[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would say that the HD 800, K1000, HP-1000, and PS-1 are all headphones that present the most neutral side of things.

The PS-1 is far away from neutral to my ears. It has a streamlined V8 glitter sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmhaynes /img/forum/go_quote.gif How would you know that a phone is transparent (or as closely equivalent) to the original source if you aren't standing in the recording studio listening to the instruments as they are being played with both your ears and your headphones at the same time? ... Since we are almost always listening to a playback of a recording, isn't it possible that that recording has already been colored by any number of steps in the various stages? So the answer to this question just an educated opinion?

Yes, an educated opinion. You can't ask for more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuyDebord /img/forum/go_quote.gif What are you guys talking about with the HD800! They are good headphones, no doubt, however, in regards to transparency they still retain the grain and untransparent texture that characterizes most dynamic headphones.

I guess you haven't had the patience to wait 240 hours. At least my pair took this long for smoothing – and I would be glad if it's not the end, otherwise an aftermarket cable is on the horizon. Anyway, apart from pure resolution I don't want electrostatic smoothness from a dynamic headphone, since it comes with a serious softening of transients. That's why resolution of electrostatics is broadly overrated. They are super smooth – in terms of grain (think photography) –, but they're less accurate (→ sharpness) than the best dynamic headphones, let alone the HD 800 (to my understanding/ears). I like them nonetheless – but nowadays every headphone has a hard time beside the HD 800's resolving power, detail and naturalness.

.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's why resolution of electrostatics is broadly overrated. They are super smooth – in terms of grain (think photography) –, but they're less accurate (→ sharpness) than the best dynamic headphones. .

I agree...this was my problem with the Stax 4070 Monitor. I found the HD-800 to have a low mid boost.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmhaynes /img/forum/go_quote.gif How would you know that a phone is transparent (or as closely equivalent) to the original source if you aren't standing in the recording studio listening to the instruments as they are being played with both your ears and your headphones at the same time? Or maybe one earphone on, one off?? Since we are almost always listening to a playback of a recording, isn't it possible that that recording has already been colored by any number of steps ing the various stages? So the answer to this question just an educated opinion?

A Motown engineer did just that with the DT48.. I can find the quote, & 3-4 paragraphs.. To paraphrase.. Minus the spatial differences.. Everything sounding the same, or 'basically' the same.. A/Bing between listening live in studio, then quickly switching to the headphones..

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. K702, K-240MKll, K-271, K-240DF, K-1000. 2. Stax 4070. 3. Pioneer Monitor 10. 4. DT-48S/E. 5. GMP/MB Quart, QP-240/250, and maybe the 4XX series. 6. Fostex T20 V2, a little dark, but balanced.

In what way possible is the K702 true to the source in any way? Sorry, but that just seems way off IMHO

 

[Cankin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif A Motown engineer did just that with the DT48.. I can find the quote, & 3-4 paragraphs.. To paraphrase.. Minus the spatial differences.. Everything sounding the same, or 'basically' the same.. A/Bing between listening live in studio, then quickly switching to the headphones..

I've seen that quote before and it is really interesting to see a subjective opinion rather than measurements or graphs from an engineer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In what way possible is the K702 true to the source in any way? Sorry, but that just seems way off IMHO

It may not be the most transparent, but it is more transparent than many others

 

[wavoman]

If you believe the German Institute for Radio Technology, and why wouldn't you, then the those who already answered AKG K240DF would appear to be correct. As flat a freq resp as AKG (or anyone) could make.

K*240*DF (Discontinued)


I have two pairs, both re-cabled and balanced (one with Zu, one with moon-audio silver dragon), and drive them with a balanced amp specifically designed for 600 ohm phones (which these are). IMO they do indeed deliver what is promised: flat, accurate, no coloration. That's why I don't use them much.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have two pairs, both re-cabled and balanced (one with Zu, one with moon-audio silver dragon), and drive them with a balanced amp specifically designed for 600 ohm phones (which these are). IMO they do indeed deliver what is promised: flat, accurate, no coloration. That's why I don't use them much.

Very impressive, I would like to hear more about your K-240DF impression...

 

[boomana]

HP1000, Omegas, Qualias, JH13s.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cankin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've seen that quote before and it is really interesting to see a subjective opinion rather than measurements or graphs from an engineer. It may not be the most transparent, but it is more transparent than many others

True.. I do know that Beyers calls them a 'precise instrument,' at least the a model.. I know the engineer used the DT48e though..

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In what way possible is the K702 true to the source in any way? Sorry, but that just seems way off IMHO

My main gripe is the sound stage.. It is big regardless of the source.. Even a small quartet is dwarfed by the overly done sound stage..& too much distance between the performer & instruments. But, the 701/2 are still pretty neutral as far as audiophile headphones go..

 

[ourfpshero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you believe the German Institute for Radio Technology, and why wouldn't you, then the those who already answered AKG K240DF would appear to be correct. As flat a freq resp as AKG (or anyone) could make. .

thankyou, i knew i said 240df for a reason. has any other headphone been purposely designed in such a way? i have always thought it was THE standard

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ourfpshero /img/forum/go_quote.gif thankyou, i knew i said 240df for a reason. has any other headphone been purposely designed in such a way? i have always thought it was THE standard

So the 'standard' only had a 10 yr run? Why isn't the 240df still in production?

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...I would like to hear more about your K-240DF impression ...

Too bad you are not in NJ, you could come and listen to the DFs.

I started back in the day with Ultrasone Pro 750s, 'cause I needed closed phones that folded flat. I liked them, then had them re-cabled at moon-audio and thought I heard a real improvement (could be placebo, who knows). But then I found head-fi and people said these phones had a "sound".

I didn't want a "sound". So I bought beyer 880/600 ohm, mostly 'cause I liked the customization options of MANUFAKTUR. Wow, then I understood -- listening to the same track with the 750's then the 880/600s was like, well, drinking two different Merlots ... same drink, totally different taste. Now what? I didn't want coloration, or so I thought -- I wanted dead flat (who knew how wrong this was). So a huge education started, I got in to balanced vs se, looking at studio amps (my QESLabs 600 ohm amp) and I found the German Radio standard, sought out 240DFs, had them balanced, re-cabled, restored ... one for me and my wife.

In the meantime my wife fell in love with Denon D2000s (actually Lawton 2000s after the full markl treatment) and could care less about flat freq resp.

I started listening to the DFs, and heard a cold, clinical sound, no lushness (not really sharp transient response either, but that's a different issue), and I wanted to fiddle with the tone controls (but didn't have any). Sort of like this: use one of your home stereo amps, set tone controls, listen thru speakers, then hit the tone bypass ... everything flattens! Now imagine it always flat.

At the same time I was listening to Stax more and more at meets, and got some great used 'stat gear off eBay. Now this was listening, and I got it -- it is about reproducing music, not sounds.

I also think the DFs don't quite have the very low and very high repsonse of some other HPs, and are not quite as resolving either. So:

-- win on flat freq resp
-- lose on transients
-- lose on detail resolution
-- lose of bass and treble extent

Still I won't sell either, since they are no longer made, and I want the reference available.

 

[sunneebear]

Most transparent and true to source may also mean colorless and nasty sounding. That may be the Sony CD900ST.

 

[catscratch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomana /img/forum/go_quote.gif HP1000, Omegas, Qualias, JH13s.

This.

K1000 also can be transparent but only in the right rig. Qualia has a midrange coloration that makes some instruments sound a bit off in a strange way, which gets in the way of its transparency. But otherwise it is very very transparent.

I'll also toss in a surprising candidate - the HD600. In a top-notch system it can be very transparent, though it is a bit slow and can't keep up with very fast/dense music.