[taymat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spike33 Since you own 595, I'd give sa5000 a try. While I really liked 595, sa5k is on whole nother level. I find they have a similar sound...they both have relatively flat response with a slight peak in upper mids and no midbass hump. except sa5k is much more detailed, upfront, faster, tighter more impactful bass, basically a 595 on steroids.

I wish you hadn't said that, I really enjoy my hd595 and was looking at the dt880 to complement them, now I'm going to end up paying much more!

 

[seeberg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by taymat I wish you hadn't said that, I really enjoy my hd595 and was looking at the dt880 to complement them, now I'm going to end up paying much more!

I get the feeling the whole SA series would be in its own league if it could be recabled. I can only imagine what SA1000 + Zu/Cardas/StefanAudioArts would be like, or balanced XLR with SA5000's!

,
Abe

 

[Andrea]

I entirely agree with JaZZ (edit: ops. ...in the other thread concerning the SA5000) ... Me, I'd NEVER buy a SA5000 when there are phones like the HD650, DT880, HD595, (Philips HP1000 ?), out there. I only like a sound that, all things considered, is as true to the recording as possible - that doesn't grossly try to 'boost' the excitement.

 

[kyrie]

Well, there's no way to know whether some output is true to the recording or not. Only the recording engineer knows what the recording was supposed to sound like, so the phrase "true to the recording" has no meaning whatsoever.

The phrase "natural" and "artificial" also doesn't have any meaning, since they are so subjective. If the SA5k sounds exciting with a recording and the HD650 dull, no one can tell for sure whether the SA5k is "boosting" the excitement, or whether the HD650 is "dulling" it.

But when it comes down to it, it's all about self-satisfaction, one way or the other.
Even bashing a headphone you've never heard, that's self-satisfaction.

 

[Andrea]

Yep, I know, arguing on this is pointless. Anyway, I can't see how I may ever come to think that my HD650 is 'dull' sounding, and I'm confident about my references 'built' so far. I just know this SA5000 is NOT for me, so well, take the above in this light. (obviously)

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeberg I get the feeling the whole SA series would be in its own league if it could be recabled. I can only imagine what SA1000 + Zu/Cardas/StefanAudioArts would be like, or balanced XLR with SA5000's! , Abe

Actually I was thinking the SA5000 would be an insane headphone if it could be woodied... unfortunately it's build does not lend well to that. I think the imbalances in the frequencies are caused at least partly by the strange can design (big surprise from Sony, eh?), which reports on the Qualias would seem to agree with.

The driver has outstanding capability, it's just that sometimes it feels like the chamber could use a little tweaking. Of course, I feel practically the same way regardless of what cans I'm listening too, and the SA5000s are still the best suited-for-me headphones I've listened to. At the moment I'm working on amp matching.

 

[gsferrari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea I entirely agree with JaZZ (edit: ops. ...in the other thread concerning the SA5000) ... Me, I'd NEVER buy a SA5000 when there are phones like the HD650, DT880, HD595, (Philips HP1000 ?), out there. I only like a sound that, all things considered, is as true to the recording as possible - that doesn't grossly try to 'boost' the excitement.

I think you are deluding yourself and narrowing your options with this approach to audio. Get over it. Know what you are talking about and speak from experience. Talking crap about something you have never heard is simply not acceptable...especially when you speak as if you are an authority on the SA5000 when it hasnt touched your ears.

I agree that the HD-650 is a fine phone and still up there on top. I prefer the SA5000 and sold the HD-650 as a result. I didnt "psyche" myself into believing that the HD-650 is inferior...all along it proved it's capability...it just didnt have the resolution of the SA5000 and that was a telling point in my decision.

So try to keep an open mind...and get real..quick!

 

[backdrifter]

edit

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyrie Well, there's no way to know whether some output is true to the recording or not. Only the recording engineer knows what the recording was supposed to sound like, so the phrase "true to the recording" has no meaning whatsoever. The phrase "natural" and "artificial" also doesn't have any meaning, since they are so subjective. If the SA5k sounds exciting with a recording and the HD650 dull, no one can tell for sure whether the SA5k is "boosting" the excitement, or whether the HD650 is "dulling" it.

A very good tool for judging a headphone on your ears is pink noise. It allows to easily detect sonic imbalances in narrower frequency bands, whereas a general tilt towards dark or bright is less obvious. To my ears the SA5000 shows some strange irregularities. Whereas both HSD 595 and HD 650 strongly remind of a waterfall (although with slight differences in tonal balance), the Sony rather sounds like an artificial noise with emphasized frequency bands.

And of course acoustic instruments are always a good reference -- ideally they should sound natural (so there's not much tolerance for sonic «intentions» of the producer anyway). They don't through the SA5000, e.g. trumpets sound like toy trumpets: shrill and squawky. Well, almost, but you know what I mean.

But keep in mind that's how I hear it with my ears -- yours may of course perceive it quite differently. I just wonder if it's because of different sonic and musical preferences or different ear shapes.

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ But keep in mind that's how I hear it with my ears -- yours may of course perceive it quite differently. I just wonder if it's because of different sonic and musical preferences or different ear shapes.

I would say both, but there is also a difference in ability for our brains to adapt to different sounds in different enviroments and let us hear what we want to hear, rather than the strictest of electronic measurements. It's the reason for the mental half of burn-in and IMO part of why I like and hold interest in many different headphones, equipment, and listening environments.

Good or bad thing? eh, whatever, just enjoy what you enjoy.

 

[kyrie]

Quote:

This old saw is not a good argument. Let's stop using it. It only holds water if you are talking about recordings of electronic music, or anything that is subject to a lot of manipulation in a studio. Any music lover knows what acoustical instruments sound like. We can disagree about our favorite headphones, but let's no get into some hyper-relativist logic where there is no sense of objective reality. If we accept that thinking, we can say, "How do you know my cd wasn't intended to sound exactly like these sh**buds sound? It is mostly sold to people with cheap audio equipment like me. I'm sure the engineer of the cd didn't have a Sennheiser Orpheus, so how could that be better? It's just your preference if you like that more."

So...where do you see me asserting that "sh**buds" can reproduce music the way it's "supposed to sound?"

IMO, there are certain characteristics of headphones that are rather objective, such as detail, extension, and decay.
And there are other characteristics that are not quite so objective, such as flatness, balance, naturalness, etc.

The latter characteristics are different for every single person. What may seem flat may seem awfully colored to others, what may seem natural may sound quite artificial to someone else. If you just take a quick look around these forums, you'd see that as a fact.

Stating that a certain pair of headphones sounds objectively more neutral, or natural, than another pair, is just being rather arrogant.


Oh, and incidentally...the SA5k sound rather artificial and "unnatural" to my ears, as well.
But I like them anyway. To me, headphones can never reproduce, or even approach, live sound. What's natural about two small drivers being suspended inches from your ear? The fact is, speakers are far superior to headphones in that regard. My pursuit of headphones is not a pursuit of live, or even "natural" sound, and I'm sure there are also other people who feel this way. What might sound unnatural to me might not necessarily sound unpleasant, because I am able to find other factors other than "naturality" to revel in.

 

[backdrifter]

edit

 

[spike33]

sa5000 sounds less natural to me compared to say.. k501, but it doesn't mean it's not enjoyable. I don't think that was sony's intention. They set out to make a can that's comfortable, fast, detailed, transparent, and fun to listen to and they succeeded admirably

 

[kyrie]

You say that it's a "false insight."

How is it false, then?
Is there some way to "know" how a recording is supposed to sound?

You say that the statement "is not an assertion of preference, perception, etc."

So what...are you claiming that every post needs to be an assertion of personal preference or perception?
Stating the something is not "true to the recording" is not an assertion of perception. It's implying that there is some objective standard, the "recording," against which one can measure any piece of equipment. Which is totally false, and also misleading.

Sorry, I understand why you might be tired of seeing this argument being used over and over again, but I don't get your logic.

 

[backdrifter]

edit