[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulyT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone want to buy a lightly used DT48E?

How much?

 

[PaulyT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif How much?

For you GD, I'd charge only a very slight commission.

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulyT /img/forum/go_quote.gif For you GD, I'd charge only a very slight commission.

lol Well, I would like to hear these since I see claims that say they're better than HD 650. I've actually been wanting a closed can again...was considering AT or Denon.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif lol Well, I would like to hear these since I see claims that say they're better than HD 650. I've actually been wanting a closed can again...was considering AT or Denon.

The 48 are better IMO, but if I still had my balanced rig I would still be keeping them. IMO, the 650 balanced really improves upon their strength while minimising their weaknesses. I feel the 650 really lacks SE with my current set up, and sound fake and in accurate compared to the DT48. This won't make sense, but the DT48 reminds me of my blanced 650 in certain ways..
The 48 betters the 650 in tonal balance. Speed. Resolve. Clarity. Neutrality. Seperation. More truthful to the source. More coherent sound stage. More forward, 'true to life' mid range. More accurate.

The 650 offer more punch, better bass impact, slam, and extension. Bigger sound stage with greater depth. Warmth. Lush, sweet, intimate mid range. Plenty of soul. Fun and musical.

The DT48 and 650 are polar opposites, especially SE. I recommend you listen to a pair before you buy.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulyT /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Maybe we all hear different then. The SA5000, DT880, DT48 are better with micro detail then the 701. And since the DT48 was made for field monitoring and hearing test, It's pretty much a given that the DT48 are, since they are though more as a tool and instrument for measurements, re search studies, etc. Eric owns the 701/K1000/DT48, and stated the DT48 is more detailed and resolving then the 701 and K1000, but with the K1000, he said it might have been due to the proximity of the driver.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

So am I. I will be getting the CD900ST. Someone claimed they are more balanced then the DT48 but with a narrower soundstage. In a nut shell, reference type studio monitors were meant to get the sound right.. Audiophile/consumer cans are meant to sound fun and enjoyable.. It seems like the majority want a dead neutral sound, but when they hear it they don't like it. And either, faults the headphone for not being accurate and neutral. Or dismisses them altogether cause they sound unpleasant. Neutral headphones WILL NOT WOW you upon first listen. Thats why they get snubed at Canjam and meets. They sound pedestrian. There is no immediate gotcha moment. The wow comes from listening to them (or another serious reference monitor) for many hrs. You really begain to appreciate them for getting it right.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ferraro25 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was reading the thread and it made me want to get a DT48E, until I read this... 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.

Clinical. Analtyical. Detail above all. Yes. I really though I wanted a warm sound.. Then I realized that I prefered My dac1 amp over the HR2. Which really suprised me.

 

[PaulyT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif And since the DT48 was made for field monitoring and hearing test, It's pretty much a given that the DT48 are, since they are though more as a tool and instrument for measurements, re search studies, etc.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. It's marketing one way or another, just marketing to a different target crowd than "audiophiles." Seems the field/monitor audience is mainly interested in noise isolation... And flat frequency response and transient detail resolution are two different things, I'm not sure one has anything to do with the other. Soundstage may be something else, too, though I think that has more to do with resolution.

I think it's also hard to claim that any particular rig is close(r) to the original material, when one wasn't present in person to hear just how that live material sounded when it was recorded. And even then there's the production mix, which is likely not engineered for monitor-type audio gear since that's not what 99.999% of the buying population uses. It's all a bit fuzzy to me, this issue of "natural" or "neutral" (these being same thing, I think).

Yes, I've listened to a lot of live (classical) music, and have played classical piano pretty seriously most of my life. In my current setup, I think the K701 sounds closer to a real live piano than the DT48. But the difference isn't huge, I can't say that one is *clearly* better than the other. It's a slight tip of the scales one way for me, and I admit it's subjective. Yes, the K701 sounds a bit bright at times, but many pianos are themselves pretty bright (e.g. European vs. American Steinway; Yamahas are especially "tinny").

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 48 betters the 650 in tonal balance. Speed. Resolve. Clarity. Neutrality. Seperation. More truthful to the source. More coherent sound stage. More forward, 'true to life' mid range. More accurate. The 650 offer more punch, better bass impact, slam, and extension. Bigger sound stage with greater depth. Warmth. Lush, sweet, intimate mid range. Plenty of soul. Fun and musical. The DT48 and 650 are polar opposites, especially SE. I recommend you listen to a pair before you buy.

Those 650 characteristics that you describe are what I love. I realize that the 650 isn't neutral but yes, fun and musical...and that other stuff.

I do appreciate a more accurate sound. I still like my Ety ER4 and they're far from 650.

I might have the chance to hear the 48 as Mr. PaulyT has generously offered to loan me his.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those 650 characteristics that you describe are what I love. I realize that the 650 isn't neutral but yes, fun and musical...and that other stuff. I do appreciate a more accurate sound. I still like my Ety ER4 and they're far from 650. I might have the chance to hear the 48 as Mr. PaulyT has generously offered to loan me his.

Liking neutral or liking fun and colored is only a preference, but many audiophiles will get offended by the notion, that you think they don't like a neutral and 'accurate' sound.

 

[Drosera]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulyT /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I wonder if this is a characteristic of the DT-48E (and 'neutrality') in general, or one of the 200 ohm version in particular. This is also the main thing I find missing in my DT-48E. Although a case could be made that most 'sparkle' in headphones (and speakers) is actually just colouring. After all, how much 'sparkle' do you really hear when you're sitting in the middle of a large concert hall?

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drosera /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wonder if this is a characteristic of the DT-48E (and 'neutrality') in general, or one of the 200 ohm version in particular. This is also the main thing I find missing in my DT-48E. Although a case could be made that most 'sparkle' in headphones (and speakers) is actually just colouring. After all, how much 'sparkle' do you really hear when you're sitting in the middle of a large concert hall?

Thats why most don't like dead neutral cans.. Listeners relate accurate with pleasing. When the word realistic is used to describe sound, it is always used as a positive. I never heard of a situation where a listener said, Yuck, this sounds realistic. Cause when they imagine realistic, they think of a beautiful sound, so 'good' it's real. So, when they hear neutral, accurate, 'realistic' that doesn't fit their pre conceived notion of what the music should sound like, disbelief sets in and they question everytjhing from the source, headphones, etc.

 

[nnotis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I might have the chance to hear the 48 as Mr. PaulyT has generously offered to loan me his.

Please try them out on the Pico and report back! I'm considering getting a pair of these as another work headphone. And that means running them from my Pico.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nnotis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please try them out on the Pico and report back! I'm considering getting a pair of these as another work headphone. And that means running them from my Pico.

I have tried them out of Pico, they sounded terrific, just slightly thinner than out of GS-1, but this is expected with any headphone.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thats why most don't like dead neutral cans.. Listeners relate accurate with pleasing. When the word realistic is used to describe sound, it is always used as a positive. I never heard of a situation where a listener said, Yuck, this sounds realistic. Cause when they imagine realistic, they think of a beautiful sound, so 'good' it's real. So, when they hear neutral, accurate, 'realistic' that doesn't fit their pre conceived notion of what the music should sound like, disbelief sets in and they question everytjhing from the source, headphones, etc.

Very true.

 

[xaval]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems like the majority want a dead neutral sound, but when they hear it they don't like it. And either, faults the headphone for not being accurate and neutral. Or dismisses them altogether cause they sound unpleasant.

This is a great point to be made, even though I've never heard these cans and it's the main thing that somewhat compels me me to at some point in the near future grab a pair to have a go.