up late
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Posts
- 7,227
- Likes
- 3,361
touchy
Ok, guys. I'll make sure to use the search function for every single question I have before posting them. Like you guys do, I'm sure. (Yea... right).
But I did find that the in-thread search (as opposed to the global HF search, I can often find more on head-fi.org by doing a Google search) can come in handy at times if I just want to find something quick instead of having a chat about it.
its not technically proven but it's proof enough for you.i'm drawn to the look and feel of woodied cans too.
I remember reading something a week ago (not sure if it was on HF or not) about a "real" "high-end" system needs to be a system that is totally transparent and reproduce the music as it was recorded. There were many people not agreeing with that and saying every ssytem would give coloration to the sound, else all good system would simply sound the same. We also wouldn't need more than 1 piece of every type of gear then and never have to change it.
I think I wouldn't like total transpancy, there are certain colorations I like and others I don't like. Gives me the opportunity to enjoy multiple headphones for example, or a new and a vintage hifi system.
And gives everyone the opportunity to find something they like.
It's like we like wooden cans/speakers while others find carbon or aluminum stuff nice. I hate both the look and feel of those.
Or the cars analogy again. Gimme a Rolls Wraith over a Ferrari anytime. Or a Challenger over a Mercedes for that matter.
Ain't gonna buy that Wraith just yet though, will have to save up for it just a few more centuries.
Everything has it coloration...there is no helping it, only preferences matter
Define...technically accurate ? Lol, even every guitars built from different designers and materials will sound different. Let's just say that the sound we personally prefer will never be "real life accurate". It could get close enough though. If everything can get to perfection, where there is only 1 state of "perfect", then everything will be very boring and the same.
whereas hi fi gear endeavours to reproduce any recorded sound faithfully.
the measurements indicate that his cans aren't as "technically accurate" in the areas that can be measured. however, the measurements don't measure timbre for example, and there are folks who find that the ps1000 sounds more tonally "right", "natural", "organic" etc than the hd800.
the reason why i used that example was to show that the term "technically accurate" is a valid descriptor for aspects of a headphone's performance when it's based on objective data. however, objective data and subjective impressions both have valid roles to play in the overall evaluation of headphones and hi fi more generally in my view. i don't subscribe exclusively to one while completely disregarding the other. i regard them as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
you wear headphones on your head but you wouldn't seriously suggest that they're comparable to a hat or ear muffs would you?
can we move on please?