Grados must Go! Too resolving/Dont fit my needs. Looking for advice :o)

[freethetree]

So as many of you know my Grados are for sale (theyre 99% sold now). Anyway I hadent heard from the buyer so I was thinkin about just keepin them if he didnt respond (he did soon after). Well I realized I hadent listened to ANY sort of underground hip hop on the MSIIs. All ive listened to for a while is my Teac and my kosses. Anyway first up was Binary Star. My friend made this cd so I dunno what bit rate the mp3s were he ripped it off of, but holy crap were there some wierd sounds goin on. Now granted these were probably 128k ripped from a tape or cd made from a not so good master. But it was unlistenable to the fullest extent of the word. 10 seconds into track one I had the headphones off my head and was changing cds. Next up Gangstarr. I figured since this was the original cd, and Gangstarr is actuially signed to a major lable maybe they got some decent recording equipment. Boy was I ever wrong. There was an echo in the right earpiece throughout the enitre cd! Bad bad. AML, Akbar, DI, whatever. It all sounded like crap! Or most of it. Anyway this is unacceptable. Its all about the music, not the equip. I mean I get cought up with plannin out a bangin system sometimes, but what can I say I like stuff. So I must downgrade my headphones to make my music sound the best it can.

Heres the Q: what headphones will give me a "larger" sound than the koss ksc 55 (i think 55, maybe 50, the ones like the 35 but silver) without brining out all the nasty details of my poorly recorded music. It all sounds fine on my Teac ref mini system (suposed to be one of the best mini systems on the market, behind the Linn and the NAD of course) but my grados kill it. I dont remember the SR80s being as bad, but I couldnt stand that treble now. Plus these are for portable ONLY. Im goin for speaker system at home. Whats the point of a decent home headphone/amp system if I cant dance with it? Plus speakers give the large sound I like without running my music.

How resolving are the Beyer DT250? Im proably gonna pick em up anyway for the decently recorded electronic skills but I wouldnt mind usin them for hip hop also.

Lastly how resolving are decent speakers? Dynaudio Contour 1.3, Linn Keosa, Paradigm studio ref 100, etc. I need big sound and puncy bass. The thing is I also want them to sound good with my nicely recorded Trance/D&B/Jungle/Ambient Techno. I dream of some Orb played back on a high end system with good soundstaging capabilities. Drooool. The Ill sounds comin from everywhere!

Anyway sorry for writing so much and thanks for any help you can provide.

 

[freethetree]

Also incase this help anyone, here are my favorite sounds (with well recored music):

Holmes Powell DCT-2/Grado RS1
RS1 in general (but I LOVE LOVE LOVE the HP)
Sony CD3000
Alessandro Grado MSII

I also like tube amps with good bass. HP: WHOMP WHOMP WHOMP

. Ive said it before and ill say it again, that amp is magic. No lie. EVERYTHING about it is too perfect to be real. I wont go into my strong feelings for this amp again. Atleast not now.

Its early, but im really tired and im not even sure if what im writing makes any sence now. Hope yall can figure it out. Off to bed. Peace Head-Fiers

 

[Tomcat]

"I also like tube amps with good bass."

freethtree: me too. I guess my Earmax Pro is something like the poor man's Holmes Powell. Lots of sweet music pouring out of it, and some of that whomp, whomp, whomp as well. And my favourite headphones with the Earmax, without the Earmax, with anything: Beyer DT 770/990 Pros (250 Ohm). Utterly smooth, inobtrusive, musical, captivating and lots of bass extension. Regrettably, I don't know the Holmes Powell, I'd just love to hear it, but it seems to me, the Earmax/770 Pro combo provides some similar WHOMP. And the 770/990 Pros sound larger than the DT 250-80, in terms of frequency extension and in terms of soundstage. If you don't want to reveal how bad and unmusical a lot of revealing and expensive components truly are, any of the professional Beyers would be a good choice, I guess.

 

[DesBen]

Freethetree,

Good equipment is resolving. Decent speakers included. Badly recorded MP3s will sound like, well, badly recorded MP3s. You can't escape that by spending more. Buying a really cheap stereo might be the answer for you. Heck, if MP3s is your main source, why not get a pair of powerful computer speakers?

Another thing you could do is spend your money on well-recorded music. The Orb for example is very well recorded and sounds wonderful on my Grado (or my stereo). There's also a lot of trance CDs that are decently well recorded too (Global Underground, Tranceport). That's where I'd spend my money.

BTW, I heard the Teac Ref 130 before, and I must say it has to be the cutest thing I ever heard! That tiny thing was working hard with trance tracks, but managed to always sound good. Those tiny woofers were working so hard to make me music. A beauty!

 

[KR...]

You are just hearing what those tracks really sound like. On well recorded music, Grados are great headphones to listen to.

 

[Tomcat]

This simply perplexes me. We pay a lot for supposedly better equipment, introduce it in our system and find it to be revealing. So revealing, as a matter of fact, that it sounds clearly worse, even unlistenable, at times. So, we have bought something that is more neutral, more accurate, simply better - and it sounds worse. Better equipment = worse sound. How is this possible?

This reasoning, that something that is better and more accurate will sound worse in most cases, is just beyond me. All this awesome "resolving" power, and all it does is to bring out the flaws, and primarily the flaws and distortions of the signal, most beautifully, right? Apart from the obvious question - what for? – I’d like to know how. How does this work? Why is it, that supposedly better equipment will let me focus primarily on one thing: the imperfections of the signal? Isn’t there a whole lot of music left even in a badly distorted signal? With the perfectly neutral and accurate component, wouldn’t I hear the musical signal better as well, jut as well as the distortions?

If something is “revealing” and sounds clearly worse when substituting another component, isn’t that a dead giveaway, that it simply sounds worse? That it does things to the signal’s integrity that are of the more harmful kind? That it damages my ability to perceive the musical flow and the emotion? That the distortions it introduces are those that are of greater psycho-acoustic relevance?

My hypothesis is this: whenever a component manages to primarily reveal flaws, it’s primarily revealing of one thing - its own shortcomings.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Tomcat -- I'm sure I won't be the only person to reply to your recent musings about revealing equipment, so I'll keep it short.

Crappy headphones don't just mask problems in the source -- they add their own flaws too.

Decent, but not terribly revealing headphones, like the Koss KSC-35s, are probably your best bet, if you don't have clean sources. They sound great but definitely aren't as revealing as Grados or Sony MDR-V6s. This is one of the big reasons why I like the KSC-35s better than the V6s -- they're better for listening to MP3s or poorly-recorded/mastered CDs.

Revealing headphones do not reveal their own shortcomings -- they allow you to hear everything the source material offers. If you have good sources -- decent vinyl, decent CDs, decent equipment -- then a revealing headphone is a pleasure to use. Some of us WANT to hear fingers rubbing on violin strings, sheet music pages being turned, etc. It's all a part of the recording. It can be distracting when you first hear that page turning ("What the heck was that???") but it's nice to know that your equipment can let you hear that if it's there.

If you don't want to make the flaws in your equipment, CDs, and other sources apparent, then save yourself some money and just get a decent pair of headphones, like the KSC-35s. But don't assume that just because other equipment is revealing that it is flawed. It isn't.

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat My hypothesis is this: whenever a component manages to primarily reveal flaws, it’s primarily revealing of one thing - its own shortcomings.

Hmmm ... Not much to say except that makes absolutely no sense either theoretically or empirically.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat How does this work? Why is it, that supposedly better equipment will let me focus primarily on one thing: the imperfections of the signal? Isn’t there a whole lot of music left even in a badly distorted signal?

Sorry, I wanted to address this directly. My last post was more of a general overview.

Good, revealing components will accurately portray whatever distortions and 'music' are present. The human brain is quite an amazing thing -- with non-revealing equipment, your brain hears the music and fills in the gaps. Even if you don't hear a particular note as clearly as you should, your brain will fill it in, assuming you know the music being played from memory.

Revealing equipment makes the flaws in the source signal apparent. Your brain picks them up, and can't "fill in" what they're supposed to sound like because attention has been drawn to them. A distortion accurately portrayed is jarring, and can take you 'out of the music,' so to speak. This is one reason why the clicks and pops inherent in low-end vinyl systems are so annoying -- you know that sound is not supposed to be there in the middle of a particular musical passage, for example. This is different than if the sound of the passage is very slightly distorted -- your brain may correct that. But a click or popping sound in the middle will be noticed.

Quote:

With the perfectly neutral and accurate component, wouldn’t I hear the musical signal better as well, jut as well as the distortions?

You do. The problem is that your attention is DRAWN to the distortions, because you know they're not supposed to be there. You don't really notice how beautiful the music sounds coming out of your home stereo if you're trying to swat away a fly that's hovering around your face. Does that mean the presence of the fly has somehow changed the sound of the music?

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

If something is “revealing” and sounds clearly worse when substituting another component, isn’t that a dead giveaway, that it simply sounds worse? That it does things to the signal’s integrity that are of the more harmful kind? That it damages my ability to perceive the musical flow and the emotion? That the distortions it introduces are those that are of greater psycho-acoustic relevance? My hypothesis is this: whenever a component manages to primarily reveal flaws, it’s primarily revealing of one thing - its own shortcomings.

I think I speak for more than just me when I say I disagree with this

First, no component "primarily" reveals flaws. The only possible way any component would produce "primarily" flaws, is if the signal it is fed is mostly "flaws."

But more importantly, to me, the "ultimate" headphone is one that accurately reproduces the signal it is fed. If that signal has flaws, the headphone should reproduce those flaws. If the signal is compressed, it should sound compressed. If the signal is grainy, it should sound grainy.

The flip side of this is that if this "ultimate" headphone is fed an incredible recording, it will reproduce that recording in all it's glory.

Headphones that don't reveal flaws are often more enjoyable on inferior equipment and/or with poor recordings. However, they also have the drawback that they can't reproduce the "perfect recording" in all its glory.

 

[freethetree]

Wow lots of responces, lets see...

Tomcat: Ive been thiking that about the Earmax Pro for a while now, kinda like a HP jr. (this is all based on what ive read about the earmax pro, ive never actuially heard it) Large amounts of deep bass, smooth captivating midrage, and sweet highs. I would love to get one, but right now im thinkin pcdp/headphones (no amp) for portable use and speakers for home use. Have you tried either the RS1 or CD3000 with it? Those are my favorite phones with the MSII/SR325 close behind. Ive never heard the beyers. Well, I guess I did hear them at the show but i dont remember what they sounded like. I dont really remember what anything from the show sounded like except for the HP DCT2, Orpheus, All the Grados, Sony CD3000, K1000/EAR V20, Beyer DT250 a little, Wheatfield HA2 a little, and Stax Omega II a little. The HP/RS1 combo and Orpheus were so amazing they basically wiped all the other sounds out of my brain. I remember the Grados because I spent a while compairing them all, I remember the CD3000 because they sounded GREAT (much better than I expected), and I remember the K1000/EAR because it sounded pretty damn good as well. I really should have spent more time with the assorted Beyers.


DesBen: I dont listen to MP3s much, its just that the CDs my friends give me are always burned from MP3s. I dont download MP3s now because my internet is slow as balls. I buy most of my music.

I would spend money on well recorded music (lots of money) if it existed! The thing is most underground hip hop is recorded like crap even listenin to the original CD. Plus its hard to locate at cd stores around here. Most of my electronic music is well recorded and sounds great on the MSIIs. But when im listenin to electronic music I gotta move, and im often with my friends chillin somewhere. Maybe ill pick up another pair of SR80s who knows.

Yea I really like my little Teac (its not the ref 130, its the previous series, same internals). I got it to replace a Bose Acoustic Wave Music System in my dorm last year so the size was great. The cd changer sucks tho, disc one on mine has a tendency to eat cds. But I got it for $100 (best audio deal ever!) so im not gonna bitch.


KR: I realze this

Everyone else talkin about better eqipment worse equipment etc: Umm, I dunno. The problem here is that half of my music is recorded well, and half of my music is recorded like crap. I cant tell its recorded like crap on my Teac or Koss ksc 50s (55?), but the Grados murdur it. Then again the Grados transform my well recorded music into sonic bliss. I distinctly remember the first time I listened to the Orb: adventures beyond the ultraworld on my SR80s (first pair of decent phones) walking to town last year. It was the track with the chick speaking latin in the beginning. Oh my god. I stopped walking and just stood there for a few seconds. After I snapped out of that little trance I resumed my walking, eyes wide, mouth hanging open -> eyes wide, huge grin.

I like how my speakers can give me a "bigger" sound than the Kosses without ruining the listening experience of my porly recorded music. As I move up in the speaker world (thinkin Sony SCD-333ES/Musical Fidelity A3CD:Musical Fidelity A3

ynaudio Contour 1.3 MKII/Paradigm Studio Reference 100 or Linn Classic:Linn Keosa right now) Will my porly recorded cds sound like crap?

Is my only solution to get nice headphones for my well recorded music, keep usin the Kosses for badly recorded music, a nice speaker system for my well recorded music, and keep usin the Teac for badly recorded music? Or is there a happy medium somwhere (for speakers mainly) (maybe involving tube amps?) where I can get big, punchy sound and be able listen to all my music?

Thanks again!

 

[gaineso]

The big problem with really good equipment is:

It really shows just how much really frelled up source material there is out there.

I've got a lot of CD's that sound acceptable when played out by the pool through an Aiwa boom box. When I put them in my main system, I generally can't hit eject fast enough.

I don't have much experience with mp3. I've pulled a few songs off the internet. Played through my HP N5270 and HD600's they don't sound very good compared to what I'm expecting. HOWEVER, played on my $49.95 Altec-Lansing computer speakers they sound about like I expect.

It just depends on what you want to hear. For serious music listening, I want to hear the best the source can deliver, and sometimes that includes some noise. Especially on vinyl. There's always some surface noise, but you filter it out and listen to the music.

Something that's recorded poorly, with distortion, limited dynamics, limited frequency response will sound as if it's junk. A less revealing system possibly won't REVEAL the fact that it's junk. A very revealing, accurate, quality system, which doesn't necesarily mean super expensive, will bring out everything on the source and what you'll hear the most is the trash.


It's all in the tricks our ears play on us.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally posted by gaineso The big problem with really good equipment is: It really shows just how much really frelled up source material there is out there... Something that's recorded poorly, with distortion, limited dynamics, limited frequency response will sound as if it's junk. A less revealing system possibly won't REVEAL the fact that it's junk. A very revealing, accurate, quality system, which doesn't necesarily mean super expensive, will bring out everything on the source and what you'll hear the most is the trash.

Mostly true, though in my experience a non-revealing, EXTREMELY inaccurate, HORRID-quality system actually makes EVERYTHING sound like garbage - even the poor-quality recordings!

 

[Tomcat]

morphsci, let me put it this way:
How do we know that those horrid and distracting distortions we perceive with some components, that are often called “revealing”, aren’t generated by those “revealing” components? Can we really be sure that components that are generally deemed “forgiving” or “euphonic” aren’t the more neutral and accurate ones? Why is it, that whenever there is talk of the “revealing” or analytic nature of a component, the next thing the reviewer talks about is the amount of distortions or imperfections one perceives with this equipment? Or how choosy those “revealing” components are, when it comes to the quality of recordings.

Some may have read darth nut’s meticulous review of his Stax Omega 2s at HeadWize – comparing them with his Omega 1s and Lambda Signatures:

“The Omega was more forgiving of bad recordings than the unforgiving Lambda Signature. I could reasonably enjoy about 60% of my CDs over the Omegas, better than I experienced with the Lambda Signature, and I was more happy with the Omega1 than with the Lambda Signature.
However, I still wasn’t enjoying 100% of my CDs, but instead I was playing, and enjoying no doubt, the same ‘purist’ CDs over and over again - the type of recordings where a minimal number of microphones were used. These same minimally-miked CDs - over and over again. At first I thought it was because top-rate headphones needed top-rate recordings. Only when I owned the Omega2 did I realise why the Omega1 made me behave in this strange manner. “

“The Omega2 is revealing yet forgiving. I can hook up lousy equipment to the Omega2, become aware that that particular piece of equipment is lousy, and yet still not mind it too much. When I hooked it up with better sources I got a correspondingly better sound. This combination of being revealing and forgiving is strange and new to me. I’m used to the idea that revealing equipment aren’t very forgiving, but here is a product that is revealing yet forgiving.”

I am not too fond of electrostatic headphones and, due to their generally analytic nature, find them to be less musical than very good dynamic headphones. I have listened to the Omega 2s once, and feel this applies to them as well. But my point is: the way darth nut describes the Omega 2s, they are obviously better than the Omegas, and those are obviously better than the Lambda Signature. And each one has been more forgiving and provided more enjoyment even with what darth nut thinks are his bad recordings.

Russ Arcuri,
If your theory was right, this shouldn’t have happened. If indeed the most neutral and accurate components let one focus on the distortions the most, if distortions became ever more obnoxious with better equipment, this is what one would have to especially look for in better equipment: less conveyance of musical enjoyment, more conveyance of obtrusive distortions. I just don’t believe that this is a valid method for judging the quality of equipment.

freethtree,
I have tried the CD 3000s briefly and found them to be rather bright for my tastes. I don't know the RS-1s at all. Sorry. But other Head-Fiers have been quite pleased with them when driven by their Earmax Pros. On the other hand: a higher impedance phone ought to be a better match for an OTL-SET amp.

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat morphsci, let me put it this way: How do we know that those horrid and distracting distortions we perceive with some components, that are often called “revealing”, aren’t generated by those “revealing” components? Can we really be sure that components that are generally deemed “forgiving” or “euphonic” aren’t the more neutral and accurate ones? Why is it, that whenever there is talk of the “revealing” or analytic nature of a component, the next thing the reviewer talks about is the amount of distortions or imperfections one perceives with this equipment? Or how choosy those “revealing” components are, when it comes to the quality of recordings.

Well first of all let me say that every component that I have heard has a sonic signature. (There are still plenty I have not heard). Some more netral, some less neutral. Some more revealing, some less revealing, some more euphonic, some less euphonic. This goes for active components, transducers and cables. Therefore, there is no absolute reference other than our auditory memory of live music we have heard. By selective replacement of system components with known recordings it is possible to select and grade the components as to their ability to resolve detail, present the signal as it was recorded, euphony, etc. By selecting recordings we know and playing them on numerous systems over time we can also determine how faithful the reproduction is. A revealing component exposes the weaknesses and limitations in other components as well as in the recordings and also allows you to hear their strengths. Therefore, for myself I can determine where the defects lie, whether in the components or as is more often the case, in the recording.

That does not mean everyone prefers ultrarevealing componets nor ultrarevealing components at all times. I generally prefer more revealing componets for some of the trully great recordings. That does not mean I do not still enjoy the music from lesser and even some damn ****ty recordings. However I prefer to be able to experience the best from the recordings I own as well as the worst. If a recording is great I want to now it, if it is terrible I want to know that to. I have learned to enjoy the music regardless, but a trully great recording on great equipment can be almost as transcendent as a live performance. It is those transcendent moments that keeps me involved in this hobby.