[Beagle]

I just stumbled onto this thread. Weird. Today I was reading an old Consumers Report mag from September 1975, and they did a headphone survey and the DT48 finished second from the bottom, with a 57% "sound accuracy" rating. CR was more of a best-bang-for-the-buck publication but they did focus on the sound. Can't put this into any context because I am not familiar with the sound of any of the phones they reviewed. Way before I started listening to headphones.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Who was tested? What methods were used. There is no denying they are dead neutral headphones. I really hope it wasn't some guy on the street asking people if it sounds accurate or neutral..

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT /img/forum/go_quote.gif You want to go back and reread my posts in this thread. I never said that I hate them, contrary, but I still would not put them on the same bench with HD650 or W5000, but that's more like open vs. closed design presentation (yes, W5000 is closed but only from appearance).

I'm selling my 650. The DT48 is technical much better and on another level. Never heard the W5000, so I can't say. The DT48 is making me go yuk with headphones I wouldn't dare think about selling. It's just hard to go back to other headphones when the DT48 do it so right. I might save up for the HD800. Old Vs New comparison. I always wanted the W5000.. The Q10 for sure.. Maybe the D7000. K1000. CD900ST.. Other then chose, the DT48 has spoiled me.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm selling my 650. The DT48 is technical much better and on another level.

I wouldn't throw "technical superiority" log into the fire, it's just your personal preferences. You could as well declare Ety-ER4S superior to HD650 because of better details accentuation and speed, but they are not.
DT48 (E, haven't heard other flavors) are very solid, truly *closed* headphones with superior isolation that could give a hard time to K271S, D2000/D5000, DT770, A900..., may be even topping that tier, but that's it.
Anyhow, just to make clear where I stand with those, I think I've finally found a substitution for my dear beloved K271S for office use.

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just stumbled onto this thread. Weird. Today I was reading an old Consumers Report mag from September 1975, and they did a headphone survey and the DT48 finished second from the bottom, with a 57% "sound accuracy" rating. CR was more of a best-bang-for-the-buck publication but they did focus on the sound. Can't put this into any context because I am not familiar with the sound of any of the phones they reviewed. Way before I started listening to headphones.

It was the 70s, an era when most headphones were giant, ugly, closed beasts that can make sounds... and that's about it (ignoring the electrostatics and things like that). Maybe they forgot what good sounded like? Lord knows fashion went off course in those days...

Though the Pioneer SE-L40 have a certain look to them... then again, I like the look (sort of) of my gold 325i.

 

[kool bubba ice]

IMO they are technically superior to every Hi end can I owned....SA5000/650/880/ 990/701. Since the 48 is above them I put them somewhere between high end and ultra hi (or true hi end) I do believe Erik is right when he says that the DT48 is leagues above the 701. If that upsets you so be it. I don't wan't to argue about it.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

.

 

[PaulyT]

Hi all! Got a DT48E recently (200 ohm version). My only other 'phones right now are AKG K701. I wanted to try some closed 'phones, and the DT48 seemed like a reasonable possibility based on rec's in another thread. I have a decent tube amp (Audiotailor Jade) and have spent a lot of time with it with the K701. I listen mainly to classical music; detail and soundstage are very important to me.

I've now done a fair bit of careful listening with the DT48; I have a set of 3 CDs' worth of reference tracks that I use for audio testing purposes - like speaker selection, tube rolling with my Jade, etc. It's stuff I know well.

At this point, I'm fairly sure that I prefer the K701. Not to put down the DT48 at all, they're very nice. I really like the sound isolation at times (especially as I'm in a house with a 2 and 5 year old

), makes it really easy to hear what the DT48 is producing with little interference.

But they lack the "sparkle" of the K701, to my ears. There's a certain amount of detail in the very high frequency that gives e.g. natural sibilance to a voice or a violin, or "ambience" of the recording setting's acoustics. I just don't get as much of that with the DT48, and as such the soundstage is a little more flat, voices and instruments don't "pop" as much.

Now, having said that, I look forward to actually going back and reading this thread.

I very deliberately did not want to read all this before I did my own comparison, in order to avoid any biasing.

Y'all can flame away if you like, I won't be bothered.

And I'm open to discussion. But I will say that so far the DT48 is the best I've heard next to the K701, though my budget doesn't allow me to try the really higher end stuff, like Denon 7000 or ATH w5000 or others of that level. Someday...

Anyone want to buy a lightly used DT48E?

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulyT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi all! Got a DT48E recently (200 ohm version). My only other 'phones right now are AKG K701. I wanted to try some closed 'phones, and the DT48 seemed like a reasonable possibility based on rec's in another thread. I have a decent tube amp (Audiotailor Jade) and have spent a lot of time with it with the K701. I listen mainly to classical music; detail and soundstage are very important to me. I've now done a fair bit of careful listening with the DT48; I have a set of 3 CDs' worth of reference tracks that I use for audio testing purposes - like speaker selection, tube rolling with my Jade, etc. It's stuff I know well. At this point, I'm fairly sure that I prefer the K701. Not to put down the DT48 at all, they're very nice. I really like the sound isolation at times (especially as I'm in a house with a 2 and 5 year old ), makes it really easy to hear what the DT48 is producing with little interference. But they lack the "sparkle" of the K701, to my ears. There's a certain amount of detail in the very high frequency that gives e.g. natural sibilance to a voice or a violin, or "ambience" of the recording setting's acoustics. I just don't get as much of that with the DT48, and as such the soundstage is a little more flat, voices and instruments don't "pop" as much. Now, having said that, I look forward to actually going back and reading this thread. I very deliberately did not want to read all this before I did my own comparison, in order to avoid any biasing. Y'all can flame away if you like, I won't be bothered. And I'm open to discussion. But I will say that so far the DT48 is the best I've heard next to the K701, though my budget doesn't allow me to try the really higher end stuff, like Denon 7000 or ATH w5000 or others of that level. Someday... Anyone want to buy a lightly used DT48E?

In my opinion comparing them to open phones is plain unfair. They are as closed as closed phones could be and just be gauged against such.

 

[dcpoor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMO they are technically superior to every Hi end can I owned....SA5000/650/880/ 990/701. Since the 48 is above them I put them somewhere between high end and ultra hi (or true hi end) I do believe Erik is right when he says that the DT48 is leagues above the 701. If that upsets you so be it. I don't wan't to argue about it.

not surprising considering he doesn't think highly of the k701 in the first place.

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my opinion comparing them to open phones is plain unfair. They are as closed as closed phones could be and just be gauged against such.

Unfair in this price range, because after a certain point the whole closed/open thing doesn't matter.

Can we go with sonically superior (which is more of an opinion) instead of saying technically superior? For instance: a carbon fiber cello is technically superior; a Stradivarius is sonically superior.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcpoor /img/forum/go_quote.gif not surprising considering he doesn't think highly of the k701 in the first place.

Well, I wanted to like the K-701. Especially since I'm a huge fan of the K-240DF, K-501 and K-1000.

It's that unnatural response curve that kills the K-701 for me. An orchestra sounds aggrivatingly unlike an orchestra. Comfort, soundstage, "sparkle," etc., etc., are good, however, the timbre is off. It's like an otherwise perfect glass of beer with a slight taste of plastic. No matter how ideal the temperature, color, serving glass, and so on, that plastic flavor kills it for me. I am not the only one who is bothered by that fault.

And about the DT48... it is often said that the best gear is also the most unremarkable. There might not be flourishes and glitz, but hearing a transducer reproduce the piano so right is remarkable. Even moreso after hearing so many get it wrong.

Studio gear isn't for everyone, but I think that's where I'm headed. There's a world of difference between audiophiles looking for something new and exciting and those who play, record and work with music. After a lot of listening (and playing, for that matter) it seems like the studio gear is much more likely to get the details right without playing tricks to impress audiophiles. There's none of this, 'wait, a French Horn never really sounded like that' moments with the studio gear. Add in the durability and the lack of status symbol pricing, and it appeals even more.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourierMakesFunk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unfair in this price range, because after a certain point the whole closed/open thing doesn't matter.

What truly closed in production you have in mind?

 

[ferraro25]

I was reading the thread and it made me want to get a DT48E, until I read this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drosera /img/forum/go_quote.gif It has all of those properties...except for the last one. That's a really important aspect that people will have to be aware of before they spend money on this headphone. All the musicality will have to come from your source and your amp.

I find the K701 to be close to non-musical, so I cannot imagine what the DT48 would sound like to me.

I haven't read the thread past that point, but I think that the term "detail-head" would summarize kool bubba ice well.

 

[PaulyT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my opinion comparing them to open phones is plain unfair. They are as closed as closed phones could be and just be gauged against such.

Ok, I've read through this thread now (well, most of it, skimmed over some of the arguments...). Yes, I do agree, that comparing the two (DT48 vs K701) directly is very hard, because it's just such a different experience.

I still stand by my opinion, even if my word "sparkle" gets mocked.

It's hard to put this stuff into words. Maybe "crispness" would be better. Dunno, it always comes off as sounding like some airhead review, no matter what term you use.

Anyway, based on what I've read, I will give the DT48 another chance before I sell it. But I did not get the impression that it was particularly faster, more detailed, etc., than the K701. Neutral? I don't know. I guess I'm also in the minority in considering the K701 to be fairly neutral - but that's at least somewhat subjective when you're listening to recorded music with its own sonic production emphasis, and it probably also has a lot to do with the amp. I spent a lot of time rolling my tube amp to get a sound that matches well with the K701 which indeed can sound bright with many tubes, maybe not surprising that it doesn't sound as good to me with the DT48. I'm not sure how the two would compare with an SS amp, as I don't have one that's good enough to give a fair comparison.