Thank you for the kind words. $1700 for phones gets one quite enough in the speaker world IF one is not aiming at superior levels of microdetail. Etys, other IEMS, various headphones, they destroy speakers in the level of audible detail, micro and macro. Intimacy, that unique feeling of music being just for the listener, is still bested by headphones no matter what speakers I have heard. This intimacy is addictive and since I really grew out from headphone listening into the speaker world, my brain is accustomed to very near field listening. Plenty of speakers are able to perform well, but they fall in comparison to headphones. The K1000s would better approximate what near field listening can achieve, but even then, the K1000s would win out (for me - insert all required subjective qualifiers.)
Erik was able to throw together a mighty fine setup shortly before the release of the HD800s. I believe he spent $700 for the rig. He eventually bought the HD800s but the idea that speakers are automatically a higher cost investment isn't necessarily true. With the rising costs of headphones and amps, for statement products, one is now clearly in the realm of affording an excellent speaker rig. You are correct regarding the ESL rebuilds. There are other alternatives too. I think of a pair of Harbeth P3ES2s, handsomely setup in a similar way as Headroom did once upon a time with custom stands no less!, throw in a class D amp and the cost of entry isn't all that much when looking at a pricey pair of headphones and an amp to power them. The Harbeths will lose out in the lower bass notes but those qualities you quoted: space, imaging, soundstage and realism, well there is no way headphones can match it. Their abilities compliment such a system and in some ways supercede one (detail, precise imaging depending on the headphone, intimacy, private listening), but rarely shall the two meet.
For a very long time I felt that I would stick with headphones, buying a pair of speakers that were a basic throw in to the HT system for my family. Then I kept listening and eventually the attributes many voiced in favour of speakers were understood: communal listening, concussive bass, size, dynamics, untethered mobility, family dancing - this last one is a nightly ritual in my house. There are other dimensions where speakers win out based on design and many will prefer headphones over speakers regardless and vice versa. Yet, when I started in this hobby, before the insanity really kicked off, for $1000-1500 one could have a setup that trounced speakers in nearly every way. Now, with the prices rising, it is getting easier to find a speaker system for the same cost as the very best in headphones that will supercede the headphone setup in nearly every way. This is just me thinking aloud and typing it out as I listen to the excellent SACD from Living Stereo: Spain. No doubt this disc requires a lovely open room with big speakers to reproduce the scale of the orchestra not to mention Leontyne's voice. Yet, I'm adoring the sound through the PS-1000s and have no inclination to head upstairs and throw this on and listen through speakers.
Ten years ago or so, I read time and time again that to get a really nice speaker setup one had to drop $5k. Doing quick math when comparing an RA-1/RS-1 combo or an HD600/Audio Valve or the like, Sugden, Headroom etc., staying under $2k and getting killer musical reproduction was easy with headphones and at $2k one was at the top so long as one didn't run for the EAR or a nice electrostatic setup. It seems that a lot of that was hyperbole. I should have recognized it back then, but I didn't. I also started to believe that in order to make speakers work, I would need the perfect room with the money behind the gear and given my grad student status with wife and two young kids, I'd never be able to listen. So I waited. Waiting was and is fine. In fact, I may enjoy speakers more because I had to wait so long. Yet, I could have easily achieved a lot by redistributing funds and getting a nice bookshelf combo going on or even a reasonable floor standing setup (Totem has some nice ones that are reasonable and not too difficult to drive). Near field speaker listening can get one close to the intimacy of headphones while providing many of the great qualities that only speakers can give. Near field reduces them in some ways but it is a nice middle ground. I think I would have gone for something of the sort years ago had I known otherwise or blindly trusted that headphones would smoke speakers in most ways given the sums I was dealing with. There are some excellent powered monitors that will give many a lot of pleasure, under $1k for the speakers. Throw in a reasonably priced, capable sub and the sound will beat on the sound of headphones (again, subjective or objective given dimensions which may be subjectively unimportant or less important).
All of this learning through trial and error mostly, has provided me with a decent amount of info wherein I read the prices of this stuff, the phones and amps as they come out, nearly doubling with each iteration of a new flagship and then when negative comments are posted that the headphones aren't perfect, I think: expectations are too high. Some will argue that in relation to other headphones, the PS-1000 in this instance, ought to do X Y or Z without fail. This isn't going to happen with headphones. Nor will any one speaker do it either, even if the speakers cost $1000000 based on parts and labour and not just rampant profiteering.
However, if we are to discuss headphones, distinct from speakers altogether, then by what qualifications will we measure performance? The great divides we get here and on other audio forms really take hold via one metric alone: accuracy. What is accuracy? Many will claim it is a flat frequency response 20-20 or lower and higher if possible. Theoretically this will present the listener with exactly what is on the recording.
Yes, this is a good theory. In principle it does make sense but where I often find myself is on the side of the "I don't want accurate I want musical!" Are the two attributes polars? Depending on the data elements, yes. Why then, when I listen to PS-1000s or other Grados am I able to lose myself in what sounds more REAL vs. other pricey flagship phones that I find lack the elements that make music enjoyable for me: life, realism, musicality. Ambiguous terms but there is no denying that even the audio mags make the argument. Harbeths don't measure perfectly. Read through mag after mag and the reviews are the same: musical, life-like, natural, supremely enjoyable, hours of non-fatiguing listening, I could listen for hours, I did listen for hours, I found myself putting on album after album, etc.
***bbophead, I don't mean to position this post as a wallop in response to yours. I'm writing all of this and keeping it together in a single post as I think it flows with some quasi-form of logic (I hope!).***
The reason Harbeths sound real, life-like, natural etc, is because Alan Shaw uses a similar method of production wherein measurements are taken, construction is carefully monitored but in the end the human ear rules over strict analyses built upon non-human measuring devices. This is one of the key reasons why the cabinets are lossy: ie not dead, inert as to absorb resonances internally in the cabinet thereby throwing "desired" sound alone through the cones. Harbeths actually build their speakers to "breathe" such that they perform like an instrument. The body is as important as the driver.
Grados are like this, they always have been. It also means that they won't measure as well as some other headphones from other manufacturers. Yet, many claim they sound more real than those headphones that measure superbly! I can enjoy a number of headphones and when one is already away from the mass market garbage, almost any headphone will be a quantum leap in terms of sonic improvement. However, Grados more than any other brand, get to the heart of music.
In the case of this thread, the bass was the major issue and Blackmore gave it a good ol' college try. Comparing the impressions with Tyll on his site or others here in various threads, I think: many people are after the same thing without realizing that only certain designs can get close to real. This is not a slight against Blackmore. It means that where he felt the deficiencies were enough to continually bother him, others, and in particular - myself, are bothered by yet other deficiencies pricey phones from other companies possess. Wow, rereading, that's a pretty poorly written sentence. What I am trying to convey is that given a flagship from any other company and comparing it to the PS1000s, if I had to choose only one, I would choose the PS1000s because they sound truer to essence of the music, closer to real life.
I came across an aricle (
http://www.regonaudio.com/HighRomanticism.html) written by a well known audiophile writer and world renowned mathematician who enjoys Harbeth 40.1s as his reference, but all with near field listening! Moreover, his other writings compliment and further strengthen the meat of the article I noted: rooms contribute to the sound. What many recordings have done is position mics such that they subtract the room interaction (to a great degree and very often) thereby subtracting a necessary component, the LARGEST instrument at the venue, the room itself. When a given transducer measures flat, providing "exactly what is on the recording" - or close to it, this is not reproducing (often) what the music would sound like if one were sitting in the room. Some types of music can bypass the need to include room synergy but classical, jazz, ensembles, blues too, anything that is "organic" requires correction for the subtraction of the room. This correction can come one's way via an equalizer or it may be built right into the sound of the transducer. This of course happens when people are involved and the human ear, ideally using ones familiar with how music sounds live, is able to correct for diminished and/or wholly synthetic sounding playback. Joe designed studio monitors, more holistically sounding than other headphones at the time, but still cold and sometimes dead or at least well on the way to slipping with the fish. John Grado and John Chapis learning from his Joe were able to ever more closely construct phones that were closer to the sound of REAL (that breathe of life that Steve Hoffman has coined and attempts to relay in his remasterings). Whereas Joe was building pro phones for the recording studio and those involved with mixing and mastering, John was targeting the home audiophile desiring pleasurable and life-like sound in the privacy of one's abode. Two different strategies and we see these two ways of designing, competing for the home market. It seems though, that John is still the only one out there truly designing for the home listener whereas the likes of Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic for instance, are still looking at the pro market with their mixing and mastering needs and aiming for THAT sound.
Attending any concert, no matter the genre, or performing at one, the way music interacts with the surroundings limits the ability to hear the minutia of detail. Bass can be solid and tight, but never as often heard while listening with various systems that ultimately manipulate the bass so that it sounds as if one has their ear beside a kick drum.
One goal is not better than the other. They are simply two different objectives to be achieved by two (or more) designs. Those that crave life-like sound are often left feeling cold listening to transducers that reproduce sound in an "unnatural" ultra-linear way (I better grab some type of invulnerable exoskeleton with that last remark). Those that enjoy the super detail of electrostats or the Qualias for instance, or a super flat frequency response, often remark how Grados in particular fail in various areas. At least the ones made by John.
The PS-1000s are in my mind, the final stage in evolution given the design used. Various cables can be swapped in and out, pad material can change, but in the end, one has RS1/GS1000 on the one hand, and HF2/PS500/PS1000 on the other hand. When it comes to metal parts, I feel the PS1000 is better than the HP1000s, 325s, HF2s, PS1s and PS500s. Grados have a familiar house sound but given the chamber resonances and pad sizes, distinct between models. The PS-1 is likely the main odd-ball in that it sounds very lush, more than the wood bodied siblings, with a super liquid midrange. A paradox given the metal enclosure. One might anticipate an HP1000 sound, and one would be disappointed ultimately as the PS-1s, despite the "professional" stamp, are closer to "real" than the HP1000s. It is the main reason that I sold all HP1000s and kept the PS1. The PS1s always sounded more lifelike. The HP1000s found themselves cast out, rarely used and very much deserving of a home wherein they would be appreciated. But again, different end-goals.
I suggest heading over to Robert E. Greene's site (Reg On Audio) and glance at his articles. Once I read them I truly understood what I had been desiring but often felt I was not articulating: I want the breathe of life.
Sometimes this means headphone A will be a better match for a track or album or heck a complete genre. The argument that a statement product should be able to perform perfectly for any type of music is a noble one, if faulty. No one thing can do all things, let alone perfectly. Expectations need to be declared (even if only personally/privately such that the person buying knows what they really want) and the end goals need to be supported by the design and execution of the company in producing the item.
I would never look to the "best" IEM and expect to experience chest pounding bass. In fact, if I require that, headphones automatically fail. I would never look to the best IEM if I was hoping for an open airy sound. I would never look to speakers if I wanted the absolutely finest of microdetails. It can't happen. Likewise, I would never look to any lossless design if I wanted the most accurate reproduction of real life sounds. This is why I went with Harbeths. I've written many times and my opinion has not changed: RS-1s provide the most tonally and timbrally accurate sound of any headphone I've heard. Just like Harbeths (given my experience) sound the most true to life than any other brand. Those that come close or match them are in the BBC-lineage with inherited designs. When I encountered Audionote and Harbeth speakers I felt relieved. FINALLY! Speakers that sound real. Throw in tube amps and one barely needs a top shelf front-end
If I desire tighter bass, I'll use the Melos rather than the EAR. I immediately lose out on various magical music dimensions going with the hybrid amp, so the EAR is the go-to amp, but the PS1000s will improve in the bass: tighter, perhaps deeper - at least easier to delineate - and harder hitting. This combo is very HP1000-like in the bass, which I still believe offers the snappiest most palpable headphone bass I've heard. Solid state amps might even go a step further, leveling out the sound. I've long ago let that ship sail. Tubes are it for me, but I have not heard all the solid states amps in the world, and I do love the Sugden. Still, I'm not motivated to investigate as I thoroughly enjoy the EAR/PS1000 combo. If I didn't, if I was bothered by something, with the money invested, I'd be searching out something new too.
