[maverickronin]

Quote:

I found it audible in a direct comparison with my clip - but its not exactly earth shattering - it certainly does change the overall character of the sound subtley though.
 
It's basically exactly what some have called the "smooth, mellow, analogue" sound of the player - just treble attenuation you can mimic well enough with an equaliser rather than paying so much for.

Which reminds me about something on topic.
 
When ever someone says "synergy" is matching the flaws of piece of equipment to cover up the flaws in another.  Bright headphone + dark DAC = neutral and anyone who complains about either piece not being perfect clearly needs to spend several kilobucks on what amounts to an unadjustable hardware EQ.
 
That sort of thing can be valid (i.e. you love the HD800s soundstage but want to tone down the treble) but an EQ is so much more practical.  Even if you use SACDs or a CDP a pro level hardware parametric EQ with presets, displays, and all the bells and whistles isn't much compared to the crazy amounts of money some people spend on "flavored" DACs.  It makes far more sense to get something that measures dead accurate like a Benchmark or Anedio and tweak it with some EQ.
 
Of course almost nothing here is about practicality, even after you adjust for chasing after diminishing returns.  On a bad day it seems like its all about bragging rights and measuring tapes.

 

[wind016]

Quote:

"Sorry, I hear it completely differently. It is unbearable and unnatural. Anything but inconsequential. Voices are clearly etched by being recessed yet piercing. All instruments become treble instruments."
 
Wind016, if you can find me a singer who can sing a 10,000hz tone, I'll give you a hundred bucks. It's simply outside vocal range. What you're hearing is clearly not the 10 kHz spike.
 

"High frequencies in dynamic headphone drivers always cause more ear fatigue than speakers, but I'm not sure this is the case with electrostatic headphone drivers. Sound pressure is probably dispersed more evenly with electrostatic drivers. I still have to test out firsthand with my own music and equipment though."
 

I'm talking about Fletcher-Munson curves, not differences in audio technologies.

Just get a spectrum analyzer and find me some music that do not go above 10K. I'll give you two bucks.

  If you can't hear a 9K-10K peak, more power to you.
 
My sensitivity to certain frequencies seems to be different depending on whether dynamic drivers or electrostatic drivers are used. My sensitivity to certain frequencies is certainly different depending on whether speakers or headphones are used.
 

 

[logwed]

Quote:

As maverickronin said, use a spectrum analyzer. I use my PSP Neon HR 2's analyzer and almost all my music reaches at least 17K frequencies. The only time music appears to be limited to 10K is when a strong filter effect is used in the mix.
 

 
I don't care what the sizzle in your cymbals reaches, but you clearly said that you're hearing the 10kHz peak in vocals, that's just plain untrue. 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Wind016, if you can find me a singer who can sing a 10,000hz tone, I'll give you a hundred bucks. It's simply outside vocal range. What you're hearing is clearly not the 10 kHz spike.
 

I don't think anyone is claiming any primary tones that high, but there are plenty of harmonics that reach that high in an already high pitched voice, like say some of the Asian female pop singers that I and wind listen to from time to time.
 
Or for example, some anime voice actresses.  Damn near anyone Kugimiya Rie voiced was unbearable with my =2241&graphID[1]=2033&graphID[2]=&graphID[3]=&graphType=0&buttonSelection=Compare+Headphones]DT990s when I owned them.  The T1s look a little better than that but not as good as I'd prefer.

 

[wind016]

Quote:

 
I don't care what the sizzle in your cymbals reaches, but you clearly said that you're hearing the 10kHz peak in vocals, that's just plain untrue. 

Vocal sibilance ranges anywhere from 5K to 12K depending on the singer.
 

 

[logwed]

Quote:

Vocal sibilance ranges anywhere from 5K to 12K depending on the singer.
 

 
 
If you meant that you find it sibilant, just say it's sibilant! Range is one thing, sibilance is entirely different.
 
That's a term that I have no problem with on head-fi (to try to bring this bad boi back on topic), it's specific and has a very clear meaning.
 

 

[wind016]

Quote:

 
 
If you meant that you find it sibilant, just say it's sibilant! Range is one thing, sibilance is entirely different.
 
That's a term that I have no problem with on head-fi (to try to bring this bad boi back on topic), it's specific and has a very clear meaning.
 

As I said before, vocals sound recessed yet piercing but I wasn't just limiting my view on only vocals.  The T1 is probably close to neutral if all your music or your ears are filtered off at 8K.
 

 

[Confispect]

 

[JamesMcProgger]

Its obvious to me that some audiophiles here developed super human hearing. Mutants among us.

 

[Permagrin]

This thread is officially derailed. Yay!

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

This thread is officially derailed. Yay!

Most threads in the lounge start that way...

 

[EddieE]

Quote:

This thread is officially derailed. Yay!

I feel guilty; I was enjoying this thread. Well everyone's had their say on the topic, maybe we should agree to disagree and let the thread return to normal service?
 

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

Which reminds me about something on topic.
 
When ever someone says "synergy" is matching the flaws of piece of equipment to cover up the flaws in another.  Bright headphone + dark DAC = neutral and anyone who complains about either piece not being perfect clearly needs to spend several kilobucks on what amounts to an unadjustable hardware EQ.
 
That sort of thing can be valid (i.e. you love the HD800s soundstage but want to tone down the treble) but an EQ is so much more practical.  Even if you use SACDs or a CDP a pro level hardware parametric EQ with presets, displays, and all the bells and whistles isn't much compared to the crazy amounts of money some people spend on "flavored" DACs.  It makes far more sense to get something that measures dead accurate like a Benchmark or Anedio and tweak it with some EQ.
 
Of course almost nothing here is about practicality, even after you adjust for chasing after diminishing returns.  On a bad day it seems like its all about bragging rights and measuring tapes.

I'm sure some of the "audiophiles" would be mortified at the idea of using EQ

.....but it clearly can be quite a useful tool.....and like anything else, it can be used for better or worse. I wouldn't buy an iPod for the longest time simply because there was no real EQ...now, I have a Touch with a seven-band parametric EQ app....awesomeness!

Kudos to you for having a realistic view on the subject.

 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I'm sure some of the "audiophiles" would be mortified at the idea of using EQ

.....but it clearly can be quite a useful tool.....and like anything else, it can be used for better or worse. I wouldn't buy an iPod for the longest time simply because there was no real EQ...now, I have a Touch with a seven-band parametric EQ app....awesomeness!

Kudos to you for having a realistic view on the subject.

 

 A whole lot of them reject the idea outright for reasons that could best be described as dogma.  Their reasons don't make any sense, complaining about things that don't affect any decent implementation of a modern EQ or going on about signal "purity" while at the same time choosing DACs and amps that either replicate a mild EQ or do far worse things to the integrity of the signal.
 
There are legitimate concerns like practicality, but if your the kind of person who only listens to flac via Jriver or foobar or only use a disc player and have an over the top budget like lots of people here do then practicality isn't an issue.  You can either buy a good hardware EQ for less than one of those boutique DACs with rolled off highs or just always use a media player with a decent plug-in architecture.
 
I don't keep 'phones I need EQ to like because my audio comes to me through a variety of different pieces of software (foobar, PandoraONE, games) and hardware (PC, netbook, DAP, DSiXL) and I don't have the budget for a top quality hardware EQ but when the opportunity presents itself I'm happy to tweak it to better fit my tastes.  If all else fails, I can usually hit the bass boost button on my XM6 when some EDM or something comes up on random play.

 

[EddieE]

Quote:

Which reminds me about something on topic.
 
When ever someone says "synergy" is matching the flaws of piece of equipment to cover up the flaws in another.  Bright headphone + dark DAC = neutral and anyone who complains about either piece not being perfect clearly needs to spend several kilobucks on what amounts to an unadjustable hardware EQ.
 
That sort of thing can be valid (i.e. you love the HD800s soundstage but want to tone down the treble) but an EQ is so much more practical.  Even if you use SACDs or a CDP a pro level hardware parametric EQ with presets, displays, and all the bells and whistles isn't much compared to the crazy amounts of money some people spend on "flavored" DACs.  It makes far more sense to get something that measures dead accurate like a Benchmark or Anedio and tweak it with some EQ.
 
Of course almost nothing here is about practicality, even after you adjust for chasing after diminishing returns.  On a bad day it seems like its all about bragging rights and measuring tapes.

 
Completely agree with this one.
 
IMO "Synergy" is largely a throw back from the days when no amps were neutral because the technology wasn't there yet. The eventual aim was to make an amp that simply amplified without alterting the FR, adding distortion or noise. Since perfection hadn't been acheived, manufacturers had to try and sell their version of imperfection as the best sounding one. I don't know if you could say perfection has been acheived, but it doesn't cost that much to get an amp that is pretty close to audibly flat and the same goes for a DAC, and now no one wants that anymore?
 
There's a lot of nostalgia for that (and a hell of a lot of motivation for the manufacturers and audio magazines to want to keep it going) and a lot of people get very sniffly when you suggest a good amp, or a good DAC, is one that measures audibly flat. The forums are littered with stupid questions like "what's the best DAC for huge bass?" "What amp for a treble lover?" and so on. "What if I don't like a flat sound?" is often the response - but no one has suggested that you should have one just by having a flat system - it's the transducer that makes the sound.
 
It's so unsustainable. If you buy an amp that rolls off the treble and boosts the bass because the headphones you just bought have too little bass for you and too little treble, it means a set of headphones that would have been absolutely perfect for you will now sound bad on your system. Congrats.
 
Just EQ it, or accept that if they don't sound good with basically flat equipment, then you have to keep looking.