[Vertigo-1]

Moo: Sony MDR-D66, V6, Beyer 831s, 931s.

And let's say yage is correct for the moment, that you can't hear that edge or bite on cymbals or string instruments. (I haven't heard real life instruments). I still believe you should be able to hear a slight sibilant effect on singers that exhibit that. In real life nobody speaks with the amount of harsh sibilance we hear sometimes in recordings, but I do think in real life some people do speak with a natural, smooth sibilance that tells you they're pronunciating a word with an "s" in it.

The Etys, on my system at least, completely gloss this info over. Imagine listening to Sting with absolutely no sibilance. The D66 I could say is probably outputting hashed sibilance, where it's totally unpleasant. Likewise with the V6, although I've discovered the D66 actually outputs more nasty sibilance then the V6. I know the V6 is simply doing its job as a studio monitor when it outputs sibilance.

The two Beyers on the other hand are more interesting. The 831s I think aren't nearly as good as the 931s, so I'll dismiss them from the picture. But the 931s in my system have that perfect amount of sibilance. It sounds like a real to life pronunciation. Sibilance without the hashy edge to it.

Strange that I thought long ago that all sibilance was bad. When reproduced right though, it's not something I want missing at all from the music.

And BTW, I'm using the foam tips with stems shortened.

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally posted by Vertigo-1 And BTW, I'm using the foam tips with stems shortened.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but is shortening the stems better than putting the foamies on so that the end that is flush with the tube goes into your ear?

 

[Vertigo-1]

As far as I can tell, it doesn't really do anything.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by yage Huh... What's funny is real cymbals and real brass don't have that 'edginess' or 'bite' (to my ears at least).

This is true for me too. Vertigo, you have to get out and hear some live instruments, and you'll probably be surprised how things sound in real life. Cymbals live, for example, are usually not as hashy or edgy as you describe them. My brother is a drummer, and so I've heard drums amplified and unamplified on countless occasions.

I've been to many live performances, but one recent performance in particular stands out -- Bobby Short and his band at the Cafe Carlyle. I believe the only amplified element was Bobby's voice. And the sound in that little room was actually very good. That band of his, stuffed into that room, was like the ultimate hi-fi. And experiences like that can readjust expectations of equipment. His drummer's cymbals didn't sound harsh or edgy at all, nor did his horn section.

I highly suggest you end your live performance virginity as soon as you can -- I'd be very interested in reading whether or not it changes how you feel about how some things are supposed to sound. I'm guessing you'll find that, at this time, you might like things significantly brighter than real life will present them.

Something you can do that I always find fun and interesting is to simply take a trip to nearby stores selling various musical instruments. Even if you don't play them yourself, you can almost always catch shoppers giving instruments a whirl. Since the reproduction of cymbals is of particular importance to you, do make sure to visit a local drum store. A piano store would be good too.

Regarding the Etymotics: I have ER-4S's, and I don't feel they're overly smooth or forgiving. In fact, there are few headphones (or transducers of any sort for that matter) that I've found more revealing.

 

[flashbak]

Vertigo-1,
I totally agree with Jude. Having been a professional drummer, it's my opinion that the Etymotic 4S reproduces percussion exquisitely! I completely agree with Jude's suggestion for you to get out and hear some live instruments!

 

[Flumpus]

I've thought the ER4S were just a tiny bit too smooth for a while now, and have been seriously thinking about trying out the ER4B, which is supposed to be the real reference Ety...

Ugh, I was gonna elaborate, but I don't feel like it

I agree with Vert though, I've heard the same thing, just to a lesser degree I think.

 

[BenG]

There is a total difference between live, un-amped instruments and ones that have been close mic'd(like the ones you hear in most recordings and at clubs these days).

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by Flumpus ....and have been seriously thinking about trying out the ER4B, which is supposed to be the real reference Ety....

I'm not sure that the ER-4B is supposed to be the "real reference" Etymotic Earphone.

From the Etymotic web site:[size=xx-small]
Quote:

The ER-4B (BINAURAL) is mainly used for KEMAR™ manikin and other binaural recordings....

Quote:

The ER-4S (STEREO) earphones are designed to give the most accurate response with normal commercial recordings....

[/size]
From HeadRoom:
[size=xx-small] Quote:

The "B" in ER-4B signifies that these tiny cans are specifically designed for binaural recordings. One consequence of this equalization is that the ER-4B are too bright for normal music listening.

[/size]
From d_wilson (Don Wilson of Etymotic Research):
[size=xx-small] Quote:

The ER-4B isn't a radically different beast. It has the most accurate response compared to the human ear, or KEMAR manikan. When you listen to your recording through speakers in a normal room what most people consider flat is about 5dB down at 10kHz. If you listen to a commerial recording through an ER-4B it will sound too bright.

Quote:

The ER-4B comes closest to matching the diffuse-field response of the ear. The problem is that no one listens in a true diffuse field. There is absorption due to carpet, drapes, etc. Because of this, all commercial recordings are boosted in the high frequencies. This is why the ER-4S is about 5dB lower than the diffuse field response at 10kHz. There are a number of studies in JASA, and AES, referenced on our manual. We also did our own studiy with about 20 people from the Chicago chapter of the Audio Engineering Society, doing A-B-A comparisons with flat louspeakers and ER-4's.

[/size]
Though I haven't heard them, I'm afraid they'd be too bright for normal recordings, based on the way Etymotic and HeadRoom describe the ER-4B's. But if one is looking for brighter sound than provided by the ER-4S's, then it does seem like the choice.

 

[The Quality Guru]

I have been playing tenor sax for many years and I frequently play in live performances with ensembles and such; I also have seen many live performances such as one presented by the Count Basie Orchestra (albeit without the great pianist Basie himself), so I think that I have, more or less, grown accustomed to the true sound of many musical instruments.

And this is the issue I have with many of the judgements made in regards to some of the headphones here; it seems (IMO, from my perspective) that many judgements about a headphones playing ability are judged in respect to another "reference" headphone. A headphone can be of reference quality, but it is dubbed as such relative to other headphones. Basically, I'm simply saying that one NEEDS to have experienced a live performance and compare headphones to this, the real thing. Maybe I have it wrong, but I thought that was what audiophilia was all about; the most accurate sound reproduction of the live (or studio) performance . . .

Although I do see that one of the primary purposes of this forum is to compare headphones, and their abilities gauged against one another-- although it is nevertheless very crucial to have a governing reference point, as in the "goal" for perfect reproduction of sound (as if it would ever happen) which is the real thing, the live/studio performance.

Well, whatever, just my two cents. This has just been nagging me for a little while now, and I feel that too many times people claim that such and such a headphone is better than the other despite the fact that its been ages since they refreshed their memories on the true sound of a live performance and are thus more likely to jusge a headphone's capabilites incorrectly. Vertigo-1's "quest for the perfect cymbal sound" is another mystery to me (no I'm not picking on you, Vertigo, don't worry, you just happen to be the focus of this thread)-- it is such a mystery to me mostly because he has never heard instruments in real life, and like Jude sort of implied, he has chasing the unnatainable dream. This is my point: Hear some instruments, as Jude wisely suggested, and put those unattainable audiophile tonal cravings away!

 

[flashbak]

The Quality Guru,
I totally agree with your observations! Also being in this game longer than I care to admit, I learned a long time ago that with our current technology that this goal is simply unattainable. I mean, lets look at the recording process. A particular producer is mixing in a certain studio which has it's own acoustical properties, mikes, console, monitors, room acoustics, amplifiers etc. He than EQ's the hell out of the instruments/vocals etc. So the only way to truly hear the way he intended the track to sound is to actually duplicate that original acoutical environment. It just goes on and on. The only true point of reference we have is familiarity with the basic sound of the instruments. I'll say it again! Given the current state of the art of musical reproduction this goal is still unattainable! In the future when we can directly wire up to the brain bypassing all these variables, we'll then have a much better chance of attaining it!

 

[Duncan]

Isn't everyone forgetting supplemental equipment?

(All below is to MY ears...)

Even to the point of which tips to use... using foamies, things sound really great with the META42, but too dull with the CHA47, whereas... with the silicon tips, the META42 sounds painfully bright, and even the CHA sounds a little off-key

whereas, to my ears, whilst not having the full on definition of ETYs, the lowly V6 paired with the CHA47 sounds as good as the ETYs with foam tips and the META42

Talk about confusing

 

[BenG]

Comparing headphone sound to live, un-amped sound is a joke. You will learn this pretty easily. The best you can do is ask for the headphone to accurately reproduce what was electronically stored on the CD or other format(whether the recording is close mic'd, processed, eq'd, multi-tracked, or the like).

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by BenG Comparing headphone sound to live, un-amped sound is a joke. You will learn this pretty easily. The best you can do is ask for the headphone to accurately reproduce what was electronically stored on the CD or other format(whether the recording is close mic'd, processed, eq'd, multi-tracked, or the like).

I think you're missing the point -- whether or not it comes close or not, in my opinion, one needs a standard for what an instrument is supposed to sound like. And, for example, what is more representative of what a piano is supposed to sound like than, say, an actual piano?

In my opinion, what is electronically stored can also be judged the same way. What is it you're electronically storing? Instruments playing. Voices singing. Etc. If the recording is mic'd, processed, eq'd, multi-tracked, etc. in such a manner that the instruments or voices aren't convincing (assuming they're supposed to be convincing relative to reality -- that is, for example, not most of Trent Reznor's vocal tracks), then one can use his/her experience hearing actual instruments and voices to judge whether or not the recording and/or equipment is doing a good job at conveying the reality of those things.

Have I ever listened to a system that fooled me into thinking I was actually listening to a live performance? No. But I've heard some systems that get me a lot closer to it than others.

 

[BenG]

I never said you shouldn't have a reference for what a real instrument sounds, in fact I meant that you will hear that this a very unattainable goal with recordings, headphones, speakers, and stereo euipment in general.

 

[a1leyez0nm3]

Quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Isn't everyone forgetting supplemental equipment? (All below is to MY ears...) Even to the point of which tips to use... using foamies, things sound really great with the META42, but too dull with the CHA47, whereas... with the silicon tips, the META42 sounds painfully bright, and even the CHA sounds a little off-key whereas, to my ears, whilst not having the full on definition of ETYs, the lowly V6 paired with the CHA47 sounds as good as the ETYs with foam tips and the META42 Talk about confusing

sounds like your math!


The best reference for what is the best in headphones is going to a live performance, keeping in memory what you heard and comparing it to headphones. the wedenesday of the headfi tour (friday) i went to a concert and it helped me on headphone decisions.

i also gained a new respect for my 280 pros, a lot of phones seemed much more colored than my 280s, even at a much higher price. I also found the er6 to be not that great to my ears, but the er4 was excellent. i also was disapointed in the hd600... and many many other phones. i came away from the tour disapointed, maybe i had too high of expectations... maybe... i heard what I expected, maybe... i dont know..