[Frege]

 
Quote:

Yeah my taste changed with time, I used to crave bass, in fact I would tell myself to go for audiophile cans but fact of the matter is, when I unboxed my K601 and my HD580, I was flat out disappointed because there wasn't enough bass but I made myself like them because they were "good". I rotated through a really nasty IEM phase and of course perceived bass is quite high on those. Now I just crave anything that is just details regardless of any frequency charts. If it's clear and the music that comes out is clean and sounds good to me, I'll like it. For that matter I more or less enjoy 60-70 percent of "audiophile" grade headphones now.
 
This is coming from a person who in 2007:
 
Secretly liked CX-300 IEM's (muddy muddy bloaty bassy mess)
Thought Etymotic was the worst IEM he'd ever heard
Enjoyed HD-555's and thought they were awesome (if you haven't heard them, they're rather muddy, but still entertaining as helll)
Owned a pair of UE Super.Fi 5 EB's (low point in my audiophilia career)
EQ'ed the living daylights of my Grados (they'll take it just fine, but it really ruins the presentation)
Bought only portable amps with bass boost (TERRIBLE!)
 
So yes I suppose I see where you are coming from with the whole "maturing" concept. Both my tastes in music and sonic signature have changed since the new decade haha

Hello Chris,
 
thank you for your suggestions.
 
I think, this issue is a bit simmilar to the flavour of wine. Here my preferences have changed dramatically during the past years. I attribute this change to my grown experience with wine. But a new headphone (especially a STAX) costs substantially more than a bottle of red wine, so I ask myself if my headphone-taste develops in a similar way to my wine-taste. 
 
Frege 
 
 

 

[brat]

O2mk1/2 don't impress with sound tricks - big soundstage, glamorous highs, airy sound, large quantity of new details or impressive bass impact. It just reproduces the sounds right. It has homogenous, musical presentation that gives you all musical information without emphasizing anything. Without proper amplifier it lacks bass impact and has some peak that makes highs sound a bit artificial but still gives more natural sound than all dynamic headphones I've heard. You must listen to O2 for couple of hours at least to appreciate them
BTW mine wasn't a love at first sight also.

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

Hello Purrin,
 
thank you for your reply.  I have noticed the controverse disussion of the O2mkII in many forums. Actually I like the sound of my old Stax Gamma´s, but sometimes I notice an overemphasis of the treble, therfore I ask myself, if I will be into more laidback sounding headphones in the future. In genereal I don´t believe that an amplifier could change the sound signature of this headphone dramatically unless the amplifire is heavily sounded in a special direction.
 
Frege

 
Yes, you may still not like the sound balance of the O2mkII, even a better amp. At recent meets, I got to try out all three versions of the O2mkII's with different amps. While the amps did make a difference, they didn't make enough of one to make me actually want to own the mkIIs. I much prefer the SR-Omega to or even the mkI's. Again, I would like this emphasize that this is personal preference.
 
Your tastes may change over time, but what I've noticed among most people is that they go tend to go away from being a basshead over time than than the reverse. I don't subscribe to the argument that experience, number of posts, amount of headphones owner, amount of money sunk into this hobby, etc. are required for anyone to recognize what sounds good. A good example: my wife isn't in to this stuff at all, but it doesn't stop her from casually grabbing the spot in the house where the really good stuff is.
 
In terms of your red wine analogy. After some good exposure to wines almost two decades ago (I had a roommate who sold quality wines), I discovered I really liked Bordeauxs (and from specific regions too) and absolutely hated California Cabernets. To this day, I still like the same Bordeauxs and hate California Cabernets. 
 

 

[Frege]

Quote:

O2mk1/2 don't impress with sound tricks - big soundstage, glamorous highs, airy sound, large quantity of new details or impressive bass impact. It just reproduces the sounds right. It has homogenous, musical presentation that gives you all musical information without emphasizing anything. Without proper amplifier it lacks bass impact and has some peak that makes highs sound a bit artificial but still gives more natural sound than all dynamic headphones I've heard. You must listen to O2 for couple of hours at least to appreciate them
BTW mine wasn't a love at first sight also.

Hello Brat,
 
do you think the Lamda´s impress with sound tricks? But you are right, I will listen to the Omegas a second time.
BTW do you enjoy The Sisters on your Omega?
 
Frege
 
 

 

[Frege]

 
Quote:

 
. I don't subscribe to the argument that experience, number of posts, amount of headphones owner, amount of money sunk into this hobby, etc. are required for anyone to recognize what sounds good. A good example: my wife isn't in to this stuff at all, but it doesn't stop her from casually grabbing the spot in the house where the really good stuff is.
 
In terms of your red wine analogy. After some good exposure to wines almost two decades ago (I had a roommate who sold quality wines), I discovered I really liked Bordeauxs (and from specific regions too) and absolutely hated California Cabernets. To this day, I still like the same Bordeauxs and hate California Cabernets. 
 

Hello Purrin,
 
I agree, expereince has nothing to do with number of posts or amount of headphones owned and so on.
But it is possible that the criteria of what I find improtant on a sound-reproduction changes (correct image of instrument, dynamic extension, correct spacial imaging ...).
 
BTW I prefere Pinot noir.
 
Frege
 
 
 

 

[elixile]

Haha I always figured having an immature headphone taste was for example only looking for bass and neglecting everything else as it gives the listener a physical vibration and impact or maybe because its way overhyped by the current media (yeah, I'm looking at you Monster). Or being a huge soundstage freak and neglecting anything else with sub-par soundstage (Grado, closed headphones in general). Though I do love some excessive soundstage myself. Basically having a mature taste to me is appreciating each headphone for its respective purpose and strength and not necessarily always jumping out and claiming one is better than the other. However, some headphones can still be outright superior than others.

 

[jerg]

The progression for most people seems to be bass (impact) -> treble (details) -> mids (the experience); assuming they don't just buy an LCD2 right off the bat from some ibuds.
 
So I'd say the "mature sound signature" would be one with very textured and smooth mids, adequate bass with good tightness but decent sub-bass rumble, and crispy yet very smooth and natural highs. Something like fine wine.

 

[elixile]

I actually kind of feel jumping straight to high end is a bit detrimental as you kind of have to mess around with mid-fi for a respectable amount of time to really understand the justification of paying around 1000 dollars for some headphones you probably aren't trained to appreciate yet in the beginning. It would really save a lot of money though haha. Anyway that bass -> treble -> mids progression seems to be about right.

 

[kn19h7]

I do agree taste may change and ears may get "trained" over time, but what so called "mature taste" is just elitism imo..

 

[Frege]

Quote:

I do agree taste may change and ears may get "trained" over time, but what so called "mature taste" is just elitism imo..

Hello kn12h7,
i haven´t intent a elitist connotation with "mature taste", but you are right "trained" ist the better word.
 
Frege
 
 

 

[Frege]

 
Quote:

I actually kind of feel jumping straight to high end is a bit detrimental as you kind of have to mess around with mid-fi for a respectable amount of time to really understand the justification of paying around 1000 dollars for some headphones you probably aren't trained to appreciate yet in the beginning. It would really save a lot of money though haha. Anyway that bass -> treble -> mids progression seems to be about right.

 So I conclude the Omega´s would be an investement in my audio-future

 

[Frege]

 
Quote:

The progression for most people seems to be bass (impact) -> treble (details) -> mids (the experience); assuming they don't just buy an LCD2 right off the bat from some ibuds.
 
So I'd say the "mature sound signature" would be one with very textured and smooth mids, adequate bass with good tightness but decent sub-bass rumble, and crispy yet very smooth and natural highs. Something like fine wine.

 Hello Jerg,
 
and what headphones are fullfilling these critera?
 
Frege

 

[deadlylover]

I never really understood having to be "trained" to appreciate higher end headphones, am I actually missing something or is it typical audiophile snobbery?
 
If I can't hear something because I'm untrained, why should I care anyway, if the only reason I bought a higher end headphone is for the particular presentation of things that I can hear.
 
Can you really say that I'm wasting high-end headphones because I'm somewhat dumb?
 
I always thought 'upgrading' headphones was all about "different different different", and not, "more more more".
 
This is coming from a guy who completely skipped mid-fi and currently uses Stax's once flagship headphone to listen to ~64kbps livestream's of lolis singers with absolutely no clue on how to record, mix, and more often than not, sing.

 

[brat]

what are you doing here then?
and you have almost 300 posts...

 

[deadlylover]

Quote:

what are you doing here then?
and you have almost 300 posts...

 
That, is a bloody good question.

 
I have no idea to be honest, I think I'm just hoping/waiting for a headphone that I might like more than my current ones. That, and the fact that the grass is always greener on the other side, heh.