Music Fanatic
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Posts
- 3,805
- Likes
- 11
Thanks so much for the helpful comments. May I ask another question -- how does spoken word audio sound with the CD3000? Natural or unnatural?
CD3000, R10, and reverb
- Thread starter Music Fanatic
- Start date
00940
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Posts
- 4,493
- Likes
- 47
I'll never allow myself to comment on the R10 since I've never heard it but I find Markl's explanation :
Quote:
quite strange
I would never had thought of my K340 as having soundstage problems. And it's a closed design. Quite the contrary : I sold my hd580 since I loved my K340 so much more, especially on this particular point. I just received a pair of Ultrasone HIFI650 and the soundstage is perhaps not big but resonnances ??? No such thing. On the other hand, I visceraly can't stand the CD3000 's soundstage. It's like a feeling of an overstretched space fading in a weird way. It seems to me like these cans didn't know how to fix a limit.
It's probably a matter of ears as you said, but I don't think in such expectations towards closed cans.
Quote:
| I think sometimes people see a closed can and want to imagine there must be reflections or resonances or whatever. |
quite strange
I would never had thought of my K340 as having soundstage problems. And it's a closed design. Quite the contrary : I sold my hd580 since I loved my K340 so much more, especially on this particular point. I just received a pair of Ultrasone HIFI650 and the soundstage is perhaps not big but resonnances ??? No such thing. On the other hand, I visceraly can't stand the CD3000 's soundstage. It's like a feeling of an overstretched space fading in a weird way. It seems to me like these cans didn't know how to fix a limit.
It's probably a matter of ears as you said, but I don't think in such expectations towards closed cans.
AdamZuf
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
- Posts
- 2,661
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
interesting. i find that the CD3000 defines the limits of the soundstage really good. it's huge, and sometimes i can see the "walls" of the soundstage. only the Ety's can do a better job sometimes, from the cans i've heard.
how bright did they sound to you?
i feel that the soundstage's "firmness" of the sonys originates on the lower frequencies. if these frequencies were not relatively "pronounced" (by a treble controlled/ fatigue free signal), then i can see how they will lose the "border" vision.
| Originally posted by 00940 I visceraly can't stand the CD3000 's soundstage. It's like a feeling of an overstretched space fading in a weird way. It seems to me like these cans didn't know how to fix a limit. |
interesting. i find that the CD3000 defines the limits of the soundstage really good. it's huge, and sometimes i can see the "walls" of the soundstage. only the Ety's can do a better job sometimes, from the cans i've heard.
how bright did they sound to you?
i feel that the soundstage's "firmness" of the sonys originates on the lower frequencies. if these frequencies were not relatively "pronounced" (by a treble controlled/ fatigue free signal), then i can see how they will lose the "border" vision.
00940
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Posts
- 4,493
- Likes
- 47
they were definitely brighter than the hd580 (that were my main cans when i heard the cd3000). Not as bright as the sr60 were on a d25s (now that's what i'd call real bright
), but the highs were slightly out of balance.
Geek
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 1,810
- Likes
- 10
The CD3000 sounded really colored to me but I never heard any reverb.
Some people confuse reverb with decay: some headphones (when properly powered) have such excellent detail that when a note played in a big room on the recording tapers off to nothing, they can reproduce that tapering, termed decay, all the way down. The HD650 has the best decay of any headphone out there, but that's a different discussion.
Don't confuse "reverb" with "coloring," they're two different things. The CD3000s do boost the range of sound in which reverb occurs, i.e., about 5-7khz or so.
Cheers,
Geek
Some people confuse reverb with decay: some headphones (when properly powered) have such excellent detail that when a note played in a big room on the recording tapers off to nothing, they can reproduce that tapering, termed decay, all the way down. The HD650 has the best decay of any headphone out there, but that's a different discussion.
Don't confuse "reverb" with "coloring," they're two different things. The CD3000s do boost the range of sound in which reverb occurs, i.e., about 5-7khz or so.
Cheers,
Geek
Sovkiller
Proved that despite its huge size the CD3000 can be shoved down one's throat.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2002
- Posts
- 12,902
- Likes
- 28
The CD3000 has foam inside the earcups to dampen the resonances a big gray circle with a hole in the middle, I have never heard any honestly, but if is that nasty to your ears, you may choose a more expensive solution, like black hole, or dynamat, or any other better dampening material, for sure there is a way of get rid of that effect, the speaker enclosures are far bigger, and work at a far higher power, and we can do it, so I do not see the reason why not on an small enclosure....just try and let us know....
JaZZ
Headphoneus Supremus
Quote:
The only difference the larger distance of the sound source to your ears can make in a closed housing is the ratio between direct and indirect sound -- so any perceived spaciousness may indeed have to do with («artificial») reverb created inside the earcups. Now that the music reproduced with headphones actually is meant to be reproduced with speakers, implying reverberation arising from room-wall reflections, additional reverberation created during headphone reproduction can't be clearly called falsification or coloration, but may even help to create a credible soundstage. On the other hand, due to their very short run-time (also in comparison to speaker reproduction in a living-room, not to speak of concert-hall conditions) they may also be perceived as artificial and transient-smearing by some ears.
One of the main features of the R10/CD-3000 concept is their driver angling, with the goal to simulate a frontal sound source, also practiced by Stax, which indeed manages to create a more credible soundstage and a more impressive, more natural spaciousness. The downside of this design is that it creates even larger reflective surfaces inside the earcups. So the reported «reverberation» with the CD 3000 may not be pure illusion.
Quote:
I don't think such a generalization is justified. It doesn't meet reality in my own perception. Using those two obviously «juicily» timbred headphones as a measure for the open/closed comparison isn't adequate anyway. Furthermore I can't remember any insubstantial, airy-fairy, lightweight and floaty open dynamic high-quality headphones.
Quote:
I don't exactly get the physical properties you seem to consider responsible for a more accurate reproduction of details such as spatial information on a recording. Fact is that the hollow space behind the membrane is a very bad thing when it comes to neutrally reproduce a given signal; it's extremely prone to hollow-space colorations. It isn't possible to design a reasonably sounding electrostat in a closed housing. The membrane is extremely sound permeable, even holding one fingertip onto the rear opening behind the driver causes massive coloration. Membranes of dynamic headphones are a bit less permeable, but still enough to let most of the sound pass through them.
In the speaker world cabinets -- closed or bass-reflex -- are the norm. They can't be avoided, because the sound radiated from the rear of the drivers is out of phase and would cause erasement if not isolated and damped in the typical boxes. But don't think this can be perfectly done! There's the problem of resonating walls and the other one of the damping inside. It's not possible to eliminate the rear sound waves completely, they'll always keep a certain corruptive impact on the sound -- through resonating walls and through the membrane itself. That's why some alternative concepts exist which completely renounce the housing, so-called dipoles. They have certain drawbacks, such as difficulties with placement due to the rear sound radiation and in some cases weak low bass (which can be avoided or equalized though), but they offer the advantage of not suffering from any resonances caused by housings and also no bass resonance, at least nowhere near that of conventional systems. Once you've heard them, it's like a revelation. Yes, conventional systems have more oomphh and body, but these are very obviously resonance artifacts.
So why build closed headphones at all? Because in some cases isolation is desired. Apart from that, there's no reason from an audiophile point of view. Given the small size and the concerned wavelengths, a resonable damping of the rear sound waves in the enclosure is absolutely impossible. The only thing you can do is keep their spectrum as neutral as possible to prevent overly obvious colorations. But you can't eliminate their impact on the membrane movement, hence transient response. The reason why the resulting sound isn't catastrophic anyway is that the added sound may in the ideal case act as kind of «chorus effect» -- thus a quite pleasing, vitalizing coloration -- and not so much be perceived as resonances.
In fact the closed design has no real advantage if you're looking for neutrality, while the open design has no real disadvantage -- this BTW in contrast to speakers. So why go for closed headphones?
| Originally posted by markl I call the R10 the "disappearing headphone" because when you close your eyes, they just evaporate from your head. I'm just not aware of the enclosures at all, nor am I aware of the drivers. I believe this is also in part due to the fact that the drivers are so far away from your ears in the large R10s, you aren't always reminded there's this little speakers millimeters from your ear pumping sound into your ear canal. |
The only difference the larger distance of the sound source to your ears can make in a closed housing is the ratio between direct and indirect sound -- so any perceived spaciousness may indeed have to do with («artificial») reverb created inside the earcups. Now that the music reproduced with headphones actually is meant to be reproduced with speakers, implying reverberation arising from room-wall reflections, additional reverberation created during headphone reproduction can't be clearly called falsification or coloration, but may even help to create a credible soundstage. On the other hand, due to their very short run-time (also in comparison to speaker reproduction in a living-room, not to speak of concert-hall conditions) they may also be perceived as artificial and transient-smearing by some ears.
One of the main features of the R10/CD-3000 concept is their driver angling, with the goal to simulate a frontal sound source, also practiced by Stax, which indeed manages to create a more credible soundstage and a more impressive, more natural spaciousness. The downside of this design is that it creates even larger reflective surfaces inside the earcups. So the reported «reverberation» with the CD 3000 may not be pure illusion.
Quote:
| I think the real question is not "why do these closed cans sound so much richer and lush", but "why are certain open cans so airy-fairy, insubstantial, light-weight and floaty?" Coming from an open can, the CD 3000/R10 will trump them in terms of "presence" and body, but that's not a "fault" or a "flaw", IMO it's an advantage. |
I don't think such a generalization is justified. It doesn't meet reality in my own perception. Using those two obviously «juicily» timbred headphones as a measure for the open/closed comparison isn't adequate anyway. Furthermore I can't remember any insubstantial, airy-fairy, lightweight and floaty open dynamic high-quality headphones.
Quote:
| My over-used explanation for this effect of open cans is that listening to some open cans can be analogous listening to a pair of speakers suspended over a dry lake bed. I suspect this adds to the pastel "airyness" and overly dispersed and non-specific sound of a certain open can. Some people may prefer this presentation, others may not. A closed can creates a small pocket of dead air in which the sound can unfold, this lets you hear smaller more subtle cues in the recording that indicate the size, shape of the room in which the music was recorded. |
I don't exactly get the physical properties you seem to consider responsible for a more accurate reproduction of details such as spatial information on a recording. Fact is that the hollow space behind the membrane is a very bad thing when it comes to neutrally reproduce a given signal; it's extremely prone to hollow-space colorations. It isn't possible to design a reasonably sounding electrostat in a closed housing. The membrane is extremely sound permeable, even holding one fingertip onto the rear opening behind the driver causes massive coloration. Membranes of dynamic headphones are a bit less permeable, but still enough to let most of the sound pass through them.
In the speaker world cabinets -- closed or bass-reflex -- are the norm. They can't be avoided, because the sound radiated from the rear of the drivers is out of phase and would cause erasement if not isolated and damped in the typical boxes. But don't think this can be perfectly done! There's the problem of resonating walls and the other one of the damping inside. It's not possible to eliminate the rear sound waves completely, they'll always keep a certain corruptive impact on the sound -- through resonating walls and through the membrane itself. That's why some alternative concepts exist which completely renounce the housing, so-called dipoles. They have certain drawbacks, such as difficulties with placement due to the rear sound radiation and in some cases weak low bass (which can be avoided or equalized though), but they offer the advantage of not suffering from any resonances caused by housings and also no bass resonance, at least nowhere near that of conventional systems. Once you've heard them, it's like a revelation. Yes, conventional systems have more oomphh and body, but these are very obviously resonance artifacts.
So why build closed headphones at all? Because in some cases isolation is desired. Apart from that, there's no reason from an audiophile point of view. Given the small size and the concerned wavelengths, a resonable damping of the rear sound waves in the enclosure is absolutely impossible. The only thing you can do is keep their spectrum as neutral as possible to prevent overly obvious colorations. But you can't eliminate their impact on the membrane movement, hence transient response. The reason why the resulting sound isn't catastrophic anyway is that the added sound may in the ideal case act as kind of «chorus effect» -- thus a quite pleasing, vitalizing coloration -- and not so much be perceived as resonances.
In fact the closed design has no real advantage if you're looking for neutrality, while the open design has no real disadvantage -- this BTW in contrast to speakers. So why go for closed headphones?
AdamZuf
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
- Posts
- 2,661
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
what is neutral on the real life includes certain reverbations. so closed headphones are'nt a wrong concept - they just should be made properly.
when you're listening to a certain set of cans, you don't only hear the close or open design - you're hearing everything else about them.
here's we're getting into the "specific product" level, in which each product has its own materials and consctruction to gather into a whole.. then asking: "what kind of a hall these closed headphones imitate?".."how about these?"
you can also say: "using wood is wrong".. but it just the same as complaining infront of the band that the hall is made from the wrong material. reality ain't "fixed" either.
so the point here is that each product has its rules (because it's so different then the other), and we can't generalize "closed cans", because some will sound terrible, some will sound great, just the same as open headphones.
it's more of a personal question of "what's neutral to me?"
even then, one might choose the closed cans with the "wrong" concept - just because it felt closer to his "ideal" in headphones, which will never be real anyway with open cans too; that "void" is filled with one's personal hearing and imagination.
so for me, this closed/open deal should be taken with a grain of salt just the same as graphs
| Originally posted by JaZZ why go for closed headphones? |
what is neutral on the real life includes certain reverbations. so closed headphones are'nt a wrong concept - they just should be made properly.
when you're listening to a certain set of cans, you don't only hear the close or open design - you're hearing everything else about them.
here's we're getting into the "specific product" level, in which each product has its own materials and consctruction to gather into a whole.. then asking: "what kind of a hall these closed headphones imitate?".."how about these?"
you can also say: "using wood is wrong".. but it just the same as complaining infront of the band that the hall is made from the wrong material. reality ain't "fixed" either.
so the point here is that each product has its rules (because it's so different then the other), and we can't generalize "closed cans", because some will sound terrible, some will sound great, just the same as open headphones.
it's more of a personal question of "what's neutral to me?"
even then, one might choose the closed cans with the "wrong" concept - just because it felt closer to his "ideal" in headphones, which will never be real anyway with open cans too; that "void" is filled with one's personal hearing and imagination.
so for me, this closed/open deal should be taken with a grain of salt just the same as graphs
markl
Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 9,130
- Likes
- 49
Quote:
No, the difference as I explained, is that the R10s let you be less aware of the action of the driver. My point is that this adds to the illusion of the "disappearing headphone". Quote:
Take a listen to the R10 and the CD3000, before you leap to conclusions about "smearing". Compare them to your wooly HD600s, you'll clearly hear that they are much more defined, much higher resolution/detail, and altogether more "clear" and "clean" sounding. Ask around, you'll find plenty of people who describe the CD3000 this way, it's not just me. How could this be if there were all these phantom reflections, smearing, and resonances supposedly making the sound all muddy and blurred?
Also, as any CD3000, and to a lesser extent R10 owner can attest, these "closed cans" (and MacDEF will argue they're actually "open" anyway due to a small ring of open space at the base of the enclosures) leak almost as much sound as open cans. My feeling about these enclosures and the materials they are made of is that they actually act as sound *absorbers* and energy/resonance dissipators, and releasers. They're more like a sieve or filter than a hard wall. The CD3000s enclosures is of a soft biological material with sound dampening on the other side. Their purpose is not to produce reflections. Here's what Sony says about the R10 enclosure design/material:
Quote:
Quote:
I agree as is clearly stated in my next post you didn't quote. I was speaking of the "certain headphones", i.e. HD580/600/590.
Quote:
Why? Because they've obviously solved what you see as "inherent problems" with closed designs, they can't be used in comparisons? How many quality cans do we have to choose from to draw comparisons with if we discount them? To make it clear, I'm comparing the CD3000 and R10 (as the topic of this thread is asking about, but you can throw in the W2002, the other closed can I owned as well) to the open HD600 and its brethren. So you feel I can't make such comparisons and draw any tentative theories about these headphones I've owned, but you are free to speculate about smeared or revereberant sound in cans you don't know?
Oh well.... Quote:
I'd like to introduce you to the Stax 4070, IIRC, it costs almost as much as the Omega 2 headset:
Quote:
Heh, tell that to the Sony R10, the CD3000, the W1000, the W2002, the L3000, the Edition7....
Wow, what dummies for creating such obviously flawed high-end cans that could never win the hearts and minds of true headphone lovers and audiophiles!
Quote:
Ummmmmm... because every closed phone I've owned, CD3000, W2002, R10, sounded better to me than every other open can I've owned/auditioned (590/580/600, RS-1). Sure, this could be purely coincidental as it is such a small sample size, but again I've pointed this out elsewhere numerous times in other arguments over whether closed or open design makes for a better headphone. There are people who like to argue against closed phones as a matter of faith-- they have plenty of reasons they believe make them inherently inferior. I like to present the other side, which isn't based on conjecture, but from actual listening.
As I state in this thread, I don't have (and I don't think anyone has with the small # of quality cans at our disposal), sufficient evidence to conclude with *certainty* any generalizations about closed vs. open cans. I do have enough info to speculate about the cans I have heard, and potential ways their design features can contribute to the sound they make.
My *theory*, based only on listening, is that the insubstantial, veiled, overly airy and light-weight sound produced by the HD600 *may be* related to its open design. Your *theory* about the CD3000/R10 (have you heard them?) is that their closed design is responsible for their more substantial, more "present" and meaty sound and better soundstaging capabilities is due to their enclosures. I actually agree there's some relationship. But where we disagree is that you think this more substantial sound is the result of distortion/reflections/resonances, call them what you like, produced by the enclosures. I think the enclosures can be "heard" in a sense, but not as reflections/resonances or vibrations smearing and distorting the sound. They can be "heard" in the sense of the space they (CD3000/R10) convey.
Mark
| The only difference the larger distance of the sound source to your ears can make in a closed housing is the ratio between direct and indirect sound -- so any perceived spaciousness may indeed have to do with («artificial») reverb created inside the earcups. |
No, the difference as I explained, is that the R10s let you be less aware of the action of the driver. My point is that this adds to the illusion of the "disappearing headphone". Quote:
| Now that the music reproduced with headphones actually is meant to be reproduced with speakers, implying reverberation arising from room-wall reflections, additional reverberation created during headphone reproduction can't be clearly called falsification or coloration, but may even help to create a credible soundstage. On the other hand, due to their very short run-time (also in comparison to speaker reproduction in a living-room, not to speak of concert-hall conditions) they may also be perceived as artificial and transient-smearing by some ears. |
Take a listen to the R10 and the CD3000, before you leap to conclusions about "smearing". Compare them to your wooly HD600s, you'll clearly hear that they are much more defined, much higher resolution/detail, and altogether more "clear" and "clean" sounding. Ask around, you'll find plenty of people who describe the CD3000 this way, it's not just me. How could this be if there were all these phantom reflections, smearing, and resonances supposedly making the sound all muddy and blurred?
Also, as any CD3000, and to a lesser extent R10 owner can attest, these "closed cans" (and MacDEF will argue they're actually "open" anyway due to a small ring of open space at the base of the enclosures) leak almost as much sound as open cans. My feeling about these enclosures and the materials they are made of is that they actually act as sound *absorbers* and energy/resonance dissipators, and releasers. They're more like a sieve or filter than a hard wall. The CD3000s enclosures is of a soft biological material with sound dampening on the other side. Their purpose is not to produce reflections. Here's what Sony says about the R10 enclosure design/material:
Quote:
| After extensive testing of materials from all over the world, the heart-wood of mature Zelkova trees was selected as most suitable for the housing of the MDR-R1O. Evaluation was made in terms of hardness, timbre, weight, and overall sound-transferability characteristics. In order to overcome the problem of designing housing that could produce a natural, distortion-free sound, engineers used the FRESDAM (Freeform Shape Design and Manufacture) computer-aided design system. A delicate waveform was carved out of the interior wall, achieving sound expansion and acoustics equivalent to that of a concert hall. |
Quote:
| I don't think such a generalization is justified. |
I agree as is clearly stated in my next post you didn't quote. I was speaking of the "certain headphones", i.e. HD580/600/590.
Quote:
| Using those two obviously «juicily» timbred headphones as a measure for the open/closed comparison isn't adequate anyway. |
Why? Because they've obviously solved what you see as "inherent problems" with closed designs, they can't be used in comparisons? How many quality cans do we have to choose from to draw comparisons with if we discount them? To make it clear, I'm comparing the CD3000 and R10 (as the topic of this thread is asking about, but you can throw in the W2002, the other closed can I owned as well) to the open HD600 and its brethren. So you feel I can't make such comparisons and draw any tentative theories about these headphones I've owned, but you are free to speculate about smeared or revereberant sound in cans you don't know?
| It isn't possible to design a reasonably sounding electrostat in a closed housing. |
I'd like to introduce you to the Stax 4070, IIRC, it costs almost as much as the Omega 2 headset:
| So why build closed headphones at all? Because in some cases isolation is desired. Apart from that, there's no reason from an audiophile point of view. |
Heh, tell that to the Sony R10, the CD3000, the W1000, the W2002, the L3000, the Edition7....
| In fact the closed design has no real advantage if you're looking for neutrality, while the open design has no real disadvantage -- this BTW in contrast to speakers. So why go for closed headphones? |
Ummmmmm... because every closed phone I've owned, CD3000, W2002, R10, sounded better to me than every other open can I've owned/auditioned (590/580/600, RS-1). Sure, this could be purely coincidental as it is such a small sample size, but again I've pointed this out elsewhere numerous times in other arguments over whether closed or open design makes for a better headphone. There are people who like to argue against closed phones as a matter of faith-- they have plenty of reasons they believe make them inherently inferior. I like to present the other side, which isn't based on conjecture, but from actual listening.
As I state in this thread, I don't have (and I don't think anyone has with the small # of quality cans at our disposal), sufficient evidence to conclude with *certainty* any generalizations about closed vs. open cans. I do have enough info to speculate about the cans I have heard, and potential ways their design features can contribute to the sound they make.
My *theory*, based only on listening, is that the insubstantial, veiled, overly airy and light-weight sound produced by the HD600 *may be* related to its open design. Your *theory* about the CD3000/R10 (have you heard them?) is that their closed design is responsible for their more substantial, more "present" and meaty sound and better soundstaging capabilities is due to their enclosures. I actually agree there's some relationship. But where we disagree is that you think this more substantial sound is the result of distortion/reflections/resonances, call them what you like, produced by the enclosures. I think the enclosures can be "heard" in a sense, but not as reflections/resonances or vibrations smearing and distorting the sound. They can be "heard" in the sense of the space they (CD3000/R10) convey.
Mark
AdamZuf
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
- Posts
- 2,661
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
overly airy and light-weight sound?
what's airy for you? has a easy flowing of air? or just a lot of air (molecules)?
light-weight? how come? they are quite dark and "heavy", i would say..
| Originally posted by markl the insubstantial, veiled, overly airy and light-weight sound produced by the HD600... |
overly airy and light-weight sound?
what's airy for you? has a easy flowing of air? or just a lot of air (molecules)?
light-weight? how come? they are quite dark and "heavy", i would say..
markl
Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 9,130
- Likes
- 49
"Airy" as in light as air, insubstantial, see-through, weightless, floaty, no body, lack of specific-ness, firmness and "presence", erring on the side of politeness and blandness. I am exagerating the qualities of the HD600 here to better try to describe what I mean.
I really don't "hate" the 580/590/600. They're excellent headphones in their way, they make lots of people very happy (I owned 580's/600s for five years!), so they can't be all bad. Sometimes to describe these differences between cans, descriptions get "over-blown" and it sounds like a slam, when it's really just a comparison.
Mark
I really don't "hate" the 580/590/600. They're excellent headphones in their way, they make lots of people very happy (I owned 580's/600s for five years!), so they can't be all bad. Sometimes to describe these differences between cans, descriptions get "over-blown" and it sounds like a slam, when it's really just a comparison.
Mark
AdamZuf
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
- Posts
- 2,661
- Likes
- 11
i can't describe the HD600 as weightless..
maybe because you feel that the weight is too far (because of the laid back presentation), to a level it doesn't affect you? (or something..)
maybe because you feel that the weight is too far (because of the laid back presentation), to a level it doesn't affect you? (or something..)
fewtch
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Posts
- 9,559
- Likes
- 37
Quote:
The only time I've heard the HD600 sound "weightless" or "gutless" is with an underpowered or otherwise crappy amp (or a portable source)... then they really sounds that way, in my opinion. Otherwise it's a very potent sounding headphone to my ear... definitely somewhat bottom-heavy (in a coherent way, otherwise I couldn't listen) and the mid-treble dip doesn't do anything to help that impression. I can see why some people consider them 'dark', but to my ear it contributes to an overall magic and naturalness/effortless quality that just grabs my attention and keeps it.
| Originally posted by AdamZuf i can't describe the HD600 as weightless.. maybe because you feel that the weight is too far (because of the laid back presentation), to a level it doesn't affect you? (or something..) |
The only time I've heard the HD600 sound "weightless" or "gutless" is with an underpowered or otherwise crappy amp (or a portable source)... then they really sounds that way, in my opinion. Otherwise it's a very potent sounding headphone to my ear... definitely somewhat bottom-heavy (in a coherent way, otherwise I couldn't listen) and the mid-treble dip doesn't do anything to help that impression. I can see why some people consider them 'dark', but to my ear it contributes to an overall magic and naturalness/effortless quality that just grabs my attention and keeps it.
AdamZuf
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
- Posts
- 2,661
- Likes
- 11
i agree on that one, fewtch.
and i also believe that the HD600 have more bass then the R10, overall (from what i read).
i guess that mark's definition of "weight" is integrated in the high language of the R10 and his rig, so maybe he feels that certain components of "weight" are missing. what do you think, mark?
and i also believe that the HD600 have more bass then the R10, overall (from what i read).
i guess that mark's definition of "weight" is integrated in the high language of the R10 and his rig, so maybe he feels that certain components of "weight" are missing. what do you think, mark?
fewtch
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Posts
- 9,559
- Likes
- 37
Just wanted to add a P.S., then I'll depart (since this thread isn't supposed to be about the HD600 anyway).
Re: Mark's description of the 600s sounding like "speakers suspended above a dry lake bed" -- it sounds like Sennheiser succeeded very well in what they were trying to do. Diffuse field EQ: their description is a little more technical than Mark's, but it describes creating the effect of multiple speakers in an anechoic chamber, coming from all directions at once. As this was the intent, it can be disliked but not disrespected... basically it signifies a rousing success in this case
.
Sorry to again keep going on about the 600s, at least this time the topic was already there.
P.S... there's some interesting info here:
http://music.northwestern.edu/classe.../sndPrmGK.html
"An alternative approach is to mimic microphone equalization and to base the equalization function on the average response for all sound directions. This method attempts to provide an equalization similar to traditional stereophony and applicable to recordings with room reflections that arrive from all directions. This is called diffuse field equalization."
Re: Mark's description of the 600s sounding like "speakers suspended above a dry lake bed" -- it sounds like Sennheiser succeeded very well in what they were trying to do. Diffuse field EQ: their description is a little more technical than Mark's, but it describes creating the effect of multiple speakers in an anechoic chamber, coming from all directions at once. As this was the intent, it can be disliked but not disrespected... basically it signifies a rousing success in this case
Sorry to again keep going on about the 600s, at least this time the topic was already there.
P.S... there's some interesting info here:
http://music.northwestern.edu/classe.../sndPrmGK.html
"An alternative approach is to mimic microphone equalization and to base the equalization function on the average response for all sound directions. This method attempts to provide an equalization similar to traditional stereophony and applicable to recordings with room reflections that arrive from all directions. This is called diffuse field equalization."
Users who are viewing this thread
