely are "overall" resolutive.
Electrostatics are tremendously time-resolutive, but have some shortcomings on dynamic resolution. The PS-1 are fairly good on timbric resolution, very good on dynamic resolution, but lack the same time-resolution that the R10 or electrostatics can give. However it's the addition of those features what makes them interesting and worth setting up a system around them.
What I like best in them is their ability to make any type of music interesting, in the sense of keeping your attention on the music, specially its rhythmic flow, and not grabbing it for the "nice sounds" which is something I've found and disliked on many other cans.

Rgrds
post #38 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool_Torpedo View Post
Interesting. IMO there're different kinds of resolution and some cans excel in one type or other, but rarely are "overall" resolutive.

Electrostatics are tremendously time-resolutive, but have some shortcomings on dynamic resolution. The PS-1 are fairly good on timbric resolution, very good on dynamic resolution, but lack the same time-resolution that the R10 or electrostatics can give. However it's the addition of those features what makes them interesting and worth setting up a system around them.
Very interesting! I really enjoy when I find words that better describe what I experience in life. In this case, the idea of different types of resolutions rings true for me and I agree with everything you wrote regarding the Omegas and pretty well all electrostats as well as the R10's in comparison with the PS-1's. Time-resolution vs. timbric vs. dynamic...this makes a lot of sense to me and I'll try to use those terms when I evaluate gear in the future. Thanks for new bits of knowledge!
post #39 of 60
Thread Starter 
Glad you found my comment useful. I wish I were able to correlate those subjective impressions with measurements. It'd explain a lot of things

Rgrds
post #40 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool_Torpedo View Post
Glad you found my comment useful. I wish I were able to correlate those subjective impressions with measurements. It'd explain a lot of things

Rgrds
Don't bother - the subjective impressions mean more to me and carry more weight than measurements, especially with headphones.
post #41 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by recstar24 View Post
Don't bother - the subjective impressions mean more to me and carry more weight than measurements, especially with headphones.
Sure, I bet all of us listen to that which makes us happy and allows us to enjoy our music better. Who cares if that "measures good" or not that much. However, for my personal knowledge and understanding, I like being able to correlate my perceptual facts and subjective reality to objective, physical and measurable features. It has two advantages for me, the first one being that I learn a lot about my own perception of sound and music. The second one that I can, in many cases, foresee how will sound to me a set of properly measured cans. It may save some dough nontheless hehehe.

Rgrds
post #42 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrarroyo View Post
We all hear differently, I can not stand the sound of the GS1000! All bass and highs w/ no mids. And I tried them through a few amps, all gave the same result. Oh, and I also let them burn in for 300 hours before making my determination. Some like vanilla, others chocolate.
I agree. Having spent some time with both standard and modified GS1000 I could never label them high-end, the same applies to the RS1s, which have their moments but for me dont reach the criteria put forward by Zanth and others in this thread.
The closest I get is probably with the AD2000 via the HD100 with certain tubes and ics.
The biggest problem is that you can't really seperate anything out of the system chain. Make a poor choice of cable or source and your high-end headphones can sound like crap.
In many instances a setup of carefully matched mid range products can give you all the high end sq desired.
post #43 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrion View Post
I consider the RS-1, PS-1, HP-1,2 and even the modded HF-1 to be high end. All of them scale up to the higher end amps. I don't particularly care for the 325i but I don't see anyone using them with higher end amps (in my experience at least).
x2, ditto, agreed
post #44 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool_Torpedo View Post
Sure, I bet all of us listen to that which makes us happy and allows us to enjoy our music better. Who cares if that "measures good" or not that much. However, for my personal knowledge and understanding, I like being able to correlate my perceptual facts and subjective reality to objective, physical and measurable features. It has two advantages for me, the first one being that I learn a lot about my own perception of sound and music. The second one that I can, in many cases, foresee how will sound to me a set of properly measured cans. It may save some dough nontheless hehehe.

Rgrds
Very valid input. I forgot to add why my general lack of trust in headphone measurements. Apparently it is not the most exact science, or at least not as close as it is with speaker measurement. Not many people have the resources to measure headphones, only really the big companies do, and only Tyll is nice enough to post them publicly. Also, the placement of the headphone on the dummy measurement head as a huge effect on how it will measure, I believe just by changing the position of the ear cups slightly and overall position of the headphone on the head, the measurements can be pretty different. Also, the output impedance of whatever is driving the cans being measured can have a slight effect on the final sound and how it measures. Take a 120 ohm output into a grado and the measurement will look completely different than from a near 0 ohm output. The latest stereophile magazine had an article on those things.

But I agree, it is good to start somewhere, and I applaud Tyll for sharing his findings on his website. Hopefully we can get other headphone companies to do the same. But that would lead us to another problem - objective non-biased measurement. Who is to say that UE or shure or sennheiser when posting their measurements publicly won't ensure that their headphones measure best? What we could use is an outside party with no financial or manufacturer affiliation with the resources to measure headphones, which I believe is pretty costly.
post #45 of 60
Thread Starter 
^ Yep, Headroom's page is a fantastic resource of measurements and it's great that someone offers that publicly. It's a pity that Tyll hasn't replied to my e-mail asking him if they had the PS-1, HP-2 or R10 measured.

You're completely right, measuring headphones is very difficult, and having the adequate equipment is very expensive (mostly for the microphone and the calibration tools). However I've had the chance to compare the measurements made using top-notch gear and affordable one of the very same cans using the same amp to feed them, and results are quite consistent above 150Hz and below 10-12KHz. Into that range differences are quite negligible (in the +/- 2dB) if we consider that most untrained people hardly notice differences below 3dB in a frequency band, especially if it's quite narrow. Unless a gross mistake is made while taking the measurements, I find that most of the ones available out there correlate quite accurately with the "serious" ones properly made.
The big problem is the bass below 100-150Hz and it gets worse the lower you go. In that range is where the response is less predictable looking at the charts.

Anyway, if you can compare masurements from the same source, made using the very same protocol, they're very helpful for their offering you the chance to compare something that you already know how it sounds, to something you'd like to know. Headroom measurements have perfectly predicted how I'd perceive the sound of some phones just by comparison of their frequency graphs to the HD600's, which I know very very well and have had measured in different test systems.

Unfortunately there's much more to measure -and probably things that we already don't know how to measure- than the frequency response. However it's a good starting point.

Rgrds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Do you consider any Grado headphone as High-end?