Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › SR009 / WES / BHSE / LL hit the mainstream
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SR009 / WES / BHSE / LL hit the mainstream - Page 17

post #241 of 594

Thanks for your thoughts, Gentleman, especially Arnaud. Without getting into a technical discussion, which in any case I'm far from qualified to do, and to reduce the whole discussion to its most basic and, dare I say it, only important element, I go frequently to the concert hall and what I hear, in different seating positions, equates well with what I hear from my LCD-2s; whereas it bears little or no relationship with what I have heard from the likes of AKG702, DT880, D2000, SR80...the list goes on (I've been listening to headphones almost exclusively for 40 years). So you can quote shelved treble, near field responses etc ad infinitum, but if a headphone sounds unrealistically bright and shouty you have to assume it's not a very good headphone, and, flat FR or not, I've made that presumptuous assumption many, many times. (Just as an aside, the AKG601 has one of the flattest FRs, yet to me sounded distinctly bright--and quite plasticky). Of course everyone has to make his own choice, and no one's saying anyone has to choose a certain headphone (god forbid), but I can't help being irritated when I read that a headphone that to me accords well with live sound is "dark, muted, shelved" etc. Subjectively it isn't, not to these ears (or not at least with the right amp and cable--there's always that variable). Likewise I can't help feeling peived when I see newbies being recommended phones that to me are a travesty of real life, even if to the owners they're "fun". It's not that the owners aren't allowed to be proud of their possessions, just that they seem completely oblivious of its divergence from any standard of neutrality. And that is why I say comparing phones is not a legitimate step on the path to "hi-fi". It would be like surveyors trying to define the boundaries of a property without instruments.

 

I remember when I first started going to concerts. My first thought was, "Where's the treble?" I wanted to turn the treble up. I missed that extreme treble that so defines details, what enthusiasts here lovingly call "air". I was shocked. I began to realize that I'd have to re-define my ideas about true hi-fi or else just go over to the "fun" side of the hobby--the bright side, as it were. Trouble was, I was already hooked on live sound, on the sweet smoothness of it compared to the glaring harshness of most "hi-fi", to the clear delineation of instrumental texture without any extreme treble exaggeration. I was a hopeless junkie.   

 

So, that's my life story. (I was born on stormy December night...no..no!). Not sure what more I can add to the subject. I may have already begun to subtract from it.  tongue.gif    


Edited by pp312 - 9/21/12 at 7:21pm
post #242 of 594
It's a great post pp312 and I can understand how you feel about the lcd2 relative to other phones. I just want to emphasize that truth (sense of neutrality in present case) is all relative ultimately. I also don't believe there's 1 headphone that fits all music. For instance, I'd pick the 009 over the lcd2 for classical no matter what (regardless of it being neutral or not, it is subjectively so much more appropriate for my tastes). On the other for some agressive music or where bass thump is most needed, the lcds are a much more involving amd fun headphone imo.

Well, it gets a bit cliche maybe but it's how I feel. In your case, I am not sure you've checked it out yet but there's a pretty good chance you'd hate the 009 per your postings above. Diversity is a good thing in the end so it's all good as long as we all respect each others opinions...
post #243 of 594

I've got a feeling I'd hate the 009 too. Ironically, and just like the LCD, the 009 was being proclaimed one of the greatest headphones in the world just weeks ago--virtually perfect. Now we're seeing threads about how to tame its brightness. How are the mighty fallen! (Just kidding).

 

Not sure I agree that truth is relative, but that's probably a subject for the Science Forum (or Theology Forum maybe). 

 

It's funny that people say the LCD-2 isn't the best for classical. I find it perfect, at least for heavy orchestral stuff. The feeling seems to be that brighter phones are best for classical, but my thinking is the opposite: the last thing classical needs is excessive brightness. I also think classical is the ultimate genre for auditoning headphones, even if you hate the music. There's nothing harder to reproduce without harshness than a symphony orchestra in full flight, especially strings.

 

Another point for discussion maybe.

post #244 of 594

Then, I'd love to prove you wrong about what the 009 does some day pp312. In high end Tokyo stores such as Dynamic Audio, both LCD2/3 and 009 rigs can be directly compared out of the same source and it's not just a question of tonality about what sets these two headphones apart. It's been discussed a lot already in their respective threads so I won't bother beating a dead horse, but really hope you can keep your mind open. Personally, instrument placement and separation, room cues are even more critical in classical playback then just tonality (for the reason I stated before in regards to flawed recording/playback techniques and seat placement). And there, no question, the 009 (and other stax for that matter) totally walk other the LCDs.

 

Probably the main issue with people finding the 009 bright is that it is simply ruthlessly revealing of whatever flaws upstream, including the recording. That and it's tonality does not pan out well at high playback levels for some recordings. In that sense, it certainly isn't a perfect headphone but again, one can't have a cake and eat it too (in the sense resolution and transparency comes at a cost).


Edited by arnaud - 9/21/12 at 11:27pm
post #245 of 594

More than happy to concede the 009 wipes the floor with the LCDs, as indeed it should for the price. However, there are other factors even besides price and sound quality to consider when choosing a HP. One is how well it treats less than wonderful recordings, including archival material, of which I have quite a lot. "Ruthlessly revealing" may be wonderful on the best recordings, but we old folk (I'm 65) usually have a mix of quality, from brilliant to marginal (the downright awful I throw out immediately). If I'm playing a 60s soundtrack with harsh, wiry strings (not uncommon) an 009 probably wouldn't ring my bell; rather I'd be weeping about the $6,000 I'd just paid for it. Also I'm not sure I want my amp (an Aune clone) to be ruthlessly revealed, though I'm certainly happy enough with it with the Audeze. My MP3s of less than 320kbps probably wouldn't want to be probed too closely either. And as for my ears, well, they're the same age as me, strangely.  

 

On top of all that I'm poor. tongue.gif


Edited by pp312 - 9/22/12 at 5:57am
post #246 of 594

I wouldn't necessarily say the 009 wipes the floor with the LCDs.  It's technically a much more impressive performer, but you should choose whatever sounds better to your hears.  I've run into my fair share of people who thought the 009 is the greatest headphone of all time (or somewhere on par with the HE90) and others who find the brightness anywhere between uncomfortable and unbearable to listen to.

 

If you like your LCDs a lot, try to find a properly amped SR007, HE500, and HE6 sometime.  The HE60 is really great too but seems pretty rare these days.  I can think of a few people who put their LCD2s in the closet after moving up to 007s :)

 

That said, I agree with your earlier post, and honestly haven't heard a headphone setup that comes close to approximate live instruments.  Based on my listening impressions through many amps, I feel like the 009 and HD800 do a great job of reproducing what's recorded, but it's nothing like my experience playing and listening to classical music.  Speakers come closer (especially with a good vinyl rig), but still have their limitations.  The 009s do a nice job reproducing a lot of the microdetail I'd expect with solo string instruments, but something about the tonality continually strikes me as unnatural, regardless of recording.  I've only heard digital with the 009.  Maybe analog recordings fare better.

 

The Realiser with an electrostat does a better job than any of the headphones out there.  It's too bad arnaud doesn't have one as, from all the people I'd love to read more Realiser impressions with various PRIRs from, arnaud would be one of my first choices.

post #247 of 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysian View Post

The Realiser with an electrostat does a better job than any of the headphones out there.  It's too bad arnaud doesn't have one as, from all the people I'd love to read more Realiser impressions with various PRIRs from, arnaud would be one of my first choices.

 

I've had the itch at some point, especially because I sometimes travel to socal but have resisted so far ;).

post #248 of 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

More than happy to concede the 009 wipes the floor with the LCDs, as indeed it should for the price. However, there are other factors even besides price and sound quality to consider when choosing a HP. One is how well it treats less than wonderful recordings, including archival material, of which I have quite a lot. "Ruthlessly revealing" may be wonderful on the best recordings, but we old folk (I'm 65) usually have a mix of quality, from brilliant to marginal (the downright awful I throw out immediately). If I'm playing a 60s soundtrack with harsh, wiry strings (not uncommon) an 009 probably wouldn't ring my bell; rather I'd be weeping about the $6,000 I'd just paid for it. Also I'm not sure I want my amp (an Aune clone) to be ruthlessly revealed, though I'm certainly happy enough with it with the Audeze. My MP3s of less than 320kbps probably wouldn't want to be probed too closely either. And as for my ears, well, they're the same age as me, strangely.  

On top of all that I'm poor. tongue.gif

I'm also 65 and poor, but before I was I did take the plunge and have a Stax SR-007mk2 setup. I have found it to be very forgiving of whatever I throw at it, good or bad, contemporary or 1930s. The current SZ3 offering is not well liked in these forums but agrees well with my geriatric hearing profile. It does not command a premium used. Same for the Stax SRM-007t series amps; not well thought of for these phones but a new mod from Spritzer fixes them right up.
post #249 of 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

I've had the itch at some point, especially because I sometimes travel to socal but have resisted so far ;).

 

The interesting thing we've discovered is that it's important to have your headphone measurements conform to your ears, but the actual speaker measurements are not nearly as important.  The PRIR sharing thread has gotten really good, and you've got an awesome amp/headphone setup for the Realiser.  You actually don't need to travel anywhere to get a great PRIR anymore.  If you like speakers and want a very tweakable device, I think the Realiser might be up your alley.  I've had bad experiences with EQing in the past, but the Realiser blew away my expectations.  If you're ever in NorCal, I'd be happy to demo my Realiser for you too.

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

post #250 of 594

I have an LCD-2 R.1 here and if you want to upgrade from something like that and keep the sound signature then the 009 would be a very bad choice.  The 007's would be a far better fit and also provide that forgiving nature while giving you far better bass performance, better highs, better soundstage etc.  Now something with a moving coil isn't normally my thing but the LCD-2's are very good headphones and it might be wise to upgrade the amp before anything else.  Most of the amps supposed to be good for ortho's aren't in practice as the amp makers think these need voltage for some bizarre reason and even current limit to reach that goal. 

post #251 of 594

That makes me want to try an 007 more than an 009

popcorn.gif

post #252 of 594

Try both on a good stat amp without any preconceived notions.  The 007 is still my favorite headphone of all time, closely followed by the HE60 and HE6.  I think the 009 and HD800 are technically impressive headphones, but not really to my tastes.

post #253 of 594

Need to find someone in Texas with an 007mk1 to try with my LL. I feel like I didn't give it enough of a chance the first time I hear it...and it was at a meet.

 

Definitely my favorite headphone looks wise though.

post #254 of 594

IMO . While I had it  - the LL + 007Mk1 pairing wasn't nearly as good as the 009 + LL . YMMV though.normal_smile%20.gif

post #255 of 594

Personally I think the SR-007mk1 with the LL is fantastic, though synergistically the SR-009 and SR-Omega sound more correct because they're balanced out more by the LL's relatively "lush" sound (though I hesitate using that descriptor here; "stately" was a good one a friend of mine used). I can understand some finding the SR-007 too polite with the LL, but I encourage people to give it a try.

 

Incidentally, from the limited time I spent with the BHSE, I did personally prefer the SR-007 with it over the SR-009.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › SR009 / WES / BHSE / LL hit the mainstream