[estreeter]

wavoman has nailed it for me - do we want to *analyse* music, or enjoy it ? I particularly like the part about whether we are interested in reproducing music or enjoying it : its one of the main reasons I will never identify myself as an 'audiophile'. I dont have the link, but I read a very extensive rant from an audio engineer where he basically accuses audiophiles of being far less interested in music than equipment, largely ignoring the music itself in their quest to uncover sound artefacts in a recording.

If I want a live performance, I'll go to a gig/concert/whatever. Back in the comfort of my own home, I'd prefer it dark, warm and lush to cold, sterile and transparent. Just my two cents worth.

 

[catscratch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter /img/forum/go_quote.gif wavoman has nailed it for me - do we want to *analyse* music, or enjoy it ? I particularly like the part about whether we are interested in reproducing music or enjoying it : its one of the main reasons I will never identify myself as an 'audiophile'. I dont have the link, but I read a very extensive rant from an audio engineer where he basically accuses audiophiles of being far less interested in music than equipment, largely ignoring the music itself in their quest to uncover sound artefacts in a recording. If I want a live performance, I'll go to a gig/concert/whatever. Back in the comfort of my own home, I'd prefer it dark, warm and lush to cold, sterile and transparent. Just my two cents worth.

Transparent is not sterile. Sterile and analytical sound is a coloration. Transparency implies a lack of coloration. Ergo transparent sound would sound more live and lifelike if that is how the music is recorded, and how the source portrays it.

It is a massive head-fi myth that accurate sound is somehow not musical. Listen to a high-end speaker system that measures perfectly flat 20-20 and then tell me that it's not musical. Real sound has warmth, bass presence, slam, impact, vibrancy, liquidity, all the stuff that's traditionally not found in overly analytical headphones, and this is why they're not accurate.

 

[Cool_Torpedo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Transparent is not sterile. Sterile and analytical sound is a coloration. Transparency implies a lack of coloration. Ergo transparent sound would sound more live and lifelike if that is how the music is recorded, and how the source portrays it. It is a massive head-fi myth that accurate sound is somehow not musical. Listen to a high-end speaker system that measures perfectly flat 20-20 and then tell me that it's not musical. Real sound has warmth, bass presence, slam, impact, vibrancy, liquidity, all the stuff that's traditionally not found in overly analytical headphones, and this is why they're not accurate.

x2

It takes some experience to learn distinguishing true resolution from faked detail and "air", which in my book are forms of coloration too. OTOH I don't think any of us can say which is the single "most" transparent and true to original recording headphone. You'd need to having been present on the original recording sessions to know how the band sounded, then having checked that the recording itself sounds as the real thing, then trying different phones to see which one is the single "truest" to the original performance.
I have a friend who's recording/sound engineer and has made such thing several times. In his opinion the closest to the real thing were the Sennheiser HD600, but he never tried any of the other contenders such as DT48, HD800 or top range Stax. I lent him the K701 and he thought they weren't as faithful to what he recorded than the HD600. However take this with a grain of salt, his electronics to drive the phones weren't really up to the K701's demands.
FWIW I believe that the closer to a ruler flat frequency response a headphone is, the most likely it will preserve the original signal. But there are many other factors (resonances, distortion, impulse response, phase alterations, etc.) which if were deficient, would damage the original sound more than a slight frequency response dip or peak.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Transparent is not sterile. Sterile and analytical sound is a coloration. Transparency implies a lack of coloration. Ergo transparent sound would sound more live and lifelike if that is how the music is recorded, and how the source portrays it. It is a massive head-fi myth that accurate sound is somehow not musical. Listen to a high-end speaker system that measures perfectly flat 20-20 and then tell me that it's not musical. Real sound has warmth, bass presence, slam, impact, vibrancy, liquidity, all the stuff that's traditionally not found in overly analytical headphones, and this is why they're not accurate.

x3

Such a good post, I couldn't agree with you more. I find more and more, this crazy idea has spread through head-fi that if your headphones aren't cold, harsh/painful and treble dominant, then they are rolled off, and "forgiving" (ie. not transparent, covering up for the "bad" recording). Rubbish!

 

[tamahome77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Real sound has warmth, bass presence, slam, impact, vibrancy, liquidity, all the stuff that's traditionally not found in overly analytical headphones, and this is why they're not accurate.

This description of real sound sort of reminds me of the HP1000 I've had the privilege to own some time ago.

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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..

Same here, except for some oddness in the midrange, they are pretty neutral, but that soundstage just completely ruins it for me.

 

[Catharsis]

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 headphone that measures flat from 20hz - 20khz (accounting for diffuse field equalization) would produce music accurately. This is the definition of studio monitor.

Technically speaking, yes - a producer can mess with the EQ knobs and then we're into a philosophical debate, but to retrieve the music accurately off a CD you need a flat FQ response; or the opposite of colouration and the definition of transparent.

 

[MaZa]

But there are talks that a sound of headphone that produces 100% flat frequency response does not sound neutral and flat to ears like flat monitor speakers do. Not sure if this is true, but this is a reason why headphone makers do not make completely flat headphones anymore either.

 

[Sean H]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Transparent is not sterile. Sterile and analytical sound is a coloration. Transparency implies a lack of coloration. Ergo transparent sound would sound more live and lifelike if that is how the music is recorded, and how the source portrays it. It is a massive head-fi myth that accurate sound is somehow not musical. Listen to a high-end speaker system that measures perfectly flat 20-20 and then tell me that it's not musical. Real sound has warmth, bass presence, slam, impact, vibrancy, liquidity, all the stuff that's traditionally not found in overly analytical headphones, and this is why they're not accurate.

This is an excellent post - except where you said "Listen to a high-end speaker system that measures perfectly flat 20-20" because that doesn't exist.

.

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif A headphone that measures flat from 20hz - 20khz (accounting for diffuse field equalization) would produce music accurately. This is the definition of studio monitor. Technically speaking, yes - a producer can mess with the EQ knobs and then we're into a philosophical debate, but to retrieve the music accurately off a CD you need a flat FQ response; or the opposite of colouration and the definition of transparent.

Ruler flat on a monitor speakers do not sound the same as it is on a headphone. A headphone that measures flat from 20hz to 20khz would sound terrible. First and foremost, the headphone would be massively bright probably due to the close proximity of the drivers and our ears. There's a reason why treble tends to roll off on the FR graph of every headphone.

 

[Catharsis]

This is why headphones are diffuse field equalized. In order for the headphone to measure flat, HRTFs have to be accounted for - the reason why you see big dips and valleys in the FQ response past the 1000hz mark. This account for the folds and ridges of the ear, as well as the close proximity of the drivers to the eardrum.

The bottom line is that a tone sweep should register / measure equal volume at all frequencies at the ear-drum with an accurate or transparent headphone. While none are perfect, many come very close.

Great article over at headwize:

HeadWize - Article: Judging Headphones For Accuracy (A HeadWize Headphone Guide)

 

[bhanja_trinanjan]

I haven't heard the HD800, but my K701s keep getting better and better with further burn-in. They are definitely not neutral at low volume, but at true concert levels they blossom... The harmonics and texture that they lack at low volumes comes back. They might not be the best of the best; but I have reached a stage where they do not sound grossly flawed in any way. Just be patient with them, burn them in; and you will ultimately come to like them. But yes, I haven't heard the K1000 or the HD800 and should refrain from making comparisons. But, I am sure that lots of people sell the K701 without giving them a chance to nature.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Transparent is not sterile. Sterile and analytical sound is a coloration. Transparency implies a lack of coloration. Ergo transparent sound would sound more live and lifelike if that is how the music is recorded, and how the source portrays it. It is a massive head-fi myth that accurate sound is somehow not musical. Listen to a high-end speaker system that measures perfectly flat 20-20 and then tell me that it's not musical. Real sound has warmth, bass presence, slam, impact, vibrancy, liquidity, all the stuff that's traditionally not found in overly analytical headphones, and this is why they're not accurate.

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.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhanja_trinanjan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am sure that lots of people sell the K701 without giving them a chance to nature.

Absolutely - most retailers here in Oz only give you a certain period (20-30 days tops) in which to return headphones for store credit or a refund. Sure, you can sell them several months on (as a 'fully burnt in' pair, no less !), but its still a leap of faith for many to persevere with anything that doesn't sound good at 50 hours. Still think it would be great to be able to DBT my 601s with a brand new pair, but I'm going to make detailed notes with the Ultrasones on Monday night to ensure that I dont have to rely totally on recollection several months from now.

Even after my experience with the K601, I still think some of the 'changes' attiributed to extensive burn-in are less about the drivers in the headphones than the drivers between some folks ears !

 

[ephemere]

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??

You can. See this article, which should be required reading for anyone with more than a passing interest in recorded music.