Confused about audio terminology...

[cactus_farmer]

I've read a soundstage review that said the older version of the DT990 at least was dark, and people also say it is grado-like, but I'm not sure about the new one? Would the DT990 Pro's still have this sound signature?
 
Does the DT990 fit into the dark/forward box?

 

[cactus_farmer]

can anyone comment on where the DT990 fits in the spectrum. In fact, if anyonne could draw a spectrum like the one mentioned with bright/dark and laid back/forward being on the four corners that would be MUCH appreciated!!

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

DT990 sounding dark? LOL, the highs would probably be enough to kill my sensitive ears. Laid-back/bright.

 

[cactus_farmer]

can I have more suggestions for dark and forward headphones? Preferably somethig a little more well-known. What about Ultrasones?

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

I don't think there's any Ultrasones concidered dark sounding, all are like on the brighter side of neutral to more or less extent, HFI-580 among the less brighter, yet still on the brighter side. HFI-580 is quite forward sounding though.
 
I would guess based on what I've read that Phiaton MS400 might fit this category.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

yep, ditto, have read the glossary, was hoping for user comments
 
so if we put it on a spectrum;
 
Dark/laid back = Sennheiser HD6X0 -----------------> Bright/laid back = AKG K701
Dark/forward = ? -------------------------------------------> Bright/forward = Grado SR325i
 
What goes in the slot of dark/forward?
 

Quote:

I've read a soundstage review that said the older version of the DT990 at least was dark, and people also say it is grado-like, but I'm not sure about the new one? Would the DT990 Pro's still have this sound signature?
 
Does the DT990 fit into the dark/forward box?

Quote:

can anyone comment on where the DT990 fits in the spectrum. In fact, if anyonne could draw a spectrum like the one mentioned with bright/dark and laid back/forward being on the four corners that would be MUCH appreciated!!

Quote:

can I have more suggestions for dark and forward headphones? Preferably somethig a little more well-known. What about Ultrasones?

Hey CF
 
What you need to do is go to a meet and listen to some of these phones for yourself.... you'll catch on right away.
 
USG

 

[idletime1213]

Dark and forward... hmmm. The AD2000 would be the closest, I think, other than the LCD2. They aren't dark as in HD 650 dark, but they definitely have smooth and non-fatiguing treble, lush mids and tight, punchy bass.

 

[Argyris]

Dark and forward almost sounds like an oxymoron. The modulator for either forwardness or laid-back-ness is usually the upper midrange/lower treble area. Above this is the shimmer on things like cymbals and acoustic guitars, and below this is the fundamentals for all the instrument tones. I would say that "warm" concentrates more energy on fundamental, whereas "forward" concentrates more on the overtones in the upper midrange. "Cold" would concentrate on fundamental and on the range above the lower treble boundary. That's why cold signatures often get criticized as having recessed midrange, even if they're actually flat in that region. The boosted treble catches the very highest overtones and adds that clinical, antiseptic edge to the sound.
 
But dark and forward? That would imply that both the fundamentals and the lower harmonics would be emphasized in comparison to the very highest harmonics (in the treble), which would be sharply rolled off. In addition, the "forwardness" might be lost because of the parity between the volume of the fundamentals and the lower harmonics.
 
I would think such a signature, if attempted, would sound "shouty" or honky, bloated, and lacking in detail. Human hearing already has a presence peak around 4kHz, which is used to localize the sounds (often times speech) that are most important in the environment. It should follow that putting any undue emphasis in this region would therefore simulate the effect of a sound originating very close to the listener, hence "shouty."

 

[cactus_farmer]

Quote:

Dark and forward almost sounds like an oxymoron. The modulator for either forwardness or laid-back-ness is usually the upper midrange/lower treble area. Above this is the shimmer on things like cymbals and acoustic guitars, and below this is the fundamentals for all the instrument tones. I would say that "warm" concentrates more energy on fundamental, whereas "forward" concentrates more on the overtones in the upper midrange. "Cold" would concentrate on fundamental and on the range above the lower treble boundary. That's why cold signatures often get criticized as having recessed midrange, even if they're actually flat in that region. The boosted treble catches the very highest overtones and adds that clinical, antiseptic edge to the sound.
 
But dark and forward? That would imply that both the fundamentals and the lower harmonics would be emphasized in comparison to the very highest harmonics (in the treble), which would be sharply rolled off. In addition, the "forwardness" might be lost because of the parity between the volume of the fundamentals and the lower harmonics.
 
I would think such a signature, if attempted, would sound "shouty" or honky, bloated, and lacking in detail. Human hearing already has a presence peak around 4kHz, which is used to localize the sounds (often times speech) that are most important in the environment. It should follow that putting any undue emphasis in this region would therefore simulate the effect of a sound originating very close to the listener, hence "shouty."

haha yeh I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but no more so than in the case of Grado - which are frequently referred to as both 'bright' and 'warm' and would imply an emphasis on the fundamental AND on the overtones by your definition?
 
And does 'cold' generally mean a V shaped response in that case?
 

 

[Argyris]

Quote:

haha yeh I know it sounds like an oxymoron, but no more so than in the case of Grado - which are frequently referred to as both 'bright' and 'warm' and would imply an emphasis on the fundamental AND on the overtones by your definition?
 
And does 'cold' generally mean a V shaped response in that case?
 

Cold doesn't necessarily indicate a V shape. The DT880 is a good example. It's very linear up through about 5kHz, where a large, broad spike in the response occurs. The DT880 is often referred to as cold.
 
As far as Grado--it's difficult to classify it. From the example I heard the Grado sound has a lot of upper midrange presence (at least in the Prestige range), so that would make it forward. It also has a varying degree of midbass emphasis, which also adds some lower midrange warmth. It has a fair amount of treble energy, but in relation to the upper midrange it's actually a less stark transition than, say, the DT880. Imagine the difference between a ramp (Grado) and a spike (DT880). Human hearing notices smooth variations in amplitude across a wide frequency stretch far less distinctly than abrupt differences in amplitude between adjacent frequency bands. So the Grado treble might be considered to be more "integrated" than the DT880 treble. That was my impression, at any rate. I got both bright and warm out of my SR225i, though more warm than bright once I applied my "ingenious" filter (a piece of folded TP) over the driver.
 
This stuff gets really confusing, mainly because the English language lacks qualitative words to describe sound, so we borrow words that describe input from other senses (touch and sight, usually) to fill in the gap.

 

[Darkocean-62]

Quote:

I agree with above as well as in:
 
warm - thick/fullier/meatier "fun" sound
cold - thin/edgy/sharp analytical sound
 
For me too cold or laid-back sound is rather boring to listen to, I generally prefer warm sound even if I might not hear all details as well as on a highly detailed laid-back/thin sounding headphone. I take back what I said about brightness though, the highs and the tonal balance definitely plays a role in it when I think about it, most headphones that are concidered "warm" sounding usually have a low-end and midrange emphasis and usually neutral to dark sounding highs while cold usually have quite a lot of highs present and necessarily not as full midrange and lowend.
 
Grado's are a bit special case in this case though they really don't have any exaggerated low-end but definitely are very bright yet people call them warm, hmm I'd rather call them forward sounding myself (forward vs laid-back sounding and warm vs cold, is this right?) would be better to speak about I suppose, I've previously somewhat mixed forward and warm sound a bit myself because often warm sounding headphones happen to be also more "forward" sounding like they'd be very similar but I think I'm starting to see the difference now. So to try and sum it up, is this the right definition of warm, cold, forward and laid-back terms?
 
Warm: Concerning the tonal balance, lowend, midrange emphasis and neutral to dark sounding highs which leads to a more thick/fullier/meaty or "fun" sound. 
 
Cold: Concerning the tonal balance, highs emphasis and neutral to dark / recessed lowend (doesn't necessarily have to be) and midrange, especially recession in the upper-bass to lower-midrange. Thin/edgy/sharp analytical sound.
 
Forward: Up-front/in-your-face/powerful/engaging sound. Often results in smaller soundstage and more smeared instrument separation (instruments flows into each other creating a more united sound).
 
Laid-back: Relaxed/distant sound. Often results in bigger soundstage and clearer instrument separation.
 
Would this be correct to you?

     Thanks for the descriptions in this post i was having trouble understanding this terminology but i think i get these four now,
 
     e.g westone 3 - warm and forward
          westone 4 - cold and laid-back
 
    sound right to you?
     

 

[RexAeterna]

you should try to learn more professional approach on describing sound then just using ''cold,warm,ect.'' cause those terms vary so much with each individual it ends up complete circle of chaos and confusion. i keep these terms listed and saved in my documents to help understand sound better:

Sub Bass: 20 Hz and below

Low Bass: 40 Hz

Mid Bass: 80 Hz

Lower Cloud: 150 Hz

Upper Cloud: 250 Hz



Lower Mid: 1,000 Hz

Mid: 3,400 Hz

Upper Mid: 6,000 Hz



Lower Treble: 8,000 Hz

Top: 10,000 Hz

Air: 14,000 Hz

yea,they're just frequency ranges but using this is pretty much more ''universal'' than anything else and much more understandable. i forgot where i picked this up at but i find this more useful at picking out a specific frequency range and more capability of explaining sound better. it will also help you understand better too. there is also nice chart with instruments lined-up online that can help. you can still learn the terms ''graininess,warm,cold,shrill,ect.'' is but it's better to learn the fundamentals first.

 

[Darkocean-62]

Certainly something to think about thanks for the info

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

"cloud"? What's that supposed to mean
 
I see it like:
 
deep/subbass      0 - 80 Hz    
mid-bass:         80 - 150 Hz   
upper-bass:     150 - 250 Hz   
lower-mids:       250 - 1k Hz
mids:                 1k - 2k Hz 
upper-mids.        2k - 4k Hz   
lower-highs:        4k - 8k Hz   
highs:               8k - 12k Hz  
upper-highs:      12k Hz ->             
 
Or simplified:
 
lows/bass:      0 - 250 Hz   
mids:            250 - 4k Hz  
highs:             4k Hz ->