[icebear]

How about thinking about your interpretation of non-colored ... ?
 
Taking it away from measurements as this obviously results in frequency charts that are all over the place depending on the method used. Getting a rough idea if the particular headphone has a technical fault by looking at the measurement, yeah OK, that will work. Evaluating how the headphone will be able to accurately reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments by looking at measurements? Not so much.
 
Go to a live concert, preferably with acoustic instruments and get a CD of the musician/band/orchestra and listen to it at home. Listen to it with the HD800 and if it doesn't sound like the real thing, then kick your source into the bin

. Because the problem will for sure be upstream and not the HD800 itself.
 
For me "non-colored" is the basic principle of hifi. Highest fidelity, i.e. most accurate reproduction of the original recording. This might not be pleasing for certain types of music and what people like is always a matter of personal preference. Some like .. "yeah great bass, dude", others are .. "well, that's totally blurred and muddied by wobbly bass". So whatever tickles you fancy. In my book listening to live music and compare it to what I hear in my set up is the only thing that matters, to me at least

 

[JVC steven]

  How about thinking about your interpretation of non-colored ... ?

My interpretation was ( until i joined head fi) very much like yours. Perhaps i should stick to it lol

 

[Redcarmoose]

Many maybe remember the era a couple of years ago when Head-FI experienced the ATH-M50 surge. You had a parallel surge in headphones in general from many directions. Headphones were somehow becoming mainstream it seemed. So many people had this idea to recommend the M-50 to everyone. No matter what questions were asked everything was also related to the M-50. In the beginning they were priced at $100.


It actually became quite comical as there was a giant bandwagon of supporters. It was kinda the perfect headphone to sway the new members and due to their value they somehow trumped in cost to performance, any other headphones at the time.

In some terms they were revolutionary like sliced bread. A headphone for the masses. They were not totally flat but had a missing mid boost. They actually had a slight bass boost, but in their price range it was entry audiophile. The bass did not totally come up and wreak havoc on the recessed mids? The detail in the treble was nothing to write home about. They again had this entry level audiophile treble. The deliveries of headstage were not too big or small. They made it onto the wall of fame.

My first point is inspite of the noob groups getting the M-50s and being emotional about them most described my terms shown above word for word. The M-50s are a great example of a pair of headphones not really doing anything spectacularly right, but they politely did not much wrong. Anyone who has had a pair for a number of years knows they are slightly boring and plain, still in many ways they are humble and do their job as a monitor headphone. They are built well and last.


What I'm saying is the sound perception by the masses is correct on these disputed little and still in accordance with our biological perception changing factors and ear topography distortions. These traits are found by seasoned members and new members and are seldom disputed.

The only factor that must be taken into account is many reviewers had very little experience with headphones and had no past listening to use as reference.

 

[JVC steven]

I believe that one of the biggest reasons for the conflicting opinions on Head Fi is just down-right objectivism. I think many on this form should consider that... (myself included)

 

[RRod]

What I'm saying is the sound perception by the masses is correct on these disputed little and still in accordance with our biological perception changing factors and ear topography distortions. These traits are found by seasoned members and new members and are seldom disputed.

The only factor that must be taken into account is many reviewers had very little experience with headphones and had no past listening to use as reference.

 
I agree completely that one can find a consistency of description across many users for any given set of cans; that's what I alluded to earlier by how particular headphones deviate from an overall averaged response. But the variations from the overall opinion, which happen often, are at least partially due to variations in our physiology. It would be entirely wrong to dismiss an opinion that differs from masses simply as "oh you just don't have experience", so long as what they hear could be explained by anatomy.

 

[JVC steven]

   
I agree completely that one can find a consistency of description across many users for any given set of cans; that's what I alluded to earlier by how particular headphones deviate from an overall averaged response. But the variations from the overall opinion, which happen often, are at least partially due to variations in our physiology. It would be entirely wrong to dismiss an opinion that differs from masses simply as "oh you just don't have experience", so long as what they hear could be explained by anatomy.

You understand all this perfectly. I admire your reasoning

 

[castleofargh]

there are exactly 2 problems.
1/ thinking that what we perceive is true at all time(extreme subjectivist). magicians and "trompe l'oeil" must look amazing to those people. disregarding that we tend to fool ourselves and make up rational explanations that attempt to fit our model of knowledge. each time we learn more, we may realize we were wrong before because our model may add something that was missing. but what if we go at it with complete trust in ourselves? then new conflicting information is just seen as something impossible and wrong.
that trust in our own feelings and perception of sound is as much a great cue to how things sound, as it is blinding us from understanding the real world. denying the existence of bias is the silliest thing an audiophile could do.
 
 
2/ doing a mess with 1% technical data thinking it says it all(bad objectivists). not knowing how to read a frequency response, making comparisons between different websites, forgetting to look if the graph is raw or compensated, if it's smoothed(how much?), the unit range that may flatten a graph just by increasing the range of the vertical axis...
and that's just on a silly simple frequency response graph. so the opportunities to read factual data and totally misinterpret the meaning is very very easy to do.
that ends up being the very same thing, being sure of ourselves and claiming total nonsense because we didn't factor in enough to make a relevant claim.
 
 
 we have plenty of both on audio forums, and the key point each time is self confidence hindering us. we will be wrong, all of us, the question is how fast can we come to accept it when confronted to evidence that we were wrong?
that's what creates troubles all year long, not objectivism or subjectivism. only egos shouting "I know better, I don't need you to tell me".
 
 
and of course objectivism leads to more conflicts than subjectivism. the very idea of subjectivism is that we all get things differently, so no one claim is really relevant. X said this, but Y said that, yeah well ok I don't care I think a third thing, nobody's learning anything and everybody can stay self assured.  worst case scenario one guy challenges another because he believes his "truth" is stronger than the other guy's "truth". the guy making the claim will always get out with a simple "that's how I hear it". end of discussion.
 
but objectivists look for something that can be verified 99.9% of the times it will be tested. so of course each time a guy comes making a claim based on what he alone believes that doesn't align with what has been measured otherwise 99.9% of the time, all objectivists with the data will come saying the claim is false and ask for evidence. that is sure to lead to more conflict than everybody shouting "I hear ....". because from an objectivist, how one single person hears something doesn't make enough for a claim, it is just enough for some " I feel like".
the problem is not objectivism or subjectivism, the problem is that both "gangs" use the same language to talk about different things.
when one means neutral as in flat response, the other means neutral as in "I like it".
when one says natural, warm, fast, rich... the other one thinks the guy is tripping on mushrooms as none of those things describe a soundwave.
when one calls something better because he likes it better, the other one calls something better because it has better signal fidelity.
and that goes on and on and on.
but in here, this is sound science section, so shouldn't it be expected for people to use the science way of reasoning, arguing, and demonstrating?
would you go to church to discuss how god doesn't exist? what do you imagine will happen? of course there will be conflict. we here believe in science methods as a way to reduce the number of times we will be wrong on a subject. we don't believe in gut feelings and sighted evaluations. if that's the only "evidence" you have, don't even come in here to make a point, you do not have the means to do so.
 
when JVC steven keeps on saying that EQ, or any digital interactions "distort" the sound or colors the sound, this is a total misuse of the term "distort" as a rhetorical way to say "I don't like it, I don't know it, but most of all I don't like it". it holds no actual significance and doesn't even talk about distortions at all. this has nothing to do in a science topic.
you may actually talk about distortions and bring numbers showing how applying an EQ to compensate for HRTF ends up with a signal more distorted than listening to the music with a headphone where the signature is wrong and nothing is done to rectify it. it will at best be circumstantial because the distortion values will change depending on how much correction is needed for a given headphone. but at least it will be something real, not just digital hatred written in a casual way using wrong terms.
 
and BTW, if the correction is done by the headphone to fit someone's HRTF, then is it "distortion"? because we all just talked about how the final sound needs to fit our own HRTF, we never forced anybody to go at it with EQ only. it's hundreds of times more precise to do it with EQ than trying to mod a headphone, but everybody's free.what matters is the result, not the method. we only talk about how to have a sound that feels to us like it comes from real life sound and so sounds neutral to us. and the answer was obviously, by having a real sound changed like it would be when hitting our body, our head and our ears. and that was the most relevant and productive answer to the original question of the topic. but sure we could also have all written "NO". and be done with it. ^_^ no conflict that way. but not much use to anyone.

 

[JVC steven]

  there are exactly 2 problems.
1/ thinking that what we perceive is true at all time(extreme subjectivist). magicians and "trompe l'oeil" must look amazing to those people. disregarding that we tend to fool ourselves and make up rational explanations that attempt to fit our model of knowledge. each time we learn more, we may realize we were wrong before because our model may add something that was missing. but what if we go at it with complete trust in ourselves? then new conflicting information is just seen as something impossible and wrong.
that trust in our own feelings and perception of sound is as much a great cue to how things sound, as it is blinding us from understanding the real world. denying the existence of bias is the silliest thing an audiophile could do.
 
 
2/ doing a mess with 1% technical data thinking it says it all(bad objectivists). not knowing how to read a frequency response, making comparisons between different websites, forgetting to look if the graph is raw or compensated, if it's smoothed(how much?), the unit range that may flatten a graph just by increasing the range of the vertical axis...
and that's just on a silly simple frequency response graph. so the opportunities to read factual data and totally misinterpret the meaning is very very easy to do.
that ends up being the very same thing, being sure of ourselves and claiming total nonsense because we didn't factor in enough to make a relevant claim.
 
 
 we have plenty of both on audio forums, and the key point each time is self confidence hindering us. we will be wrong, all of us, the question is how fast can we come to accept it when confronted to evidence that we were wrong?
that's what creates troubles all year long, not objectivism or subjectivism. only egos shouting "I know better, I don't need you to tell me".
 
 
and of course objectivism leads to more conflicts than subjectivism. the very idea of subjectivism is that we all get things differently, so no one claim is really relevant. X said this, but Y said that, yeah well ok I don't care I think a third thing, nobody's learning anything and everybody can stay self assured.  worst case scenario one guy challenges another because he believes his "truth" is stronger than the other guy's "truth". the guy making the claim will always get out with a simple "that's how I hear it". end of discussion.
 
but objectivists look for something that can be verified 99.9% of the times it will be tested. so of course each time a guy comes making a claim based on what he alone believes that doesn't align with what has been measured otherwise 99.9% of the time, all objectivists with the data will come saying the claim is false and ask for evidence. that is sure to lead to more conflict than everybody shouting "I hear ....". because from an objectivist, how one single person hears something doesn't make enough for a claim, it is just enough for some " I feel like".
the problem is not objectivism or subjectivism, the problem is that both "gangs" use the same language to talk about different things.
when one means neutral as in flat response, the other means neutral as in "I like it".
when one says natural, warm, fast, rich... the other one thinks the guy is tripping on mushrooms as none of those things describe a soundwave.
when one calls something better because he likes it better, the other one calls something better because it has better signal fidelity.
and that goes on and on and on.
but in here, this is sound science section, so shouldn't it be expected for people to use the science way of reasoning, arguing, and demonstrating?
would you go to church to discuss how god doesn't exist? what do you imagine will happen? of course there will be conflict. we here believe in science methods as a way to reduce the number of times we will be wrong on a subject. we don't believe in gut feelings and sighted evaluations. if that's the only "evidence" you have, don't even come in here to make a point, you do not have the means to do so.
 
when JVC steven keeps on saying that EQ, or any digital interactions "distort" the sound or colors the sound, this is a total misuse of the term "distort" as a rhetorical way to say "I don't like it, I don't know it, but most of all I don't like it". it holds no actual significance and doesn't even talk about distortions at all. this has nothing to do in a science topic.
you may actually talk about distortions and bring numbers showing how applying an EQ to compensate for HRTF ends up with a signal more distorted than listening to the music with a headphone where the signature is wrong and nothing is done to rectify it. it will at best be circumstantial because the distortion values will change depending on how much correction is needed for a given headphone. but at least it will be something real, not just digital hatred written in a casual way using wrong terms.
 
and BTW, if the correction is done by the headphone to fit someone's HRTF, then is it "distortion"? because we all just talked about how the final sound needs to fit our own HRTF, we never forced anybody to go at it with EQ only. it's hundreds of times more precise to do it with EQ than trying to mod a headphone, but everybody's free.what matters is the result, not the method. we only talk about how to have a sound that feels to us like it comes from real life sound and so sounds neutral to us. and the answer was obviously, by having a real sound changed like it would be when hitting our body, our head and our ears. and that was the most relevant and productive answer to the original question of the topic. but sure we could also have all written "NO". and be done with it. ^_^ no conflict that way. but not much use to anyone.

Well if it makes you happy...you and Rrod have converted me.
Just go easy on people, it's easy to be fooled by "conventional thoughts and beliefs". Just like religion has a grip over billions of people. I am probably more suited to your way of thinking but didn't actually realise it.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I agree completely that one can find a consistency of description across many users for any given set of cans; that's what I alluded to earlier by how particular headphones deviate from an overall averaged response. But the variations from the overall opinion, which happen often, are at least partially due to variations in our physiology. It would be entirely wrong to dismiss an opinion that differs from masses simply as "oh you just don't have experience", so long as what they hear could be explained by anatomy.

Ok so for the sake of keeping things simple, we all know the outcome of moving a set of headphones around while music is playing on our head. There is the actual hole of the ear, there is the surrounding ear tissue that works as a sound gatherer and simple acoustic amplifier. Some one more versed than I could maybe show that those physical factors change the tone much like our manual moving of the headphone transducer.

The next factor is size of head and how the driver pressure and seal affect the bass curve. I have a pair of headphones from 1998, they had a different seal due to the material actually making an airtight seal when they were new. That material is gone, so now there is just cloth and the bass response is different. On ear, over ear and IEMs have their optimal bass response when there is a more close to air tight seal on some models. We know this.

Many will get alternative pads made out of another more sealing material to increase bass response. My point here is if someone has a giant basketball head his headphones are fitting tighter and he is getting a better bass response. Still that is not the norm. I would guess the physical characteristics are seen on a bell curve with two areas of 20% outside the norm and a 60% mid area of normal people, though this is a guess. Still that is why many have the same perception of sound characteristics from said model of headphone. The other factor is that maybe the changes that come from different ears or other factors have a minimal effect.

There is also the theory of a group all agreed on a sound signature because they were told that, that is the sound signature and the clues help them to get the idea. Still with all the confusion on Head-FI there is a larg group understanding of how headphones sound.

It turns out that the new ATH M-70 is touted as being super flat in response in comparison to the mass sold M-50. It's new so we will have to see and find out if it gets a flat reputation. It's more expensive so we will maybe see less sales as it is less accessible due to cost. Still at Head-FI there are a group of headphones which get labeled as flat? Nothing is totally flat, maybe partially due to manufacturing inabilities and designed characters added as color does sell at times. Color can also be the wow factor. Many using the more flat headphones said it took time to learn to like them for what they were, as there was less thrill upon first listen.

 

[JVC steven]

 The other factor is that maybe the changes that come from different ears or other factors have a minimal effect.
 

That's what i've been " preaching" since the very beginning..i think this is the truth.

 

[castleofargh]

Well if it makes you happy...you and Rrod have converted me.
Just go easy on people, it's easy to be fooled by "conventional thoughts and beliefs". Just like religion has a grip over billions of people. I am probably more suited to your way of thinking but didn't actually realise it.

but of course it easy. on one hand you have guys coming with super simple stuff like "silver cables have wider soundstage", or "high impedance sources sound warmer", "hd800 is neutral", "high gain sounds better", or "EQ ruins the music" ^_^. on the other you have a boring guy explaining the 3 main parameters to determine how a cable will interact with an electrical signal, and giving the equations for them. of course people will remember and care for what they think they understand, the oversimplified false point. we're only humans and we love simple stuff and easy ways out of a problem. doesn't mean it's the truth.
 
 
 
@Red   when a guy gives a feedback about a gear that is the same as what most people already said before. you can take it as the guy making a fair analysis of sound. but you can also take it as the guy regurgitating all the stuff he read before(consciously or not). how do you know? at best you take a guess, and when people agree with you, you take their statements as being more meaningful than statements disagreeing with you. bias is everywhere.
did you look at the last innerfidelity posts with guys coming to test the gears Tyll has in place? when I'm listening to the guys talking, even the words they use to convey their ideas come from famous reviews of the device. ^_^  can't tel if the guy is a book or if it's really the only possible word to describe the gear. I have my own idea about that, and perhaps Tyll influence them too when talking casually with them. but the result made me laugh(can't wait for bob katz though).
and all of headfi is like that. have joker make a review about a new IEM, then enjoy all the feedbacks of people using the very terms joker used in his review. I would be very cautious not to take the number of people agreeing on something as a proof of anything.
if you ask people in my country there is that famous "knowledge" that french is a wonderful language blahblahblah and that it's far more complex and rich than english. complex sure, rich...
anyway, from that idea and proud frog moment, it has become common "knowledge" that we have a lot more words to describe things than english. pretty much anybody I asked told me the same thing. too bad it's total BS ^_^.  english is made up of grabbing words from so many different languages that it results in a super rich language with a lot more words than what we have in french. that's the reality almost no french dude is aware of. so common knowledge and reality can very much be 2 different things and seeing the FOTM frenzies on headfi, I'd be careful about what really is.

 

[JVC steven]

Ok...i'm going to make this my last entry/post on this forum. I only signed up to Head Fi to disscuss this particular aspect of headphones. I told myself that once i get some resulting facts/figures or subjective/objective points of view that fit a general consensus of some sort, i'd have my defining answer to my question. I've now reached that point.Thank you for teaching me some new things that i wasn't aware of before, some things that i was ( now elaborated on) aware of, and some things that i already new!
 I posed the question of  " Is there such a thing as a non-colored headphone"....to which the answer is:
 
" Objectively; possibly. Subjectively; yes! "....
( Objectivism is the wrong position to hold on to in an subjective topic, it's out of the equation)
 
Thank's for everyones help

 
 
P.S. ( "color-free headphone" is an official trademark/marketed term.)

  How 'bout it!
 
P.S.2. Objectivism - https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/lecture_notes/p406pom_lecture_notes/p406pom_lect5.pdf  ( why the approach is wrong)

 

[Redcarmoose]

but of course it easy. on one hand you have guys coming with super simple stuff like "silver cables have wider soundstage", or "high impedance sources sound warmer", "hd800 is neutral", "high gain sounds better", or "EQ ruins the music" ^_^. on the other you have a boring guy explaining the 3 main parameters to determine how a cable will interact with an electrical signal, and giving the equations for them. of course people will remember and care for what they think they understand, the oversimplified false point. we're only humans and we love simple stuff and easy ways out of a problem. doesn't mean it's the truth.



@Red   when a guy gives a feedback about a gear that is the same as what most people already said before. you can take it as the guy making a fair analysis of sound. but you can also take it as the guy regurgitating all the stuff he read before(consciously or not). how do you know? at best you take a guess, and when people agree with you, you take their statements as being more meaningful than statements disagreeing with you. bias is everywhere.
did you look at the last innerfidelity posts with guys coming to test the gears Tyll has in place? when I'm listening to the guys talking, even the words they use to convey their ideas come from famous reviews of the device. ^_^  can't tel if the guy is a book or if it's really the only possible word to describe the gear. I have my own idea about that, and perhaps Tyll influence them too when talking casually with them. but the result made me laugh(can't wait for bob katz though).
and all of headfi is like that. have joker make a review about a new IEM, then enjoy all the feedbacks of people using the very terms joker used in his review. I would be very cautious not to take the number of people agreeing on something as a proof of anything.
if you ask people in my country there is that famous "knowledge" that french is a wonderful language blahblahblah and that it's far more complex and rich than english. complex sure, rich...
anyway, from that idea and proud frog moment, it has become common "knowledge" that we have a lot more words to describe things than english. pretty much anybody I asked told me the same thing. too bad it's total BS ^_^.  english is made up of grabbing words from so many different languages that it results in a super rich language with a lot more words than what we have in french. that's the reality almost no french dude is aware of. so common knowledge and reality can very much be 2 different things and seeing the FOTM frenzies on headfi, I'd be careful about what really is.

Part of this French romance started really with French literature writing/poetry. Just met a 19 year old gal starting French Lit at Oxford no less. Her degree will be French Literature.

It goes without saying French food was the bomb in the 60s and 70s and ah.......the food of England, ? it has improved but it has had a reputation for travelers in the 50s, 60s and 70s as being schiit. Total schiit.

So my friend true as not all reputations are always correct, many times they are based on fact. Head-Fi is really a very small place at times.

 

[JVC steven]

It occurred to me that i hadn't given a description of the sound of my ear defenders ( with Denon ah-d5000 drivers).
Put briefly: the layout of the soundfield is completely different to normal headphones. There is no stereoscopic gaps in the sound.
Thus classical music in particular spatially sounds like there is an entire orchestra inside my head.
Bass/midrange/treble seems to become one with the music instead of separately influencing it.
The shape of my ears seems to have almost no effect on the projected sound waves of the 50mm drivers, as is audibly evident from the
alien-type sound. This is as close as it's likely to get  to experiencing the sound/nature of a recording, not just the music. ie left right and center are non existent. It's the recording you hear.
 
Thanks

 

[frodeni]

  ... when a guy gives a feedback about a gear that is the same as what most people already said before. you can take it as the guy making a fair analysis of sound. but you can also take it as the guy regurgitating all the stuff he read before(consciously or not). how do you know? at best you take a guess, and when people agree with you, you take their statements as being more meaningful than statements disagreeing with you. bias is everywhere. ...

 
An on what objective basis, is this founded, I might ask? This is as subjective and unfounded as can be. Sadly, it is just one of may samples of late. This crazy even dips into religion.
 
Somebody send me a PM, if reason returns to this thread, and the bashing is bearable. Until then, I have no time for this.