Does anyone prefer a bright presentation?

[arspy87]

I've noticed that the consensus regarding frequency presentation in headphones tends to favor the warm and dark side (though not to an extreme). My opinions are slightly different, it seems - I do like a certain amount of bass, but I prefer tightness and speed as opposed to volume. And as far as treble energy goes, I've noticed that I generally prefer headphones that have a somewhat bright presentation, with a bit of sparkle and crispness. I rarely find it fatiguing (though I'm not really a fan of sibilance; I don't think anyone is). Does anyone else favor a brighter presentation in headphones?

Thanks in advance

 

[Leporello]

I prefer too bright to too warm. Of course there are limits. IMHO, my Stax are slightly bright or upper-midrangey (how's that for an adjective...), but it is a fault I find easy to ignore or sometimes even like. I cannot stand boomy bass.


Regards,

L.

 

[Yikes]

Bright has very negative connotations, I prefer the much more euphemistic “Detailed” and “Transparent”

And yes I too prefer a faster clearer more dynamic and transparent sound. This type of sound has improved betterness.

 

[hugz]

*raises hand*

 

[TURBO]

I do prefer bright sound headphones / amps with some descent bass. I measure the quality of heaphones / amps depending on the quality of the highs. That's why I like Grados.

There are some headphones / amps that present the highs as these: grainy, harsh, accurate, liquid, natural, silky and some other categories. I like the silky and natural highs.

 

[seeberg]

I don't personally prefer a bright presentation over a warm or dark one, but all my major cans at present are known for being at least slightly bright- ER6i's, SR60's, and SA1000's(although I found out how to mod them for extra warmth, and perhaps even a major bass boost, but I need to do more testing before I make a thread on it). My next cans will most likely be HD580's, so perhaps I'll be going in a different direction sooner or later. Nothing wrong with a little change from time to time, no? I for one welcome a little difference now and then, but getting a good amp comes first, so the HD580's will have to wait a while...

,
Abe

 

[virometal]

My first 'phones were dark - the DT770, the HD650. Then I progressed to the other side where I realized my happiness was - SA5K, 325i.

Odd, I find neither bright. Never once have I winced from the Grado, and the one time with the Sony was because of the source IMO.

 

[warpdriver]

Count me in too.

Dull/overly warm headphones have me wondering if I need to clean my ears again.

 

[acs236]

Everyone has different preferences. Mine tend to the brigher phones, but I don't like them because they sound brighter than they should. Rather, for me, it takes headphones that are brighter than, for example, the Sennheisers, to sound realistic. To my ears, the Senns are lacking a realistic high end.

BTW, I think you'd love the SA5000.

 

[PTheD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yikes Bright has very negative connotations, I prefer the much more euphemistic “Detailed” and “Transparent” And yes I too prefer a faster clearer more dynamic and transparent sound. This type of sound has improved betterness.

The word bright does seem to stir negative connotations when referencing headphones doesn't it. I think it just sounds like an overbearing shine and shimmer from the treble that gets associated with being blindingly bright. I suppose a little better synonym for bright but that has positive connotations, mostly fot its use outside of the head-fi hobby, is brilliant. I don't get the same feeling when I hear that a headphone is brilliant as if I hear it is bright. Although, most people would think brilliant referes to an overall good performance the impresses rather than a coloration or sonic nature like bright seems to denote.

So yeah, brilliant does't nust mean wonderfull in performance or glorious in nature but also could be used to discribe the sonic feel of a headphone as in its overall sharpness and clarity in tone.

 

[Glod]

To me a straight frequency response is essential to Hi-Fi. If a phone clearly has a bias, it is not good IMO.

However, what measures as neutral, is not always perceived as natural. As an example, take the HD650, which Sennheiser clearly describe as a specially voiced phone and by definition not neutral. I like the HD650. It is a headphone in my taste, but I think most of us find it - well - lets say dark. That does not mean that it has a rolled off treble necessarilly. It is rather the whole presentation which has distance and poise, and I can’t tell if a particular frequency band is emphasized or recessed. The fact that it is not an up-front headphone, I think makes some to find it having a slightly recessed treble, or at least not extended enough. Some find the bass salient too: I find the HD650 to have a bass, which is something not all headphones do

 

[mysticaldodo]

How does brightness relate to trasparency?

For that matter I like both dark and warm presentations with different materials.

 

[Glod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysticaldodo How does brightness relate to trasparency? For that matter I like both dark and warm presentations with different materials.

If you ask me, there’re independent.

But, if the sound signature is so dark that the treble can be described as rolled off, I think that the transparency also gets inhibited: There has to be a leading edge to instruments. Without adequate treble, that will not happen IMHO.

 

[hugz]

I think most detail usually resides in the higher frequencies, so a bright can will appear to be more detailed as it will bring forward these sections rather than bringing forward the typically less detailed lows. So a bright can will probably shove more detail in your face than a dark can, giving at the least the perception of transperancy. In reality, by exagerating the highs the can may in fact be less neutral or transparant than a warmer counterpart

 

[kramer5150]

Does an MS2 count as "bright"?... if so then I guess I prefer that signature.

Garrett