[Mrtn77]

Quote:

who wants to listen to pop music on a good hifi system anyway?
Modern pop music is mostly not of good quality. Technically and artistically.

 
You need to go out more.

 

[dukeskd]

Quote:

 
You need to go out more.

That's sorta harsh especially when you're 'defending' in the name of modern pop music. I am in my early 20s and none of my playlists are littered with that junk. I actually listen to every genre under the sun, but the majority of quality music is not in the pop music nowadays. I like some 80s pop music but everything after the grunge era has been crap, with minor exceptions.
Take a look at these links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2De2cK1mDw&feature=related
http://www.hooktheory.com/blog/i-analyzed-the-chords-of-1300-popular-songs-for-patterns-this-is-what-i-found/

 

[Nordwestlicht]

Maybe I've not so much problems with my newly wood-modded HD800, because I mainly listen to good recordings and classical music.
 
But some recordings are really really bad, they even sound not very good, using e.g. the more forgiving HD650.
 
A shame and a even bigger shame, if those recordings are rather new.
 
Probably they (music labels) optimize some of their music for ghetto blasters... I don't know............
 

 

[Mrtn77]

I stand by my sentiment.
Claiming "Modern pop music is mostly not of good quality. Technically and artistically" is beyond brash, and borders on meaningless.
Mentioning the dross that gets made under the banner of "pop music" doesn't do much good either : you'll find this sort of laziness and tired conformism in any genre, however sophisticated it may seem. 
Should you actually seek out good pop music, you'll find this sort of thing :
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcYucC3644k&feature=related
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM6wQkrDL60
Extraordinary works in any genre, for whatever set of reference you could care to employ.

 

[Chris_Himself]

HD800 sonic bliss. My LCD-2's just sound sluggish in comparison.
 

 

[Mad Dude]

Quote:

[...]
 
* one reason headphone listening offers better sound is that there are fewer components in the chain so one should be wary about introducing anything more into it or altering it
 
[...]
 
* not all recordings are "flat" with many pop & rock material highly processed with a lot of frequency etc manipulation
 
* our ears are far from perfect and, like our vision, varies from person to person.  No one would claim our brains are the same, but ears and eyes are extensions of that brain so are obviously different.  That is why a sound that appeals to one person might not to another so is this 6 khz peak really a worry to everyone?  It certainly is not to me.
 
[...]

 
I'm trying to put these arguments into perspective. You are right when you say that recorded music - all of it, not just pop! - has already been processed through numerous devices (equalizers, mixers, compressors and whatnot) before it is being pressed on a CD, vinyl etc. This is in most cases not done by the "artist" but by the guy who does the mastering, depending on what he thinks will sound good - with varying results. Because of this processing, it is rather futile to attempt to hear a recording "the way the artist intended" - Just because the sound reproduction system is neutral does not mean that the resulting sound is a natural one. Thus, in my opinion, altering the sound in a HiFi system is perfectly valid if the resulting sound appeals to the listener and does in no way degrade the listening experience.
 
Apart from the "coloration" alreay present in a recording, our ears are all different, as you've written already. This means that even in the highly unlikely case that a natural sounding recording is being played in a neutral system, most listeners will still not experience exactly what has been recorded.
 
 
 
Quote:

That's sorta harsh especially when you're 'defending' in the name of modern pop music. I am in my early 20s and none of my playlists are littered with that junk. I actually listen to every genre under the sun, but the majority of quality music is not in the pop music nowadays.

 
Don't get me wrong, but this statement is very narrow-minded. "Pop" music is a very general term that can be applied to a lot of music with great variety. Of course there is a lot of very generic music that fit into the "pop" genre, but a genre isn't just defined by the stuff that's most popular. Otherwise one could easily say that today's rock music is all junk because of Nickelback and Bon Jovi.
There is a lot of very good pop music out there, not just from earlier decades but also from nowadays.

 

[HamilcarBarca]

Quote:

I am in my early 20s and none of my playlists are littered with that junk. I actually listen to every genre under the sun, but the majority of quality music is not in the pop music nowadays.

 
Pop music has always been "littered with that junk." As Theodore Sturgeon said,
 

I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Seems I've unintentionally created a bit of a storm in a teacup but I need to add a postscript.
 
I initially hated CDs - they sounded brash, harsh and pretty unlistenable so I religiously stuck with vinyl for years.  But I finally tackled digital seriously but it was a long & expensive battle.  Some CDs started sounding better while others were still pretty bad, and I'm referring to classical recordings here.  I even went to the extent of putting stickers on some to indicate they were not good or were excellent.
 
To cut a long and tiresome story short, what eventually made all the difference was improved filtering and reduced jitter in DACs.  Yes amplifiers etc can sound different but not nearly as dramatically as DACs do.  I'm a sceptic about a lot of the snake oil sold in the name of hi-fi but must concede that the apodising now employed by some (Meridian, Ayre, PS-Audio & others) IS a break through.  I have over 11,000 CDs burned into the Meridian Sooloos system here (and that includes 1500 odd pop) and I no longer hear the awful "digitalis" I used to.  Not that all are pristine recordings but many previously with "bad" stickers on the original CDs now sound fine.
 
So the point I'm trying to make is not to shoot the messenger, the HD800, for perceived 6 khz or whatever peaks.  Gentlemen, I respectfully suggest that faults you are hearing via your Sennies are earlier in the chain. Some of these might be more prominent on some discs more than others but you might be surprised, as I was, how good they can sound with the right gear.
 
So, owning HD800s is a catch 22 situation.  The old GIGO appliers with a vengeance.  But given great input the music they reproduce is second to none in sound quality.
 
John

 

[gnarlsagan]

I tried the 800's out of the Benchmark DAC1 over the weekend and noticed a ton of sibilance on Jeff Buckley grace, sibilance I have never encountered with any iem I've used. Considering the DAC1 is a neutral source, I'm left with the impression that the 800's require a colored source due to some heavy coloration they themselves possess, particularly a bump in the 6-10k range. Has this been anyone else's experience?

 

[.Sup]

I tried the 800's out of the Benchmark DAC1 over the weekend and noticed a ton of sibilance on Jeff Buckley grace, sibilance I have never encountered with any iem I've used. Considering the DAC1 is a neutral source, I'm left with the impression that the 800's require a colored source due to some heavy coloration they themselves possess, particularly a bump in the 6-10k range. Has this been anyone else's experience?

I thought Benchmark DACs were on the brighter side?

 

[wakeride74]

Quote:

I tried the 800's out of the Benchmark DAC1 over the weekend and noticed a ton of sibilance on Jeff Buckley grace, sibilance I have never encountered with any iem I've used. Considering the DAC1 is a neutral source, I'm left with the impression that the 800's require a colored source due to some heavy coloration they themselves possess, particularly a bump in the 6-10k range. Has this been anyone else's experience?

Your pairing two pieces of gear that are both regarded as "bright" so that makes sense. I've never found the DAC1 to be anything special, over priced with a poor HP amp. It's all about synergy, matching gear to get it the best it can sound to your ears. I personally find the HD800 lacking low end umph so the amp, tubes, dac, etc. that I would chose would be compensating for that. My LCD-2 are warm with a smaller soundstage but I find the Bifrost and tubes I use add more space and enhance detail retrieval. 
 
I miss the HD800 and will probably sell or trade plus cash my LCD-2 for another pair, that said they are much more of a pain to get good synergy than something like a LCD-2 or D7000. I'd also recommend using a variety of material in your testing.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Quote:

I tried the 800's out of the Benchmark DAC1 over the weekend and noticed a ton of sibilance on Jeff Buckley grace, sibilance I have never encountered with any iem I've used. Considering the DAC1 is a neutral source, I'm left with the impression that the 800's require a colored source due to some heavy coloration they themselves possess, particularly a bump in the 6-10k range. Has this been anyone else's experience?

I have a couple of Benchmark DAC1's here but they were modded by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio. Afterr only modding one, it was obvbious the modded unit sounded better than the standard one so I had the second one also done.  I never expected to find a DAC sounding better but the NuForce DAC9 does.  Bottom line is that the Benchmark is a very good DAC BUT is not a Benchmark for comparing when the HD800 is involved.

 

[MomijiTMO]

What is going on here? LOL

Play nicely.

 

[Questhate]

Quote:

I tried the 800's out of the Benchmark DAC1 over the weekend and noticed a ton of sibilance on Jeff Buckley grace, sibilance I have never encountered with any iem I've used. Considering the DAC1 is a neutral source, I'm left with the impression that the 800's require a colored source due to some heavy coloration they themselves possess, particularly a bump in the 6-10k range. Has this been anyone else's experience?

 
Weird that you've never encountered sibilance with that recording, as that's one of the more troublesome records that lights up most setups I've heard. I'm cringing at the thought of DAC1 + HD800 + Grace right now. Eek! 

 

[dukeskd]

The Benchmark DAC1 and HD800 are a really poor combo, not mentioning the already referenced low quality headphone amp. The DAC1 is famous for being over analytical and cold, you will get sibilance magnified especially when paired with the HD800. You should check out the Grace m903 or Mytek 192 DAC.