Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Slowest headphones you've ever heard?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Slowest headphones you've ever heard? - Page 3

post #31 of 88
2/9/10 at 2:25pm
I'm going off of listening experience. Maybe the HE-5 is different but that's just one headphone
Reply
post #32 of 88
2/9/10 at 2:30pm
You're going off listening experience? Which ones have you heard? I've heard at least 10 different orthos, both new and old, and when properly damped, they are anything but slow.
Reply
post #33 of 88
2/9/10 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypasswordis View Post
None of this description directly relates to speed.



Why is this thread so full of fail?
IMO, mushing details together in songs is a lack of speed.
Reply
post #34 of 88
2/9/10 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EYEdROP View Post
IMO, mushing details together in songs is a lack of speed.
I took it to mean a lack of clarity, but you're right in that it could potentially relate to speed.
Reply
post #35 of 88
2/9/10 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by David.M View Post
DT990's are just incredible. every song i play, 90% of the time, i'm always tapping my feet. bass response system is just wow. and they aren't even fully burned in(20 hours only).

I am willing to loose pin point accuracy/detail for the satisfying features that the 990's possess. god i love these cans so much
Can't agree more with the fun factor. The speed part... Don't entirely disagree, maybe the tubes are coloring them a tad, but wouldn't consider them as quick as my MS2's. Keep in mind though, these thought are fresh and I haven't done any real A/B since getting them.
Reply
post #36 of 88
2/9/10 at 2:51pm
I hope we get some better posts in this thread. I'm still new to all this and I've never really experienced any good headphones. I just don't want to be mislead while I'm still so young in the headphones world.

Speaking of that, how do my AD700's rank in terms of speed? They do seem to be more detailed and less mushy than my Portapros.
Reply
post #37 of 88
2/9/10 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypasswordis View Post
Why is this thread so full of fail?
Because very few people actually have any idea how to parse out the various elements of sound.

99% of what people describe on head-fi is just frequency response effects. Once you go outside talking about freq response, you get people who admit they're clueless or they get whatever it is you're talking about confused with frequency response.

Happens every time there is a thread about speed, resolution or soundstage.
Reply
post #38 of 88
2/9/10 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypasswordis View Post
Why is this thread so full of fail?
Every thread on headphone speed is full of fail. As much fail as your mind will allow you to conceive.
Reply
post #39 of 88
2/9/10 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjrabon View Post
Because very few people actually have any idea how to parse out the various elements of sound.

99% of what people describe on head-fi is just frequency response effects. Once you go outside talking about freq response, you get people who admit they're clueless or they get whatever it is you're talking about confused with frequency response.

Happens every time there is a thread about speed, resolution or soundstage.
QFT.

Id just like to add that frequency response can affect headphone speed, resolution, and soundtage. Many say bass heavy headphones are slow for example. But really when dealing with speed, IMO impulse response and reverberation in the earcup play a big roll.
Reply
post #40 of 88
2/9/10 at 3:47pm
I've cleaned up a few posts in this thread, deleted a few others, I'd remind the membership that this site is "rated G" and efforts to circumvent this rule will not be treated kindly.
Reply
post #41 of 88
2/9/10 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by David.M View Post
senn hd 650 will prob fit in the fast/fastest category. I have never heard them, but from research this should be a no brainer.
(emphasis added)

Sweet Chuy in the sky... don't comment on headphones you haven't heard. We've had some nasty epidemics of this in the past. Either buy a pair or go to a meet. Just don't speculate.

Also, speed and transients depend a bit on the amplifier you use. If you're running a pile'o'mush el discounto OTL tube amp with a high output impedance and a marginal slew rate, that is not going to make headphones as quick as they should be.

I know prevailing wisdom is that all amps are pretty much the same and that the $250 box from China with some $80 NOS tube "beats" $5,000 amps, bu that ain't true. Damping factor tells you how quickly the amp can start or stop a driver. If you have a mushy amp, it doesn't matter how fast the headphones are, it's going to transmit mush directly to them. Likewise, the slew rate tells you about the amp's speed. A headphone can only reproduce what is sent to it. It can't improve what's coming out of the amp, it can only reproduce it.

So unless the OP wants to talk in terms of headphone/amp pairings, the discussion will end up a series of arguments. What sounds fast on one amp will sound different on another.
Reply
post #42 of 88
2/9/10 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjrabon View Post
Because very few people actually have any idea how to parse out the various elements of sound.

99% of what people describe on head-fi is just frequency response effects. Once you go outside talking about freq response, you get people who admit they're clueless or they get whatever it is you're talking about confused with frequency response.

Happens every time there is a thread about speed, resolution or soundstage.
x2

Exactly what you said. While drivers do have a rise and settle time, these physical characteristics are determinants of frequency response. That is to say, unwanted resonances due to variances in transducer decay will directly alter FQ response.

I think people's perception of relative levels various frequencies result in their calling one headphone "slow" or another "fast".

We should be measuring this stuff and not speculating on it.
Reply
post #43 of 88
2/9/10 at 6:43pm
u want speed..try IEMs or electrostats.

the dynamic driver based headphones cannot compete with that.

even in IEMs... the IE7 & IE8 aint as fast as some balanced armature based iems such as Westone 3 & UM3X.

also...amp makes a big difference.
Reply
post #44 of 88
2/9/10 at 6:53pm
Fastest: AKG K702 (NOT the K701 model), Sansui Quadraphonic, HD600, Hippo VB
Medium: iBuds, Grado SR125i, Sony models
Slowest: Most Stax, pencil, and Planars.
Reply
post #45 of 88
2/9/10 at 6:58pm
so electrostats is both fastest and slowest?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Slowest headphones you've ever heard?