[lextek]

Do some CD's just not sound good on headphones? I've tried listening to the latest U2. I tried with the MG Head OTl w/HD600's and I tried with the Grado RA-1 and RS-2's. I really didn't enjoy either. Now Natalie Merchant "tigerlily" sounds great on both set-ups. Some what better on the tubes. To me some music you can sit and listen to. Other music is better if you are doing something else. Background I guess.

Lextek

 

[dhwilkin]

Are you talking about the recording quality, or just speakers vs headphones in general?

 

[Audio-Me]

Soundstage has a lot to do with it.

 

[lextek]

Not really speaker vs. headphone. Some music you sit and just listen to. The U2 gets kind of "harsh". I guess more suited to listening in the car while driving. I'm not sure if this is making sense.

Lextek

 

[dhwilkin]

Nah, I understand the car analogy. I also have certain CDs that I feel are more suited to listening in the car than others. I also think that certain music, depending on the listener, benefits from the larger sound that speakers can give.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by lextek Do some CD's just not sound good on headphones

Most CD's don't sound good period...

 

[KR...]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle Most CD's don't sound good period...

Amem to that!

Most manitstream CDs sound like complete ****, as well as those nasty budget classical CDs. If you stick to good music, this isn't a problem.

 

[sacriste]

Sadly, there is many good music that sounds like crap. U2 is wonderful music indeed, but is heavily commercial music, in the sense that appeal to a very big market. That kind of music is mastered to general standards (boom boxes, OEM car stereos, etc). Fairly good headphones are too detailed for them. In the other hand, U2 is very experimental and always looking for new sounds that you can hate at first but then you begin to understand and love.

 

[Kieran Comito]

I noticed the same thing. The self titled album by the Stone Roses is one of my favorite albums, but it sound terrible on my headphones (HD 600s). I played two other ablums yesterday that sounded great. Tim by the Repacements and After Everything now this by the Church. It must be the difference in the recordings.

 

[schiss]

U2 has always loved working with Eno and Lanois for the "sound" they help them create, but for all the beautiful layering and landscape they've provided, the sonic quality has always sucked. I'm listeing to The Unforgettable Fire, and it's so compressed, it just lacks life... no dynamics. I imagine that's what the Stone Roses disc is also lacking. The Replacement's TIM has great bass impact and a lot of treble, so the music kind of jumps out at you... as that music should. Any other big fans of the Replacements and The Church out there? I love 'em both.


Schiss

 

[Kieran Comito]

I have everything by the Replacements. They are awsome! I only have 2 from the Church, Starfish which I got in 1988 when it first came out, and the new one, After Everything Now This. Both are great. If you don't have After Everything now This, I highly recomend it. Do you have a recomendation for so more Church? Thanks

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kieran Comito Do you have a recomendation for so more Church? Thanks

I'd recommend "Heyday" from 1985.