[ComfyGrados]

Quote:

soundstage isn't what's important. it's accuracy, speed, bass-light, and instrument separation. soundstage and stereo imaging are nice, though.
 

 
You'll be happy with the Grados then. Some of the above people are confusing soundstage for separation. They often, but don't always go hand in hand. This is unsurprising, as everybody seems to have a different definition of soundstage.
 
Instrument separation is affected by both soundstage and clarity. While soundstage can widen the stereo effect, headphones also lose instrument separation as they lose clarity.
 
Circumaural, open headphones lose clarity due to the fact that they move the drivers away from the ear.  Because Grados place the drivers so close to the ears, they will be much faster and clearer than circumaural headphones which place the drivers farther from the ear. Their clarity means they have great instrument separation despite lacking soundstage.
 
Instrument separation aside, headphones definitely lose speed as you move the drivers away from the ears. You're just not going to get Grado-like speed out of circumaural, open cans. Grados are the ultimate in fast, in-your-face presentation.

 

[obobskivich]

Circumaural, open headphones lose clarity due to the fact that they move the drivers away from the ear. 

Keep repeating it. It doesn't make it true. Grados are also not particularly "fast" compared to a number of really top-notch open cans; they're better than some, worse than others. Quite unique. Being on-ear does not determine how fast something sounds, nor does it dictate "separation" as you're describing. It influences the sound stage, and almost without exception on-ear headphones have none or nearly none. Hence, they sound congested or closed-in; everything is "right on top of you." Again, it can be fun with certain music, and it certainly makes for better isolation if they're closed-back portables, but it does not mean that they're inherently "fast" or "good at separation."

You're making a few quantum leaps with your next statement, that headphones "lose speed as you move drivers further away" - there's measurement data that will directly disagree with that claim. Two good examples are the AT ATH-AD2000 and Sony MDR-SA5000. They're among the fastest dynamic headphones ever made. The Sennheiser HD 800 is a more contemporary example (and a much more expensive one at that; it also measures better than most headphones overall).

I'm really curious now (since you seem fairly chained to this idea) - what circumaural, open-back headphones have you actually used? How do you define speed and separation? Do you know what constitutes good sound-staging? etc

Really, I'm not trying to come across as abrasive - but your posts are consistently inaccurate, and it's somewhat troubling to see you dismiss multiple, well-informed members' attempts to explain things in fairly straight forward terms.

If you like Grado headphones, that's fine, but they are not without flaws (just like any other headphone). They also cannot be used to draw wide-sweeping generalizations or form a theory of everything that explains all headphone purchasing decisions relative to them. It just doesn't logically follow.

 

[TMRaven]

Further the driver is from the ear the less clear it is.  That's news to me.

 

[ComfyGrados]

Quote:

You're making a few quantum leaps with your next statement, that headphones "lose speed as you move drivers further away"

 
Circumaural headphones create a chamber of sound inside the ear pad. Reverberations occur within this chamber. As you move the drivers away from the ears, the size of this chamber increases. The reverb back-loads (time-wise) the volume of notes, thus slowing the headphone down.

 

[obobskivich]

Circumaural headphones create a chamber of sound inside the ear pad. Reverberations occur within this chamber. As you move the drivers away from the ears, the size of this chamber increases. The reverb back-loads (time-wise) the volume of notes, thus slowing the headphone down.

No. You can plot "speed" in terms of how quickly the driver can start and stop based an impulse response, and not a single headphone that meets that "speed demon" criteria is on-ear. Most of them are huge electrostats (ESP/950, SR-007, SR-009, SR-507, etc - these all have very large planar elements and sit far-ish from your ear), but there's a few dynamics that can sit at the table as well (HD 800, AD2000, SA5000 - there's probably some closed models that I'm forgetting or omitting too) and they're all around-ear. It's a question of damping and motor design - not alignment. These cans are also almost universally regarded as having excellent sound-staging, and that's where alignment comes into play.

Here's some examples, with graphs:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/566929/headphone-csd-waterfall-plots/450#post_7868280
http://www.head-fi.org/t/566929/headphone-csd-waterfall-plots/165#post_7776220
http://www.head-fi.org/t/566929/headphone-csd-waterfall-plots/195#post_7785810 (see how it just sustains those treble ridges? that isn't "fast")

On-ear headphones, if anything, can be generalized as congested, flat, and "in the head" sounding - some of them are quick (Grado), some are muddy and slow (ESW9). That's a result of alignment and damping (or lack thereof). Move the drivers back, and you get a better soundstage, and potentially better separation/spatial presentation as a result (yes it's an illusion - all stereo imaging is). If the driver/system is fast, it's even better.

So I'll ask again - what circumaural, open-back, dynamic headphones have you actually tried? What are you comparing them against? And how?

 

[ComfyGrados]

Quote:

No.

 

You're denying that reverberations occur within a sonic chamber? So... you're denying modern physics?
 
Reverb also negatively impacts clarity.

 

[TMRaven]

All types of headphones have an acoustic chamber to deal with-- even in-ear monitors.

 

[obobskivich]

snip

I can see you're just here to argue, so I'll leave you to it. I apologise for even trying.

OP: Do let us know how the SR-60 work out for you.

 

[CrystalT]

Obosbkvich, where were you when I needed you? :|

I don't have the grados yet. They're in the mail.

Sent from my LG-VM670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

From a technical standpoint, using waterfall CSD plots, the KSC75 is actually a cleaner, generally quicker headphone than the Grados and has much less of a treble peak problem. 

 

[drtturnip]

It is common to mod headphones by moving the drivers further from the ear. I have done it and it does change the sound. I have found that the upper frequencies diminish. It probably has to do with the driver dispersion pattern and or increased sound absorption.  The whole faster quicker slower thing is nonsense to me. When I hear fast or slow I think transient response not frequency response.
 
 
 

The reverb back-loads (time-wise) the volume of notes, thus slowing the headphone down.

 
In the words of Ozzie Guillien. psssssst.. Please.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

It is common to mod headphones by moving the drivers further from the ear. I have done it and it does change the sound. I have found that the upper frequencies diminish. It probably has to do with the driver dispersion pattern and or increased sound absorption.  The whole faster quicker slower thing is nonsense to me. When I hear fast or slow I think transient response not frequency response.

You mean it's  perceived as quicker of faster, depending of distance to ear ? That's an interesting theory.

 

[obobskivich]

It is common to mod headphones by moving the drivers further from the ear. I have done it and it does change the sound. I have found that the upper frequencies diminish. It probably has to do with the driver dispersion pattern and or increased sound absorption.  The whole faster quicker slower thing is nonsense to me. When I hear fast or slow I think transient response not frequency response.

This is the premise of S-LOGIC; pull up Tyll's Ed10 review and see the linked paper (warning, it was translated (poorly) from german to english - it's a bit fractured) to see Ultrasone's founder/inventor's thoughts on the topic. Meier also has a page on his site about this. It has to do with how the ear catches sound (there's a big fancy acronym something like "HPRFR" or something like that, that describes this). You can also see placement variations on Tyll's measurements, but I don't know if he measures at the same 5 positions per headphone, or makes 5 different attempts until he gets a good seal. I'm thinking it's the later though.

 

[CrystalT]

All of the above discussion makes me wish all the more I pulled the trigger on ad700, or kns6400. We'll see probably around Wednesday or Thursday, though.

Sent from my LG-VM670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Zombie_X]

I'd vote the KRK KNS-6400. They are quite good and are bright as you requested. They don't have a ton of bass, but what they have is high quality bass that's deep and tight. Instrument separation is really good and pretty precise.
 
Another headphone I'd vote for is the Shure SRH-440. It's bright, fast, and highly detailed. Instrument separation is really good and imaging is good. The bass response is deep, tight, and defined. They sound a bit like the KNS-6400's.
 
Don't bother with the K240S as they are not bright or fast sounding, but are actually a bit muddy and have a rolled off treble. The instruments bland together in a blur and aren't that coherent. Also the bass is sloppy and a bit flabby.
 
Grado's aren't full sized at all and aren't that fast sounding. They have a lot of treble which can give the illusion of speed, but they aren't fast. The instrument separation is OK but that's because the soundstage is so small.