[nc8000]

This is almost exactly what I've said in my answer to you (previous page, post #10843)


Of course not, and I've never said such a thing. As I repeated it, the consumer is free to find the good fit for his taste. But as a reviewer, you can't say that a headphones with major flaws is great considering that some people may like it. That's all I say. I will not enter the false debate "accuracy against pleasure" as I consider this opposition as a nonsense and a pure smoke screen.

You can't call it a flaw if the product performs the way it is designed to perform and I'm sure the Z1R is exactly what Sony wanted it to be. Just because you don't agree with that design does not make it a flaw, especially in a field where there don't even exist an agreed upon standard.

 

[Imperfectionist]

You can listen music the way you want as an individual. Of course. And you are not insulting the musician adding 10 dB to the bass. But it's not what we are talking about here, at least what I'm talking about. My concern is the role of a reviewer. Why are we looking to the measurements if they mean nothing ? And if they mean something, can a reviewer recommend a headphones with very uneven FR (speaking only about FR to simplify the discussion) ?

Reviewers are humans and all humans are biased against something and it will color first opinions up to a certain degree. So the role of the reviewers is to translate and inject human feelings into ways that majority of humanity understands. This is the true purpose of reviews.
If fr can represent the review, slapping that piece of paper somewhere in the packaging would be the end.

The only thing that's impartial would be the fr and you are welcome to based your signature preference on the fr.

 

[EDN80]

In other words, don't be a precious snowflake. If someone else doesn't like your headphone, suck it up buttercup.

I do better than that. I don't care. Especially when comments come from Internet tough guys. I keep enjoying my music no matter what... I've always done that and will continue to do so...

 

[Robert777]

Oh my goodness. This thread is an absolute car crash. I do hope that Sony do not monitor these threads. They would, I am sure, be terribly embarrassed by the whole affair.

There are so many different points being addressed and a lot of people seem to be confusing issues and slinging vitriol.

Disclaimer: I have not heard the Z1R and have no intention of ever doing so. For a lot of you, you can stop reading now. I am intrigued by what Sony do. I love the EX1000s and am thinking about the new A35, but the Z1R is so out of my budget that it may as well be one million pounds.

Firstly, if you like and enjoy the headphone, that is great. Music is the point anyway. Listen to your music and enjoy it. There is no reason for people in this thread, or similarly in the Nighthawke thread ( I mention this because I notice some similarities), to get all butt-hurt and angry and defensive if people come along and say actually, I do not think this headphone is worth the price because they think it has bloated, wooly, one note bass, a recessed upper midrange and a peak that can sound ragged and jump out from nowhere. Everyone has different priorities and things they dislike.

Secondly, I agree with everything @taktik has said, and anyone jumping on him is completely missing his very valid points.

Thirdly, the role of the reviewer is the much more interesting conversation here. If a reviewer points out what they deem to be floors, and backs them up with evidence and measurements, that is of value. You can listen for yourself and choose not to agree but their review is still of value. The Z1R does seem to present an abundance of bass. If that is your thing you will love them but a reviewer could not or should not pretend that this bass is not increased.

Finally, because Judes measurements have no context they are worthless and should be ignored. Tyll's measurements have context, everyone knows what he likes and does not like and can therefore calibrate how they react to his thoughts. This, and his huge cache of measurements are of value to this hobby and industry. When Jude publishes measurements of other headphones his measurements will become a much more valuable resource.

Thanks everyone for the entertainment. Not as well put together as the recent LCD-4 / Utopia events, but a fun read none the less.

Cheers.

 

[taktik]

You can't call it a flaw if the product performs the way it is designed to perform and I'm sure the Z1R is exactly what Sony wanted it to be. Just because you don't agree with that design does not make it a flaw, especially in a field where there don't even exist an agreed upon standard.

OK. So, there's no flaw nowhere knowing that the headphones are like the manufacturer wanted them to be ? That's a way of thinking, and not exactly mine.

 

[nc8000]

OK. So, there's no flaw nowhere knowing that the headphones are like the manufacturer wanted them to be ? That's a way of thinking, and not exactly mine.

No, even a headphone falling apart when you use it is not a flaw if that is what the manufacturer had in mind but I doubt any manufacturer would by design produce such a product.

You confuse flaw with personal preferance.

And as several have mentioned before there isen't even a universally agreed upon standard for how a headphone should meassure let alone how you should measure it so you can't even propperly compare 2 sets of measurements from different sources.

And at any rate does a FR chart tell you things about size of soundstage, how the headphone handles something like transients and many other things.

The only thing it tells you is exactly how pronounced any give frequency is compared to any other frequency on that particular measuring rig.

 

[up late]

Actually, even "reference curves" are fundamentally based on what people prefer. The Harman research showed that people prefer boosted bass and rolled off treble. So that's what is baked into the curve.

Many speaker and headphone manufacturers are using the Harman reference to inform their marketing decisions, because it is based entirely off people's preferences, and they want to appeal to as many people as possible.

So there is a good argument to be made that the Harman reference is simply distorting the music in a way that everybody likes.

Is it better to enjoy the music or to listen to brutally accurate renditions?

Why would anyone be bothered with "what the artist intended" if you don't enjoy it? Are you insulting the artist by listening to their music in a manner that you personally enjoy? Do you really think the artist is going to go into a fuming rant on Facebook about how their fans are daring to actually enjoy their music?

It's all over the top absurd. People can live and die by the accuracy illusion, because that's all it is, an illusion. A ghost. A false prophet. Chasing the dragon.

The rest of us can get back to the music.

can you provide an example of a measurement system that has developed in a vacuum devoid of human input?

it's become increasingly apparent from your posts that you are running a subjectivist line, which you're entitled to do. however, you are also trivialising the serious scientific research that is being undertaken by dr sean olive and his team at Harman, which is not cool. dr olive has acknowledged that the science of headphone measurements is in its infancy and some 30 years behind loudspeaker measurements. is there any harm in giving it a chance?

Strange, isn't it? People parade around these "reference curves" which are based entirely on people's preferences, then turn around and say that all preferences are invalid because accuracy is king. It's a certain ironic level of cognitive dissonance that is totally lost on them.

I'm reminded of a saying. Imagine a person of average intelligence. Then imagine that half the people are dumber than that. I have to imagine the same applies to listening preferences as well. And this is the lofty infallible unquestioned ideal that so called objectivists parade around to tell us that we are wrong for liking our headphones.

I am not even sure these people listen to music. Perhaps they only listen to graphs? I challenge all Z1R owners to listen and not stop their feet. If you have a high quality source, that would work better.

see above response.

who are these objectivists parading frequency response curves around saying that all preferences are invalid, and that you are wrong for liking your headphones? it's certainly not tyll or jude. do you really believe that these people would rather "listen to graphs" than headphones? now that comes off as "over the top absurd" to me.

So who decided TOTL should not be a "fun sound" signature?

You know, the opposite of fun is . . . drudgery.

So who decided what TOTL entails? Who said it should be like a studio monitor? I wasn't invited to vote. Was it in a religious text? Is it under glass at M.I.T.?

Why shouldn't TOTL mean "WOW! The most FUN!"

Do you win points in heaven for pursuing nothing but "accuracy" and denial-of-pleasure in this life? If your headphones follow some magical mystical mystery "accuracy" curve (one as yet undecided, btw, because it can't be, because healthy and full human beings are subjective creatures), does the artist whose original intent you honor so much send you a royalty check?

i hope that we can at least agree on what the term "Top Of The Line" means. it's a company's premium product. you might find grado's ps2000e "fun" or focal's utopia "boring", but both are TOTL cans, and that's pretty much all they have in common.

btw, watch collectors have been known to derive pleasure from looking at the intricate mechanical workings of a highly accurate time piece.

 

[taktik]

You confuse flaw with personal preferance.

I don't think so. A flaw is a flaw, even if some people like headphones with this flaw. Many Grado, Ultrasone, aso. have major flaws, but many people like them.

And at any rate does a FR chart tell you things about size of soundstage, how the headphone handles something like transients and many other things.
The only thing it tells you is exactly how pronounced any give frequency is compared to any other frequency on that particular measuring rig.

I fully agree. And that's the key role of the reviewer to describe what can't be learned from the measurements.

 

[Martin79]

Mdr z1r is a most controversial headphones , but i love Sony fun sound signature. I have hd 800 too , but i prefer fun sound Sony to the sterile sound Hd 800. Thank you Sony and please never make sterile headphones. Ps. Sorry for my english

 

[nc8000]

I don't think so. A flaw is a flaw, even if some people like headphones with this flaw. Many Grado, Ultrasone, aso. have major flaws, but many people like them.

And based on what definition do you decide that there is a flaw ?

A flaw means that something deviates from some form of standard for what is correct and as far as I know there is no such standard for a headphone which is what makes me say that the only standard has to be what the people who designed and build the object defined.

It would be a flaw if Sony said that it should measure in a given way and then turned out to not measure that way.

 

[nanaholic]

I don't think so. A flaw is a flaw, even if some people like headphones with this flaw. Many Grado, Ultrasone, aso. have major flaws, but many people like them.

Thankfully words have actual definitions and not just something you wish it to be:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/flaw
flaw: a fault, mistake, or weakness, especially one that happens while something is being planned or made, or that causes something not to be perfect.

Strictly speaking the FR again, it's unthinkable that Sony themselves don't have an elaborate setup to measure the FR for their headphones - especially one they spent a decade in making, so the only reasonable conclusion is that the sound signature is BY DESIGN, if that is the sound Sony decided to target then it is not your place to claim it is a flaw. All you can objectively say is that it is not an accurate sound (which is objectively true), and you are completely free to say you don't agree to their sound choice, but nothing more than that.

 

[taktik]

And based on what definition do you decide that there is a flaw ?

A flaw means that something deviates from some form of standard for what is correct and as far as I know there is no such standard for a headphone which is what makes me say that the only standard has to be what the people who designed and build the object defined.

Tell me why we are measuring headphones if there's no standard ?

It would be a flaw if Sony said that it should measure in a given way and then turned out to not measure that way.

You confuse build flaws and sonic flaws. Many of my favorite headphones have sonic flaws, and I have chosen some of them because they have an objective flaw which is an subjective quality for me. For example, I am very sensitive to frequencies between 4 and 7 kHz, and the Focal Elear is perfect when my ears are tired, thanks to the 15+ dB roll-off in this area. It's easy for me to understand why the Z1R is a pleasing headphones for some, but a reviewer have to point out a flaw as being a flaw.

 

[taktik]

Strictly speaking the FR again, it's unthinkable that Sony themselves don't have an elaborate setup to measure the FR for their headphones - especially one they spent a decade in making, so the only reasonable conclusion is that the sound signature is BY DESIGN, if that is the sound Sony decided to target then it is not your place to claim it is a flaw. All you can objectively say is that it is not an accurate sound (which is objectively true), and you are completely free to say you don't agree to their sound choice, but nothing more than that.

I will not enter a semantic debate as I don't master english as you do. Lack of accuracy is an objective sonic flaw, even if it may be a subjective quality for some. If you don't agree with this, it's perhaps not useful to continue

 

[jscmd2000]

Best way to handle non-sense is to... ignore.

I was looking for an alternative to the Mojo for quite some time now and came across Sony PHA-2A. Long story, but I ended up getting the Kimber 4.4 mm balanced cable for my Z1R for free, about 350 usd, because they didn't send me one that they were suppose to when I bought the headphone. I felt bad, so purchased the 2A from them. It is very flawed and distorted.... it is awesome! Especially if you like the sound signature of the Z1R, I think you will like the 2A. The balanced output makes everything even more flawed, distorted, and holographic... even my iems sound like Z1R! The highs are not piercing so you can listen at higher volume to hear and feel the lows better. Good listening palate cleanser for mojo users.

 

[Treeko]

And at any rate does a FR chart tell you things about size of soundstage, how the headphone handles something like transients and many other things.

The only thing it tells you is exactly how pronounced any give frequency is compared to any other frequency on that particular measuring rig.

No it is not the only thing it tells you. A FR chart give you a general understanding of how a set of cans perform and to people who are well versed with measurements this is useful. However by itself it does not show anything conclusive, that is why Tyll also measures 30Hz and 300Hz square wave response as the latter shows provides further evidence for the accompanying frequency response in terms of bass sustain and also how the response after the 300Hz step can be compared with different headphones which show a great link to transients and how we locate sound (soundstage). Not only this he couples the measurements with impulse response to show how the responsive the driver diaphragm is. A FR chart by itself is useless. I linked a video response above somewhere with Tyll's lecture on the matter.

I wanted to add something also to what @taktik said above just for conjecture for his argument. 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?