[Music Alchemist]

You know, I don't actually think the Spirit Pros are overly dark. I was listening to a rap song I'm not familiar about on youtube, and I can't see how people could complain that they're too dark when they listened to that same song.

But that was one great experience listening to that song on the Spirit Pros. And you know why? Simply because there were no "claps" in that song, which in return didn't sound harsh at all and actually made me enjoy the music on the FSP for once.

So yeah, if the recording isn't dark, they won't sound dark. But the FSP treble doesn't bother me at all, even if it sounds a bit dark with some recordings (it keeps them from producing sibilance) and like I said before, it's those "clap" like instruments that only sound harsh to me.

 
Not overly dark per se; just slightly so. Sometimes the FSP produces more darkness/murkiness than is in the recording to an extent that it bothered me, but that's only in the context of perfect audio reproduction. If you're not too picky, it's amazing. The MT220 is noticeably brighter, but still slightly too dark, due to the recessed mids. Owners are telling me that after 100 or so hours of burn-in, the mids transform from recessed to transparent. Hope it's true! I stuffed some gauze under the pads, which helped separate my ears from the drivers and improved the sound a bit.

 

[dakanao]

Not overly dark per se; just slightly so. Sometimes the FSP produces more darkness/murkiness than is in the recording to an extent that it bothered me, but that's only in the context of perfect audio reproduction. If you're not too picky, it's amazing. The MT220 is noticeably brighter, but still slightly too dark, due to the recessed mids. Owners are telling me that after 100 or so hours of burn-in, the mids transform from recessed to transparent. Hope it's true! I stuffed some gauze under the pads, which helped separate my ears from the drivers and improved the sound a bit.

You know, yesterday I played some black ops 2 singleplayer with the Spirit Pros, and it was a very pleasing experience.

Vocals of the characters sounded REALLY clear, like DAMN clear. I could hear the characters breath before they would say something, or after they said it. And I didn't notice any annoying harshness. Sometimes it was there a bit, but because I was concentrated on the game it didn't bother me a lot

 

[Music Alchemist]

You know, yesterday I played some black ops 2 singleplayer with the Spirit Pros, and it was a very pleasing experience.

Vocals of the characters sounded REALLY clear, like DAMN clear. I could hear the characters breath before they would say something, or after they said it. And I didn't notice any annoying harshness. Sometimes it was there a bit, but because I was concentrated on the game it didn't bother me a lot

 
Cool. I noticed that the Sony MDR-7506 has more realistic vocal reproduction than either the FSP or MT220 -- but the Sony has nasty treble sometimes, which interferes more often with the listening experience.
 
I really miss my PS Vita! Used to love playing video games on it with headphones...

 

[macro]

Is it just me or does the FSC sound a little boomy in terms of tonal balance? The bass is nice and tight, but I think it needs to be attenuated maybe 2-3 dB around 150 Hz. They still only have maybe 10 hours of burn in on them since I got them, though.

 

[dakanao]

The thing with the Spirit Pros is that they reveal EVERY fault in the recording, but not every detail.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  The thing with the Spirit Pros is that they reveal EVERY fault in the recording, but not every detail.

 
Not really. Use lots of other studio monitor headphones and you can see that others are better at revealing defects in the mix. In fact, some of them are designed with treble peaks and the like for that very purpose. And you couldn't possibly honestly claim that a headphone reveals "every" anything unless you had perfect knowledge of a recording in the first place.

 

[Stuff Jones]

   
Not really. Use lots of other studio monitor headphones and you can see that others are better at revealing defects in the mix. In fact, some of them are designed with treble peaks and the like for that very purpose. And you couldn't possibly honestly claim that a headphone reveals "every" anything unless you had perfect knowledge of a recording in the first place.

 
I find the FSP very revealing precisely because they achieve their level of detail without an exaggerated, unnatural treble like many other headphones claimed to be revealing.

 

[dakanao]

   
I find the FSP very revealing precisely because they achieve their level of detail without an exaggerated, unnatural treble like many other headphones claimed to be revealing.

The FSP has only slightly more details than my Ostry KC06a IEMs imo, but they are far more revealing than the Ostry KC06a. They do have more clarity though.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I find the FSP very revealing precisely because they achieve their level of detail without an exaggerated, unnatural treble like many other headphones claimed to be revealing.

 
I agree, for the most part, but the point of having exaggerated treble in some studio settings is to hear details/defects you would otherwise miss. The FSP isn't what I would call a detail monster, though; more like a decent all-rounder. I haven't heard an HD 800 yet, but considering its reputation for ultimate detail, I would be very disappointed if it did not have a ton more detail than the FSP.

 

[Stuff Jones]

   
I agree, for the most part, but the point of having exaggerated treble in some studio settings is to hear details/defects you would otherwise miss. The FSP isn't what I would call a detail monster, though; more like a decent all-rounder. I haven't heard an HD 800 yet, but considering its reputation for ultimate detail, I would be very disappointed if it did not have a ton more detail than the FSP.

 
Right, at the expense of hearing the music how it was intended to be heard. I'm not audio professional, but I suspect that there's a lot more to mixing a track than picking up detail-related mistakes. 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Right, at the expense of hearing the music how it was intended to be heard. I'm not audio professional, but I suspect that there's a lot more to mixing a track than picking up detail-related mistakes. 

 
Brighten the music with nasty treble or cover up the music with darkness -- pick your poison, but no studio monitor headphone I've heard so far is really all that accurate -- nowhere remotely close to how it was intended to be heard fully accurate audio reproduction. I would guess that some of the ultra-high-end headphones get the closest, but still never reaching perfection. Most serious studio professionals rely on speakers in a treated room, anyway, not headphones.

 

[dakanao]

   
Brighten the music with nasty treble or cover up the music with darkness -- pick your poison, but no studio monitor headphone I've heard so far is really all that accurate -- nowhere remotely close to how it was intended to be heard fully accurate audio reproduction. I would guess that some of the ultra-high-end headphones get the closest, but still never reaching perfection. Most serious studio professionals rely on speakers in a treated room, anyway, not headphones.

The first ''audiophile'' headphone I bought almost 3 years ago, had a description that said ''The AKG K540 delivers sound as how the artist intended it to be heard'' while in fact they have a lot of boosted bass and upper treble.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  The first ''audiophile'' headphone I bought almost 3 years ago, had a description that said ''The AKG K540 delivers sound as how the artist intended it to be heard'' while in fact they have a lot of boosted bass and upper treble.

 
Practically every headphone under the sun has marketing claiming to be accurate. It's nothing but marketing hype.
 
No headphone is accurate. Some are more accurate than others. That is all.
 
Oh, and I was referring to the ultra-high-end flagships that cost thousands of dollars, like the HE1000, SR-009, HD 800, etc. -- not affordable stuff.

 

[Dobrescu George]

   
Practically every headphone under the sun has marketing claiming to be accurate. It's nothing but marketing hype.
 
No headphone is accurate. Some are more accurate than others. That is all.
 
Oh, and I was referring to the ultra-high-end flagships that cost thousands of dollars, like the HE1000, SR-009, HD 800, etc. -- not affordable stuff.

You are totally right there!
 
I think that no headphone producer would want to write on his headphones that it reproduces sound different. 
 
In reality, all headphones have a different sound, and it is fine, i like it this way. Producing an accurate sound will be possible soon, but until then, having a headphone with personality is great, also for quiet listening you need more bass and treble.
 
Just for the fun of it, consider that real life instruments have a constant volume, a cold guitar can be at most a certain volume, at least a certain volume, and will always be a certain volume if hit in a certain way.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I posted this in the Yamaha thread, but thought it relevant enough to share here as well:
 

  Gosh...the MT220 is even better than the 7506 than I thought. Switching back to the 7506 is pure murder your ears harshness. No idea how anyone can call the 7506 accurate, man...it's downright painful. Just goes to show ya how well the brain adapts to torture. lol. (Guess I won't be recommending the 7506 in the future, considering the miniscule difference in current pricing and very few areas in which the 7506 outperforms the MT220.)

 
I have a newfound appreciation of the FSP as an indirect result of realizing even more now how harsh and nasty the 7506 is.
 
...But I really am mainly interested in ultra-high-end headphones. The more affordable stuff just doesn't sound like real life, and maybe no headphone does, but I want to get as close as possible to ultimate realism. Any other FSP owners out there who haven't yet upgraded to ultra-high-end, but want to?