Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The Neutral / Balanced Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Neutral / Balanced Thread - Page 6

Poll Results: Best Neutral IEM and Headphone 2011 (Pick 1 IEM and 1 Headphone only)

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 18% (43)
    Etymotic ER-4S
  • 2% (7)
    Hifiman RE-272
  • 3% (9)
    Shure SE425
  • 1% (3)
    Sony EX510
  • 7% (18)
    Vsonic GR07
  • 3% (8)
    Westone UM3X
  • 9% (22)
    Audeze LCD-2
  • 13% (33)
    Sennheiser HD600
  • 11% (28)
    Sennheiser HD800
  • 7% (19)
    Beyerdynamic DT880
  • 2% (7)
    Shure SRH 840
  • 7% (19)
    AKG 702
  • 9% (22)
    Stax SR-009
  • 0% (1)
    Denon DN-HP1000
  • 0% (2)
    ESP950
  • 10% (24)
    Ultimate Ears Reference Monitor Custom
  • 4% (10)
    Unique Melody Miracle
  • 2% (6)
    KRK-KNS8400
  • 2% (5)
    Koss ESP950
238 Total Votes  
post #76 of 355

Here's what threw me from your first post:

 

 

 

Quote:
There are numerous people in Head-Fi that's interested in an actual sound reproduction so I decided to make a thread about it. No more, no less - that's how we like it. As a musician and an amateur composer, I always strive for IEMs that gives a neutral presentation

 

And from Lunatique's excellent post "misconception of neutral/accurate" (http://www.head-fi.org/t/564465/misconception-of-neutral-accurate), his comment:

 

 

Quote:
I personally think there's only one standard for fidelity, and that is total neutrality and accuracy. If anything sounds analytical or musical, then there's coloration, and IMO, audio gear shouldn't have coloration. Ideally, audio gear is completely transparent and you hear the music as the audio engineers who made them intended them to sound, without adding coloration of your own.

 

I could be wrong about the "neutral is balanced" - because to me the only way to avoid major colouring is to have a well balanced headphone.  I know this is difficult to find something completely neutral - but this is where we'd take a little 'poetic license' and just list iem/headphones that are 'reasonably close to neutral'.

 

Interested in other input ......

post #77 of 355
Thread Starter 

Yes I am interested in IEMs that produces an actual reproduction. I completely agree with Lunatique's comment. But sometimes I just got confused with detailed IEMs. Accuracy and neutrality is what we're aiming for.

post #78 of 355
Thread Starter 

IEMs and headphones that are promoted as monitors are usually neutral/analytical imo.

post #79 of 355

Analytical to me means high amount of detail and usually has some kind of treble peak.

 

Also the DT880 is not mid centric. It has a slightly V shaped sound signature with the mids being a bit recessed but not too badly like say the TF10.

post #80 of 355

The ER4S is worth every penny when it comes to analytical. I just pitted them against my SR-507 and they managed to astound me with the amount of detail they could retrieve. It may have something to do with the fit / seal of IEMs, but the ER4S really lets me see every single piece of the music and dice up the nuances.

post #81 of 355

 Just please... No "Musicality" thread ;)

post #82 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hifianddrumming View Post

 Just please... No "Musicality" thread ;)



Agreed.  That term is thrown around way too much for having a relatively low common definition.  Because of that, to me it doesn't mean anything.

post #83 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Audiohead View Post

Agreed.  That term is thrown around way too much for having a relatively low common definition.  Because of that, to me it doesn't mean anything.


 

Ironic, given that what i feel to be a large majority of users here are prioritizing "musicality", for whatever its termed to be, over anything else, myself included. 

 

You can't really stretch interpretations of musicality too far. Musicality, I find, is the intimacy between the music and the listener. Some people find themselves more able to indulge themselves into neutral and uncolored music, knowing that it is uncolored and reassured that they are listening to the music the producer designed to be heard, and find comfort in that, resulting in a more pleasurable experience. Others, look for warmth and touch and body, which I think more directly translates into musicality in physical form rather than just a psychological reoccurrence of knowing you have no distractions with emphasized frequencies. 

 

If you wan't to argue - thrown around - terms, I think an even more unfortunate culprit is the word "Audiophile" itself. Audiophile, in its origin when broken down ("Audio" - adj - of or relating to the sound heard by living beings + "Phile" - greek -derived from philos, meaning "loving") can be simplified to meaning the "love of sound". I find it funny when people say they aren't an audiophile and yet say they love music, because music is a form of sound, and they love the sound of music, therefore they are the most true definition of an "audiophile" when applied strictly to the term. You could never listen to a headphone or a piece of audio equipment in your life and still be the derived definition of an audiophile, imho

 

Now, you could argue that loose terms have constructed their own definition of audiophile, but it I think those who believe an audiophile is something entirely different  than the derived definition should develop a new term for it unless it actually applies to the true strict definition of what an audiophile is.


Edited by Vonx - 10/17/11 at 4:34pm
post #84 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonx View Post

 

Ironic, given that what i feel to be a large majority of users here are prioritizing "musicality", for whatever its termed to be, over anything else, myself included. 

 

You can't really stretch interpretations of musicality too far. Musicality, I find, is the intimacy between the music and the listener. Some people find themselves more able to indulge themselves into neutral and uncolored music, knowing that it is uncolored and reassured that they are listening to the music the producer designed to be heard, and find comfort in that, resulting in a more pleasurable experience. Others, look for warmth and touch and body, which I think more directly translates into musicality in physical form rather than just a psychological reoccurrence of knowing you have no distractions with emphasized frequencies. 

 

If you wan't to argue - thrown around - terms, I think an even more unfortunate culprit is the word "Audiophile" itself. Audiophile, in its origin when broken down ("Audio" - adj - of or relating to the sound heard by living beings + "Phile" - greek -derived from philos, meaning "loving") can be simplified to meaning the "love of sound". I find it funny when people say they aren't an audiophile and yet say they love music, because music is a form of sound, and they love the sound of music, therefore they are the most true definition of an "audiophile" when applied strictly to the term. You could never listen to a headphone or a piece of audio equipment in your life and still be the derived definition of an audiophile, imho

 

Now, you could argue that loose terms have constructed their own definition of audiophile, but it I think those who believe an audiophile is something entirely different  than the derived definition should develop a new term for it unless it actually applies to the true strict definition of what an audiophile is.


I buy the bit about audiophiles.  Anyone should be able to self-proclaim it, as long as they understand that simplified definition and don't claim to be some audio god.

 

My beef with "musicality" is that the COMMON definition is too loose to mean anything generalyl.  If someone says "they aren't musical" without defining their subjective experience of what musicality means to them, it means nothing to me.  This happens more than a self-proclaimed audiophile being told they don't have the right to the title in my experience.

 

In short, objectifying musicality doesn't work.

 

post #85 of 355

Ya i think EVERYONE likes music so applying that definition would make the term audiophile meaning-less  But i'm not strict with the definition either, i would go as far as to say anyone who music is more than just a passive or social media can be considered one.

post #86 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by John In Cali View Post

Ya i think EVERYONE likes music so applying that definition would make the term audiophile meaning-less  But i'm not strict with the definition either, i would go as far as to say anyone who music is more than just a passive or social media can be considered one.


 

1: A lot of people are not fans of music of any sort; I have an uncle who has absolutely no inclination to listen to music whatsoever. I grew up around my uncle and when we were driving one day I asked him why he never put music on in the car and he told me that he simply doesn't like it. I've met plenty of other un-musical types in my life, so implying that everyone is a "lover" of sound, and even more niched, a "lover" of music, is just false.
 

2: Now, even if everyone loved music, why can't a term apply to everyone? How does a term that could potentially ( but doesn't ) apply to everyone warrant being called meaningless simply because it applies to everyone? 

 

All humans are "human". Does the fact that all "humans" are "human" make the term "human" meaningless? 

 

 


Edited by Vonx - 10/17/11 at 8:03pm
post #87 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Audiohead View Post

I buy the bit about audiophiles.  Anyone should be able to self-proclaim it, as long as they understand that simplified definition and don't claim to be some audio god.

 

My beef with "musicality" is that the COMMON definition is too loose to mean anything generalyl.  If someone says "they aren't musical" without defining their subjective experience of what musicality means to them, it means nothing to me.  This happens more than a self-proclaimed audiophile being told they don't have the right to the title in my experience.

 

In short, objectifying musicality doesn't work.

 



I agree that music is subjective, hence why i said "i find" 

 

There is nothing wrong with sharing interpretations, and it would make a good discussion thread imho

 

If i started one to help identify "musical" headphones, I would say what my interpretation of "musicality" is, and then share my collection of headphones that I think fits that description. I still think a large majority of people would have a general consensus of what musicality is, even if they are ever so slightly opinionated. 

 

From what ive gathered..

 

Cold, sterile, lifeless, thin = generally considered less musical

 

Warm, low frequency colored, thick = generally considered more musical

 

I think it has to do with how the ear interprets sound from loud speakers and/or real instruments. They tend to have more "body" and "thud" in real life. For example, some pairs of loud speakers that, on paper, have a flat response can still be audibly recognized to have a completely different frequency response to the human ear. I read a really good thread on Human vs Machine frequency interpretation but i cant remember where i saw it. 

 

I know that myself when i go to concerts (usually rock/metal) that the bass and guitar distortion and gain really overpowers the midtones and vocals almost to the point where they are difficult to hear. I think its because the thickness of the loud bass can be "felt" in your body which makes you think there is more of it there, and why lot of people like to have saturated bass in their music. 


Edited by Vonx - 10/17/11 at 8:09pm
post #88 of 355
Thread Starter 

audiophile [ˈɔːdɪəʊˌfaɪl]

n
a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction
 
 
(not a person who loves music)

 

post #89 of 355


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikp View Post

audiophile [ˈɔːdɪəʊˌfaɪl]

n
a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction
 
 
(not a person who loves music)

 



Lol. Break the terms apart, and go redo your search. That is an adopted definition over constant misuse and then was rewritten to be identified as such. 

 

post #90 of 355
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonx View Post

 

Lol. Break the terms apart, and go redo your search. That is an adopted definition over constant misuse and then was rewritten to be identified as such. 

 


What is your definition sir?

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The Neutral / Balanced Thread