Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Final Audio Design Impressions and Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Final Audio Design Impressions and Discussion Thread - Page 171

post #2551 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

A very interesting point, but in itself slightly problematic (if I may say so).

 

It gets more problematic the deeper one goes...

 

Quote:
Let's develop your thought further...  so, where is this actual piece of music played and heard, before ever being recorded?

 

First of all, it originates (this applies most of all to Western 'classical' music) in the mind and fingers of the composer. Then it is rehearsed at a given location (and most likely the bigger the ensemble, the bigger the location, with the attendant acoustic results). Then it's recorded in a studio or live - in the latter case, one take (leaving aside edits) in one particular acoustic space. 

 

Quote:
And how different are the acoustic properties of that room (a concert hall, a club) to what you get from a recorded version on a high quality reproduction chain?

 

That will obviously depend on the original space and the equipment; this is where things like highly coloured earphones will take the recording away from that original performance. 

 

Quote:

If I happen to feel a close connection while listening to classical music in my hometown's world-famous Musikvereinssaal (reverberation time 2-3 seconds, a big mess of reflected sound everywhere except for the first few rows), am I in danger of fetishing the equipment?

 wink.gif

 

That question is actually more significant than (feel free to correct me) you perhaps realise - there are people who'd claim you haven't heard Mahler until you've heard it at the Musikverein. One has to examine such claims to find out whether they're simply based on chauvinism and a desperate attempt to defend the superiority of one's local cultural heritage (the latter very much a Viennese malaise, as I'm sure you know) or on concrete musical elements, for example if the reverberation time is factored into the durations chosen by the composer because they're writing for that space. Of course, this then leads into the gigantic tub of worms that is historical authenticity, and we can pick apart the choices of instrument, tempi and and edition as well... Keeping to the point, what I mainly mean is that 'emotion' (not going to deconstruct that just yet) is put into the music by the composer(s) who conceive it and the performers who realise it. I don't think that the means of mechanical reproduction can add any emotion; they can put a new perspective on it, but - to take up an analogy you've used - looking at a picture in sepia doesn't bring you closer to the original picture; it potentially creates a relationship with a new guise of it. I think it's comparable to musical arrangements - orchestrations of piano pieces, for example, or Bach keyboard music on the piano (even if most people wouldn't think of the latter as arrangements). 

post #2552 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartertone View Post

It gets more problematic the deeper one goes...


That will obviously depend on the original space and the equipment; this is where things like highly coloured earphones will take the recording away from that original performance. 

Not to interrupt your very interesting conversation (seriously), but I would think that it has just as much potential to go wrong at this point as it does at the end of the chain.

This kind of seems like a complication of the old argument on what is art exactly after it is in the public eye. Who controls how it is and should be interpreted and internalized.
post #2553 of 4523

Quote:

Originally Posted by vwinter View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quartertone View Post

It gets more problematic the deeper one goes...


That will obviously depend on the original space and the equipment; this is where things like highly coloured earphones will take the recording away from that original performance. 

Not to interrupt your very interesting conversation (seriously), but I would think that it has just as much potential to go wrong at this point as it does at the end of the chain.

This kind of seems like a complication of the old argument on what is art exactly after it is in the public eye. Who controls how it is and should be interpreted and internalized.

 

Exactly, that's why I love these conversations. The acoustics of the venue/recording studio are only one example, the individual characteristics of the microphones used will have a far bigger effect on the coloration of the recording. Not to mention the individual characteristics of the listener's hearing abilities.

 

But we have to consider that these added colorations on either end of the recording/listening chain have the potential to make thing go "right" as much as "wrong"; a completely neutral/flat recording is not only impossible to achieve, but much more often than not would not be very engaging to listen to.


Edited by grokit - 6/28/13 at 2:20pm
post #2554 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

Quote:

Exactly, that's why I love these conversations. The acoustics of the venue/recording studio are only one example, the individual characteristics of the microphones used will have a far bigger effect on the coloration of the recording. Not to mention the individual characteristics of the listener's hearing abilities.

But we have to consider that these added colorations on either end of the recording/listening chain have the potential to make thing go "right" in the recording process as much as "wrong"; a completely neutral/flat recording is not only impossible to achieve, but would probably not be very engaging to listen to.

Many of my clients prefer to use Neumman Tube Microphones as they like the sonic they impart upon their performance, especially vocal or stringed instrument.
post #2555 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post

Not to interrupt your very interesting conversation (seriously), but I would think that it has just as much potential to go wrong at this point as it does at the end of the chain.

 

You're interjection is very welcome, 'cause that's exactly what I was hinting at. The classical recordings I've seen at local Musikverein or Konzerthaus halls were done with huge arrays of mikes, most of them suspended above the orchestra, others placed close to the soloists. Needless to say these will pick up a much larger proportion of direct sound than any listener in the audience. The artistic skills of engineers will decide what, after a lot of equalizing and downmixing, you'll take home on your CD, but it obviously has little to do with what you've heard from your seat in that same concert hall. So, by implication, if we declare the final CD the measure of all things, then what you've actually heard from your seat in that concert hall may be rightfully called pretty colored and taken away from the "original performance".
 

Of course that's not to say that two wrongs will necessarily make a right and those FADs will somehow magically restore the acoustics of "being there". Still, as others have mentioned, they work pretty well with some stuff in conveying a kind of live concert ambience, very untrue to the recording indeed, but quite fascinating and alluring at the same time.  smile_phones.gif

post #2556 of 4523

Very interesting last few posts… once again making this thread have a very different quality / vibe to most threads found on the IEMs forum.

quartertone, FWIW, and in very simple terms, after having spent a year with the PF IXs, here's my current take on them:

The connection I make with a lot of music through the PF IXs remains to this day, quite frankly, a mystery to me. I've literally given up trying to explain (to myself) what exactly makes these phones such a compelling listen. In the past, and to this day, I have got—and still get—an emotional response/deep connection with music using other phones—although there's several other variables at play which I've discussed in the past, where we may not always get that connection, no matter how hard we try or which phone/piece of gear we use—and that usually has meant that the better the equipment/phones, the closer I'd get to the music; the more transparent the window, so to speak, the clearer the musical landscape would become. So, in that sense, I also get a strong musical connection with my HD800s & K3003s.

However, the PF IXs seem to take me to (other/different/deeper) areas within the music that no other phone has ever managed to achieve, areas that perhaps have little, if anything, to do with such things as micro-details, transients, decay, extension or other technical audio-related aspects of audio — perhaps there is indeed such a thing as the "art of sound". How? I've no idea. The PFs are known to be very midcentric—for me the midrange is the key frequency—but there's more to it that that as other midcentric phones I've had in the past never got quite as close to music—Music with a capital "M"—the way the PF IXs (and 1601s) do. A concert hall-like presentation? Not so sure about that one, TBH, and that's not a term I personally tend to use to describe these phones.

As coloured as the PF IXs may be, they simply sound more natural—almost unassuming in a way—than my other more conventional/'correct' TOTL phones, to these ears; it's like someone you've always known quite well, and because of that there's no need for pyrotechnics, flashiness or need to impress — a few posts back I said that listening through the PF IXs was like "coming home".

 

It may well be that I'm somehow addicted/very drawn to this type of colouration — perhaps, and I honestly don't know whether it can be explained away that easily, and, at this point, I honestly don't care if that is indeed the case. What I do know is that I reach for my PF IXs very frequently, and most times I simply find myself being unable to put them down. The honeymoon period is long gone, and precisely because of that, I have a lot more respect for these very peculiar phones than I used to. They still manage to surprise me after all this time.

 

*Come to think of it, not too sure the above comments are really related to the contents of your post.*
 


Edited by music_4321 - 6/28/13 at 2:42pm
post #2557 of 4523

Gents,

 

Those that were wondering about the PF listening this weekend, I have a wedding to go to and will not be organizing this weekend. You all feel free to go ahead if you guys want, of course. 

 

But I want to listen to my recommendation with you. : )

post #2558 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

Very interesting last few posts… once again making this thread have a very different quality / vibe to most threads found on the IEMs forum.

quartertone, FWIW, and in very simple terms, after having spent a year with the PF IXs, here's my current take on them:

The connection I make with a lot of music through the PF IXs remains to this day, quite frankly, a mystery to me. I've literally given up trying to explain (to myself) what exactly makes these phones such a compelling listen. In the past, and to this day, I have got—and still get—an emotional response/deep connection with music using other phones—although there's several other variables at play which I've discussed in the past, where we may not always get that connection, no matter how hard we try or which phone/piece of gear we use—and that usually has meant that the better the equipment/phones, the closer I'd get to the music; the more transparent the window, so to speak, the clearer the musical landscape would become. So, in that sense, I also get a strong musical connection with my HD800s & K3003s.

However, the PF IXs seem to take me to (other/different/deeper) areas within the music that no other phone has ever managed to achieve, areas that perhaps have little, if anything, to do with such things as micro-details, transients, decay, extension or other technical audio-related aspects of audio — perhaps there is indeed such a thing as the "art of sound". How? I've no idea. The PFs are known to be very midcentric—for me the midrange is the key frequency—but there's more to it that that as other midcentric phones I've had in the past never got quite as close to music—Music with a capital "M"—the way the PF IXs (and 1601s) do. A concert hall-like presentation? Not so sure about that one, TBH, and that's not a term I personally tend to use to describe these phones.

As coloured as the PF IXs may be, they simply sound more natural—almost unassuming in a way—than my other more conventional/'correct' TOTL phones, to these ears; it's like someone you've always known quite well, and because of that there's no need for pyrotechnics, flashiness or need to impress — a few posts back I said that listening through the PF IXs was like "coming home".

 

It may well be that I'm somehow addicted/very drawn to this type of colouration — perhaps, and I honestly don't know whether it can be explained away that easily, and, at this point, I honestly don't care if that is indeed the case. What I do know is that I reach for my PF IXs very frequently, and most times I simply find myself being unable to put them down. The honeymoon period is long gone, and precisely because of that, I have a lot more respect for these very peculiar phones than I used to. They still manage to surprise me after all this time.

 

*Come to think of it, not too sure the above comments are really related to the contents of your post.*
 

 

This is the most accurate description of the PF's that has ever been (and probably ever will be) written. Kudos, and well said typed. I agree wholeheartedly. As an aside, just to satisfy my curiosity, if you could only reach for the IXs or the 1601s, which one would you grab?

post #2559 of 4523

^  I'd grab the PF IXs: better ergonomics (can have a cable-down or over-the-ear fit unlike the 1601s which only allow me the latter option) and a longer (20cm / 8") and more flexible cable. SQ-wise, though, I'm not really sure which one I'd choose, as they really are very similar in that department. (Thanks for the kind words, btw)

post #2560 of 4523
Why most comment about piano forte here is writing about ix and not viii?

The more i read this topic, the more i addicted to this topic, and also the more i feel like i must buy the ix
There is no demo unit in my city so i cant try
redface.gif

Is there anyone who try both x-g and x-cg?
I am wondering the differences between both flagship
Sampe price but different material and maybe different sound?

smily_headphones1.gif
post #2561 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

^  I'd grab the PF IXs: better ergonomics (can have a cable-down or over-the-ear fit unlike the 1601s which only allow me the latter option) and a longer (20cm / 8") and more flexible cable. SQ-wise, though, I'm not really sure which one I'd choose, as they really are very similar in that department. (Thanks for the kind words, btw)

 

For me it's the 1601. I can fit them both cable-down and over-ear, but the deciding factor is more open sound with less congestion than the PF's. They also respond better to EQ and I'm frequently tempted to boost their highs a bit when listening to classical.

post #2562 of 4523
still like checking out this thread even though i'm not in the club. wink.gif
post #2563 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 

For me it's the 1601. I can fit them both cable-down and over-ear, but the deciding factor is more open sound with less congestion than the PF's. They also respond better to EQ and I'm frequently tempted to boost their highs a bit when listening to classical.

 

Ah, but that's only because you have the PF VIII, not the IX!  ;)

Yes, the 1601SS has a slightly more open sound, which is great indeed, and a slightly less 'dense' sound. For me, I guess, I find the PF IX's midrange ever so slightly more appealing. But, like I said in an earlier post a few weeks back, if I didn't have the K3003, FI-BA-SS & HD800, and could only have a single phone, on SQ alone I'd choose the 1601SS over the PF IX because it's a bit less 'radical' / idiosyncratic / bold, a slightly better all-rounder.

As for EQ'ing, I've no idea which one responds better because I've always preferred the stock sound on both models.

 

(Did I just use the word "slightly" a bit too much?)

post #2564 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post


(Did I just use the word "slightly" a bit too much?)

Yes, slightly.
post #2565 of 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Advert View Post

Why most comment about piano forte here is writing about ix and not viii?

The more i read this topic, the more i addicted to this topic, and also the more i feel like i must buy the ix
There is no demo unit in my city so i cant try
redface.gif

Is there anyone who try both x-g and x-cg?
I am wondering the differences between both flagship
Sampe price but different material and maybe different sound?

smily_headphones1.gif


maybe you got not informed about the 'club rules' as i was. smile.gif

 

i own a fad pf viii and asked the same question about pf viii or ix, the question was answered here:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/613641/final-audio-design-appreciation-discussion-thread/1950#post_9483606


Edited by GermanGuy - 6/29/13 at 9:15am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Final Audio Design Impressions and Discussion Thread