Quote:
Originally posted by Flumpus
First, what's the difference between EQ'ing a headphone to make up for its flaws and doing the Crossfeed/"Brightness Filter" (a fancy word for EQ)? |
Crossfeed is anything but EQ. EQ is increasing or decreasing certain frequencies to account for problems with those frequencies. Crossfeed is much more complex than that, and in fact doesn't purposely increase or decrease ANY frequencies. The brightness filter by itself might be considered "EQ" but it is there to counteract one characteristic of the crossfeed filter,
not flaws in the headphone.
Quote:
| its ridiculous (other than for the sake of benefitting a normal listener, who only had HD600s) to listen to the crossfeed with a less transparent headphone, when you have the best dynamic headphone available at your disposal. |
Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Your statement is based on two assumptions that have not been proven. First, and most obviously, the assumption that the R10 is the world's best dynamic headphone is not an established fact. It's a strongly held opinion by those who own them, but that's about it.
More importantly, the contention that crossfeed works better on the HD600 because they're "not truly" transparent, while it doesn't work on the R10 because the R10's ruthless transparency shows the "true" character of crossfeed, doesn't hold up to logic. If this was the case, Ety's would sound equally bad with crossfeed. The AKG K501 and K1000 are also incredibly "transparent" headphones -- yet they both sound great with crossfeed.
The inevitable response from someone is going to be "the R10 are just better than all these headphones." Yet if "better" equates to "works less well with crossfeed," then logically headphones like HD600, Etys, RS1, K1000, K501, etc. would all work "less well" with HeadRoom's crossfeed than less headphones -- but they don't.
Given that some really great transparent headphones sound great with the crossfeed in question, and that there is no demostrably linear relationship between the "quality" of a headphone and its compatibility (or lack thereof) with HeadRoom's crossfeed feature, a more supportable theory is that there is something about the R10 that doesn't like crossfeed, not that it is "too good" for crossfeed.
Quote:
Originally posted by kelly
The sample size is much larger than one. Thus far, I've read opinions from probably 15 people who have had or heard the Headmaster. I think two were slanted toward negative (or that is to say, unfavorable compared to the MOH). 2:15. Not bad. Maybe I'll make it 3, who knows. |
Kelly, to clarify, the "sample size" in question is not the number of people who have heard the Sugden -- in fact, almost everyone who has heard it likes it a lot, as you said. By "sample size" I was referring to statements made about the Sugden vs. the MOH, which were based on only this review.
Again, I'm saying this as a point of methodology, not as a dig on the Sugden. I've long said that I would love to get my hands on a Sugden
Quote:
Originally posted by Vertigo-1
So, I typed out all those big long statements describing how the R10s sound because my wallet was tapping on my shoulder and saying "hey mister, I'm feeling a little empty", and because I'm about to end up living out on the streets. Ok, if you say so. |
I knew that post would generate a reply
Vert, that wasn't a personal attack on you or your judgement; it was a general observation on how human beings perceive items that were obtained at a relatively high cost (monetary or otherwise). See below...
Quote:
| Why should how much I paid for something have anything to do with this? |
Because, methodologically speaking, it's impossible to rule that factor out.
Seriously, think about this: two friends each buy a pair of headphones. One spends $300 and the other spends $3000. Consider for a moment if the headphones are actually sonically identical in every way. In a double-blind test, neither person would be able to tell the difference. But in a "visible" test, the owner of the $3000 headphone will prefer his headphone in the vast majority of cases. The other person may prefer one or the other. This is a pretty well-established concept in the research arena. When people spend a lot of money on something, they assume it is going to provide them with a certain amount of added return over a cheaper item. This causes them to subconsciously like their item more than they would if they got the item for free. This phenomenon also occurs when the "cost" is emotional or physical.
So I was simply making the obvious point -- that people who own a headphone that costs $3000 are going to expect, subconsciously or consciously, that they are getting a better headphone than someone who spends $300.
Now, how much of your, or anyone else's, peception of the "quality" of these headphones is due to the above factor, and how much is due to them actually being significantly better than any other headphone, is unknown. It could be that your views are based 99.9% on objective impressions, and only .1% on subconsciously wanting them to be that good. Or it could be 50-50, or 10-90. Nobody knows. But it's definitely something that exists.
Anyways, that sentence I wrote that you quoted was just an afterthought added to the end of my main statement -- that it's quite possible that the R10 are just like any other "high-end" headphone: some people like them a lot, and own them, others don't.
Quote:
| If what you say were true, then I would never trust a single Headroom Max review ever. How do I know the reviews aren't biased because somebody just ripped $1777 out of their bank accounts, and they feel that they just have to defend their new toy? |
You don't
The point applies here, as well.
Quote:
| I like the R10s for what they do. |
Vert, no one's questioning that fact, or your right to like them
In fact, I believe that you personally like them a great deal, and that they seem to have what you're looking for. My statement was a
general one that includes
all R10 owners who give them glowing reviews.
Quote:
| I had a prime chance to sell them a month ago if I truly didn't like them, heck right alongside the big review that you can call a "sales pitch" if you feel like accusing me of that even |
Woah, hold on, Vert... I think you're taking this wrong. It wasn't a personal attack. Like I said, you can say the same thing to me about the Max, and it will be just as valid
