[gus_tavo]

If budget permits, I think the HD600/580 will be your cup of tea. I've had a few moments with the HD600 and from your experience in this thread, you're ears are inclined for the HD600 dynamics.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by gus_tavo If budget permits, I think the HD600/580 will be your cup of tea. I've had a few moments with the HD600 and from your experience in this thread, you're ears are inclined for the HD600 dynamics.

I'll be damned if the HD600 didn't sound slightly tipped up on top and bottom to me (far less than the Sony V6, but tipped a little nonetheless). My impression of the HD580 was that top and bottom are flat, but midrange is recessed. You can't win...

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by cello is it really worth getting a different type of grado when I've tried doing everything with this grado? I think I just have extremely sensitive ears.

if you can't provide any better source than your current G4, perhaps you look elsewhere as others suggested. Grado phones are noted for somwhat forwrad trebles and can sound pretty merciless with some electronics. Even the Sonica does better job than G4's stock DAC on trebles. ( your ear will thank you )

BTW, what is the bit rate on your MP3s? Anything below 196kbps on pop/rock would be a recepes for a headache on a longer listening.

But if you do like Grado's fun delivery, try RS series of phones. Main characteristics stay the same, but trebles are lot more digestable.

You can try other phones ( I thought Beyer's DT931 was half way between but, you'd still lose upbeat-ness over Grado )

 

[cello]

kuma, wouldn't an alessandro or different grado just be similar to a sr-325 with different equalizer settings? (in terms of how much they hurt my ears - not in terms of sound quality). Like, shouldn't I be able to simulate the more laid-back qualities of a sr-225 on my sr-325 by just toning down the treble on my equalizer?

I have a feeling that the answer to that question is no, but let me know nonetheless. The reason I think the answer is no is because when I tone my grados down to sound even less sibilant than my HP890s, they STILL hurt my ears. This is what makes me think it's something other than simply "brightness" that makes my ears hurt. And just to clarify, this is a pain that's not from the pads themselves, but from the sound of the cans.

 

[cary]

cello, my experience has been that grados have a really hard time with the electronic character of computer based sources. i've never used a g4 as a source but i have tried a variety of soundcards with grados on my pc, including an audigy2, m-audio revo and rme digi 96/8 pst. unfortunately, while upgrading dacs improved things quite a bit, i found all a little bright, not as bad as what you describe, but a little bright just the same. i did not find a significant improvement with ms2s as compared to regular prestige series grados. i haven't tried rs1s or 2s, or any of the older grado designs. if you're determined to use a computer based source, i highly suggest going lossless. to my ears, grados are almost unlistenable with mp3s at any bitrate - they're just too sensitive to the inherent brightness entailed in lossy compression. i've had almost none of these problems when using my admittedly much crappier standalone cdp as a source.

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by cello kuma, wouldn't an alessandro or different grado just be similar to a sr-325 with different equalizer settings? (in terms of how much they hurt my ears - not in terms of sound quality). Like, shouldn't I be able to simulate the more laid-back qualities of a sr-225 on my sr-325 by just toning down the treble on my equalizer?

Cello,

Which equalizer are you using? I doubt even the best equalizer in the world would fix the poor source to the extent you would like the Grado's trebles to be.

But, my ear didn't bleed with both RS2 and 1 directly off my computer as long as I was not *naughty* with a volume control.

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by cary if you're determined to use a computer based source, i highly suggest going lossless. to my ears, grados are almost unlistenable with mp3s at any bitrate - they're just too sensitive to the inherent brightness entailed in lossy compression. i've had almost none of these problems when using my admittedly much crappier standalone cdp as a source.

Quite surprisingly, mp3 ripped at 320kbps, actually do not sound bright in both my speakers or 'fone system. Rather , the trebles sound rolled off and bass transients become slightly soft. Brightness thing happens at anything below it. ( this is mp3s off G4 laptop via Bel Canto DAC2 )

I can't even listen to a streaming radio at lower bit rates. It gives me a headache and terrible listening fatigue over time.

 

[zeplin]

cello,
try to look into Audio Technicas. they sound like the phone you want. the W1000 is what i have, and compared to the Grados that i heard at a meet, they have the similar grado brand sound with slam, but with a slightly recessed treble.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by kuma Quite surprisingly, mp3 ripped at 320kbps, actually do not sound bright in both my speakers or 'fone system. Rather , the trebles sound rolled off and bass transients become slightly soft.

I get a similar impression, but that goes for any well-encoded MP3 (VBR is best) at higher bitrates, including Lame with --alt-preset standard. I hear a "thickness" in the better MP3's which I believe equates to what you described as bass transients softening up. Lower bitrates (but still relatively free of artifacts) don't sound bright to me, but "thin" and grainy in the upper regions... that might account for the perception of brightness for some people.

MP3 shouldn't be changing frequency balance at all, and I suspect all these variations people hear are due more to subconscious perception of artifacting -- the same metallic, watery and "digital sounding" horror one hears at very low bitrates (below 112kbps) still exist at higher bitrates but are masked at the conscious level -- still perceived subconsciously anyway.

A statement like this would raise hell on the HydrogenAudio forum, but they're all big into ABX testing -- great in most ways for tuning lossy codecs, but its biggest fault is that it hardly takes the time dimension into account -- only a few seconds of audio are listened to in ABX comparisons and rapidly switched back and forth. Works great for seeing trees, but gives no view of the forest.

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch I get a similar impression, but that goes for any well-encoded MP3 (VBR is best) at higher bitrates, including Lame with --alt-preset standard. I hear a "thickness" in the better MP3's which I believe equates to what you described as bass transients softening up. Lower bitrates (but still relatively free of artifacts) don't sound bright to me, but "thin" and grainy in the upper regions... that might account for the perception of brightness for some people. MP3 shouldn't be changing frequency balance at all, and I suspect all these variations people hear are due more to subconscious perception of artifacting -- the same metallic, watery and "digital sounding" horror one hears at very low bitrates (below 112kbps) still exist at higher bitrates but are masked at the conscious level -- still perceived subconsciously anyway. A statement like this would raise hell on the HydrogenAudio forum, but they're all big into ABX testing -- great in most ways for tuning lossy codecs, but its biggest fault is that it hardly takes the time dimension into account -- only a few seconds of audio are listened to in ABX comparisons and rapidly switched back and forth. Works great for seeing trees, but gives no view of the forest.

MP3 rippted Lame with alternate setting is actually better than my iTunes ripped MP3 at the same bit rate. You are right, they are pretty good. You've only noticed their *artefacts* or slight softening of transients when compared to the uncompressed files. Trebles sound chopped off, too. I hear lot less air but no obvious brightness or congestion per se. I start hearing those things on 192kpbs and less. More trebles compression happening on those files.

BTW, what's 'Hydrogen audio'?

I think the whole ABX thing is silly,too and I agree it's no good for a benchmark for enjoying music long term. ( usually brain *sees* something different as *good* even tho it's not in such a quick comparison)

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally posted by kuma BTW, what's 'Hydrogen audio'?

www.hydrogenaudio.org

P.S... Most MP3 encoders use lowpass filters to save bandwidth at lower bitrates, so in theory a lower-bitrate MP3 should actually sound *less* bright. High frequencies (particularly above 16Khz) use a lot of bits in MP3 encoding, so the lower the bitrate the lower the top-end cutoff generally is (in a decent encoder, anyway). I still think the perceived brightness is due to factors unrelated to treble frequencies -- it may depend on the encoding software though, there are some terrible ones out there.

 

[00940]

which opamp do you use in your meta ?

 

[cello]

00940, I use two OPA134s in a browndog DIP-8 adaptor. Would that cause the problems I'm having?

 

[AdamZuf]

i remember the "dark" HD600 gave me a headache (drums were too stingy). you may ask: "why, but the trebles are rolled-off". the fatigue from trebles can very much be coming from the lower trebles and their proportions against the more upper regions, when you "zoom in" into the graph. i'm very treble sensitive, but i found peace with the brighter DT880, and actually i like trebles now like i never did..
so it doesn't have to be less treble friendly phones for you - but phones with the right treble behaviour (and of coarse.. it depends on what feeds them.. which can very much be your problem)

 

[TimSchirmer]

Cello, give the Sennheiser HD-590's or AKG K501's a try.