[pigmode]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat I'd be very interested to learn whether the W1000 is more forgiving than your W2002, smoother and harmonically richer. [/B]

Same here. With the Melos, I liked the W2002 enough to explore further by ordering an EMP. The lower mids are thin, and it was unforgiving of mediocre recordings. I might be able to live with the latter, but only because of the W2002's other virtues including great clarity and presence. It also has a strong presentation of micro-dynamic detail, giving it a very refined sound.

If the W1000 can improve on the W2002, then I might have to think about it. The fake leather sucks, though.

 

[elnero]

You could always get the W2002 leather replacement pads from Audio Cubes they should fit. A bit expensive at $45.00 but they are leather.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

I'm just waiting to hear the W1000 before deciding which W series headphone to buy.

scrypt,

That's good news. I am very curious how you'll feel about the W1000 in comparison to the W100. I have just read gdahl's profile and it seems he will be able to compare both headphones as well. I think you and gdahl, you are both very experienced listeners and highly educated musicians who aren't easily fooled by the effects and fireworks of the prevalent hi-fi sound. I believe the sound most audiophiles are after tends to impress at a quick first listen but ultimately fails to convey musical messages and evoke musical emotions. It seems to me most audiophiles are so obsessed with analysing sound that their analytical approach has superseded the goal of music reproduction. Well, that's my complaint about most hi-fi systems: It's diffcult to listen to music with them. I am looking forward to your reviews!


pikawel,

If your W100 is brand-new, give it a couple of hundred hours. It ought to improve a lot with use.


pigmode,

I hope you'll like the EMP. Now, let's wait for the W1000 reviews...

 

[Blighty]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat I believe the sound most audiophiles are after tends to impress at a quick first listen but ultimately fails to convey musical messages and evoke musical emotions. It seems to me most audiophiles are so obsessed with analysing sound that their analytical approach has superseded the goal of music reproduction.

There is more truth in this statement than most people(audiophiles) are willing admit

Quote:

If your W100 is brand-new, give it a couple of hundred hours. It ought to improve a lot with use.

This break-in factor could be purely psychological. I have not determined whether there is any validity in it or not. The only way I could remotely ascertain this is if I purchased another W100 and compared it with my current W100 and listen for differences. Regardless of the reasons, I have appreciated my W100 more as time goes by.

I also have the W1000 on order as well so I will be able to compare the two(if I ever get it from audiocubes). However, I suspect that both will have their place if the W1000 is similar and/or identical to the W2002. If this is true then the W1000 will have the edge on pristine to good recordings while the W100 will still sound best on substandard or old recordings i.e: golden oldies, early jazz and other poorly recorded music.

 

[Kevin]

I also ordered the W1000's on the 16th. They were supposed to be in stock on the 25th, but Audio Cubes sent an email to a member of this forum saying they would be in on the 21st.

I have sent several emails to Audio Cubes asking for an estimated ship date and I have received vague replies apologizing but avoiding my question.

At one time a member here emailed Audio Cubes to ask them how many orders they have had for the new cans and they said seven.

I have a feeling they never received their shipment.

 

[gdahl]

Tomcat,

I agree with your observations that some people may be looking for sonic fireworks instead of honest, realistic reproduction. With some types of music, that might not be a bad thing. Music with a lot of synthesizers, percussion and electronically-based instruments can work really well on headphones that have a significant degree of HF and/or LF emphasis. In such recordings, voices are often electronically processed also, making it difficult to determine what a neutral sound really is.

For me, classical music is a different matter. The instruments need to sound like themselves. The sound must not become congested when the texture thickens or when higher levels occur. It would be honest for me to say that I prefer a kind of sonic presenation similar to being close to the instruments, because of my role on the podium. But I should also add that the sound that has come to be called "close-up" by audiophiles doesn't really sound to me like instruments really do close-up. The audiophile style of close-up sound strikes me as being HF emphasized, creating an exaggerated sense of detail. When I am in front of players, the sense I get is instead one of a tone with great weight and body. I have not yet heard Senn 600's with orchestral music, and I know many people prefer them. Since the descriptions usually refer to a more distant perspective, I have assumed that I might not prefer their presentation. But I do have an open mind, and will get an opportunity to make a full comparison between the AT's and my friend's 600's once everything has arrived.

I have the feeling that these AT cans are somewhat amp sensitive. The combination of low impedance and a large diaphragm would tend to emphasize this, but in a different way than with high-impedance phones. I hope my TL-404-based amp is able to make these AT's behave. It should be finished within a couple of weeks, depending upon how long it takes to get the chassis back from the power coat shop.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat You see, I feel that the greatest and musically most accurate components ought to be able to let one listen to the music even with bad recordings.

I agree with you completely that sometimes the most enjoyable headphones are those that are "forgiving" of bad recordings. But those headphones, by definition, aren't the most accurate. If a recording is bad, an accurate component will make it sound like a bad recording.

 

[Blighty]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF I agree with you completely that sometimes the most enjoyable headphones are those that are "forgiving" of bad recordings. But those headphones, by definition, aren't the most accurate. If a recording is bad, an accurate component will make it sound like a bad recording.

That depends if you are looking for accuracy to the recording or accuracy to the performance. If the performance is wonderful but the recording inferior, I would rather have headphones that salvage the most out of it rather than headphones that just show you everything that is wrong with that particular recording. However, neutral headphones used in conjunction with audiophile recordings is great as well.

 

[scrypt]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF . . . sometimes the most enjoyable headphones are those that are "forgiving" of bad recordings. But those headphones, by definition, aren't the most accurate. If a recording is bad, an accurate component will make it sound like a bad recording.

And therein lies the gray area: how to appraise headphones that are too "accurate" in some registers but rather too "forgiving" in others. For me, the question is one of function. Fatigue and annoyance can compromise the prolonged listening experience, in which case, a smoother, less "accurate" headphone might be called for. Critical listening demands potentially harsher and more "accurate" phones.

But there's another consideration as well: the revelation factor.

When it came to honoring the composer's intention, Glenn Gould was perhaps the least "accurate" pianist of all time. Yet his "inaccurate" performances were calculatedly so. He would deliberately bring out the least important countersubject of a fugue so as to say something new. Which is why Gould's performances should never be the primary ones to which we refer. Listen to his version of Hindemith's Second Piano Sonata and you'll hear detache when Hindemith specified legato; the most unimportant accompaniment becomes the central melody. Better to find a performance by Richter than Gould when the piece is less known and the meaning must be precisely as the composer intended.

But Gould was a genius and essential in his way: It was his gift to be able to turn pieces on their heads and reveal mathematical/compositional secrets heretofore hidden. Gould's performances of Beethoven warhorses are nothing short of revelations.

Just so, the virtue I heard in the W100 was not accuracy or smoothness but rather a revelatory sound which created new points of emphasis, new relationships between the parts, in the classical music I love. Somehow, the W100 enhanced the nasal quality of the strings without detracting from their warmth. This would seem to be a matter of mere EQ, but it isn't that simple. The W100 seems perfect for bringing out certain qualities in string and vocal music that I haven't heard with other headphones. Whether this was intentional or not on AT's part, I really can't say. But it is that revelatory quality of the sound -- combined with the *visual metaphor* for said sound, which is created by the design and materials from which the W100s are constructed -- that have resulted in the scant, peculiar, impassioned following of the W100 (and perhaps the W2002). Some people hear that quality but others do not. Who's to say which listeners are mistaken?

 

[HappymaN]

Quote:

Originally posted by scrypt Just so, the virtue I heard in the W100 was not accuracy or smoothness but rather a revelatory sound which created new points of emphasis, new relationships between the parts, in the classical music I love. Somehow, the W100 enhanced the nasal quality of the strings without detracting from their warmth. This would seem to be a matter of mere EQ, but it isn't that simple. The W100 seems perfect for bringing out certain qualities in string and vocal music that I haven't heard with other headphones. Whether this was intentional or not on AT's part, I really can't say. But it is that revelatory quality of the sound -- combined with the *visual metaphor* for said sound, which is created by the design and materials from which the W100s are constructed -- that have resulted in the scant, peculiar, impassioned following of the W100 (and perhaps the W2002). Some people hear that quality but others do not. Who's to say which listeners are mistaken?

Your remind me of my English teacher.

 

[scrypt]

Not surprising, since my mother taught English and music for twenty years and I taught English to Chinese people for a few years as well.

The worst part of growing up with teachers was being subjected to Shakespeare on every conceivable occasion. I'd burn my eggs in the morning and hear "Something is rotten in Denmark!" On holidays, my aunts would get together and recite the three witches scene from Macbeth while the rest of the family gave up on humanity.

On the other hand, I do get to have my fiction published occasionally, so I suppose it wasn't a total wash.