[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.

 

[Edwood]

What's the intended source and amp?

-Ed

 

[Shang-Ti Chen]

Condition being that all of them are pushed to the limit.

 

[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.

 

[Shang-Ti Chen]

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"?

 

[markl]

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

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

 

[Eagle_Driver]

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.

 

[Shang-Ti Chen]

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?

 

[Beagle]

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.

 

[Chefguru]

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 !"

 

[markl]

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.

 

[Shang-Ti Chen]

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.

 

[Shang-Ti Chen]

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.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

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]

 

[Shang-Ti Chen]

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.