[vinyl addict]

I was asking myself why so many of Head-Fi'ers own so many different "expensive" headphones and why they can't just settle on one or two. Is it that difficult to make a headphone that sounds true to the actual music the way it was intended to be heard?

 

[Sovkiller]

I will answer this question with another harder to answer....Do you ahve any way of knowing 100% for sure how the recording actually sounds like? I mean, not how the instruments sounded in the studio, or are supposed to sound, I mean how they were actually recorded in the tape....if you have this answer, then to get a headphone that sound really accurate is easier for you. But honestly I do not think that anybody will have this answer for sure, and me personally have no clue of how a given recording was done, and what was indeed changed, EQed, and tailored to the taste fo the guy behind the console, or the musician, so I usually tend to pick the one that sounds right for my taste as well and period....

 

[vinyl addict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller I will answer this question with another harder to answer....Do you ahve any way of knowing 100% for sure how the recording actually sounds like? I mean, not how the instruments sounded in the studio, or are supposed to sound, I mean how they were actually recorded in the tape....if you have this answer, then to get a headphone that sound really accurate is easier for you. But honestly I do not think that anybody will have this answer for sure, and me personally have no clue of how a given recording was done, and what was indeed changed, EQed, and tailored to the taste fo the guy behind the console, or the musician, so I usually tend to pick the one that sounds right for my taste as well and period....

I see your point....for example, I was auditioning two cans, HD650 and RS-1 with the same source and same cd. They sound completely different and was wondering which would be "closest" to the actual recording. To my ears the RS-1 sounded truer.

Any audio engineers here?

 

[003]

Well I would think you would want it to sound as close to the live performance, as in what it actually sounded like in person, not what the actual recording sounds like.

 

[HypnoLobster]

Well, I'm a budding engineer here, so I'll give it a shot.

Studio engineers mix and master on what are supposed to be the flattest of speakers. This is so that they have reached a middle ground, as there is no wa to compensate for the huge range of systems that the music will be listened to on. "True to the recording" rarely sounds all that wonderful. Sure, it has resolution and clarity, but not as much as a decent audiiophile system. Clarity and punch are all defined by dips and bumps in the response of the system's, and that is what gives recordings the final push towards something that is engaging or fun or impressive, etc.

 

[MatsudaMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by 003 Well I would think you would want it to sound as close to the live performance, as in what it actually sounded like in person, not what the actual recording sounds like.

I think 003 has a good point. Would it be accurate to say that a really good recording captures as accurately as possible the sound of live instruments/voices? If that's the case, I would think that something as "neutral" as possible would be the closest thing to the recording. Of course, detail retrieval, transparency, and accuracy are good too.

 

[Kai Miller]

In case you've never been to a concert, let me remind you that - unless you're dealing with an uninspired live performance by a poorly recorded artist - it rarely sounds like a recording does. Live shows are great because of spontaneous musical creativity. Recordings are great because they offer a polished product, something painstakingly worked on to be as close to perfect as possible. There is no place you can stand in the midst of performing musicians and hear every touch of finger to string on a bass and every snare rattling while still getting an immediate piano sound or an intimate vocal. The idea on a recording is that a balance has been struck to, to the best of an engineer's ability, give you the best possible listening experience. The purpose of a recording, binaurals excepted, is not to accurately reproduce the experience of hearing a performance, but to let you hear a performance the best possible way (in the creator's opinion, of course). It is then not a matter of reproduction (unless you want to reproduce the sound engineer's experience, but I hear that they intentionally use uninspiring speakers) but a purely subjective matter, in which case you want to extend (or correct, subjective subjective) the sound engineers effort and find a headphone that, to your tastes, provides the best possible listening experience.

Binaural recordings, though, are I believe supposed to reproduce as accurately as possible the experience of being present as musicians perform, but I don't think that this thread is about finding the best cans for binaural recordings.

Just my tuppence. Sorry for the obscurity of the prose.

Cheers
Kai

 

[searchenabler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kai Miller In case you've never been to a concert, let me remind you that - unless you're dealing with an uninspired live performance by a poorly recorded artist - it rarely sounds like a recording does. Live shows are great because of spontaneous musical creativity. Recordings are great because they offer a polished product, something painstakingly worked on to be as close to perfect as possible. There is no place you can stand in the midst of performing musicians and hear every touch of finger to string on a bass and every snare rattling while still getting an immediate piano sound or an intimate vocal. The idea on a recording is that a balance has been struck to, to the best of an engineer's ability, give you the best possible listening experience. The purpose of a recording, binaurals excepted, is not to accurately reproduce the experience of hearing a performance, but to let you hear a performance the best possible way (in the creator's opinion, of course). It is then not a matter of reproduction (unless you want to reproduce the sound engineer's experience, but I hear that they intentionally use uninspiring speakers) but a purely subjective matter, in which case you want to extend (or correct, subjective subjective) the sound engineers effort and find a headphone that, to your tastes, provides the best possible listening experience. Binaural recordings, though, are I believe supposed to reproduce as accurately as possible the experience of being present as musicians perform, but I don't think that this thread is about finding the best cans for binaural recordings. Just my tuppence. Sorry for the obscurity of the prose. Cheers Kai

That is the best explanation of this I have ever heard. Kudos!

Chris

 

[Svperstar]

I am sure someone is going to say the Sennheiser HD650, make sure you check their post history where they talk about how much they like its "dark, warm, colored sound" but now, like magic, it is very natural and neutral sounding.

 

[vinyl addict]

Awesome posts people - I just wanted to compile some of your thoughts in hope of answering my question about why head-fi'ers own so many cans.

This explains why the signature sound of one headphone, say Stax sounds a lot different than a Sennheiser or an AKG for that matter. Perhaps the Japanese listen to music on a different level whereas the Germans only hear what they want to - a hypothetical comment about headphone design and how the engineers determine what music should sound like through their product -

Like fingerprints no two ears are alike. What I think sounds good is purely subjective and you can hate me all you want but I'll say it anyway....I don't like the Sennheiser sound.

That said, is there such a thing as "the best cans"? - I think not.

 

[humanflyz]

I agree with Kai's post, because in the end, it's about what sounds good to you. If you think a live performance sounds best, then you have to build your system to reflect that preference. I'm of the opinion that no one really knows what "neutral" is supposed to sound-like, so the best guidelines you have are your own ears and preferences.

And as for live vs. recording, I don't think emulating live performances should be the penultimate goal of building an audio system; because if that were so, then a lot of music will sound like crap. The last time I went to a concert was to see Green Day, and I had front-row tickets. The sound I heard has almost no soundstage, very lacking in details, the bass was artificially boosted, but the sheer energy of that performance cannot be replicated by any headphone setup I've heard. But would I ever give up soundstage, details, and tonal balance just to emulate the energy of a live concert? My answer is no, because as much fun as that concert was, I would not be able to have any sort of extended listening session if my headphone system is tailored to emulate live performances as much as possible.

 

[Svperstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinyl addict I was asking myself why so many of Head-Fi'ers own so many different "expensive" headphones and why they can't just settle on one or two. Is it that difficult to make a headphone that sounds true to the actual music the way it was intended to be heard?

For the same reason I can't eat the same food every single day for my whole life. Variety.

To me the Senn 580s and Sony SA5000s are great to switch off with. Completely different presentation and I enjoy both very much.

I should probably sell my AKG 240s though, I use them maybe once every 2 weeks.

 

[Svperstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by humanflyz I'm of the opinion that no one really knows what "neutral" is supposed to sound-like, so the best guidelines you have are your own ears and preferences.

I am a big fan of Boards of Canada. The best I have ever heard them sound is when I was riding my mountain bike up through the hills here when it was about 71 degrees, I had all of their music ever released on my iPod shuffle with the iPod ear buds.

 

[iancraig10]

Also, it is very important what the engineers feed back to you in the headphones if you're the musician playing. It actually affects the way that you play.

For example, if you hear the mix with no reverb in a dry acoustic, you tend to play as though you're in a dry acoustic and pull the notes out. If you're fed a signal with a lot of reverb, as a musician, you tend to use the reverb as part of your 'sound'.

In other words, the sound of a CD is not a live situation and you play and perform according to what is fed back to you in the cans.

(I'll tell you a secret ..... I sound better recorded imo than I do live!! When I hear it played back, I wonder who's playing - so CD's can't sound the same!!!)

Ian

 

[Carl]

Flat, heavily damped transducers tend to sound dry, unmusical, and uninvolving without very precise system design and synergy, which turns most audiophiles away from neutral sounding gear.

If you want that sort of sound - and I recommend every person interested in the science behind good sound to try it at least briefly - the Stax SR-X series can be had for pretty cheap on the 'bay, and you can pretty much resell it for the same price less shipping. It's as flat and well damped as any studio monitor.