[Imperfectionist]

I didn't get any of that from his post - I just take that to mean that with his great power to influence, then Tyll has to take more care in how he is using them, it doesn't say he has to agree to the wider opinion.

I think we can all agree that the most controversial point of Tyll's review was how he said the ATH-50X was better buy than the Z1R, and he kept focusing on what he said are the problematic measurement flaws of the Z1R sound signature by using reference sound as that criteria. We've already broken down why these comparisons themselves are in fact flawed, and I think it helps to remind Tyll that it is in everyone's best interest that if he could reframe his views in a tone that better shows its subjective nature. For example, presenting the Z1R as an inaccurate phone that is not reference class is perfectly fine - people can objectively see that in the measurements and have no ground to dispute this finding. He is also completely free and in his right to say he doesn't find this inaccurate sound pleasing to his own ears due to his own personal subjective preference, there's also no ground to dispute this, however throwing in a sniping comment implying Sony's choice of tuning a non-reference sound signature is unacceptable practice and a sign of Sony engineer's incompetence - rather than presenting that as a deliberate choice on their part - is, to put it bluntly, a bit arrogant. And I would say that is the point where Tyll is using his power as a respected reviewer a little irresponsibly, and where most sensible and rational Z1R owners that even agrees with his previous two findings (that it is inaccurate, that he finds that signature not to his taste) finds to be problematic.

The most responsible way of saying this could've easily been something like "Ok so for whatever reason Sony's engineers decided to tune it this particular inaccurate way - I respect their choice, but it's just not a sound I can like or enjoy, so if you share a taste similar to me (a preference to reference headphones) and is sensitive to 10kHz peaks, then this headphone is just not for you and you should look elsewhere to spend your money". Simple and informative, clear to the point and equally states his personal feelings and preferences as they were, doesn't agree with the "hive mind" you are accusing people off (which BTW, doesn't actually exists), yet not offensive in any way. Isn't that better for everyone?

The z1r is definitely miles ahead of m50x. How both got compared against each other is truly and sadly beyond my comprehension.
As I have mentioned, I used both. M50x when I had just finished bathing, hair still a little wet. Z1r for true enjoyment and pure bliss. Never have I thought the m50x is better than z1r.

 

[Maelob]

The z1r is definitely miles ahead of m50x. How both got compared against each other is truly and sadly beyond my comprehension.
As I have mentioned, I used both. M50x when I had just finished bathing, hair still a little wet. Z1r for true enjoyment and pure bliss. Never have I thought the m50x is better than z1r.

The bottom line is that Tyll does not believe any of the Totl closed Headphones are worth the price. I just re-watched the Ether-c flow review video and it was almost as bad as the Z1r- he is super critical of expensive closed headphones not delivering the goods. And they measured bad too- I mean not like the best open headphones- check the video out

 

[ubs28]

The bottom line is that Tyll does not believe any of the Totl closed Headphones are worth the price. I just re-watched the Ether-c flow review video and it was almost as bad as the Z1r- he is super critical of expensive closed headphones not delivering the goods. And they measured bad too- I mean not like the best open headphones- check the video out

Well, the Z1R is in terms of sound quality the best closed headphone I have heard. And I would have kept the Z1R if it was atleast good for portable use like a closed headphone should be.

I am still a bit confused what Sony tried to do with the Z1R. Because for home use it is not good enough (assuming the early production unit I had was not faulty) and for outdoor use it is not also (I tried to actually use it for outdoor usage).

I am still looking for a TOTL closed headphone for many years. Maybe the Sennheiser HD 820 will get it right. We shall see.

 

[nanaholic]

I am still a bit confused what Sony tried to do with the Z1R. Because for home use it is not good enough and for outdoor use it is not also (I tried to actually use it for outdoor usage).

Well for starters, they made it pretty clear that aren't trying to build a reference headphone, so there's that.

 

[nc8000]

Well, the Z1R is in terms of sound quality the best closed headphone I have heard. And I would have kept the Z1R if it was atleast good for portable use like a closed headphone should be.

I am still a bit confused what Sony tried to do with the Z1R. Because for home use it is not good enough (assuming the early production unit I had was not faulty) and for outdoor use it is not also (I tried to actually use it for outdoor usage).

I am still looking for a TOTL closed headphone for many years. Maybe the Sennheiser HD 820 will get it right. We shall see.

To me it is more than good enough for home use, it is the most enjoyable sound I have heard from any phone and comfortable enough to use all day. I would agree that it is not practical for on the go use

 

[Currawong]

Have hard time to fathom your post. At least Z1R didn't have spike at mids.

Just to note: When Tyll measured the HD800, there was a problem in his system that caused two spikes to show in all the measurements. They are not caused by the headphones.

I think the problem with a review such as Tyll did was declaring the headphones to be bad. If a lot of people like them, but they are technically flawed and don't meet the reviewer's tastes, are they really "bad"? If a product succeeds in the goals set by the manufacturer, and it satisfies many people, what is the problem? It (they) might be "bad" for some people. If we fix a set of criteria, including the tastes of a person, or a handful of people as what is "good" then we'll end up with a lot of headphones and equipment that only suits that person or people. That would be very boring.

I think it's good Sony dared to do something different, instead of following the current trends. I was lucky enough to have a variety of headphones here at the same time as the Sonys. While I like the more technically excellent MrSpeakers, HiFiMan and Focal headphones, there were times when I reached for the Z1Rs and enjoyed listening with them. I did sometimes consider buying a pair, but not in the end as their flaws intruded too much on my ability to enjoy them fully with all the music I like.

 

[Undertones]

Just to note: When Tyll measured the HD800, there was a problem in his system that caused two spikes to show in all the measurements. They are not caused by the headphones.

I think the problem with a review such as Tyll did was declaring the headphones to be bad. If a lot of people like them, but they are technically flawed and don't meet the reviewer's tastes, are they really "bad"? If a product succeeds in the goals set by the manufacturer, and it satisfies many people, what is the problem? It (they) might be "bad" for some people. If we fix a set of criteria, including the tastes of a person, or a handful of people as what is "good" then we'll end up with a lot of headphones and equipment that only suits that person or people. That would be very boring.

I think it's good Sony dared to do something different, instead of following the current trends. I was lucky enough to have a variety of headphones here at the same time as the Sonys. While I like the more technically excellent MrSpeakers, HiFiMan and Focal headphones, there were times when I reached for the Z1Rs and enjoyed listening with them. I did sometimes consider buying a pair, but not in the end as their flaws intruded too much on my ability to enjoy them fully with all the music I like.

So now you are placing blame on Tyll for writing a negative review because some other people like the headphone. Are negatives reviews a bad thing now or are you only saying this because it's a $2500 headphone made by Sony. There are plenty of headphones out there that need defending who are just as deserving. Lets bring up the Beats defense. Whatever argument of defense for perceived poor quality TOTL headphones must also be applied to Beats. Does the argument still hold up?

Sony is never going to say the headphone didn't match their goals or they were disappointed with it. Nor have they have given an objective criteria for it to even meet anyway. Whatever it is they are going to say it's great.

Even so, in your own words, is being enjoyable sometimes really high praise for something that costs $2500. Don't forget Sony followed the trend of overpriced headphones but maybe they should charge $3000 next time because uber-subjective defense seems to correlate highly with price.

You might not agree with the review but the ultimate conclusion of your destructive review philosophy is that nothing negative can ever be said about any headphone and no price can be argued against. What is the point of reviews and reviewers then. Again I bring up the Beats defense.

In the end he didn't like the headphone. I don't know why people are spending so much time writing reams of text because he didn't like the headphone. Sorry but people are pathetic if their confidence in their own personal preference is so weak that a negative review from one person causes so much drama. If you like the headphone then you need not worry what others say and you should have confidence in what you like. While the science in modelling listener preferences to objective measurements for headphones is not as developed as loudspeakers in the end they are statistical models that do not work for every individual and listener preferences will change depending upon the recording. If an album you like has too much treble emphasis then you are going to EQ that down relative to an album that has too little for a pleasant listening experience.

Well for starters, they made it pretty clear that aren't trying to build a reference headphone, so there's that.

Accurate reference headphones don't exist beyond a few hundred hertz. This is not like loudspeakers where they have standards for cinemas.

I'd say a lot of the confusion stemmed from a certain proportion of "contributors" having not actually heard the headphone, instead relying on two different sets of measurements to attempt to determine what it actually sounded like.

If criticism is valid then it should be listened to. It doesn't matter who says it.

 

[nc8000]

I don't think anybody minds that Tyll don't like them, he's not the first to not like them and I'm sure he wont be the ladt.

The problem is the way in which he savaged them and the snotty morale high ground that he needs to protect potential buyers from buying this Sony trash

 

[nanaholic]

Accurate reference headphones don't exist beyond a few hundred hertz. This is not like loudspeakers where they have standards for cinemas.

I think you mean perfectly accurate headphones don't exists in real life, which is true. But there is certainly some references here in head-fi world, eg the Harmon curve which has already been stated before.

Obviously currently a lot of TOTL headphones aim for that Harmon curve, and it was completely Tyll's intention for slamming the Z1R for not aiming for that curve, and even more others which claims the Z1R is flawed and doesn't deserve TOTL headphone status because of this.

 

[pietcux]

Well, the Z1R is in terms of sound quality the best closed headphone I have heard. And I would have kept the Z1R if it was atleast good for portable use like a closed headphone should be.

I am still a bit confused what Sony tried to do with the Z1R. Because for home use it is not good enough (assuming the early production unit I had was not faulty) and for outdoor use it is not also (I tried to actually use it for outdoor usage).

I am still looking for a TOTL closed headphone for many years. Maybe the Sennheiser HD 820 will get it right. We shall see.

You are perfectly set for outdoors with the Shure IEMs that you own, aren't you? For me the Z1r is portable, I am in my office listening with it to my music selection, had it in my backpack together with the WM1A. Do this everyday. For outdoor I have the Sennheiser IE800 and the Sony EX1000.

 

[greggf]

The problem with Tyll isn't that he doesn't like the Z1R. It's that he professes them bad and a poor value. It's as if he possess some profound truth based upon measurements and completely arbitrary standards.

"Truth" no longer exists as such, whether we like it or not.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

We're offended that Tyll would be so cocksure in such a 1950's way. Is this how the media conglomerate that operates STEREOPHILE and INNERFIDELITY, The Enthusiast Network, wants to go forward, with an angry ol' man telling us to get off his lawn?

 

[Undertones]

I don't think anybody minds that Tyll don't like them, he's not the first to not like them and I'm sure he wont be the ladt.

The problem is the way in which he savaged them and the snotty morale high ground that he needs to protect potential buyers from buying this Sony trash

I don't agree. If he really doesn't like them then his review should match that. His responsibility is to inform the people who read his reviews and his reviews to be representative of his personal opinion. Having read and watched the review I find your characterization is completely unlike the tone of his actual review. He didn't like them and said as such. He didn't throw them in a dumpster or say that anyone who likes them are terrible people.

I think you mean perfectly accurate headphones don't exists in real life, which is true. But there is certainly some references here in head-fi world, eg the Harmon curve which has already been stated before.

Obviously currently a lot of TOTL headphones aim for that Harmon curve, and it was completely Tyll's intention for slamming the Z1R for not aiming for that curve, and even more others which claims the Z1R is flawed and doesn't deserve TOTL headphone status because of this.

Harman is not a reference just like free-field and diffuse-field aren't. People say that a particular headphone is a good reference headphone but you'll see +5dB differences in loudness between a headphone and a level-matched reference speaker setup on an individual basis. The headphone might get it right in some frequency bands for some people but it won't get it right for everyone and in all frequency bands.

The problem with Tyll isn't that he doesn't like the Z1R. It's that he professes them bad and a poor value. It's as if he possess some profound truth based upon measurements and completely arbitrary standards.

"Truth" no longer exists as such, whether we like it or not.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

We're offended that Tyll would be so cocksure in such a 1950's way. Is this how the media conglomerate that operates STEREOPHILE and INNERFIDELITY wants to go forward, with an angry elderly condemnatory man?

His opinion is they are poor value. People read his reviews because they find his opinion relevant and his opinion on value is relevant to them. If you don't think they are poor value then that is your own opinion and if you don't like the reviews then don't read them.

If you think everything is arbitrary then that doesn't stop people from having their own arbitrary opinions or people deciding to listen them. I suspect you wouldn't be here complaining about arbitrary perceptions of value if he thought they were great value and gave a positive review.

 

[greggf]

Undertones, I think you put your finger on the key point when you said, " . . . if you don't like the reviews then don't read them".

That's the problem. Tyll has lost more readers than he has gained by the way he worded the review. It's more out of sadness at losing a reviewer than anything else that is causing the reaction you're seeing.

 

[Rowethren]

Surely the same argument stands for this thread? If people don't like the Z1R why are they even on a thread talking about it?

For example, if I know I don't like something and one of my friends does I actively avoid talking about it because all it does it cause unnecessary arguments; this is exactly what is going on here. There has been pages and pages of people saying the same thing over and over again and frankly it's pretty boring.

Head-Fi is supposed to be a place can talk about what you enjoy not bicker about differences of opinion endlessly!

 

[wormcycle]

The problem with Tyll isn't that he doesn't like the Z1R. It's that he professes them bad and a poor value. It's as if he possess some profound truth based upon measurements and completely arbitrary standards.

"Truth" no longer exists as such, whether we like it or not.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

We're offended that Tyll would be so cocksure in such a 1950's way. Is this how the media conglomerate that operates STEREOPHILE and INNERFIDELITY, The Enthusiast Network, wants to go forward, with an angry ol' man telling us to get off his lawn?

Now you nailed it: it is not about sound reproduction, and any technicalities like noise, FR be damned. "My narrative is as good as your narrative". Just state it clearly that you want 1000 people to share their feelings about headphones.
Post modernist head-fi. What's next: "EQ setup to slow down global warming"?