[shivohum]

Near the end of the "Finally nailed what is wrong with the HD600" thread, Slindeman posed an interesting hypothesis that I think is worthy of further exploration:

Slindeman wrote:
Quote:

Frankly I think this board could do with a little more upfront addmission of equipment flaws and little less description of one's favorite items as "perfectly neutral and musical" and one's unfavorite items as "horribly colored and unmusical." Yes there is a great desire to defend what you love, to champion the equipment that best delivers the music to your soul. I think this is best done with temperance, with moderation, and with the courtesy to leave the flame-thrower tucked away in the garage. Anyway, I think Beagle's point is more than just "preferences differ". I think he's getting at something that can be quite useful if explored further: we all have different tolerances for the various imperfections of the various high-end headphones, and determining one's own tolerances and intolerances to specific imperfections can lead to better informed choices in the future. Let me put this another way with an example. Take fiction. If I'm reading a book where the characters are riding by horseback, the author could very well completely get the whole "riding horses" part wrong and I would be none the wiser because I know nothing about horses. I could carry on enjoying the book. A horse lover, however, would throw the book across the room. On the other hand, a book that had errors about something like computer programming would be unreadable by me, yet perhaps the horse lover could enjoy such a book. A similar thing happens in audio. All components in audio have imperfections. Certain imperfections are more easily overlooked by certain people than others are by other people. I can easily accept that to some people the HD600 would be annoying and perhaps unlistenable, just as Grados are annoying to me. For me, the HD600s flaws do not get in the way of the music, whereas the Grados flaws do. I think this is more than just "everyone has different preferences" because if I can pinpoint which imperfections do destroy my illusion of real music, such as a weird soundstage or boosted upper midrange, and which imperfections don't, such as a boosted midbass or recessed upper midrange, then I can more easily narrow down the choices of equipment to try in the future. I can save money and more quickly reach the equipment that brings the music to me. And the more neutral headphones won't necessarily always be the best for me. Their small imperfections may happen to be the ones that annoy me the most.

It seems to me that the upper midrange is the hardest thing for any headphone to get right. Headphones either seem to be too bright in this range, or too dark... I haven't yet encountered anything except perhaps the Etys and the Stax Omega II that do it just right.

 

[AndreYew]

Shivohum,

It's definitely an interesting topic of discussion! The striking thing to me about any kind of acoustic transducer, whether it be mics, speakers, or headphones, is that it has to reproduce sound whose wavelengths are roughly comparable to the physical size of the transducer. Looking at just wave mechanics, any time something like this happens, there are going to be all sorts of interactions between the transducer and the sound it produces. In effect, all transducers will be compromises, because you can't get rid of the interaction, but perhaps only shift it one way or another. I think this leads to preferences over any kind of accuracy, because nothing is strictly accurate, and our preferences tell us which compromises we can live with, and which we can't.

--Andre

 

[andrzejpw]

Very well stated. I think that our discovery of headphones is as much a journey about what characteristics we enjoy in sound.

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum It seems to me that the upper midrange is the hardest thing for any headphone to get right. Headphones either seem to be too bright in this range, or too dark... I haven't yet encountered anything except perhaps the Etys and the Stax Omega II that do it just right.

Amen, shivohum.......

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum It seems to me that the upper midrange is the hardest thing for any headphone to get right. Headphones either seem to be too bright in this range, or too dark... I haven't yet encountered anything except perhaps the Etys and the Stax Omega II that do it just right.

My three mainstays are the HD-600, the HP-1 and the CD3000. Of these, the HP-1 comes closest in the midrange. The HD-600 is second, and under certain circumstances can come so close to the HP-1 that the two are indistiguishable. In that area, the CD3K is a distant third...it simply can't get that crucial area of the midrange right, at least not with anything I've tried up to this point. And still, despite the flaws, for just sitting back and listening to a wide open no-holds-barred rock type session, the CD3K is amazing. Whatever flaws are there simply don't matter. For quiet acoustical guitar, it's another matter, and either of my other main headphones sounds better to me (although there's one tube combination that has some promise with the CD3K

)

One of the things I love about the MicroZOTL is its almost infinite adaptability, through different tubes, to the strengths and weaknesses of associated components. Although, in using the ZOTL this way, what's the reference point? For me, it's simply the pleasure I get listening. The extent that the equipment will get out of the way, so that I'm listening to the music rather than the quality of the reproduction, is the index I prefer to use to rate a component. This should not be confused with accuracy, neutrality, tranparency, or any other audio buzzwords that try to describe sonic quality.

 

[Satori]

The only thing I wanted to add to the "Finally nailed what is wrong with the HD600" thread, is that I have learned in the few months of hanging out here that the best thing to do is try to find people with similar musical tastes to you and weight their recommendations appropriately or order one of everything from Headroom and try all their stuff out, which isn't very practical or fair to headroom.

Not to specifically pck on Audio&Me but if I were to have followed his suggestion and gone with the HD600s over the Grado RS-2s I would have been very disappointed. While most people say the Grados are bright I find them acurate, and some people say they are uncomfortable I have actually forgotten mine were on while I am at work when a CD ends, so obviously that doesn't affect me. And after listening to a friends HD600s for awhile I found them to be a little boring to me.

So what does mean to the other newbies out there...if it sounds good to you enjoy it. Don't worry about whether the masses(or simply the loudest poster) here agrees with your opinion or not.

 

[DanG]

Satori, my experiences are quite similar to yours... except that I've found that I like the Grados and the Sennheiser HD600. I used to own the RS-2 (my first high-end headphone) and upgraded to the Alessandro Music Series Pro, which I sold a few months ago. I've also heard the HP-1 which was a great headphone as well.

Maybe my problem nowadays is that I really do just listen to the music and not the headphone. I have a hard time looking for problems with the headphone because everything I've listened to with the Melos sounds great -- excepting perhaps the Sony V6. Each provides a different sound but they're all great. The ER-4S is clean and fast, while the HD600 is perhaps a little more relaxed, but still fine (especially with the Cardas cable).

Maybe part of the problem is I've gotten into identifying every little thing about cigars -- and once you start over-analyzing one thing not only does it not carry over into everything else, it makes you more tired of doing it with other things. I just love the music I have so much that I like just listening.

But give me a project to analyze what I like and what I don't like about a headphone/cable/source/whatever and a month or so, I can do it. Will it be an analysis of imperfections or preference? Hell, I don't know... I know it's an analysis of my preferences, but as in my only "Head-Fi Review" so far, I tried to make it as objective as possible. What did I hear with this piece of equipment that I didn't with the other? What was the general character of the music with each component? I feel that's about as good an analysis of imperfections as I can give.

 

[shivohum]

Hirsch wrote:
Quote:

Although, in using the ZOTL this way, what's the reference point? For me, it's simply the pleasure I get listening. The extent that the equipment will get out of the way, so that I'm listening to the music rather than the quality of the reproduction, is the index I prefer to use to rate a component. This should not be confused with accuracy, neutrality, tranparency, or any other audio buzzwords that try to describe sonic quality.

Interesting, but dangerous. By this definition, weren't the best components you ever had those that you owned before you were into hi-fi? That's true of me, at least.

Of course there may be other rewards that hi-fi offers, like a richer listening experience, but hi-fi has certainly made the equipment in general more, not less, prominent when I listen to music.

 

[fredpb]

Notice how some are just looking for good sound, and others seek perfection? But perfection will always elude everyone because the target is a matter of TASTE.

Some go for good wine. ( I found a $8 french red I like).

Some go for fine cigars. (I can't smoke anymore).

Some go for perfect coffee. (I can't have caffene, so I am going nuts roasting my own decaff).

Some go for the right motorcar. (But we all usually travel the same type of roadway).

On and on. Are some interested in good sound, or just the pursuit of perfection as they see/hear it.

The thread has been resurrected.

Everything sounds different. Just find something you can live with.
But talk is fun. The search if fun. Just don't let it impact your finances or you mental wellbeing!

 

[phidauex]

Good replys, everyone.

One of the things I love about audio is the search for something that can never be attained. But upon realization that the search will never end, one can simply sit back, and enjoy it, without worrying about the end.

My goal is to reproduce in audio the very moment of the music's creation. My goal is to have the exact same pattern of waves enter my ears, as would have the day that musical piece was performed, had I been standing right there with the musicians.

Have you ever seen one of those historical reproduction groups? They do things like reenact civil war battles, or setup small mining towns that are identical to the way they would have been in the 1800s, and things like that. Audio is like that. Its trying to reenact a musical performance that only happened once.

But that can never be done! All the best equipment in the world can't do it. In fact, its theoretically impossible, due to the effects of measurement on the data through Heisenberg Uncertainty! So if there is no end, no perfection, then I can either let that drive me insane, or I can now enjoy the journey without worrying about perfection. I KNOW my equipment is imperfect. I know my friends are imperfect too, but I still like hanging out with them!

A little humourous quote I like, that happens to apply quite well to this situation, is: "Life is a journey, not a destination. So quit running!" Audio is a journey without a destination, so don't bother hurrying. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. Whether you are in ksc-35 town, or hd600 land, or even if you are riding with an orpheus, just chill and enjoy the music.

I'm rambling now, waxing philosophical. On a more PRACTICAL level, I agree that objective identification of the imperfections of each individual headphone, and what one's personal preference is for various combinations of imperfections is important to determining what headphones to try in the future. I know lots of people do this already, and try to make objective reviews, based on subjective information. While its true that all of audio is subjective, because of the fact that everyone's ears and brains are different, and not in predictable ways, we can still make an attempt to be objective. If I say, "Headphone A's midrange is more pronounced, but doesn't muddy or skew vocal presentation, while Headphone B's midrange is dark to the point that it almost becomes difficult to make out some vocal passages," then I'm clearly being more objective than "Headphone A's midrange just stomps all over Headphone B."

When I first found head-fi, i searched a LOT of reviews before choosing my headphones. Lots of people do this! Very few of us have the money to buy tons of headphones, and audition them all. Most of us don't have access to good hi-fi stores with good headphone sections. We rely on each other to decide what direction to go with our equipment. We are a TRUSTED SOURCE of information in the headphone world. Its important that we cultivate good reviewing skills. A good blend of objective and subjective information, that points out the imperfections and 'flavors' of different presentation. Its fine to express preference to one headphone over another, of course, but remember that in the high end market, there isn't one headphone that is objectively superior to another headphone in every way. If I can think about my favorite headphone, I can probably determine some things about it that other people may not be as fond of as I am. Maybe its something subtle about the sound. Maybe it feels tight on my small head, so would be almost unbearable on a person with a large head. Those are things to think about. A review shouldn't just stomp on the bad phone, and sing praises to the good phone, it should identify specific qualities, and then discuss how different listening styles might cause them to be pleasant, or unpleasant to the listener.

Anyway, blah blah blah, enjoy the music.

peace,
phidauex

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

Originally posted by phidauex Anyway, blah blah blah, enjoy the music. peace

coolness!

 

[a1leyez0nm3]

good posts, for me it is about searching for my tastes, like some said as cars. I dont necessarily need perfection, but the sound made more to my preference, because in reality, the music is something that someone else created in their preferences, and so on. besides perfection is impossible, but i do agree that close to it is nice, just live with the imperfections that suit your tastes.

 

[dngl]

i agree that it is best to point out headphone imperfections more than strengths. Of course, when one does that (myself and kelly, etc), we are thought of as too picky

 

[jpelg]

The main problem I generally find is that our language is severely lacking when it comes to describing good or bad points about a headphone. Much confusion tends to lie in the degree a certain adjective or superlative means to us. Words like "enough", or "too much/little", "musical", etc. are all so subjective. Even terms that refer to specific ranges withing the musical frequency spectrum (where does upper bass differ from lower mids, for example?). Often it is not until I actually have owned, or listened to a pair of headphones that I understand what "this" reviewer or "that" reviewer was stating in his/her opinions. Many times I will agree with many peoples opinions, perhaps just differing in where my own preferences lie within those statements.

That being said, I am happy that we have such a garden of well-made, different, and reasonably priced products from which to pick, choose, try, and argue about! Imagine if Microsoft got into the headphone biz?

 

[impoeticpoet]

Microsoft could buy out Sennheiser or Grado or package a free "microsoft" headphone with every purchase of XP or some thing.

I hope that never happens.

English is also severely lacking in a set "standard" for spelling. I almost spelled "purchase" as "perchess". ("headphone" as "hedfone"?)