[Patrickhat2001]

Fewtch,

I know where you are coming from with your opinion on the Senn cables. Sure I love the more detailed sound and better balance across the frequency range of the copper replacement cables but they do lack the light, flowing and more natural sound of the stock cable which is why I still keep the stock cable (actually a stock HD650 cable) around. This is also one of the reasons why I prefer the sound of the HD600 to the HD650--the HD650s just sound too dense for me; the sound just doesn't flow. Slap a copper replacement cable on there and they get even worse in that regard. Unfortunately, too, I can't stand the sound of silver cables in my rig so these are also not an option.

Also, while the Audiophile is a little weaker than EMU cards I don't think a lack of power (less voltage and/or current) is what gives it its less dense sound signature. The Terratec is nearly as powerful as the EMUs but has a much less dense sound while the Revo (about as powerful as the Audiophile) has a sound almost as dense as the EMUs. I think it's more about the components of the soundcard, not its voltage/current output.




Sduibek,

Just as Fewtch stated I too reserve "thin" to describe tonal character. In that sense I think it is synonymous (pretty much) with "honky"--which is how I would describe the tonal characters of the CD780/3000 or ER-4P/S--for example. "Airy" is an appriate adjective but I don't like it much since it seems a little vague--instead of airy I prefer obtuse ramblings on the "density" of the sound.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrickhat2001 I know where you are coming from with your opinion on the Senn cables. Sure I love the more detailed sound and better balance across the frequency range of the copper replacement cables but they do lack the light, flowing and more natural sound of the stock cable which is why I still keep the stock cable (actually a stock HD650 cable) around.

There are some issues I have with this section.

1) If you admit the HD650 cable is an improvement, wouldn't that imply that the HD650 itself is an imrpovement? Perhaps the problem is not the HD650s, but that your system is somehow lacking?

2) You say you like the better balance across the frequency spectrum from the Senn upgrade cables, then you say that the stock cable sounds more natural. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? I don't consider the HD650 entirely natural because I've heard guitars live and they just don't sound the same on the HD650 w/the stock cable.

3) Light? Flowing? Please, I don't understand what you're talking about at all. This terminology is killing me.

What is your reference for all of this? Live music I hope.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek 3) Light? Flowing? Please, I don't understand what you're talking about at all. This terminology is killing me. What is your reference for all of this? Live music I hope.

Light/airy/flowing shouldn't be too tough to understand (?). Well, maybe it is... works perfectly for me but may not for others. Vinyl tends to have this quality more than digital... does that help?

My personal reference is live music as well as the sound of other headphones (or sources/amps, depends on what we're comparing).

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Light/airy/flowing shouldn't be too tough to understand (?). Well, maybe it is... works perfectly for me but may not for others. Vinyl tends to have this quality more than digital... does that help?

what some call liquid?

is airy describing tonal quality or soundstage? because i think hd650 has less air between notes than cd3000, but as Patrick said CD3000 has bad tonal accuracy.

 

[fewtch]

To me 'airy' describes an overall quality that doesn't fit into specific categories. It's basically a positive take on lack of weight, density, solidity, oomph, authority... maybe you're having trouble conceptualizing it because it's sort of a lack of rather than presence of something.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek This terminology is killing me.

Yeah me too. I'll write my takes on all of this. All these definition are all personal and depend on your experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrickhat2001 Most people use the word transparent to describe a component that does not alter the sound in any way--usually in terms of tonal character or detail. This adjective is usually reserved for amps and interconnects (which would be described as transparent mediums, in this sense).

I don't think transparency really exists in that definition. I've always heard differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maarek99 I agree. The 0404 is pretty dense and seems to lack texture. Too "dense" for my tastes, I like an airier sound.

I don't find any of these soundcards have that much texture. Even if you argue one has more than another, it's not enough to be real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch I'm a big fan of light/airy/flowing audio-wise, even to the point of being one of the rare people who prefer the Sennheiser stock cable to any replacement cables I've heard so far

System synergy at play here. I can totally understand your decision. I wouldn't upgrade something because it would make the sound unbalanced. It's possible to live with the replacement cable if the rest of the system was upgraded. If you've found your magic, that's awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek 3) Light? Flowing? What is your reference for all of this? Live music I hope.

Live music is hard to reproduce. Pretty much nearly all headphone systems I've heard fail in the absolute sense. You have to choose certain aspects of sound you wish your system to excell in.

Light to me is a delicate touch. The music shouldn't sound "amped" and the smallest nuances are passed. Flowing is a different kind of experience. To me they are not synonymous but can coexist in a system that is high quality enough. Flowing is like when you can hear sounds harmonize and interact with each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek what some call liquid? is airy describing tonal quality or soundstage? because i think hd650 has less air between notes than cd3000, but as Patrick said CD3000 has bad tonal accuracy.

I use liquid as opposite of grain/etchiness. I find airy a characteristic of spaciality. It's not soundstage. Soundstage is a different kind of spaciality along with imaging. You can have liquid but not be airy.

As for airy, I don't think it has anything to do with the dynamics and weight of the sound. You can have a very powerful and lively sounding system and still be airy.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch To me 'airy' describes an overall quality that doesn't fit into specific categories. It's basically a positive take on lack of weight, density, solidity, oomph, authority... maybe you're having trouble conceptualizing it because it's sort of a lack of rather than presence of something.

gotcha.

I should make it clear i'm not trying to rag on PatrickHat, just trying to understand what he's describing. I have onlyt he best of intentions

 

[Patrickhat2001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek gotcha. I should make it clear i'm not trying to rag on PatrickHat, just trying to understand what he's describing. I have onlyt he best of intentions

No biggie, I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek There are some issues I have with this section. 1) If you admit the HD650 cable is an improvement, wouldn't that imply that the HD650 itself is an imrpovement? Perhaps the problem is not the HD650s, but that your system is somehow lacking? 2) You say you like the better balance across the frequency spectrum from the Senn upgrade cables, then you say that the stock cable sounds more natural. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? I don't consider the HD650 entirely natural because I've heard guitars live and they just don't sound the same on the HD650 w/the stock cable. 3) Light? Flowing? Please, I don't understand what you're talking about at all. This terminology is killing me. What is your reference for all of this? Live music I hope.

1 & 2) Hmm, I think you misunderstood me. First of all the stock HD580/600 and HD650 cables are supposed to sound identical or pretty darn close to it. So me using a stock HD650 cable on my HD600 does not imply that I like the sound of the HD650 more--it's just that its stock cable of the HD650 is more durable so that is why I use it (I‘ve actually never heard the stock HD580/600 cable since my HD600s--bought used--came with the stock HD650 cable).

Second I never said that the stock cable improves the sound of the HD600s in every way over the various copper replacement cables (or at least that is not what I meant to imply). Detail and balance across the frequency range (the stock cable has forward highs and exagerated bass) are much better with the Equinox, Ohelbach, and Cardas cables I've used. Yet these replacement cables always end up sounding too stuffy and dense to me unlike the stock cable which nails the balance between lightness (or airiness) and density just about perfectly (IMO)--this is what I meant my "light, flowing and more natural” comment above. The sound of the HD650, regardless of cable used, is always overly dense and stuffy to me (besides having an overly warm tonal character, too much bass and recessed highs--all IMO, of course).

3) Compare the sound of a closed phone (such as the HD280, K271 or the semi-closed DT880--not the CD3000 or R10 since their enclosure is so far away from the driver they are more like open phones within a roomy shell) to just about any open phone. The sound of the closed phones is much more dense, harder and stuffy sounding in comparision. Think of the sound of the wind blowing against your ears. That is a very light and airy (no pun intended) sound, right? Now think of that same sound recorded and played back via an open headphone--for the most part much of that lightness and weightlessness is preserved. Play it back on the average closed phone, however, and now the sound of the wind blowing in not as convincing--it sounds too thick, hard, dense, not flowing and open. A similar effect is what I hear between the EMU (harder) vs EWX/Audiphile (lighter) soundcards and the copper Senn replacement cables (harder) and the stock cable (lighter). Does that help?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek as Patrick said CD3000 has bad tonal accuracy.

Getting off track now but I didn't really say that either, least that's not what I meant to imply. Yes I would describe the tonal character of the CD780/3000 and Etys as thin or honky. This does not imply that they have bad tonal accuracy--it depends on taste. A thin or honky tonal character, to me, is on the opposite side of the tonal spectrum of warm--it is the absence (at least for the most part) of tonal character. In the middle of this spectrum would be neutrality--a balance between warmth and sterility. For example the Senn HD580/595/600/650 would be more towards the warm side of the spectrum while the DT880 and K501 would be pretty much in the middle while the CD780/3000 and Etys would be more toward the thin and honky (aka sterile) side. All in my opinion of course but I just wanted to make it clear that because I described a phone as having a thin tonal character does not imply that I think it has bad tonal accuracy; instead I consider it a manner of taste.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek What is your reference for all of this? Live music I hope.

My comparisions are based on the sound of live music (although, I admit I'm not a musician nor do I patronize live music events regualarly since there are not many quality ones in my area) and also on the sounds of everyday real life--which are just as important since I do a lot of gaming and movie watching with my cans.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrickhat2001 Play it back on the average closed phone, however, and now the sound of the wind blowing in not as convincing--it sounds too thick, hard, dense, not flowing and open. A similar effect is what I hear between the EMU (harder) vs EWX/Audiphile (lighter) soundcards and the copper Senn replacement cables (harder) and the stock cable (lighter). Does that help?

Awesome. I think I understand you now.

You jerk, you're making me want to try out the HD600!

It never ends!!!!!!!!

BTW your post did really clarify a lot of your points. Thanks!

 

[maarek99]

The Headphile replacement cable is (imho of course) as airy as the stock one for my hd580. Maybe even a bit more air around the instruments.

 

[Jon L]

I just wanted to say I agree completely with the below assessment in the original review. Something not often talked about..

"I use ASIO (dll. Version 0.43 available here since I find that it gives a more detailed and transparent sound than using Kernal Streaming (although sometimes I do find that I like the slightly grittier, denser sound of Kernal Streaming or even grittier directsound/waveout but that is a subject for another thread)."

 

[Patrickhat2001]

Just to head off any future controversy: I still stand by the differences I heard between ASIO and kernal streaming at the time I was doing my review. To me these differences were subtle but easy for me to distinguish. I'm confident I could pass a DBT (yet, doesn't everyone say that

). However, at that time I was still running ASIO with the buffer in Foobar set to "0". This, it seems, is what was responsible for the differences I heard between them--since increasing the buffer size (to "63") ASIO sounds exactly like kernal streaming on my rig.

 

[Patrickhat2001]

[size=small]*Epilogue*[/size]

Just to update I've come to a final decision (yeah, that only took like nine months

) between the cards. Here's how I now place them in terms of sound quality--

1. Terratec EWX 2496 and E-MU 0404
2. E-MU 1212M
3. M-Audio Revolution 7.1
4. M-Audio Audiophile 24/96

What used to be a three way tie for first place has now turned to a preference for the EWX 2496 and 0404 over the 1212M. While the 1212M has a very nice neutral tonal character and a flat frequency response I wouldn't call it a natural sounding card because it's sound is really just too dense/lacking in airiness for my tastes. Vocals really just don't sound as realistic on the 1212M as they do on the 0404 or, especially, the EWX2496, in this regard. Actually, neither do instruments. I used to precieve the 1212M as making instruments more realistic sounding because of its more dense/less airy sound made them sound more true to life. Now I think the opposite--the lack of air from the 1212M makes almost everything (instruments, vocals, what have you) sound not quite right. Sound doesn't flow as effortlessly and freely as it should. The 1212M also has a problem with bloom--actually it doesn't have enough of it! This lack of bloom gives the 1212M exceptional detail (especially in the bass where blooming tends to obscure details quite a bit) but it's not realistic. Theirs no decay to the notes, everything sounds too tight and controlled and entirely unnatural in this regard. For example vocals don't sound like they're filling the room and enveloping you, instead they just sound dead, over controlled and lacking any sense of life.

So, while the 1212M may be THE card for micro details I don't find it to be a realistic or as pleasureable sounding as the EWX 2496 or the EMU 0404. The EWX 2496 has a tonal character almost identical to that of the 1212M (with just a hint more warmth to it) but features a sound that is much more flowing, airy and free. I stated in my original review that I found the EWX to sound upfront and aggressive--I'm not so certain that's the best way to describe it. Now I think it just sounds free and flowing. The 0404 is almost as detailed as the 1212M (I'd say 90% there in the mids and highs, except in the bass where it blooms a bit too much--by the way I'm still using the breakout cable so this may be playing a part in the excess blooming) but sounds much more airy, flowing and natural than the 1212M. The 0404 is not as airy and effortless sounding as the EWX 2496 but it's is still a big improvement over the 1212M, in this regard. Besides that I really enjoy the 0404s warm tonal character and accentuated (some would call it groovy) bass--these traits (along with its ability to flesh out micro details) make it a nice alternative to the EWX 2496. For me the 1212M really has no place in my rig anymore. When I want a more neutral and natural sound I'll choose the EWX 2496. When I want a more detailed, warm, groovy and slower sound (others may describe it as controlled or laidback--much like the traditional Sennheiser sound signature) I'll choose the 0404.

 

[Tachikoma]

You wouldn't happen to have an audiophile 192 (and/or ESI juli@) to add to this comparison, would you? The revo 5.1 ought to be a more suitable card to compare against the EMUs than the 7.1 though

 

[Patrickhat2001]

No, but if someone would want to donate one or both....

Seriously, though, I'll see what people think of both of these cards in a few months then make a decision as to whether they'll be worth my time. Very few people on Head-Fi have tried either card--to say nothing about comparing them to other respected contenders. Concerning the Revo 5.1 it had not been released (or perhaps it had just been released) at the time of my original review. Since, at that time so little was known about the Revo 5.1 and I already owned the Revo 7.1 I made the decision to use the 7.1 version in my comparisions.