girlystephanie
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Posts
- 10
- Likes
- 0
I have more than a thousand CDs in all kinds of music. But I guess 15 to 25% of my listening these days involves Pat Metheny, mostly the Pat Metheny Group.
I recently did some heavy listening sessions in the HiFi shops around me looking for my first HiFi headphones (DT-880, HE-500, HD-650, etc.). This is BTW a very frustrating process as it seems that every CD would need a different kind of cans. I thrived for analytical listening of some of my jazz recording but hated say Thriller on them where you can hear every synthetic process and too much silence between them to a point that you don’t recognize the music! Then again, as appealing as true tone and texture are when you concentrate on them, it is sometime very hard to "enter" into the music and forget about system (I like music, not gizmo) when they are too analytic. Also, somes cans where perfect for say chamber music but lack highs or lows for other kind of music. And I hate boomy bass or piercing high, I want precision, speed, truness along with emotions and involment.
Anyway, my point is that each of my sample CDs where very enjoyable on a least a pair of cans, even some obscure badly recorded indies or MP3 256>Blue book compilation. Of course, they were sometime inaudible on others. There was one exception, my Pat Metheny Group CDs which... all sound bad, or I should say very dull or emotionless, on each and every one of them. It was hard to believe that they sounded exactly the same. Fun headphones, dry analytical headphones, there was no differences.
How can they do that? Or phrase differently, how can they do such a lousy job? Is it just me?
P.S. Maybe because they were just so dull, my brain leveled them down the stairs and made them equal?
I recently did some heavy listening sessions in the HiFi shops around me looking for my first HiFi headphones (DT-880, HE-500, HD-650, etc.). This is BTW a very frustrating process as it seems that every CD would need a different kind of cans. I thrived for analytical listening of some of my jazz recording but hated say Thriller on them where you can hear every synthetic process and too much silence between them to a point that you don’t recognize the music! Then again, as appealing as true tone and texture are when you concentrate on them, it is sometime very hard to "enter" into the music and forget about system (I like music, not gizmo) when they are too analytic. Also, somes cans where perfect for say chamber music but lack highs or lows for other kind of music. And I hate boomy bass or piercing high, I want precision, speed, truness along with emotions and involment.
Anyway, my point is that each of my sample CDs where very enjoyable on a least a pair of cans, even some obscure badly recorded indies or MP3 256>Blue book compilation. Of course, they were sometime inaudible on others. There was one exception, my Pat Metheny Group CDs which... all sound bad, or I should say very dull or emotionless, on each and every one of them. It was hard to believe that they sounded exactly the same. Fun headphones, dry analytical headphones, there was no differences.
How can they do that? Or phrase differently, how can they do such a lousy job? Is it just me?
P.S. Maybe because they were just so dull, my brain leveled them down the stairs and made them equal?