[lessblue]

So, I've been wondering about this. Really good headphones have a tendency to reveal a recordings deficiencies.
 
When I say deficiencies in the recording, I don't mean lossless vs compressed but the source recording itself (studio->CD) and excluding other parts of the musical delivery chain for now.
 
For example, if one primarily listens to indie music, rock, ambient/electronic music recorded today, would it be better to not get a cans that are too good for the sake of musical enjoyment? I understand some people desire cans that are completely transparent and some people require it for audio reproduction. A lot of music isn't recorded on the best equipment and something too transparent may take away from the enjoyment. For me, that's sort of the imaginary line/limit of wanting to hear the music better (mids, highs, bass, separation, soundstage, etc.) and being distracted by the revelation that the recording itself was somewhat deficient. Too transparent and there can be diminishing returns.
 
But if one just wanted to just sort of enjoy the music, perhaps too good can turn out to be bad?
 
 
I will say, since my advent into head-fi, I've certainly noticed the difference in quality. I primarily have been using a Sony X1060 mp3 player for listening to music on the go with stock earbuds. At home I've been using Swan M200s for music from my desktop. I've since bought SR225s and a Little Dot I+ (OPA2107, Sylvania GB408As) and enjoy it very much. Now, when I listen to my Sony mp3 player, I'm disappointed with the SQ after having spent time with the SR225s. I use the sony a lot during travel (will have to look into better IEMS and portable headphone amps too now!). The Swans are fine for music desktop pc speakers. I don't expect wonders at their pricepoint and nearfield they sound pretty good.
 
Do you have any preferences for cans based on the music you listen to? How many people that listen to albums recorded today have found cans that were a little too revealing?
 
I primarily listen to indie music and many indie sub-genres (ranging from super lo-fi to radiohead) and old rock/metal (Master of Puppets probably my favorite album of all time to this day. But don't really listen to any Metallica after ...And Justice because it pretty much sucks (sorry any new Metallica fans. The SR225s have been great so far but my experience is limited. I was looking into getting higher impedance phones to see what differences I might find. Anyway, post your thoughts on the topic if you feel like it.

 

[stang]

I had the SR225 and they were very fun cans to listen with 

 I use my DT880/600 a lot now though. I listen to heaps of poorly recorded metal. I cannot stand Death Magnetic CD Studio version, but I listened to the Guitar Hero version (dynamics are great) and I can stand it. I say a lot of the enjoyment has to do with the mastering of the particular album. Nevertheless, want to enjoy your system, stick to the SR225 and a good tube amp. If you want to hear every little detail, I suggest you at least get some very well recorded music and a good system that consists of a headphone, like the AKG K701. 

 

[atothex]

No such thing as "too revealing".

 

[LFF]

Quote:

So, I've been wondering about this. Really good headphones have a tendency to reveal a recordings deficiencies.
 

Or they have the ability to reveal a recordings virtues and musical nuances.

 

[Ashirgo]

"too revealing" is a misguided notion. If your headphone is accentuating high frequencies in a crazy way (it's what Grados do), you might think of them as too revealing. The same is true of Stax (especially 404/303/202). Total crap that takes away all the pleasure unless you are listening to music that already has highs rolled off as a ball of crap rolling down a high mountain, or this frequency range is not critical for this particular music's enjoyment (or there is sth terribly wrong with your perception).
 
I agree it is a weird distribution across the community but apparently the richest and most wordy individuals out there often prefer this incredibly bright sound of some high-end offerings, that, voiced to sound good with classical/jazz music, fall into this "beloved" category. Little surprise, then, that not all recordings are acceptable... and people start saying "crappy mastering" etc. while it is their crooked taste and exotic system that is at fault.

I've found fairly balanced headphones and I've been fortunate enough to get a pair matching my HRTF, so 99% of my music is a blissful experience rather than "too revealing". And not all of my recordings are describable in terms of "totally gone nuts high-tech-quality-skyrocketing audiophile stuff".

Sorry for the rant but it is what I believe at the moment. Needless to say, it is all subject to drastic change (if you find the right arguments).

 

[nickchen]

I generally need a minimum of "rounded edges", so DT880/K701/DH650/MS Pro etc. is the maximum revelation for my personal needs. Whenever I listen to something "better" (T1, HD800, the Stax crowd), the increased technical perfection is something I sort of dislike. It's a bit like a HDR movie on a suitable LCD TV, sharper than reality, that ain't my cup of tea either.

 

[wind016]

I don't think Grados are too revealing (but more so than the usual Sony consumer headphones). I feel that they heavily exaggerate the treble to make it seem like they are revealing.
 
Anyways, the reasons you stated are why I do not use studio monitors to listen to music. I leave balanced and detailed headphones for the studio. For recreational purposes, I listen to headphones with the qualities that I want. If you have a high quality headphone with the sound signature that you like, you will hear more detail also. It goes hand in hand.
 
But hell, I can enjoy music even if I only had a pair of cheap ear buds. I have a deep urge within me to just sell everything and reform back to the good ol' days when I only had a pair of no-name earphones.

 

[stang]

Have a listen to the studio version (not guitar hero, nor remastered versions etc) of Metallica's Death Magnetic album and say that it sounds good 

 

[Ashirgo]

Quote:

Have a listen to the studio version (not guitar hero, nor remastered versions etc) of Metallica's Death Magnetic album and say that it sounds good 

You don't need Grado or Stax to hear how ..... is that

 

[mobbaddict]

Quote:

"too revealing" is a misguided notion. If your headphone is accentuating high frequencies in a crazy way (it's what Grados do), you might think of them as too revealing. The same is true of Stax (especially 404/303/202).

I agree with the first part. As for Stax, sure the Lambdas make a lot of genres sound thin and uninvolving. But the O2 on the other hand works with a much broader range of genres, while maintaing an extreme level of transparency. To tell the truth, the O2 sounds MUCH better with agressive music than lower-end cans like DT880 or AD900. Transparency is OK as long as treble stays smooth.

 

[wind016]

Skylab doesn't seem to prefer bright headphones though I agree that a lot here do...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashirgo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I agree it is a weird distribution across the community but apparently the richest and most wordy individuals out there often prefer this incredibly bright sound of some high-end offerings, that, voiced to sound good with classical/jazz music, fall into this "beloved" category. Little surprise, then, that not all recordings are acceptable... and people start saying "crappy mastering" etc. while it is their crooked taste and exotic system that is at fault.
 

 

[KingStyles]

You can have revealing headphones if your system is matched up for them. A musical dac or amp with the revealing cans can have a very nice sound. I never have liked the analytical dac/amp with these very revealing cans.