So, SA5000s have arrived, and....................

[devwild]

What timing, I'm sitting here listening to my SA5000s for the first time in months. I had forgotten how wonderfully crisp and detailed they can be.

I own both and even with walking away and coming back to one or the other, I can't say one is better than the other. The 701 is the better all-arounder but that doesn't necessarily make it a better headphone (though it will to some). In my config the 701 can absolutely shine for jazz, which is a counter to the rock strength of the Sony. They both suffer from being horribly picky about amps, though the journey I took to find setups I liked was very educational and fun from the POV of head-fi as a hobby.

 

[threEchelon]

I believe that the two phones are on the same level. It all comes down to preference in the end.

One interesting aspect of the SA5000's, though, is that the sound signature can be drastically changed by reducing their 2.5kHz spike. It makes them sound more "normal" and relaxed.

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by threEchelon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe that the two phones are on the same level. It all comes down to preference in the end. One interesting aspect of the SA5000's, though, is that the sound signature can be drastically changed by reducing their 2.5kHz spike. It makes them sound more "normal" and relaxed.

Yeah, that's what I did for my SA5000 for a while, but found impractical (no EQ for Denon 1920... not fun)

 

[malky]

I find with any new headphone or most other Hi Fi it all improves after a significant amount of burn in, at least 100hrs, THEN YOU CAN START TO LISTEN, GIVE IT TIME. Also you need to live with things a while, often the most impressive kit becomes fatiguing after a while.I am just burning a new pair of 701, they have been on for 50 hrs continual, I am just having a listen now as I write, they are begining to blossom, streight from the box I wasnt impressed but I didnt expect to be.

 

[cotdt]

The SA5000 sound more detailed than the K701 because of treble hump at 10kHz. The K701 emphasizes the midrange more, while the SA5000 likes bass and treble, like a smiley-face frequency response. Overall the K701 is far more neutral and laid back.

But then you listen for resolution rather than detail, like how well the notes are defined and find that in fact the K701 is superior to the SA5000. The K701 have as good a resolution as any headphone I've ever heard, and a nice softness to forgive poor recordings. The SA5000 is very brutal with even good recordings. Some intruments are too harsh even in real life.

 

[Crawdad]

Hmmmm....SA5000 or K701....can't say I've tried either. If any of you are sick of yours, feel free to send them my way!

 

[Patu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif The SA5000 is very brutal with even good recordings. Some intruments are too harsh even in real life.

It was total opposite for me. K701 was unbearable with several tracks while SA5000 never fatigued me. But I don't find it surprising that you can't find anything negative in K701.

 

[Ahriman4891]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif But then you listen for resolution rather than detail, like how well the notes are defined and find that in fact the K701 is superior to the SA5000.

Isn't resolution the ability to show detail? What's the correct audiophile terminology here?

IMO:
Resolving/detailed = WOW, I just heard new stuff in the recording I thought I was familiar with!

What you are talking about--"how well the notes are defined" seems like a mixture of resolution and transient response. The 2 are somewhat related (obviously, an acoustic system with settling time > interval between notes will mask detail), however "wrong" transient response may by itself ruin the headphone for some (just a random example: overshoot and extremely quick fall time => aggressive/harsh and "hollow" sound). I think this fits the "how notes are defined" better

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman4891 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Isn't resolution the ability to show detail? What's the correct audiophile terminology here? IMO: Resolving/detailed = WOW, I just heard new stuff in the recording I thought I was familiar with! What you are talking about--"how well the notes are defined" seems like a mixture of resolution and transient response. The 2 are somewhat related (obviously, an acoustic system with settling time > interval between notes will mask detail), however "wrong" transient response may by itself ruin the headphone for some (just a random example: overshoot and extremely quick fall time => aggressive/harsh and "hollow" sound). I think this fits the "how notes are defined" better

Detail has to do with the tonal character of a headphone. If the headphone has a treble spike, then you will hear the cymbals more clearly and go WOW! I never heard that before. But was it really supposed to stick out like that?

In contrast, resolution would actually deteriorate with the treble spike, because now you are introducing phase problems with the non-flat response. In a high resolution system, you can clearly separate all the notes and know which notes corresponds to which instrument. For example, human vocals are more intelligible on the K701 than on the SA5000 and I can make out the lyrics more easily. However, the SA5000 is tonally more detailed because of more treble energy, AND sharper faster transients.

 

[Ahriman4891]

^ OK, thanks. Still don't think "detail" is a good choice of word for what you are saying, I would use "emphasis", but at least I now understand what you mean

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman4891 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ OK, thanks. Still don't think "detail" is a good choice of word for what you are saying, I would use "emphasis", but at least I now understand what you mean

Most people I know who have listened to the SA5000 properly driven (amp and source) say it's exceptionally detailed regardless of the treble peak, including at least a couple of highly respected members on this board. As I said, the SA5000 and K701 are insanely picky about amps. With the HD6xx or the Axxx the difference in amps is between great and good, while with these cans it is the difference between great and utter crap (for the price). Experience really does color one's opinion. It actually makes them hard to compare because I have yet to find one setup that can make both cans sound good.

To be honest, I don't think this a characteristic you will ever find agreement on between these two headphones. It is a task best left to the listener, for better or for worse.

 

[Ahriman4891]

I was not questioning the actual characteristic of SA5000 (I never heard them), just the usage of the word "detail".

EDIT: As in, they can be detailed AND have the treble emphasis. Whether that emphasis is distracting enough to make one overlook details in other parts of the spectrum is indeed best left to individual decision

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman4891 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was not questioning the actual characteristic of SA5000 (I never heard them), just the usage of the word "detail". EDIT: As in, they can be detailed AND have the treble emphasis. Whether that emphasis is distracting enough to make one overlook details in other parts of the spectrum is indeed best left to individual decision

spot on.

sorry for the misinterpretation

 

[jjcha]

There are a lot of things that can be said about detail or resolution. I think it's helpful to separate out a few different characteristics.

The first is treble energy. There are some headphones (Shure E500, Sony MDR-SA5k) that have an awful lot of treble energy. This may lead some people to think the are detailed or resolving or clear, but this is false. It just means they have a lot of treble energy.

The second is transient definition. There are some headphones (SA5k, Sony MDR-D777) which have extreme transient definition. This causes the headphone to have very strong separation. But this isn't the same thing as resolution or detail either.

The final factor is resolution, or the ability to portray inner detail. There are some headphones that fail in the first two regards - the Grado HP1000 and Stax SR-X mk3 come to mind, but still resolve tremendous amounts of inner detail. This is where resolution is key, as it is only if a headphone can do this, that they can portray a timbre or texture that is true to the underlying recording.

So where does the SA5k fit in the grand scheme of things? It certainly is a treble happy headphone, and has the most insane separation out of any headphone I've ever owned. These things are not good things, in and of themselves. In most rigs, they're not all that detailed/resolving either - only average or below average. You need to have the right setup to bring out the resolving ability of the SA5k. But the same thing can be said of the HD650, HD600 or even K 701 I suppose.

Where the SA5k is really strong or weak is in areas other than underlying resolution, in my opinion. Strengths are that its separation is very good. Also it is punchy and has an upfront tone that is enjoyable. Weaknesses has to be with the fundamental accuracy of its timbre - there's a reason why many find its timbre to be tipped, plasticky or just not quite right. But its strengths are there - it is capable of being highly resolving. It does have insane separation. These things makes its imaging interesting, though perhaps not really holographic.

All in all though, I don't quite see why there is so much discussion/debate about these mid-level cans (SA5k, K 701). They're all enjoyable but not really all that impressive when you really have a chance to listen to many things. Put on a good K 1000 rig or SR-Lambda Pro setup or HP1000 even, much less a good Omega 2 or 010 setup, or even a HE90, and it's just that there are more interesting and impressive headphones to talk about, at least from a resolution/detail standpoint.

Best regards,

-Jason

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha /img/forum/go_quote.gif All in all though, I don't quite see why there is so much discussion/debate about these mid-level cans (SA5k, K 701). They're all enjoyable but not really all that impressive when you really have a chance to listen to many things. Put on a good K 1000 rig or SR-Lambda Pro setup or HP1000 even, much less a good Omega 2 or 010 setup, or even a HE90, and it's just that there are more interesting and impressive headphones to talk about, at least from a resolution/detail standpoint.

Perhaps because one listen would make some people's wallets burst into flames?

These debates spawn from headphones a portion of members can actually own and want to be able to make a decision between (or maybe more often, to defend their own choice). I can't even find people with these rigs to bring to our meets, much less ever listen to one in a proper environment (which I would so much love to do) so I could actually contribute to such a conversation.