[markl]

No doubt. Pretty incredible. We should all doff our caps in respect...

markl

 

[radrd]

Quote:

Seriously...I'd have to say that my little KSC-35's give world class sound (when combined with a D-25s)

Now that's what I like to hear. You are happy with what you have, and you haven't spent a mint. I say, enjoy it and only upgrade when (if) you aren't happy anymore.

We should all (also) doff our caps in respect.

 

[Nik]

I say that a lot of hi-end headphone’s listeners says: “…the chois for the best, world’s system, dipend of personal opinions”… yes, I can to prefer the little Fiat “500” to the Ferrari Red Head (???), because for my use I need more the little car than the supersonic Ferraris, but it is’nt a free estimation. Are you agree with me? There are two cainds of estimations: a personal and a objective.
Good, for ex. For seven years I’d listen with the Grado RS-1, in my opinion the best sound, until the arrival of the Sony MDR R-10 (yesterday morning!!!), I can to say that now the RS-1 sound is near the old radio, or near the little headphone that I use with the computer… really!!!! I’m a musician, (I play classical guitar 30 years…) and I think that classical music is the real test for any Hi-end equipment, especially cans. I’m sure when I say that for the first time I’m listening my loved guitar in CD. I must end this piece saying to Markl: THANK YOU A LOT, because I read for the first time from you about the R-10 and I knew the web site of Hart for to buy one of the last R-10.
Thank you Markl, Thank you Hart!!!

Nik (MDR R-10/EAR HP-4)

 

[Nick Dangerous]

Sondek, HP-4, and R-10? That's an amazing rig. We'd like to see pictures so we can drool at them. OK?

 

[Vertigo-1]

The best headphone system? Yours of course.

 

[markl]

Congratulations, Nik! Welcome to team Sony R10. Feel free to steal my avatar (I took mine from Vertigo-1 without asking

)

As for trying to convince the group that the R10 is indeed the World's Best Dynamic Headphone, that seems to be a losing battle (I mean, how could it be better than Grado, sheesh?

). I've also said that the R10 is objectively better than any other dynamic headphone and I'm not surprised you agree. It is indeed the Ferrari to the the RS1 Fiat. Fiat still gets you there, but 99 out of 100 recognize the Ferrari as the superior car. I continue to reject the idea that the audible difference between the KSC-35 vs. the R10 can be reduced to a "matter of preference", but that's essentially what a lot of folks here like to espouse.

I know it's annoying for some readers to keep harping on what "the best" headphone is, and whether headphone A or headphone B belongs in the group of "world's best". But there is still this pervasive belief here that the R10 can't be any good, can't be neutral, must have echo-ey effect, etc. You've seen the kind of gear Nik has, he's a musician and an experienced listener who knows what great sound reproduction can be. What do you think now?

Anyway, Nik, I'm very pleased that the R10 is all you had hoped it would be. You had little to go on besides my enthusiasm and this was a large purchase. Nik was especially worried that as a Grado-lover, he might not like the R10's since I love my Sony's and don't like Grado. But it all worked out!

I just know it sounds incredible with the Ear HP4. I know you'll enjoy them for years to come. Cheers.

markl

 

[Audio-Me]

Nik, how accurately do you feel that your system reproduces every nuance of the classical guitar? Do you get the same sensation that runs through your entire body? I don't think any headphone system could do that for me, but I have experienced partial audio cielo with headphones (Sennheiser HD600, Cary CAD-300SEI, Mark Levinson digital).

What surprises me is that you haven't mentioned speakers nor vinyl. An analog system with high end speakers was about as close to the real thing I've ever experienced...

 

[MacDEF]

And people say that HD600 fans are "paranoid"

 

[markl]

No, MacDEF, it's just that there are so few R10 owners here, it's practically a responsibility to keep sticking up for them if you're lucky enough to have a pair. So, yeah, sometimes you have to come across like a broken record.

markl

 

[Blighty]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF And people say that HD600 fans are "paranoid"

Paranoid is not quite accurate. Fanatical would be more in line with some HD600 users

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl So, yeah, sometimes you have to come across like a broken record.

It wasn't the "broken record" I was teasing about; it was the exaggeration of the "criticism" the R10 has received (I use the word in quotes because I don't even think it's really been criticized), and the blanket assertions often made by its owners. For example:

Quote:

I've also said that the R10 is objectively better than any other dynamic headphone

But considering how different preferences are in audio, it's not really possible to say that "objectively" they're better than any other dynamic headphone. They may be the best to you, but that's not "objective."

Quote:

I continue to reject the idea that the audible difference between the KSC-35 vs. the R10 can be reduced to a "matter of preference", but that's essentially what a lot of folks here like to espouse.

No one has said that, or even hinted at it, anywhere. This is what I was teasing about above

Quote:

But there is still this pervasive belief here that the R10 can't be any good, can't be neutral, must have echo-ey effect, etc.

Has anyone actually said that the R10 can't be any good, or can't be neutral? I've never read anything close to that.

As for "echo-y," if you re-read Vert's thread, that wasn't an assertion -- it was a suggested explanation Jude made given the facts at the time, that was later rejected when more facts were presented.


Quote:

You've seen the kind of gear Nik has, he's a musician and an experienced listener who knows what great sound reproduction can be. What do you think now?

I think Nik is someone with quite a bit of experience in audio and music whose favorite headphone is the R10.

 

[markl]

MacDEF,
You and Neruda both seem to love to argue semantics even when you know darn well what the poster means.

OK, one last time for old times sake: Let's say you do a taste test of Coke vs. Pepsi. 9 out of ten people end up preferring Pepsi. A newbie comes by and asks us whether they should buy a Coke or Pepsi. Yes, he might be the 1 in 10 who preferes Coke, but the BEST advise would be to recommend pepsi. The odds he will like Pepsi are much better than the odds he will like Coke. 9 out 10 or 99 out of 100 may not seem to be "objective proof" to you that Pepsi is "better" especially if you're the one guy who likes Coke, but that's "proof" enough for me.

Also, you'll just have to take my word for it as an R10 owner who pays attention to posts about the R10 that they have been put down and speculated about many times by people who have never heard them. I don't have the time or energy to do a search and drag all them up and quote them, but they exist.

markl

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

I've also said that the R10 is objectively better than any other dynamic headphone and I'm not surprised you agree. It is indeed the Ferrari to the the RS1 Fiat. Fiat still gets you there, but 99 out of 100 recognize the Ferrari as the superior car. I continue to reject the idea that the audible difference between the KSC-35 vs. the R10 can be reduced to a "matter of preference", but that's essentially what a lot of folks here like to espouse.

So you say that the R10 is better than the KSC-35 in some way more objective than the facts of mere personal preference. This would require two things.

First, that there is some objective standard of "goodness" as far as sonic characteristics go. This means that when people talk about the quality of audio, they are talking about some measurable, external set of characteristics that some headphones may possess in higher abundance than others. You have to show that "better" is as external and measurable as the height or length of an object.

Second, you would have to cite measurements that show that the R10 meets these characterics better than the KSC-35.

Please show how your statement meets the above two qualifications.

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

OK, one last time for old times sake: Let's say you do a taste test of Coke vs. Pepsi. 9 out of ten people end up preferring Pepsi. A newbie comes by and asks us whether they should buy a Coke or Pepsi. Yes, he might be the 1 in 10 who preferes Coke, but the BEST advise would be to recommend pepsi. The odds he will like Pepsi are much better than the odds he will like Coke. 9 out 10 or 99 out of 100 may not seem to be "objective proof" to you that Pepsi is "better" especially if you're the one guy who likes Coke, but that's "proof" enough for me.

OK, this is fine objective evidence. You're definining something as better if it would be preferred by a larger percentage of the population.

Prove that the R10 meets this criterion. All we have right now are the observations of a tiny and highly biased sample -- though of course this is not to say that we don't enjoy those observations. Simply that they aren't anything even remotely close to a proper scientific survey.

 

[markl]

Shivohum,
You have a point about the small sample size that's actually heard the R10 on this board. Not enough to draw scientific, statistically valid info. Fine I concede that.

OK, I can't metaphysically PROVE it's better, but you'd lock up the person who chose the Fiat over the Ferrari as a loony. The difference between the R10 and KSC-35 is self-evident and obvious just like the difference between the Ferrari and the Fiat. You'll no doubt just say that's my opinion. Fine.

Again, I think we're arguing semantics-- forget the word "objective" and focus on the core of what I'm saying which you know is true and sound.

markl