[jlbrach]

to me all of the stones recordings are really rough,all sorts of drop outs and distortions(not the intended)...same with led zep albums.....poorly recorded improved marginally with recent remastering

 

[Ciggavelli]

to me all of the stones recordings are really rough,all sorts of drop outs and distortions(not the intended)...same with led zep albums.....poorly recorded improved marginally with recent remastering

I dunno, I often listen to somewhat poorly recorded and poorly mastered metal albums, so my baseline might be different than yours…

Those three Stones albums have excellent location of instruments, very clean vocals, great layering and a good sense of space. I guess I pay more attention to that than dropouts and random distortions

 

[Ciggavelli]

I guess I should also add that I’m very visual with my music. I see all the sounds in my head, so space, layering, and resolution are very important to me.

 

[jlbrach]

I also find space and layering and imagining most important which is why I so love the sr1a

 

[number1sixerfan]

for me the sr1a is my favorite HP and that includes the TC and susvara..it is simply so unique...such spaciousness and pinpoint imaging and the detail is simply off the charts.....yes I know it lacks that sub bass but to be honest for me given the space the bass really stands out and is extremely accurate and since I do not listen to rap or EDM or death metal I do not really miss it....I am curious about electrostatics but the sr1a has kept me from bothering up to this point

I would think that with how much you seem to love the Sr1a above all, it may make sense to just stick with it and avoid electrostats. And I say that as someone that typically encourages people to take the plunge. The Sr1a obviously has strengths as it relates to detail, openness and spaciousness, but that does also come at the tradeoffs of cohesiveness, fullness and as you mention bass response. The Sr1a's bass is really light and many TOTL stats are going to be slightly better in that regard, while also having a bit more cohesive sound due to the circumaural design (this is just an obvious tradeoff for the Sr1a's design and openness). The 007, CRBN and SGL all also sound more full, with more weight and density to the music. Although stats can definitely get you the same level of detail and imaging, you won't at all reach the level of openness or spacious with any of these as the Sr1a for same design differences mentioned.

If the tradeoffs mentioned don't impact your listening preferences or the genres you listen to, which it seems they don't, I think you'll always prefer the Sr1a. May be best to just save the funds and forgo it.

 

[jlbrach]

my worn out and ragged wallet would certainly appreciate it lol

 

[Ciggavelli]

I listened to the CRBNs all day today. For some strange reason, I find myself wanting to listen to albums and genres I don’t normally listen to when I put the CRBNs on. Yesterday it was the Stones, today Miles Davis and Bob Dylan. I normally listen to metal and hip-hop, so listening to these “old” albums is out of the norm. I’m not sure why or what that means (if anything), but the CRBNs definitely impressed, and it was hard to find flaws. It appears the CRBNs might be my go to headphones for classic rock and jazz

Also, and I might catch heat for this, but modern day metal albums are substantially more demanding of your HiFi equipment. It’s much easier to find flaws with your headphones (imaging, staging, bass response, layering separation) with metal.

It’s almost as if these “calmer” genres are like low hanging fruit, in terms of headphone/amp/dac capability. It takes less technical ability to sound great. If I only listened to jazz and classic rock, I think I could legit be happy with one pair of headphones.

But with metal, sounds are played very fast, instruments fill up the whole soundstage and are right on top of each other, technical bass notes are found somewhere in the mix, and competing sounds are everywhere. Basically, it’s a lot harder for headphones to keep up. One can very easily pick up flaws.

Then there’s hip-hop. Bass and sub-bass are very important. Hip-hop (and I guess EDM) take bass to a whole other level. Heavy rock bass is not the same as heavy hip-hop bass. Rap bass is enormous (or should be with the right equipment). This is where a lot of headphones fail.

I don’t listen to classical, so I can’t comment on the specific audio needs required to make concerts sound great, but I imagine soundstage and separation are paramount.

So, basically, if you don’t listen to metal or hip-hop, you may have it a little easier. I think you could have 1 or 2 pairs of headphones and be happy with that.

 

[BassicScience]

Just a heads up that I recently auditioned the CRBN and have posted a review:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/my-...rce-av-audeze-lcd-5-and-crbn-reviewed.961402/

 

[paradoxper]

I listened to the CRBNs all day today. For some strange reason, I find myself wanting to listen to albums and genres I don’t normally listen to when I put the CRBNs on. Yesterday it was the Stones, today Miles Davis and Bob Dylan. I normally listen to metal and hip-hop, so listening to these “old” albums is out of the norm. I’m not sure why or what that means (if anything), but the CRBNs definitely impressed, and it was hard to find flaws. It appears the CRBNs might be my go to headphones for classic rock and jazz

Also, and I might catch heat for this, but modern day metal albums are substantially more demanding of your HiFi equipment. It’s much easier to find flaws with your headphones (imaging, staging, bass response, layering separation) with metal.

It’s almost as if these “calmer” genres are like low hanging fruit, in terms of headphone/amp/dac capability. It takes less technical ability to sound great. If I only listened to jazz and classic rock, I think I could legit be happy with one pair of headphones.

But with metal, sounds are played very fast, instruments fill up the whole soundstage and are right on top of each other, technical bass notes are found somewhere in the mix, and competing sounds are everywhere. Basically, it’s a lot harder for headphones to keep up. One can very easily pick up flaws.

Then there’s hip-hop. Bass and sub-bass are very important. Hip-hop (and I guess EDM) take bass to a whole other level. Heavy rock bass is not the same as heavy hip-hop bass. Rap bass is enormous (or should be with the right equipment). This is where a lot of headphones fail.

I don’t listen to classical, so I can’t comment on the specific audio needs required to make concerts sound great, but I imagine soundstage and separation are paramount.

So, basically, if you don’t listen to metal or hip-hop, you may have it a little easier. I think you could have 1 or 2 pairs of headphones and be happy with that.

\m/

 

[Ciggavelli]

Stereophile posted some 3ES/CRBN impressions and compared it to the Z10e

https://www.stereophile.com/content...mplifierheadphone-amplifier-and-audeze-crbn-0

 

[ThanatosVI]

Stereophile posted some 3ES/CRBN impressions and compared it to the Z10e

https://www.stereophile.com/content...mplifierheadphone-amplifier-and-audeze-crbn-0

Very interesting, thx for posting

 

[Ciggavelli]

I just listened to this Meshuggah album all the way through with the Abyss TCs and then CRBNs

TC: Larger soundstage, more bass quantity, open soundstage, holographic, dynamic, great imaging

CRBN: Higher resolution (I heard sounds with the CRBNs that I did not with the TCs), more intimate soundstage (but also very 3D), different layering than the TCs (I can't put it into words [it's a visual thing], but I like it), better treble, faster, a little less image clarity (despite the higher resolution...it's weird)

They both are very good. I guess which one you prefer depends on personal preference

 

[branislav]

What does holographic mean?

 

[Ciggavelli]

What does holographic mean?

It's visual. It's like you can see a 3D representation of the sound and instruments. The sounds are placed in such a way that there is depth, clevises, curves, etc. I'm very visual with my music and see representations of the sounds. It might not make sense if you experience music in a different, less visual way.

 

[branislav]

It's visual. It's like you can see a 3D representation of the sound and instruments. The sounds are placed in such a way that there is depth, clevises, curves, etc. I'm very visual with my music and see representations of the sounds. It might not make sense if you experience music in a different, less visual way.

That would be my description of CRBN at Canjam with Mjolnir.