[RnB180]

there is nothing wrong with the senn stock cable.
Aftermarket cables are there for those that want to upgrade. Whether if its a worthwhile upgrade is up to the listener to decide.

IMO the reason why senn cables are expensive as they are is because these things are expensive and time consuming to make.
add that the cable has such a small demand = $$$$

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by applebook "Colored" compared to what, Steve?

Colored compared to the (supposedly) balanced frequency response Sennheiser was shooting for.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Colored compared to the (supposedly) balanced frequency response Sennheiser was shooting for.

What makes you think it was a balanced frequency response they were shooting for?

But seriously: A cable doesn't measurably change frequency response, obviously, so don't worry. And even if it would, I'd make full use of my freedom to do whatever I want with the headphone I've paid for -- of course in full awareness of the responsiblity in view of my self-proclaimed orientedness on high fidelity.

In fact it's a good thing to have a tool at hand for fine-tuning a sound transducer to different hearings and HRTFs without introducing serious colorations in the form of electronics (e.g. equalizers) in the signal path (which OTOH I'm sure you wouldn't distance yourself from, irrespective of Sennheiser's design goal, right?

). I certainly don't care about the sonic ideal of Sennheiser (or the HRTFs of their engineers, resp.) or any other manufacturer, because I have my own, and no headphone manufacturer will meet it 100%.
.

 

[PhilS]

"Colored" sound is good if it sounds best to you and you enjoy your system more. On other hand, I often do wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[J-Pak]

I think the stock has a HD650 is a great cable, however I could easily see myself liking a silver cable since I like headphones that are slightly more tipped up in the treble. However I thought the stock was better than a fully burned in Cardas.

 

[CookieFactory]

The stock cable cannot be "colored" by it's very definition as the "stock cable." This is the cable Senn bases all their measurements/sound tweaking on. If another cable sounds different from the stock one, then that cable is colored with respect to the only baseline that counts; the "stock" Senn 650 sound. Trying to compare it to "absolute neutrality" is just plain silly because the very definition of "absolute" neutrality is ambiguous and relative.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory . . . . with respect to the only baseline that counts; the "stock" Senn 650 sound.

Counts to whom? You make a very valid point, but the judgment that the only baseline that "counts" is the stock cable is a value judgment (or opinion at least) as to which reasonable minds can differ. Also, you could judge absoulute neutrality by a frequency response graph (or at least that is one way), and if the stock cable introduced a hump at a certain frequency that Sennheiser thought was enjoyed by most of its customers (and hence helped it sell more cans), and an aftermarket cable smoothed out that hump, it would not be unreasonable for someone to opine that the aftermarket cable is less "colored." Whether it is or not, I take no position on; it just seems to me that your opinion, while not an unreasonable point of view, is not the only possible reasonable point of view.

Although I would also venture that this whole issue of which is the colored cable and which is not is really silly since, as your post indicates, it is really a matter of definitions and starting points, and there are different ones to choose.

 

[applebook]

I very much agree with Phil. Obviously, the stock cable is what Senn's designers had it mind for its sound, but we can't assume that cost cutting was not part of the equation as well.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS "Colored" sound is good if it sounds best to you and you enjoy your system more.

Colored sound can be fun for short periods of time with the right music.

See ya
Steve

 

[PhilS]

Or for some folks for long periods of time with any music.

 

[felixkrull6]

I've been meaning to ask this question for a long time and I might as well ask it here as this discussion has to do heavily with sound that is coloured vs what what was intended. Sorry if this has been covered before but I haven't found the exact answer to my particular question.

What exactly is the original sound of anything anyways? There aren't any microphones when you go to a classical concert or opera so if you've been you know what sounds natural and the way instruments are supposed to sound but any other sort of music that requires any sort of amplification is suspect in my eyes. (even with classical concerts you have the question of instruments of different periods and the acoustics of the hall they are recording in)

Take your typical current pop recordings, they are so highly produced that I dare anyone to tell me what is uncoloured or the natural way the music is supposed to sound. I mean, some sound engineer (forgive me for not knowing the technical terms for the people that deal with recording the music and mixing it for the artists; as a disclaimer I don't play any instruments but have been to many operas and classical concerts and have friends who have played and play in orchestras) had to decide what type of sound they wanted which doesn't necessarily mean that their choice is the sound that everyone will enjoy. Even if you go to most concerts you're still hearing the music through some sound system that is "colouring" the sound.

If someone can explain to me in lay terms how they can tell what the definitive sound of any recording or music is and not just the most pleasing to them is it would be greatly appreciated. Or put another way, does an instrument like the electric guitar have a stock sound that everyone would recognize as the reference point for all electric guitars to try and achieve? These are not facetious questions and I am genuinely curious.

How does this question relate to this thread? IMO I guess all cords (I might as well throw in headphones, amps, etc.) have their value to their respective owners once a certain threshold of technical ability is reached and I recognize that there are many gradations even at the audiophile level.

Don't get me wrong, I'm listening to the HD650 right now with the stock cord while highly awaiting the GFT and I love looking for new phones, amps, etc. but is there any objective way to tell which is producing the most natural sound and is that even the best way one should look at any equipment? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but the only reason I really ask this question is that some people on this forum seem to take the position that one company's headphones, amps, etc. produce a superior sound not just in a subjective sense but in an objective sense as well which I don't think is true.

 

[Akathriel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixkrull6 Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but the only reason I really ask this question is that some people on this forum seem to take the position that one company's headphones, amps, etc. produce a superior sound not just in a subjective sense but in an objective sense as well which I don't think is true.

Extremely well worded. I concur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Or for some folks for long periods of time with any music.

we call these people tube lovers.

 

[bigshot]

In the fifties and sixties, recording studios used very specific monitoring equipment and calibrated it with test tones to ensure that the sound the engineer in New York doing the recording heard was the same as the sound the engineer doing the mastering heard in Los Angeles.

Nowadays, many engineers have given up calibrating to any sort of standard because it just isn't practical for the protools setups in guest houses and small offices where a lot of recording and mixing is done today. Modern recordings are all over the map because of this. But this doesn't mean that balanced response is an unattainable goal. If you listen to "shaded dogs" or Mercury Living Presence LPs from the golden age of vinyl, you'll find that the presentation is remarkably consistent. This is because the response in the studios that recorded, mixed and mastered was flat. That baseline guaranteed that if you tweaked your home system to suit the sound of one LP, odds are another one was going to sound as good.

I've worked with recording studios who swore that mixing to bookshelf speakers was the best, and I've worked with studios with JBL monitors from the 70s that were carefully calibrated. To me, there was no comparison. I'd have to parallel park the mix on the cheap speakers where the calibrated ones got me right where I wanted to go.

One other thing... If you are familiar with live acoustic music, particularly chamber music, you'll find that there is a very narrow sweet spot to the EQ where the presence suddenly jumps out and becomes real. It doesn't matter if you're a bass-head or a treble freak... Natural sound is instantly recognizable with acoustic instruments.

See ya
Steve

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixkrull6 If someone can explain to me in lay terms how they can tell what the definitive sound of any recording or music is and not just the most pleasing to them is it would be greatly appreciated. Or put another way, does an instrument like the electric guitar have a stock sound that everyone would recognize as the reference point for all electric guitars to try and achieve? These are not facetious questions and I am genuinely curious.

Like many questions, the answer lies within the question itself (parts that I didn't quote).

In other words -- use live/unamplified acoustic music as a reference (particularly recordings that are widely regarded as being well recorded), then your system is "tuned" for accuracy and you don't need to do it again for studio and/or amplified guitar recordings.

 

[saint.panda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akathriel we call these people tube lovers.

What do you mean by that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixkrull6 What exactly is the original sound of anything anyways?

I would contend that you can't possibly know what the original sound is. Very interesting article on this issue here: Road to Audio Hell. And even when using live, unamplified music, I don't think it's not that easy. On this issue: another readable article by the narcissistically inclined 6moons editor (it's a decent article though): Lost in Translation and the more interesting follow up discussion on Headfi: Thread link.
Quote:

but is there any objective way to tell which is producing the most natural sound and is that even the best way one should look at any equipment?

I doubt there's an objective way. Whatever sounds good for the kinds of music you listen to for a long period of time. And even if it's not accurate (beware the heresy!) as long as it sounds good, I'm personally fine with it. It just happens that usually the most accurate reproduction is also the one I'm striving for. This might not be a totally random correlation, as the Road to Audio Hell would interject, but accuracy is not an end unto itself whereas musical enjoyment is, at least for me.


Maybe the Sennheiser people were aiming at a smaller soundstage but I really don't mind the Equinox's bigger soundstage.