THE WATERCOOLER HEADPHONE EDITION – Headphones, Amps, DACs, and desktop/home audio related – a freewheeling discussion of gear, impressions, music, and musings.

[goldwerger]

Doing some tube rolling this evening on the DIY Aegis, listening with the Audio-Technica ATH-AWKG (ZMF universe hybrid solid pads).

For output tubes, I replaced the Mullard EL37 and rolled a pair of Gold Lion KT77 (made in England,1979).
For rectifier, I replaced the GZ34 black base (Sittard) with a GZ34 metal base.
Input tubes remain a pair of Tung-Sol 6SU7GTY.

I'm not sure whether this is more due to the output tubes or rectifier change (haven't made the effort yet to isolate that), but the overall result is an extra sense of space, a hint of reverb that echoes in space and makes for a notably more spacious and holographic soundstage. Bass is also a touh more lush (or, at least, so I imagine).

This effect is notable with vocal tracks. Some of those I've listened to over the past hour..

 

[emdeevee]

Howdy folks! As the weekend is around the corner, I reflect on my musings for the week. I recently watched a tour of Abbey Road Studios.



This video got me in the mood to smoke a lovely cigar (Perdomo 10th Anniversary Champagne Churchill) and listen to The Beatles and whatever else Apple Music could recommend to me. This included Elton John, The Kinks, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and others. As I listened to such heavenly melodies, I noticed appreciable changes in production quality. Songs from the late 60's early 70s, didn't have the same visceral impact for me as those from the 80's or later. Granted, it only took 15 seconds or so for my brain to adjust, but the difference was noticeable. It seems this issue doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would and I will continue to explore music recorded pre-80s.
When I first got into this hobby, my music tastes stayed firmly within well recorded OST's, electronic, jazz and classical (FLACs only, thank you very much!). I'm not as picky on the quality of the recording now, and am more interested in trying more genres. Perhaps my recent endeavor of collecting and building a physical music library (mostly CDs) has contributed to this change in behavior.

This got me thinking, how has your approach to music listening evolved since you became an audiophile, and has this changed your appreciation for different genres?

Let us know your experiences!

It now seems so long ago...i think I was always an audiophile because I always into music, whether from my record player, then CD, then SACD/DVD A, or from Sony buds at 16, to a first pair of IEMs, Etymotics in 2003.

And I'll be honest, my genres have really not expanded. I still listen to the same stuff, which I add to, but it's basically within the same genres as always.

For as long as I can remember, all I've tried to do was find the best sound for the music I love, including purchasing many versions of the same albums.

I guess I'm boring!

 

[Doug2507]

This got me thinking, how has your approach to music listening evolved since you became an audiophile, and has this changed your appreciation for different genres?

I think the only thing that has changed for me regarding approach is it's now with a glass in hand of something good!

Seeking out various masterings for the older stuff has become a thing in persuit of maximising sound.

What I listen to hasn't changed one bit really, improving the system over the years is just upgrading the tool I use to listen to what I really like. I know the rigs probably more than capable of playing other genres exceptionally well but they just don't float my boat!

 

[cwoo]

PRat means Pace, Rhythm and Timing whilst Plankton refers to the micro details. If you guys choose to use it in different ways for which it was originally intended then you are the ones who are creating the confusion.

We have to be careful with this discussion, ASR might be monitoring us. We have yet to mention FR and SiNAD...

I agree with your assessment. PRaT gets a lot of negative press anymore (which is a shame). It is tough to describe the tangibles of music. Soundstage, naturalness, impact, presence, toe-tapping, depth, soundstage, viscerality, etc. Many professional reviewers do a good job of describing it with industry standard terminology, which helps if you understand those terms.

Plankton is a funny one for me. It's like what people refer to as the micro details, speed, naturalness, purity, timbre, etc. I think it is used incorrectly a lot.

I think the secret is to use as much information available from reviews, audition, and ask questions when purchasing something. Oh, and measure of course... we need those measurements to ensure we don't get banned from ASR (jk, measurements are helpful as well, but of course, not ever going to actually tell you how something sounds on your head or in your listening room).

 

[betula]

Plankton to me is not just micro details but to be more specific the ability to resolve instruments properly.

I agree. But I never understood why we have to drag the poor little plankton into audio.

 

[Death_Block]

The biggest change for me has come through streaming and then Roon, helping me discover so much music and so many great artists I would never have otherwise been exposed to.

When I listen to music I love, I do it today exactly as I’ve listened to music since I was a kid: with total joy and abandonment. I don’t listen differently, I just sink into the music and let it take me wherever it may… the only difference today is that the music sounds so much better

As with many others with this new approach to music availability through streaming, introduced to copious new and otherwise non discovered music, it’s also unfortunately resulted in shorter appreciation of new music. This is so easy to listen once, and move on. I remember back in the day of dial up, music collections were physical, and I remember spending a hell of a lot more time with music I purchased. Nowadays it’s far too easy to consume and resume often missing the appreciation. Music equivalent of tik tok

 

[leylandi]

 

[tjzurlaaa]

Loooove focal ! Glad to see

 

[JerseyD]

bigbeans said:
This got me thinking, how has your approach to music listening evolved since you became an audiophile, and has this changed your appreciation for different genres?

I think “since you became an audiophile” is a different question than “how has the advent of streaming” changed your listening. It’s weird, I feel like I have been something of an audiophile since middle school, when my neighbor played music on his system, which was pretty great for the late ‘70s. His musical selections were not exactly to my young tastes at the time, but the sound was so amazing that I still wanted to listen with rapt attention. It was ear-opening, for sure.

Have always strove to build the best sounding system my budget could manage ever since then. Driving off to college, half of the car was taken up by my stereo and LPs! Being so into the SOUND has definitely made me more open to music of many genres. That said, I am not one to listen to music that doesn’t appeal to me just because it is well recorded or sounds amazing (like movie scores…I still don’t understand the appeal there). But in many ways I think “audiophile” equates with “deep listener.” We appreciate things in music that most people don’t even notice. I wonder if audiophiles on average do listen to wider variety of genres than the average music lover. A future question for the Cooler, perhaps?

 

[RTodd]

bigbeans said:
This got me thinking, how has your approach to music listening evolved since you became an audiophile, and has this changed your appreciation for different genres?

I think “since you became an audiophile” is a different question than “how has the advent of streaming” changed your listening. It’s weird, I feel like I have been something of an audiophile since middle school, when my neighbor played music on his system, which was pretty great for the late ‘70s. His musical selections were not exactly to my young tastes at the time, but the sound was so amazing that I still wanted to listen with rapt attention. It was ear-opening, for sure.

Have always strove to build the best sounding system my budget could manage ever since then. Driving off to college, half of the car was taken up by my stereo and LPs! Being so into the SOUND has definitely made me more open to music of many genres. That said, I am not one to listen to music that doesn’t appeal to me just because it is well recorded or sounds amazing (like movie scores…I still don’t understand the appeal there). But in many ways I think “audiophile” equates with “deep listener.” We appreciate things in music that most people don’t even notice. I wonder if audiophiles on average do listen to wider variety of genres than the average music lover. A future question for the Cooler, perhaps?

Well written and kind of agree, the car full of LPs going off to college I can definitely relate to and so could my friends from college who all did the same.

I was struggling financially back then working three jobs while going to college so there was barely enough money to eat let alone buy audio, my new college friends and I put all our vinyl together since none of us could afford new records so that expanded what we could listen to. None of those friends are that into pushing the gear, even now, at least not unless it is free or close to it, none of them would spend $1000 or more on an IEM, let alone more on HPs or speakers, though the connection to music is not that different the importance of gear and the willingness to spend on it is not the same.

I wonder if I could wear an audiophile badge without the willingness to prioritize the gear by investing in pushing those limits.

I like the deeper listener concept, I think that describes me.

 

[tfenton02]

bigbeans said:
This got me thinking, how has your approach to music listening evolved

Over time, I’ve developed a deeper appreciation for individual instruments rather than just the harmony of a song. With great source gear, the nuance of each instrument becomes more evident like the rich overtones of an upright bass in jazz, the delicate plucking of a classical guitar in flamenco, or the airy breathiness of a saxophone in smooth jazz. This heightened awareness has led me to explore new genres that highlight these characteristics.

The downside? I found myself more excited about fine-tuning my setup than simply enjoying the music. I’d get caught up in chasing the next upgrade rather than just sitting back and listening. I’m working on correcting that now … taking a break from gear acquisition and focusing on enjoying what I already have. After all, the best setup is the one that lets you lose yourself in the music.

 

[RTodd]

Over time, I’ve developed a deeper appreciation for individual instruments rather than just the harmony of a song. With great source gear, the nuance of each instrument becomes more evident like the rich overtones of an upright bass in jazz, the delicate plucking of a classical guitar in flamenco, or the airy breathiness of a saxophone in smooth jazz. This heightened awareness has led me to explore new genres that highlight these characteristics.

The downside? I found myself more excited about fine-tuning my setup than simply enjoying the music. I’d get caught up in chasing the next upgrade rather than just sitting back and listening. I’m working on correcting that now … taking a break from gear acquisition and focusing on enjoying what I already have. After all, the best setup is the one that lets you lose yourself in the music.

Yep, the key is go slow on gear for me. No need to upgrade as an urgent chase, only if I hear something I can’t deny. What you describe is exactly why my listening is leaning more than ever towards acoustic instruments. This system in its current state has such clear separation and perfect timbre, quiet subtleties galore, it is what it does best and makes me smile every time let alone all those near tears and goosebumps.

Try this track, so lovely.

 

[tfenton02]

Try this track, so lovely.

Alluring & sultry. Thx for sharing

 

[Monsterzero]

Luxman. Always been interested in hearing their gear as they get a lot of praise in Japan. What did you think?

 

[DenverW]

This is the only meaning I've ever seen. The other (I'll avoid quoting so as not to confuse future readers). I agree with @SolarCetacean clarification on it as well.

When something is forward it sounds closer to you. It can be a result of a certain frequency being more elevated, and therefore sounding closer than other instruments (empirically, this is most commonly used for mids, such as vocals and acoustic instruments, but can be applied to anything). But in theory can be a result of any acoustic effect that creates this illusion of a more intimate or intense presentation as it relates to whatever is being described.

The opposite of forward would be laid-back or relaxed, describing something that is more recessed (i.e., less forward).



Ah, that one is a pet peeve of mine..

For me, the opposite of Birght is Dark. Brigther means more treble (elevated treble freqeencies) whild Darker means less treble (rolled off / attenuated).

Warm, for me, is not the opposite of bright, and is not relates to have relatively more bass than treble (which would be dark). Warm, for me, means having richer, smoother, and fuller bodied presentation (all hard to define, but I hope I'm conveying the spirit of succesfully). It is what many times would be descirbed as musical, pleasant, organic, and sometimes euphonic and even forgiving. There is a frequency correlation in that, at least in my experience, warmer presentation relates strongly to elevated lower mids and upper bass. However, while warm may often mean more relaxed/recessed (see above) treble, it may have great treble detail, whereas darker will have treble rolled off.

---

Thanks for kicking this discussion @Death_Block ... this is a great topic, so..

What Audiophile terminologies do you find confusing?
What is your take on them?​

Great question! The ones that I’ve confused in the past would be ‘tone’ and ‘timbre.’

I’ve been 100% guilty of using these loosely! To my limited knowledge the term timbre refers to the sound of different instruments. For example, a guitar string has a different timbre than another string instrument such as a violin or ukulele. And further, the same instrument can have a different timbre based on its construction.

Tone, or tonality refers to the frequency and quality of the sound, in particular between the low and high frequencies. For example, turning up or down the ‘tone’ control in an electric guitar can make the guitar’s tone sharper or more weighted.

Someone who is ‘tone deaf’ can’t hear differences between frequencies. So, for my simple mind, tonality is the notes and frequencies, while timbre is the sound of the instruments. Overly simple, yes, but it works for me .