My use of "full rounded" was meant to describe a sound with more depth, and which conveys more excitement and energy, but still detailed.
there has been a depth to the music which is anything but clinical. Sometimes it’s power or impact which does it, and sometimes it’s is subtlety and beauty.
Popping on the AKGs at home certainly showed the contrast in clarity and detail, but some of the excitement was missing for me. Switching over to the SR80's added that element back.
Ok, so instead of asking what is depth in context of headphones, excitement, energy, subtlety, beauty, etc., could you precisely enumerate what exactly is it that the SR80s do better than the AKG 701s?
My take on the issue is as I've stated, it's not that the SR80s do anything particularly better than the AKG701s, but that their flaws
might make them sound subjectively better than a technically better headphone. For instance, excitement and energy might refer to boosted highs & mid bass (the V shaped EQ curve), and as I said earlier
"I think that's EXACTLY what gives the cheaper headphones a "fuller sound" than better transducer. I think actually it's how quick the transducer is; what's shown in waterfall plots. Like that lingering of sound..." How fast it can start/stop producing sound Well or maybe it's in the frequency response... Or both.
But I've noticed the same effect with speakers too, as speakers get better quality, often sounds become 'smaller' and better defined, where as lower quality and lower definition transducers appear to sound 'fatter' and rounder. Hell, tubes vs SS can get you that 'roundness' of sound too. I think it's actually distortion and actually time domain, how fast the transducer can stop and start playing a sound. Seems to make sense, and thinking about it, would seem to be what I hear when comparing the SR80 to the Q701. To me, the Q701 is technically superior in this respect (more detailed, better resolution), but the SR80 might still potentially sound subjectively better (sounds 'bigger'). As I also stated, the 100$ Sony V6s are less detailed, lesser resolution than the AKG Q701s, but they also would fall in the same mold as the SR80s; being more 'fun' and 'bigger' sounding, less transparent than the Q701... So I don't think it's something the Q701 do inherently bad, just that we might prefer worse transducers in some case!
Or, going back to my question; a better way to phrase it, if you were to compare the K701 to the SR80 objectively, without using any subjectivity, what is it that they do better in terms of sound reproduction? I'm really curious now as to know whether the AKGs are lacking in a key component of being a good transducer; this key component being better reproduced by the Grados SR80, of if it's simply an entirely subjective element which might make one prefer the Grados over the AKGs.
Hell, thinking about it, imaging has a lot to do with this... Take just a voice in the center. Worse speakers will have sounds seem 'wider', where better speakers will have sounds that snap into place, and become more precise and less 'wide' at the same time. Which again, will make a worse speaker's sound seem 'bigger'. I attributed this to the term "full rounded" and clearly noticed it with SR80 vs Q701. On the Q701, everything is tight, detailed, precise... On the SR80, everything seems more 'loose', blurred, 'wide'; bigger. On Q701, it's like you hear how it's supposed to be, while on SR80, it sounds different, bigger, less detailed in many ways, which might very well explain why they sound
different... Objectively, it's clear which is better, IMHO, but subjectively, it's an entirely different matter.
Ok I think I'm done on this matter lol think I managed to solve this puzzle
I think yeah it's simply what some refer to as clinical or analytical... In fact, it's technically superior, which might not be what many consider to be (subjectively) better & more enjoyable. All this rambling for this simple conclusion! haha