[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Common error, from Stereophile...
 
[size=medium]

bright, brilliant[/size][size=medium]

 The most often misused terms in audio, these describe the degree to which reproduced sound has a hard, crisp edge to it. Brightness relates to the energy content in the 4kHz-8kHz band. It is [/size][size=medium]

not[/size][size=medium]

 related to output in the extreme-high-frequency range. All live sound has brightness; it is a problem only when it is excessive.[/size]
 

I like this definition much better. Not much going on beyond 9kHz anyway. 

 

[Maxvla]

How is that a better definition when the word doesn't mean at all what the definition states? How do you get hard and edgy from the word bright? Is bright light hard and edgy? No.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

How is that a better definition when the word doesn't mean at all what the definition states? How do you get hard and edgy from the word bright? Is bright light hard and edgy? No.

Bright is indeed hard and edgy in the 4-8kHz -ish range. Sorry, but I agree with Stereophile here. Not much going on at 12-20kHz anyway.

 

[Maxvla]

Stereophile is a bunch of idiots.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Stereophile is a bunch of idiots.

Been around a long, long time....and while not perfect, they're still a worthwhile publication.

 

[jeffreyfranz]

Quote:

Agreed. The price differences are quite large. For the $1k ish I'd recommend the Soloist or as Solude mentioned:

 
Solude & Hero: Thanks, Guys. I forgot to mention that my #1 headphone right now is the HD-800.  Those are good ideas. 

 

[s4s4s4]

Back on topic, the BHA-1; Comes with a retail store's support (unlike most other products out there these days), drives most anything, good looks and build, flexible inputs and outs, 20 yr warranty, and most of all great sound all for only $1200.
 
There may be something out there you prefer, sure, there usually is. But wow, what an outstanding product. 

 

[FormosaWest]

Definitely not bright. Very very neutral character.
Coming from a warm amp or tubes in relative terms one might mistake it as bright, but bright it is not. ... Id have a hard time finding something more neutral.. Neither bright nor warm.

 

[Solude]

Quote:

How is that a better definition when the word doesn't mean at all what the definition states? How do you get hard and edgy from the word bright? Is bright light hard and edgy? No.

 
Max the word you are looking for, audiophile wise, is...
 
[size=medium]

light[/size][size=medium]

 Lean and tipped-up. The audible effect of a frequency response which is tilted counterclockwise. Compare "dark."[/size]

 

[R Giskard]

I presume most people here are using their headphone amplifiers wirh digital front ends but are there any who have listened to the BHA-1 via an analogue front end for extended periods of time?
 
A solid quality turntable system or a reel-to-reel tape perhaps? If so, I'd like to hear about your experiences.

 

[s4s4s4]

I Have, and feel it sounds as good or bad as what you send to it, dead nuts neutral to my ears.
 
I think some people want all their music to sound smooth. Some music however is bright, edgy and harsh (or the recording). Think a lot of products out there have a purposely tailored tonal balance to make us audio weirdos happy.

 

[Maxvla]

Max the word you are looking for, audiophile wise, is...

[size=medium]

light[/size]
[size=medium]

 Lean and tipped-up. The audible effect of a frequency response which is tilted counterclockwise. Compare "dark."[/size]

No, I define light as opposed to heavy. A delicate thinner sound is light, a thick deliberate sound is heavy. Bright is treble quantity.

 

[soundscape1]

Listening to the GS-X is the only way to tell if the BHA-1 is bright? That suggests that the GS-X is somewhat unique in that regard. If what you are talking about is a frequency response in the high mids, that sounds like something which could be determined by objective measurement.
 
Many years ago, stereo equipment often had a "brightness" adjustment. Not sure whether that was for personal taste, or to adjust for different recordings.

 

[s4s4s4]

listening to the BHA-1 is the only way to tell if the GS-X is dark....;-D

 

[soundscape1]

Recent versions of Audirvana allow using audio units even in 'direct mode' (OS X), and one of them turns out to be a graphic equalizer of seemingly quite good quality. While until now I was always concerned to turn off all computer-side software modifications of the audio data, in order to achieve bit-perfectness, the above discussion tempted me to test the impact of emphasizing or de-empohasizing various frequency ranges (using the software graphic equalizer). Apparently my current setup overemphasizes the range around 2 kHz, and de-emphasizes bass. (Audirvana -> Halide Bridge -> V800 -> V181 -> LCD2). Counteracting these 'mistakes' with the graphic equalizer leads to (much) more subjective openness and a more pleasurable listening experience.  Adding a bit treble is another subjective improvement (listening at not so high volumes). I'm now using different presets for Rock (Pink Floyd) and Electronic Music (Klaus Schulze), and while I still intend to upgrade my equipment for a more direct (and perhaps "real") improvement of sound quality, the new settings have done a lot to allow me to experience the sound as adequate for each type of music. The old "flat' setting now sounds muddy and as if coming from inside a too small box (and with glare in the 2 kHz range).
 
Obviously this is not in accordance with audiophile ideals, and so I'm wondering whether I will still want to use the graphic equalizer once my equipment is updated/upgraded (LCD3, for example, and an as-yet undecided headphone amp, perhaps the BHA-1).