[Music Alchemist]

  I mean the LCD-2 is pretty neutral. Remember, I did EQ the LCD-2 lower midrange down a bit, so it's not neutral out of the box. Just closer than bright headphones, IMO. And yes, I do think it's perfectly normal and neutral to have a little more bass than treble.
 
I don't have the TH-900, and I'll never have one. It seems very neutral from how similar to the reference track it sounds in the video I've linked, and how relatively close it is to the curve I like.
 
Just to stir the pot a little more, the Beats Solo2 is very close to that same curve. The bass boost extends a bit too high, it's supposed to slope down closer to 100 Hz but it doesn't have the dip at 500-600 Hz. So yes, I dare to say its frequency response may be more neutral than the flagships being discussed.

 
I'm just trying to reconcile your findings with the (seemingly) majority consensus that it's excessively warm, lush, bassy, etc.

 

[Head Injury]

   
I'm just trying to reconcile your findings with the (seemingly) majority consensus that it's excessively warm, lush, bassy, etc.

Yes, I'm going against the majority consensus because the majority consensus in audio is very often misleading. The majority consensus also says there are night and day differences between DAC chips, planar headphones need enough power for 120 dB+ volumes, and cables break the laws of physics

 
I'm going by current research into headphone compensation curves, and the results I get comparing relative volumes of sine wave sweeps to frequency response graphs. I'm not trying to say that my word is law on the subject, as I'm really only dipping my toes into it. I hope I'm not coming off as unintentionally authoritative.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Yes, I'm going against the majority consensus because the majority consensus in audio is very often misleading. The majority consensus also says there are night and day differences between DAC chips, planar headphones need enough power for 120 dB+ volumes, and cables break the laws of physics

 
I'm going by current research into headphone compensation curves, and the results I get comparing relative volumes of sine wave sweeps to frequency response graphs. I'm not trying to say that my word is law on the subject, as I'm really only dipping my toes into it. I hope I'm not coming off as unintentionally authoritative.

 
Your explanations have been helpful, but don't do much to help me understand why so many people feel that Audeze and Fostex headphones are colored, excessively warm, etc. if they are actually closer to neutral than the headphones more often regarded as such.

 

[Head Injury]

   
Your explanations have been helpful, but don't do much to help me understand why so many people feel that Audeze and Fostex headphones are colored, excessively warm, etc. if they are actually closer to neutral than the headphones more often regarded as such.

It's a perpetuation of ideology. Some respected reviewer calls an expensive, bright headphone detailed, and it becomes the standard. There's a lot of reasons why it developed in the first place, and the below are some of my guesses.
 
Quality, extended, high volume, low distortion bass like that found in modern planars is a relatively new thing in the open-back flagship market. Just look at the bass extension and distortion in headphones like the HD650, which were up until just a handful of years ago top dog of Sennheiser's line (and, ironically, were otherwise well-balanced but branded as "veiled" because they weren't bright).
 
Consider also the effects of having too much bass vs. too much treble. Too much bass makes things sound slow, thick, and muddy, whereas too much treble can be painful if excessive but will actually increase the perception of soundstage and detail. Treble doesn't have as potent a masking effect when it's too loud. Coupled with how quality bass used to be hard to achieve, flagships often focused treble.
 
And treble has a "wow" factor bass doesn't always have. Anyone familiar with speakers won't find headphone bass impressive, but headphones can do treble detail better than speakers. So bright headphones will get a more positive reaction at first, as long as they aren't too bright. This may be changing now in the consumer market as more listening is done with headphones, but audiophiles still cling to emphasized treble.
 
The ideology may stem from studio headphones which are often trebly. If they're studio headphones they must be neutral, right? But my impression is the EQ of the mix is usually done with studio monitors in a treated room, the headphones are mostly for recording and detail work.
 
There's also a derision of bass-heavy headphones because consumer headphones are stereotyped as being muddy and bassy, while audiophile headphones are stereotyped as being clear and detailed (even if these are actually caused by colorations too).
 
I bet there's also a subtle effect from the phrase "hi-fi" itself, which primes listeners for high frequencies

 
The Harman curve I'm talking about is being developed from what studies find most people consider neutral, or what sounds like good speakers in a good room. These studies aren't done exclusively with audiophiles, but that doesn't mean the participants don't know what sounds right. In fact, it probably means they have less bias from the above hypotheses.
 
You also need to ask yourself, why do so many people think cables make huge differences? Someone, somewhere, somehow told them they do, and they perpetuate the idea.

 

[Music Alchemist]

 
Your insights are refreshing. I guess regardless of what is or is not more accurate, the only way for me to discover what I prefer is to hear for myself. It looks like you're saying that some headphones thought to have too much bass have just enough, in the sense of accuracy, whereas those thought to be more accurate don't have enough bass. (I know I'm repeating myself in different words here.)
 
But beside the science of it all, when someone hears a headphone and subjectively perceives it as having too much bass/warmth to be considered neutral, and countless others feel the same way (and for the sake of this example, this phenomenon is not due to preconceived notions or expectation bias), I can't help but be inclined to take that into account. I don't think so many consistent reports are due to being fooled by reviewers.
 
The underlying question is: how do we determine what is neutral/accurate/realistic and what is not?
 
You can compare to the sound of acoustic instruments in real life, for one. But there's also the matter of the studio engineers altering the recording, so what would be neutral for real life wouldn't be neutral for the recording. All these various ways of having to compensate the signal...but in the end, what matters in terms of accuracy is if it sounds like real life, at least for those acoustic instruments. (Doesn't apply so much for digital instruments.)
 
Extending from that, people have all sorts of opinions of which headphones sound the most realistic. I just don't know what to think, given all these conflicting accounts.

 

[Head Injury]

But beside the science of it all, when someone hears a headphone and subjectively perceives it as having too much bass/warmth to be considered neutral, and countless others feel the same way (and for the sake of this example, this phenomenon is not due to preconceived notions or expectation bias), I can't help but be inclined to take that into account. I don't think so many consistent reports are due to being fooled by reviewers.

That's why the idea perpetuates in the first place. Do you also believe silver cables are brighter or more detailed than copper, for example?
 
Despite what has been said about crappy mastering (and it's so depressing) I do still think the benchmark needs to be how closely the headphones reproduce the frequency response of a dead neutral speaker at the ear drum. That's been the benchmark for audio all along, headphones should strive for the same. It's the only way to be sure the recordings that are mastered well are being faithfully represented, and it has the least number of compromises with other music. Much the same way I think upstream components should be dead neutral to remain versatile. If desired, the frequency response can be tweaked by the user later depending on what and how they like to listen. I'm not about to start making a custom EQ for each track I own, though.
 
I've said about all I can say on the matter, so I'll go back to happily listening to music. Now that I've had this opportunity to think and play with response curves, I might skip the Stax I planned to buy and save my money

 

[Music Alchemist]

 

That's why the idea perpetuates in the first place.

 
Reviewers may influence some people, but I still don't think that's the reason why so many people think X headphone has too much or too little bass.
 

Do you also believe silver cables are brighter or more detailed than copper, for example?

 
I have no idea, since I haven't conducted my own experiments with them.
 

Despite what has been said about crappy mastering (and it's so depressing) I do still think the benchmark needs to be how closely the headphones reproduce the frequency response of a dead neutral speaker at the ear drum. That's been the benchmark for audio all along, headphones should strive for the same. It's the only way to be sure the recordings that are mastered well are being faithfully represented, and it has the least number of compromises with other music. Much the same way I think upstream components should be dead neutral to remain versatile. If desired, the frequency response can be tweaked by the user later depending on what and how they like to listen. I'm not about to start making a custom EQ for each track I own, though.

 
Fully agree.
 

I've said about all I can say on the matter, so I'll go back to happily listening to music. Now that I've had this opportunity to think and play with response curves, I might skip the Stax I planned to buy and save my money

 
Thanks again for your time! I'm just gonna get the STAX system first, then expand my collection gradually, for the sake of variety.

 

[SunshineReggae]

   
Your explanations have been helpful, but don't do much to help me understand why so many people feel that Audeze and Fostex headphones are colored, excessively warm, etc. if they are actually closer to neutral than the headphones more often regarded as such.

 
Maybe because if headphone like DT880, Q701, Grado, is considered bright, then the most opposite of that will be called dark and warm. Since opposite of that headphones is stuff like LCD2, HD650, they are the ones who are called dark because they on opposite end of spectrum. The unspoken side of this is that it does not talk about what is more 'true', or more implicitly 'neutral'. It's just a superficial way of organizing things. To really point out what is exactly most neutral, one need more than just applying common sense. Like Head Injury points out, you need thorough research on this.

 

[zhenya]

 
Warm and lush is neutral, IMO. When was the last time a live show stabbed your ears with as much treble as most headphones put out?
 
 

 
I have to completely disagree here. Outside of shows that are mostly just a wall of speakers, which tend towards the general popular preference of way too much bass, most true live acoustic shows I go to are way, way brighter than is typically heard in recorded playback.
 
So far in my experience with the hd800's the only brightness I've seen is when poorly matched with its upstream equipment. Otherwise there is nothing of the sort.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Maybe because if headphone like DT880, Q701, Grado, is considered bright, then the most opposite of that will be called dark and warm. Since opposite of that headphones is stuff like LCD2, HD650, they are the ones who are called dark because they on opposite end of spectrum. The unspoken side of this is that it does not talk about what is more 'true', or more implicitly 'neutral'. It's just a superficial way of organizing things. To really point out what is exactly most neutral, one need more than just applying common sense. Like Head Injury points out, you need thorough research on this.

 
By all accounts, the SR-009 seems to be very neutral, so I'm just focusing on it for now.
 

  I have to completely disagree here. Outside of shows that are mostly just a wall of speakers, which tend towards the general popular preference of way too much bass, most true live acoustic shows I go to are way, way brighter than is typically heard in recorded playback.
 
So far in my experience with the hd800's the only brightness I've seen is when poorly matched with its upstream equipment. Otherwise there is nothing of the sort.

 
Indeed. I used to perform in jazz bands, orchestras, and so on, and there is plenty of "bite" in real life sound, at least for some instruments. Funny thing is, I listened to a recording of a concert I performed in, and it sounded horrible...yet, while performing, it sounded amazing! I guess that's more about the poor recording techniques used at the venue than anything else.

 

[jimification]

I'd say it's the same as all hifi - the best value is in the low to low-mid price band, after that, diminishing returns kick in pretty quickly. That said, compared to standard hifi speakers, headphones ARE a pretty cheap way to get very high quality sound and $1000 headphones actually give pretty good bang for buck if you compare them that way.

 

[Makiah S]

  Who stated that perfection meant balanced sound? I didn't. Majority of people I know and enjoy music don't need "perfect" equipment. The question here is 300$ vs 1000$, not 10$ vs 1000$. I honestly think we have to be crazy expecting that at this level equipment will hamper your enjoyment. I can enjoy music on my 10$ ear-buds just as well. Sometimes. Sometimes not. Could make an exception here for larger scale Classical music ... maybe.
But the devil is in the details. Language is soft and bendable ... words are easily interpreted this or other way. If you are in pursuit for better sound ... than I can agree. If you just want to enjoy music, than it is better you don't even think about equipment.
Sooner or later you will loose a lot of time and money searching for better HPs and reading forums. There is not much time to listen to music even without that

Well for me the Hobby is in Pursuit for the better sound
 
when I'm at home, I only have one headphone I listen to, as it covers all my genres 
 
how ever when I'm on the Go I have multiple for different genres.
 
An the "rule" applies mostly to "audiopohiles" or those of us with a love for sound to the point that were spending thousands of dollars
 
and what I have found is it's the little details that give me chills, and those chills are what make music enjoyable for me now, that degree of realism from my headphones is what makes me really enjoy my music
 
To that end a buddy of mine n me listened to my portable rig last night. I Shared some music with him and he was floored, and he was a guitarist so for him since his hobby, his love was in his Guitars, he doesn't really need Super high end gear, but at the end of the day he preffered the more balanced sounding headphones I had, it gave him a better sense of what he was listening to, though this is a guy who owns like 9 Guitars, each one for a different pourpose of genre that he's playing
 
Ideally though, as much as he wants a Guitar that can do EVERYTHING, most of us serious listeners what a headphone that can do EVERYthing. It's this desire to "the one" that pushes us forwarded I think
 
and for my tastes, my W1000x an HE 4 do everything... EXCEPT EDM <.<. 
 
So I'm looking at the moment for a D7k or something to fill the last niche in my listening experince. Granted I can EQ my HE 4 for EDM, but I find that to be cumbersome and I'd rather just have a headphone with a sound already complimentary to EDM. 

 

[ShySugarDaddy]

Yup, if your budgets allows. Life is there for the living.

 

[MedMan]

For a thousand dollars you better be a professional musician instead of an enthusiast 

 

[Makiah S]

  For a thousand dollars you better be a professional musician instead of an enthusiast 

why? 
 
If your an enthuisast and you enjoy listening, why not pursue the goal of pleasure. Why do you think that only professionals need this gear 
 
If you'd like to enjoy the community here, I encourage you to keep a more open mind :3 and not come off so negative