Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Qualia 010 and R10 initial comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Qualia 010 and R10 initial comparison - Page 2

post #16 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadobhuk
I thought only Yoda talks like that.Or is it common?
It's common for Italians. I wish I had that command of a second language as Nik has!
post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikhail
Overall, the 010’s are very good, detailed headphones. They represent a shift in Sony’s approach to the flagship headphones. It seems that they were aiming at very fast dynamics, a high level of detail, and a sonic signature that screams high-tech. In comparison, the R10’s are still the king of tone, and musicality. They are like a Stradivarius violin, whereas the Qualia 010’s are like a high performance digital instrument. This analytical sonic signature of the 010’s is one of the reasons that they go very well with tubes. They really require a good dose of smoothing and tonal adjustment to make them really sing. And, sing they will with right set-up.
Mikhail,

Thanks for your insights.
It seems your impression coincides with a recent review of Qualia done by Audio Accessories of Japan. He stated that Qualia was specifacally developed to improve a front to back projection from a headphones and it is suited for a monitoring purpose.
Also noted was a lack of bass but that might be due to the amps and source used.
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadobhuk
I thought only Yoda talks like that.Or is it common?
Good!

The Qualia 010 needs more than 150 hours of burn in.

Right?

Best!
Nicola

PS:
How much for your english lesson? Do you accept PayPal?
post #19 of 65
I was just finding out for myself if this is right to built sentence like that or not.English is not my native language either.Anyway,I love your english,your posts are actually more pleasant to read than most.No offence intended.
post #20 of 65
thanks alot for your impressions
i really am impressed with all of your english as a second language skills, especially understanding the short hand alot of us use.

cadobhuk: your skills are quite impressive aswell, just remember the spaces after your punctuation.

Cheers
-jake
post #21 of 65
No one answer to my 6 questions

Best!
Nicola
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik
No one answer to my 6 questions

Best!
Nicola
Nik if Mikhail answers you will not have the time to listen in headphone! Please have patience

Ciao
Salvatore
post #23 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik
2 question: which one of the two cans are the most neutral, or better most near to the real recording event?

Although the questions were not directed at me I am taking the liberty to comment on no. 2 above.

There is no such thing as "more" or "less" or "most" neutral. Something is "neutral" or it is not. And how on earth is anybody supposed to know how the "recording event" sounded in the first place? No head-fier was present in the studio, only the musicians and the engineers.

If you're talking about rock/pop/jazz/electronic music, it is more likely than not that there has never been a "recording event". There were separate recordings of separate instruments and voices that were made over a period of time. The separate tracks were compressed, equalized, tweaked and mixed together. The mix was then mastered. The result is completely artificial. There is no standard against which "neutrality" can be measured.

The foregoing applies even to classical/folk/jazz or other acoustic music to a certain extent, as well as to live recordings of any type of music. Except for the most minimalist recordings (very rare anyway) with not more than two mikes, there is usually an number of separate microphones picking up separate performers. Example jazz band recorded live: There's a mike in front of the singer's mouth, one in front of the sax, another for the bass, one or two for the piano, and usually several for the drum set. The separate tracks are compressed, equalized, tweaked and mixed together. The mix is then mastered. The result is completely artificial. There is no standard against which "neutrality" can be measured.

The resulting sound may be extremely crisp, intimate and detailed, but it is probably not a "realistic" picture of the "recording event". Assuming you are present in the same room, your ears cannot be next to the singer's mouth, next to the sax, next to the bass, next to the piano and next to the drum set at the same time. Also, the drums would be much too loud, and the voice would not be loud enough in comparison. The mix takes into acount the grave differences in volume and makes the result litenable in the first place. The mix you hear on a recording is maybe also an attempt to re-create a stereo image that may have been audible to a person who was present in the same room when the band was playing live. But then again, maybe not.

Similar principles apply to recordings of classical music, especially orchestras. Yes, there is a very small number of "one-point" minimalist two-mike recordings available, but normally there are numerous mikes covering different sections of the orchestra, and the resulting tracks are mixed together. Does that sound bad? No, not necessarily, some of the best recordings ever were made with more than two mikes, e.g., the old Decca recordings that used three microphones -- despite the fact that no-one has three ears.

So, what is the "recording event" you are going on about? It appears to be a naive concept with almost no foundations in the real world of recording and music production.

Listening to recorded music is like watching a movie on DVD. It's a technical reproduction of an image that was recorded with technological means. I can see the pictures of you in front of your hifi gear on my computer screen. But if I am in the same room with you AND that computer screen, how can the reproduced picture of you that is displayed on the computer screen come even close to the real you?

You are in the same room as a musician who plays an instrument. Then you put on your headphones and listen to a recording of the same musician. How can listening on headphones to a recording of that musician come even close to the real thing?

I am therefore not entirely sure if your question is provocative and challenging or just ignorant and naive.

Yes, you can say that a singer, an instrument, a band or an orchestra sounds good on a certain piece of gear, and certainly you can say that it souinds better on one headphone than on another. You can say thet there's too much bass, nt enough treble, muted dynamics? But that's about it. It's not more than discussing the colors or the sharpness of a photo. The real experience is almost entirely lost in the very moment of the recording. Its original complexity is heavily reduced to two stereo tracks. Do I remember correctly that you are a guitar player? If yes, I am sure you have listened to recording of yourself playing. Doesn't that sound completely different from what you perceived yourself?

What counts in the end is therefore not perceived "neutrality" but only personal taste. You enjoy your new headphones -- great! You say they sound good -- congratulations! You think a guitar sounds convincing -- great!

You claim they give you the "most neutral" reproduction of an imaginary "recording event" -- I don't buy it.
post #24 of 65
No any answer to my second question yet !

Best!
Nicola

PS:

If you do not buy them, is a your problem, I bought the Qulaia and I'm telling to my friends my impressions, just this!

I remember you that I have even some recordings where my brother is playing my guitar... he was in that studio ...
post #25 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradino
Nik if Mikhail answers you will not have the time to listen in headphone! Please have patience

Ciao
Salvatore
Oh, my God, you here !?
Welcome my friend...

Ciao
Nicola
post #26 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugano-san
There is no such thing as "more" or "less" or "most" neutral. Something is "neutral" or it is not.
There is no such thing as «neutrality» with audio components, just more or less successfull approaches to this goal. It's absolutely legitimate to speak of «more» or «less» neutral, but of course the valuation depends on the listener's perception and can't have an absolute validity. Nevertheless, there are criteria that can be seen as essential and not dependent on preferences and synergies -- such as resolution, low harmonic distortion, absence of resonances and transient response. A headphone with such qualities possibly will find a broad accordance in the valuation of «neutrality» independent of possible sonic-balance issues and high demands with regard to amplification.

I guess that's what Nik is trying to tell about the Qualia, whereas it's of course still his personal, subjective interpretation.

post #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik
Oh, my God, you here !?
Welcome my friend...

Ciao
Nicola
Yes Nik...

Like my name Gradino?

Ciao
Salvatore
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik
No one answer to my 6 questions
I'm not suprised.

Your questions and the 'your opinion' portion of your post are basically just saying that Mikhail's review is wrong. You seem to be of the mind that since you own the Qualia's, they must be better than every other headphone in every regard. Mikhail who is listening to both of these headphones and making a comparison can see the strengths of each. You are going off memory and naturally prefer the headphones that you are listening to.

And anyways, whats the rush?
post #29 of 65
Nik, i have a question for you.

you used the cav5 with the qualia and later the new 010 reference.
since people think the qualia is a bit bass shy, can you please let us know if the improvements in the amp also improved the bass? and how compares the bass to, say r10 and omega2?
thanks.

answer to question number 2:
at least i try.

whatever headphone is more neutral in the ears of the listener by an A/B comparison.
you never know for sure, since you're not the recording engineer.
and even a lot of records are "manipulated" anyway. filtering out echo's etc.
so, in the real sense of neutral the source(the cd or record) is not even neutral to begin with.

just buy the headphone you think sounds best and fit your needs.
post #30 of 65
Which headphone is more natural sounding? I take it the R10s from your review.

Cheers,
Geek
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 › Qualia 010 and R10 initial comparison