The Beyerdynamic DT48 Arrives...

[shamu144]

Since the DT48 was developped and tested when transistors and opamp didn't exist yet (1937 !!), one could think they were tuned by ear with analog gear (when actual phase and timing did matter if not so much the frequency response, unlike the digital era), and could put in context comments like this quote from Tyll: "The low frequency sibilance seemed recessed, and higher frequency components of those sounds were accentuated yealding a more piercing chirp than would be natural. "...

Has anyone heard the DT48 on a full analog system, and what did you think

 

[Deep Funk]

On the 'to-do-list'... 

 

[judy1992]

Hasn't Tyll heard the best ever? Does his opinion hold more weight then others with less experience? Just playing Devils Advocate here.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Yes, I run the DT48 on a fully analog system. Both with my turntable and all vacuum tube FM stereo receiver. The DT48 sounds glorious.

 

[RexAeterna]

i always wanted to get myself a vintage pair of these but i have no luck finding them. their harder to track down than the AKG 240DF.

 

[shamu144]

That sounds very sweet. Sometimes, I just wish I was born some 60 years ago... The early digital era brought us crappy CD players, digital artifacts, jitter, compression, volume war etc... No wonder why the analog gears are still much praised today. Sure, they might not be as accurate or flat sounding, but I have the feeling they respect other important aspect of the music much better (flow, timing, phase) making for a more enjoyeable and tunefull experience.
 
Affordable digital systems have become more sterile and make music sound "broken"...Listening to my DT48 on my old portable Sony CD players or iPods is really painfull. But should we blaim the ruthlessly revealing DT48 for this... As the digital era progresively transformed even the pro industry, the old legendary DT48 was ditched but by the more experienced users and got finally erased from the collective memory.
 
However, with the recent break through of serious computer audio, many believe a new era is born which could bring together the best of both digital and analog sounds... And in such a context, old forgotten references like the DT48 might very well surprise us again...
 
Quote:

Yes, I run the DT48 on a fully analog system. Both with my turntable and all vacuum tube FM stereo receiver. The DT48 sounds glorious.

 

 

[Uncle Erik]

Analog gear is popular for a couple reasons. For some, it evokes nostalgia. I still remember going to the local supermarket with my uncle to test TV tubes and buy replacements for our black & white TV. I remember seeing tube testers and tubes stocked in stores. I was born in 1972, so it wasn't that long ago.

Also, tubes have a retro-cool for those born more recently. They're nothing like what you're used to.

What's forgotten is what a pain in the ass electronics used to be. Capacitors used to be wax and paper. They'd melt when they got hot, which would take out tubes and other parts. Electrolytic caps were unreliable, too. Carbon comp resistors are awful, too. Heat them up a little and they start drifting in value. Eventually, they permanently change value. This is why TV and radio repair shops were everywhere, since the crappy old components broke down constantly.

Oddly, tubes have only become truly practical in the past 20 years. Run tubes with modern caps and resistors, and they become much, much more reliable. Solid state rose up with better components, so it has been more reliable. I work on old radios and can tell you how awful the old parts are. There are ways to troubleshoot the defective components, but I gave up on that years ago. I simply gut and replace. Every old part will fail sooner or later, so I replace them all. The good news is that the old stuff perks up and turns great; that never would have happened 50 years ago.

No, I would not have wanted to live 60 years ago. I would not have wanted to continually service my gear because of crappy parts. Also, modern speakers and headphones demolish vintage stuff. Granted, old Klipschhorns, Lowthers and Quads hold up today, but the average speaker was crap. You couldn't get an awesome PSB or Magnepan at a good price back then. Also, CD is a good technology, albeit abused today. Still, a well-recorded CD is damned excellent. Hi-rez digital is even better. Further, modern turntables and cartridges are much better than old ones.

So I'm happy with 2011. My analog gear has highly reliable caps and resistors. My turntable is better than those from 50-60 years ago. 24/96, SACD and DVD-A are incredibly good. And I'll take the HD-800 over anything back then save for the Quad ESL-57.

 

[shamu144]

Sure, but the reliability is an entire different topic and I certainly can see arguments and positions on both sides...
 
However, you are right that we are lucky enough in 2011 to be able to pick whatever gear please us most, and I would like to remind this quote seen here: arts and movies DT48 from a long time owner (30 years mind you) of the DT48 in the movie industry: "There is a lot of great new gear and there are a few pieces of great old gear that offer something the new stuff can’t quite capture. "
 
As for me, and in my system, I choose the DT48A over the HD800 anyday

 

[svyr]

would be curious to see how various DT48 compare with the new tesla phones (70p/70/T5p/T1/1350,T50p). I know it compares somewhat favorably to T5p because the latter is 'spethial' and not in a good way, but still

 

[shamu144]

I did write a brief DT48A/T1 comparison some pages back in this thread. I shall receive my DT1350 today, and I'll let you know how those two compare as well

 

[Ishcabible]

And I shall probably be getting the T70 early next year to compare to my early production DT48. You guys will probably beat me to it by then though.
 
Has anyone here tried using the DT48 with tubes ? I know they'd suck with an OTL (would the 120ohm adapter help remedy this?) but what about something that would work with a low impedance headphone like this?

 

[shamu144]

WA6, Mapletree Ear, DNA Sonett (it has an 120 ohms output!), Yamamoto HA02 (too much gain for the DT48E ?) seem to be good candidates for the 25 ohms version (not quite sure about the DT48A 5 ohms version) though maybe not the most affordables....
 
Or you can go with the 200 ohms version and an OTL design... I sure would love to read some impressions.

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

I'll be getting my ears checked soon. I'll be sure to check out what they use.
 
I disagree about subjectivity in sound though. The only subjective thing in sound is perception. Everything else is strictly objective, because it all relates to the reproduction of reality. Different individuals may have different tastes, but these tastes are beside the reproduction of reality. But in the end, what's measurable? Reality, and things that deviate from it.

Sorry, but couldn't let this one go by (LOL).
 
I can't think of ANYTHING technical more fraught with subjectivity than audio. Right from the source, take the recordings...imperfect mic's (check out most microphones measured responses), various opinions on mic placement and recording theories; strict Blumlein, Decca tree, spaced omni's, ORTF, and multi-mic with all their variations (none of which provide absolute facsimilie reproduction even in theory).
 
And specific to headphones, there is little agreement on how they SHOULD measure. We don't really know what response a "perceived flat" phone would exhibit, and in the end it probably varies from individual to individual anyway (for physical ear structure reasons). So it's all subjectivity and a yard wide. Each brand picks a target and tries to hit it and see if people like what they have done. Reproduction of reality? We can't even get close, either in record or playback.
 
I was in Washington at the Audiofest this last weekend and sat in the Wilson Audio room listening to Peter McGrath of US Harmonia Mundi playing back some of his master recordings direct through a close to 6-digit$ playback system. Excellent sound, among the best I have heard. But live? Errr...no. (BTW, he now favors mic's made by a prominent headphone manufacturer...) 
 
We can't even get different people's headphone measurements to completely agree. Some of the purported measured bass responses of the DT-48 would result in a headphone with less bass than even the smallest mini-monitor speaker. Which, while it's true that the bass on the DT-48 certainly isn't for bass-heads, is demonstrably not true through simply listening to them...
 
Kevin

 

[Deep Funk]

The DT48, in my case the E-25 has more bass than you would expect. Getting that bass to level with the midrange and highs is something else...

 

[shamu144]

Agree. I also believe frequency response measurements are largely overstated nowadays. As you said, it is utopic to recreate a perfectly flat frequency response for the listeners experience with so many variables in the chain... 
 
However, what gets very little attention today in the audio playback chain is what is happening in the time domain. That is curious when you realize that actually the human beeing is extremely sensitive to both time and frequency:
 
In the last section, it became apparent that the brain has an extensive apparatus for extracting both time and frequency information from sounds. In fact, there are two separate [biological] pathways for information: one for frequency domain and the other for time domain data. This has far reaching consequences for how we hear sound signals. First of all, it means that any perceptually significant analysis or classification of sound must include both time and frequency. Source

Frequency response vs Time domain: Steady‐state vs. Transient sounds.
 
What is the perceptual significance of our transient vs. steady classification, then? To see this, we must consider speech, first. In the spoken language, two general categories of sounds are recognized: vowels and consonants. They are characterized by vowels being «voiced», often quite long and often having a more or less clear pitch as opposed to consonants being short, sometimes noiselike (such as the pronunciation of the letter «s») and mostly unpitched. Vowels arise from nicely defined vibratory patterns in the vocal tract which are excited by a relatively steady pulse train from the vocal chords when consonants mostly arise from constrictions of the vocal tract and the attendant turbulence, impulsive release (like when pronouncing a «p», or one of the other plosives) or nonlinear vibration (like the letter «r»). Now, a clear pattern shows here. Consonants tend to be transient in nature, while vowels are mostly steady‐state. This is very important because most of the higher audio processing in humans has been shaped by the need to understand speech.

So you can probably have a perfectly flat frequency response and a crap sound... (early digital players hmmm), but you could also have a mild colored frequency response with outstanding musical qualities (vinyl anyone...). 
 
Quote:

And specific to headphones, there is little agreement on how they SHOULD measure. We don't really know what response a "perceived flat" phone would exhibit, and in the end it probably varies from individual to individual anyway (for physical ear structure reasons). So it's all subjectivity and a yard wide. Each brand picks a target and tries to hit it and see if people like what they have done. Reproduction of reality? We can't even get close, either in record or playback.
 
Kevin