In what order are RS-1, L3000, W2002 and R10 in detail?
post-747741
Thread Starter
Post #1 of 29

Shang-Ti Chen

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Posts
781
Likes
10
As title... which of them has the most details and what is the order if arranged from the most to the least detailed? Thanks.
 
     Share This Post       
post-747877
Post #3 of 29

Shang-Ti Chen

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Posts
781
Likes
10
Condition being that all of them are pushed to the limit.
 
     Share This Post       
post-747894
Post #4 of 29

zcx

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
155
Reaction score
1
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Posts
155
Likes
1
THis is a funny question~

in any case, detail is one important part of the sound, but it is not ALL.

In my mind, I prefer R10~
because it find the best way to show the details and at the same time it doesn't cause listening-tired.
 
     Share This Post       
post-747904
Post #5 of 29

Shang-Ti Chen

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Posts
781
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally posted by zcx
THis is a funny question~

in any case, detail is one important part of the sound, but it is not ALL.

In my mind, I prefer R10~
because it find the best way to show the details and at the same time it doesn't cause listening-tired.


You mean for you, R10 has the most details "in quantity"?
 
     Share This Post       
post-748059
Post #6 of 29

markl

Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
9,130
Reaction score
40
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,130
Likes
40
Haven't heard the L3000, but if i were to rank the others from MOST---->LEAST:

R10------------>W2002---------------------------------------------->RS-1
 
     Share This Post       
post-748069
Post #7 of 29

Eagle_Driver

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
6,447
Reaction score
26
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
6,447
Likes
26
I, like markl, have never heard the L3000. But I did listen to the other three on my own equipment (but I didn't pay attention to detail when I listened to them). Of the three I like the R10 - if only I can fork over thousands of $$$ just to get the frigging wood Sonys. I didn't care much for either the W2002 or the RS-1, particularly for their going prices.
 
     Share This Post       
post-748085
Post #8 of 29

Shang-Ti Chen

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Posts
781
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally posted by markl
Haven't heard the L3000, but if i were to rank the others from MOST---->LEAST:

R10------------>W2002---------------------------------------------->RS-1


Wow... Does W2002 really truly have more details than RS-1?
Does the length of the ¡Ð¡Ö mean the difference of amount of detail? If put in Omega II and ER-4S, how will the order be?
 
     Share This Post       
post-748090
Post #9 of 29

Beagle

His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
8,602
Reaction score
2,403
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Posts
8,602
Likes
2,403
Quote:

Originally posted by Shang-Ti Chen
As title... which of them has the most details and what is the order if arranged from the most to the least detailed? Thanks.


Depends which part of the frequency spectrum you are looking for detail in. If you want natural detail across the spectrum as you would hear real live musical instruments, try the RS-1. If you want details for details sake, try the others.
 
     Share This Post       
post-748096
Post #10 of 29

Chefguru

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
23
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Posts
1,774
Likes
23
I would agree that the w2002 has more detail then the rs-1. The w2002 is a much better headphone imo then any of the grado's including the hp-1000(maybe not the ps1-pro though). The l3000 from what I understand is simlar but has more/better bass then the w2002 and is more on the netural side.
R10 has even more detail then the w2002. Any more detail then the r10 is just stupid.
" wow I can hear some one taking a crap in the backround of yo-yo ma's cd !"
 
     Share This Post       
post-748099
Post #11 of 29

markl

Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
9,130
Reaction score
40
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,130
Likes
40
Quote:

Wow... Does W2002 really truly have more details than RS-1? Does the length of the ¡Ð¡Ö mean the difference of amount of detail? If put in Omega II and ER-4S, how will the order be?


Yes, I tried to indicate approximate amount of detail by the lines. Haven't heard the Omega II enough to place it accurately, but ER4S would be between W2002 and RS-1 but closer to the W2002 than to RS-1.

These are all such radically different phones you're contemplating here. IMO, there's much more to a headphone than just "detail", there's tone & timbre, soundstaging, frequency balance, imaging, musicality, etc. etc. You can find the most detailed headphone to your ears, but it comes up so short in other areas for you, that it just doesn't sound "right" for you. You really need to try as many of these as you can to find to hear for yourself. Quote:

Depends which part of the frequency spectrum you are looking for detail in.


No, I think he's asking about *resolution* or the ability to hear everything on a recording rather than coloration or which part of the frequency spectrum is out of balance with the rest. You can have an overly aggressive treble machine that fails to produce much resolution in the high-end, just over-emphasis, extra volume and noise. Or a phone with a huge mid-bass volume hump that still sounds "one-note" and isn't articulate at all.
 
     Share This Post       
post-748100
Post #12 of 29

Shang-Ti Chen

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Posts
781
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle
Depends which part of the frequency spectrum you are looking for detail in. If you want natural detail across the spectrum as you would hear real live musical instruments, try the RS-1. If you want details for details sake, try the others.


What do you mean... don't quite get it.
 
     Share This Post       
post-748118
Post #13 of 29

Shang-Ti Chen

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Posts
781
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally posted by markl
These are all such radically different phones you're contemplating here. IMO, there's much more to a headphone than just "detail", there's tone & timbre, soundstaging, frequency balance, imaging, musicality, etc. etc. You can find the most detailed headphone to your ears, but it comes up so short in other areas for you, that it just doesn't sound "right" for you. You really need to try as many of these as you can to find to hear for yourself.


I know... thanks for your good hearted suggestion markl.
I just want to know so asked.
 
     Share This Post       
post-748119
Post #14 of 29

Eagle_Driver

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
6,447
Reaction score
26
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
6,447
Likes
26
Quote:

Originally posted by Chefguru
Any more detail then the r10 is just stupid.
" wow I can hear some one taking a crap in the backround of yo-yo ma's cd !"


[size=medium]R
O
T
F
[/size]
[size=medium]L
M
A
O!!!
[/size]
 
     Share This Post       
post-748153
Post #15 of 29

Shang-Ti Chen

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Posts
781
Likes
10
R10 is that detailed??
How much more details does R10 have than RS-1? It's kind of hard for me to imagine what it is like to be more detailed than RS-1. So from what you have said... then RS-1 is not like some say the most detailed dynamic headphone at all.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top