rhythmdevils
Member of the Trade: rhythmdevils audio
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Posts
- 8,225
- Likes
- 485
Just thought i'd add that it is one thing to prefer a headphone, and another to think it is neutral...
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif You think the K701 is neutral? not to bring the K701 thread down here, but honestly, even just focusing on bass response- have you ever heard a pair of speakers that reproduce bass like that? Maybe my macbook. j/k A bass drum should sound like a "thud", not a "thwak" |
Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif see, thats where its subjective, just because something else doesn't produce bass that way, doesn't mean its the wrong way of doing it thats where the issue arises to me, the K701 paint the picture I'd like to see, for you, they don't, if that makes sense |
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif interesting. I guess I just think that we are then disagreeing about personal preference instead of the idea of what neutral is. Does reference mean the way you want music to sound as opposed to the way it sounds live? I'm definitely not saying it's bad to like any headphone, and I'm not even saying the 701 is bad. But we both hear the same concerts, and to my ears a bass guitar puts out a much fuller note than the 701 reproduces. I can definitely see the appeal in pulling away that fullness to reveal all the airy details. But I don't think the original instrument does that. I hope I didn't say that in an offensive way, we're both enjoying our phones, so that's a good thing |
Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif oh, I understand what its getting at, basically instead of picking your favorite 2 or 3 test tracks, listen to the majority of your catalog, see which shows an improvement "overall" its basically law of large #'s logic |
THE MORE ACCURATE SYSTEM IS THE ONE WHICH REPRODUCES MORE DIFFERENCES -- MORE CONTRAST -- BETWEEN THE VARIOUS PROGRAM SOURCES. |
Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif based on that you're asking for a "neutral reference that must be truly neutral to appreciate all genres of music", even after being told such a thing doesn't exist, cannot exist, and that you'll always be limited by the recording and that your question could have "neutral reference" replaced with "high quality" and still be intelligeble, and you'd probably get some pretty good and honest responses it sounds like all you're looking for is a jack of all trades capable system, something that sounds good/revealing with anything you throw at it, a lot of systems like that exist, most of them aren't "entirely neutral" |
Originally Posted by Nightmare /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not exactly. It's not about looking for improvements, it's about looking for contrasts. Sorry if that sounds like a nitpick, but the difference is important, and it makes for a far less subjective evaluation. The article's main contention is (I'm not shouting, I'm pasting; the original is in caps):If one system shows overall improvement, that may be a bad sign. It's the one that presents each recording's unique flavor that we're looking for. Again, we don't know what any recording's flavor really is, only that there are an endless variety of flavors. What the OP is looking for is a system that presents the maximum number of flavors. @ bjojoj: I think your goal is reasonably acheiveable. You'll never find a 100% accurate headphone, but you should be able to get fairly close with the rest of the signal chain. And given any two headphones, one will always be more accurate than the other. Pick that one and then compare it to another. Repeat until satisfied. |
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif a photographer's goal is never to get exactly what is on the film or exactly what the camera sees. It's not about what the camera or film see, it's about what the photographer sees. the information on the film or in the file is just a stepping stone on the way to producing an image that captures the real world in a certain way. If you want the final image to be close to real life, you HAVE to manipulate it, change it from the way it looks on film/file because film/sensors are not neutral. They all have their own signatures. I guess that is the beauty of photography, that the artist must have some say as to what the final product looks like. Otherwise ever image would look the same. And I suppose this logic applies to sound as well. There's no way of knowing what a recording actually sounds like, because it is not usable in that raw state. it needs to amplified, changed, in order to sound like real life. So all you can do is listen and hope to find a combination that creates something similar to what you want to experience. |
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif a photographer's goal is never to get exactly what is on the film or exactly what the camera sees. It's not about what the camera or film see, it's about what the photographer sees. the information on the film or in the file is just a stepping stone on the way to producing an image that captures the real world in a certain way. If you want the final image to be close to real life, you HAVE to manipulate it, change it from the way it looks on film/file because film/sensors are not neutral. They all have their own signatures. I guess that is the beauty of photography, that the artist must have some say as to what the final product looks like. Otherwise ever image would look the same. And I suppose this logic applies to sound as well. There's no way of knowing what a recording actually sounds like, because it is not usable in that raw state. it needs to amplified, changed, in order to sound like real life. So all you can do is listen and hope to find a combination that creates something similar to what you want to experience. |
Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif In answer to the question, yes, it is possible to get pretty damn close but not with cans and not easily. Obviously with cans, you are to an extent filtering out room acoustics. The commercial quality album was almost certainly not mixed on or designed for cans. It was mixed in a control room which has reverb, albeit highly controlled reverb in the best studios. What you need is a good pair of studio monitors (I prefer Genelecs), which are flush mounted (correctly). To be honest the exact make or model of equipment is largely irrelevant provided you are getting good studio grade gear. DA10 is certainly good enough for example. What is more important is the listening environment. Freq response of the room needs to be flat, probably requiring the use of acoustic panels, bass traps and other types of absorbers. Reverb needs to be controlled but not eliminated! RT60 of about 0.4 is a good figure to aim for. One or more diffusers are likely to be required to randomise the reverb. Baring in mind all studios sound slightly different, nevertheless it is possible to create a pretty nuetral listening system. Although it won't be cheap, you certainly do not need to spend $30,000 a speaker. It will require some construction work though! There are quite a few websites out there detailing the construction of recording studios and except for the labour, the materials are not generally exhorbative. G |
Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif now to the point at hand, this is what I believe the OP to be after, something that doesn't get in the way of his music, this is not neutral sound, this is simply (as we've been telling him), good sound |
Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif (because while you can say "the system which shows the most dynamicism and difference is best", the human being listening is still the one judging that, so its biased and subjective, in other words, whichever one presents the best differences to you, regardless of how much you put through it, thats the best choice for you) |
Originally Posted by Nightmare /img/forum/go_quote.gif What the OP asked about was how to evaluate gear for its accuracy in reproducing a recording. Obviously, a truly signature-less system is currently impossible, but a listener can work toward that end of the spectrum. This is different than working toward a system which offers pleasing colorations. In evaluating for neutrality and accuracy, "best" doesn't figure into it. "Best" figures into evaluating for colorations. If someone listens to two recordings of solo violin, and headphone #1 makes them both sound like the same instrument while headphone #2 makes them each sound unique, there's nothing subjective about that (same/different, not better/worse). Even if someone else hears the opposite, the differing conclusions are based on the listeners' hearing abilities and evaluation skills, not bias or personal preference. Although I do see what you're getting at: listener enjoyment should indeed be the final arbiter when deciding what kind of system to stick with. Some people feel great satisfaction in knowing that they're listening to as faithful a reproduction (this is what high fidelity means, after all) of recorded media as they can, even though it may sound clinical or analytical. OP didn't ask how to evaluate for enjoyment, he asked how to evaluate for neutrality. Whether or not he'll enjoy the neutrality is a completely separate issue. |