Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean H /img/forum/go_quote.gif
... except where you said "Listen to a high-end speaker system that measures perfectly flat 20-20" because that doesn't exist..
|
It does, actually, though it's rare. There are some truly top-notch mastering studio systems where you can pretty much absolutely trust what you hear. And there are only a handful of those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Doesn't that really depend on the studio conditions, mic placement, EQing, damping, etc.. Aerosmith's permanent vacation (original CD) sounds very bright, thin, & instruments are more 'compact', albeit, the vocals were mic well.. Switch to Donna Summer's Bad Girls, (original CD) The sound is, wet, lush, full, with warmth & great separation.. Then Billy Oceans Suddenly, (original CD) is right in between the both of them.
|
Yes, it very much depends on the recording. But the system should not desaturate the tone color that is there, or reduce the dynamic range that's already present in the recording. A lot of the so-called "accurate" gear that's touted around here as being true to source does that in a vicious manner and it really doesn't matter what you play through it -
everything sounds clinical and sterile. An accurate system needs to be able to present a realistic recording in a realistic manner, and that realism includes a lot of qualities which are commonly associated here with colored or "musical" (I hate that word) gear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ephemere /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Except the part about "flat 20-20". There's a lot more to achieving transparency in speaker design than a flat frequency response. Take a look at the suite of measurements that John Atkinson takes for Stereophile's speaker reviews. There are many dimensions beyond the steady-state nearfield on-axis frequency response, and they're all important to achieving transparency.
|
True, but I was simplifying to make my point. There absolutely is a lot more to it than just FR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Transparency is probaby my favorite quality when I look for transducers and I've built my rig around it.
The truly transparent headphones I've listened to are the HD-800, K-1000, HP-1000, Omega II Mk. 1, DT48, and the K-240DF. That's why I bought them and they won't leave my collection.
The K-701/2 has some transparency, but the problem is that it doesn't get the notes right. There's a weird coloration in the vocal range I was never able to get used to. The K-601 is a much better headphone in my opinion.
kmhaynes, no, there's no way to compare headphones against the studionsound of every recording. However, some of us have been around lots and lots of live music. I started playing clarinet at nine and am 37 now. I've picked up several other instruments along the way and have probably spent several years of my life in rehearsals and performances. If something sounds like what I've experienced, then it's a pretty safe bet that it's accurate with other music, too. Further, I've xompared these against a couple of damn flat speakers. The Verhagen ribbons are ruler flat from 350Hz up and the Quad ESL-63s can put out perfect squarewaves without blinking. If a headphone jibes with what I've heard as well as the ribbons and Quads, I judge it to be pretty damn good.
I agree with the opinion that flat gear isn't boring at all. Colored gear is what - eventually - gets boring. Certain colorations are engineered into a huge amount of gear. That's done to make people say "wow!" and buy during a 15 or 20 minute audition. Eventually, you get used to the coloration, get bored with it, and then start looking for the next piece of gear that immediately grabs you. Most people assume they need to spend more, too, and that terminates in a spiral of upgraditis.
The transparent and neutral gear almost never grabs you at first listen. You have to live with it for awhile before it sinks in that it doesn't place a wrong foot anywhere. The problem is that the neutral and transparent gear gets passed over by many on first listen, rhen they buy something colored and go wild posting about how great it is. Then six or twelve months later, they'll be raving about something else.
It's something of a paradox, but the only way to appreciate a piece of gear in the long term is to buy what might not sound great in the first place. Neutral and transparent gear is the only way of the upgraditis treadmill and will let you enjoy your music without having to constantly reassess your gear or setup.
|
That's pretty much my view as well. Colorations grab you on first listen and can sound impressive but over time they start to annoy and you just want to hear the recording as it is without anything getting in the way.
Also agree on a lot of accurate gear being unimpressive on first listen. A great example is the O2 - it doesn't have the "wow" factor of a lot of other similar-level systems (i.e. HE90) but over time you start to hear just how multi-faceted and accurate its presentation really is. The HD600 is another good example of it, it is still a studio standby to this day and there's a very good reason for that. It's too bad that I don't have the right rig for the K1000 since it is also capable of that kind of accuracy though its bass doesn't go down quite all the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkRoWx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hmm, if transparency and neutrality is two different adjective, would one consider the Etymotic ER4P/S to be neutral, or transparent?
|
IMO, neither. It is very hyperdetailed but that's due to very exaggerated highs and rather poor transients. It shoves its inner detail forward in a way that really makes you think that you're hearing things in your music that you've never heard before, but there are some other transducers that can also resolve inner detail to the same or greater level but not at the expense of tone, neutrality, or realistic transients.
But it's possible that I never got a good seal with it and never heard it at its best.
