[Nik]

Kelly, I know very well the Sugden Headmaster (I had and sold after 30 days of listening), this is a very good solid state amp, IMO the best one, but certainly not absolutely in the same class of the R-10s. The custom R-10H beat the Sugden 10 to 0. About Sony sources (digital, even SACD) I don’t like a lot. They are too detailed and not so musical (IMO) when I listened for the first time the LINN sound….. I finally started to hear “MUSIC”. Kelly why are you so doubtful about R-10/R-10H/Linn Sondek?

Totally agree with pigmode about cables, the R-10 listen every thing, a not appropriate cable can to destroy the rest of the equipment. I had many kind of cables (Kimber-Furucawa-Nordost-Monster) only the last : The Shimpy liquid conductors (interconnect and power cord) are right in the right place… unfortunately they cost a lot of money.

Just to you know another interesting thing: Do you know how much is a pair of original replacements pads for the R-10? INCREDIBLE: they retail 399$ (shipped). I’m thinking if to buy it or NOT.

 

[pigmode]

Nik,
I'm starting to experiment with copper cables. I should recieve a pair of Music Metre Canto ICs next week. Not very well known, I have seen it favorably compared to the Yamamura copper cables. I am also having my Acoustic Zen Matrix updated at the factory.

The thing about silver cables is that the ones I've tried all seem to have a degree of ruthlessness to them, and I suspect that a lower end Sony CDP and even the Melos will not be presented in their best light.


Quote:

Just to you know another interesting thing: Do you know how much is a pair of original replacements pads for the R-10? INCREDIBLE: they retail 399$ (shipped).

Scandalous. Overpriced but probably worth it if you look at the long term picture, don't you think? Hopefully the foam is not deteriorating with age.

 

[Hirsch]

I switched to the BL-1 in that system from the Outlaw PCA. The BL-1 produced an increased amount of detail, without affecting brightness in most headphones. I've also used the Homegrown Audio Silver Lace with the SHA-1. I've adopted a simpler solution, and simply don't use the R10 with the SHA-1. Seems to work for me...

I didn't like the R10 with the Sugden. Just didn't do it for me. The R10/Sugden combo was just too polite. Dynamics, particularly at the low end, were not spectacular to put it mildly. I loved the Sugden with the W2002, however. If I had unlimited funds, I would have kept the Sugden just to use with those headphones.

I just bought a Creek CD53 (Brief first impression: WOW!), which will be used with the EAR and ZOTL along with the Ariston table/Cary phono amp. The whole system will be rewired with Virtual Dynamics Nite PC's and IC's, which should be en route as I type. That should take care of sources and cabling for the time being

Pigmode, I don't recall a tube that gets the Melos to sound lush. It's never had a classic tube sound, nor will it, I think. The Amperex PQ's are nice tubes with it, as are Siemens. I've got to go through my tube stash and experiment some more, if I find time.

 

[markl]

Hello again!

First, I want to thank bkelly for giving me the chance to do this comparison. Brian's a terrific guy, and a generous human being. Cheers.

Also want to say that I received the Equinox replacement cable for the 590 today. This is a very well-made cable, and 10 times more practical than the stiff as a board Clou cable. I've got it on the 590s and I'm listening as I type. I'll have more to say later, but WOW, this is a great cable.

There are a lot of comments I want to reply to. I'll go in order, starting with kelly. I promise to be civil.

Quote:

To use an analogy, maybe the HD600s are somewhat like NHTs and the R10s more like Thiels--

I auditioned some of the Thiels in my quest for the perfect under $3K speaker and I just HATED them (I ended up with PSB Stratus Goldis). That said, I understand what you mean in that the Sonys sound the least like headphones and the most like the *real actual sound of music*, which is portrayed more realistically by speakers.

Quote:

Secondly, while I did find the overall curves of the R10's frequency response to be pleasing, it did not portray a sense of being a flat linear response. I don't think that was ever the intent of the R10 if indeed it was ever the intent of any headphone. Worse yet, because of the shapes and curves within our individual ears, that I hear may not be such a close approximation of what anyone else hears anyway. But... what I hear, are obvious frequency spikes and curves. The results can sometimes be seductive

I am a case in point that detection of "flat frequency response" is subjective. To my ears, the R10 comes closest of any headphone I've heard. It sounds very "real" to me.

See-- I was nice!

Hirsch--
Quote:

The R10 did all the right things, but the brightness flaw is a nasty one, as it draws attention away from the music.

I think there is a difference between "brightness", which I would define as "un-naturally elevated treble response, and over-emphasis on music that emmanates from the treble region", vs. "forwardness", which to me is the ability of a phone to reproduce the attack and energy of music as it occurs in real life. The HD600, and to a lesser extent the 590, are very reserved phones whose goal is not to offend, even if that means flattening the soundstage, and weakening the initial attack of notes. Long story short, I would never call the R10 "bright" by my definition, but it is better at handling dynamic changes and the attack of instruments and may therefore be called "faster" or "speedier" than the Senns.

Quote:

Oddly, the one issue that I do have with the R10 across amps, its bass response, was more satisfying with the Melos than with any other amp so far, including EAR.

All the more reason for me to hang on to my Melos! Thanks, Hirsch.

bkelly:
Quote:

The 600's have a very ("very" is probably too strong a word) colored sound in this regard. I see that you had trouble coming up with a word to describe this coloration on the 600's and I think I know the answer to this. In my opinion the drivers in the 600's are just a tad slower reacting than the 590 and this mechanical difference essentially acts as a compressor on the 600 limiting the 600's ability to reproduce the last level of detail on a recording.

Nail on the head, man! That's *exactly* what I was trying to convey to Hirsch above. It's not that the 590 is "bright" it's that it's faster, and better able to realistically portray dynamic music. I'd call this characteristic "forwardness" as opposed to "brightness", and I think these qualities are often mistaken for one another.

Mark

 

[markl]

OK, quick update on the HD590 with replacement Equinox cable.

No, it won't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so if you don't already like the 590, forget it. No, it doesn't fundamentally alter the headphone's basic sound. But, like all good cables, it just gives you "more" of what's already there.

The sound is clearer, and some of the "veil" is stripped away from these phones and that's a big deal. No, it doesn't make them as "clear" or as "immediate" as a CD3K or R10, but it's a step in the right direction.

After hearing the difference this cable made, I can't imagine listening to the HD590 without it. Theyd be "incomplete". This also holds true for my experience ages ago with adding the Clou blue to the HD600-- the difference should be clearly audible to anyone... well, "anyone" with the following caveats:

HOWEVER-- if you have a Total Airhead or a JMT penguin, a porta-Corda, or are listeing through a portable CDP or listen to MP3's, your money is much better saved up until you can get an appreciably better source, better source material, or better amp.

You will feel "ripped off" if you spend $100 (or whatever the Equinox costs) if the rest of your signal chain is not capable of letting the cord shine. Cables are the "icing on the cake", that's all.

Mark

 

[bkelly]

Mark,

What about sibilance. SOme people in cluding Taphil who own and likes the 590 have complained about sibilance or an edginess to these phones. This is something I do not hear with the Melos and with the 590's outifitted with the Equinox. Taphil feels that the Equinox diminishes this but does not make it completely go away. He has a Meta42 amp and I don't know what he uses for a source. Acually maybe he will post here and I should quit speaking for him but please do address the sibilance with the Equinox.

THe biggest thing I remember noticing about the cable swap was the bigger warmer mid-range and the much improved bass. Vocals or instrumental solos sounded like they were what the recording was really all about -- which it is, and the deeper cleaner (and I mean clean) bass really added a new level of sophistication and quality too the overall sound.

I'm with you in saying that you need to basically like the 590's to begin with or the cable probably won't make you completely happy. It doesn't cure the 590 of anything and really only works with what is there to begin with. In other words, if you don't like the 590 to begin with you won't like the cable either.

Your turn.





Best
Brian

 

[markl]

Brian,
I agree that the cable helps reduce sibilance but does not remove it completely-- that's one of the things I was listening for.

Mark

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl I think there is a difference between "brightness", which I would define as "un-naturally elevated treble response, and over-emphasis on music that emmanates from the treble region", vs. "forwardness", which to me is the ability of a phone to reproduce the attack and energy of music as it occurs in real life. The HD600, and to a lesser extent the 590, are very reserved phones whose goal is not to offend, even if that means flattening the soundstage, and weakening the initial attack of notes. Long story short, I would never call the R10 "bright" by my definition, but it is better at handling dynamic changes and the attack of instruments and may therefore be called "faster" or "speedier" than the Senns.

I agree with the all of the above. I chose the word "brightness" very carefully, as what I was hearing was a hot treble region. It was neither forwardness, nor detail, which are different things entirely. This is not a normal characteristic of the SHA-1 or the R10. However, it occurred when I put them together.

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

I think there is a difference between "brightness", which I would define as "un-naturally elevated treble response, and over-emphasis on music that emmanates from the treble region", vs. "forwardness", which to me is the ability of a phone to reproduce the attack and energy of music as it occurs in real life.

This has got to be a source of mucho confusion. From Stereophile:

bright, brilliant
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 not related to output in the extreme-high-frequency range. All live sound has brightness; it is a problem only when it is excessive.

attack
1) The buildup of sound when an instrument is bowed, blown, struck, or plucked. 2) The ability of a system to reproduce the attack transients in musical sound. Poor attack makes a system sound slow.

forward, forwardness
A quality of reproduction which seems to place sound sources closer than they were recorded. Usually the result of a humped midrange, plus a narrow horizontal dispersion pattern from the loudspeaker. See "Row-A sound." Compare "laid-back."


As you can see, "forwardness" has nothing to do with attack, and attack is not necessarily tied to the high frequencies that has to do with brightness. Brightness is something else altogether.

 

[bkelly]

Friends,

I know I'll get clobbered by the audiophile community for this but here goes. Stereophile's defintion for brightness is wrong. Mark, I think, has it right. Brightness is the measured increase in output of the high end frequency. If you increase the volume (output) in the high frequencies it will sound livelier and brighter. Likewise, if you decrease the volume (output) in the high frequencies it will sound less bright and softer. However, if the treble range is not edgy to begin with it does not follow that simply increasing the output in that area will make it "edgier". The only qualifier I would make here is that if the increased volume (output) in the treble area was enough to drive the tweeter into distortion that would be edgier, of course..

Attack would better be understood as the ability of a speaker (for example) to repoduce to signals from the opposite end of the spectrum -- at the same time. This would be understood best in the case of recording drums (especially a bass drum) but it applirs to any instrument. If a system can reproduce the attack correctly on a drum what you will hear is the stick or beater (in the case of a kick drum) hit the head and the drum resonate. The reason this is important is because of the difficulty any speaker or headphone will have in duplicating these completely different frequencies on the same speaker diaphram and at the same time. Cheaper (just one way to judge) cannot do this as well as more sophisticated materials and designs. Consequently just as Hirsch states those systems that minimize the attack sound slow simply because the lower frequencies (slower) are now being emphasized.

I'll let you guys digest this before I move onto "forwardness". I'm sure most of you know this stuff but it is a good idea to go over it all every once in awhile just to keep your concept tight.

Talk soon.






Best
Brian

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

I know I'll get clobbered by the audiophile community for this but here goes. Stereophile's defintion for brightness is wrong. Mark, I think, has it right. Brightness is the measured increase in output of the high end frequency. If you increase the volume (output) in the high frequencies it will sound livelier and brighter. Likewise, if you decrease the volume (output) in the high frequencies it will sound less bright and softer.

I'll go with you on that, as it seems to match your average street definition. Of course, by that definition you are also describing forwardness in the high frequencies.

 

[Taphil]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Brian, I agree that the cable helps reduce sibilance but does not remove it completely-- that's one of the things I was listening for. Mark

And that's the main reason my 600+stock cable still beats the 590+Equinox, because I can at least listen to all of my music with the 600 but not the 590.

But wait...is simblance the result of the 590's specifically or is it inherent in the recording? Or is it both, that the 590's are just too bright (imo it is bright) and is therefore too revealing? Or is the 600 just "veiled" or has a "rolled off" high range?

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

Originally posted by Taphil But wait...is simblance the result of the 590's specifically or is it inherent in the recording? Or is it both, that the 590's are just too bright (imo it is bright) and is therefore too revealing? Or is the 600 just "veiled" or has a "rolled off" high range?

Welcome to the audio twilight zone.

 

[bkelly]

Pigmode,

That "Welcome to the audio twilight zone" gets my vote for this months best Head-FI resoponse.

Fowardness is harder to tackle since some people use this word interchangably with aggressive or "hot". They could mean the same thing, but not always. Some things defined as aggressive are in my opinion really on the verge of distortion or "hot".

Long before a speaker starts breaking into mechanical distortion it begins to have difficulties in reproducing the entire spectrum of frequencies and starts reproducing some areas more than others ("peaky", "pinpointing" and "hot" are the terms I am more familiar with to describe this). The mid-range being the easist to reproduce can quickly become aggessiive or "hot". This is also a problem with the basic design of all speakers to begin with, the midrange is easy to get but the top and bottom are more difficult and when you try to get a driver to do all this at the same time (as in headphones) you're well on your way to the "audio twillight zone".

Otherwise, Stereophiles definition of a mid-range hump is correct and is the most common usage for the term "forward".

There are a lot of other things going on here when you increase some frequencies more than others and, as is the case with mid-range, you have to take into account how easy it is for the human ear to hear mid-range to begin with. But another important aspect of this is speed. If you make the higher frequencies more prominent you are now increasing the degree and ratio at which the higher and faster frequenciew reach your ear and this significantly changes the way you experience the music. However, back to what Mark and I were talking about in terms of speed, this increase does not mean your drivers are reacting faster it just appears that way because of the emphasis. Some drivers actually can a do act faster and that is what Mark and are are talking about. I don't think the 590's driver just sound faster becaseu they are brighter, I think the really are faster.

The last thing I want to cover is the issue of "soundstaging", "ambience" and "atmosphere". In most cases on modern recordings other than classical and some jazz the mikes are very, very close to the source. In many cases there are no mikes at all and the instrument Electric guitar,basses and keyboards) are plugged directly into the recording console. There may also be ambient mikes blended in but the room sound is generally added with processors. These days digital effects are extremely sophisticated in how they generate this ambience all the way down to simulating the "bounce" of many well known and famous performance halls. But a lot of what people are hearing in some headphones is and I think particularly the 600's is an added feature of the headpohone and does not reflect what is on the record.

Taphil has a great point in choosing the 600 for it's overall appeal on the greatest majority of recordings. My preferences is different from his in the end but I do agree that the 600 are a little more trouble free than the 590's. The drawback to this is that I feel the 600's are on the verge (and that's being easy on them) of being boring because they are too tame and too polite.

This is where we all enter the "audio twillight zone". Close the door behind you.






Best
Brian

 

[markl]

Quote:

But wait...is simblance the result of the 590's specifically or is it inherent in the recording? Or is it both, that the 590's are just too bright (imo it is bright) and is therefore too revealing? Or is the 600 just "veiled" or has a "rolled off" high range?

The sibilance is a fault of the HD590 as I have never heard it with other phones in my system. I heard it with the 590 on recordings I know like the back of my hand, and this was actually one of the very first things I jotted down in my notes.

This is becoming an interesting discussion on the meaning of various audio terms, and it just goes to show that we all, even the magazines, can mean different things when we use the same term. This complicates matters and can create many possible interpretations of a review.

And I think Steophile is way off in its definition of "brightness", but they are more likely to be "right" than I am.

Mark