[markl]

My hypothesis is that abrasiveness and hash are typically things "added" by "bad" equipment. The R10 doesn't add them, so it's transparent. I don't see "smoothness" as a subtraction of sound that's meant to be there.

markl

 

[88Sound]

If the recording is harsh or has harsh qualities on certain instruments ( like Miles muted trumpet on the recordings done in the 50's) a completely transparent phone will sound harsh on that trumpet because the trumpet is harsh. The R10's in my opinion smooth out the harshness that exists on the original recording. Is this bad? I like it smoothed out in this case, the W100's smooth it also, but I don't like everything smoothed out. I've found when equipment with coloration (basically all equipment) complements the material played, that's when the euipment disappears you close your eyes and you're in that smokey club listening to Miles play......although a recent discovery for me, I now think this is a good thing.

 

[markl]

How do you know his trumpet is in fact harsh on that recording and that it's not an artifact of the equipment you've used when listening to it? Maybe r10 is right and your other equipment has been "wrong" all this time.

markl

 

[pigmode]

Quote:

Remeber I called the R10 the "Disappearing Headphone"? That's yet another way to describe them as "transparent...My hypothesis is that abrasiveness and hash are typically things "added" by "bad" equipment. The R10 doesn't add them, so it's transparent. I don't see "smoothness" as a subtraction of sound that's meant to be there.

Okay, you pop in a CD and listen to it with the R10. It's seems to not be adding any information, but are you sure? How do you know it's not subtracting information? What reference is the sonic signature of the R10 being compared to when it is said to be transparent?

 

[markl]

Quote:

What reference is the sonic signature of the R10 being compared to when it is said to be transparent?

HD600, CD3K, ATHW2002 all great phones.

R10 is more detailed and reveals more info than those phones. They aren't subtracting anything compared to those phones.

markl

 

[88Sound]

Quote:

How do you know his trumpet is in fact harsh on that recording and that it's not an artifact of the equipment you've used when listening to it? Maybe r10 is right and your other equipment has been "wrong" all this time.

I don't for sure, it is my opinion based on how everything sounds in comparison to my studio monitors. But it also makes sense to me based on the age of the recording and master tapes when they made the transfer to digital, no matter how careful they were. Also newer well recorded material like Dave Holland is not harsh at all in comparison (with the studio monitors that is.) I tried a wide variety of material on the R10's, some I considered perfectly recorded and other material I considered harsh. I could not make the R10's sound harsh. Depending on what you want this is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact it may be exactly what you're looking for. In the final analysis it is my ears, brain, and conditioning that cause me to hear things a certain way, this is neither right or wrong but just the way it is for me.

 

[dngl]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl How do you know his trumpet is in fact harsh on that recording and that it's not an artifact of the equipment you've used when listening to it? Maybe r10 is right and your other equipment has been "wrong" all this time. markl

Trumpets do sound harsh. I haven't heard Davis' trumpet, so maybe his wasn't, but I would find that strange.

Maybe the R-10 does sound harsh enough to markl, and not harsh enough to 88sound because they have different definitions of harsh...

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

R10 is more detailed and reveals more info than those phones. They aren't subtracting anything compared to those phones.

But that could be due to frequency response aberrations or resonances. Though you denied any such problem, Vertigo in his initial review described an "auditorium" effect to the R10, which darth nut clarified to be the kind of "cave" sound to which large closed headphones are very susceptible.

As I see it there are really only two ways of truly judging accuracy:

1) Have a reference recording where you have some way of knowing how it really sounds or

2) Use the method outlined in "Are you on the road to Audio Hell?" In short, try out a vast range of recordings from a vast range of genres and listen to how uniquely each recordings is portrayed.

I try to use method #1 with the Chesky Ultimate Demonstration Disc. The narrator tells you exactly what to look for. It's pretty far from perfect, though. Really method #2 is the way to go, though it's by far the most tedious, I think.

 

[88Sound]

Jon,

I like that the R10 & W100 & RS1 tone down the harshness of a muted trumpet, and would much prefer any of these phones on that type of material than a 325 which passes that harshness right along (maybe even adds some). My point is that the phone is doing something to the sound that is not transparent by definition. If the phone could be a chameleon and tone down the harshness when needed but not at other times to hear the crack and slam of a snare properly, I would be listening to phones in heaven (audiophile heaven that is.)

 

[kelly]

Someone burn me a... er I mean, where can I purchase this Chesky Demo Disc?

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

Someone burn me a... er I mean, where can I purchase this Chesky Demo Disc?

Actually, it's probably worth buying, if only for the assurance that an improper burn didn't introduce jitter-type distortions into the sound

.

Most of my reviews describe what I heard with most of the tracks on that disc. Joelongwood bought it and used it in his review of the XDream headphones. I hope more people use it, as a standard for reviewing would make reviews much more intelligible.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I feel like I'm the only one who wants, in the ultimate headphone, exactly what's behind the headphone. I want the headphone to be like a pane of glass absolutely transparently allowing everything behind it to show through, good or bad. I want control over how it sounds in other stages (pre-amplifier, source, the recording itself). I feel like Grado fans and R10 fans are on polar extremes of the issue--one preferring a harsh "kick", the other wanting everything smoothed out. I have a feeling the market for what I want is thinner.

Kelly, This is exactly why I like the K501's and the Ety's because I feel that they come closest to that ideal "nothingness."

 

[Vertigo-1]

Quote:

I could not make the R10's sound harsh.

At this point I think you might have to start looking at what exactly you've got underneath your R10s. With certain setups, I had no problems making my R10s exhibit sibilance, and it was in fact what led me to hear one of the fundamental differences between SACDs and CDs. In other setups, my R10s never exhibited any sibilance at all, even with CDs that plainly showed sibilance in the "other" setup.

A system like markl's, which is based around smoothness, would probably never make the R10s exhibit the harshness of the recording. A system like mine however, which is based first and foremost on sheer detail and transparency, would have no problems passing along any recording problems over to the R10s.

Quote:

Okay, you pop in a CD and listen to it with the R10. It's seems to not be adding any information, but are you sure? How do you know it's not subtracting information? What reference is the sonic signature of the R10 being compared to when it is said to be transparent?

It certainly isn't subtracting any information. As markl said and in my own experience, the R10s are the most transparent dynamic headphones there are, next to the Etymotics which have no competition due to their inherent noise cancellation capabilities. In fact, with just a bit of tweaking to my system, I am suddenly hearing the limits of my source through both the R10s and Etymotics.

In comparing the two in fact, I will again say that for the Etymotics, their tonally flat sound, like the Grado HP-1s, becomes a form of coloration by which I can identifiy them when you compare them to the R10s. The R10s again sound much more real-to-life than the Etymotics...they offer an even more transparent conduit for the recording than even Etymotics. I would say in this case therefore that it is the Etymotics that are adding something to the recording. Markl's idea of the disappearing headphone is good, a headphone that puts nothing between you and the music, but I think that's also a very basic and oversimplistic way to put it. Again what I am trying to say is that the R10s simply lack a tonal characteristic, whereby even something that is universally acclaimed to be flat sounding, the Etymotics, when compared to the R10s, sound colored, because of that flat sound.

If the only word out available today for this concept is "truly neutral", than maybe that's what the R10s are. I don't think that's the right word though somehow.

 

[shivohum]

Vertigo, I've got a quick question for you on the R10.

You've often stated that the R10 deserves at least a $700 or $800 amp to sound anywhere near its potential and that you blame your initially bad impressions of the R10 at least partially on the $300 amps you initially used it with, like the MG-Head and the RA-1.

But you've also stated that a JMT amp would be more than enough to make you happy, perhaps "forever."

What's the truth here?

 

[Vertigo-1]

You have to realize that when I said that about the JMT amps, I was probably using the A44s, which has been said to induce Vertigo.

Seriously though, and to clean this up for good, it's a matter of must that the R10s be paired with a good amp. Just as the HD600 needs a good amp to fully reach its potential, so too does the R10s. I for one would never dream of driving the R10s without a headphone amp to begin with. As I am discovering now, the amp can clearly restrict the level of transparency the R10s are capable of. So yes, if one buys these $2k headphones, one should make it a high priority to invest in a $700-800 amp minimally at some point. Pricewise I don't think this is much of a problem since it seems just about everybody nowdays owns an amp at this price point and above. If you can afford the Holmes Powell or EAR HP4, even better.