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.