[Head Injury]

Quote:

In the quote above, I've marked all your comments related to sound signature in red, and comments related to quality/resolution in green (as far as I can tell). Whether coloration is good or bad is preference-dependent.
 
Higher quality/resolution sound is always better, independent of preference. I suppose that the problem is, aside from coloration, headphones have different degrees of quality/resolution across the spectrum.
 
So if you are correct that the Grados have really low resolution sound all around, then I'd say they are most certainly overpriced, except for the niche that really really wants the coloration so much that they don't care about sound quality/resolution. However if Grados have very high resolution mids and highs, then that's a different matter. In that case they legitimately do something well.
 
If on the other hand the Beats legitimately do bass (or treble, or mids, or anything!) really well in terms of resolution (really well = $400 well), I'll concede the argument.

That's a pretty hypocritical generalization. 
 

• What is someone likes a congested, unresolving sound? It's as much a sound signature as coloration. Otherwise no one would buy distorted tube amps.
• A headphone that's truly "resolving" will present exactly what's on the recording as the recording intended. Coloration by its nature prevents that.
• A severe roll-off in the bass or treble is unresolving. Nothing at the extremes will be resolved. It's just missing.
• Grados don't have very high resolution mids and highs. It only seems that way because they're colored. Treble spike at 9kHz makes cymbals louder, which makes them sound more resolving at the same volume. Upper mid-range spikes at 2kHz and 4kHz make guitars and snare drums respectively bite harder, and appear sharper. Mid-bass hump at 100Hz that doesn't intrude much into the mid-range and zero sub-bass make kick drums and bass guitars punch harder without muddying everything. Their coloration is tailored to the illusion of resolution. All the important rock instruments are forward.

 
You're better off saying all headphone preference, coloration and resolution both, is just preference.

 

[ac500]

I think we need to take a step back and reconsider what we're referring to as sound quality / resolution to make sure we're on the same page.
 
For example, take a $5 pair of headphones. Now EQ it so that it more or less sounds similar in coloration to a $500 pair of headphones. Now switch between the two, and tell me which sounds "higher quality", in the sense that it sounds less fake and "speaker-like".
 
I'd challenge you to find anyone who actually thinks the $5 pair sounds genuinely higher quality, no matter what their coloration preference is.
 
If you can admit that $500 headphones are undeniably higher resolution than similarly colored $5 headphones, then you must also admit that there are objective resolution differences between other headphones.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I think we need to take a step back and reconsider what we're referring to as sound quality / resolution to make sure we're on the same page.
 
For example, take a $5 pair of headphones. Now EQ it so that it more or less sounds similar to a $500 pair of headphones. Now switch between the two, and tell me which sounds "higher quality". I'd challenge you to find anyone who actually thinks the $5 pair sounds genuinely higher quality.
 
If you can admit that $500 headphones are higher resolution than similarly colored $5 headphones, then you must also admit that there are objective resolution differences between other headphones.

And I would like to pose the same back at you. EQ a Grado to eliminate its colorations. Is it still resolving for the price?
 
There are Head-Fiers who stopped at the Koss KSC75, a $13 headphone, after sampling cans in the $200 range. I have one, and it is not particularly resolving. Price is not the only thing to consider, and neither is resolution.
 
I never said there weren't objective differences in resolution. If I didn't believe there were differences, I wouldn't have an LCD-2.
 
Objective performance doesn't matter to everyone. It matters to me. But again, if it mattered to everyone, there would be no more tube amps, colored DACs, Grados, Bose, or Beats.

 

[AudioRook]

Quote:

That's a pretty hypocritical generalization. 
 

Where's the hypocritical part? Not trying to attack you. I'm seriously just wondering where that part is. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Where's the hypocritical part? Not trying to attack you. I'm seriously just wondering where that part is. 

"Whether coloration is good or bad is preference-dependent.
 

Higher quality/resolution sound is always better, independent of preference."

 

Coloration is objectively "low quality". It can't be preference-dependent if high quality is always better.

 

[ac500]

The objective of high quality sound, regardless of coloration, is to produce a sound that does not sound like it's coming out of speakers, but rather the music or sound effects are actually real. The perfect headphone, in terms of resolution, would not feel or sound like speakers - it would be indistinguishable from real life.
 
Now say we take two such "perfect" headphones, while one is colored to strengthen bass, and another to strengthen treble. If you listen to someone's spoken voice on one, then the other, hypothetically the infinite resolution would mean that both voices would sound 100% real. Yet both would sound like a different voice.
 
Coloration changes the way something sounds. Resolution is the ability to convince you that what you are hearing (whether a thumping bass drum or screeching treble of a violin) is not coming out of a synthetic mechanical object.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

The objective of high quality sound, regardless of coloration, is to produce a sound that does not sound like it's coming out of speakers, but rather the music or sound effects are actually real. The perfect headphone, in terms of resolution, would not feel or sound like speakers - it would be indistinguishable from real life.
 
Now say we take two such "perfect" headphones, while one is colored to strengthen bass, and another to strengthen treble. If you listen to someone's spoken voice on one, then the other, hypothetically the infinite resolution would mean that both voices would sound 100% real. Yet both would sound like a different voice.
 
Do you see the point I'm making about resolution? Resolution = realism. Realism/resolution is NOT necessarily a flat EQ line, but rather the sounds ability to suspend disbelief of it coming out of mechanical speakers.

See, this is where we differ. Objective quality is, to me, reproduction of the recording the way it was intended to be heard. Realism only comes into it if the recording was intended to sound real. Yes, coloration to match a free field or diffuse field equalization is necessary due to proximity to the ear and lack of room reflection. Grado and Beats coloration is not that.
 
There's far too much variation in what sounds "real". How far away are the musicians? Grados place them right next to you. That's no less real than the HD800's hangar soundstage, depending on what sort of concert experience you want. They're both colorations. Both lose the intent of the recording. How far away are the musicians supposed to sound? That depends on how the record was mixed. Depending on the reflections in the "real" room, a resolving headphone could be far too resolving. So again, low resolution might be preferred!

 

[kyuuketsuki]

Quote:

The objective of high quality sound, regardless of coloration, is to produce a sound that does not sound like it's coming out of speakers, but rather the music or sound effects are actually real. The perfect headphone, in terms of resolution, would not feel or sound like speakers - it would be indistinguishable from real life.
 
Now say we take two such "perfect" headphones, while one is colored to strengthen bass, and another to strengthen treble. If you listen to someone's spoken voice on one, then the other, hypothetically the infinite resolution would mean that both voices would sound 100% real. Yet both would sound like a different voice.
 
Coloration changes the way something sounds. Resolution is the ability to convince you that what you are hearing (whether a thumping bass drum or screeching treble of a violin) is not coming out of a synthetic mechanical object.

Why not use head-fi's glossary of terms?
 
"Definition (or resolution) - The ability of a component to reveal the subtle information that is fundamental to high fidelity sound."
 
"Coloured - Having timbres that are not true to life. Non flat response; peaks or dips."
 
From what I have read ac500 is holding to those definitions. Where as Head Injury is not. Lets keep the audiophile terminology as standard as presented http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary there.
 
Basically using those definitions, each frequency could be highly resolved, but the Frequency response graph may not be flat. Thus the headphone can be highly resolving but also colored. 
 

 

[ac500]

> There's far too much variation in what sounds "real". How far away are the musicians? Grados place them right next to you.
 
If you read my post again, you'll realize that when I say "real", I am not talking about accurately reproducing the positioning of the musicians. Rather, I'm talking about a realism that would make it impossible for you to tell that what you're hearing is coming out of a speaker. In this sense, low resolution is never preferred. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Why not use head-fi's glossary of terms?
 
"Definition (or resolution) - The ability of a component to reveal the subtle information that is fundamental to high fidelity sound."
 
"Coloured - Having timbres that are not true to life. Non flat response; peaks or dips."
 
From what I have read ac500 is holding to those definitions. Where as Head Injury is not. Lets keep the audiophile terminology as standard as presented http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary there.
 

I'm not? What is the definition of high fidelity sound? From dictionary.com:
 
 

high fidelity

 

noun Electronics . [size=1em] sound reproduction over the full range of audible frequencies withvery little distortion of the original signal.[/size]

[size=1em]  [/size]

[size=1em] Thus resolution is related to accuracy in presenting the original recording. Coloration reduces resolution because it skews the subtle bits of information by exaggerating some and masking others.[/size]

[size=1em]  [/size]

[size=1em] Exactly my point ac500. Your definition of "real" does not match my definition of "resolution". "Real" does not necessarily mean "true to the recording", which is what I believe resolving sound is.[/size]

 

[kyuuketsuki]

Quote:

> There's far too much variation in what sounds "real". How far away are the musicians? Grados place them right next to you.
 
If you read my post again, you'll realize that when I say "real", I am not talking about accurately reproducing the positioning of the musicians. Rather, I'm talking about a realism that would make it impossible for you to tell that what you're hearing is coming out of a speaker. In this sense, low resolution is never preferred. 

I think ac500 is referring to artificial sounding coloration, rather than believable or realistic sound coloring, but that is my interpretation. And the majority of the Beats line is very artificial sounding. The Grado sounds more realistic in that respect.
 
That is great... I'm talking about what HEAD-FI.ORG uses for describing sound. A lot of the terms we use on here cannot be found on dictionary.com. 
 
Also... much like how you cannot find the definition of "music" in a music dictionary, you can't find the definition of "high fidelity" in head-fi.org's glossary of sound. 

 

[winkyeye]

this thread is quickly turning into an existential debate...

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Also... much like how you cannot find the definition of "music" in a music dictionary, you can't find the definition of "high fidelity" in head-fi.org's glossary of sound. 

This is because, regardless of its name, Head-Fi is not really very hi-fi. Too many tubes 

 
Quote:

this thread is quickly turning into an existential debate...

At this point it's nothing but semantics. Neither of us will get anywhere so I'm ducking out.

 

[AudioRook]

Quote:

this thread is quickly turning into an existential debate...

Not to step on your toes, but this isn't existential at all. Semantics, maybe. Existentialism, nah.

 
Quote:

That is great... I'm talking about what HEAD-FI.ORG uses for describing sound. A lot of the terms we use on here cannot be found on dictionary.com. 
 
Also... much like how you cannot find the definition of "music" in a music dictionary, you can't find the definition of "high fidelity" in head-fi.org's glossary of sound. 

What's your point with this exactly? Again not attacking, just wondering.
 

 

[kyuuketsuki]

Quote:

This is because, regardless of its name, Head-Fi is not really very hi-fi. Too many tubes 

 

At this point it's nothing but semantics. Neither of us will get anywhere so I'm ducking out.

 
Haha. As much as I'd like to say, "then explain the first part of that," I can't say you are incorrect. However I think the other problem with hi-fi and head-fi is the price. I'm not sure how many people have the money for all those tubes. True hi-fi is not cheap.

@AudioRook: my point was that in many communities there are words that cannot be found in conventional dictionaries, which is what dictionary.com is. We have a certain way of describing the sound here and those terminologies cannot be found on dictionary.com. So using the Head-fi.org standard is the best way to ensure universal understanding on here.