[shabta]

Haven't compared the HP50 on a live music or instrument. But if you're gonna compare, it would be a fruitless endeavor because there's no way to tell if it's the recording that tweaked the sound of your grand piano or the HP50 or HD-800. I mean, the recording could have made the sound of the piano rolled off on the treble, and the HD-800 is just compensating for it. On the HP50 it would sound rolled off, but actually it is just reproducing the actual recording accurately.

 

Oh ok. I will make sure to let my sound engineering friends know. I guess we can throw all the gear measurements out the window and all those years of experience be damned... When you say stuff like this it is about a tenth of a step away from trolling and it certainly isn't a nice discussion. Of course, it is possible that we didn't do anything to check to see if the recording quality is the weak link in the chain, professionals never think of that. And all that high end reproduction gear somehow magically put back what was lost through the poor recording quality. Interesting theory... not.

 

[mandrake50]

  Oh ok. I will make sure to let my sound engineering friends know. I guess we can throw all the gear measurements out the window and all those years of experience be damned... When you say stuff like this it is about a tenth of a step away from trolling and it certainly isn't a nice discussion. Of course, it is possible that we didn't do anything to check to see if the recording quality is the weak link in the chain, professionals never think of that. And all that high end reproduction gear somehow magically put back what was lost through the poor recording quality. Interesting theory... not.

Interesting. Is it your contention that nothing in the final mix down or mastering process can and does change the tonality of the final product? I guess that microphones, recording equipment and the type of system used for mixing  (especially speakers and the room) has zero impact  on the final recording?  Do you mean that compression (something that seems to be prevalent these days) has no effects on the music that you listen to? Ask your sound engineering friends about this and let us know what they say.
 
I would say that what shabta states goes well beyond theory. This due to it being an absolute fact!

 

[Sladeophile]

 
Interesting. Is it your contention that nothing in the final mix down or mastering process can and does change the tonality of the final product? I guess that microphones, recording equipment and the type of system used for mixing  (especially speakers and the room) has zero impact  on the final recording?  Do you mean that compression (something that seems to be prevalent these days) has no effects on the music that you listen to? Ask your sound engineering friends about this and let us know what they say.
 
I would say that what shabta states goes well beyond theory. This due to it being an absolute fact!

The fact is that no sound reproduction is neutral or flat other than the exact equipment setup the sound engineer used, and that is a fact. The only way we can hear exactly what the sound engineer intended is to be sitting in the exact spot they were sitting in their studio listening to it there through the monitors they were using. Every can, no matter how expensive or driven by what equipment, changes the sound.

 

[SSandDigital]

  The fact is that no sound reproduction is neutral or flat other than the exact equipment setup the sound engineer used, and that is a fact. The only way we can hear exactly what the sound engineer intended is to be sitting in the exact spot they were sitting in their studio listening to it there through the monitors they were using. Every can, no matter how expensive or driven by what equipment, changes the sound.

 
You can't discount the engineer/mixer/producer either.  Hearing is not objective, it's subjective through and through, it's perception.  No doubt what is neutral from one music professional to another will differ, affecting their choice in equipment, effects, and methods.
 
So what I mean is, he may tune and adjust the sound of the music to cater to what he believes is neutral and reproduced on specific hardware, may not be as evident on another set of gear, simply his music may have bias for particular gear.

 

[shabta]

All you guys make some good theoretical points and I could go through how we take into account everything you say. But mostly these are all missing the point. The thing I was objecting to was the idea that you could somehow lose information and then because of your headphones our speakers have that information magically reappear. You can measure the frequency curve of the live instrument and then measure the frequency curve of the reproduction and compare. These sorts of measurements are done for audio equipment all the time and it's not controversial. This is way off topic. So to bring it back the HP50 in these kinds of tests does not sound as accurate as the HD800 or a number of other headphones or speakers systems. That isn't terribly surprising.

 
Interesting. Is it your contention that nothing in the final mix down or mastering process can and does change the tonality of the final product? I guess that microphones, recording equipment and the type of system used for mixing  (especially speakers and the room) has zero impact  on the final recording?  Do you mean that compression (something that seems to be prevalent these days) has no effects on the music that you listen to? Ask your sound engineering friends about this and let us know what they say.
 
I would say that what shabta states goes well beyond theory. This due to it being an absolute fact!

There was no compression or mixdown. If you read what I wrote and knew anything about recording you would have been able to at least allow for this. I could go on but that would be giving your response too much credit.
 
 

  The fact is that no sound reproduction is neutral or flat other than the exact equipment setup the sound engineer used, and that is a fact. The only way we can hear exactly what the sound engineer intended is to be sitting in the exact spot they were sitting in their studio listening to it there through the monitors they were using. Every can, no matter how expensive or driven by what equipment, changes the sound.

 The issue isn't does it change the sound, the issue is on what equipment did it sound closest to live. That was not the HP50 in this case. Duh. Read the thread.
 
 
 
 

   
You can't discount the engineer/mixer/producer either.  Hearing is not objective, it's subjective through and through, it's perception.  No doubt what is neutral from one music professional to another will differ, affecting their choice in equipment, effects, and methods.
 
So what I mean is, he may tune and adjust the sound of the music to cater to what he believes is neutral and reproduced on specific hardware, may not be as evident on another set of gear, simply his music may have bias for particular gear.

Again more of this mix down crap. The whole point is to capture the piano live. It is true that for live acoustic music reproduction we choose particular gear. This is not relevant. The question is which headphone or speakers get closest to the way we heard it live. Actually, if you read what many of the longtime Head-fi posters say, comparing your rig to live acoustic music is one of the best ways to judge a system. One thing we found is that HD800 comes very close to what we heard originally, so did the SR009 btw. HP50 is really good but not as good. Is that a surprise?
 
It's fascinating how many people on head-fi and like to pontificate and object to things they know nothing about or even bother to read a thread before responding.

 

[Sladeophile]

Calm down, maybe you should spend some time meditating or something, calm your nerves. 
 
You know the funny thing about this hobby is that people like you will talk until they are blue in the face trying to convince everyone else that you know objectively how great some gear sounds and why it should sound better than this or that, but the truth is, I couldn't give two ****s about your subjective opinion about how great your HD800 sounds compared to my HP50 because my opinion is also subjective to my own tastes, and I don't want or need to spend $1500 on cans when I get a lot of pleasure out of something cheaper and more versatile. You should think less of your own subjective opinions and pontificate to yourself if you can't be civil about it. Diamondears was talking about the things he liked about the HP50 in the thread made for the can, and you couldn't let him have his opinion without bringing your expensive gear into the picture that has nothing to do with the HP50 and, quite frankly, is a ridiculous comparison to begin with. So chill out.

 

[shabta]

   
You know the funny thing about this hobby is that people like you will talk until they are blue in the face trying to convince everyone else that you know objectively how great some gear sounds and why it should sound better than this or that, but the truth is, I couldn't give two ****s about your subjective opinion about how great your HD800 sounds compared to my HP50 because my opinion is also subjective to my own tastes, and I don't want or need to spend $1500 on cans when I get a lot of pleasure out of something cheaper and more versatile. You should think less of your own subjective opinions and pontificate to yourself if you can't be civil about it. Diamondears was talking about the things he liked about the HP50 in the thread made for the can, and you couldn't let him have his opinion without bringing your expensive gear into the picture that has nothing to do with the HP50 and, quite frankly, is a ridiculous comparison to begin with. So chill out.
 

I am not trying to convince you of anything. It obviously is a waste of time. I explained an experiment and the results. His and your objections to the results demonstrate a lack of understanding about sound recording and are based on a  hypothetical hypothetical. All I was saying was that the objections you were raising are irrelevant. I keep saying that the HP50s sound great, but slightly rolled off. The so called Roomfeel of the HP50s may be meaningless when it comes to live acoustic music and so I was explaining a test we did. But perhaps didn't read the thread, it happens to all of us that sometimes we only read what's on the current page and so react to that. So you get a pass. But what you are saying doesn't hold water in light of the entire conversation. Civility goes two ways. Making hypothetical/irrelevant objections to things just because you don't want to admit you are wrong is neither civil nor a productive way to explore the qualities of different headphones.

 

[Schopenhauer]

 

You know the funny thing about this hobby is that people like you will talk until they are blue in the face trying to convince everyone else that you know objectively how great some gear sounds and why it should sound better than this or that, but the truth is, I couldn't give two ****s about your subjective opinion about how great your HD800 sounds compared to my HP50 because my opinion is also subjective to my own tastes, and I don't want or need to spend $1500 on cans when I get a lot of pleasure out of something cheaper and more versatile. You should think less of your own subjective opinions and pontificate to yourself if you can't be civil about it. Diamondears was talking about the things he liked about the HP50 in the thread made for the can, and you couldn't let him have his opinion without bringing your expensive gear into the picture that has nothing to do with the HP50 and, quite frankly, is a ridiculous comparison to begin with. So chill out.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. It obviously is a waste of time. I explained an experiment and the results. His and your objections to the results demonstrate a lack of understanding about sound recording and are based on a  hypothetical hypothetical. All I was saying was that the objections you were raising are irrelevant. I keep saying that the HP50s sound great, but slightly rolled off. The so called Roomfeel of the HP50s may be meaningless when it comes to live acoustic music and so I was explaining a test we did. But perhaps didn't read the thread, it happens to all of us that sometimes we only read what's on the current page and so react to that. So you get a pass. But what you are saying doesn't hold water in light of the entire conversation. Civility goes two ways. Making hypothetical/irrelevant objections to things just because you don't want to admit you are wrong is neither civil nor a productive way to explore the qualities of different headphones.

IIRC, the HD800 doesn't follow the Harman Target Response Curve, but has a boosted treble. That would explain why the HD800's treble is anything but neutral. It would also explain why you keep insisting the HP50's treble is rolled off. However, a downward sloping treble after ~10kHz is perceived as natural and not rolled off. That might explain why you're encountering so much resistance to your claim that the HP50's treble is rolled off. Because it's false, I mean.

 

[shabta]

The harmon response curve has to do with how speakers behave in a room and how to reproduce that in a headphone. It isn't accepted as gospel yet, but it is a promising area of research, in fact they are still refining it. However, it definitely has nothing to do with how an unamped piano sounds in an open room, and if recorded, how that will sound on headphones. If the Harmon response curve is correct, then what it will tell you is how to make headphones reproduce sound kind of like speakers playing in an open room, not how to make headphones that reproduce sound of paino in a room. This is because allegedly the harmon curve accounts for the highly directional aspect of tweeters, which has nothing to do with sound that is not coming from a tweeter.
 
The HD800s are not uniformly bright. Many pairs have a slight spike in one part of the high frequency range. But one thing is clear, that people who listen to lots of unamped live music, find that several TOTL headphones are quite close in their reproductive capabilities. There is a lot more to sound reproduction than the frequency curve, and to my ears, closed backed phones are always at a disadvantage because of the effect on.
 
In anycase, while your supposition that people may be reacting to my response because of a falsity in my reasoning is itself a false statement. Otherwise they would not resort to specious arguments about sound recording techniques, mix downs, etc. At least in your case you responded in a well reasoned way to my point. I disagree with what you said but I can understand why you said it. And that is an important difference. 
 
But as far as whether the HP50 does sound like speakers in a room, I did suggest a few pairs of highly acclaimed speakers that were you to listen to them and the HP50 on the same recording, I am pretty sure you would understand why I said the HP50 treble is slightly rolled off. But that doesn't mean anything bad about the HP50s. It just means they don't sound quite as good as multi thousand dollar speakers. I think the HP50s sound great.

 

[diamondears]

All valid points guys.

Shabta, didn't mean to disrespect you nor humiliate nor anything of that sort. I'm just stating what I think, hear and opine, honestly, frankly. This is a forum, and nobody should be reminded that not all people will agree, so you shouldn't feel slighted or anything. You should be happy you're talking to people who can think on their own, not blind bats nor walking dogs. It's cool that people disagree, especially on this very subjective hobby.

That said, the HD-800 is clearly bright and never sounded closer to the real thing (nothing does yet) than most TOTL, and my fave HP50. It lets us know everything on the treble side though, which many prefers, which is perfectly fine.

I had the LCD-2F, which has realistic treble, I had Grado RS-1i and SR325s, which are also treble revealing, and still have the Grado SR80i (treble and mids revealing too and great value for money HP), and lastly the HE-400, which many say is even harsh on the treble. So you couldn't say I'm used to my LCD-2.2's sound that many say is rolled-off on the treble (I disagree, it's not rolled off with neutral amps and when your ears are properly placed inside the cups).

I can't just let go of someone saying the HP50's treble is rolled off because the HP50 is so amazingly realistic in ALL frequencies that it is hinestly my preferred HP right now over ALL the HPs that I've heard. When I first heard it, and even upon critical listen, I was really amazed by it. I even think it's better than speakers, including TOTL, except soundstaging, but it got really close. I even thought, if I could get this kind of SQ in a HP, why bother to spend so much more on speakers? IMHO, the HP50's SQ is equivalent to speakers in the price range of US$5,000, could be more.

And no, it's treble ain't rolled off......just rubbing it in shabta...

 

[Transmaniacon]

All valid points guys.

Shabta, didn't mean to disrespect you nor humiliate nor anything of that sort. I'm just stating what I think, hear and opine, honestly, frankly. This is a forum, and nobody should be reminded that not all people will agree, so you shouldn't feel slighted or anything. You should be happy you're talking to people who can think on their own, not blind bats nor walking dogs. It's cool that people disagree, especially on this very subjective hobby.

That said, the HD-800 is clearly bright and never sounded closer to the real thing (nothing does yet) than most TOTL, and my fave HP50. It lets us know everything on the treble side though, which many prefers, which is perfectly fine.

I had the LCD-2F, which has realistic treble, I had Grado RS-1i and SR325s, which are also treble revealing, and still have the Grado SR80i (treble and mids revealing too and great value for money HP), and lastly the HE-400, which many say is even harsh on the treble. So you couldn't say I'm used to my LCD-2.2's sound that many say is rolled-off on the treble (I disagree, it's not rolled off with neutral amps and when your ears are properly placed inside the cups).

I can't just let go of someone saying the HP50's treble is rolled off because the HP50 is so amazingly realistic in ALL frequencies that it is hinestly my preferred HP right now over ALL the HPs that I've heard. When I first heard it, and even upon critical listen, I was really amazed by it. I even think it's better than speakers, including TOTL, except soundstaging, but it got really close. I even thought, if I could get this kind of SQ in a HP, why bother to spend so much more on speakers? IMHO, the HP50's SQ is equivalent to speakers in the price range of US$5,000, could be more.

And no, it's treble ain't rolled off...

...just rubbing it in shabta...

 
Rolled-off treble is not a bad thing, or a knock on the headphones, I prefer a laid back warm sound with my headphones and speakers.  Everyone has their opinion on sound, or what constitutes "rolled-off", but the frequency response curve supports that claim.  Rolled off doesn't mean lacking in detail, it means less emphasized treble.
 

 IMHO, the HP50's SQ is equivalent to speakers in the price range of US$5,000, could be more.

 
What speakers have you heard?

 

[YamaVega]

Geez i relly feel bad about starting this rolled-off treble thing. What i really meant was the highs are warm and unfatiguing, where i was looking for other cans that had aggressive, sibilant highs ie. Grados.

Anyway, i got a re600 instead, another all-rounder with warm highs. This and my hp50 will make my ears happy for hopefully a long time

 

[diamondears]

Rolled-off treble is not a bad thing, or a knock on the headphones, I prefer a laid back warm sound with my headphones and speakers.  Everyone has their opinion on sound, or what constitutes "rolled-off", but the frequency response curve supports that claim.  Rolled off doesn't mean lacking in detail, it means less emphasized treble.


What speakers have you heard?

As I've said, a right-downwards tilted FR graph doesn't mean the treble is rolled off as in fact that's the real thing, meaning that's neutral. Harman curve. Treble is thrown in one direction, bass is thrown around. So on FR graph treble is lower. A flat FR graph means bright sound on HPs.

I've heard too many speakers, locally and abroad. But some that sticks to mind due to combo of price/value for money and SQ (or lack of it, lol) are MA PL200, PSB Synchrony One, Vivid B1, Aerial 6T, Focals, Dynaudio Focus 360, B&W Diamond 800, Tannoys, ProAcs. I've heard some 2-way standmounted Magicos and Sonis Faberd but only interested in 3-ways at higher price ranges than $1k...lol, forgot the exact model of some, but in the $5k range more or less, mostly more as I have a budget at that time of up to $10k). Their only advantage over the HP50 is soundstage, imaging, power, large sweet spot and being able to feel the bass rumble. Haven't heard them for a long time though. Vs my current speakers, HP50 beats them IMHO, and by a long shot.

 

[Transmaniacon]

I've heard too many speakers, locally and abroad. But some that sticks to mind due to combo of price/value for money and SQ (or lack of it, lol) are MA PL200, PSB Synchrony One, Vivid B1, Aerial 6T, Focals, Dynaudio Focus 360, B&W Diamond 800, Tannoys, ProAcs. I've heard some 2-way standmounted Magicos and Sonis Faberd but only interested in 3-ways at higher price ranges than $1k...lol, forgot the exact model of some, but in the $5k range more or less, mostly more as I have a budget at that time of up to $10k). Their only advantage over the HP50 is soundstage, imaging, power, large sweet spot and being able to feel the bass rumble. Haven't heard them for a long time though. Vs my current speakers, HP50 beats them IMHO, and by a long shot.

 
That's a lot of differences.  I enjoy my headphones but I prefer listening to speakers for those very reasons.  I think it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but it's nice to see a headphone like the HP50 trying to close the gap.

 

[diamondears]

That's a lot of differences.  I enjoy my headphones but I prefer listening to speakers for those very reasons.  I think it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but it's nice to see a headphone like the HP50 trying to close the gap.

For me, the accuracy of HP50 is worth trading. It's soundstaging they call RoomFeel pretty much closed the gap on soundstaging. Large sweetspot is inconsequential in HPs, power also as you can use HP50 at ear bleeding levels. So basically you're just missing the bass rumble of speakers.