[KeithPhantom]

I always had that question in mind. I rather having some colorations that make the sound better to me, since I am going to enjoy it after all. What do you think?

 

[Sefelt103]

Transparent. The majority view (like yours) is the reverse.

From the glossary:

Transparent - Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise. A hear through quality that is akin to clarity and reveals all aspects of detail.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Transparent. The majority view (like yours) is the reverse.

From the glossary:

Transparent - Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise. A hear through quality that is akin to clarity and reveals all aspects of detail.

I like transparency up to the headphones and EQ, if I had other stuff that changed the sound it would be hard to determine the final frequency response and how to apply EQ effectively.

 

[Sefelt103]

Is the question a preference for:
1. transparent gear tailored to your liking or
non-transparent gear tailored to your liking
2. transparent gear or
non-transparent gear tailored to your liking ?
my reply assumed it was the second.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Is the question a preference for:
1. transparent gear tailored to your liking or
non-transparent gear tailored to your liking
2. transparent gear or
non-transparent gear tailored to your liking ?
my reply assumed it was the second.

The second, since I meant completely transparent regardless of your preferences.

 

[Sefelt103]

I wonder what the ratio is in reality (transparent: likeable non-transparency), my guess 1:5. Perhaps it's identical to the ratio of socialists to capitalists.

 

[SilverEars]

transparent and accurate. Color means to me sound has deviated from accuracy. Transparency means being able to hear as much there is in the recording. I wouldn't like it if color impedes that. There's plenty of headphones we can call colored out there, but it's much rarer to get precision and accurate, with high transparency.

Photographers would have to use color calibrated displays to get an accurate representation of what the camera captured.

 

[ADUHF]

Definitely, unequivocally transparent.

But transparent means a more room-like sound with some bass vs. diffuse field with little, or no, or wimpy bass imo. And, I believe there can be some legitimate arguments for both.

Also, for people with some hearing loss, some coloration may be preferable, and possibly even add to the sense of transparency for them. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I believe that the volume at which you listen, and possibly also other conditions including the "circle of confusion", can also effect the perceived accuracy or inaccuracy of a headphone as well. And the sort of tonal balance that will deliver the most perceptually accurate and balanced sound. That seems to be what Fletcher and Munson were all on about anyway.

So the question of colored vs. uncolored is not as cut and dried as I think some might believe. Generally speaking though, if I want some coloration in the sound, such as more bass or less midrange, I prefer to add it myself with an EQ.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Also, for people with some hearing loss, some coloration may be preferable, and possible even add to the sense of transparency for them. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I just got tested at my annual checkup, I can hear up to 20,000 kHz. Also it helps that I am pretty young and I listen to music at a lower volume than many. But the colorations I prefer are more in the pitch accuracy sense, or the overall tone of the transducer.

 

[ADUHF]

I just got tested at my annual checkup, I can hear up to 20,000 kHz. Also it helps that I am pretty young and I listen to music at a lower volume than many. But the colorations I prefer are more in the pitch accuracy sense, or the overall tone of the transducer.

You are doing better than I am then. Based on a frequency sweep, my hearing seems to tap out somewhere in the mid or possible higher teens, kHz-wise. And I have Tinnitus in both my ears (moreso in the right) from going to too many loud concerts and clubs when I was in my 20's.

What is your sound preference though? And what makes you think that it is more colored, and less transparent, Keith? I'm lookin at the HPs in your sig, and most of them appear to be fairly neutral cans, with only some slight variances in timbre here and there, including the Beats Solo Pro.

 

[Peddler]

I love the sound of the Sony WH1000XM2's but know full well that they're seriously 'shaped' by the processors in the headphones. I also love the sound of the Ultimate Ears Triple FI10's and the Sennheiser HD598SR (open) headphones. Each has their own quality and - I suppose it also depends on the music choice.

 

[KeithPhantom]

You are doing better than I am then. Based on a frequency sweep, my hearing seems to tap out somewhere in the mid or possible higher teens, kHz-wise. And I have Tinnitus in both my ears (moreso in the right) from going to too many loud concerts and clubs when I was in my 20's.

What is your sound preference though? And what makes you think that it is more colored, and less transparent, Keith? I'm lookin at the HPs in your sig, and most of them appear to be fairly neutral cans, with only some slight variances in timbre here and there, including the Beats Solo Pro.

My sound signature is somewhat hard to describe using just adjectives, so I will describe it in terms of HP I know: I love the bass of the LCD-2s, and surprisingly the mids and the highs of my HD6XX. I would also love to have at least some of the space and air the HD800 have. Those variations, even if they are slight, are what keep me in the search of a headphone that can do at all of them in a proficient way.

I am just looking at this image and figuring out how I am going to EQ one of my cans to get the curve I want, maybe the HD800 are going to be the ones with the privilege.

 

[ADUHF]

My sound signature is somewhat hard to describe using just adjectives, so I will describe it in terms of HP I know: I love the bass of the LCD-2s, and surprisingly the mids and the highs of my HD6XX. I would also love to have at least some of the space and air the HD800 have. Those variations, even if they are slight, are what keep me in the search of a headphone that can do at all of them in a proficient way.

I am just looking at this image and figuring out how I am going to EQ one of my cans to get the curve I want, maybe the HD800 are going to be the ones with the privilege.

If you're tryin to convince anyone that you prefer a sound with more coloration and less transparency, then so far, I don't think you're doin such a good job, Keith.

Although the Audeze LCD-2 may not have as much elevation in the bass compared to some of your closed-back dynamic headphones, it is pretty well extended for an open headphone.

And the Sennheiser HD 650 (which I believe is the basis for the 6XX) also has a reputation for having a pretty neutral/transparent sound in the midrange and treble. As does its little brother, the HD 600. So still havin some trouble seein where the whole coloration thing comes in.

The closed-back LCD-2C looks a little more neutral in the bass and midrange than the open version. Though it appears to have approximately the same level of emphasis in the treble. So not sure which of the two might sound the best. I'd think the closed version would have a somewhat more bassy sound to it, due to the more recessed midrange. But I've never actually listened to either one, I'm sorry to say.

https://crinacle.com/graphs/headphones/graphtool/

Happy Memorial Day btw.

 

[KeithPhantom]

If you're tryin to convince anyone that you prefer a sound with more coloration and less transparency, then so far, I don't think you're doin such a good job, Keith.

Although the Audeze LCD-2 may not have as much elevation in the bass compared to some of your closed-back dynamic headphones, it is pretty well extended for an open headphone.

And the Sennheiser HD 650 (which I believe is the basis for the 6XX) also has a reputation for having a pretty neutral/transparent sound in the midrange and treble. As does its little brother, the HD 600. So still havin some trouble seein where the whole coloration thing comes in.

The closed-back LCD-2C looks a little more neutral in the bass and midrange than the open version. Though it appears to have approximately the same level of emphasis in the treble. So not sure which of the two might sound the best. I'd think the closed version would have a somewhat more bassy sound to it, due to the more recessed midrange. But I've never actually listened to either one, I'm sorry to say.

https://crinacle.com/graphs/headphones/graphtool/

Happy Memorial Day btw.

No, I'm not trying to convince anyone in the slightest, I was just expressing what I think. About the sound signatures, the reason I didn't go for the LCD-2C or the older revisions is that I think they lack treble for my liking, thing that the LCD-2 Fazor actually improve without sacrificing a lot in the bass department. What I am trying to do is more in regards to getting one of my headphones to sound closer to my personal preference, hence coloring the sound in a way that pleases me. I feel all my headphones have a weakness, and EQ the one which makes the least compromises is going to get me closer to my goal.

All of my headphones are pretty close to what is considered neutral, but in their own ways, all of them have a weakness that just makes them less than ideal. My HD800 are somewhat thin and bright, but they do soundstage like no other, the LCD-2 do bass and the midrange beautifully, but the treble is somewhat off, the HD6XX (HD650) have a tonal accuracy that I prefer over the HD800, but they sound muddy even compared to the LCD-2. I am trying to get the best tradeoffs and best traits of each one to get closer to the goal of the best FR response for me, and those changes are not completely transparent or neutral if you examine an ideal FR curve.

Thanks for your time.

Edit: @ADUHF, I really appreciate the tool you provided me. It seems that the HD650 are closer to their target, which looks close to the one I was using.

 

[bland125]

I choose non transparent and tailored to my liking any day.

That said, it's the flat freq response I dislike in the transparency definition. I like accurate timbre and tonality and everything else but with tamed treble and boosted bass to make sound a little more like the live thing to me.