[up late]

touchy

 

[fuzzybaffy]

I'm fine. I'm going to use the search function all the time now. 

 

[up late]

ok

 

[AppleheadMay]

   
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). 

 
Nope we don't just from time to time. But we had people saying the same thing to us as well in the past.
My last post to you was a joking apology by the way.
Everyday here people are gonna ask questions that have already been asked seen the size of this thread and forum. And that's no problem at all, sometimes it even leads to intersting chats.
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.

 

[fuzzybaffy]

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.

 
That's real great advice, thanks. There's actually an online forum that I've visited since year 2000 that has in-thread searches as well, and it's good to know that head-fi has the same function. 

 

[AppleheadMay]

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. 

 

[Whitigir]

Everything has it coloration...there is no helping it, only preferences matter

 

[up late]

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

i really don't want to go there guys. suffice to say that the sound we prefer might not be the most "technically accurate".

 

[Whitigir]

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.

 

[Afghan Vet]

I just used the in-thread search Trying to find anyone in the Vancouver, BC area on this particular thread. All I found was a reference where Soned was traveling to Vancouver and back to Toronto  
 
I have a friend that is teetering on the edge of investing in the headphone arena....told him he needs to find a meet (sent him a link to the meet forum on Head-Fi), but there might also be a member on one of the threads I'm a part of that has a collection and wouldn't mind giving a demo. 

 

[up late]

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.

like i said, i don't want to become embroiled in a subjectivist vs objectivist debate over what constitutes "high fidelity" sound reproduction. however, if you don't accept that sennheiser's hd800 is more "technically accurate" than say grado's ps1000, then i won't try to convince you otherwise. i'll just refer you to the objective measurements instead and invite you to compare sennheiser's and grado's investment in r&d and quality assurance. now if you prefer the way the ps1000 makes your music collection sound, then that's a matter of personal preference. you've also made the common mistake of comparing musical instruments to hi fi equipment. musical instruments produce musical sounds, whereas hi fi gear endeavours to reproduce any recorded sound faithfully. these are distinctly different functions. you might as well be comparing hi fi to cars.

 

[fuzzybaffy]

 whereas hi fi gear endeavours to reproduce any recorded sound faithfully.

 
But... that's not necessarily true, though. You even said it yourself, that Grado headphones aren't as "technically accurate" as HD-800's... and there's a reason for that. And it's not due to incompetence on Grado's part, I'm pretty sure - Grado's are purposefully tuned towards a specific tone/sound, not towards absolute fidelity. Otherwise modern Grados would still have the HP-1's (which I do own) sound signature. 
 
So in that case, yes, headphones can absolutely be compared to musical instruments. 

 

[up late]

it's more involved than that and that's why i don't want to have this debate here. the pursuit of high fidelity sound is the pursuit of an ideal, and there are myriad approaches taken by audio designers/manufacturers to attain it. john grado's approach is one and it differs markedly from sennheiser's.

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.

all headphone drivers are "tuned" but that doesn't make them any more comparable to musical instruments than they are to car engines which can also be "tuned". you wear headphones on your head but you wouldn't seriously suggest that they're comparable to a hat or ear muffs would you? hi fi can be likened more to photography and film/video recording than to musical instruments imo.

can we move on please?

 

[fuzzybaffy]

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.
 

 
Yea... but if Grado's goal was to "reproduce any recorded sound faithfully", it would still try to be accurate in those areas that can be objectively measured. Maybe it's just me, but it's clear by the way Grado's sound, that there are certain things that Grado doesn't care about at all, when it comes to accuracy. 
 
 

 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.

 

What do you mean by "overall evaluation" of headphones? Are you talking about your overall enjoyment of headphones personally, or how accurate headphones are? 
 
Because if the latter, I think a lot of people will have differing opinions than you. I'm pretty sure across the entire United States, there are more HD-800's in professional recording studios, for the purposes of monitoring tracks, than Grado PS-1000's. If there was a way to survey all professional recording studios in America, I'd be willing to make a bet on that claim with my TH-900's. 
 
Which brings me back to the comparison of headphones with musical instruments. People make that comparison to drive home the fact that certain headphones can have different uses than others (HD-800 being more suitable for track monitoring than PS-1000, for instance), much the same way musical instruments do (guitarists buying multiple guitars for specific, different occasions). 
 
 

you wear headphones on your head but you wouldn't seriously suggest that they're comparable to a hat or ear muffs would you?

 
It depends on what point you're trying to drive by making the comparison. As I mentioned before, analogies don't have to be absolutely perfect; otherwise they wouldn't be "analogies", but "equations". The purpose of analogies is to merely illustrate a point in a manner that might be more easily understandable to a recipient. 
 
Saying something like "a headphone is something that you put on your head... like a hat" to someone who doesn't know what a headphone is, well... that's a perfectly valid comparison. But if you're talking about what is suitable to wear on your head, for listening to music, then obviously you can't make that comparison. It depends on the topic at hand, and what point you're trying to make. 
 
 

 can we move on please?

 
You can go right ahead. But I'm fine with talking more about this, as I think it relates to the TH-900 (considering there is a lot of debate about its V-shaped frequency response, and therefore questions about its accuracy, and whether it's acceptable or not). Unless a mod steps in, of course. 

 

[up late]

in response to your points:

as i said, the pursuit of high fidelity sound is the pursuit of an ideal, and there are myriad approaches taken by audio designers/manufacturers to attain it. john grado's approach is one of them and i wouldn't presume to know whether he cares about accuracy or not, or if he puts much stock in objective measurements either. you'd best ask him about that. does the ps1000 fall short of high fidelity sound reproduction compared to the hd800? well the objective measurements suggest that it does, but they don't tell the whole story as we know or should know. i understand what the objective measurements tell me, but that doesn't alter the fact that i happen to like the way the ps1000 reproduces recorded music.

when i refer to an overall evaluation of headphones, i'm referring to objective measurements and subjective perception.

i wouldn't presume to know which headphones are being used in professional recording studios across the entire united states. and given that the existence of a survey that supports or refutes your claim is unlikely, you're not at any risk of losing your th900's in a bet now are you?

we've been over this. of course an analogy is not an equation. however, there is such a thing as a flawed analogy, which the musical instrument analogy clearly is for the reasons that i've already given. yet you persist with it regardless, which is puzzling.

i disagree that this discussion relates to the th900. it is patently off-topic imo, but if you wish to continue with it then that's your prerogative. i'm out, however.