[nmatheis]

The Blazers needed to feed Buck Williams more! Granted he was at the tail end of his career,but the Bulls didnt have great interior D that season.


Drexler couldnt cover MJ...nobody could,but the real problem was Kersey vs. Pippen!


I would be pissed too if any musician had worn my team's enemy jersey during a concert...not a cool move.

Yeah, I'm not saying Portland was going to win or anything, but it was a dick move on Jason's part :rolleyes:

 

[Music Alchemist]

If you guys don't have an AudioQuest Nighthawk yet you really should consider one for metal. It is not the fastest driver out there, but it's sonic signature for bad recording is amazing. Listening to in the nightside eclipse with them is like listening to a whole new album. It is full, layered, detailed and not overly bright. Listening to it on my 650 is a much worse experience.

Such a great headphone.

 
Yep, that's the next headphone I'd like to try, specifically because it's tuned darker and would be more forgiving for bad recordings. (In case you're curious about headphones I've had, they're on my profile.) Of course, I could always equalize any headphone, but it's a lot of work...
 
I'm still amazed how my $15 Koss KTXPRO1 is more enjoyable for me than so many headphones that are dozens of times more expensive. The HD 650, for example, is far better in objective terms, but the KTX sounds more exciting to me.

 

[bavinck]

Yep, that's the next headphone I'd like to try, specifically because it's tuned darker and would be more forgiving for bad recordings. (In case you're curious about headphones I've had, they're on my profile.) Of course, I could always equalize any headphone, but it's a lot of work...

I'm still amazed how my $15 Koss KTXPRO1 is more enjoyable for me than so many headphones that are dozens of times more expensive. The HD 650, for example, is far better in objective terms, but the KTX sounds more exciting to me.

The guy who tuned the Nighthawk argues it is not a dark tuning but natural, whereas most other hifi headphones have an artificially bright tuning. I'm inclined to agree with him.

 

[Music Alchemist]

The guy who tuned the Nighthawk argues it is not a dark tuning but natural, whereas most other hifi headphones have an artificially bright tuning. I'm inclined to agree with him.

 
I meant darker than many other headphones. But yes, I've read about that here: http://personal.audioquest.com/#measurements
 
My neutral reference is the STAX SR-207. As shown in the graph below, it follows the diffuse field curve (which most high-end headphones follow) more closely than just about anything else. It's the only headphone I've heard so far (even compared to stuff that costs thousands) that sounded like real instruments to me, and I'm an experienced musician.
 
http://cdn.head-fi.org/6/6d/6de6f4f3_STAX_SR-207_EP-507_SB2217.png
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/StaxSR207EP507LeatherPadsSerNumSB22217.pdf
 
I'll have to hear the NightHawk and see if I change my mind. Either way, I want it for something more forgiving than what I usually use.
 
Speaking of measurements...the NightHawk has some of the lowest distortion I've ever seen!
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioQuestNightHawk2015.pdf

 

[SomeGuyDude]

^^ the Hawks' low distortion is part of why their sound works so well. The treble doesn't need to be emphasized because it's plenty audible thanks to the insanely clean output.

 

[bavinck]

  ^^ the Hawks' low distortion is part of why their sound works so well. The treble doesn't need to be emphasized because it's plenty audible thanks to the insanely clean output.

Yes, they have taught me the value of low distortion. Also, the subbass extension is excellent, allowing the little bit of subbass present in some metal tracks to be enough (like Emperor's stuff).

 

[Music Alchemist]

  ^^ the Hawks' low distortion is part of why their sound works so well. The treble doesn't need to be emphasized because it's plenty audible thanks to the insanely clean output.

 
STAX still has lower distortion overall and its treble doesn't sound emphasized to me at all...and I can't stand brightness. It's just that there are many recordings that are bright and so on.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

   
STAX still has lower distortion overall and its treble doesn't sound emphasized to me at all...and I can't stand brightness. It's just that there are many recordings that are bright and so on.

 
Gaw damn I wish I could bronze this sentence and staple it in every thread possible. 
 
This notion of "how it's supposed to sound" falls apart at the first hurdle because you're 100% correct, not every recording is the same, done with the same intent, on the same equipment, anything. There's a dude in the Nighthawk thread who does production and he's told stories about people mastering records on oddly bright studio monitors that make the end product sound overly bassy and muddy, and you know the reverse happens as well. 
 
A perfectly, flawlessly neutral headphone might very well reproduce the album the way it was finally mastered... but that doesn't mean it's going to sound the way the producer thought it would, nor does it mean it sounds how the artist thinks it should be.
 
This notion that a "correct" headphone exists is bunk, to me. A "correct" headphone does nothing but plays music the way you like it. Period.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Gaw damn I wish I could bronze this sentence and staple it in every thread possible. 
 
This notion of "how it's supposed to sound" falls apart at the first hurdle because you're 100% correct, not every recording is the same, done with the same intent, on the same equipment, anything. There's a dude in the Nighthawk thread who does production and he's told stories about people mastering records on oddly bright studio monitors that make the end product sound overly bassy and muddy, and you know the reverse happens as well. 
 
A perfectly, flawlessly neutral headphone might very well reproduce the album the way it was finally mastered... but that doesn't mean it's going to sound the way the producer thought it would, nor does it mean it sounds how the artist thinks it should be.
 
This notion that a "correct" headphone exists is bunk, to me. A "correct" headphone does nothing but plays music the way you like it. Period.

 

 
I know who you're talking about. If I recall, I convinced him (and many others) to get the Yamaha HPH-MT220. (My favorite closed-back.) He gets so many free headphones because of his job. (Or something like that.)
 
And yeah, this hobby is all about finding what's most enjoyable for us, which can be anything, really.
 
I strive for accuracy mostly out of curiosity to look deeper into how the recording really is. But oftentimes, after you hear something that is obviously more accurate, you realize you don't even like it that way...or perhaps something went wrong in the production process that made it sound less like real life.
 
...I just hope I won't have dozens of headphones lying around for various purposes when I'm able to get any of them I want. (Already went through the journey of trying tons of 'em in short periods to see which ones I liked the most.) I'd rather just use one that's capable of all sorts of things.
 
Edit: I just read through AudioQuest's technical explanation page again. Some of it seems like you'd need an engineering degree to understand, but I got the gist of it. They make some compelling points!

 

[markm1]

I need to listen to the Nighthawk again. I had trouble getting it's magic after auditioning the Elear, which are obviously several hundreds more expensive. The caveat I'd make based on a short audition is that if you are coming from a resolving headphone (in my case a Dharma) or are expecting or like a great deal of detail retrieval in the mids and highs, you might find it disappointing. I found it muted, compressed even, kind of flat sounding. But, it sounds like to some of you that's an advantage-I can see how it would be less fatiguing of bright metal recordings. And, of course, a short audition isn't as fair a comparison as those who own and live with one.

 

[YtseJamer]

I wholeheartedly agree, but you knew I would

 
+2 

 

 

[bavinck]

I need to listen to the Nighthawk again. I had trouble getting it's magic after auditioning the Elear, which are obviously several hundreds more expensive. The caveat I'd make based on a short audition is that if you are coming from a resolving headphone (in my case a Dharma) or are expecting or like a great deal of detail retrieval in the mids and highs, you might find it disappointing. I found it muted, compressed even, kind of flat sounding. But, it sounds like to some of you that's an advantage-I can see how it would be less fatiguing of bright metal recordings. And, of course, a short audition isn't as fair a comparison as those who own and live with one.

The Nighthawk isn't for everyone for sure. However, it is a detail monster that reveals itself in time. The more you listen to it, the more you will probably appreciate it. For the current price it's a no-risk.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

The Nighthawk isn't for everyone for sure. However, it is a detail monster that reveals itself in time. The more you listen to it, the more you will probably appreciate it. For the current price it's a no-risk.

Yeah. The way it happened to me was I listened to them once and went "augh these are terrible" and put them back. Didn't try them again for a while (these posts are in the EL-8 thread). then I tried them a few weeks later, sat with them both for a solid hour. Went home with the Hawks to just see how I liked them long term. Returned the EL-8s.
 
I'm sampling more trebly and open stuff ATM (HD700) but I have a sneaking suspicion the Hawks will land back in my collection.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Yeah. The way it happened to me was I listened to them once and went "augh these are terrible" and put them back. Didn't try them again for a while (these posts are in the EL-8 thread). then I tried them a few weeks later, sat with them both for a solid hour. Went home with the Hawks to just see how I liked them long term. Returned the EL-8s.
 
I'm sampling more trebly and open stuff ATM (HD700) but I have a sneaking suspicion the Hawks will land back in my collection.

 
Oh, you have an HD 700 now? I had one last year. The look and feel was awesome. The sound was...unpredictable. After seeing the all over the place measurements after the fact, it makes sense. (click here) Even though the HD 700 outperformed the HD 650 in some respects, I always liked the HD 650, whereas the HD 700 could sound great on one track, then "What?!" on another. I'd really like to equalize it.
 
By the way, man...even if the idea of The Algorithm turns you off, I strongly recommend giving the new album a chance. I skimmed through his older work and didn't even like it much, ironically. But this new one has so many great moments. I've been playing it nonstop. You just gotta make peace with the repetitive guitar chugging, which serves as more of a backdrop to the electronics.

 

[bavinck]

Oh, you have an HD 700 now? I had one last year. The look and feel was awesome. The sound was...unpredictable. After seeing the all over the place measurements after the fact, it makes sense. (click here) Even though the HD 700 outperformed the HD 650 in some respects, I always liked the HD 650, whereas the HD 700 could sound great on one track, then "What?!" on another. I'd really like to equalize it.

By the way, man...even if the idea of The Algorithm turns you off, I strongly recommend giving the new album a chance. I skimmed through his older work and didn't even like it much, ironically. But this new one has so many great moments. I've been playing it nonstop. You just gotta make peace with the repetitive guitar chugging, which serves as more of a backdrop to the electronics.

The hd700 with sonarworks hd800 filter is amazing with metal. Just amazing. Wish I could have kept mine.