Separate names with a comma.
No... it was in reference to what the T5p does to my TV.
I don't follow. What does that have to do with trusting measurements?
On the previous page someone wrote something about the Tesla T1 having unacceptable channel imbalance for a $1000+ headphone, I'm saying that if the Teslas can distort a television then I'm not going to trust the measurement equipment they're using to measure them with either... =)
Electronic recorders don't use electron tubes...
Let's see. Hmm. How I can explain this better? Maybe the lowest level "bits" in which comprises a digitized signal? I definitely don't mean absolute pitch, but related to that are the harmonics or textures of a particular sound. The ability to maintain inner or micro dynamics intact. The data which is very low in level - so low that it's could almost be more of a sense that something you hear. I hesitate to use resolution, because that word could be many different things. Here's another example: Have you ever heard a 45RPM single and compared it to a 33RPM record? I have a few of these wierd LP issues from Angel where they released special 45RPM LP's of classical recordings in the 70s. They just have more resolution, more reality.
It's very hard to describe, but every piece of gear has a certain floor where the musical information below this floor isn't being reproduced well. This information could be missing, partially obscured, compressed in dynamics, with these effects varying depending upon frequency. Here's another example: I have this Mozart Requiem CD from AAM. I had read in the liner notes that a childrens' choir was used in the recording, but never much though of it. On a good setup, you don't really notice it's young boys singing because of the size of the choir and the reverberant recording venue. If you listen hard enough you can tell. On a great setup, it's becomes like: "How cow, those are boys, the method of delivery, how the individual boy's voice boxes reverberate differently." Now, I am not necessarily talking about the "Oh wow, I never heard that before" effect because those are gross or macro effects. I'm talking about the super subtle information, and how the culmination of all of it makes music comes to life. (We are just talking about low-level information here as one of the factors, there are others such as dynamics.)
The best way to understand what I am talking about is to actually experience it for yourself. I know I'm going to sound condescending, but maybe 1 of 1000 Head-Fi'ers has actually had a taste of what true "high fidelity" really sounds like. It starts from the recording. And then the source.
I would like to figure this out. There's some correlation with the CSDs. There's something to be said for those headphones with fast decays and fairly clean floors.
That's where it starts.
Anax was just referring to the fact that I've been held back on a lot of my true opinions of many headphones. I basically said out of the recent batch of five, one sounds good, three sound like garbage, and one's an enigma.
Ah, when you put it like that, I understand
Source, yes. I don't think you sound condescending. You might actually be right! ... Might even be less than what you guess.
"Musicality" or "musical information" can be many things to many people. Thanks for clearing up what you mean by it. I like to see the term from a musician's instead of an audiophile's viewpoint: what is in the recording that constitutes to the recording's musical ie. rhythmic, melodic, harmonic etc. content. In other words, each instrument hitting the right note at the right time. Hope this makes sense...
Just giving the LCD-2 a second chance (have them for loan). Listening them through my Linn DS player and they are a bit better from what I remembered. Not worth their price though and although they bring many of these "micro details/macro effects" from recordings, making them sound more thorough and real perhaps, my K272's are, for tenth of the price, quite worthy competitors in bringing out the musical information (as I see it).
Regarding your last paragraph: I vote for "please do". If a certain headphone is garbage and you can back it up with good reasoning, why not state it in a strong fashion? Much more fun reading, at least
Anyways, thanks for your response and continuing interesting work! Apologies for not raising anything scientific or educational, was just too interested and selfish, heh. If you do find anything that might indeed explain why other headphones play notes according to their pitch better than others, let us know!
Yes, that tv in the picture indeed seems to be utilizing a good old fashioned CRT display
The "veil" is a myth. Spread the word.
The veil thing came from a time where there wasn't much choice with headphones amps. These headphones are a little bit harder to drive than most.
Bravo my friend...Bravo!
If you really want to screw with someone's perception, don't use a boy's choir....use a castrato.
Might they show more variance with less than ideal amping than the ESP950? Would be nice to see since this claim seems to come from many owners regarding the HD650.
It´s possible to get the sound as clear as on the LCD-2 on the HD 650? Is the HD 650 really that much more difficult to drive then say a HD 800 or T1?
I always felt the 650 had a veil...still do and I have yet to hear a 650 without it. I owned a pair for over a year and never quite got used to its sonic presentation. Always preferred the 600.
I think you would have to get that bass under control with the 650 and you would have to mod a bit. Even then, I doubt you could get to an ortho level with a dynamic headphone. It's easier to reach or exceed the LCD-2 with a Fostex T50/T40 than with a dynamic IMHO. Just my opinion of course.
Don't get me wrong, me too. But the "veil" is used to describe the HD600 as well.
What I meant to say, was that it would be interesting to see the effects of less than ideal amping in Purrin's measurements. Faster decay at certain areas due to adequate amping? Certainly, but to what degree?