[Jahn]

Texas Roadhouse Blues and Jazz combos with sax and trumpets sound perfect with Grados. Electronica still sounds better with the DT770, and woodwinds/classical sounds better with K501 or Senns. imho!

 

[Michael G.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle When listening to recordings through headphones, I don't think of being at a live peformance because I'm not. Artificial "soundstages" are bogus.

I guess because I'm not only a headphone fan but also a dedicated 2-channel loudspeaker guy, I tend to agree with you somewhat. I can view the headphone experience as something unique, more like an unusual sort of "magnification" of the recording, rather than a way of listening that ought to compete with or mimic a normal loudspeaker setup. Still, one cannot completely divorce sound from a sense of the space in which the music takes place. Most of us want to feel that the sound we're hearing has some sense of dimension, and is taking place in some kind of a familiar venue. I believe that Grado gives me this feeling, in cooperation with the limitations of conventional headphone listening. But, it took a little memory jogging and imagination for me to know exactly what kind of reality Grado might be "magnifying" for me.

 

[arspy87]

I agree muchly

You've said it much more eloquently than I could... I do think Grados are really good at being "speakers on your ears" - they're good at being headphones and presenting the sound naturally in the sense that the sound is going directly into your ears. Personally I love that intimate experience.

 

[Michael G.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arspy87 I agree muchly You've said it much more eloquently than I could... I don't think Grados are really good at being "speakers on your ears" - they're good at being headphones and presenting the sound naturally in the sense that the sound is going directly into your ears. Personally I love that intimate experience.

Yes. Even though some conventional headphones seem to provide for an airier and more expansive "soundstage" than my Grados will (my old AKG K-501's come to mind), I am never consistently fooled into believing that I am hearing an actual soundstage. But I am always delighted at the particular sort of backdrop an individual phoneset might provide. Against the various backdrops, be they 'velvety", "dark", "airy", "closed-in", "narrow", or "wide" backdrops, I can enjoy the magnification of tonal colors and textures as they are displayed par excellence. Intimacy is the headphone's beautiful gift in general. And, if I may say so - intimacy is Grado's strength in particular.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael G. I opined to myself the other day that of all of the different types of "soundstaging" experiences one may obtain through conventional headphones, the Grado soundstage may actually be the most natural-sounding one. Why? Because, more often than not the Grado soundstage experience puts you smack dab in the middle of the performance instead of trying to put you back and away from it. Instead of trying to fake the stereotypical soundstage, it's as if Grado just "goes with the flow" and gives you the type of perspective that headphones can most naturally give. It often sounds as if you are centered on stage with the performers, rather than out in the audience somewhere. I can feel as if I am the one who is holding the guitar during a solo riff, looking down on the strings as they vibrate. Although such a perspective is an unlikely one, it is not not an impossible one. Once you realize that such a perspective is possible in real life, the "closed in" listening experience is far less fake-sounding, and far more sympathetic to the limitations of conventional headphones design. It may be that Grado is simultaneously more respectful of the limitations of the headphone experience and more clever at turning the disadvantages of conventional headphones into golden opportunities, than some other headphone manufacturers are.

Yawn... yet another attempt to defend/justify a personal preference, when there's neither a necessity nor a purpose to defending one's preferences.

If you prefer a sound as if you're up on stage with the performers, terrific. If you're a performer yourself, or just dream of being one, maybe this is what you like. Myself, I don't like it. I want to be in the audience, not up there on stage. I'm not going to apologize for that, and I wonder why you seem to feel the need to apologize for your own likings.

Your post strikes me as being disingenuous. Why not just be more direct and say "Grados rule... Sennheisers suck!"

 

[mahlerfan]

This is the same type of logic that people used to use to say that mono is superior to stereo. It always has the form "recordings is not the same as live, therefore effect X is a waste...".

I see that you can keep following that logic to the natural conclusion that you should only go to live concerts and not bother with recordings, or you can accept the limitations of canned music and try to make the most of it.

I see that some people prefer the jamming with the band type of sound, but some people prefer the sitting in a concert hall type of experience. Neither is right, it's just a matter of taste. And I myself flip, flop depending on what kind of music I'm listening to.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by apostate When the drum player, that I know would 20 ft+ away, sounds like he/she is right next to me I find that to be unrealistic.

Again, you are listening to recordings. Unless the drum mics were 20 feet from the kit, they should sound close. Any "soundstage" exists in the recording, not in the headphones. Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Yawn... yet another attempt to defend/justify a personal preference, when there's neither a necessity nor a purpose to defending one's preferences. If you prefer a sound as if you're up on stage with the performers, terrific. If you're a performer yourself, or just dream of being one, maybe this is what you like. Myself, I don't like it. I want to be in the audience, not up there on stage. I'm not going to apologize for that, and I wonder why you seem to feel the need to apologize for your own likings. Your post strikes me as being disingenuous. Why not just be more direct and say "Grados rule... Sennheisers suck!"

Sheesh, what's your problem? He merely stated an opinion and he has given consideration to other aspects of soundstage perspective.

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by apostate For things smaller than an orchestra I think Grado does a very good job of realistically presenting it as though you are in the band, for an orchestra I think it sounds compressed. Ant

Spot on IMO. My biggest complaint regarding my RS-1's is orchestral type music and the way its presented. Its very hard with the Grados to get a high-level feel of the entire orchestra and the harmonies a symphony projects as a whole. Because of their very involving nature (or brightness to some), I think the Grado's are not ideal for a lot of classical music.

When I was comparing the RS-2 vs. the 600's, I felt that pieces like Mozart's "Jupiter" and Beethoven's 9th were presented better by the Senn's. Because of there laid back style and bigger soundstage, I was able to enjoy the symphony more without my ears focusing on the separation of instruments constantly with the Grados (though I'm not claiming that the Grado's extremely analytical due to their fuzz).

A word about Jahn's comments: IMO, when it comes to woodwind pieces, I think the Grado's can do a fantastic job with quartets and smaller arrangements. I also think that the Grado's are naturally sweeter/warmer (what have you) than Senn's which can be beneficial for woodwind and brass.

Now, the reverse is true for music like Jazz and Rock. I think Zeppelin and Miles Davis in general sound fantastic on the Grados because of their involving bright sound. My putting the listener in the middle of performance, you get a certain level of intimacy which I believe is what everyone is really talking about when they mention the Grado sound. Its that private world or microcosm of fuzz (if you will) that is Grado's more alluring feature.

Of course, when it comes to acoustic presentation and overall feel, its very personal!

Trogdor

 

[hugz]

most music is recorded with the microphones at close proximity to the sound, so it makes sense that if the music is portrayed acurately it will sound close. If it sounds like you're a few rows back, even though it was recorded from just a few feet away, then the sound you're hearing is artificial.

i like my sound to be realistic. if realistic means a few feet away from the guitar strings, then that's what i want to hear.

it may not be natural to hear sounds like that in a concert... but a studio recorded song isn't a concert. that's why they record them in studios and not concert halls.

hearing it up close is the natural way to hear it, as far as i'm concerned

"hold on hold on.. i'm just going to raise this so it's nearer the bass strings than the top strings" - john lennon, "you've got to hide your love away" outtake. mic positions are chosen very specifically! this is where i wanan hear it

 

[mahlerfan]

Close miking is used to eliminate reverb, to make it more natural when played through speakers. Most recordings were not recorded to sound natural played through headphones, but rather through speakers. Close miking is not meant to reduce the soundstage, just make the recording sound less muddy. So I don't agree that close miking can be used as a justification for a lack of soundstage in headphones.

Edit-- I wanted to also add that at least in classical music close miking means 3-10 feet away, hence my comparison to speakers.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hugz most music is recorded with the microphones at close proximity to the sound, so it makes sense that if the music is portrayed acurately it will sound close. If it sounds like you're a few rows back, even though it was recorded from just a few feet away, then the sound you're hearing is artificial. i like my sound to be realistic. if realistic means a few feet away from the guitar strings, then that's what i want to hear. it may not be natural to hear sounds like that in a concert... but a studio recorded song isn't a concert. that's why they record them in studios and not concert halls. hearing it up close is the natural way to hear it, as far as i'm concerned "hold on hold on.. i'm just going to raise this so it's nearer the bass strings than the top strings" - john lennon, "you've got to hide your love away" outtake. mic positions are chosen very specifically! this is where i wanan hear it

I also find that with live orchestral recordings, where the mics are placed somewhat away from or over the orchestra, the Grados reproduce this perspective correctly. Headphones with "enhanced soundstaging" will make these types of recordings sound like the microphones were placed in the balcony.
Quote:

Originally Posted by mahlerfan Close miking is used to eliminate reverb, to make it more natural when played through speakers. Most recordings were not recorded to sound natural played through headphones, but rather through speakers. Close miking is not meant to reduce the soundstage, just make the recording sound less muddy. So I don't agree that close miking can be used as a justification for a lack of soundstage in headphones.

I hope you are not a recording engineer

 

[JaZZ]

I guess nobody would want to deny that listening through headphone is a less natural experience than listening through speakers, let alone listening to live music. So the closer a headphone comes to a speaker-like spatial presentation, the more natural the soundstage.

There are different degrees of «unnaturalness» depending on the design -- increasing from top to bottom:

semi-open design with extremely angled drivers: Stax Sigma
completely open designs with angled drivers: K 1000, Jecklin Float, MDR-F1...
semi-open designs with angled drivers: HD 555/595...
semi-open designs without baffle: HD 580/600/650...
semi-open designs with baffle: K 501, SA 5000, Qualia...
semi-closed designs: DT 880, CD 3000, R10...
closed designs: most ATs...
supraaural open designs: Grados...
supraaural closed designs: PX 200...
extremely closed designs: canalphones

Ideally an open design preserves the outer ear's natural phase and FR equalizing function. Nevertheless, in this context frontal sound-wave impact is also important. In this respect extremely angled drivers, simulating a frontal sound field, are the ideal solution. However, the semi-closed design of the Stax Sigma which would fulfill this criterion creates reflections and standing waves, so the completely open designs with less extremely angled drivers gain ground, although they're of course not free of reflections between drivers and outer ear. The Sennheisers actually are open designs, because there's no baffle, and the earpads just serve for wearing comfort, not isolation.

If we're talking of «artificial soundstage» with headphones, there must be meant artificial reverberation, like the one that's created in typical closed designs where the rear sound waves are reflected by the shells to the listener's ears, in some cases also caused by undampened baffles with open designs (SA 5000). On the other hand, compared to speakers and live concerts headphones commonly create an artificial soundstage by nature -- when fed with recordings meant for speaker reproduction. Most recordings are monitored and mixed through speakers, so from a purist perspective you'll only get an accurate spatial presentation through speakers. In the case of binaural recordings it's exactly the other way round: they call for headphone reproduction, and there canalphones theoretically offer the best precondition, as they eliminate the impact from the outer ear -- so the sound waves don't have to pass the outer ear twice -- considering the artificial ear during the recording.

It entirely depends on the individual listener if he or she prefers to overcome or to cultivate typical headphone characteristics when it comes to spatial presentation. There's no sense in generalizing and ideologizing the own preferences and postulating an «artificial soundstage» when it's in fact the natural function of the outer ear which is responsible for a certain preservation of a natural spatial impression, even with headphones which are prone to destroy every trace of a natural soundfield. I for one can live with both approaches: the almost speaker-like presentation of extremely open headphones as well as the non-existant soundstage of canalphones -- which can easily be compensated for with a bit of fantasy. Circumaural designs such as Grados are by no means a golden section of spatial presentation, rather a less appealing compromize to my ears, implying an obtrusing closeness and upfrontness which doesn't suit a wide variety of musical genres.

 

[cotdt]

cotdt sayz every1 is correct. for some songz the grados pwnz the real thing. for example, cotdt plays classical guitar and the recordinigs sound sexzier on headphones than the real thing. but maybe its because cotdt has a cheap guitar. cotdt has been to a lot of live performances of all manner of different kinda music and grados are better than the real thing.

 

[DRSpeed85]

I honestly never quite understood all this soundstaging business, but a few days ago there was a beethoven string quartet on campus the other day. It was free too, so I stopped by for about 10 minutes and the sound was absolutely gorgeous. Later that evening I download the same song on mp3 to my ipod and I realised how condensed it sounded. It sounded as if the string quartet were in my dorm room instead of a theater. But imo, anything other than classic works fine with Grado soundstaging. If ur a classic fan, steer clear of Grados.

 

[Illah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Yawn... yet another attempt to defend/justify a personal preference, when there's neither a necessity nor a purpose to defending one's preferences.

I sense some of that too. Almost like, "What do you mean my Grados don't have soundstage! They do!"

I think when it comes down to it the Grados are just made to reproduce sound accurately. They do that. They shoot sound into your ear. Looking at the HF-1 the driver is like 1/2" from the opening so the chamber facing the ear is nearly non-existent. It's like a speaker on your head.

Senns do the same, but are more 'engineered'. The driver is a really odd shape, like a donut almost. This pushes the air not so much forward and out like flat or cone drivers do, it would push air all over the place. Add in the HD6x0 large earpiece and the funky driver mount thingie and a couple hundred or thousand hours of engineering and it produces a more airy sound whereas the Grados just shoot sound into your ear.

But in the end it's all about what you prefer.

--Illah