New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hard headphone decision - Page 2

post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by adydula View Post

I like all kinds of music that is well mastered and recorded.

Jazz, Blues, Rock etc...

I like Eva Cassidy, Ben Harper, Keiko Matsui, Nora Jones, Diana Krall, Eric Clapton, Joe Satriani, Joni Mitchell, Fleetwood Mac, Fiest, Laurie Anderson, Corine Bailey, Blue Rodeo, Spyro Gyra, Glen Hansard, Keb'mo, Allsion Krauss, BB King, Llyod Cole and the Commotions, Dido, Aimee Mann, Golden Earring, etc....all kinds..

But it really has to be done well technically as well as just liking it.

I look for recordings that are stellar, so if I like a artist I try to find the best recording....

Alex
Do you use http://www.hdtracks.com ? If not, you should definitely check it out.
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorspeaker View Post

Just received my Yamaha mt220...it looks like a m50 with an appealing look.
A lot of comments said this is neutral, but no less Fun!
The bass is clear n tight, soaring highs, mids not recessed,
Vocals are palpable..very easily powered off my android..
V capable across diff genres. Bound to be a classic! :-)
AmazonUK gives better price than US.
How is the isolation?
post #18 of 29

average closed can isolation, not alphadogpads level or noise cancelling of cos. 

but enuf for me to enjoy my music whilst the tv is on.

 

Listening to Chris Botti, live in boston..v lifelike, life sized presentation.

Queen n Celine Dion...as if in person...not miniature singers. making sense? :P


Edited by Lorspeaker - 5/25/14 at 8:45am
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunehdrocks View Post


Do you use http://www.hdtracks.com ? If not, you should definitely check it out.

pls no

 

 

Most people like the M50 as their first 'decent' pair of headphones since they have a fairly 'consumer-y' sound while still being better than most consumer headphones (e.g. beats, skullcandy, low end sony)

post #20 of 29

yup I am aware of hdtracks and have some of their stuff, compared with 44.1khz/16its.....not any real difference.

 

Its more how the material was originally recorded and mastered.....take a look at some of the early GRP cd's they are as good as it gets in this format....and hdtracks cant really make it any better.....

 

Alex

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by adydula View Post
 

yup I am aware of hdtracks and have some of their stuff, compared with 44.1khz/16its.....not any real difference.

 

Its more how the material was originally recorded and mastered.....take a look at some of the early GRP cd's they are as good as it gets in this format....and hdtracks cant really make it any better.....

 

Alex

Well theres an audiophile top picks section. I would assume those are voted up for a reason. I haven't tried much of hdtracks myself tbh but it just seemed like a good site.

http://www.discogs.com/label/1071-GRP

Are these what you are talking about? I'm kinda curious. I might get one kind of as a  reference point.


Edited by zunehdrocks - 5/25/14 at 11:50am
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by adydula View Post
 

yup I am aware of hdtracks and have some of their stuff, compared with 44.1khz/16its.....not any real difference.

 

Its more how the material was originally recorded and mastered.....take a look at some of the early GRP cd's they are as good as it gets in this format....and hdtracks cant really make it any better.....

 

Alex

If you are bored, try a few binaural recordings like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u163wC6mP2A&feature=kp

http://www.head-fi.org/t/223165/legally-download-able-binaural-recordings-links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itLxXeyM2aM

post #23 of 29

Hey ...

 

Yes that's the GRP label.....Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen.....lots of great stuff for sure.

 

HDTracks is a great site. I am just not convinced that HD or higher samples and bit depths really help with our present day ears and equipment.

 

I do a lot of ABX testing with Foobar and haven't seen any real differences that make me want to pay more for "HD" songs.

 

Some of those tracks have been even reported to be not that great at all....

 

I sampled some Glen Hansard stuff that was HD stuff, I have a 16bit/44.1khz cd of the same and when A/B I hear absolutely no real discernible difference.

 

So no real reason to pay much more for something I cant hear...IMO.

 

I started a thread over at audiocircle.com awhile back with many very good recordings that are some of the best there is....

 

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=63936.0

 

Check it out, I am not trying to sell or convince anyone just like sharing really great recordings that allow you to hear and compare your stuff.

 

All the best

Alex

 

( oh I am not in the least bored! LOL)...

post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by adydula View Post

Hey ...

Yes that's the GRP label.....Dave Grusin and Larry Rosen.....lots of great stuff for sure.

HDTracks is a great site. I am just not convinced that HD or higher samples and bit depths really help with our present day ears and equipment.

I do a lot of ABX testing with Foobar and haven't seen any real differences that make me want to pay more for "HD" songs.

Some of those tracks have been even reported to be not that great at all....

I sampled some Glen Hansard stuff that was HD stuff, I have a 16bit/44.1khz cd of the same and when A/B I hear absolutely no real discernible difference.

So no real reason to pay much more for something I cant hear...IMO.

I started a thread over at audiocircle.com awhile back with many very good recordings that are some of the best there is....

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=63936.0

Check it out, I am not trying to sell or convince anyone just like sharing really great recordings that allow you to hear and compare your stuff.

All the best
Alex

( oh I am not in the least bored! LOL)...
Thanks for the stuff.
Well about the sample rate thing. Think of it like the fps on a monitor. The higher the fps the smoother it is. It might be my head but in my experience, 24 bit 96khz sound a little smoother and more realistic.
post #25 of 29

Very inrteresting: would you please value MT220 in relation to other hp's you own?

post #26 of 29

Your welcome!

 

Unless I can really hear the difference to me there is no difference.

 

If you were here I would run you thru a double blind test and you would be amazed.

 

Alex


Edited by adydula - 5/25/14 at 3:15pm
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunehdrocks View Post


Thanks for the stuff.
Well about the sample rate thing. Think of it like the fps on a monitor. The higher the fps the smoother it is. It might be my head but in my experience, 24 bit 96khz sound a little smoother and more realistic.


It's in your head. Higher refresh rates (to a point of course) are noticeable. Music with frequencies we can't hear (and that's actually assuming it's a different master and not just a re-encoded 44.1kHz track) isn't any different. There are a few threads on sound science about this.

post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballard3 View Post

Very inrteresting: would you please value MT220 in relation to other hp's you own?

I love all my current cans for their flavors.
Mt220 would be my alternating "whilst the tv is on" can
TOGETHER with the dt770:-)

I would prefer the Yamaha to all the big akgs n ATs I owned previously.

If I were to just keep a do-all budget nofuss can...mt220 would be my first choice.
post #29 of 29

Thanks

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home