[clairyvic]

Since I only have 1 phone as a frame of refernece, is the aiaiai tma-1 "slow" or "fast?"

 

[Doc-holliday]

Since I only have 1 phone as a frame of refernece, is the aiaiai tma-1 "slow" or "fast?"

Perhaps if you go to the sereophile.com glossary and look up "attack" and "decay" and maybe google, then perhaps you can answer your own question. I don't normally hear that used exactly like that, but I'm not all knowing by any stretch. Maybe I am missing out.

 

[TMRaven]

You'll hear two popular definitions of a fast headphone.
 
1, and the most popular: a bright/thin headphone with emphasis on treble, no matter its transient response and decay
2, a headphone with fast transient response and decay, no matter its sound signature.

 

[clairyvic]

Disregard.

 

[RushNerd]

Quote:

You'll hear two popular definitions of a fast headphone.
 
1, and the most popular: a bright/thin headphone with emphasis on treble, no matter its transient response and decay
2, a headphone with fast transient response and decay, no matter its sound signature.

Pretty much this. It's more apparent in thickly layered music and bass heavy tracks. As TMRaven knows, the Denon x000 series sounds much slower compared to the he-400s. A lot of that does have to do with the denons cups trapping the soundwaves and and letting them resonate a bit before they totally dissipate where as the 400's have almost no acoustic reflection.

 

[Loevhagen]

The HE-500 can perceived "slow" or "fast" depending on what DAC / amp you put in front of it. 

 

[clairyvic]

oh thanks!

 

[TMRaven]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairyvic /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I'll put it this way, when listening to rock music do you want to bob your head and tap your toes when listening?

 
 
That has nothing to do with being fast or slow.  I've never heard the TMA-1 so I can't comment on it.

 

[clairyvic]

But doesn't fastness give more of a sense of "attack" and "energy" or does it just have to do with detail?

 

[TMRaven]

As I said in my previous post, an accentuated treble and thin sounding headphone can help give the sense of faster attack and more energy to make the headphone appear more fast, but in reality it isn't, so it all comes down to what your definition of fast is.

 

[Loevhagen]

Actually - the "The HE-500 can perceived "slow" or "fast" depending on what DAC / amp you put in front of it." makes sense if you take 5 and think about it. 
 
If you want a (too) simplistic answer: The brighter - the faster. See. That wasn't difficult at all.
 
Quote:

oh thanks!

 

[punks15]

No, fastness doesn't equal attack/energy IMO

 

[Doc-holliday]

No, fastness doesn't equal attack/energy IMO

It is not really a matter of opinion.

People on here are saying fast is essentially another word for bright. It is not the SAME as attack/decay but attack and decay means everything in defining fast or slow. If you have boomy bass for example it is going to be considered slow pretty much no matter how bright it is.

 

[yepimonfire]

Quote:

It is not really a matter of opinion.
People on here are saying fast is essentially another word for bright. It is not the SAME as attack/decay but attack and decay means everything in defining fast or slow. If you have boomy bass for example it is going to be considered slow pretty much no matter how bright it is.

i don't think being bright IS fast. for example, i have a pair of etymotic HF5's that pretty much suck past 16khz and aren't anywhere close to bright, but they are very fast and bring out a lot of detail. I also have a pair of AD900's that are very fast and aren't bright. I had AD700's that were fast and ridiculously bright, i had a pair of Q701's which weren't even remotely bright that were fast. I don't think bloated bass will make a headphone sound slow either. I had a pair of IEM's once that were fast and had bloated bass, they sounded like crap however because of the bass, but they definitely handled transients well. i don't know what people here use as a reference for fast, but IMO a fast headphone is fast because no matter how complex the musical passages become, and no matter how heavy the bass is hitting, they continue to render the music flawlessly with no details smeared over. perhaps bright headphones do sound more detailed, but i dont see how that translates to fastness. i have a pair of radioshack bookshelf speakers that are bright and sound slow.

 

[Doc-holliday]

i don't think being bright IS fast. for example, i have a pair of etymotic HF5's that pretty much suck past 16khz and aren't anywhere close to bright, but they are very fast and bring out a lot of detail. I also have a pair of AD900's that are very fast and aren't bright. I had AD700's that were fast and ridiculously bright, i had a pair of Q701's which weren't even remotely bright that were fast. I don't think bloated bass will make a headphone sound slow either. I had a pair of IEM's once that were fast and had bloated bass, they sounded like crap however because of the bass, but they definitely handled transients well. i don't know what people here use as a reference for fast, but IMO a fast headphone is fast because no matter how complex the musical passages become, and no matter how heavy the bass is hitting, they continue to render the music flawlessly with no details smeared over. perhaps bright headphones do sound more detailed, but i dont see how that translates to fastness. i have a pair of radioshack bookshelf speakers that are bright and sound slow.

Well that certainly clarifies it....