[IPodPJ]

If the K1000 had better bass response I would try to pick up a pair. They sound fantastic and are incredibly detailed but have a tad too much treble and not enough bass for me. And if the R10 could be had for the same price as the HD800, I'd absolutely grab a pair as they are my second favorite phone to the HD800. But for $6000? Gimme' a break.

 

[oqvist]

Pick up the ED 8 for 1400$ then. Some claims it is the new R10

Have no idea but it´s a superb fun phone.

 

[davidhunternyc]

O.K. guys, one last chance: You are on a boat and it is sinking fast. Off in the distance is a desert island. You don't know it yet, but on this desert island is one electrical outlet and what, a B22 and Woo Audio WES? Geez Louise, is life going to be difficult on this island. Anyway, back to the boat. What do you grab; the R10 that is in your cabin, or the HD800 that you accidently left poolside on the deck? Darn, they are just too far away from each other to grab both and the water is rushing in. Hurry, make a decision, or they both will be lost forever!


Yes, the Edition 8 is a beautifully built headphone, just gorgeous. I like the polished ruthenium version better than the later, brushed palladium version though. I also do not like the "V" detail on the cups ( a little mannered) and would probably prefer them to be circumaural. Picky, I know, but Ultrasone did a stunning job nonetheles.

...where's Jonathan Ive when you need him...

 

[oqvist]

They are circumaural but it take about 4 weeks of ear pad breakin to fully shape around your ears. This goat skin is the real deal! Custom fit ear pads.

Dunno if I would take them to a desert Island though. I would probably go with something with industrial grade plastics for maximum durability

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oqvist /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pick up the ED 8 for 1400$ then. Some claims it is the new R10 Have no idea but it´s a superb fun phone.

Ed8 is a triumph when it comes to portable technology. And in fact they sound very much like an R10 but with more of an exagerrated and fun presentation. They certainly are not as good as the R10...I just want to make that clear But for a headphone to sound as good as they do straight out of the iPod or portable amp is just stunning......

The R10s are simply more transparent by a significant measure and the soundstage is more realistic. They also are less bassy, but have more deep deep bass.

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif O.K. guys, one last chance: You are on a boat and it is sinking fast. Off in the distance is a desert island. You don't know it yet, but on this desert island is one electrical outlet and what, a B22 and Woo Audio WES? Geez Louise, is life going to be difficult on this island. Anyway, back to the boat. What do you grab; the R10 that is in your cabin, or the HD800 that you accidently left poolside on the deck? Darn, they are just too far away from each other to grab both and the water is rushing in. Hurry, make a decision, or they both will be lost forever!

I will post this just to confuse you.......I would take the R10 because they are more beautiful and I would want to remember the beauty of the world

but I think the HD800 are my prefered headphone

 

[ast]

although sounds a little cliche: beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. R10 can add colors, very nice ones, to the sound for sure, but to my ears that's not beauty. Hence I sold mine a while back. I rather prefer natural/neutral sound from cans such as HD800. To answer Mr. Hunter from NYC -- I will grab the HD800 without thinking.

I am listening Kitaro's "Ki" album with HD800 as I'm typing, it's like heaven!


.

 

[Bilavideo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Many audiophiles claim they want accurate reproduction of how the music was mixed & recorded, but in reality, they just want fun & anything but realistic. They want all their recordings to sound pristine, regardless. To them, it's only realistic if it's pleasant & sounds good. That's how they rationalize it. If I like something it's natural & life like, if not, it's bad & not real. These people would rather listen to their headphones then the music.. Which is fine.. If you want a headphones sonic characteristics to flavor the music no problem.. But when people call headphones bad, or 'crappy' cause they are more accurate & true to the recordings, then that's just silly.

I hear you and I respect what you're saying. A good headphone is not a bad headphone because it accurately reproduces the flaws in a bad recording.

On the other hand, this purist preference for accuracy over euphonics is undeniably silly. Why would anyone prefer to hear bad sound just to be able to say their recording, or source material, or cable, or amp, is crap? I'm all for giving credit to the headphone, rather than blaming it, when it does what it's supposed to do. I'm just not on board with the idea that it's better, or more loyal to the gods of sound, to prefer a worse sound out of some misplaced loyalty to realism. I don't listen to music so I can write a report about where the sound engineer delivered up a lackluster track. I listen to music so I can be swept away by the experience. If tweaking the track makes it more enjoyable, I'm going to tweak away, and I don't care if it hairlips the engineer.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear you and I respect what you're saying. A good headphone is not a bad headphone because it accurately reproduces the flaws in a bad recording. On the other hand, this purist preference for accuracy over euphonics is undeniably silly. Why would anyone prefer to hear bad sound just to be able to say their recording, or source material, or cable, or amp, is crap? I'm all for giving credit to the headphone, rather than blaming it, when it does what it's supposed to do. I'm just not on board with the idea that it's better, or more loyal to the gods of sound, to prefer a worse sound out of some misplaced loyalty to realism. I don't listen to music so I can write a report about where the sound engineer delivered up a lackluster track. I listen to music so I can be swept away by the experience. If tweaking the track makes it more enjoyable, I'm going to tweak away, and I don't care if it hairlips the engineer.

I'm beginning to develop a deepening similarity in sentiment as you so well describe here. The really disturbing point about it is that, in the main, there's hardly any reliable reference point on which to claim neutrality or accuracy especially when there's a source, amp and cables in the chain to provide their own influence.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear you and I respect what you're saying. A good headphone is not a bad headphone because it accurately reproduces the flaws in a bad recording. On the other hand, this purist preference for accuracy over euphonics is undeniably silly. Why would anyone prefer to hear bad sound just to be able to say their recording, or source material, or cable, or amp, is crap? I'm all for giving credit to the headphone, rather than blaming it, when it does what it's supposed to do. I'm just not on board with the idea that it's better, or more loyal to the gods of sound, to prefer a worse sound out of some misplaced loyalty to realism. I don't listen to music so I can write a report about where the sound engineer delivered up a lackluster track. I listen to music so I can be swept away by the experience. If tweaking the track makes it more enjoyable, I'm going to tweak away, and I don't care if it hairlips the engineer.

I don't find neutral/flat/transparent headphones to sound bad.. We can argue about absolute accuracy all day.. But you cannot deny there are headphones that are closer to being accurate then other headphones.. I like listening how my gear sounds, & how they change. I like the fact that my headphone doesn't get in the way of the music.. On the other hand, I do love a uphoric sound, so I'm going to buy another headphone to give me that experience. But at the end of the day, I prefer 'the truth' of the recording over 'fun'..

 

[DavidMahler]

I've been waiting for a post like this for some time and I'm glad you mention it. It's not wanting bad sound..........even when a colored headphone sounds it good it doesn't sound accurate. It sounds awesome at times. Bad sound can sound quite real and quite accurate. But when something is recorded extremely well the colored headphone can sound truly wrong, whereas the more accurate headphone becomes transparent at that moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear you and I respect what you're saying. A good headphone is not a bad headphone because it accurately reproduces the flaws in a bad recording. On the other hand, this purist preference for accuracy over euphonics is undeniably silly. Why would anyone prefer to hear bad sound just to be able to say their recording, or source material, or cable, or amp, is crap? I'm all for giving credit to the headphone, rather than blaming it, when it does what it's supposed to do. I'm just not on board with the idea that it's better, or more loyal to the gods of sound, to prefer a worse sound out of some misplaced loyalty to realism. I don't listen to music so I can write a report about where the sound engineer delivered up a lackluster track. I listen to music so I can be swept away by the experience. If tweaking the track makes it more enjoyable, I'm going to tweak away, and I don't care if it hairlips the engineer.

 

[Yeldarb]

Quote:

Firstly, most music is mastered today to be listened to through "fun" headphones or speakers

At a slight tangent from the intent of the thread, I am curious about this statement. For a long while I have harboured the belief that a lot of music is mastered for the radio or car, and whatever happens below 50Hz is broadly ignored because neither of the intended playback arenas are capable of much bass extension below this.

The result of this mastering is that some music that sounds great on the radio or in the car, is horrendous on a speaker based system as the bottom end is overblown and renders the music unlistenable. My speakers are capable of an in room frequency response down to 17 Hz and as a consequence are particularly revealing of crap in the lower registers that I wish the recording engineer had done something about. Two artists who are frequently guilty of overblown bass in their recordings that a revealing system highlights are Madonna (Ray of Light/Confessions from a Dance Floor and U2 (How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb).

So I would comment that perhaps it is not quite accurate to say that most music is mastered for headphones and speakers, but that it is mastered for the car/radio.

What a good pair of headphones, or a revealing speaker based system acurately portray are the wonders or the warts to be found in recordings. The good news about headphones is that they do not excite room nodes and make problems worse; they are very much more forgiving than speakers in this regard. For my part, I am glad of my headfi rig as it allows me to listen to music that is virtually unlistenable on my speaker based system.

To return to the intent of this thread, I am polarised towards the HD 800s and will shortly have a pair on order.

 

[iponderous]

This thread has been straying into the metaphysical. The HD800 does polarise opinions here at Head-Fi, however, that alone doesn't distinguish it from any other headphone to which, a thread has been devoted.

 

[ford2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif This thread has been straying into the metaphysical. The HD800 does polarise opinions here at Head-Fi, however, that alone doesn't distinguish it from any other headphone to which, a thread has been devoted.

What does distinguish it is the number of boring threads about it including this one.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've been waiting for a post like this for some time and I'm glad you mention it. It's not wanting bad sound..........even when a colored headphone sounds it good it doesn't sound accurate. It sounds awesome at times. Bad sound can sound quite real and quite accurate. But when something is recorded extremely well the colored headphone can sound truly wrong, whereas the more accurate headphone becomes transparent at that moment.

Getting accuracy is very viable.. At least accuracy of the source & how the engineers mastered it.. There are headphones that are made for measurements, reserach labs, hospitals, hearing testing, ENG, etc.. So all headphones are not created equal.. Audiophile headphones are made for the consumer market & listening pleasure.. Others like pro studio headphones/ audio metric headphones are not, & are more content with accuracy, tonal balance, reliability, transparency. They are made for a entirely different market. HP1/2/DT48/DT100/240DF/CD900ST & others..