I'm generally not a classical listener...and never tried the LCD2 for classical, until just recently actually. Though I don't generally listen to classical - I do understand music when it is presented to me. In my opinion - listening at 'moderate levels' I would say a brighter headphone would indeed connect with the recorded message better. For large scale symphonies it might work well - but at the moment I do not have a headphone amplifier powerful enough to hit the 'realistic' peak levels without running into compression and distortion. Until I can setup my reference rig I am unable to give a yes to classical. Personally I would reach for a brighter can if I truly wanted to enjoy classical on a subjective level. However I have never attended a live classical performance, nor do I know what a maestro would hear. The general consensus seems true to me with regards to classical.
Classical music utilizes acoustic instruments with very specific sounds that people instantly recognize. It is very easy to tell an amplified violin from an unamplified one because of all of the complex harmonics in a real violin. Roll off some frequencies here or boost a couple there and it doesn't sound real at all. That's why classical music and acoustic jazz are the two types of music that benefit the most from an accurately balanced frequency response.
I'm more inclined to believe that different compensation curves are used for recording different music genres in anticipation of the playback system a market segment might have more of. As in compensation curves are different to cinema (X-curve), commercial music (B&K house curves), audiophilia (bright systems).
The goal of high fidelity sound is a flat frequency response. The only problem is creating real world transducers that can do that. That's why we have EQ or tone controls to correct for imbalances in headphones and speakers. All music benefits from a flat response because that is the baseline calibration the recording studio used to create it.
The goal is to reproduce the music as the producer intended. Sales and marketing drives everything. Audiophile systems never have tone controls to compensate for these factors. Listening levels throw everything out the window. I like digital EQ, Tube amps and silver cables.
It's just basic signal processing theory. You could easily understand what everyone is saying with just a little bit of effort put into learning. This is impossible; impulse response is by definition a transient. This is true, but... ...it has nothing to do with planars being 'quick'. Any kind of distortion will prevent the driver from 'accurately tracking the electronic signal', be it distorted frequency response, poor damping, harmonic distortion, etc. You keep asserting that certain drivers are 'faster' than others; can you actually define what 'fast' actually means in rigorous terms, without contradicting established signal processing theory? So far you've asserted that something is fast because you can hear it and you can trust your ears; you can hear it because it sounds fast. That's just a bit circular.
This is hard to believe, considering comments like "transients cannot be seen in any of the measurements" This is definitely an issue. People often look at square waves and assess them in terms of how 'nice' they look, which is completely irrelevant to how the headphones actually sound. The things that people readily notice in graphs aren't necessarily the most important feature in terms of describing sound. That isn't an argument; It's the definition of 'transient' and 'impulse response'. 'Better'? [citation needed] If you think they have 'better' impulse responses, you aren't reading the impulse response correctly. By 'driver' I'm referring to the entire headphone system, not just the movement of the diaphragm. What it means is "accurately tracking the electronic signal" has nothing to do with being 'fast'; it's related to any kind of distortion. The T1 sounds like it has peaky treble around 6-10 kHz. It isn't a valid hypothesis. The first thing a valid hypothesis has to be is falsifiable, and your "fast" theory isn't. And it hardly bridges a divide between hearing and measurements if you can't point to a measurement and say "fast headphones have this" The only certainties I've claimed are when your ideas contradict established, basic signal theory.
PX100II impulse PortaPros HD800 higbvuyb: Going by your absolutes...the PX100 and PortaPros have better 'transients' or 'speed' or whatever than the 'perfect' HD800. I attribute different factors other than 'transient' or 'speed' or 'articulation' for these, but seeing as anything I say is coming from a lowly layman - it will be immediately discounted by so called 'scientists'. So I shall keep them to myself. Square waves at 30 hz can only say what is happening at 30 hz - nothing else. I think the square waves at 'middle C' could say something about my preferences and what I hear...but this lowly layman has run out of patience with you 'scientists'. Do any of you actually introduce yourself as 'scientist' to other people. I actually had a roommate from America for the whole of last year that was indeed a Nuclear Physicist, designed new cooling systems for nuclear reactors to avoid the tragedy in Japan. I treated him like a protege seeing as he looked up to me so much.
There's still nothing there explaining why you think the HD800 graph is 'worse' than the Portapro's. Sure, the HD800 graph probably 'looks worse' to you. So? Nobody hears with your eyes. It's just that you're unable to validly interpret the graph. Nope. A 30 Hz square wave contains every single odd harmonic above 30 Hz. This is what I mean about you not understanding what people are saying. Without a basic knowledge of mathematics, the best one can do is have the illusion of understanding. This has nothing to do with 'scientists' - any person could pick up this basic understanding. Did you have a valid hypothesis for your 'fast driver' theory yet? I'm still interested in hearing it.
Agreed about the 30 hz....the closer the headphone is to neutral the closer it looks like a square. So going by your logic...according to the impulse I posted up...the HD800 transient response is poorer than a 50 dollar can? Educate me...what is the meaning of the impulse response graph?
This is again, wrong. While the ideal is a perfect rectangular shape (after compensation), that doesn't mean "it looks worse to me" = "it sounds worse". Nobody listens with your eyes. The meaning of an impulse response is that it represents the system's response to an impulse (a type of transient). That's not so hard. As for visually interpreting it? That's what the Fourier transform is for.
The point is: people are bad at reading measurements correctly. This is why you think impulse responses have nothing to do with transient response. Easy. Looking at the impulse response with the most relevant tool for analysis (the magnitude response), the HD800 is clearly more linear (esp in the 10-1000 Hz region). Going by your reply, you didn't really understand my sentence so you really should revise the definitions of terms like 'transient' or 'impulse' or 'response'. I concede that it may be a bit difficult to understand for you, but it really isn't that hard once you give it a try. Here's a very simple explanation of the FT. There's no need for you to be argumentative; I'm trying to help you to understand.
