[Drosera]

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.

I've already posted this Wes Philips (Stereophile) quote in the "Controversial opinions" thread, I think it has a place here as well.

Quote:

Taken on its own, almost any high-fidelity component of a certain quality sounds better and better the longer you listen to it. Eventually, its sound becomes the "real thing"—or, even worse, becomes preferable to the real thing. This is why so many hi-fi buffs complain about the "rolled-off top end" when they hear a live orchestra in a big hall for the first time.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

No...they only get offended when you suggest that they don't know what music is supposed to sound like. I won't speak for anyone else, but I have been to hundreds (yes, hundreds) of live jazz performances over the years and seen musicians like Sonny Rollins more times than I can count. I know what a saxophone, double-bass, piano, etc. should sound like within a certain range of variability that makes allowances for the venue. And I know the tone of certain musicians pretty well. That's the first point.

The second is that I listen to a lot of historical jazz recordings. No one -- and I mean no one -- posting on this forum today was alive and present when Lester Young was recording with the Basie band in the 1930s. And it is very doubtful that anyone here was in Rudy Van Gelder's home studio in Englewood Cliffs, NJ when he was recording all of those great Blue Note sessions.

IMO the notion of accuracy as some empirical standard that has a point of reference to the actual sessions is completely bogus as it applies to most of the stuff I listen to. All we have are the surviving recordings and those have been mixed and mastered for public release by the record label. That's how I can take a CD of Cannonball Adderley's Somethin' Else and then compare that to the Acoustic Sounds 45RPM vinyl reissue of the same title cut by Kevin Gray and remastered by Steve Hoffman and note a very different sonic profile. I challenge you to empirically determine which one of these masters is more "accurate." The number of people who have had access to the master tapes over the years and really know what they sound like can probably be counted on one hand.

So what that really leaves us with is our own knowledge and approximation of what the music is supposed to sound like -- the basis of our opinion. You want to call the DT48s neutral, revealing, and accurate. Fine, be my guest. I call them bone dry, sterile, and lifeless -- and I have yet to go to a live jazz performance in 30 years where I came away from the experience and said to myself "that was some damned dry and lifeless sounding music."

You are more than welcome to your opinion, but I will rue the day when live jazz performances begin to sound like the DT48s. I'll probably stop going to shows if that ever happens.

--Jerome

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drosera /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've already posted this Wes Philips (Stereophile) quote in the "Controversial opinions" thread, I think it has a place here as well. Taken on its own, almost any high-fidelity component of a certain quality sounds better and better the longer you listen to it. Eventually, its sound becomes the "real thing"—or, even worse, becomes preferable to the real thing. This is why so many hi-fi buffs complain about the "rolled-off top end" when they hear a live orchestra in a big hall for the first time.

I love some of the stuff Stereophile publishes. If anyone ever complained about "rolled-off top end" at a good orchestra concert I don't know if I would cry or give them a good smack.

Treble is where most of the timbre is, and recorded music is just different. Adding high end ("sparkle") can make a recording just that much more dynamic, and if your listening to the EXACT same thing over and over again, a little more dynamic sound doesn't hurt, right? Maybe our taste for treble is a modern trend; as we all know sub bass frequencies are loved now, then again, there weren't really any ways to produce much of those two hundred years ago (well, except things like the organ, octocontrabass clarinet or octobasses... *drool*). Consider that that orchestra sound was purposely designed like that a few hundred years ago. Now when we design sounds we add more treble (think of piezo guitars, synth patches, overdriven guitars, etc). Maybe only me and a few sound designers would be interested, but I think that would make an interesting musicology study. A sort of historic tend towards the "smile" EQ.

The DT 48 is the baroque chamber group to the Grado's modernity?


Kool bubba. Here is a CD900ST graph if your interested: ƒwƒbƒhƒzƒ“ SONY MDR-CD900ST

 

[kool bubba ice]

Unfortunately, some will see this as a attack.. On a brighter side, Boomana is going to try the DT48 at CanJam. Curious how the DT48 will do in comparison with the Sax in terms of detail, clarity, & speed.. She is also a very experienced head fier.. If she likes them or not, I'd like to see how the DT48 compares with the HD800, & the R10's mid range quality.

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

I should mention, I added the last thing to connect it to the thread a bit. Really that last thing was just a light musing, not a judgment or anything.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif No...they only get offended when you suggest that they don't know what music is supposed to sound like. I won't speak for anyone else, but I have been to hundreds (yes, hundreds) of live jazz performances over the years and seen musicians like Sonny Rollins more times than I count. I know what a saxophone, double-bass, piano, etc. should sound like within a certain range of variability that makes allowances for the venue. And I know the tone of certain musicians pretty well. That's the first point. The second is that I listen to a lot of historical jazz recordings. No one -- and I mean no one -- posting on this forum today was alive and present when Lester Young was recording with the Basie band in the 1930s. And it is very doubtful that anyone here was in Rudy Van Gelder's home studio in Englewood Cliffs, NJ when he was recording all of those great Blue Note sessions. IMO the notion of accuracy as some empirical standard that has a point of reference to the actual sessions is completely bogus as it applies to most of the stuff I listen to. All we have are the surviving recordings and those have been mixed and mastered for public release by the record label. That's how I can take a CD of Cannonball Adderley's Somethin' Else and then compare that to the Acoustic Sounds 45RPM vinyl reissue of the same title cut by Kevin Gray and remastered by Steve Hoffman and note a very different sonic profile. I challenge you to empirically determine which one of these masters is more "accurate." The number of people who have had access to the master tapes over the years and really know what they sound like can probably be counted on one hand. So what that really leaves us with is our own knowledge and approximation of what the music is supposed to sound like -- the basis of our opinion. You want to call the DT48s neutral, revealing, and accurate. Fine, be my guest. I call them bone dry, sterile, and lifeless -- and I have yet to go to a live jazz performance in 30 years where I came away from the experience and said to myself "that was some damned dry and lifeless sounding music." You are more than welcome to your opinion, but I will rue the day when live jazz performances begin to sound like the DT48s. I'll probably stop going to shows if that ever happens. --Jerome

As I stated before.. Some people will see this as a personal attack, like Jerome.. Not talking about live performances, but in studio conditions, which is not the same & have certain criterias. Again, Headphones like the DT48 are made to be flat, neutral, & uncolored. Believing it or not is up to you..

 

[Drosera]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourierMakesFunk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I love some of the stuff Stereophile publishes. If anyone ever complained about "rolled-off top end" at a good orchestra concert I don't know if I would cry or give them a good smack. Treble is where most of the timbre is, and recorded music is just different. Adding high end ("sparkle") can make a recording just that much more dynamic, and if your listening to the EXACT same thing over and over again, a little more dynamic sound doesn't hurt, right? Maybe our taste for treble is a modern trend; as we all know sub bass frequencies are loved now, then again, there weren't really any ways to produce much of those two hundred years ago (well, except things like the organ, octocontrabass clarinet or octobasses... *drool*). Consider that that orchestra sound was purposely designed like that a few hundred years ago. Now when we design sounds we add more treble (think of piezo guitars, synth patches, overdriven guitars, etc). Maybe only me and a few sound designers would be interested, but I think that would make an interesting musicology study. A sort of historic tend towards the "smile" EQ.

Part of this is down to taste, part of this is colouration of most reproduction equipment, but part of this is also due to the way recordings are made. At least, in the example of a large symphony orchestra in a big hall. When recording, the microphones are positioned at a place where your ears would never be. Namely, directly above the orchestra. That causes the microphones to pick up far more treble information then you would normally hear when sitting in the hall. High notes simply travel less far and less well than low notes. Which in turn gives a recording a far higher amount of 'treble sparkle' than you would hear at a concert.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if in amplified music there are also trends towards 'tweaking the frequency graph'. I doubt the loudness wars are the only trend through time in recording.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourierMakesFunk /img/forum/go_quote.gif The DT 48 is the baroque chamber group to the Grado's modernity?

Grados are modern? That's the first time I've heard anyone say that!

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, Headphones like the DT48 are made to be flat, neutral, & uncolored. Believing it or not is up to you..

Devil's Advocate: Though things aren't mixed for things with that response...

 

[Drosera]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourierMakesFunk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Devil's Advocate: Though things aren't mixed for things with that response...

Exactly, it's the way the recording (probably) actually sounds vs. the way it was intended to sound.

But I thought we had gone over this extensively earlier in the thread already?

 

[mypasswordis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drosera /img/forum/go_quote.gif High notes simply travel less far and less well than low notes.

Wrong. Treble is, however, highly directional and reflective (which is how it gives spatial cues) versus bass which is omni-directional. Have you ever heard a double bass concerto vs a violin concerto? Next time you do, let me know which one you think is louder. Might as well also try holding your headphones an inch or two away from your ears and tell me which you hear more of, treble or bass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga You are more than welcome to your opinion, but I will rue the day when live jazz performances begin to sound like the DT48s. I'll probably stop going to shows if that ever happens.

I appreciate your comments and now have a better idea of what to expect if I ever hear a pair.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourierMakesFunk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Devil's Advocate: Though things aren't mixed for things with that response...

In that case you got me. I do know that accuracy and neutrality can be measured, so it goes beyond some ones opinion. And no, I'm not telling others what accurate or neutral should sound Like, but headphones created and engineered for this purpose tells me THEY DO. And people who deny it based on the fact that, it doesn't sound good, or what I expected, so it's not accurate or neutral.

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drosera /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly, it's the way the recording (probably) actually sounds vs. the way it was intended to sound. But I thought we had gone over this extensively earlier in the thread already?

But how quickly it's forgotten.

Even though it's due to mic placement, that increased treble response was chosen, while the natural "mellower" nature of the instruments in an orchestra hall was chosen by instrument makers of the time. If the frequency response of choice keeps changing what's next? Finger's crossed for a psychoacoustic based flat response.

[size=xx-small]
I am still trying to find a 'phone sound and some recordings (suggestions welcome!) that put you right in the conductor's spot. The few times I've conducted were a wonderful chance to hear a really unique experience.

Grado are rock cans, and since we are comparing the sound the that of classical, I think we can say modern in this case, no?

[/size]

To kool bubba:
We can say they are very neutral to see what went into a mix and what your system is doing. At the moment they are my top choice for cans for my live rig, as they look like a great can to hear what's going into a system (their real function). I'm just waiting on kukrisna's impressions from recording his friend's recital.

 

[mypasswordis]

I don't get at all what you guys are talking about in regards to treble response in an orchestral hall. The mics are usually placed nearer to the orchestra than any of the audience members so the treble has less chance to bounce off the walls before reaching the microphones and the headphones are just reproducing whatever is recorded on the mics. If you roll off the top end to make it sound like you're in the audience, you're doing just that: rolling off the top end, aka not neutral. You might as well also roll off the bass and artificially increase soundstage distance so you really feel like you're part of the audience.

I base my neutral reference off actually being one of the orchestra members vs an audience member since I am, most of the time. Which leads me to another point. I also don't get this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice And people who deny it based on the fact that, it doesn't sound good, or what I expected, so it's not accurate or neutral.

Real instruments do sound good, which is why people listen to them in the first place. If these DT48s reproduce music in a way that doesn't allow instruments to sound good like they do in real life, then what's the point of listening to music on them? So much for 'neutral' and 'accurate'.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypasswordis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Real instruments do sound good, which is why people listen to them in the first place. If these DT48s reproduce music in a way that doesn't allow instruments to sound good like they do in real life, then what's the point of listening to music on them? So much for 'neutral' and 'accurate'.

Do you have first hand experience with these cans to make that conclusion?

 

[adanac061]

Man this thread has gotten way off track.......

---

It seems some people are assuming that a recording, whether it be a cd or Lp ,sounds anything like the original event in the first place, especially older recordings .

Once you have factored in mic placement, the kind of mic used, editing , mastering, limitations on the recording equipment of the day ..etc

I mean what if you theoretically had a vinyl recording of a jazz performance
from 1960 and you also theoretically had a raw dat recording of the same performance using a totally neutral mic .

How close to the real event do you think the two versions of the same event would sound ?