[jmills8]

Of what? A cabin, a warehouse?

And house.

 

[taktik]

OK. All headphones are marvelous, none are flawed, speaking about accuracy is a nonsense, critical mind is a shame and everything is all for the best in the best of all worlds.

 

[Sonic Defender]

OK. All headphones are marvelous, none are flawed, speaking about accuracy is a nonsense, critical mind is a shame and everything is all for the best in the best of all worlds.

I have a critical mind, I just used it to undue the logic you were imposing on this situation. We are both entitled to our opinions, I won't tell you you are wrong if you don't tell me I'm wrong, how about that for an agreement?

 

[Sonic Defender]

This whole belief that currently there is a perfect model or standard sound signature to target is where I take exception. It is in a way like what happened in genetics. There at one time was an unshakable belief the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology which said one gene codes for one protein. Kind of like there is one correct sound signature. It turns out the Central Dogma was wrong, despite being accepted as scientific fact. We now know that due to Epigenetics one gene could potentially be involved in the formation of several proteins. My point is accepting the existence of absolute truth and knowledge is arrogant and potentially flawed. Many sound signatures exist, and they all have the right to exist and to be enjoyed. Who shall decide what one is better?

Perhaps one day there will be a truly perfect and universal target response curve that once executed is universally considered perfect. Until that time I'm suggesting we need not call deviations flaws, why don't we simply accept there are signatures we like, and signatures we don't like? Is that really so controversial?

 

[Sonic Defender]

OK. All headphones are marvelous, none are flawed, speaking about accuracy is a nonsense, critical mind is a shame and everything is all for the best in the best of all worlds.

And sorry if I was harsh, I really don't mean to be. I will admit I do get my back up when it seems people are attempting to push their views as the correct views, but I don't think you are trying to do that, or at least I hope not. You had mentioned that English isn't your first language so I should take it into consideration that what you are trying to say might be more easily misinterpreted. As I said, I'm not against a universal standard or target, I actually think it is a good thing. What I'm against is invalidating signatures that deviate from this target as flawed when clearly many people can still enjoy them. I think the point of a headphone isn't only to be accurate, that is a great goal, but also to engage and stimulate the user, and seeing as how people on an individual level can be very different, it stands to reason that there should be different signatures. Sorry to be harsh with you, and I mean that.

 

[taktik]

I have a critical mind, I just used it to undue the logic you were imposing on this situation. We are both entitled to our opinions, I won't tell you you are wrong if you don't tell me I'm wrong, how about that for an agreement?

I've never told anybody he was wrong with its choice. Never. Even to guys wearing Beats. The reaction against tyll's review clearly show that people can't accept any critic after having spent 2k$ in their headphones. And if you dare to do it, there's a flood of aggressiveness, personal attack, semantic fuc... of flies, and so on. What kind of agreement can you imagine in this context ? I'm the wrong guy in the wrong place, that's all. Cheers, and have fun.

 

[headr]

You chaps do understand that people can be interested in how a headphone measures, and still maintain a subjective opinion on the sound, right? Furthermore, someone else's opinion, whether part based on measurements or not, doesn't negate your own.

In other words, don't be a precious snowflake. If someone else doesn't like your headphone, suck it up buttercup. You probably don't like theirs either. Groupthink (and perhaps audiophilia nervosa) are the banes of this hobby.

And you chaps do understand that by even picking a headphone measurement target in the first place, you are making a subjective preferential decision about what it means for accuracy? So you have one subjective decision (measurement target), and then you can draw objective conclusions from that (maybe, if you are even measuring it "correctly" which is not even well defined).

But no one has to agree with your target choice. In fact, in many cases, all your target choice is saying is what other people prefer!

It's subjectivity all the way down, in either case.

The problem is that people are coming into this thread pretending they are from the Ministry of Truth, and will not be satisfied until everybody recognizes that this headphone is "flawed". It is double plus ungood behavior. I'm not saying you are doing that. But if you don't recognize it is happening, you have blinders on.

I mean, plenty of people have come into this thread, said they listened to the Z1R, and admitted it wasn't for them. Plenty of people have, and will, say they don't like the presentation of the bass, and don't like the presentation of the treble, and some combination in between. No issues.

The issues arise when you have these voices (several of which have not even listened to the Z1R, mind you), continually hounding everyone on why this headphone that this person in question did not even listen to is flawed.

 

[nanaholic]

OK. All headphones are marvelous, none are flawed, speaking about accuracy is a nonsense, critical mind is a shame and everything is all for the best in the best of all worlds.

That is not what people are saying at all, for you to go passive-aggressive is not helping. Critical mind is not shamed, instead we are actually be very critical here - critical at separating objective measurements from subjective preferences and making certain people know which part they are talking about.

Here's a little story I thought up in my head which hopefully will help you understand the usage of the word "flaw".

So there is this handyman, he cut up long pieces of board and put on it four legs - two long ones on one end and two short ones on the other, so it tilts. John sees the result of it and goes around telling neighbors that the handyman does poor work because he can't make a proper table and tells them not to buy from him. One day John finally said to the handyman "hey dude, your tables are flawed! It's tilted! How are people going to put things on it?". The handyman rolled his eyes and replied "I'm making ramps you dolt, of course it is tilted, the purpose is for stuff to roll down it, there's no flaw to this because it's not a table!"

THIS is how flaw is correctly interpreted. Thus while you can always use measurements to comment on the accuracy of the sound reproduction (and if you apply it to the story above, yes, a ramp is definitely not a very accurate table!), you CANNOT make the claim that the sound signature is flawed, because you are required to know what the designer wanted to do in the first place. The Z1R is not accurate, most certainly, but you cannot claim the sound is flawed if that was the intention of the designer (which we have to assume it is, as said in numerous interviews, Sony has invited famous sound engineers to tune this thing and it would be foolish to assume Sony don't have their own elaborate measuring kit setup to tune their FR!) . This is the point you must take away from this discussion. You are always free to keep sticking to the wrong usage of the word flaw and claim the Z1R is a flawed headphone using reference accuracy as you measuring stick, but it would make you look not very smart, like John in the story mistakeningly assume the ramp is a flawed table, because you completely mistaken the intention of the designer. And not only that, if people not knowing, they may assume some thing about the headphone that was not its original intention and avoid trying it for the wrong reasons.

 

[Makiah S]

I think the Z1R is an excellent sounding headphone, it is a presentation style that works for some and not all. I agree in principle with using an objective standard to compare against, but given the absence of a universally accepted standard, not saying the current efforts as discussed couldn't provide one; however, be that as it may, as it stands now there is no universal standard. In that context I agree calling something flawed when it might deviate is inaccurate. If we have a standard and everybody is to use it as a target template frankly why bother having different headphones, or even different companies? There could just be one company that produces all headphones in a way that conforms with the universal standard and we would lose the diversity of sound signatures, but we could obtain the goal of a headphone that is perfectly in compliance with a universal standard. What a dumb goal I think. It is precisely the variation in sound signatures and tuning opportunities that make this hobby so compelling. There is room for the Utopia, Z1R, Ether Flow, Stax 009, HD800S and on and on, I love the diversity. I don't want some universal standard to strangle the life out of this hobby.

And the proponents of this universal standard are doing just that if they know it or not. So what should be the correct deviation from perfect reproduction off of this standard? Who will decide that? The only logical conclusion is that there should be no deviation allowed in which case we circle back to only having one sound signature crafted to tightly fit to one universal standard. If we reject that idea, but accept that a standard can be used as a baseline, but accept that all kinds of deviating interpretations can yield a variety of signatures that appeal differently to different people, we have what we have today. So stop coming in here and telling us the Z1R is flawed, nobody has that right, nor is there some hallowed absolute ground to make that determination from. The Z1R is lovely sounding for those who like it, it was designed to sound as it sounds. Nobody will hold a gun to your head and force you to buy. Go and make your own decisions that satisfy your needs, I won't tell you your choices are flawed, so stop telling me and others here that our choices are flawed. It is ridiculous.

I believe the issues isn't with the MDR Z1R it self, but how it's perceived or how it's marketed. The Denon 7000s were known to be bass heavy, the Fostex TH 900 a flag ship are know to be bass heavy, the JVC HP DX1000 are know to be bass heavy. There are many flagship TOTL headphones that are bass heavy, I've know that about all of these headphones. There was never any doubt or mystery about what it was. Even the ZMF Atticus had a heavier mid bass focus, that's no secret nor a flaw with it

Now here's what's really cool... Have you read the landing page for the MDR Z1R? It toutes it self as a headphone that delivers a

Superior sound, tangible quality
Sit back, relax and prepare to experience a new level of audio excellence. These headphones combine cutting-edge technology with the finest craftsmanship, for the ultimate listening experience.

The MDR-Z1R headphones have been engineered to deliver a wider frequency range, reproducing super low and super high frequencies of up to 120 kHz. The wider dynamic range richly reproduces every minuscule sound. The result is an immersive, captivating listening experience.

What words are lacking in Sony's description of it's flagship? Well let's compare their description of the MDR Z1R to how Sennheiser describes the HD 800

• Reference class wired stereo headphones
  
  
• Open, around-the-ear, dynamic stereo headphones
  
  
• Natural hearing experience - realistic and natural sound field with minimal resonance

• Open earcups facilitate transparent sound while showcasing cutting edge industrial design

Clearly, Sony had NO intention of making a "reference class" headphone, they use the words "relax" "tangible" "captivating" and even "rich" to describe their own product... unlike Sennheiser who chose words like "reference" " minimal resonance" "transparent"

An that actually is the first impression that we get about the MDR Z1R, to quote @thatonenoob

The tuning philosophy has been more or less transferred over from the MDR-Z7, intact, might I add. There are two key components of this philosophy - super bass/ super treble and extreme dynamics. That is to say, for fortissimo reproduction there should be clean and little distortion, and for pianissimo reproduction a strong depth of field. However, the execution is without a doubt better than that on the Z7

BAM, this is just the evolution of the MDR Z7, which modded I found to be really dark but pretty pleasant. Tyll sentiments were more or less the same, he heard it as having to much bass and too much ZING in the treble, while he expressed his thoughts... in much more negative context, it would seem that Sony's philosophy behind the execution is apparent to both @thatonenoob and @Tyll Hertsens, how ever Tyll didn't appreciate and felt the need to voice his disappointment with Sony for producing a product with this philosophy at this price point, especially give how the MDR R10 sounds in comparison apparently.

And that's ok, the MDR Z1R ISN'T and will NEVER be the final word in Transparency, if transparent, realistic, natural REFERENCE quality sound is what your looking for the MDR Z1R won't be the headphone to deliver that. An for every one that is arguing that it DOES and it Will, it's foolish. The objective data supports both Sony's advertising and the subjective impressions , even Sony themselves market the headphone without using any verbiage that would indicate it's "reference"

At this point the discussion should focus on what you like about the MDR Z1R, what music speaks to you, what amps do you enjoy. There's no point in trying to convenience every one you have the the MOST transparent closed back headphone... because you don't. Even with Jude's new measurements that paint a "prettier picture" it doesn't and won't change the MDR Z1R from existing as non transparent, non neutral fun flag ship.

Like wise there's no reason to be telling the people that like it how flaw'd it is, because Sony has never aim'd to "hide" the flaws or rather... the comprises they made when the designed it

What You have is what Sony feels is the best version of a very popular sound signature. An if you like it that's great, enjoy it. We had the same... crazy madness surrounding the MDR Z7 when it came out, that thread got CRAZY for a while. And now after the dust has settle'd it's been accepted that the MDR Z7 was a very dark bass heavy headphone, it wasn't the transparent perfection people tried to convince us it was when it first launched.

As far as measurements go, really a new thread should be launched for that exclusively.

 

[headr]

if you were to go to a live concert and are able to retain in your mind perfectly (inhumanly) how all of the instruments sounded based on the room dynamics, band position and microphone levels. With that imaginary eidedic memory you were then given 2 sets of headphones, one matched as perfectly to what you heard and the second set just like in this case, that added a bit more fun into the mix. Drums hit harder, highs were elavated etc.. Does the imaginary person not have every right to call the sound flawed. Not bad or nasty but not accurate either?

Couldn't have picked a worse example. Live concerts generally have some of the worst acoustics imaginable, especially if you are in a stadium type venue. And here in lies the rub. Everyone's ear canal is different. Everyone has different life experiences. To some people natural music is listening to music in amphitheatres, unaided by electronics. Some people have the most experience at small, acoustic venues, in small clubs. Some people have most of their experience in large stadiums listening to amplified pop music.

I'm not saying the Z1R is "adjusted by +10DB in the bass" (a loaded assumption) but let's say in your example, the concert sound engineers adjusted the equalization to give +10DB to bass, because they knew their audience and knew their audience would prefer it. In this case, the sound the person heard was indeed already adjusted by +10DB, and it could be reasonably assumed that actually, that is exactly what the sound engineers intended. So now they go home, and listen to their studio mix, and for the studio, the sound engineer mixed it to be -3DB bass just because he thought it sounded amazing. Now you need to reconcile two different sound engineers goals for music, combined with the acoustic characteristics that the individual prefers, and also I suppose some people care about what the artist intended as well, which is yet another variable lost in the shuffle.

The fact is, mixing music in a studio is starting from a bit unnatural presentation of the music in the first place. Combine that with the fact that listening to music on headphones is very unnatural for a number of reasons, especially things like bass presentation. Target curves generally seek to strike a balance between what the vast majority of listeners prefer to hear, and how the average sound wave is processed by the human ear.

But these things are no where near totally figured out. Even considering harmonic distortion, which everyone can universally point to as undesirable in a piece of audio equipment - can you definitively say that by introducing a small amount of harmonic distortion into the sub bass regions that there is no possibility that the presentation of the bass to the listener might actually be a tad more accurate in the unique presentation context of headphones? Can you definitively say that for all headphones, for all drivers, for all music, for all listeners, everywhere? (And I'm not saying Sony did it for the Z1R, but note that plenty of manufacturers do indeed tune their drivers to introduce harmonic distortion into the bass/sub bass regions).

I think the problem is some people think they can make these definitive statements.

You have a preferred target curve, great.

In your opinion, you think sound which deviates from that target curve is undesirable, great.

Maybe pass on headphones that deviate from your own personal choice for a target curve. No one would blame you for it. No one would say boo. But then why do you come into a thread like this pretending that a headphone is flawed, and that people need to recognize it? Why can't you have the maturity to just admit you don't like a headphone, people's subjective and objective analysis of the headphone were helpful in your decision, and move on?

 

[sarinfuhrer]

OK. All headphones are marvelous, none are flawed, speaking about accuracy is a nonsense, critical mind is a shame and everything is all for the best in the best of all worlds.

i don't like using an analogy in describing something.but couldn't resist...

Bumpy road, unpleasant feeling and discomfort, less user will use this road as user perceived this as flawed road. Not design according to standard.

Zig-Zag road, FUN. some user will like it and some don't. Designed to best fit the environment but still have its purpose. Compromise a thing or two for the sake of other thing. Flawed??

Straight Highway, it's perfect road for some but,it is?

Now think Z1R.

 

[headr]

No, I don't think Sony would feel embarrassment in reading this thread, quite the opposite, I don't think Sony could ever imagine this level of success and popularity.

I think they would be quite proud, and I think it speaks to the revolutionary nature of the Z1R that it could cause so much controversy. It challenges assumptions about what it means to listen to music, what accuracy means, and it challenges people to define and find their preferences. It challenges the status quo. Sony hasn't had a flagship cause this much emotional response in a while, and I think it speaks to the success they had to truly bring something new to the table.

Of course, for some of us, we simply bought a great sounding headphone, and are thoroughly satisfied. But what the hell do we know? The Z1R is an existential crisis, and who can put a price on that?

 

[nordkapp]

I believe the issues isn't with the MDR Z1R it self, but how it's perceived or how it's marketed. The Denon 7000s were known to be bass heavy, the Fostex TH 900 a flag ship are know to be bass heavy, the JVC HP DX1000 are know to be bass heavy. There are many flagship TOTL headphones that are bass heavy, I've know that about all of these headphones. There was never any doubt or mystery about what it was. Even the ZMF Atticus had a heavier mid bass focus, that's no secret nor a flaw with it

Now here's what's really cool... Have you read the landing page for the MDR Z1R? It toutes it self as a headphone that delivers a




What words are lacking in Sony's description of it's flagship? Well let's compare their description of the MDR Z1R to how Sennheiser describes the HD 800


Clearly, Sony had NO intention of making a "reference class" headphone, they use the words "relax" "tangible" "captivating" and even "rich" to describe their own product... unlike Sennheiser who chose words like "reference" " minimal resonance" "transparent"

An that actually is the first impression that we get about the MDR Z1R, to quote @thatonenoob



BAM, this is just the evolution of the MDR Z7, which modded I found to be really dark but pretty pleasant. Tyll sentiments were more or less the same, he heard it as having to much bass and too much ZING in the treble, while he expressed his thoughts... in much more negative context, it would seem that Sony's philosophy behind the execution is apparent to both @thatonenoob and @Tyll Hertsens, how ever Tyll didn't appreciate and felt the need to voice his disappointment with Sony for producing a product with this philosophy at this price point, especially give how the MDR R10 sounds in comparison apparently.

And that's ok, the MDR Z1R ISN'T and will NEVER be the final word in Transparency, if transparent, realistic, natural REFERENCE quality sound is what your looking for the MDR Z1R won't be the headphone to deliver that. An for every one that is arguing that it DOES and it Will, it's foolish. The objective data supports both Sony's advertising and the subjective impressions , even Sony themselves market the headphone without using any verbiage that would indicate it's "reference"

At this point the discussion should focus on what you like about the MDR Z1R, what music speaks to you, what amps do you enjoy. There's no point in trying to convenience every one you have the the MOST transparent closed back headphone... because you don't. Even with Jude's new measurements that paint a "prettier picture" it doesn't and won't change the MDR Z1R from existing as non transparent, non neutral fun flag ship.

Like wise there's no reason to be telling the people that like it how flaw'd it is, because Sony has never aim'd to "hide" the flaws or rather... the comprises they made when the designed it

What You have is what Sony feels is the best version of a very popular sound signature. An if you like it that's great, enjoy it. We had the same... crazy madness surrounding the MDR Z7 when it came out, that thread got CRAZY for a while. And now after the dust has settle'd it's been accepted that the MDR Z7 was a very dark bass heavy headphone, it wasn't the transparent perfection people tried to convince us it was when it first launched.

As far as measurements go, really a new thread should be launched for that exclusively.

Correct me if I am wrong. So in summation, the Z1R is a musical HP as intended by its designers and the HD800 is more of a tool? To me music should sound, well, musical.

 

[nordkapp]

i don't like using an analogy in describing something.but couldn't resist...

Bumpy road, unpleasant feeling and discomfort, less user will use this road as user perceived this as flawed road. Not design according to standard.


Zig-Zag road, FUN. some user will like it and some don't. Designed to best fit the environment but still have its purpose. Compromise a thing or two for the sake of other thing. Flawed??



Straight Highway, it's perfect road for some but,it is?


Now think Z1R.

I'll take the middle road please......

 

[Makiah S]

Correct me if I am wrong. So in summation, the Z1R is a musical HP as intended by its designers and the HD800 is more of a tool? To me music should sound, well, musical.

Without having heard the MDR Z1R, I'd say yes, musical... is the aim. Musical doesn't mean that it's lacking resolve of micro/macro detail nor that it's sluggish with it's transients, it's the frequancy response combined with what I would hope is excellent transients that should result in a musical flag ship. I really need to hear it for my self

But the problem is, that Hi Fidelity which we short hand to HiFi by definition is a high degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced
The HD 800 embodies that, it's very exact. Where as the MDR Z1R may... be less Exact and more "musical" and really for it to be advertise as a Hi Fidelity product is a disservice to the community. Some people here seem to want to prove it's fidelity, or it's exact manner of reproduction, but it's already been documented that... exactness isn't it's strong suite.

What I'd like to see though, is the Square Wave measurements and you guys should really view the CSD Plots too