[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif The thing is there is no headphone perfect in all measurements and slight imperfections on one thing can totally make us hear sounds to be unrealistic. This is why our brain is the best evaluation tool if what we hear sounds real or not.

But that is still a subjective enjoyment value - NOT accuracy. Even 'real' sounds don't always sound real, and it is entirely a matter your personal interpretation. You really need to read up on psychoacoustics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackstoneJD /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just don't believe in the notion of having one pair of headphones for one application and one pair of headphones for another application. That just doesn't make any sense, in theory. All it means is that headphone x has flaws AB and C and headphone Y has flaws EF and G. You are just matching the headphones with source material that doesn't bring out their respective weaknesses.

Why doesn't that make sense? EVERYTHING in the real world has weaknesses. NOTHING is perfect. You need to use the right tool for the job in EVERY other human endeavour. What should headphones be any different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif realism still has a benchmark though. Listen to a live cd in a certain venue ex. Royal Albert Hall then Go to watch a concert there(preferably unamplified orchestral stuff) then determine which of the cans recreated what you heard at the venue the closest.

Unless you can directly ABX, it is a flawed comparison. You may think you can remember exactly what it sounds like, but you can't. Physiological measurements as subtle as blood glucose levels and osmolarity alter the way your brain interprets the physical senses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackstoneJD /img/forum/go_quote.gif Theoretically what we should be looking for is transparency.

Why? Why not enjoyment, at the time, in the moment.

Quote:

The point is,there is nothing wrong with going to a secondary headphone for certain applications as long as you realize what you are actually doing and you keep in mind which headphone is the best overall reference.

I'm a scientist ferchrisake, yet I don't understand this constant need to quantify every little sound to compare back to a real reference. ABX one thing to another, on a particular day, when you are in a particular mood...... get the silly romantic idea of accuracy out of your head, and you will end up wearing (or wanting) different phones quite regularly.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif BlackstoneJD, I like your views. Exactly my sentiments. You are making me want to hear the hd650s though hehehe

The difference between the two is not as dramatic as you might think. At the time the HD650s did not shout out "I am worth another hundred bucks." They aren't THAT much better overall, and unless you find the HD600 harsh they aren't really necessary. I had to A/B them 100 times to really decide that too.

The only time I wish I went with the HD650 is when I listen to jazz, especially saxophone and trumpet. The HD600 has a little too much attack on those types of tracks. The HD650 is a lot smoother in that department, with the right sources. The presentation is more like a high-end speaker.

I am happy with my choice because the results I am getting are so good with so many sources. My general impression of the HD650 was that it really needs to be tamed by a high end source that can deliver the control and nuance, but the HD600 was a better workhorse headphone for the PC, iPod, and for high-end listening as well. Easier to drive, it seems. I will probably eventually get a pair to experiment with.

The 650 is probably a better headphone for jazz, and things with wind instruments. What I mean is, it is worth the investment if you need the extra smoothness in the midrange. The response curve graphs for 650 does reflect a smoother midrange as well.

 

[donunus]

BlackstoneJD,
i'm also wondering what speakers you are into? I used to hang out at high end audio shops all the time and went to Las Vegas CES with a Cary audio media pass

to drool over some good stuff I couldn't afford. It was cool to have a manufacturers badge because everyone was so eager to show off their stuff. I don't know if my taste has changed so much since then (1999) but my favorites in the CES were Fi speakers (weird flexing baffle design) using JC Verdier turtable setup, forgot the amps and Sound Labs A1 electrostats even though the room was very small for the behemoths. Among the more value priced, easier to find setups, I tend to like the magnepan sound more than B&ws for instance.

 

[donunus]

Beefy,
none of it matters if you say I have to study psychoacoustics this or that. The only important thing is what is transparent(real sounding) to my ears.

Actually, why should we even be debating about this when it is clear that we have different objectives in our audio equipment.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

Quote:

I'm a scientist ferchrisake, yet I don't understand this constant need to quantify every little sound to compare back to a real reference. ABX one thing to another, on a particular day, when you are in a particular mood...... get the silly romantic idea of accuracy out of your head, and you will end up wearing (or wanting) different phones quite regularly.

Well I do agree with what you are saying about enjoyment, that is of course the goal in general. There is an audition process that you go through so you can enjoy later. I am talking about the theory behind auditioning and selecting components. Some of us just happen to enjoy a more faithful, transparent sound. I am just trying to explain what I like. I am not keying to qualitative data here. This is just my experience as an enthusiast and also as a play and collector of fine guitars.

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only important thing is what is transparent(real sounding) to my ears.

I have no problem if you enjoy your setup, because you think it sounds transparent.

What I have a problem with is that somehow you think your brain is so special that it is able to break all the rules of physiology and neuroscience. That you are so incredibly confident at actually assessing accuracy and transparency with absolutely no empirical measurements whatsoever.

 

[WittyzTH]

@donunus, don't get me wrong.

I just want you to clarify things because I guess some of us couldn't understand what you are saying now.

I agree many people wanna listen to thing that close to the realistic sound. However, like I said, you were confused what you tried to say. It's probably about word choice.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackstoneJD /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 650 is probably a better headphone for jazz, and things with wind instruments. What I mean is, it is worth the investment if you need the extra smoothness in the midrange. The response curve graphs for 650 does reflect a smoother midrange as well.

Looking at this graph, the highs seem to be present more in my critical 12khz zone on the hd650s as well. These graphs are so similar though that a slight shift in the headphones position could make more of a difference than the difference between both cans.

 

[BlackstoneJD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif BlackstoneJD, i'm also wondering what speakers you are into? I used to hang out at high end audio shops all the time and went to Las Vegas CES with a Cary audio media pass to drool over some good stuff I couldn't afford. It was cool to have a manufacturers badge because everyone was so eager to show off their stuff. I don't know if my taste has changed so much since then (1999) but my favorites in the CES were Fi speakers (weird flexing baffle design) using JC Verdier turtable setup, forgot the amps and Sound Labs A1 electrostats even though the room was very small for the behemoths. Among value priced setups, I tend to like the magnepan sound more than B&ws for instance.

Well I have B&W 802s (not the diamond model, lol) but I mostly listen to my HD600s believe it or not, for the privacy and the ability to turn it up without disturbing people. The Sennheisers really do hold their own and headphones have certain inherent advantages.

I have been sort of out of the high-end game for a few years because I have been a student and I just haven't had money to do anything more with it.

I recently heard a setup with the Magnepan MG20.1, Boulder monoblocks, and the new dCS Paganini system ($40k? alone) and it was pretty out of this world. I only heard it very briefly, and I didn't touch it. lol

I also really like the Eggleston Works speakers, but like the Magnepans they are way out of my price range. The best speakers I have heard are the B&W 800D, the Magnepan MG20.1, and the Eggleston Andra. I have not heard the Wilson Max or the Watt Puppy 9. All of that stuff is out of my price range, for now at least.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have no problem if you enjoy your setup, because you think it sounds transparent. What I have a problem with is that somehow you think your brain is so special that it is able to break all the rules of physiology and neuroscience. That you are so incredibly confident at actually assessing accuracy and transparency with absolutely no empirical measurements whatsoever.

I compare what I hear with graphs all the time. I'm not denouncing the validity of measurements. I just don't feel they tell the whole story.

WittyZTH,

Its probably word choice. English is a second language to me. Sorry About that.

Everything BlackstoneJD has been saying is exactly the same as my opinion. The only time I might have seemed to say something different is when I was explaining why a person might want different headphones. As for me though, to make it simpler to understand for everyone... x2 on BlackstoneJDs words

 

[BlackstoneJD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Looking at this graph, the highs seem to be present more in my critical 12khz zone on the hd650s as well. These graphs are so similar though that a slight shift in the headphones position could make more of a difference than the difference between both cans.

It is strange because the two headphones sound very similar but also different at the same time. But you'll notice the HD600 has a peak toward the right side of the graph that the HD650 does not have--that matches up with what I heard, I think. Also, the high-end curve for the HD650 is a little flatter overall..but you can also see there are areas where the HD600 dips and the HD650 stays flatter. That I think accounts for the greater "nuance and control" argument that I have heard made about the HD650. But yeah, you can get an idea of the extent of the differences from the curve.

I don't know if I am reading it properly I don't have that much experience with these graphs. But it seems to me the HD650 is not just a case of the bass being turned up and the treble rolled off. There are certain areas where the HD650 seems to have more treble. From listening to them, it sounded to me like they identified certain areas that were hard on the ears and toned it down, but a lot of people say that overall the HD650 has more detail. I can't really confirm that.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackstoneJD /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well I have B&W 802s (not the diamond model, lol) but I mostly listen to my HD600s believe it or not, for the privacy and the ability to turn it up without disturbing people. The Sennheisers really do hold their own and headphones have certain inherent advantages. I have been sort of out of the high-end game for a few years because I have been a student and I just haven't had money to do anything more with it. I recently heard a setup with the Magnepan MG20.1, Boulder monoblocks, and the new dCS Paganini system ($40k? alone) and it was pretty out of this world. I only heard it very briefly, and I didn't touch it. lol I also really like the Eggleston Works speakers, but like the Magnepans they are way out of my price range. The best speakers I have heard are the B&W 800D, the Magnepan MG20.1, and the Eggleston Andra. I have not heard the Wilson Max or the Watt Puppy 9. All of that stuff is out of my price range, for now at least.

I'm in the camp of preffering the 802s to the 801s. I thought the 801 was boomy for such an expensive speaker. Magnepans are awesome. Love them. Ive heard they get old if you own them but from even the maggie 1.6 i hear. all I can say is WOW! blew box speakers in the price range out of the water. And about eggleston, Ive heard the Andra. Very good stuff. I prefer them to wilson grand slams which sound too dry for me hehehe

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackstoneJD /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is strange because the two headphones sound very similar but also different at the same time. But you'll notice the HD600 has a peak toward the right side of the graph that the HD650 does not have--that matches up with what I heard, I think. Also, the high-end curve for the HD650 is a little flatter overall..but you can also see there are areas where the HD600 dips and the HD650 stays flatter. That I think accounts for the greater "nuance and control" argument that I have heard made about the HD650. But yeah, you can get an idea of the extent of the differences from the curve.

I believe you speak of the slight 8khz peak. yes I hear that as a slight excitement coloration

Doesn't bother me nearly as much as the beyer 990s excitement boost

Anyway, the graphs are not really meant to be perfectly flat because the senns are diffuse field eqd on purpose to compensate for hrtf to translate to the sound we hear from the angle coming from speakers.

I really just have to hear either the hd650s or the next upcoming high end dynamic sennheiser.

 

[Covenant]

RE: transparency Vs euphony debate, IMHO the answer is simple.

"To each their own."

End of story.

 

[donunus]

smart comment!. The people that should debate on which is better A or B should have the same goals in mind in the first place. Maybe even the same principles. An argument will never end if two people dont know what each other is talking about.