Most times I consider a headphone "bright" it's because the music I'm listening to is mastered/recorded brightly. If I'm interested to continue listening to the brighter recordings but like the general qualities of the HP I'm using, I equalize.
Labeling a piece of gear mellow or bright is pointless unless the software and other hardware used is identified.
My 800S will sound bright with less-than acceptably mastered recordings. Hell, the HE-5LE, the King of Mellow, also sounds bright with these recordings.
Right! The source is what it is and there is no changing it. There are no repeatable standards when it comes to making a recording. Recording venues. the hardware chain, mic positioning, the different performers / ensembles, music period type, instruments used, different producers, the number of possibilities seems infinite. I'm no expert on jazz or popular music, but make no mistake, with classical recordings different labels have very different "house" sounds. DG versus Philips, versus Decca/London, versus EMI/Angel and on and on. As an example, DG recordings, particularly from the 70's and 80's, always strike me as slightly up in energy in the highs and slightly down in energy in the bass which promotes a very dry, analytical sound presentation. A system that emphasizes highs and is thin in the bass may make for an unpleasant listening experience. That being said, DG recordings of the Berlin P.O. made in the Berlin Philharmonie versus DG recordings made by the Vienna Philharmonic or Vienna S.O.in the Musikverein will sound different from one another with Vienna being a bit warmer, different venues with different hall acoustics, orchestras, etc.. Philips recordings have a slight spectrum tilt the opposite from DG with softer sounding highs and richer bass with recordings made in the Concertgebouw, Amsterdam. Decca's strike me as full-blooded,dynamic, up-front and very transparent, EMI's have more hall air than some others.
I note here that I am red book only, no interest in d/l content and most of the recordings I'm interested in probably are not available any way other than CD, and with over 1200 of them I have no interest in re-buying my collection.
Putting together systems for myself (and a few friends) for close to 50 years has taught me that buying a chain if hardware, no matter how highly regarded the equipment and how well it measures and then throwing a transducer on the end of it, has never worked for me. The technical prowess of any piece of gear I've auditioned will not necessarily translate to a better listening experience. You gotta listen for yourself and get what sounds best to you. Putting a system together "isn't a sprint, it's a marathon" and should take some time, and can be an ever evolving process.
That's why when I started putting together my stand alone HP station back in January this year, I auditioned gear in combinations that gives me the the sound presentation I like with the widest variety and variability of recorded quality, including jazz and rock, in my collection. I would never base a listening decision based on a limited number of recordings or a short time frame of experience. I've been using Senn 600's and Oppo PM-1's to evaluate the metal boxes and I'm satisfied with the boxes I now have. I'm thinking about cabling at this point in conjunction with an "end-game" headphone.
For me, the source and transducer are the 2 most important considerations and the most variable with respect to how it's all going to sound at the end of the build. The differences in the sound of the stuff in between the start and finish are small by comparison. Coloration's in the chain can add or subtract to the signal providing a pleasing listening experience, or a nasty one. But the transducer can never sound better than the source. Anything that comes in between the beginning and the end has to compliment the shortcomings of my recording, as well as is possible. Tubes versus transistors? Pick the coloration's you prefer. I accept the fact that I will have to make compromises.
Enough rambling commentary...
