To sum up what I said: within reason, there's no innate quality of sound. I'd love a counterargument.
It follows from what I said that we can eq a set of $10 headphones to the sonic detail of the hd 800. (But I wouldn't say any $10 headphone - price being a poor indication of fidelity.)
I have these really old headphones from purchased in1998. Sony at the time made the R-10, the MDR 1st series MDR CD 950 and CD3000 the second series MDR CD1700 and the MDR CD 870s and below. That is the order of quality with the R-10 being the most costly and complicated model. We all know that Sony changes their house sound and a just recently changed again. At the time I could only afford the MDR CD 870s. Still after all these years they seem to have the most realistic representation of the recordings out of all my headphones. Listening to the R-10 can be a little of a let down. First they are rare, they cost 5K and when you finally get to listen to them they have this perfectly flat, polite response that just sounds almost bass light and treble light by today's standards.
I know that some headphones I like have both boosted treble and bass. Somehow a V boost seems to make music both emotional and more dramatic at times. IMO
So in a nut shell I'm saying that uncolored (Sony R-10) would be the innate quality of sound and that we buy headphones because they jazz up qualities. Still those qualities take us farther from a transparent response graph.
What I'm getting at is I feel the Sony R-10 is maybe the headphone with the least added color? The HD800 too. So just in my views the quality of sound would be a transparent quality.
Though I do agree like many of the posts that it IS highly subjective. Imagine if musicians that were drummers or musicians that were guitarists would become attracted to headphone which replicated the instruments they loved with detail and clarity. They may like a set of headphones and not know why.
take the cd1700, boost a little at 6-7khz while still keeping a good roll off shape, remove ever so slightly some 10khz, don't know about the sub, I would need to ear it, and you end up with something real close to how I EQ my hd50. ok maybe it's easier to find a hd650 those days ^_^.
Listening to the R-10 can be a little of a let down. First they are rare, they cost 5K and when you finally get to listen to them they have this perfectly flat, polite response that just sounds almost bass light and treble light by today's standards
It's been my experience that a balanced response doesn't sound bass light or treble light at all. It sounds *balanced*. The defining feature is the ability to separate all of the different instruments- inner transparency, not the amount of bass or treble. But that all depends on the recording and whether it was originally equalized to a flat response. I listen primarily to pre-1980s music, and almost all of that is equalized to a flat response and sounds perfect.
Generally, when I put on a recent recording that isn't recorded to a balanced response, particularly R&B, the sub bass and treble are overpowering and the mids are buried, particularly the low mids- classic V shaped response curve. I never understand why people say that a balanced response sounds "thin". I can only guess that they haven't actually heard a balanced response. I can't think of a recent recording that sounds thin with a balanced response. I have heard muddy sounding ones (lots of late 70s, early 80s rock sounds like that), and I have heard ones with thunderous sub bass and harsh high treble (hip hop and R&B). But never "thin".
Any credible researcher knows that the double blind testing you describe (hiding the source and hiding if any changes are actually made) is a bare minimum standard. Audiophiles avoid double blind for a variety reasons. One of their most popular assertions: "I am not biased and can make impartial assessments".
That brings us to an interesting tangent: Why do so many members have top tier headphones?
I guess because they have the best SQ? But you of course mean if they really have better SQ than cheaper/inferior headphones. I dont know, what IS better? That is what this thread is about? I would take a flat EQ over any other any day, even the cheap ER kids with flat respons would I take over a $$$ headphone that sounds V shaped or whatever you call it. Of course you can EQ the bass down... but then there comes the Q: WHEN can you EQ one headphone/speaker to sound like another, and WHICH other? Which headphone is the standard? I though Etymotic Research did make some very flat earphones. What is the point in having 4892842390 headphones on the market then, if all you need is a flat EQ and an equaliser?
That is a very good question. To me, the answer is no point at all. But there are certain audiophiles to whom equalization is like garlic to a vampire. They are happy to wax poetic about the blatantly obvious distortion of the their tube amps, but explode with righteous indignation at the completely inaudible distortions from an equalizer.
I think it comes down to the expectations of audiophiles. They want to pay enough money that they can expect everything to be perfect right out of the box. They pay a premium so they don't have to do anything themselves to get great sound. This is the exact opposite from the mindset of the old school hifi nut from the 70s. That is where I started. We would read up on electronics and acoustics and try to tweak our systems to get the most out of them.
I've been using equalizers in my system for almost 40 years. The first ones I had were ten band monsters that were prone to ground loop hums and crackly pots, but modern ones are flexible, accurate and clean as a whistle. Anyone who doesn't use one isn't getting the most out of their equipment.
That is a very good question. To me, the answer is no point at all. But there are certain audiophiles to whom equalization is like garlic to a vampire. They are happy to wax poetic about the blatantly obvious distortion of the their tube amps, but explode with righteous indignation at the completely inaudible distortions from an equalizer.
I think it comes down to the expectations of audiophiles. They want to pay enough money that they can expect everything to be perfect right out of the box. They pay a premium so they don't have to do anything themselves to get great sound. This is the exact opposite from the mindset of the old school hifi nut from the 70s. That is where I started. We would read up on electronics and acoustics and try to tweak our systems to get the most out of them.
I've been using equalizers in my system for almost 40 years. The first ones I had were ten band monsters that were prone to ground loop hums and crackly pots, but modern ones are flexible, accurate and clean as a whistle. Anyone who doesn't use one isn't getting the most out of their equipment.
If you end up buying your HD800 you really should buy another amp that pairs better with it because otherwise it will sound too thin and distant. Jokes aside most consumers not caring about SQ buy their phones <$200, so the +- $400> phones are meant for the audiophiles? Why would an audiophile NOT want a flat FR? Because their amp is too warm, so they need a colder sounding phone? I dont get it.
That is a very easy one to answer... Audiophiles usually have no idea what a flat response sounds like. They hear the word "flat" and don't understand what response is and assume "flat" means "bland and lifeless". Without any knowledge of baseline calibration or how to achieve it, they wander from color to color, wondering which color is best. There are a million wrong answers, but only one right answer. To be able to answer a question, you have to be able to ask the *right* question first. Without any concept of how sound works, you just end up floundering about.
I have pretty expensive headphones, Oppo PM-1s. The reason I like them over other kinds of headphones is because I don't need to carry around an amp or equalizer to make them sound good. I just plug them straight in to my iPod classic and they are balanced in all the important places. That kind of simplicity and lack of clutter is important to me, and I am willing to pay a little premium for it. It's the same reason I have Macs instead of PCs.
I'd rather pay $180 for Beyerdynamic Dt-770 250ohm than pay $1399 for the T1's that sound only a tiny bit better. Now that being said if I win the Lottery I would buy the T1's.
I guess because they have the best SQ? But you of course mean if they really have better SQ than cheaper/inferior headphones. I dont know, what IS better? That is what this thread is about? I would take a flat EQ over any other any day, even the cheap ER kids with flat respons would I take over a $$$ headphone that sounds V shaped or whatever you call it. Of course you can EQ the bass down... but then there comes the Q: WHEN can you EQ one headphone/speaker to sound like another, and WHICH other? Which headphone is the standard? I though Etymotic Research did make some very flat earphones. What is the point in having 4892842390 headphones on the market then, if all you need is a flat EQ and an equaliser?
As I got around to arguing just above your post, sound quality isn't inherent in headphones. For that reason, there's no one standard headphone, and it follows that if you find 4892842390 headphones on the market, it's because (a) there's no single standard, and (b) there's that many people in the market looking to pay someone else to find their standard.
Headphones are the total sum of 100% of their parts, construction technique and design.
Every headphone is it's own single musical instument. Some are close but no two are exactly the same.
For the above reasons a secondary headphone can be made by a manufacture but without the same parts the sound will only be close to the original due to design.
Take the Philips Golden Ear Challenge.. Listed below are some of the basic test challenges and, those who know this golden ear challenge know that the testing gets progressively harder, not only do your cans have to be up to the challenge your ears have to be up to the challenge.
Timbre
Differences in tone or the frequency of content of music
Details
The lack of treble, distortion, or noise that can mask the fine details
Spatial Impression
The depth and spaciousness of the sound field
Bass
The quality of low frequencies
Loudness
The perception of sound power, from quiet to loud
I made it to the half way mark on the gold ear challenge using the HiFIMAN HE-400 headphones and the line out jack on my ASUS PC motherboard, I never completed the gold challenge, I lost interest (the music samples became so annoying) ♫ just one look she makes me go wild ♫ it was killin' me. Also I couldn't complete all the challenges in one sitting the gold level does require ear training to complete. Picking out a subtle boost in the frequency scale takes mental practice.
If my tier 2 cans can cut the challenge at the gold level what does that say about the current state of tier 2 sound quality? I'm willingly to bet that commonly considered lower than "tier 2" headphones are capable of gold level challenge. I'm also willingly to bet that folks with mild hearing loss using tier 1 headphones can not complete the silver level. My point is if tier 2 is capable of gold the answer to this question becomes obvious with controlled science doing the testing
Take the Philips Golden Ear Challenge.. Listing are some the basic test challenges and those who know this golden ear challenge know that the testing gets progressively harder, not only do your cans have to be up to the challenge your ears have to be up to the challenge.
Timbre
Differences in tone or the frequency of content of music
Details
The lack of treble, distortion, or noise that can mask the fine details
Spatial Impression
The depth and spaciousness of the sound field
Bass
The quality of low frequencies
Loudness
The perception of sound power, from quiet to loud
I made it to the half way mark on the gold ear challenge using the HiFIMAN HE-400 headphones and the line out jack on my ASUS PC motherboard, I never completed the gold challenge, I lost interest (the music samples became so annoying) ♫ just one look she makes me go wild ♫ it was killin' me. Also I couldn't complete all the challenges in one sitting the gold level does require ear training to complete. Picking out a subtle boost in the frequency scale takes mental practice.
If my tier 2 cans can cut the challenge at the gold level what does that say about the current state of tier 2 sound quality? I'm willingly to bet that commonly considered lower than "tier 2" headphones are capable of gold level challenge. I'm also willingly to bet that folks with mild hearing loss using tier 1 headphones can not complete the silver level. My point is if tier 2 is capable of gold the answer to this question becomes obvious with controlled science doing the testing
EQ can make midrange cans sound like much better models. That is for sure. With EQ you can make any decent headphone sound pretty much like any other decent headphone.
EQ can make midrange cans sound like much better models. That is for sure. With EQ you can make any decent headphone sound pretty much like any other decent headphone.
EQ can make midrange cans sound like much better models. That is for sure. With EQ you can make any decent headphone sound pretty much like any other decent headphone.
Just two examples here, but there are hundreds of how a headphones physical properies affect.
From the UK K 701 website below.
The K 701 is the first headphone to employ cutting edge flat-wire voice coil technology along with AKG's patented Varimotion technology dual layer diaphragm. The diaphragm's thickness varies from 80 µm in the center zone (to provide an accurate and linear pistonic motion for well-balanced HF response) to 40 µm at the perimeter for high elasticity to accommodate the increased excursion required for accurate midrange and LF reproduction.
.......and from a review on the HD 800 you can read that there is advanced driver technology which makes the driver competely different in reproducing the sound waves close to your ear. The character of the sound waves are in such a way that they can't be created with something as simple as EQ.
I had the good fortune of a factory visit to Sennheiser's campus in Wennebostel, Germany sometime in 2005--four years before the HD 800 made its appearance at the 2009 Consumer Electronics Show, the HD 800 was already heavily under development. We'll never know, of course, but I reckon these headphones have more R&D hours invested in them than any other on the planet. The engineers at Sennheiser were given a "clean slate" to develop the world's best dynamic headphone. At the time of my visit, the dialog mostly centered on developing large diaphragm drivers for dynamic headphones that would deliver a flatter wave-front as it approached the ear and that wouldn't suffer "cone break-up." It was obvious to me they were also having the time of their lives with the whole variety of issues surrounding headphone design, and were up to their necks in all manner of design ideas and visions. Interestingly, the final product was very unlike what I saw on computer screens that day in 2005--the sound, however, is not unlike what I had imagined: simply spectacular.
This is the main reason why you can EQ a HD 650 all day till the cows come home yet it will never reach the sound of an HD800.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
