[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif Acix I think you forgot to remove the weights from your scale it doesn't seem to be balancing right just kidding with ya of course

Speaking of Acix; rythmdevils: Was your previous comment issued towards a particular headphone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I meant was that detail alone does not equal accuracy. And a lot of headphones accentuate treble and detail to have an "accurate-ish sound", but in doing so, they mess up the tonal balance, and so are not, in the end, accurate, IMO. When called upon to reproduce a rich sound or rich recording they cannot do so, because they are colored in the opposite direction.

Sounds very familiar

...and very well put!

 

[dspang]

Fun because some of the stuff I listen to is so poorly recorded and analytical sound would destroy it for me. So I need a little color.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacedonianHero /img/forum/go_quote.gif Speaking of Acix; rythmdevils: Was your previous comment issued towards a particular headphone? Sounds very familiar ...and very well put!

no not really. Yeah that's why I was being brief before. But it keeps coming up, and then it feels like it has to be said again. Maybe not though

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacedonianHero /img/forum/go_quote.gif My preference is for balanced headphones as they are better all rounders and the sound better suites me.

Here is a list of reference headphones that have more neutral tonal balance compared to the HD-800, I mean no subwoofer and no piercing treble and no Audiophile hocus pocus.

AKG

AKG K-701/2
AKG K-1000
AKG K-501
AKG K-500
AKG K-401
AKG K-400
AKG K-300
AKG K-240DF
AKG K-240MKll
AKG K-271Mkll
AKG K-141

Sennheiser

Sennheiser HD-250ll
Sennheiser HD-280
Sennheiser HD-600

MB Quart /German Maestro GMP

GMP 240
GMP 250
GMP 435 S (with the oval pads)
GMP 8.35 D Monitor (with the oval pads)
GMP 8.300 D Professional (with the oval pads)

Beyer Dynamic

DT- 48 E
DT- 48 S

JH-13 pro

Stax 4070

Now, I hope you'll understand why I said... There are members here who have bought the HD800 and the T1 and feel they have the best headphones out there, but they don't understand what they're hearing. and this includes you, MacedonianHero, subtle, DavidMahler, (Looks like DavidMahler is in the right direction checking out the K-1000 versions).


Maybe the 800 are very fun out of the ipod or some tubes, but they are not reference hp by any means. Even Sennheisers not trying to sell them as a reference hps. So, why you insist?

 

[fella]

devil's advocate:

isn't the purpose of ref headphones to make music sound.... bad?

The idea being they are the means by which studio engineers, mixers and producers can find errors. Out of speakers in a room, some minute errrors might be forgiven.

But the aim of these people is to make music to be played on speakers, to interact with rooms, cars, clubs and their dynamics. Reference headphones are just a means to that end.

It makes more sense to me that most people prefer a pleasing sound that makes up for the inherently unnatural circumstance of speakers on the ears, speakers playing literally with no room.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fella /img/forum/go_quote.gif It makes more sense to me that most people prefer a pleasing sound that makes up for the inherently unnatural circumstance of speakers on the ears, speakers playing literally with no room.

Right, and this will be the fun part, but not the reference one.

 

[Graphicism]

Touchy subject.

For the record I would define reference as flat; bass without boom, highs without the hiss and a balanced musical separation over soundstage.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is a list of preference headphones that have more neutral tonal balance compare to the HD-800, I mean no subwoofer and no piercing treble and no Audiophile hocus pocus. AKG AKG K-701/2 AKG K-1000 AKG K-501 AKG K-500 AKG K-401 AKG K-400 AKG K-300 AKG K-240DF AKG K-240MKll AKG K-271Mkll AKG K-141 Sennheiser Sennheiser HD-250ll Sennheiser HD-280 Sennheiser HD-600 MB Quart /German Maestro GMP GMP 240 GMP 250 GMP 435 S (with the oval pads) GMP 8.35 D Monitor (with the oval pads) GMP 8.300 D Professional (with the oval pads) Beyer Dynamic DT- 48 E DT- 48 S JH-13 pro Stax 4070 Now, I hope you'll understand why I said... There are members here who have bought the HD800 and the T1 and feel they have the best headphones out there, but they don't understand what they're hearing. and this include you, MacedonianHero, subtle, DavidMahler, (Looks DavidMahler is in the right direction checking out the K-1000 versions). Maybe the 800 are very fun out of the ipod or some tubes, but they are not reference hp by any mean. Even Sennheisers not trying to sell them as a reference hps. So, why you insist?

So that's how you want to play it.

I think rhythmdevils said it best previously about the K701s just a few posts ago.

Sorry, but if you think the K701 is the most balanced and greatest can out there, you are beyond diluted.

Here is list of other members to add your your list:

Headphoneaddict, Jazz, Skylab, UncleErik, IPodPJ, Covenant, johnwmclean, musicman59 and many more who I actually respect...unlike you and your nonsensical shilling for AKG. I mentioned it earlier but I feel that I have to again, you must be an AKG employee and this is your form of viral marketing...PLAIN and SIMPLE.

I know what I am hearing, do you? Oh wait that's right, your ears are the reference ears for all Head-fi members....my apologies. I mean wow...you really are a joke. Note to all Head-fiers, just go out and buy a K701 or K702 (and sell all of your other headphones) and let's close down Head-fi because there is NO other headphone out there worthy to be on our heads...Acix said so. No need to ever come back again either because there never will be a headphone to even come close to it's glory.

As mentioned, why can't the K701s portray a warm and lush sound even WHEN it is warranted? Because they are COLOURED! Why can't they do a proper bass when it's warranted, because they're COLOURED. Why can't they give you a more intimate soundstage when it's warranted (instead of the airplane hanger presentation that they always give), because they are COLOURED! You know what, real life has bass, too bad the K701s have such a poor time portraying it.

Again, have you even ever heard the T1s? Or are you listening with your eyes again and the Headroom graphs.

BTW, I love your comments on the HD800s with subwoofer bass....couldn't be more wrong....but then again, you always find a way to be even more wrong!

 

[subtle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is a list of preference headphones that have more neutral tonal balance compare to the HD-800, I mean no subwoofer and no piercing treble and no Audiophile hocus pocus. AKG AKG K-701/2 AKG K-1000 AKG K-501 AKG K-500 AKG K-401 AKG K-400 AKG K-300 AKG K-240DF AKG K-240MKll AKG K-271Mkll AKG K-141 Sennheiser Sennheiser HD-250ll Sennheiser HD-280 Sennheiser HD-600 MB Quart /German Maestro GMP GMP 240 GMP 250 GMP 435 S (with the oval pads) GMP 8.35 D Monitor (with the oval pads) GMP 8.300 D Professional (with the oval pads) Beyer Dynamic DT- 48 E DT- 48 S JH-13 pro Stax 4070 Now, I hope you'll understand why I said... There are members here who have bought the HD800 and the T1 and feel they have the best headphones out there, but they don't understand what they're hearing. and this include you, MacedonianHero, subtle, DavidMahler, (Looks DavidMahler is in the right direction checking out the K-1000 versions). Maybe the 800 are very fun out of the ipod or some tubes, but they are not reference hp by any mean. Even Sennheisers not trying to sell them as a reference hps. So, why you insist?

You know...I'm an avid hater of those that spread misinformation and choose to be willfully ignorant in life, and as tempted as I am to make you the first person I have ever put on an ignore list in any discussion forum I just can't bring myself to do it. Why? Simply because your posts are always full of false information and therefore a barrel of laughs. I also can't bring myself to allow you to deceive those new to head-fi, so I will continue to carry the torch that I use to constantly burn down the piles of bs you build all over this forum.

First off, it's becoming clearer by the day that you either have an agenda, a hearing deficiency, or both. The only two headphones on your long winded list there that even hold a candle to the HD800 in terms of neutral tonal balance are the JH13 and 4070. All the others? Thanks for the laughs.

Second, the HD800 has no subwoofer like qualities, no piercing treble, and no "hocus pocus", unless of course paired with a less than average source and amplifier.

Third, only an ignorant fool would label the HD800 as a fun can and not reference. An ignorant fool would also, in haste to try and post a wannabe witty reply about something they know nothing about, fail to first go to the Sennheiser website and read over the description for the HD800 prior to coming on a public forum and making a statement about them that would confirm they are the ignorant fool that everyone already knows he/she is.

So even Sennheiser is not trying to sell and market the HD800 as a reference headphone? That is what you wrote, correct? Let me help you out by providing a link direct to the Sennheiser website and its page devoted to the HD800.

Sennheiser USA - Dynamic Stereo Headphones - HD 800, High Performance - Private Audio

Wait, what is that I see in the description? What does that first bullet point describing the features of the HD800 say exactly?

1. Reference class wired stereo headphones

Thanks for playing. Game over. I look forward to correcting more of your misinformation in the future.

Please go back to creating more bass deficient mixes with your K701/2.

 

[Bilavideo]

I don't quite know how to answer this question. I want my headphones to be "fun" but fun, for me, is discovering what's there. I don't have any purist preconceptions that require my headphones to be "reference," or "balanced." In the end, I just want to have a good time. I don't care if I'm getting a better experience than the original recording called for. I don't feel a need to tune down the party to get things "just right." For most of my experience with headphones, if tweaking a frequency band made it sound better, to Hell with accuracy. If recessing a frequency made things sound more euphonic, I'd go with what sounded better every time.

The problem with this is that EQing is not just addictive; it's decentering. You can get to where "this sounds good" and "this sounds good" but now you've painted yourself into a corner and you're totally lost. I can't help but compare it to a drug addiction where somebody is chasing the high, tweaking here and tweaking there until they wake up and they don't know who they are and how they got there.

There's also the tradeoff. EQing is as much art as science, but whatever it is, it gets complicated. For every benefit you're supposed to get at a target frequency, there's also a burden you take on if you're not careful. You want bass but you don't want things bassy. You want to accentuate the drums but you don't want to crowd the midrange. You want clear vocals in the high-mids and low-treble but you don't want that shrillness. You want siss but you don't want excessive sibilance.

Even if you decide you're going to go for some carefully-engineered "party mix," your calculations are only as good as your volume. Change the volume and something is now too loud or too soft. As the tracks themselves vary in both volume and tonal balance, you find yourself hopping around like a bullfrog on a hot plate.

For me, one of the most compelling arguments against EQ addiction (whether it's in the headphones or some electronic preamp) is that bit of "chasing the high." A boost in volume often registers well, even if it's ultimately a bad change. This provides a momentary "high," but one that fades fast. In fact, I've often found that what first felt like an invigorating bit of "spice" in the presentation later morphed into an aftertaste I could live without. Sooner or later, distortion is just distortion. If the first stage is to embrace the intoxication of being taken off-center, the last is a kind of hangover where you realize this sort of thing isn't fun anymore.

The best justification for EQing is the classic point of the exercise: to equal-ize. Equalization is the attempt to fix a distortion you couldn't fix some other way. I grew up used to tweaking things that my system couldn't provide. Cheap stereos are notoriously cheap on bass and high-quality treble. It's normal to either crank up the volume or crank up the specialized controls for "bass" and "treble." That "EQ smile" everybody loves so much may either be a fetish for atmosphere (while the mids have most of the detail, the extremes provide "presence") or it's an overcompensation for cheap equipment. If your equipment has trouble covering the ends of the spectrum, you place a higher value on maximizing these ends because what you're really seeking is "equalization." You're pursuing a flat line.

I never really saw this until I got my HD800s and suddenly felt the rush of all that frequency balance. When I EQ'd the presentation, the EQ Smile didn't work. It didn't make the headphones sound better. They sounded best by keeping things flat. All my life, I'd been under the impression that flat was lifeless. The HD800 is the first headphone to show me that flat is really the nirvana we seek.

 

[SillyHoney]

Should not we classify which are reference and which are fun? D7000 is adverstied as ULTRA REFERENCE but I highly doubt so

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SillyHoney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Should not we classify which are reference and which are fun? D7000 is adverstied as ULTRA REFERENCE but I highly doubt so

So are D5000, HD650 for that matter and they are most certainly not reference! I believe it's all marketing BS and some people are getting too carried away with it.

 

[Bilavideo]

Isn't it also possible that we tweak a frequency to compensate for the loss of another? I've noticed that on my HD800s, the headphones don't emphasize the bass around 100 Hz but they drive remarkably low below that whereas certain Grados (such as the GS-1000) have a serious hump around 100 Hz but have a much weaker bass in the lower frequencies. Is that 100 Hz hump there because we "just gotta have it" or is it there because we don't have enough below that?

 

[abellaw]

I thought that i knew what the difference between reference and fun headphones were. But after reading this thread i am not so sure. I think all the cans i have are fun but it depends on how i am feeling when i sit down to listen to music.

I just got some IE7s and they are a nice change from what i usually listen to (Alo-780s) but they are far from reference. Well at least in my understanding of the word.

What are some widely known headphones that are considered reference?

 

[Townyj]

I couldnt choose just one... I think both have there place. I would rather have one of each as i dont prefer one or the other. Depends on my mood.