New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Basshead Club - Page 240  

post #3586 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigster75 View Post


I suppose this is where bass becomes subjective even for bassheads.  I prefer the quality of the bass in the PRO700MK2 to the thunderous XBs as I find the MK2s tighter and more musical while still offering powerful depth and impact.  I also hear superior midrange detail in the MK2.

yea and that's the fun of it, plus what is this "mid range detail you speak of" lol

 

non the less. I'm sure it will sound magical! 

post #3587 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigster75 View Post


I suppose this is where bass becomes subjective even for bassheads.  I prefer the quality of the bass in the PRO700MK2 to the thunderous XBs as I find the MK2s tighter and more musical while still offering powerful depth and impact.  I also hear superior midrange detail in the MK2.


if you dont mind me asking, what do you mean when you say "musical". iv read many head-fi comments where gear is described as musical and i never got what it meant. it usually just meant colored... what is your definition? 

post #3588 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr View Post


if you dont mind me asking, what do you mean when you say "musical". iv read many head-fi comments where gear is described as musical and i never got what it meant. it usually just meant colored... what is your definition? 

 

I know you're not asking me but I'd explain it like this;

 

The opposite of "analytical". Let's first explain analytical to get a better idea about "musical". 

 

Analytical = a headphone that makes you hear/analyze all the faint details in the music. "Unforgiving" and revealing to poorly mastered records. Generally speaking frequency response wise if all other aspects would remain the same and frequency response balance would be the only difference excluding other factors (such as eg. resonance); analytical headphones tend to have more of a gentle "uphill" going curve/line from lows to highs, lots of highs/treble (4kHz+) presence, a bit brighter/cold sounding. Headphone examples; Sony V6, AKG K701/702, HD800

 

Musical = a headphone that makes you enjoy the music. More "Forgiving" to poorly mastered records. Generally speaking musical headphone response tend to have excluding all other contributing factors (such as eg. resonance); more of a gently "downhill slope"/line kind of frequency response from lows to highs, non-dominating highs/treble (4kHz+) presence, a bit darker/warmer sounding. Headphone examples; Philips L1, UE6000, LCD-2/3.

 

Hope that helps :) That doesn't obviously mean you can't "enjoy" music with an analytical headphone, it's just different strokes for different folks. People enjoy music in different ways, typically "audiophiles" enjoy the details in the music and other people may just enjoy getting a good feeling when listening to music, like for example bassheads gets a good feeling from strong impact in the bass.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 12/10/12 at 10:23am
post #3589 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr View Post


if you dont mind me asking, what do you mean when you say "musical". iv read many head-fi comments where gear is described as musical and i never got what it meant. it usually just meant colored... what is your definition? 


Subtle variances in the depth of bass frequencies as well as individual bass notes can be heard (you can distinguish different bass notes at different frequencies) compared to one-note thumping at one frequency whenever bass is called for in the music.  Headphones with the most musical bass don't usually have the most slam/impact, but tend to be more enjoyable for multiple genres.  A few headphones I consider to have the most musical bass with a bass emphasis, but not "bass monsters" would include the PSB M4U 1 and 2, V-Moda M-100, Ultrasone Signature PRO (probably Signature DJ as well) and Sennheiser Momentum.

 

I just ordered the Velodyne VTrue.  I have no idea how they sound, but I have a gut feeling they may offer the best combination of musicality, impact and overall SQ to date.  My expectations are high, but stay tuned....

 

P.S. I just read RPG's take on the definition of musical bass which is different than my understanding, but also makes sense.  Regardless, I hope this provides an idea of the differences between bass quantity and quality.


Edited by Craigster75 - 12/10/12 at 9:10am
post #3590 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

I know you're not asking me but I'd explain it like this;

 

The opposite of "analytical". Let's first explain analytical to get a better idea about "musical". 

 

Analytical = a headphone that makes you hear/analyze all the faint details in the music. "Unforgiving" and revealing to poorly mastered records. Generally speaking frequency response wise if all other aspects would remain the same and frequency response balance would be the only difference excluding other factors; analytical headphones tend to have more of a gentle "uphill" going curve/line from lows to highs, lots of highs presence, a bit brighter/cold sounding. Headphone examples; Sony V6, AKG K701/702, HD800

 

Musical = a headphone that makes you enjoy the music. More "Forgiving" to poorly mastered records. Generally speaking musical headphone response tend to have excluding all other contributing factors; more of a gently "downhill slope"/line kind of frequency response from lows to highs, non-dominating highs presence, a bit darker/warmer sounding. Headphone examples; Philips L1, UE6000, LCD-2/3.

 

Hope that helps :)


oh alright, so not actually so far from what i thought it meant. thank you for making the musical/analytical comparison, this was helpful =]

post #3591 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigster75 View Post


Subtle variances in the depth of bass frequencies as well as individual bass notes can be heard (you can distinguish different bass notes at different frequencies) compared to one-note thumping at one frequency whenever bass is called for in the music.  Headphones with the most musical bass don't usually have the most slam/impact, but tend to be more enjoyable for multiple genres.  A few headphones I consider to have the most musical bass with a bass emphasis, but not "bass monsters" would include the PSB M4U 1 and 2, V-Moda M-100, Ultrasone Signature PRO (probably Signature DJ as well) and Sennheiser Momentum.

 

I just ordered the Velodyne VTrue.  I have no idea how they sound, but I have a gut feeling they may offer the best combination of musicality, impact and overall SQ to date.  My expectations are high, but stay tuned....


you posted this while i was commenting on RPGs post. thank you too

post #3592 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr View Post


oh alright, so not actually so far from what i thought it meant. thank you for making the musical/analytical comparison, this was helpful =]

ANd belive it or not, the XB700 modded with an E11 has analytical bass lines, you can hear the noes shift from high to low, it's not ONE BIG sound of bass. but it's not as tight as other cans like the Dt 880 in which... that shizx is TIGHT. But again I have an ear for bass so I can enjoy a nice mudd bath ;3

post #3593 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr View Post


oh alright, so not actually so far from what i thought it meant. thank you for making the musical/analytical comparison, this was helpful =]

 

Sorry I edited the post some more afterwards, I often work like that, 100 edits before I'm satisfied with a post because I want to make my point as clear as possible avoiding people to misinterpret my message etc. :P

post #3594 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post

ANd belive it or not, the XB700 modded with an E11 has analytical bass lines, you can hear the noes shift from high to low, it's not ONE BIG sound of bass. but it's not as tight as other cans like the Dt 880 in which... that shizx is TIGHT. But again I have an ear for bass so I can enjoy a nice mudd bath ;3

 

wow, youv been complimenting the xb700 in several threads all around, you really like those dont you? you really should try the dt770s. i have no idea how they compare to the xb700, but using an equalizer i can push them to give me rumbling sub bass and a violent mid bass punch - all together. i have an e11 too and its just not the same as software eqing. i like having control over whats boosted and exactly how much and i also change it for almost every song i listen to. i dont like how the e11 boosts half the mids aswell, i can hear the difference clearly and i dont like it for all the music i listen to (though it works great for some of it). for that reason i was thinking of getting a zo2, and i may get one yet sometime in the future. but for now, im using electriq on foobar and it works wonderfully, except for the occasional crash. its the greatest tool i have when listening to music and extracting the bass detail i want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

Sorry I edited the post some more afterwards, I often work like that, 100 edits before I'm satisfied with a post because I want to make my point as clear as possible avoiding people to misinterpret my message etc. :P

alright, iv re-read it. it does seem abit simplified though. its like - bright cans are more analytical and darker cans are more musical? i know thats not quite what you meant. infact i think i actually understand what your saying. analytical - unforgiving, calmer bass presentation, very detailed. musical - more forgiving, stronger bass presentation, less detailed, or maybe, the detail is more in the lows and highs, as opposed to the mids?

is it something like that?

post #3595 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr View Post

 

wow, youv been complimenting the xb700 in several threads all around, you really like those dont you? you really should try the dt770s. i have no idea how they compare to the xb700, but using an equalizer i can push them to give me rumbling sub bass and a violent mid bass punch - all together. i have an e11 too and its just not the same as software eqing. i like having control over whats boosted and exactly how much and i also change it for almost every song i listen to. i dont like how the e11 boosts half the mids aswell, i can hear the difference clearly and i dont like it for all the music i listen to (though it works great for some of it). for that reason i was thinking of getting a zo2, and i may get one yet sometime in the future. but for now, im using electriq on foobar and it works wonderfully, except for the occasional crash. its the greatest tool i have when listening to music and extracting the bass detail i want.

alright, iv re-read it. it does seem abit simplified though. its like - bright cans are more analytical and darker cans are more musical? i know thats not quite what you meant. infact i think i actually understand what your saying. analytical - unforgiving, calmer bass presentation, very detailed. musical - more forgiving, stronger bass presentation, less detailed, or maybe, the detail is more in the lows and highs, as opposed to the mids?

is it something like that?

 

You're putting too much focus on the frequency response, it's just one contributing factor, these are more like "audio physiological" terms in a way to describe what kind of "enjoyment" people are recieving out the headphones. The key points is the first sentence with the bolded text, the rest just explains around it what contributes to that. "Audio physiology" is a whole complicated and not overly documented area. I'm very interested in this kind of stuff personally though; why and how are people hearing stuff, how do they percieve it, what makes people enjoy certain stuff in sound, how does our brain interpret the sound etc, things like that. :)

 

To take another contributing factor into the mix; resonance. Low resonance = analytical, the less of it the more clearly microdetails will stick out. To a "musical headphone"-enthusiast if there's absolutely no audible resonances especially in the bass (and especially for bassheads) might think it sounds overly dry, not as enjoyable for example. Again depending on taste it's either a bad or good thing. Objectively seen resonance is always bad but subjectively that might not be the case because our ears / brain doesn't work like that objective correctism (people's established ideology what's "correct sound") would automaticly mean enjoyable sound! If so no1 would be enjoying Grados and certainly not pay $1000 for some more highend models that still have measurements out the roof when it comes to what's "correct sound". I use " " because it's really people that established these rules themselves and it's not the absolute truth, it needs to exist though because there needs to exist standards how to master music for example.

 

OK now I'm going off-topic but as you can see I'm enjoying this kind of discussion. :P


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 12/10/12 at 10:18am
post #3596 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

You're putting too much focus on the frequency response, it's just one contributing factor, these are more like "audio physiological" terms in a way to describe what kind of "enjoyment" people are recieving out the headphones. The key points is the first sentence with the bolded text, the rest just explains around it what contributes to that. "Audio physiology" is a whole complicated and not overly documented area. I'm very interested in this kind of stuff personally though; why and how are people hearing stuff, how do they percieve it, what makes people enjoy certain stuff in sound, how does our brain interpret the sound etc, things like that. :)

 

To take another contributing factor into the mix; resonance. Low resonance = analytical, the less of it the more clearly microdetails will stick out. To a "musical headphone"-enthusiast if there's absolutely no audible resonances especially in the bass (and especially for bassheads) might think it sounds overly dry, not as enjoyable for example. Again depending on taste it's either a bad or good thing. Objectively seen resonance is always bad but subjectively that might not be the case because our ears / brain doesn't work like that objective correctism (people's established ideology what's "correct sound") would automaticly mean enjoyable sound! If so no1 would be enjoying Grados and certainly not pay $1000 for some more highend models that still have measurements out the roof when it comes to what's "correct sound". I use " " because it's really people that established these rules themselves and it's not the absolute truth, it needs to exist though because there needs to exist standards how to master music for example.

 

OK now I'm going off-topic but as you can see I'm enjoying this kind of discussion. :P


its a very subjective discussion. were really talking about a term. which is hard to do.

now i looked up resonance in the dictionary (and its not part of either head-fi glossarys) and it came down to reflection? eco? something like that? i guess i dont understand what it means.

 

im not interested in what is "correct". feel free to overlook this when discussing sound with me. im interested in what i like. however, going back on topic, im trying to understand what "musical" means, when used to describe gear. so far, the opposite of "analytical" is the best i got. which is good, but lacking. because analytical also means audibility of micro-detail (this is all imo ofcourse). i want to hear the subtleties - the varying sub-bass rumble, the ecoing backstage and all that. "musical" also seems to have micro detail in its meaning. so, as your enjoying the discussion - could you please elaborate? (im enjoying it too btw =])

post #3597 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamlr View Post


its a very subjective discussion. were really talking about a term. which is hard to do.

now i looked up resonance in the dictionary (and its not part of either head-fi glossarys) and it came down to reflection? eco? something like that? i guess i dont understand what it means.

 

im not interested in what is "correct". feel free to overlook this when discussing sound with me. im interested in what i like. however, going back on topic, im trying to understand what "musical" means, when used to describe gear. so far, the opposite of "analytical" is the best i got. which is good, but lacking. because analytical also means audibility of micro-detail (this is all imo ofcourse). i want to hear the subtleties - the varying sub-bass rumble, the ecoing backstage and all that. "musical" also seems to have micro detail in its meaning. so, as your enjoying the discussion - could you please elaborate? (im enjoying it too btw =])

 

Resonance is probably easiest explained as "eco" yea. I know what resonance sounds like but I'm not good at scientifically explain what it is as science doesn't interest me that much, physiology do however. :P I know it has to do with low long the given frequencies that is resonating for some reason more than other frequencies in the cup enclosure and how long they last when jumping back and forth inside the cups. Then using dampening with suitable material will greatly reduce it.

 

Well it really comes down to preferences, we all have our personal preferences of what gets us the most enjoyable sound possible. The only way to truly find out your personal preferences is by hearing different sounding headphones, compare the different aspects of the sound, look at scientific measured data for those headphones and draw some kind of conclusion from that what appeals to YOU. The more headphones you've tried the more accurate idea you get of the sound that appeals to you.

 

There's many different aspects in the sound, resonance, soundstage, frequency response, PRaT, dynamic range etc. They can be all drawn on a scale to "analytical" or "musical" but I don't think we need to discuss about that anymore though but since the discussion started with the term "musical" I want to refer to your comment regarding hearing subbass subtleties for example. Well that we enjoy "musical" sound doesn't mean we want all aspects of the sound to be musical. Like with everything, we have our own personal taste in every aspect of the sound, exactly how it should be like. Therefore it's so difficult to know what the best headphone is for you until you've auditioned a lot of headphones, know your preferences in the different aspects of the sound, check measurable data as well as "experienced" listeners that can accurately position where the headphones stand like in different aspects. Meaning some aspects you may happen to prefer to hear in a very analytical way, other aspects you may want to hear in a more musical way. Does that make sense to you? :)

 

The most cost efficient way of learning to know your personal preferences better would be attaining "headphone meets/shows" where you could check the same music with every headphone preferable with an amp that would work somewhat well with all those headphones, otherwise you just have to keep ordering & testing headphones until the picture becomes clear. <insert, "I'm sorry about your wallet" here> :P


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 12/10/12 at 11:16am
post #3598 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post

 

Resonance is probably easiest explained as "eco" yea. I know what resonance sounds like but I'm not good at scientifically explain what it is as science doesn't interest me that much, physiology do however. :P I know it has to do with low long the given frequencies that is resonating for some reason more than other frequencies in the cup enclosure and how long they last when jumping back and forth inside the cups. Then using dampening with suitable material will greatly reduce it.

 

Well it really comes down to preferences, we all have our personal preferences of what gets us the most enjoyable sound possible. The only way to truly find out your personal preferences is by hearing different sounding headphones, compare the different aspects of the sound, look at scientific measured data for those headphones and draw some kind of conclusion from that what appeals to YOU. The more headphones you've tried the more accurate idea you get of the sound that appeals to you.

 

There's many different aspects in the sound, resonance, soundstage, frequency response, PRaT, dynamic range etc. They can be all drawn on a scale to "analytical" or "musical" but I don't think we need to discuss about that anymore though but since the discussion started with the term "musical" I want to refer to your comment regarding hearing subbass subtleties for example. Well that we enjoy "musical" sound doesn't mean we want all aspects of the sound to be musical. Like with everything, we have our own personal taste in every aspect of the sound, exactly how it should be like. Therefore it's so difficult to know what the best headphone is for you until you've auditioned a lot of headphones, know your preferences in the different aspects of the sound, check measurable data as well as "experienced" listeners that can accurately position where the headphones stand like in different aspects. Meaning some aspects you may happen to prefer to hear in a very analytical way, other aspects you may want to hear in a more musical way. Does that make sense to you? :)

 

The most cost efficient way of learning to know your personal preferences better would be attaining "headphone meets/shows" where you could check the same music with every headphone preferable with an amp that would work somewhat well with all those headphones, otherwise you just have to keep ordering & testing headphones until the picture becomes clear. <insert, "I'm sorry about your wallet" here> :P


lol, alright then, i think youv more or less summed it up. thank you for your time. i actually got secretly annoyed with anyone who would say "musical" in order to describe gear. i would think "what the hell? its audio gear! of course its musical!" but now the term isnt as vague as it was before. if musical just means the opposite of analytical, i guess i got my answer and i can stop getting annoyed with people for no reason : P

post #3599 of 11259
So, I bought my Beyer DT 880s in September this year, been really enjoying them and have been pulled into another hobby now. I decided on them, as they seemed to be a great place to start. But I like bass, always have. And so after looking at this thread, I'm thinking about picking up a second set of headphones for those times I want bass.

I'm looking at the following and would like some input on which would work well with my setup:

HiFiMAN HE-400 - I think these are the current front runner at the moment.
Ultrasone PRO 900
Ultrasone HFI-780
Ultrasone HFI-580
Beyerdynamic DT 990 Premium 600 ohm - I've read these have a good bit more bass than the DT 880s. But, I think I would like to try a different brand right now.

I listen to a wide variety of music, pretty much anything that catches my fancy and sounds good. Basically, I'm trying to decide if I should put out the money for the HiFiMAN 400s or the Ultrasone PRO 900s. Just not sure if it would be worth it, or if the money would be better spent on the Ultrasone 780s or 580s.

My Current gear:
Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro 600 ohm
Maveric Audio TubeMagic A1
ELE EL-D01 DAC (Likely to be replaced by a Tubemagic D2 soon)

Any thoughts would be great, as I am kinda at a wall.
Edited by Mizicke5273 - 12/10/12 at 12:42pm
post #3600 of 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizicke5273 View Post

So, I bought my Beyer DT 880s in September this year, been really enjoying them and have been pulled into another hobby now. I decided on them, as they seemed to be a great place to start. But I like bass, always have. And so after looking at this thread, I'm thinking about picking up a second set of headphones for those times I want bass.
I'm looking at the following and would like some input on which would work well with my setup:
HiFiMAN HE-400 - I think these are the current front runner at the moment.
Ultrasone PRO 900
Ultrasone HFI-780
Ultrasone HFI-580
Beyerdynamic DT 990 Premium 600 ohm - I've read these have a good bit more bass than the DT 880s. But, I think I would like to try a different brand right now.
I listen to a wide variety of music, pretty much anything that catches my fancy and sounds good. Basically, I'm trying to decide if I should put out the money for the HiFiMAN 400s or the Ultrasone PRO 900s. Just not sure if it would be worth it, or if the money would be better spent on the Ultrasone 780s or 580s.
My Current gear:
Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro 600 ohm
Maveric Audio TubeMagic A1
ELE EL-D01 DAC (Likely to be replaced by a Tubemagic D2 soon)
Any thoughts would be great, as I am kinda at a wall.

nah bro get teh Dt 990 250 ohm it has MUCH more bass than the DT 880, I have and love the 880 but its no bass head can

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked