[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif It was meant to be a joke of sorts, a bit of a ribbing towards the upper-end Beyers, whom I'm not a big fan of. But what exactly do you mean by "has more details than those"? Or more precisely, IYO what details are missing in the SR60 compared to the others? I find the SR60 has as many "details" as any headphone, if that means showing up what's on the recording. If you mean detail as in more accurate timbre, the higher end cans do go further.

So the SR60 is just as detailed as the 02? Your wording seems to be mudding the playing field.. Pretty simple.. Play a song that you know by heart and A/B the SR60 with one of the headphones mentioned in this thread.. Will will hear things the 60 didn't pick up.. Be it suble or noticeable. I compared my SA5000 to my 650, both se. And listened to the same songs.. There were beats and instruments that the 650 didn't get, or barly audible. There was things my 48's got that my SA5000 didn't get. But everything is up to interpretation. And the, it's the treble to, you think you are hearing more detail crowd.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif It was meant to be a joke of sorts, a bit of a ribbing towards the upper-end Beyers, whom I'm not a big fan of. But what exactly do you mean by "has more details than those"? Or more precisely, IYO what details are missing in the SR60 compared to the others? I find the SR60 has as many "details" as any headphone, if that means showing up what's on the recording. If you mean detail as in more accurate timbre, the higher end cans do go further.

Beagle, one of my reference recordings is the Bill Evans Trio's Waltz for Debby SACD. It was recorded live at the Village Vanguard. Though there are a few dropouts and other artifacts, the recording is generally excellent and captures a lot of ambient noise from the audience.

On most headphones, you hear muffled conversations, tinkling of glasses, and that sort of thing. With the DT48, you can pick up on the conversations, hear words spoken and clearly place where they are on the soundstage. The SA5000 and K-1000 pull those out sufficiently well, but the DT48 is something special.

No, I haven't done level matching or anything sophisticated like that, but what once was muffled background noise isn't on the DT48. And I know that detail is there, because I get the same clarity and microdetail from my Verhagen Ribbons (BKAA65 - Ribbon Loudspeakers) and ESS AMT-1 loudspeakers. That the dynamic DT48 pulls microdetail similar to a ribbon and an AMT is remarkable.

Give them a listen some time. The DT48 is not like the DT880, so you might like them.

Also, I believe the DT48 was sold as just the DT48 for many years. All three pairs I have are just marked "DT48"; I believe the "A" and "E" designations are more recent. I do have a 25 ohm pair, but the two others are 200 ohm.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif With the DT48, you can pick up on the conversations, hear words spoken and clearly place where they are on the soundstage. The SA5000 and K-1000 pull those out sufficiently well, but the DT48 is something special.

Maybe the driver location is close to the ear canal...especially with the structure of the older pads. I tried these headphones with a hearing test. Indeed, it was exciting! I don't know what version I tried, but it's probably much different with music. The hearing tests can be done even better today with the K702.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

To DT48 owners, what phones most closely resemble their signature? Is it DT880, SA5000, K701, Grado, W5000...?

And general question, how does JVC DX1000 fare in detailed cans category?

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kukrisna /img/forum/go_quote.gif just curious as to whether or not you have some kind of ETA on the review - im awfully intrigued by these phones and that sounds like a great comparison you've got lined up!

I'm hoping to do the review listening before the end of November, and post my thoughts as soon as possible after that. I'll first hear the DT48E in Tampa next weekend (14th-16th), and will then do a lot more comparison listening once I get back to Cayman.

 

[krmathis]

/me really curious about the DT48e...

It get some love around Head-Fi the last couple of weeks, and very little earlier on. Hmmm

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadFi Fanatic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Transcribing the bass is the most difficult for me out of the entire spectrum. The bass and sub-bass in trance/techno is by far the most difficult to transcribe since the bass synth sounds extremely muddy on my crappy cans. I hope these detailed cans can accomplish this feat.

The Omega2 is probably the best headphone for bass detail. I would put the Ergo AMT in a VERY close second place, only because it lacks a couple of decibels in the very lowest octave. However, it does extend down there, so you can hear the bass, it just doesn't have any slam at that point.

Still, overall the AMT is by far the best can for detail. Saying "Wow, I heard things I've never noticed on that recording" is fairly par for the course in Head-Fi land. Saying "Wow, I heard things I've never noticed with the Omega2" is almost unheard of, but it is a really common occurance with the AMT.

 

[kukrisna]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm hoping to do the review listening before the end of November, and post my thoughts as soon as possible after that. I'll first hear the DT48E in Tampa next weekend (14th-16th), and will then do a lot more comparison listening once I get back to Cayman.

Thanks! Can't wait to read that review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif /me really curious about the DT48e... It get some love around Head-Fi the last couple of weeks, and very little earlier on. Hmmm

Haha right? Do I smell a new FOTM?

 

[adoboda]

ety er-4s and akg k701

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kukrisna /img/forum/go_quote.gif Haha right? Do I smell a new FOTM?

Certainly looks like that.

 

[Seamless Sounds]

Besides the ugliness, I read about the ergo amt on their official site Ergo AMT

What perked my interest was D. Then they go all scientific about the anatomy of the ear if you click on "further Information about the concept of ERGO headphones." Sounds interesting. Is it for real? Or is the difference very small compared to other detailed cans?

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadFi Fanatic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Besides the ugliness, I read about the ergo amt on their official site Ergo AMT What perked my interest was D. Then they go all scientific about the anatomy of the ear if you click on "further Information about the concept of ERGO headphones." Sounds interesting. Is it for real? Or is the difference very small compared to other detailed cans?

I don't know a whole lot about the science of it, but they are by far the most detailed cans I own, and I own quite a few. Keep in mind this is with the Amp2; a lot of people have said that it isn't quite as impressive with the Amp1 (I don't know, I haven't heard it), which only has 30% of the power and doesn't have the Amp2's equalization curve (which was developed specifically for the AMT).

As to part D, if you're talking about the fact that there is no ear sweat involved, I can say that this is 100% correct. Zero sweat. There is a tiny bit of foam that sits behind your ears, but otherwise, the heaphones do not touch anything other than the top of your head. They are unbelievably comfortable.

 

[Acix]

As I Saaaid...

A peak in the upper midrange/lower treble or higher treble, does not mean better details!
Good details are a result of many other things, like dynamic, tonal balance and sound stage.

I vote K702...

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Beagle, one of my reference recordings is the Bill Evans Trio's Waltz for Debby SACD. It was recorded live at the Village Vanguard. Though there are a few dropouts and other artifacts, the recording is generally excellent and captures a lot of ambient noise from the audience. On most headphones, you hear muffled conversations, tinkling of glasses, and that sort of thing. With the DT48, you can pick up on the conversations, hear words spoken and clearly place where they are on the soundstage. The SA5000 and K-1000 pull those out sufficiently well, but the DT48 is something special. No, I haven't done level matching or anything sophisticated like that, but what once was muffled background noise isn't on the DT48. And I know that detail is there, because I get the same clarity and microdetail from my Verhagen Ribbons (BKAA65 - Ribbon Loudspeakers) and ESS AMT-1 loudspeakers. That the dynamic DT48 pulls microdetail similar to a ribbon and an AMT is remarkable. Give them a listen some time. The DT48 is not like the DT880, so you might like them. Also, I believe the DT48 was sold as just the DT48 for many years. All three pairs I have are just marked "DT48"; I believe the "A" and "E" designations are more recent. I do have a 25 ohm pair, but the two others are 200 ohm.

Excellent post, Uncle Erik. And you completed your work by comparing to your speakers. Bravo! The Bill Evans Trio example you have used is a great one, with vocals and human speech being a litmus test for proper detailing and resolution. You cannot bring forth the full range of the human voice in a noisy venue to audibility simply by boosting the upper midrange. You have to clear away any additive distortion by the headphones, or rather, it cannot exist. My original SR200 has a wonderful midrange that you can really "hear into" (a term coined by TAS's Dan Schwartz). But the high frequencies are rather skewed, so in effect you can hear 90% of what we would normally hear but the icing on the cake detailed are lacking. The SR60's bring out the top more but lack the SR200's timbre in the midrange. I think Grado's bring forth a lot of musical details, whereas some cans can provide more of the recording details.

I'm now really curious about the DT48!

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif As I Saaaid... A peak in the upper midrange/lower treble or higher treble, does not mean better details! Good details are a result of many other things, like dynamic, tonal balance and sound stage. I vote K702...

The 48's destroy the 701/702 in picking up micro detail and ambience. Ever since I got the 48's I understand about 25% to 30% more of the lyrics in my music.. So no treble excuse for the 48's..They are the real deal. listen to a song you know by heart and the 48's will expose what most dynamic cans don't reveal. We do live close by, and should meet somewhere in the middle.