Kunlun
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Posts
- 3,750
- Likes
- 386
Quote:
Hi Eric! Thanks to Rawster (and Search), I had a chance to listen to the MDs (and golds and ortofons and CK10s). Fun!
I tried the MDs on a bunch of classical music, since that's the way I roll. Now, it's only my ears and I only had a relatively brief time, but I did some focused listening. Of course, the MDs are great earphones, they all are. I felt that I could hear clear differences in sound signature between the MDs and Coppers, a bit in the bass, and definitely in the warmer mids of the MDs and the less-sparkly treble sounds quite different as well. With archival mono recordings of small groups of instruments, the MDs sounded fantastic. It was as though it were a more modern recording, the slight thinness of the recording was compensated perfectly. I think I really see what they were going for in the MD's tuning across the spectrum, it really addresses every part of old recordings.
With modern recordings of late romantic strings (think of thick rich strings, lots of modulation and unmarked rubato sweeping you into Brahms' beer stein), the MDs did not complement the music in the same way. It was a bit artery-clogging(!) without the sparkly treble to brighten the now overly thick weight of the mids. That sort of music, with a modern recording, does not need the same tuning that a remaster of an old jazz trio record benefits so well from. So, I think the advantages of the MD's tuning may also work against it with modern recordings of musical styles that are already very rich in the mids, such as classical orchestral music.
Anyway, it's just my ears and for a relatively short time, but I think I got a sense of what makes the MDs a great set of earphones.
Originally Posted by ericp10 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My vote would be for the MD on classical mainly because the mids take the strings to a rich out of this world level! The Copper does other things well, but strings aren't one of them. The instrument separation in the mids are also wonderful. Never heard the gold, but had the Copper and the MD... They complement each other... |
Hi Eric! Thanks to Rawster (and Search), I had a chance to listen to the MDs (and golds and ortofons and CK10s). Fun!
I tried the MDs on a bunch of classical music, since that's the way I roll. Now, it's only my ears and I only had a relatively brief time, but I did some focused listening. Of course, the MDs are great earphones, they all are. I felt that I could hear clear differences in sound signature between the MDs and Coppers, a bit in the bass, and definitely in the warmer mids of the MDs and the less-sparkly treble sounds quite different as well. With archival mono recordings of small groups of instruments, the MDs sounded fantastic. It was as though it were a more modern recording, the slight thinness of the recording was compensated perfectly. I think I really see what they were going for in the MD's tuning across the spectrum, it really addresses every part of old recordings.
With modern recordings of late romantic strings (think of thick rich strings, lots of modulation and unmarked rubato sweeping you into Brahms' beer stein), the MDs did not complement the music in the same way. It was a bit artery-clogging(!) without the sparkly treble to brighten the now overly thick weight of the mids. That sort of music, with a modern recording, does not need the same tuning that a remaster of an old jazz trio record benefits so well from. So, I think the advantages of the MD's tuning may also work against it with modern recordings of musical styles that are already very rich in the mids, such as classical orchestral music.
Anyway, it's just my ears and for a relatively short time, but I think I got a sense of what makes the MDs a great set of earphones.