[SP Wild]

Wanna really tune out?  Put me on your ignore list - even better.

 

[reiserFS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSpenkelink /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
x 2. Didactic comes to mind.

Personally speaking, I like his way of writing, nothing wrong with it. Let's not play dirty here.

 

 

[runswithaliens]

Nicely done review. Thanks for sharing. 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Wanna really tune out?  Put me on your ignore list - even better.

You have redeemed yourself (in my eyes) in the other T1 thread...so you're staying OFF my ignore thread. That was a very well thought out thread and nicely stated BTW...nice!

 

[rgs9200m]

I find the most interesting thing about the T1's upper treble (B52 amp, EMM cdp) is that while very noticeable (possible accentuated), it is just so sweet and liquid with such natural tonality it is a joy to hear. The highs are tube-like. It reminds me a bit of Quad speaker highs, or like highs in other good ribbon or electrostatic panel speakers. But the highs are somehow even better than in panel speakers, because they have substance along with the air.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

I find the most interesting thing about the T1's upper treble (B52 amp, EMM cdp) is that while very noticeable (possible accentuated), it is just so sweet and liquid with such natural tonality it is a joy to hear. The highs are tube-like. It reminds me a bit of Quad speaker highs, or like highs in other good ribbon or electrostatic panel speakers.

Well stated....I couldn't agree more. Man if the LCD-2s had the T1's treble...they would be perfect for me.

 

[SP Wild]

 
Quote:

I find the most interesting thing about the T1's upper treble (B52 amp, EMM cdp) is that while very noticeable (possible accentuated), it is just so sweet and liquid with such natural tonality it is a joy to hear. The highs are tube-like. It reminds me a bit of Quad speaker highs, or like highs in other good ribbon or electrostatic panel speakers. But the highs are somehow even better than in panel speakers, because they have substance along with the air.

I think some people listen with a graph.  The T1 graph points to an emphasised treble, but the T1s do not have any emphasised treble overall to my ears, unlike the HD800, whose treble does not spike on the graph as the T1 - but the HD800s treble is emphasised, not neutral, and can get sibilant - The T1 treble is none of those...some will find the T1 treble darkish - but only if coming from bright cans.  I find the T1 treble neutral and "tube like" - with a nice roll off at the extreme extension to control sibilance.
 
Quote:

Well stated....I couldn't agree more. Man if the LCD-2s had the T1's treble...they would be perfect for me.

I find the LCD2 (from memory) and the T1 to have similar amounts of treble energy, but they go about it differently.  The T1 brings up the initial "bite" or impact of the cymbal in a satisfying manner.  I find both have a very neutral treble presentation (I include HD650/HD600 in this neutral treble also).  I find the T1 has more emphasis on the upper mids, something that some members find lacking in the LCD2 and HD650.

 

[Skylab]

 
Quote:

I think some people listen with a graph.  The T1 graph points to an emphasised treble, but the T1s do not have any emphasised treble overall to my ears, unlike the HD800, whose treble does not spike on the graph as the T1 - but the HD800s treble is emphasised, not neutral, and can get sibilant - The T1 treble is none of those...some will find the T1 treble darkish - but only if coming from bright cans.  I find the T1 treble neutral and "tube like" - with a nice roll off at the extreme extension to control sibilance.
.

This is because for many if not most people, the graph doesn't have enough meaning, not due to the graph, but due to the viewer's ability to interpret it based on an understanding of what the graph says.  It's not enough to see a peak.  You have to understand exactly what is the Q of the peak (how wide it is), what is the real intensity of the peak versus what's immediately around it and versus the overall average, and then just as importantly to have a real understanding of what is happening at the frequency where the peak occurs.
 
The latter is what trips people up on the T1.  To appreciate just how benign that peak is likely to be, you need to listen to a 10 kHz tone, and then to see what musical content there is at 10kHz.  The reality is that a narrow peak at 10kHz is going to have very little practical impact.

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

 

This is because for many if not most people, the graph doesn't have enough meaning, not due to the graph, but due to the viewer's ability to interpret it based on an understanding of what the graph says.  It's not enough to see a peak.  You have to understand exactly what is the Q of the peak (how wide it is), what is the real intensity of the peak versus what's immediately around it and versus the overall average, and then just as importantly to have a real understanding of what is happening at the frequency where the peak occurs.
 
The latter is what trips people up on the T1.  To appreciate just how benign that peak is likely to be, you need to listen to a 10 kHz tone, and then to see what musical content there is at 10kHz.  The reality is that a narrow peak at 10kHz is going to have very little practical impact.

 
All true ... but I would go further and say that - with great respect to the admirable Mr. Hertsens of Montana, and his many admirable predecessors - headphone FR graphs have almost no value at all.  The dummy head model is better than no model, but it's very, very far from the reality of human hearing.  The ear canal is complex, lined with skin and hair and backed by tissues of varying densities, and bone - and it has evolved over millions of years to deal with sound and only sound.  A hole bored through wood or plastic just doesn't compare.
 
Plus, even with headphones, we hear via not just air but also via multiplexed transmissions through bone and tissue.  Try this experiment - use "technical" ear plugs (e.g. Etymotic, designed to attenuate all frequencies equally by about 30db) and then listen through your favorite circumaural phones.  You might expect to hear a familiar sound signature, reduced by 30db, but you won't.  You'll hear a bassy, smeared sound, which is the effect of parts of your skull transmitting sound waves (at different speeds through different media) in their own manner.  How a headphone driver impacts the skull close to the ears is a big part of its individuality, and it's a part that the dummy head model ignores completely.  And it's possibly the reason why phones with objectively similar FR curves sound so different subjectively.
 

 

[Priyajeet]

I disagree (@innerspace), I don't consider graphs to be value-less.
I think they are rather useful in a rough relative comparison if not absolute. But I guess some people with good understanding and interpretation can also use it as absolute measures even if they are rough measures.
Lot of people can't audition headphones which they plan to buy.
Graphs at least allow people to have some perspective on what headphone A does vs headphone B.
Of course this doesn't mean that graphs are the decision maker or breaker for a given headphone. Would be stupid to use them for that.
I think if they are looked at, they have to be looked at from a broad perspective and read in conjunction with what other reviews have said about songs familiar to you.
Like skylab said, interpretation is the key.

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

Lot of people can't audition headphones which they plan to buy.
Graphs at least allow people to have some perspective on what headphone A does vs headphone B.
 

That's why people *want* graphs to be meaningful, I agree.  But wanting doesn't make it so.
 
I guess an analogy would be looking at a car's power/torque graphs without knowing the gear ratios, final drive ratio, tire size and overall weight.

 

[Acix]

Graphs have a value, but show only a part...or half part of the story. About the peaks, especially the ones with the extreme skinny bell curve that can push few frequencies up and create unbalance in the dynamics. Now, if you can hear it or not is the other part of the story.

 

[Ross]

I've had my T1s for a couple of weeks now, after gradually becoming more and more dissatisfied with the HD800s I've had for a few months. The T1s just sound far more musical to me. The tonal balance is as perfect as I have heard in a headphone (and I've owned or heard just about everything over the years, including every Beyerdynamic and Sennheiser headphone for the last 10 or 15 years). Although the HD800s score over the T1s in the size of the soundstage, the T1s have a sweeter, more natural balance, and are also faster and more dynamic. Whereas I just stopped using the HD800s, the reverse has been true of the T1s, and I can't stop listening to them. I also find them more comfortable, although I seem to be in a minority on that one.

 

[rgs9200m]

The T1s are great headphones but more forgiving than the HD800s. The Sennheisers almost NEED tubes to shine, but then they reward with a very fine, fatigue-free sound that is very realistic and natural with great vocals and a very deep warm unbloated bass. The T1s also respond well to better upstream gear, but they also work well with lesser equipment and solid-state amps.
The T1s sound tube-like w/o a tube amp; the HD800s do not (especially in the highs). If I had to choose, with my B52 amp, the HD800s would win (but actually I use both, depending on my mood because they are both great). I would say the T1s are more like Harbeth or other British-sound speakers, that, by design, work well with lots of sources. (But the T1s actually sound better than Harbeth speakers to me in terms of detail retrieval and truth-in-tonality.) Thanks for reading all this!

 

[orkney]

Quote:

The T1s actually sound better than Harbeth speakers to me in terms of detail retrieval and truth-in-tonality....

Sacrilege!!!
 
o
 
(Proud P3ESR owner and brand loyalist)