The Grado HF-2 Review/Comparison Thread - Page 30

How is discussing how they sound in a review thread OFF TOPIC????

He said they sounded "absolutely awful." Most people don't seem to say that. Then he indicated that he believed in burn-in and that if they did burn in, it would "prove" burn in was real (which of course it wouldn't). And you call me off topic?

Confusing the issue even more, other people now write in to say their experience "agrees" with mtbiker's. They say that their HF-2s sound better now "after some play time." But mtbiker didn't say that. He basically said they sounded like crap. So what part is keyid agreeing with? Did they sound like absolute crap at first to keyid, also? What is going on with this headphone? That's all I'm trying to find out.

It sounding awful is probably along the same meaning as a headphone competitive in the $500 bracket becomes "awful, muddy, bloated, uncontrolled" once you move up to a headphone competitive in the $1000+ bracket. It's a big deal to some ears.

sorry, my bad, i thought you were up to the challenge.

there's a chance these are "fotm"... but until you've heard some music thru one,
your claims, or conjectures, have little weight to it.

this may be a surprise, but people have expectations... and those expectations
differ from individual to individual... some are met, some are exceeded and some
are not. it's as simple as apple pie... some enjoy it... others turn to lemon pie...
and if you've been brought up loving peach pie, then that's good too.

Dude, chill out with the aggression. I stated what I hear, and with 32 years in the audio industry, I can say with absolute authority that the sound signature will change with some play time.

I'm not sure how old you are, or what levels of audiophile quality equipment you've been exposed to, but if you've ever owned any equipment that's worth it's salt, you would know about the transitions in the life of a quality product made with quality components.

If you feel that posting about what I hear, and what I have experienced in the past is "irresponsible" then I can't help you. You are making this personal, and the basis of this and all forums is based mostly on opinions. I am not a sheep, and I don't form my opinions entirely on what you say is "other people's opinions". I call it like I see it.

My Jades (which are my favorite stat right now), sounded miserable out of the box, and now, they are in the top tier of my listening enjoyment. It is the same case with my R-10's and HD-800's.

Take your aggressions to the gym and take a deep breath before you hit the reply button.

Also, as a Moderator, I think carefully before posting my opinions, in order to keep consistent of what we, here at Head-Fi ask of it's members. My post, including the discussion of burn-in is not "off-topic" because if you look at the title of this thread it is "The Grado HF2 Review/Comparison Thread". I have given my current "out of the box" review, and have done comparisons to my previous experiences. I have done nothing wrong here.

I'm sorry if you perceive it as aggression, but I'm just trying to get the facts. Speaking of which, the fact that you say if they start to sound good to you that "proves" burn-in is real shows faulty reasoning. That would not prove anything, it would just be another anecdotal report, subject to the same arguments everyone has apparently already had on the subject. So how then am I to trust anything in your post when you make errors in reasoning like that? Unless you were just joking about it proving burn in was real? It's very hard to tell irony on a messageboard.

So I guess the bottom line is that they sound completely awful, but you are confident that they are going to sound great at some point. So again, that is kind of confusing. You can see the future because of all your experience, but no one else can know what they sound like until they hear them, from what takezo said. But you /have/ heard them, and apparently even you don't know what they are going to sound like. And yet you kind of do because you believe in "burn in." It's just very confusing, and it's really sloppy reasoning all around, is my impression of the impressions.

Why not just wait until the burn-in you believe is going to happen and then post your impressions at that time? I just don't see the usefulness of saying "they sound completely awful," and then getting on someone's case because he actually takes you at your word! Or at least wants to know if they sound completely awful or what exactly is the story.

Our hobby, audio, requires a lot of patience. Patience that's based on the theory that "the end must justify the means". Long delivery wait times, proper synergy to get exactly what you're looking for, etc. It is not an "instant gratification" type of hobby.

If you know something will meet or exceed your expectations, in the long run, then isn't it worth waiting for? If you listened to someone who has had the headphone for a while, with lots of airtime on it, and you like what you hear, then if it sounds like junk out of the box, isn't it worth it to put in the time in order to be able to attain long term gratification?

If a vehicle manufacture tells you that you need between 600 and 1000 miles on a car/motorcycle's engine before you start to attain the results (performance/gas mileage) that the vehicle is proclaimed to have, wouldn't it be worth it to invest in that time? The aluminum blocks have to stretch and compress, the gears need to round off a little, the oil has to be dropped at that time to get out the metal shavings acquired during the break-in period, and so on.

A hobby has it's frustrations and rewards, but patience is a big part of the overall process.

If you go back and read my original post, I said that I know that they will eventually sound good, because other members whose aural opinions I trust from knowing them for years and sharing equipment and opinions with them, have said that the HF-2's sound great.

Therefore, doing the math, taking a headphone that doesn't sound great out of the box, and putting that together with people who have multiple hours on them who enjoy them, only leads to one conclusion.
They get better with time on them, or, as I referred to, "burn-in".

I was not guessing what they will sound like.

Can we stop the burn-in argument since this is the wrong place?

BTW, my son's fresh HF-2 #120 sounded good out of the box with no hours, but they were not as good as my #24 with 300+ hours at the time. Out of the box there was a "bass cloud" with poor bass detail/quality and a little bit too much quantity, soundstage was slightly more closed in, and they are not as smooth and refined in the mids and highs. He now has 170 hours on his and I'll compare them to mine in the next day or two.

Different verbiage, but pretty close to my experience.

I'm done.

How much of that is burn-in, and how much of that is attributable to the infamous F1?

That would probably be useful. Even better, do a blindfold comparison if you can. Post how it sounds when you actually know, instead of these "crystal ball" reviews about how it's going to sound from mtbiker.

Just kidding - but I think you get what I'm saying!

@iggy-starnuts - Are you dense ? My statement about how it will sound is not a "crystal ball" review. It is from countless members that are enjoying them, whose opinions that I trust. I don't know any way to make it clearer than that. Perhaps you are just a contrarian.

Do you have a pair of these or have you spent any serious listening sessions with them. If not, why are we having this conversation in the first place?

Now I'm really done. Really.

So now the name calling, huh? No, I'm not dense at all. You say you know how they are going to sound because of what other people tell you, although before that you say you are not a "sheep" and you "call it like you see it."

But what have you actually "seen" (heard)? Only that they sound "awful." That's it. That's all you say you've heard. But you "know" they are GOING to sound better because of what other people told you.

So then why do we even need a "review" thread? Those gods of the headphone world have already told everyone how they are "GOING" to sound. We can close the whole thread now, you've already answered it for everyone. They are "GOING" to sound great. You don't know that yourself, but since you aren't a sheep and since you call it like you see it, you just know they are going to because of what some other people have told you.

Yeah, I'm "dense."

Yep. As a matter of fact, I posted much of those thoughts previously, so it's been documented.

Here, with my 24 hour old HF-2 and my first impressions after CanJam, I mentioned the bass cloud and the lesser extension, detail and transparency of the fresh HF-2 vs my APS V3 cabled RS-1, as well as the smaller soundstage than an RS-1 with flats. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5729582-post1161.html

In the same thread myk7000 said, "That "bass cloud" that HPA mentions rings clearly true for me, and the detail was just plain better on the RS-1." http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5730635-post1182.html

By 7/14/09 I was reporting on some of the improvements, in response to a question about the bass: "I posted in my first impressions there was a bit of a "bass cloud" which I would define as poorly detailed/defined bass that hangs over the music - that clearly IMPROVED with burn-in, and is great bass now." http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5847879-post232.html

So, it's not like I made this up to support the statements here. The HF-2 need burn-in, and I was satisfied by 250 hours.