The PANASONIC RP-HTF600-S headphones. More fun than the HD650? - Page 91

OK final reply. We got really different view on this for sure, you got the typical audiophile point of view where there's like written in stone "rules" what defines this and that and you have to do x to achieve y. I then again disregards the "rules" and go usually by ear and I search the sound that attracts me and it doesn't matter how and what I do to get there, it's the end result what I hear that counts if it's good or not to me.  For example when I EQ, I don't EQ for a perfectly flat response in mind but what my ears enjoy hearing. I couldn't care less what's concidered "hi-fi" or not as long as it sounds the way I enjoy it. I follow my senses and you follow science/facts etc. When my senses are pleased with the sound is when I'm satisfied, not when "knowing I followed the book that this has supposed to be the optimal way to find the holy grail" which is how many audiophiles work like (doesn't have to be the case but for some it is). That's why we got such a different view on this. :P

I wonder what you would call me as I would never call me an audiophile, I mean the only real same goal we have is to find as much satisfaction with the sound as possible but how we go search for it is from like opposite directions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD 

OK final reply. We got really different view on this for sure, you got the typical audiophile point of view where there's like written in stone "rules" what defines this and that and you have to do x to achieve y. I then again disregards the "rules" and go usually by ear and I search the sound that attracts me and it doesn't matter how and what I do to get there, it's the end result what I hear that counts if it's good or not to me.  For example when I EQ, I don't EQ for a perfectly flat response in mind but what my ears enjoy hearing. I couldn't care less what's concidered "hi-fi" or not as long as it sounds the way I enjoy it. I follow my senses and you follow science/facts etc. When my senses are pleased with the sound is when I'm satisfied, not when "knowing I followed the book that this has supposed to be the optimal way to find the holy grail" which is how many audiophiles work like (doesn't have to be the case but for some it is). That's why we got such a different view on this. :P

 

I wonder what you would call me as I would never call me an audiophile, I mean the only real same goal we have is to find as much satisfaction with the sound as possible but how we go search for it is from like opposite directions.

I would agree with everything except the part where you say I follow rules or "science/facts."

Like anyone interested in audio/music, we all seek out music that pleases us and sound quality that makes us happy. I just happen to find results with a different method. There's nothing scientific or factual about enjoying music and good sound - it's completely emotional.

I think the only place we differ is our methods and where we draw the line. Some "audiophiles" like you (yes, you are an audiophile) are happy with good equipment and enjoy fine-tuning the sound with accessories (EQ software) to make it sound better. You don't waste your time pursuing perfection - instead just having fun making your music sound good to you. At the other end of the spectrum are "audiophiles" who believe that $300/ft silver wire sounds better than $5/ft copper wire, they prop up the balanced interconnects on wooden blocks and wear magnetic bracelets on their wrists in their pursuit of audio nirvana. They spend thousands of dollars and constantly rotate through new equipment, roll tubes, and buy snake oil looking for the "next best thing." That, or they have 8 pairs of headphones and 14 amplifiers and use different combinations for different types of music.

Me? I'm not a perfectionist, but I have high standards. I believe in starting with a quality source and using quality components (nothing FOTM or TOTL for me though) to get the music to my ears in a manner that sounds best to me with the minimum of effort. I believe if everything in the chain is more or less neutral (doesn't add color), then I don't have to worry "does this amp sound good with these headphones?" In theory, one headphone and one amp should be enough to enjoy all of my music. My goal was to find this solution - a "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none" if you will. That's why I spent weeks reading about and researching headphones and amps, then I spent all summer auditioning a dozen amps and a dozen headphones (each ranging in price from $150 up to $1500) in various combinations until I found a setup that sounded best to me with the music I typically listen to. I am thrilled with the gear I ended up with and plan on keeping it for many years to come. But of course, I am always curious and passionate about this hobby.

No matter what kind of audiophile you and I are, we enjoy our hobby and we enjoy our music. Part of the fun is searching out and experiencing new things, hence my curiosity with trying these Panasonics. I wasn't looking for another pair of headphones, but for $30, I was curious enough to give them a listen. And guess what? I like them and enjoy listening to them! I like looking at them too. I like holding them and seeing how perfectly the Beyer velour pads fit (as though they were made for each other). I got goose bumps the first time I listened to my RCA Living Stereo SACD of Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique" with my Sennheisers. And my Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" SACD literally put a tear in my eye (literally!). I just cannot experience music this intimately with a lesser headphone. But on the other hand, I also get pleasure (no tears or goose bumps though) from putting on my Panasonics and listening to Spoon or The Eurythmics. It's a different kind of experience for me, and one I might never have gotten if I hadn't tried out these Panasonics!

So, shall we get back to singing the praises of the RP-HTF600-S?

I've noticed the extended discussion on the EQing and such..

And I'll say this much, coming from a person who had a strong anti-EQ philosophy when it came to headphones, after experimenting extensively over the past months, I definitely have a new perception on the whole concept.

One thing to note is that pretty much almost every player, whether PC or portable, stereo, home surround, DJ equipment, studio or what-not, all have their different sound signature. Even if you leave them at the most neutral setting (flat without any EQing), they still would sound different from one to another.  I honestly don't know if there is such a thing as absolute neutrality. Maybe there is, but I personally have not seen or heard it. Same for headphones.  The best Hi-Fi and Precise headphones are described as ones that can reproduce the sound as neutrally as possible (the flat response across the FR graph.. being the absolute 0), but the problem is that no headphone does this. And then comes the precision of the sound, how clear it is. After all, you can have one extremely neutral headphone, yet is not very clear, rather sounds faded and muffled.. Clearly, that is not a very Hi-Fi can.   I also find it a bit ambiguous when companies rate their headphones as reference gear. The Shure 440's and the 840's are advertized by Shure as Reference grade. Though understanding the term reference as 'a benchmark in where one could clearly identify the closeness of certain material to its natural and intended design and purpose', leaves questions as to how two different headphones that clearly provide different sound signature could be regarded as reference headphones? I guess then the question that comes into play is 'which reference point'?   

Not to ramble on, but I agree with the personal preference on the whole EQ thing.  Before conducting extensive experimenting with EQing, I was set at always having a Flat EQ on my player.. as it would be the reference point to how the 440's truly represent the sound coming through them. However, after conducting even more experimenting and research, the whole player's sound signature under the flat setting comes into play. As it is on flat, it is still within the proprietary coloring of the player itself (in my case, Iphone-4 with a heavier bass and warmer sound signature).. So again, after tweaking with EQing for a bit, I brought a potential I didn't know existed in the headphones, and this is without even Amping them. I could get them to be bassier, even brighter and more sibilant, and all that without distortion..  It's probably not as neutral in regard anymore.. but, it fits my liking.. and the longer I listen to music under those new EQ setting.. that setting will naturally become my reference point with other headphones..  

Probably not the most accurate way of doing things.. but.. I find that this way you can narrow what headphones you'd prefer a  whole lot quicker.

Just my two cents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotor102 

I've noticed the extended discussion on the EQing and such..

 

And I'll say this much, coming from a person who had a strong anti-EQ philosophy when it came to headphones, after experimenting extensively over the past months, I definitely have a new perception on the whole concept.

 

One thing to note is that pretty much almost every player, whether PC or portable, stereo, home surround, DJ equipment, studio or what-not, all have their different sound signature. Even if you leave them at the most neutral setting (flat without any EQing), they still would sound different from one to another.  I honestly don't know if there is such a thing as absolute neutrality. Maybe there is, but I personally have not seen or heard it. Same for headphones.  The best Hi-Fi and Precise headphones are described as ones that can reproduce the sound as neutrally as possible (the flat response across the FR graph.. being the absolute 0), but the problem is that no headphone does this. And then comes the precision of the sound, how clear it is. After all, you can have one extremely neutral headphone, yet is not very clear, rather sounds faded and muffled.. Clearly, that is not a very Hi-Fi can.   I also find it a bit ambiguous when companies rate their headphones as reference gear. The Shure 440's and the 840's are advertized by Shure as Reference grade. Though understanding the term reference as 'a benchmark in where one could clearly identify the closeness of certain material to its natural and intended design and purpose', leaves questions as to how two different headphones that clearly provide different sound signature could be regarded as reference headphones? I guess then the question that comes into play is 'which reference point'?   

 

Not to ramble on, but I agree with the personal preference on the whole EQ thing.  Before conducting extensive experimenting with EQing, I was set at always having a Flat EQ on my player.. as it would be the reference point to how the 440's truly represent the sound coming through them. However, after conducting even more experimenting and research, the whole player's sound signature under the flat setting comes into play. As it is on flat, it is still within the proprietary coloring of the player itself (in my case, Iphone-4 with a heavier bass and warmer sound signature).. So again, after tweaking with EQing for a bit, I brought a potential I didn't know existed in the headphones, and this is without even Amping them. I could get them to be bassier, even brighter and more sibilant, and all that without distortion..  It's probably not as neutral in regard anymore.. but, it fits my liking.. and the longer I listen to music under those new EQ setting.. that setting will naturally become my reference point with other headphones..  

 

Probably not the most accurate way of doing things.. but.. I find that this way you can narrow what headphones you'd prefer a  whole lot quicker.

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

Nope, your point is quite valid. And notice I never said I had a problem with EQ. From the studio, to the microphone, to the recorder, to the monitor and mixing board, each component in the chain has coloring.

I actually find it amusing when "audiophiles" seek out high-end gear that doesn't have op-amps because they supposedly sound better. Well, how do they know the studio where the recording was made didn't have op-amps in some of their gear?

It's my opinion that if a song or album needs a little treble trim here or bass trim there, I have no problem with it. But, it's at the end of the line - I'm not using EQ as a crutch to fix the sound and change the signature of my gear - only as a final little tweak if needed (and if everything else is right, a little tweak is all I should need). As with loudspeakers, if you can find one headphone that sounds "right" to you, you should be able to keep them for a lifetime. Date your source equipment, but marry your headphones. There's a reason why headphones like the AKG K701, Grado SR80, and Sennheiser HD580/600 have been around for upwards of 20 years or more - it's because they are good, steady, consistent, quality hi-fi gear. They don't knock your socks off, they just sound damn good year after year after year.

Also, I forgot to mention regarding my RCA Living Stereo SACD's. I actually have about 20 of these discs - all recorded in the late 50's and early 60's. Most of them were three channel recordings using three microphones (right, left, and center) placed in front of the orchestra in the concert hall and going directly to master tape with no mixing. Decades later, these original master tapes were converted to DSD and encoded directly to SACD. When I listen to these performances at home (especially in my home theater), it is as close to being there as you can get. No EQ needed or wanted - it would just be another undesirable step in the chain.

OK, I hope you guys dont chastise me for reporting this...

I was pretty desperate with the leakage situation. Like I mentioned before, I listen to this primarily when I am working, and I share my small office with my wife.

I went ahead and put simple tape (transparent) around all the holes in the cups, and around the pads. I was able to decrease the leakage by about 30-40%, to the point that at lower/mid volume you cannot hear them from 2 feet away. I do not notice any considerable change in the sound signature, but as you know I am a complete newbie.

I am thinking about opening up the cups and covering all the holes with blu tack, but I want to use them like this for a little longer.

I'm more of a date your headphones, marry your source equipment kind of a guy:).
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by palmfish 

Nope, your point is quite valid. And notice I never said I had a problem with EQ. From the studio, to the microphone, to the recorder, to the monitor and mixing board, each component in the chain has coloring.

 

I actually find it amusing when "audiophiles" seek out high-end gear that doesn't have op-amps because they supposedly sound better. Well, how do they know the studio where the recording was made didn't have op-amps in some of their gear?

 

It's my opinion that if a song or album needs a little treble trim here or bass trim there, I have no problem with it. But, it's at the end of the line - I'm not using EQ as a crutch to fix the sound and change the signature of my gear - only as a final little tweak if needed (and if everything else is right, a little tweak is all I should need). As with loudspeakers, if you can find one headphone that sounds "right" to you, you should be able to keep them for a lifetime. Date your source equipment, but marry your headphones. There's a reason why headphones like the AKG K701, Grado SR80, and Sennheiser HD580/600 have been around for upwards of 20 years or more - it's because they are good, steady, consistent, quality hi-fi gear. They don't knock your socks off, they just sound damn good year after year after year.

 

Also, I forgot to mention regarding my RCA Living Stereo SACD's. I actually have about 20 of these discs - all recorded in the late 50's and early 60's. Most of them were three channel recordings using three microphones (right, left, and center) placed in front of the orchestra in the concert hall and going directly to master tape with no mixing. Decades later, these original master tapes were converted to DSD and encoded directly to SACD. When I listen to these performances at home (especially in my home theater), it is as close to being there as you can get. No EQ needed or wanted - it would just be another undesirable step in the chain.

 

 

 

I'm surprised at how comfortable these are! I just wore them for like 4 hours straight and I never felt uncomfortable... The stock pads are really nice in that regard, first time I see such comfortable pads made of pleather/vinyl/whatever material these are. The clamping is just right, too.

Right now my left ear is plugged so I can't hear as well as usual, but I notice some improvement after burning them in for some hours, I've been watching some series over those 4 hours and vocals were just right! everything sounded so natural and lifelike... I almost felt like I was there, my SR850s never gave me that sensation! Even with my left ear as it is, I don't hear that muddiness I mentioned yesterday anymore.. Or I'm just getting used to their signature, who knows. Anyway, I love them! I'll be able to tell better once I get my ear fixed.

I think I just went through the WTF moment with these, I can't believe what I paid for them! What a steal, thank you panasonic for such a grear pair of cans!

palmfish,

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. And no, I'm not the Marry your Equipment and date your headphones kind of a guy, rather as you suggested.. date your source, you can always upgrade, but headphones are such a personal and versatile artifact that once you find the right one, it's like a soul mate. You just want to have it near you, take care of it and condition it to its full potential. The Source is like a car or a house, you can always sell and buy another one, relocate or re-lease/finance.

As for Equing goes.. Well, clearly there is a limit as to how far you can take your headphones. And trying to EQ the living daylights out of your cans to alter their sound-signature is downright contradictory. It's like dating a Caucasian girl, but feeding and brain-washing her to act/behave and accustom to Korean/Japanese/Chinese (and other oriental cultures).. You could push her so far, and true, some would be more susceptible and adaptive to the change enforced, while others ... well, not so much.. What's the point, simply this, at the end of the day, it's still a Caucasian girl acting like an Asian one.     Trust me, I've tried to get the XB500's sound signature from the SRH440's, amped and unamped... and trust me.. the 440's didn't agree with me. 

Even if you take those Panasonics and try to match the XB500's sound signature, you'd be closer than the 440's, but it still won't be XB500... And the same in contrast. You try and make those Pannys or XB500/700 to sound Like Grado PS1000 or 500's... trust me that you're lucky to strike gold in a chocolate fondu than to make the XB500 or the HP541 sound like it. 

Sound signature is what it is. I'd push the 440's or 840's or even 940's as much as I can... Bass/Upper mid-bass, and reduce certain Hi and upper mid-range frequencies... At the end of the day, they're still going to be heavily EQued SRh440's..

It's all about what you like. An audiophile or a headfi can come with all the charts, graphs and comparos of FR, square waves and isolation and such to prove which headphone is clearly superior in terms of Hi-Fidelity... And yes, they will be correct to an extent, but.. at the end of the day/week/month... If I prefer the XB700's unequed for my Psytrance over let's say those AKG or Ultrasone pros heavily equed (which are proven to be of higher fidelity), then to me the XB700 sound better.  No ands, ifs or buts..

after reading these reviews soooo tempted to buy a pair

but there is no stock :/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dsnuts 

 

The sound design for BF3 is something to marvel at..I can tell they took bullet sounds entering a dead body or a dead animal to make the sounds of when you get hit. I can imagine that is the exact sound you would hear. It literally sounds like bullets entering flesh.

What soundcard/dac/amp/settings you use on your pc?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotor102 

palmfish,

 

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. And no, I'm not the Marry your Equipment and date your headphones kind of a guy, rather as you suggested.. date your source, you can always upgrade, but headphones are such a personal and versatile artifact that once you find the right one, it's like a soul mate. You just want to have it near you, take care of it and condition it to its full potential. The Source is like a car or a house, you can always sell and buy another one, relocate or re-lease/finance.

 

As for Equing goes.. Well, clearly there is a limit as to how far you can take your headphones. And trying to EQ the living daylights out of your cans to alter their sound-signature is downright contradictory. It's like dating a Caucasian girl, but feeding and brain-washing her to act/behave and accustom to Korean/Japanese/Chinese (and other oriental cultures).. You could push her so far, and true, some would be more susceptible and adaptive to the change enforced, while others ... well, not so much.. What's the point, simply this, at the end of the day, it's still a Caucasian girl acting like an Asian one.     Trust me, I've tried to get the XB500's sound signature from the SRH440's, amped and unamped... and trust me.. the 440's didn't agree with me. 

 

Even if you take those Panasonics and try to match the XB500's sound signature, you'd be closer than the 440's, but it still won't be XB500... And the same in contrast. You try and make those Pannys or XB500/700 to sound Like Grado PS1000 or 500's... trust me that you're lucky to strike gold in a chocolate fondu than to make the XB500 or the HP541 sound like it. 

 

Sound signature is what it is. I'd push the 440's or 840's or even 940's as much as I can... Bass/Upper mid-bass, and reduce certain Hi and upper mid-range frequencies... At the end of the day, they're still going to be heavily EQued SRh440's..

 

It's all about what you like. An audiophile or a headfi can come with all the charts, graphs and comparos of FR, square waves and isolation and such to prove which headphone is clearly superior in terms of Hi-Fidelity... And yes, they will be correct to an extent, but.. at the end of the day/week/month... If I prefer the XB700's unequed for my Psytrance over let's say those AKG or Ultrasone pros heavily equed (which are proven to be of higher fidelity), then to me the XB700 sound better.  No ands, ifs or buts..

I think when discussing sound and EQ, electronic music is COMPLETELY different than any other type. I think EQ is a much more appropriate and easy to work with tool with electronic music because nobody knows what it is "supposed" to sound like. Why not slide those sliders until it sounds good to you? If you want the bass to reverberate more or you want the treble to sparkle, go for it! It's a genre where a $30 headphone can be EQ'd to truly sound as good as (or better) than a $300 headphone.

With most other music, EQ is a much more delicate tool. We know what a double bass or kick drum sounds like, so if you boost the mid-bass too much, it will bloom and sound bloated. We know what the human voice sounds like so it's easy to detect when the upper bass is bleeding into the mids making a singer sound muddy. Same with treble. That wire brush grazing a snare drum is supposed to sound a certain way. If it's too crackly or tizzy, we know something's wrong. EQ can improve some of these issues, but not all of them - and it might make some worse.

Are these headphones worth waiting a month for? I ordered back in late October and and the seller is saying they will get some in stock late November...I've been waiting for so long! Should I just cancel the order?