tfarney
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Posts
- 1,257
- Likes
- 16
Quote:
Well, that was pretty pointless. First of all, little is accomplished by dumping on the guy's joy over his acquisition of what is, by any standard, a killer system. Perhaps more importantly, it is a pretty useless exercise to compare phones to speaker systems. They image completely differently, and even marginal speakers in marginal conditions will produce a more "realistic" (whatever that means regarding stuido recordings) sound stage. It's the nature of the beast.
I suppose you can compare them in terms of the resolution of detail, but before you do, you'll have to have an anechoic chamber to play your speakers in, otherwise they won't have a teardrop's chance in hell of competing with good cans.
There is a reason why recording and mixing engineers, in perfectly treated rooms with custom-made monitors, listen to monitors to mix, and invariably pop on a pair of phones if they need to listen in deep for some detail. And they are almost never listening to anything in a league with balanced 650s into a GS-X.
And by the way, even the imaging issue is not the can's problem, but an arguably flawed recording methodology. A realistic soundstage for a studio recording is a contradiction of terms, so what you prefer is just that. Live? You want a realistic soundstage? Binaural/Cans. In terms of ambient realism, they'd eat $10,000 speakers for lunch. Make you turn around and look for that bee buzzing behind you. Try than in a room, any room, with just 2 channels.
MHO. YMMV.
Tim
| Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif poor kid will flip when he hears HE90; poor kid will die when he hears a properly setup spkr system (most spkr over $2k will blow 650 out of the water when setup/amped correctly). |
Well, that was pretty pointless. First of all, little is accomplished by dumping on the guy's joy over his acquisition of what is, by any standard, a killer system. Perhaps more importantly, it is a pretty useless exercise to compare phones to speaker systems. They image completely differently, and even marginal speakers in marginal conditions will produce a more "realistic" (whatever that means regarding stuido recordings) sound stage. It's the nature of the beast.
I suppose you can compare them in terms of the resolution of detail, but before you do, you'll have to have an anechoic chamber to play your speakers in, otherwise they won't have a teardrop's chance in hell of competing with good cans.
There is a reason why recording and mixing engineers, in perfectly treated rooms with custom-made monitors, listen to monitors to mix, and invariably pop on a pair of phones if they need to listen in deep for some detail. And they are almost never listening to anything in a league with balanced 650s into a GS-X.
And by the way, even the imaging issue is not the can's problem, but an arguably flawed recording methodology. A realistic soundstage for a studio recording is a contradiction of terms, so what you prefer is just that. Live? You want a realistic soundstage? Binaural/Cans. In terms of ambient realism, they'd eat $10,000 speakers for lunch. Make you turn around and look for that bee buzzing behind you. Try than in a room, any room, with just 2 channels.
MHO. YMMV.
Tim
