[kelly]

kwkarth
Did so.

fiddler
With the CT570 (no offense, I have one too), you're lucky violins resemble violins at all. Trust me when I say that it is not your headphone's fault.

 

[fiddler]

So it's just mere coincidence that my observations are EXACTLY the same as Beagle's?

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by fiddler So it's just mere coincidence that my observations are EXACTLY the same as Beagle's?

I don't think coincidence is really the right word. You're using a thin sounding source and he's using a thin sounding amp. The HD600 driver is anything but thin. I realize you won't take my word for this but it surprises me that you both reject the idea so strongly when so many more people have described the midbass of the HD600 as thick (search this forum). Of course, rather than comparing one person's opinion to another person's opinion, I'd rather you both audition the HD600 with other amps and sources.

 

[fiddler]

Uh, I never said a thing about the midbass. Midbass by the dictionary definition is around 40-80Hz, and I was talking about the lower midrange that I find lacking, around 200 - 300Hz, as I said earlier. I agree wholeheartedly that the midbass is full and thick, and perhaps at times a little too much depending on the recording. To me, the lower mids just sound more distant and recessed, especially in relation to the, as you put it, "thick" midbass.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I don't think coincidence is really the right word. You're using a thin sounding source and he's using a thin sounding amp

Thin sounding amp? The RA-1? No. The RA-1 is tonally neutral so if you find it "thin" then perhaps the amps you are using are too "thick". And most tube amplification is on the thick side of neutral.

Also, something else you posted earlier...

"I think they, like nearly everyone else, made a cable that is not tonally flat. Cardas, having the years of experience and expertise he has, heard the weaknesses in the HD600 and manipulated the tonal balance of the cable to be better mated to the HD600"

How does a cable manufacturer perform this act of magic?

I'm not trying to discredit you but these are some of the claims that feed my scepticism. If you are deliberately coloring something, how can that expose the "truth" about a headphone?

and fiddler wrote...

To me, the lower mids just sound more distant and recessed, especially in relation to the, as you put it, "thick" midbass

This is what I hear as well. The lower mids are where a lot of the warmth and soul of the music lie and here is where the HD600 sounds cold and distant compared to my other headphones.

 

[kelly]

fiddler
Then we're in agreement about the midbass--and in the lower mids, I think the HD600 is closer to flat. (ie, where it should be) It's only in the upper mids where I think there's enough of a dip to make (for example) vocals sound recessed. For me, when I listen to a rock album on HD600, the guitars, drumkit and bass all sound "closer" (ie, louder) than the singer. With the Cardas cable, everthing seems closer to where it should be and I think that's about what Neruda experienced also.

Beagle
Quote:

Thin sounding amp? The RA-1? No. The RA-1 is tonally neutral so if you find it "thin" then perhaps the amps you are using are too "thick". And most tube amplification is on the thick side of neutral.

Ok, deep breath and remember that Beagle is a cool person and that we're not trying to insult Beagle or even Beagle's stuff--only trying to describe what I heard in a piece of equipment. The RA-1 was designed for low impedance headphones like the Grados. The HD600 are high impedance headphones. The RA-1 is a smooth sounding amp and it doesn't surprise me that people like it (plus, it's cool looking and battery operated and made by a company a lot of people like.)

So, what I'm saying is, with the HD600 only, the RA-1 sounds "thin" to me compared to every HeadRoom amp (including the Little), the Corda HA-1, the McCormack MID, the Cary SEI, the Homes Powell, the EAR, the Wheatfield, the META42, the MG Head, the RKV and the Melos SHA-1. So if you're really convinced that all of these amplifiers are "wrong" then I guess the RA-1 is the best sounding amp and you'd be foolish to ever consider upgrading.

Quote:

"I think they, like nearly everyone else, made a cable that is not tonally flat. Cardas, having the years of experience and expertise he has, heard the weaknesses in the HD600 and manipulated the tonal balance of the cable to be better mated to the HD600" How does a cable manufacturer perform this act of magic? I'm not trying to discredit you but these are some of the claims that feed my scepticism. If you are deliberately coloring something, how can that expose the "truth" about a headphone? [/B]

I'm not a cable manufacturer nor an electrical engineer. Many cables sound "bright" or "dark" to people. Many people describe a cable as being both "bright" and having peaks or spikes. So... if you take issue with my saying that someone might have possibly done so purposefully to achieve a flatter response from a known driver, it seems to me that you should also take issue with all of the other people who have reciewed cables. And there is nothing to discredit here--I'm not claiming greater knowledge on the subject, just saying that it sounds like to me that they purposefully designed a cable that mated well with the HD600. I wasn't really expecting the statement to be so offensive.

Regardless of their methods, a couple places that stock the cable have a return policy and I don't think anyone here would blame you for wanting to see whether the cable was right for you or worth it for yourself. No matter how strongly I state what *I* have heard, keep in mind that you could still hear it differently and auditioning is always the best way.

 

[Fubar]

Lurking here a while back, I noticed everyone saying how great the Clou Red cable was. Someone please compare and contrast the Clou Red and the new Cardas cable.

 

[Nezer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Fubar Lurking here a while back, I noticed everyone saying how great the Clou Red cable was. Someone please compare and contrast the Clou Red and the new Cardas cable.

At the time the Clou was the only option. Now there are a few more contenders on the market.

The Cardas compared to the Clou red is smoother and less grainy to my ears. In addition it's nowhere near as stiff.

Honestly, you would have to listen to both to 'get' it and even then you may still prefer the Clou (though this often doesn't seem to happen).

To put this in perspective I dumped my Clou red for $50 to buy the Cardas for $150. To my ears the Cardas makes the Clou worth about that much. The Clou is an improvement over the stock cable but the Cardas is an improvement is a few more steps up.

Some people prefer the Stefan Equinox to the Cardas even. *Very* few prefer the Clou over anything but stock.

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

For me, when I listen to a rock album on HD600, the guitars, drumkit and bass all sound "closer" (ie, louder) than the singer. With the Cardas cable, everthing seems closer to where it should be.

I hear the same sort of thing when listening to orchestral stuff. Upper strings often take a backseat to the cellos and basses, something that seldom happens in real life in a concert hall. If the Cardas improves the midrange better than the other two cables (Equinox and Clou), this baby's going straight on my wish list, right after a new CDP (I'm thinking maybe NAD 541 or Cambridge D500). But none of these upgrades are happening anytime soon...

/me is broke

 

[Neruda]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly kwkarth Did so.

*sigh*

kwkarth obviously agrees that cables DO sound different. The place where he differs from you is about WHY they sound different. you think cables are equalized, and he doesn't.

Quote:

Uh, I never said a thing about the midbass. Midbass by the dictionary definition is around 40-80Hz, and I was talking about the lower midrange that I find lacking, around 200 - 300Hz

if midbass is 40-80Hz, and lower midrange is 200-300Hz, then what the heck do you think the 80-200Hz area is called?

It seems to me that 20-40Hz is sub-bass, 40-80Hz is bass, 80-160Hz is midbass, and 160-320Hz is lower midrange. Makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

 

[fiddler]

"Bass" to me refers to anything below 160 hz.
"upper", "mid", "lower" are subdivisions of "bass".

According to Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary:

Low bass: 20-40 hz
Mid bass: 40-80 hz
Upper bass: 80-160 hz

Now THAT makes a helluva lot more sense to me than your definition.

 

[fiddler]

And sub-bass, or infrasonic bass, is anything below 20 hz, outside the normal human hearing range; bass that can only be felt but not heard.

My initial comment regarding the bass hump on the Senns wasn't quite accurate though. It's more around 80-110 so I should've probably said "upper-mid" bass.

 

[Neruda]

fair enough I suppose, but I can't remember hearing anyone use the term "upper bass" on this forum...

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

I should've probably said "upper-mid" bass.

Actually, if by your definition (which I think is logical too):

"Upper bass: 80-160 hz"

then the bass hump in the HD600's you say is at "around 80-110 " would be termed "lower-upper bass", no?

 

[eric343]

I'm just waiting for someone to argue about the frequencies (accurate to .1 hz) of upper-mid-lower-uppper-upper-mid-bass.