DT-48

lol. isn't there a 900000 page thread about it?

also there are 5-6 versions of it (s/e/different impedance and year of mfg) etc, so it's kinda like saying 'i love dt880', sure, why not.

Personally, i didn't like modern DT48e and vintage DT48 8ohm circa 1983. Comfort was not great, bass roll-off was vapid, and for e treble was unpleasantly spiked.

both were a novelty compared to nice electrostatics

The DT48 is not just any dynamic headphones, starting from the aluminum drivers to the domes, they are simply better. They are the world's first dynamic stereo headphones and are still the best. Electrostats are nothing like these and will never come close to the realism of the DT48.

I enjoy both my DT48s and Quad ESL-63s.

If you want 'stats, go with speakers. They cost less than the headphones, are vastly cheaper to amplify and you get that delicious dipole soundstage.

So you finally got which models DT48, I haven't finished going through those 200+ pages in the main thread, I have the DT48 without annotation and a Audiometric version. Speakers yes I would have to agree with you, which subs do you set them up with or none?

The stock DT48E-25 I have is quite good for the midrange. But you should not forget about the vintage AKGs or the Pioneer Monitor 10 among others...

 

Finding the right amplification settings is crucial though.

Yes not forgetting the K340 an the Monitor 10, The point is that Vintage is astoundingly better sounding as compared to most if not all of today's modern headphones.

 

Well I'm glad that's settled.  And which modern dynamics (and electrostats for that matter) have you lived with, to make this startling revelation? 

Probably coming from what gear you have, you would never succumb or accept that it is anyway. You just have to prove it by yourself.

uhuh. funny, I owned 2 sets of DT48, Monitor 10 and 10R and 2 sets of K340 and they all ended up seeming like cheap toys compared to SR-507 and even 202 and 404.

Then I would say that you do not hear what is real, and prefer to hear what you want to hear period.

That's a really dangerously broad statement.

 

There are some truly awe-inspiring vintage cans, especially considering that they were being designed without computers: Some of the Beyers (though I was actually underwhelmed by the DT48--reality does have bass sometimes), the Pioneer Monitor 10, the Sony DR-Z6 (which is better than the DT48 and the Monitor 10)...

 

On the whole, though, vintage headphones sound terrible.  They are bulky, ugly, muddy sounding, and lack resolution.  As soon as you get into the midrange these days, pretty much everything is better than the bulk of vintage gear.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, because Stax hasn't been around for very long and have no idea what they're doing 

Edited by joelpearce - 10/29/11 at 5:27am

Do not be mistaken that the DT48 does not have bass, it represents the true sound of bass, without the reverb of room acoustics, modern headphones add the extended decay to recreate the spaciousness, the sound of these cans are such that you are listening from where the performer's microphone is and the accompaniments are surrounding. If the music is electronically derived the presentation is different and will sound fuller. Taking an live acoustic performance or to that similar effect, what stands out at that concert would always be the singer's voice and not the instruments, accuracy can be judged by yourself, by taking a recording of a speaker, maybe yourself or someone who you have been familiar with. Now listening and comparing that voice recording with whatever headphones you have, will reveal that difference and prove exactly what these 48 are capable of.