[Canman]

Quote:

Originally posted by acs236 Sounding true to life and true to the recording are probably not the same thing.

This is true, though a good recording is supposed to sound true to life.

Quote:

Originally posted by acs236 I'm not sure how you meant this. Did you mean unlike anything including live music? Or just closer to live than anything else you've heard?

Closer to live music because with the Omegas I can focus on the music rather than the headphones. One fault of the Omegas is that if the recording quality isn't good the heapdhones don't hesitate to let you know that.


Trevor:
The HP-2/MPX3/Meridian sounds like a fantastic combo. I am a big fan of the Singlepower amps.

 

[markl]

People who own Stax will say "Stax", people who own R10 will say "R10", people who own RS-1 wil say "RS-1", people who own.... How useful is that to you? There is no real answer to this question, IMO.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl How useful is that to you? There is no real answer to this question, IMO.

Quite useful if someone has heard more than one set of cans and has made a determination. Or, if someone currently owns at least two of the high-end cans. Hirsch, Bozebuttons, Wayne, and several others own a couple of these high-ends cans, and their opinion would be a real answer to the question at hand. For those of us who only own one set of high-ends cans, we have likely listened to many others along the way, and decided upon those that sounded the best/most neutral/ or most realistic to our ears. That would seem to count for something in my book too.

 

[Hirsch]

To answer the question literally, all high-end headphones produce sound in real-life. Therefore, they all qualify as the correct answer to the question as asked.

A more explicit question would be which top end headphones is closest to the experience of live music. My answer would be none of them. I have yet to have any live music experience take place in the center of my head.

So, trying again, another way of asking is which high-end headphone recreates the emotional effect produced by a live music experience. Here, I'm with Canman. It depends on the context in which you've heard the system. I suspect that any of the high-end systems will produce sound that lets you listen to music instead of the system. From there, it's all about how far you want to take them. That's about the best that can be accomplished. I'd take an "inferior" system that produced a "musical" sound to me (I dislike overworking that word, but it's the one that applies) over a better system that sounded too much like it was trying to reproduce music.

In the end, it's subjective. For the headphone that best reproduces the experience of a live music event, the correct answer is:

D) Any of the above.

 

[TrevorNetwork]

I agree with SIE. I have spent time with many high-end setups. If I had felt that a setup offered a superior reproduction of "real life sound" to the HP-2 setup I referenced I would simply say so. In fact, I'd probably own it. I do not consider myself biased, because I have no reason to be. I have no "allegience" to gear. If a different setup will offer more realistic reproduction I'll buy it.

Trevor

 

[markl]

Hi Doug, what I'm saying is, we chose our headphones of choice specifically because they sound best to us, hence most "realistic and life-like" in comparison to other cans. All there are are subjective opinions on this, no universally agreed gold standard. No one's going to say "well I own the RS-1 even though its completely colored and fake to me with a repulsive sound, and I agree with everyone the HD650 is better and more natural". Or are they?

So it just ends up being a poll of what people own.

 

[TrevorNetwork]

markl:

I disagree. One can find a setup very musical, but that does not necessarily mean it sounds "real". I enjoy Omega II's despite not finding them to be the most "real" setup. Heck, I enjoy CD3000's, and I find them very far from "real". One can own, and enjoy a setup that "enhances" real.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Mark,

To a point I agree. But, I disagree also. You're taking the question to an extreme by saying that the person who owns something would have to say they suck. I think that those who own multiple sets of headphones prefer different phones for different reasons. One may own the RS-1s for rocking out, the Senn HE90 for classical, and the Omega II for everything else. But, if you asked them which one sounded the most lifelike they could give an easy answer of one set of cans without dissin' all the rest so bluntly. While I love the CD3K for many things, realistic it ain't, and as such wouldn't get my vote. I also wouldn't say they sucked just because they are super realistic either, just that something else I own is moreso.

And yes, there is no objective gold standard for what cans sound the most life-like. Never will be either. But, the question wasn't asking for an opinion of the universally accepted standard, but just what each person had as their own. Each is entitled to an opinion, then a clear winner can be determined as being voted the most realistic sounding. It means nothing since a few more votes from people who didn't participate in this thread could change the results drastically, but it is at least a concensus of those who spoke up in this thread.

 

[markl]

Quote:

I disagree. One can find a setup very musical, but that does not necessarily mean it sounds "real". I enjoy Omega II's despite not finding them to be the most "real" setup. Heck, I enjoy CD3000's, and I find them very far from "real". One can own, and enjoy a setup that "enhances" real.

But, by definition, isn't the most "musical" headphone the one that sounds most like life, where the instruments sound like themselves as they are supposed to, allowing the music to come through? This all breaks down into a war over semantics, though. I guess I can't relate to liking a component that clearly sounds "wrong" to me, if it did I wouldn't like it, and round in round in a circle. In any case, I still don't see there being a definitive objective answer to this question. We can give our subjective opinion, but all he's going to have is a pile of conflicting opinions. The original poster needs to listen for him/herself.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Ah, once again the word musical has another victim. According to the Stereophile listing it means: Quote:

A personal judgment as to the degree to which the reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant. Musical also describes the enjoyment factor of a component you are listening to. Kind of a “toe tapping quantity” description of the time spent listening.

In effect Mark is right, if something isn't real sounding, it isn't musical. But, if Trevor is saying that it is musical in the sense of enjoyable, then he is correct. There are two uses of the word, not just one.

 

[bozebuttons]

I am going to say they all can sound pretty real at times, but it is more of a combination of things then just the headphones themself.
The past couple of months untill a few weeks ago I have been listening to my Cary300sei and R10s mostly.I Had installed a Dact in the Cary witch opened up the sound of the r10s and expanded the soundstage of the R10s similar to what I get with the Senn He90s.
The R10s can sound very real,vocals
can sound as if the singer is actually in your head.
Piano notes which probably are one of the hardest for audio equipment to produce can sound pretty convincing.
Now On the other side of the coin, I have been Listening To the Headamp KGSS/Senn HE90 combo soley for the past 2 weeks.
I have been listening to a differant system configuration with this setup.
Phillips Sacd 1000 run through my Hovland Hp100(adding tubes to the mix) feeding the Kgss.
The Cary was being feed From My ML360s/sonydvp 9000es setup.
The Senn HE90/Kgss can sound just as real as the cary r10 setup and even moreso on some things. I haven't had the stax OmegaII for awhile as I sent them to Mikhail to use with the Blue
hawaii he is building for me,But they can sound pretty real just differantly as my memory serves me.
This being said either setup can be pretty damn convinceing, I'd be hard pressed to say which is The best.
They both get the Music across In Spades.When I listen to either setup the equipment becomes secoundary to the music..
So the answer to your question they all can sound pretty real if they are in a system that will let them.

 

[Zanth]

I think markl and Hirsch are correct. Those who have a "top dog" phone are going to chime in with their own opinion providing a plethora of opinions of which you can choose to agree with one or all.

I believe though, that with the right system nearly any of the quality headphones can do a bang-up job at creating a realistic sound. HP-1's seem to represent most what the recording was trying to convey..though the RS-1's provide beautiful timbre to woodwinds and stringed instruments. I've yet to hear Omega II's but I agree with Trevor at least with regards to the lower stax. Electrostats are fun for sure, but they don't seem "REAL." Again, haven't heard Baby O, Big O or Omega II's so I haven't heard the best of the best.

I'm a HUGE believer in tweaking a system to get the appropriate synergy. Tube rolling for me is a must. I'm certainly a minion of Hirsch on this point. A tube can make or break a system, that means in the right amp or player. Headphone systems I prefer to refer to, and the top tier seem to really do well in making many people quite happy around this place. Lucky for those who have multiples of those systems

 

[aerius]

Of course there's always the problem of "what is real life sound?" Every venue where I've seen & heard live music sounds different, I've seen bands & musicians play in open air, dinky bars, small clubs, concert halls, stadiums, arenas, basements, office lobbies, bookstores, street corners, and well, you get the idea. The exact same instrument in each of these places will produce a different sound.

My preferred "real" sound is the rich warm sound I get from a good seat at Massey Hall in Toronto, it's a nice ~100 year old concert hall. For that the Grado RS-1 with a tube amp is the closest thing I've heard.

 

[gsferrari]

From what I have heard so far...Stax Omega-2 's

 

[zeplin]

aerius,
exactly my thoughts.

if "real" sound can be heard in many different ways, depending on what is being played, where it is being played at, how well the instrument is constructed, and so on, then how could one label one headphone sounding more realistic than another. to me, it is impossible. there are so many things that factor in to the end result causing it to sound "realitic." often times, the actual recording plays the biggest part in this issue. a recording could be made like crap, but the headphone it is being played through can "color" it (or add its sonic signature) to the point where it sounds very realistic to the listener (and vice versa). it is hard to label a headphone as being more realistic than another when headphone A sounds more realistic with horns, while headphone B sounds more realistic with percussion instruments. person A and person B could both be listening to the same piano live, and both of them could hear it in a completely different manner based on hearing capabilities, the shape of the ear canal, and again on and on. bottom line is, there really is no answer to the original posters question.