[Vertigo-1]

Alright msjjr, I don't know about anybody else but I'm feeling rather bad for having your thread hijacked and going rampant, so I will go ahead and fulfill your request, especially since you were genuinely interested.

*edit* This comparison is much more in depth and detailed than I had originally planned...it should be more like a strict R10 musings thread, but perhaps it is fitting that the most respected dynamic headphone on the face of this earth be compared to the R10s here.

I do not currently own a pair of HD600s. I do have extensive previous experience with them however with and without the Red Clou cables. Originally you asked for how the HD600s with Cardas cables compared to the R10s...I'm afraid there's absolutely nobody here who can supply you that answer. There's just simply nobody around that has both at the moment, and I can assure you that those who own the R10s have absolutely no interest to reinvest in another pair of HD600s just because of a new cable.

It has been generally agreed upon at this point however by the previous run away thread, both by those that heard both the R10s and HD600s and by those that have never heard the R10s, that it is very unlikely the HD600s will magically turn into R10s because of the Cardas cable. Given that, a general comparison of the HD600s and the R10s should more than suffice for your purposes...and you can mentally add whatever improvements the Cardas cable might add, even though they once again will not impact a R10 vs. HD600 comparison in any significant way.

Now here is where I must make a strong disclaimer that what I say from here on out is my own opinion only. I will probably get audited out of nowhere by the IRS or get shot in the back of the head by snipers tomorrow morning as a result of this comparison, but I will go ahead and risk this.

I'll go ahead now and recite from memory what I believe the HD600s sound like...if at any point you feel I go totally wrong and off base, feel free to ignore this part.

The HD600s as I remember them had a signature, smooth sound. It's a sound that's very much within the Sennheiser family...a certain liquid, lush smoothness that made them the perfect partners for tube equipment, in order to further lock on and enhance that signature trait. The top end was unfatiguing and also smooth. But the bass particularly stood out...it was very strong, authoritive, deep, and utterly packed a wallop. The midrange was smoothly warm, and the overall presentation in this region was laid back. The soundstage was very wide and airy, with excellent pinpoint imaging.

Adding the Red Clous furthered the transparency of the treble, giving the sense that the treble was further extended...it didn't necessarily add anything, rather it just removed a layer of masking and allowed more details to flow through.

All in all, there was a signature sound to the HD600s...if you were to put them on my ears while I was blindfolded, I would be able to name them based on the tonal characteristics of powerful bass, smooth treble, and smooth midrange. In essence, this is rather a Sennheiser family sound.


Now let's talk about the Sony MDR-R10s.

First of all, I have owned my own pair of R10s for slightly over a year now, and they are by far the one pair of headphones, or even equipment, that have survived me the longest in my neverending quest of upgrading. Quite simply put, I'm a no ******** kind of guy when it comes to audio...if it doesn't sound good to me, it goes out the door, and it doesn't matter to me if it took me a week or months to come to those conclusions.

I have had many up and down periods in my R10 relationship, and there were many, many times when I was a hair away from selling them because I thought I didn't like them. There were also many times when I just simply couldn't tear myself away from them, and those were my rare 3 straight hour listening sessions with them. I could not understand for the life of me why, when I made so many clear cut decisions in the past, I could not permanently decide on what I felt about the R10s.

I feel that I still haven't fully developed my understanding of the R10s, and that I have yet to fully know them in and out. However I believe I have finally placed a finger on just why the R10s were so particularly hard for me to figure out. I also believe I am only just beginning to just truly even begin comprehending what the R10s are ultimately all about, and just what Sony was trying to achieve.

I have essentially come to the conclusion that the R10s literally have no sonic signature. I believe this is exactly why I have had such a hard time making up my mind about them...because with all my previous headphones, there was something about them that leaped out immediately, and I either liked it or didn't. If you gave me a pair of Grado SR-325s blindfolded, I could name them from the quick impacting bass, strong treble, and laid back midrange. If you gave me some Sennheiser HD600s blindfolded, I could name them from their strong bass, smooth midrange, and smooth treble. Give me a pair of Sony MDR-CD3000s and I'll name them because of their signature bouncy strong bass and crisp treble.

Yet if you were to give me a pair of R10s and tell me to listen to them blindfolded after the previous onslaught of headphones, I'd be darn confused. Are they a bright headphone? No. Laid back in the treble? No. Are they a warm headphone? No. Do they have a lot of bass? No. Lack bass? No. Do they sound smooth? No. Colored? No. Quite simply, the usual array of descriptive words audiophiles use to tonally describe equipment go right out the door when it comes to the R10s, because none of them apply. So how the hell do I describe them? What's their sonic signature? If blindfolded, what is the dead give away sonic signature that every piece of audio equipment must have that says I am listening to the R10s? I could not figure this out for the longest time...and it has literally taken me this long to truly discover just what is the fundamental force behind the R10s, and to at last put it into words.

If blindfolded, I would now be able to pick out and name the R10s because they contain the greatest sonic signature I believe an audio equipment can have, which is sheer musical realism. i.e. It sounds real.

*sound of sniper bullet crashing through window*

*duck*

I can hear it in the minds of the millions and millions of Headfi fans out there now. "The atrocity of Vertigo-1 of saying that a piece of audio equipment meant for reproduction purposes can possibly sound 'real'!!!"

It's been said many times in the past that this headphone reproduces a certain something better than that headphone, etc. I'm sure many of us feel this way. And it seemed that there was no stalemate. It seemed we would forever be caught in the timeless loop of having to switch headphones every other night just because something sounded more "real" on one headphone than on the other.

However, here is at last a headphone that has conquered that barrier, and sounds as real as can be with absolutely anything you care to throw at it...whether it be the beautiful human voice, the sizzling attack of a bow to a violin, the strum of an electric guitar, the decay of a grand piano, or the sound of dog **** hitting a fan. Joelongwoods out there, take note! No more switching ever again needed!

It is in this aspect, that the R10s lack a true tonal signature and that they render everything in this "real to life" manner, that makes them fully superior to all other dynamic headphones to me, and in some cases, even electrostatics. You see, while electrostatics may render every last detail and breath and even allow you to see the number of pimples on Britney Spear's face and smell what she had for breakfast, I am not so certain they will necessarily render things in this unbelievably real manner that the R10s can render music in. It is this aspect that had always made me strongly think twice about ever selling my R10s. It is only now that I have fully begun appreciating it, and I am yet again held back from selling my R10s. This intoxicating ability of the R10s to render music so realistically is like a drug that once you get a taste of, there's no turning back, and there's no substitute.

It is therefore at last that I truly understand and comprehend page two of the Sony MDR-R10 manual, which states the following:

The Real Thing Always Defies Description

The real thing doesn't even need an explanation.
It speaks for itself,
and people respond to it,
making it timeless.

The Sony engineers who designed the R10
were determined to create sound
that would last for generations - the real thing.

We discarded conventional ideas in favor of a new sound,
pursuing every detail of the perfect performance
and seeking the best materials all over the world.
It was vital to design a product with a quality of sound
that would render words unnecessary.

We would like to ask all kinds of people
to listen to this "real sound,"
regardless of their various tastes,
form those who do not rate headphone sound quality highly
to those who are even reluctant to wear them.

We asked ourselves what to do.
Here is our answer - another step toward our dream.

[size=medium]MDR-R10[/size]

I remember reading those lines the first day I received my R10s, and laughing at how much marketing ******** it all was. And yet here I am now, fully comprehending and understanding every word. For the first time ever, everything about the R10s and what Sony was trying to aim for as described in the R10's manual has clicked into place in my head, and I am truly stunned. Without a doubt to my ears, Sony has fully achieved their goal that they strived to achieve with the R10s, and all along I had simply been trying to make excuses for the R10s about how they sound, how they compare, etc. The simple truth lied within the very manual itself all along...that the real thing simply defies description.

With all that said, let's get back to the HD600s now. What are some flaws to them that become obvious after listening to the R10s?

- The bass is just way too strong and overdone, and just does not mesh well with the rhythm, pace, and timing of the music.

- The midrange sounds thick and veiled compared to the R10s midrange, or I should say, lack of one in the tonal sense.

- The HD600s has prominent tonal characteristics that stand out, which makes its music reproduction sound uneven.

- The HD600s sound course in the lower treble, and have a upper midbass bump...both of which render human voices in an unnatural manner

These reasons are all direct reasons that influenced why I sold my HD600s, after owning them for four months alongside my R10s. But the biggest reason of all being...

IT DOESN'T SOUND REAL!

*sound of 50 sniper bullets crashing through window*

*duck*

Well, ahh, I guess that's all I have to say for now...

*Audio&Me, jude, and MacDEF's shoes flying through air*

*WHAP*

Hey msjjr made me do it!!!

 

[shivohum]

1) So are you saying that what makes the R10 sound real is the uncolored sound? Or is there something else?

2) You have an SPL meter, right? Do you have test tones? Can you take a reference tone a 1 khz and see how the frequency reponse changes, say, at 500 hz, 100 hz, 80hz, 50 hz? And at 2000, 3000, 4000 Khz? I'm just curious as to its frequency response.

 

[DesBen]

Testing the frequency response of headphones is a little more complex than sticking an SPL meter to the pad... You need a way to isolate around it, like your head would. Maybe you should also simulate the shape of the ear? Just ask HeadRoom, they'll tell you it's no easy task

 

[shivohum]

Hrm maybe you're right, but I recall someone around here saying that their homegrown measurements were surprisingly close to Headroom's. Anyway, it would probably give the general tendency, no?

 

[Audio-Me]

That was a good explaination Vert. You didn't upset me.

So you say that their sound is comlpetley flat. Well that doesn't necessarily mean it's "real". It still has to convey tone, timbre, and dynamics correctly. How close do you really think it is to the real thing? It may be the closest one, but I wouldn't go as far as implying "they reproduce the sound exactly as it sounds in real life". But I haven't heard it, and it seems like it's a must try. Who knows, maybe Sony will surprise me? Every nuance like of a piano would be cool to hear, without the anal details electrostatics would give me...

BTW, I don't think I'd want my Senns to sound anything like the R10s.

I love their signature sound. I don't exactly have to have the real thing reproduced, I enjoy a different sound as well if you catch my drift...

There may have been a few lines that needs to be taken with a teaspoon of salt, but that's just personal perception, no one has the right to argue that one. But I think the majority of your opinions I agree with. Well done.

No need for frequency graphs, I don't believe that ****.

There are some things science can never explain...

 

[pigmode]

Well, I had no idea you felt so strongly about the R10. Perhaps your mysterious equipment upgrades have brought forth some of these new revelations?

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by DesBen Testing the frequency response of headphones is a little more complex than sticking an SPL meter to the pad... You need a way to isolate around it, like your head would. Maybe you should also simulate the shape of the ear? Just ask HeadRoom, they'll tell you it's no easy task

It's not a maybe. People studying psychoacoustics have models made of the human ear, so that the sounds they are measuring correspond to what is reaching the eardrum as closely as possible.

 

[kelly]

I am unconvinced that a company in the business of retailing is the world's authority on measuring complex frequency responses. The amount of faith people put in those numbers here is somewhat disturbing to me.

None the less, Vertigo described what essentially I believe should be true of any of the top tier headphones that are in my poll (plug: go vote, dammit). They all have design goals of -- clear, detailed, flat, tonally transparent sound.

The differences between the top tier headphones, knowing that they all have this design goal come down to one thing--who hit closest to the mark? Vertigo and Markl have claimed repeatedly that it was Sony who have. Others have said Stax and still others say Sennheiser did with the Orpheus. I don't think there is a soul in existence who has heard all of them side by side to even offer opinion on the matter. For me, at a level that high, it comes down more to which companies you believe in and which technologies you believe in.

The HD600, in contrast, did not have these design goals. What's "laughable" isn't that someone wants a comparrison of two obscenely differently priced headphones -- but what is ridiculous is to wonder if they are similar when they had different design goals. That is to say -- if the HD600 absolutely achieved exactly what the engineers set out to achieve, it would not be any of the qualities described above. Is that a bad thing? No, not necessarily. Not in my opinion. Most of us don't have a source good enough to appreciate a transparent speaker. Most of us need some of the more "forgiving" aspects of some headphones. For me anyway, putting something that close to my ear and then eliminating or ignoring any outside noises and distractions is kind of asking for trouble when it comes to the rest of your system.

Despite the R10's low impadance, I'm not sure I'd want to listen to a Walkman through it. Even the Etymotic stretches my ability to appreciate portable CD players. Even last night when I was listening through my ER-4P, I could only think one thing "the signature sure is the CT570 in this system:, meaning moreso than hearing the Etymotic, the cables or the recording quality, it was the poor CD player that was flavoring every note. It's frustrating. I wish there was a portable CD player that could "keep up" with the Etymotic, but there isn't.

For a truly high end system (source, amplification, power, cables and speaker), the "bottleneck" becomes the recording quality. For truely bad recordings, the recording is the bottleneck even in poor systems, but for high end systems, the recording is far more often the limiting factor. In this case, for me, I think it may be worth keeping the HD600 around. Both the HD600 and the RKV amp have a soothing forgiving nature that I don't expect my future headphone purchases to have. It may actually be worth it, then, to have two headphones and amps at home--a demonstration of joelongwoodish obsession that I never thought I'd fall prey to.

 

[kwkarth]

Vert,
You did an excellent job in conveying the sound of your R10's. Even though I've never heard them, I can now imagine in my mind's ear what they sound like. I want a pair!

Great job!
Thanks,

 

[beowulf]

Well let's get to the point here... where can we get R10s at "good" prices?

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by beowulf Well let's get to the point here... where can we get R10s at "good" prices?

I believer Vertigo's is for sale.

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I believer Vertigo's is for sale.

Yup, and it's at a good price.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

The HD-600's are the complete opposite of the R-10's. The HD-600's go to great lengths to prevent coloration of the sound. The grill is designed to prevent resonation. The pads are all cushiony to absorb reverberations. The HD-600's are precisely why most people don't like headphone sound compared to speaker sound. Normally, you don't hear just the sound, you also hear reflections of the sound on walls, against the speaker cabinet, etc. So the sound gets kind of blurred down and modified by the time it reaches your head.

The R-10's, on the other hand, go to great lengths to sound like speakers. That's why they use that expensive wood. The wood causes distortion in the sound, just like you get it real life. The reflections reinforce what you hear from the source. It gives your brain more data to interpet the sounds into meaningful information. I would imagine that the detail is much greater with the HD-600's, or, for that matter, many other high-end headphones, because you're hearing just the sound - it's not being mixed in with reflections or being purposely distorted.

So the R-10's are for people who like speakers, not the traditional headphone sound. If you want the speaker sound, why not just listen to speakers? Speakers can do it better. The reverbations/distortions that you get are real, not simulated by wood. You also get the proper speaker stereo imaging. I like speakers and headphones. I don't want to do all my music listening with headphones, so instead of buying headphones that sound like speakers, why not just get speakers? You can get some really great speakers for $4000!

Sony says some good things about the R-10 in the manual, but I've yet to see a manual for a product that presents a negative view of the product. I'd really have to question the quality of any product, if even the company making the product doesn't like it. You don't expect to read a manual that says "Congratulations on your purchase! This thing isn't very good, but it might work for you until you can get something better. There are a lot of other options out there, so why did you buy this?" Once you've lost the loyalty of your marketing people, you know you've got problems. "You guys have anything else, we've looked this thing over, and, quite frankly, we can't think of anything good to say about it!"

I've never seen a review of the R-10's in which the reviewer didn't make lots of excuses for them or have lots of reservations about them. "These are only good for this type of music, they only sound good with a tube amp, they sound terrible with a tube amp, etc." I always suspect that kind of talk translates to "These cost me $4000! After putting that kind of money out, I can't admit I don't like them!"

I think the R-10's are for the very, very wealthy. If you have $4000, you could afford a really good speaker system. Since speaker systems have similar characteristics as the R-10's, you'd essentially be duplicating your speaker systems for times when you need to keep things quiet. How many people are willing to spend $4000, just to have an alternative to speakers for those times when they have to be quiet. Very few people, only the very wealthy to whom price is not an obstacle.

Having said all that, I would probably buy them if I found them for $1000!

 

[kelly]

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you guys that Eddie is a nice guy and that we all really like him.

The logic makes sense but the reality doesn't mesh. The HD600 sound a lot more colored and in fact sound a lot more like a pair of speakers to me than other headphones.

Go easy on him, Sony lovers.

 

[Vertigo-1]

And it probably will be withdrawn from sale now.

Quote:

1) So are you saying that what makes the R10 sound real is the uncolored sound? Or is there something else? 2) You have an SPL meter, right? Do you have test tones? Can you take a reference tone a 1 khz and see how the frequency reponse changes, say, at 500 hz, 100 hz, 80hz, 50 hz? And at 2000, 3000, 4000 Khz? I'm just curious as to its frequency response.

1. I can't even fit the R10s between a rock here of it being colored or neutral. It defies even those descriptions. It is clearly not neutral in the sense of what you'd hear from the Grado HP-1s, and in that sense even neutrality can be considered a form of tonal coloration. And yet it is clearly far from colored if you compare it to headphones with clearly bumped up frequency spectrums such as Grados or Sennheisers.

2. No I don't have test tones, and I realy don't think test tones are going to help here. It's more like we need a new dictionary.

pigmode, my upgrades aren't so mysterious to you I think.

But yes, it is very likely that the new equipment is indeed, as I said previously, unleashing the R10's full potential. Thus allowing me to more easily nail down what the R10s are about.

Going back to a point kelly made, does it take truly reference equipment to fully enjoy something like the R10s? Perhaps...perhaps not. The most expensive part of my system by far was the R10s...the rest of the items are set at price levels that most typical audiophiles eventually scale to and well over, and all cost well below the R10s themselves, combined in price. Point being, if you can afford the R10s, you can probably easily afford a system that will unleash them. It does not take the Holmes Powell DCT-2 and Linn Sondek CD12 and Nordost Valhallas to enjoy the R10s.

My own system is merely midfi I'd say...there are a few others here on Headfi that have systems that cost twice as much as mine. I believe the hardest part of the entire R10 experience is just in recognizing what they're trying to achieve with the sound, and to unlearn the usual ideas regarding tonal quantities. We usually are quick to judge anything in audio by quantifying bass, midrange, and treble. A person is very likely to fail to comprehend the R10s if they judge the R10s by these merits immediately off the bat, and the R10s will be easily dismissed as an overpriced toy and tossed on the scrap heap. I will admit that such was the immediate problem in fact for me over the course of this year...it was a unlearning and learning process. I absolutely had to unlearn my previous ways of thinking about sound if I really wanted to get down to what the R10s are all about. Consequently the easiest way I found to do this was to simply listen to any other headphone and the R10s side by side, and take note each time of how the R10s just simply sounded more real. In each and every case. And the cases have been the Sennheiser HD590/600, Grado RS-1/MSP, Grado SR-325/MSII, Grado HP-1, Etymotic 4S/B, and Sony MDR-CD3000.

If you can go past the conventional means of describing audio, I think you can enjoy the R10s from anywhere, and it becomes a scaling factor from there of how much you can afford to shape your system around your front end. I personally do not think I need to scale my headphone system any further, at least on the dynamic headphone side, because I think I've finally hit all my fundamentals...sheer detail, sheer transparency, sheer musicality, sheer realism. Before I had the last two items and lacked the first two items, but that has been remedied.