[sokolov91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif So what exactly do you mean by "detailed" and "musical" or lack of same? I see those two words bandied about so often here, but just words, no foundation or description to support them. Most of the time (around here), detailed means bright and musical means colored. Yecch!

Detail - I hear everything in a recording. Backing vocals, drum sticks, breathing before or after a lyric is sung... stuff that escapes only but the best headphones.

Musical - Sounds... musical, doesn't have anything that readily jumps out and alerts you " you are using headphone X, Y or Z" it just flows and sounds smooth.

The W1000X has both, competes with my SA5K in prat, but is much easier on the ears, and has the best visceral impact of any headphone I have heard, regardless of the spectrum.

K702 is sterile, uninvolving, and has a plain weird sound depending on the recording. So i don't find it musical, and I don't find it overly detailed either, as a few of my headphones clearly beat it in terms of detail.

Brightness and detail are not necessarily correlated, because bright means lack of bass, or overdone highs... which is not very detailed now is it.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif So what exactly do you mean by "detailed" and "musical" or lack of same? I see those two words bandied about so often here, but just words, no foundation or description to support them. Most of the time (around here), detailed means bright and musical means colored. Yecch!

'musical' and 'PRaT' are two that just boggle my mind. So much fuss about cables and yet these words are bandied around to distinguish one can from another.

 

[autonomous]

k3 your killing me lol, "Wideband, magisterial but sometimes a bit aloof." The visuals that conjurs up are unfathomable! That is some mighty fine audiophile crazy talk. Everything else was cool but I couldn't let that one go. So which one of the group is your preference?

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Detail - I hear everything in a recording. Backing vocals, drum sticks, breathing before or after a lyric is sung... stuff that escapes only but the best headphones. Musical - Sounds... musical, doesn't have anything that readily jumps out and alerts you " you are using headphone X, Y or Z" it just flows and sounds smooth. The W1000X has both, competes with my SA5K in prat, but is much easier on the ears, and has the best visceral impact of any headphone I have heard, regardless of the spectrum. K702 is sterile, uninvolving, and has a plain weird sound depending on the recording. So i don't find it musical, and I don't find it overly detailed either, as a few of my headphones clearly beat it in terms of detail. Brightness and detail are not necessarily correlated, because bright means lack of bass, or overdone highs... which is not very detailed now is it.

The 701 is very involving & musical paired with the right gear, much more so then the SA5000.. Even though I feel the SA5000 is the better headphone, & in general superior to the 701.. Then again, I lean towards the clinical side of headphones.. Even though I wouldn't call the 701 detail monsters, you seem to be down playing their detail retrieval which is very good.. Better then the SA5000/DT880 in terms of detail? No.. but not THAT far off IMO..

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 701 is very involving & musical paired with the right gear, much more so then the SA5000.. Even though I feel the SA5000 is the better headphone, & in general superior to the 701.. Then again, I lean towards the clinical side of headphones.. Even though I wouldn't call the 701 detail monsters, you seem to be down playing their detail retrieval which is very good.. Better then the SA5000/DT880 in terms of detail? No.. but not THAT far off IMO..

Could be, I am more than willing to admit they are not for me, with the gear I have now anyways. I was never impressed with their detail though, just their soundstage, which I ended up not liking. Doesn't mean they are bad, just means when I think detail, AKG is not on my mind.

I don't think they are bad but detail is not on par with the SA5K. SA5K has that fine comb that goes over everything that I just don't hear on the AKG.

I sold my K702 today actually, but I will eventually get a pair of K701 to try balanced so I can make my final personal verdict. For a headphone I don't like, I do approach it with an open mind, and try to like it.

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by autonomous /img/forum/go_quote.gif k3 your killing me lol, "Wideband, magisterial but sometimes a bit aloof." The visuals that conjurs up are unfathomable! That is some mighty fine audiophile crazy talk. Everything else was cool but I couldn't let that one go. So which one of the group is your preference?

Hi autonomous. I dig the Zappa quote!

Yeah, maybe that was a bit over the top

. But, that's what came to mind!

I was trying to convey that the HD-800 have extended treble and deep bass and can convey the magisty of a symphonic orchestra very well (even spatially, for a headphone). The only objection I occasionally have on some music is they may sound a bit uninvolving (aloof?).

The DT-48 are the polar opposite in some ways, they are not wideband and can sound a bit closed in, but sometimes that pulls you into the music's world, if you catch my drift.

Overall, I do like the HD-800 the best but the DT-48 is next, sometimes I want that smaller, more intimate, sound.

But there are still other contenders to hear, the K-1000 are on the way, I would love to hear the T-1 and have no experience with modern electrostats...

Kevin

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Detail - I hear everything in a recording. Backing vocals, drum sticks, breathing before or after a lyric is sung... stuff that escapes only but the best headphones..

Really? I hear all that with an SR60.

Quote:

Musical - Sounds... musical, doesn't have anything that readily jumps out and alerts you " you are using headphone X, Y or Z" it just flows and sounds smooth.

So I guess it's impossible to be both musical and detailed?

Quote:

K702 is sterile, uninvolving, and has a plain weird sound depending on the recording. So i don't find it musical, and I don't find it overly detailed either, as a few of my headphones clearly beat it in terms of detail.

Depending on the recording???

Quote:

Brightness and detail are not necessarily correlated, because bright means lack of bass, or overdone highs... which is not very detailed now is it

You can have tons of bass and still have it overly bright.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Really? I hear all that with an SR60. So I guess it's impossible to be both musical and detailed? Depending on the recording??? You can have tons of bass and still have it overly bright.

Yeah those weren't the best examples, I admit. I was not in the mood to go into detail... sorry for the pun .

Better examples would be like: being able to hear exactly how tight a hi-hat is... hearing individual sizzles after a stick hit. Hearring the snare drum reverb off the studio walls. Whether the snare is made of metal or wood, deep or shallow.... hearing how dry/wet someones throat is, and how it changes from one set of lyrics to another... people talking in the mixing part of the recording studio... very faint feed back in the background... the snares on a snare drum buzzing ever so slightly because the bass is affecting them. Being able to easily separate voices in a multiple backing vocalist of a choir... you can come up with some too.

You don't have to agree with me to know what I am talking about :/

I stated the W1000X were both detailed and musical, so I do think it is possible, just rare.

With the AKG, some songs make the odd tone more apparent than others. It downs down right hollow/plasticky sometimes. If you don't get that often with your music, great! If you do its annoying.

So maybe we hear differently, but I have quite a few headphones on hand to do direct comparisons, and know my equipment very well, so I am not blowing smoke out of my ass.

Plus, I am not the only one to find the akg to have an off tone/hollow sound...

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Plus, I am not the only one to find the akg to have an off tone/hollow sound...

No such off tone/hollow sound here.

Haha... I feel for your loss.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah those weren't the best examples, I admit. I was not in the mood to go into detail... sorry for the pun . Better examples would be like: being able to hear exactly how tight a hi-hat is... hearing individual sizzles after a stick hit. Hearring the snare drum reverb off the studio walls. Whether the snare is made of metal or wood, deep or shallow.... hearing how dry/wet someones throat is, and how it changes from one set of lyrics to another... people talking in the mixing part of the recording studio... very faint feed back in the background... the snares on a snare drum buzzing ever so slightly because the bass is affecting them. Being able to easily separate voices in a multiple backing vocalist of a choir... you can come up with some too. You don't have to agree with me to know what I am talking about :/ I stated the W1000X were both detailed and musical, so I do think it is possible, just rare. With the AKG, some songs make the odd tone more apparent than others. It downs down right hollow/plasticky sometimes. If you don't get that often with your music, great! If you do its annoying. So maybe we hear differently, but I have quite a few headphones on hand to do direct comparisons, and know my equipment very well, so I am not blowing smoke out of my ass. Plus, I am not the only one to find the akg to have an off tone/hollow sound...

That sounds like DT48 territory.. Don't forget mic placement. Jewelery dangling, facial configurations which become audible, moving lips left to right, with a slight smack & lip, before a faint breath.. Hearing a vocalist with a cold or is hoarse.. The 1000X seem really detailed.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif That sounds like DT48 territory.. Don't forget mic placement. Jewelery dangling, facial configurations which become audible, moving lips left to right, with a slight smack & lip, before a faint breath.. Hearing a vocalist with a cold or is hoarse.. The 1000X seem really detailed.

Hahaha you can never win around here can you? One person is telling me they can hear stuff perfectly with an SR60, and now you think I am making stuff up.

Hey, a lot of detail is the sound being presented in a way where it sounds like it is being produced from its origin... it's psychoacoustics. Where this starts, and the actually detail of a headphone stops, I won't claim to know. But the W1000X are indeed detail and compete with the SA5K.

Hell, I am an imperfect human working with imperfect perceptions of imperfectly reproduced audio.

Like I continue to tell you, I will have to get my hands on a pair of DT 48 so we can speak more the same vocabulary. Right now your memory of the SA5K is the most we have in common as far as I am aware.

Alas, you are probably right in thinking I am going to far to the bad side with the AKG. It was not my fav can but its far from bad, but I guess to downplay the hype, I come off as thinking it is overly incompetent.

The hype will continue to blow my mind until I hear it though...

I think it is safe to say there are more detailed headphones though. We will leave "better" out of the vocab though so no one gets hurt... including me .

 

[SanJoseCanJunkie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif So I guess it's impossible to be both musical and detailed?

I would consider the RS1 to be both musical and detailed, although not quite a detailed as some. You have to keep things in perspective.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hahaha you can never win around here can you? One person is telling me they can hear stuff perfectly with an SR60, and now you think I am making stuff up. Hey, a lot of detail is the sound being presented in a way where it sounds like it is being produced from its origin... it's psychoacoustics. Where this starts, and the actually detail of a headphone stops, I won't claim to know. But the W1000X are indeed detail and compete with the SA5K. Hell, I am an imperfect human working with imperfect perceptions of imperfectly reproduced audio. Like I continue to tell you, I will have to get my hands on a pair of DT 48 so we can speak more the same vocabulary. Right now your memory of the SA5K is the most we have in common as far as I am aware. Alas, you are probably right in thinking I am going to far to the bad side with the AKG. It was not my fav can but its far from bad, but I guess to downplay the hype, I come off as thinking it is overly incompetent. The hype will continue to blow my mind until I hear it though... I think it is safe to say there are more detailed headphones though. We will leave "better" out of the vocab though so no one gets hurt... including me .

I was being sincere. What you described with your 1000 headphones mimics what I get from my DT48. I doubt the DT48 would replace your SA5000 or even your Pro 750's. Just a hunch. They make the SA5000 sound musical, have a unconventional design and engineering. They were made to sound like a headphone. No extended bass or treble. Bland in general, but will change according to the source I have never heard before. They are like a headphone without a idendity or signature..They change according to the recording.. 2 K1000 owners feel they are more transparent then the K1000, which says a lot, especially for a headphone you could get for 60-125 bucks. When you like the DT48 you can't just buy 1. One member owned 12, I own 9, Kevin, 4, Erik owned 3, and a few others with 2.

 

[hurryup]

Where to buy for $60?

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurryup /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where to buy for $60?

You have to look very hard and have a bit of luck. ACIX got a pair for 25.00. Prices are higher now. Sorry, I'm a bit to blame for that. Just check ebay. Ebay uk. And Ebay germany daily if you are serious. One member scored a vintage pair for 123 a while back.