[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by backdrifter Hey, Kyrie, I don't want to make this a big thing. I just don't like that argument. I wish people wouldn't use it, I don't know how anyone can respond to it, I don't know who it helps.

I don't think it's a bad arguement, I think people need to differenciate between the accuracy to the original recording from basic quality of technical reproduction. Your "extension" of the arguement to crappy earbuds doesn't do that and thus the arguement breaks down in your eyes, but what you are saying isn't part of the arguement to begin with...

Original natural detail is infinite, as is frequency range (effectively). Pro recording equipment will take as large of a sampling of that information as possible. In reproduction, the more range and detail is replayed to our ears, the more technically accurate it is. The rest is nuances in the balance of frequencies and harmonics that is different in every studio, and every piece of equipment through recording, mastering, reproduction... not to mention preferences of technicians at each of those steps...

So no, obviously iPod earbuds aren't the way it was intended to sound, and no, there is not any possible way we can ever, ever reproduce all recordings the way they were "meant to be", or even know what that was without having been present at the time it was recorded (and not even really then).

 

[backdrifter]

edit

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by backdrifter I don't know if I understand what you are saying, really, but I'll try to explain the far end of my scale, the earbuds. Bear in mind, the point of the examples is to take the argument to its extremes.

I know what I'm trying to say, but I find it unclear what you are saying as you seem to be using counterexamples to make a point which you haven't explicitely stated.

So I may be shooting off into space, sorry.

And if the NIN engineer records that way, that far out in left field that there would have to be absolutely no concern for fidelity (actually quite typical of small studios and DIY recordings), I don't care what the intended playback is, that is a bad, low quality recording. Truely poor recordings aren't part of any headphone arguement, the arguement is how much you can get for them on e-bay, and hope the next release is better.

And yes, that is unique to my point of view. We could argue this till the cow comes home, simply because we all have different boundry lines when thinking about this.

 

[backdrifter]

edit

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyrie 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.

I absolutely agree. Headphone listening is an unnatural experience, since our ears are used to free-field sound. So your brain needs some adjustment, and the «ideal» implementation of headphone reproduction is dependent on the individual musical and sonic preferences, maybe including some compensational elements to make up for the lack of spaciousness or the visceral impact (usually in the form of a bass emphasis). Nevertheless, headphones also have a great advantage over speakers: they can bypass the listening room with its notorious resonances and artificial reverberations («artificial» because they usually don't match the reproduced music -- even chamber music is played in larger rooms, not to mention symphonies). And thus can convey an exquisite intimacy and closeness to the music.


Quote:

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.

Thanks for the clarification! Yes, you're certainly not alone with your approach. I for one am actually not really out for naturalness, but rather flawnessness, since that's the precondition for an unfatiguing listening experience without being detracted from the music. Logically this isn't far away from accuracy and neutrality, and since I know how real instruments sound (and I like how they sound and don't want them to be modified), it boils down to a preference for a sound as natural as possible.



Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

It seems so...

At least if it's that what you're after. Also pointing out the merits of the SACD seems to be a strong marketing motif: a headphone with full treble bloom to hammer the extended bandwidth into everybody's brain.

Reminds me a bit of the early stereo recordings with their ping-pong effects to demonstrate «stereo». However, this doesn't really speak for Sony's audio competence. I have little experience with their top headphones, but there seems to be a common trait in that most of them have a sort of built-in soundstage: The closed design isn't really closed, the rear shell seems to have the function of a reflector, not a closed chamber. Also the SA5000 has a slight hollow, reverberative coloration resulting from the naked earpiece chamber (and I wouldn't be surprised if the «hollowness», «cavernousness» and «reverberativeness» reported of the Qualia have the very same cause). Since I'm a rather serious audiophile with a somewhat puristic approach, I don't want to have built-in fun in my headphones. So you can imagine that my respect for Sony seriously suffers from such experiences. Sure, they build consumer ware and want to make money with a product finding acceptance with a broad public, but do I have to care? And BTW, such artificial excitement has proven to ware off rather quickly, so I expect to see a lot of SAX000s for sale the next few weeks.

And the SA5000 to find its place in the FOTM chuchyard...

 

[spike33]

Quote:

Originally Posted by backdrifter I'm saying the argument about "only the recording engineer knows the truth" is useless. That's what I've been saying. Trying to be explicit here... NIN was just an example, so I'm not going to follow your tangent about "bad" recordings. I could think of other permutations to show the problems with this argument. But it sounds like you really like it. Oh, well ... I tried.

Ok, so what you've been trying to say is that by listening to the recording, you can find out what the recording engineer intended it to sound like. Ex: excessively bright record is intended to be heard thru a dull system. Which I agree with but then the recording engineer should be fired for doing a crappy job. A recording should sound good on any setup, and sound great on hifi end setup.

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari 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!

I think the real issue is not being "quick" or not, there's something more substantial: I'm talking like a music listener primarily, whereas you rather talk like an 'audio enthusiast' (or a 'geek', hope it's not an offense

). That's how I see it.

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

spike, that was the most agreeable pro-SA5000 post I've seen.

 

[backdrifter]

edit

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by backdrifter I could argue the recording engineer thing a completely different way (NIN is intense music, it is meant to hurt a little, the lyrics and sentiments are not happy or pretty, Trent Reznor is trying to make you jaded people listen!), and that is the point. It's total speculation. On acoustical music, someone can reasonably say that a pair of headphones is not accurate. This "only the engineer" knows thing is not an intelligent response. It can be twisted to serve any purpose, and it is not an insight.

I entirely share your sentiments on the subject.

 

[spike33]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ It seems so... At least if it's that what you're after. Also pointing out the merits of the SACD seems to be a strong marketing motif: a headphone with full treble bloom to hammer the extended bandwidth into evybody's brain. Reminds me a bit of the early stereo recordings with their ping-pong effects to demonstrate «stereo». However, this doesn't really speak for Sony's audio competence. I have little experience with their top headphones, but there seems to be a common trait in that most of them have a sort of built-in soundstage: The closed design isn't really closed, the rear shell seems to have the function of a reflector, not a closed chamber. Also the SA5000 has a slightly hollow, reverberative coloration resulting from the naked earpiece chamber (and I wouldn't be surprised if the «hollowness», «cavernousness» and «reverberativeness» reported of the Qualia have the very same cause). Since I'm a rather serious audiophile with a somewhat puristic approach, I don't want to have built-in fun in my headphones. So you can imagine that my respect for Sony seriously suffers from such experiences. Sure, they build consumer ware and want to make money with a product that finding acceptance with a broad public, but do I have to care? And BTW, such artificial excitement has proven to ware off rather quickly, so I expect to see a lot of SAX000s for sale the next few weeks. And the SA5000 to find its place in the FOTM chuchyard...

sa5000 is geared towards fans of grado seeking more comfort and less fatigue. 'Artificial excitement'? no. Drivers are just closer to your ears giving a more upfront sound, how is that artificial? You say 'built in fun' like its bad thing. I think alot of grado fanboys will disagree

 

[gsferrari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea I think the real issue is not being "quick" or not, there's something more substantial: I'm talking like a music listener primarily, whereas you rather talk like an 'audio enthusiast' (or a 'geek', hope it's not an offense ). That's how I see it.

Actually that makes sense. Sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you earlier...not my intention. I merely suggest that you "try" as much as possible because you NEVER know what is around the bend that will take your experience further...

Best regards,

gs

 

[spike33]

Quote:

Originally Posted by backdrifter This is getting funny! No, that's not what I'm saying! I'm saying we should not speculate about what the engineer was thinking. I'm saying leave him out of this. I'm saying your opinion of equipment means more to me than some imaginary recording engineer. I could argue the recording engineer thing a completely different way (NIN is intense music, it is meant to hurt a little, the lyrics and sentiments are not happy or pretty, Trent Reznor is trying to make you jaded people listen!), and that is the point. It's total speculation. On acoustical music, someone can reasonably say that a pair of headphones is not accurate. This "only the engineer knows" thing is not an intelligent response. It can be twisted to serve any purpose, and it is not an insight. My opinion is made, and if it's not, I'm done trying to make it!

At least you finally your point clear, but your explanation and examples are downright horrid. I doubt anyone actually understood you. You're saying we should leave the engineer out of it, that is same as saying "only the engineer knows." Since we don't know, we concentrate on making our own setup sound well with the music... sigh.

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari Actually that makes sense.

Appreciation returned, gs.

Best regards,

Andrea

 

[backdrifter]

edit