[RickG]

I've never really understood why there is such a contoversy over one owning a number of headphones. If you can afford it, and that's what you want.....who cares? If I want to collect guitars, stamps, antiques, or swimming pools, what's the big deal?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vertigo-1
The idea behind owning more than one headphone is simple...if you own them all, you essentially cover all bases and no longer have to deal the flaws of any one headphone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess this is true if you are listening for flaws. I listen to the music....and enjoy the attributes of my favorite phones.....not the shortcomings. IMO, there's a lot more people here listenting to everything except the music.

If you could just take the time to put on a great piece of music...one of your favorites, and just dig it, you might be surprised at how wonderful your cans really sound!

 

[eric343]

HD600s for normal at-the-desk HeadFi surfing and at LAN parties for gaming (where open is a plus so I can hear what people say), Etys for travel and hardcore auditioning...

 

[Vertigo-1]

Quote:

Originally posted by RickG IMO, there's a lot more people here listenting to everything except the music.

I think that's true, and the problem is we can't get away from that. It's the side effect of having a trained audiophile mind. Now that we know what sounds good and doesn't, our minds always will subconsciously be looking for flaws in the hardware.

IMO we can laugh all we want at the people that use Streetstyles and Bose products, but they're the ones that are REALLY enjoying the music for what it is.

 

[eric343]

I'll have to disagree with you there Vert... I find I don't listen to flaws at all unless I'm auditioning, and even then I tend to get swept away, sit back, relax, close my eyes, and get lost in the music... It may be related to my tendency to not notice flaws unless they're glaring (*cough*bosenoisecancellingheadphones*cough*) or I'm doing a comparison... Who knows

Maybe I'm not a real audiophile

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Vertigo-1 IMO we can laugh all we want at the people that use Streetstyles and Bose products, but they're the ones that are REALLY enjoying the music for what it is.

LOL, Vert...I think you're on to something there!

 

[taoster]

to suggest that multiple headphone is only useful for flaw detection is rediculous. my favourite analogy is food, just because your main diet is international cusine, a variation of occasional mexican, thai, indian and chinese is desirable. its all a matter of taste.

similarly, when i am using my balanced hd580, I often crave for my "honey-watered" grado.

 

[DeanA]

Quote:

Originally posted by Vertigo-1 IMO we can laugh all we want at the people that use Streetstyles and Bose products, but they're the ones that are REALLY enjoying the music for what it is.

And I can't understand why that is such a hard concept for people to understand, regardless of the headphone brand or type.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hirsch Until we as listeners become a homogenous group, headphones with different sounds are going to appeal to different listeners. What some perceive as flaws may be virtues to others. In order to achieve a wide understanding of the sonic capabilities of headphone systems that exist, it becomes necessary to experience variety, if only to determine our own preferences. But, once we figure out what we prefer, does it stay constant? Not to me. I'm happy if I can nail it down for an evening.

I'd say my wishes have stayed pretty constant over the years. I've never once heard live music and thought to myself, "Hmm, I wish there wasn't as much electronic glare on that" or "Wow, the bass on that organ isn't nearly as tight and deep as it should be." I've never even had to say, "This stuff is really undersampled and the artifacts are driving me nuts."

I'm not an audiophile. As much as I enjoy talking to you guys, I'm actually only into this little obsession because the equipment has become such an obstacle to me. I don't want to "collect" it, I don't want to admire the differences between different ones, I just wish every piece of equipment I can afford didn't make such huge sacrifices of qualities I like just to accomplish other qualities I like--qualities that to my ears, I find in real life.

In real life, I complain sometimes about the venue. Sometimes about the performers. Sometimes the music. Rarely but occasionally the instruments. But the moment you amplify it and try to reproduce it through a loudspeaker--or worse yet, record it first? My complaint list goes way longer. The difference here is when a musician sucks, I LIKE critiquing that. I like finding the flaws (if you can call them that) and nuances in different musicians and performers. This process with equipment is just a necessary evil to me.

I understand that you guys like the whole thing--dig the challenge of matching the right tubes to even out a headphone and whatnot. It's a fine hobby for you, it's just not for me. For me it's an obstacle.

Quote:

Vertigo: Yah but if one indeed owned that many headphones, I'd hope they'd find some flaw that they can be satisfied with for the night. Otherwise you'd have nowhere to run, and be quite screwed.

Welcome to my world.

 

[eric343]

Kelly- you and my dad would get along famously.

 

[Hirsch]

One of the big myths perpetrated by the Abso!ute Sound, and others, was that live music could serve as a reference to recorded music. They are not the same thing at all. The closest you can get is the very first time you hear a new recording. After that, you're bringing a set of knowledge to the listening session that could never happen in a live event. You know the song order, what the musicians will play at any given point, where any wrong notes are... recorded music is a static medium, while live music is a dynamic one. A recording never changes, while a live performance only occurs once, and never the same exact way again. To try and compare the way in which we listen to these very different presentations of music has, IMO, led us down some very unproductive paths at times.

I simply want to enjoy recorded music for what it is. Trying to compare it to live music has never really helped me do this.

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hirsch I simply want to enjoy recorded music for what it is. Trying to compare it to live music has never really helped me do this.

Amen, Hirsch.......

 

[kelly]

I've only seen a couple of issues of Absolute Sound. If I wanted to quote them, I likely would have quoted them. I'm picky that way.

The sentiment that live music should not serve as the reference for recordings is, to me, ludicrous. All recorded music begins as live music. From there it deteriorates. We approach the ideal as the level of deterioration decreases. Mixing techniques aside, this is as basic as it gets.

If I heard a trumpet on a recording and it sounded like a dolphin, would you say to me, "That's how recorded trumpets sound. You can't compare a recording of a trumpet to a live trumpet. Recorded trumpets are supposed to sound like dolphins!" No? If not, then why should I sit to be content when the majority of equipment I have heard also sound nothing like a trumpet?

If you take a picture and the picture is blurred, out of focus and dark. I might note to you that it is blurred, out of focus and dark. You might note to me that it is a picture. If you can be content with the idea that the picture shouldn't look anything like the object photographed then I'll leave you to your happiness. Pardon me if I meanwhile try to produce a picture that actually looks like subject.

 

[Hirsch]

Kelly,

I mentioned TAS simply because IMO they are the chief perpetrators of the live music as a reference hoax (and I do believe it is that, even if the perpetrator is only fooling himself).

Rather than rehash arguments I've made at various time previously, I'll simply say that the live music experience is far too rich to be captured on a recorded medium.

Since you've introduced a photographic analogy, let's say that we can attempt to capture an image. However, the reality is that any image, be it photographical or audiorecording, is an attempt to capture a dynamic event in a static medium. Sure, a picture bears a resemblance to the object being photographed, just as recorded music bears a resemblance to live music. However, once you take your picture, the subject continues to change, whether it's an animal, in which the subject will change rapidly, or a mountain, which will change over centuries. The representation, however, will never change, except for deterioration of the medium on which it is recorded. Do note that photographers use a variety of lenses and developing techniques to deliberately alter the photograph to make the it more aesthetically appealing...introducing coloration that represents a departure from the neutral presentation of the object being photographed in order to introduce a euphonic distortion of the reality that makes the picture more enjoyable.

If you can find a picture of the Grand Canyon that captures the emotional impact of being there and seeing it personally, let me know. In the meantime, I'll appreciate the picture as a picture, and the real thing as itself also. Same thing with music. If I had to compare any recording I had with the live experience, it would be found wanting. So, rather than tilt at that particular windmill, I simply appreciate recorded music for what it is.

Let's face it, a typical multitracked studio recording was never "live music" anyway. Although the music may have been originally performed by live musicians, the various pieces may have been taken from different takes...the piece that you hear on the recording never have happened as a live event at all, but is only a composite of several such events. So? If I like it, I'll still listen to it. I'm easy that way.

 

[Audio-Me]

My take on reproduced music is, the fact that you can get a glimpse of the live performance even though the time has long passed since the event is a wonderful thing. For studio recordings, well it's still music, take it as it is. It's good to get as realistic sound as possible, but it doesn't have to be "near perfect" for me to enjoy it...

 

[kerelybonto]

Yeah, I agree that live and recorded music are entirely different. Live music is an experience. The sound quality to each member of the audience at a show is probably significantly worse than if he were listening to the performer's studio-recorded album. (This might not be true for club-type shows, etc, but the music i listen to is usually larger venues.) You go to live shows with friends, you go to have a good time, you go to get that extra dimension -- which has nothing to do with sound -- that you don't get from sticking a disc in a player.

kerelybonto