[grinch]

sorry i turned this ny impressions thread into a battle for the three/four sony lords who are rich enough to afford the super high-end.

i will, however, restate that the 3000s were okay.. but not worth $700 to me. nor would i spend half of that to buy a pair off ebay that have had six owners beforehand (hp-1000 anyone?). they sounded nice but not worth it for the money. and if you guys all say that sony headphones only sound great on tube amps then they are certainly full of design flaws. i don't know of a single sony product with a tube output stage..

(aftermarket mods don't count!)

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by markl I'm also surprised that people have had such negative reactions to the CD3K. Although if all you plugged them into were the Headroom amps, maybe that's your trouble right there. I'm not a big fan of their amps. Perhaps the clarity and immediacy of the CD3K shows the limitations of Headrooms amps more than the wooly HD600. Someone described the CD3K as "muffled"!!!!! No way. The HD600 is muffled and wooly. The CD3K is full and immediate. Somethings definitely up. I would try plugging them into the Ear or the Cary. I've always maintained that the CD3K belongs on a tube amp. They sounded phenomenal out of the ZOTL. markl

[/size]

markl, I was wondering when you'd respond.

Based on a handful of good reviews of the CD3000 at Head-Fi and HeadWize, I tried the CD3000s at the December HeadRoom Detroit show (I was truly interested in buying some 3000s at the time). I tried them with just about every amp on the "high end" rack -- the EAR HP4, Holmes-Powell DCT2, HeadRoom Max, Wheatfield HA-2.... and I could not get these headphones to sound good to my ears. To me they sounded bright, ringy and reverberant.

I tried listening to them again at the most recent Detroit World of Headphones stop (this time just out of the amp they were originally plugged into -- I think it was a Home), and the results were the same.

If those 3000s represented "clarity" and "immediacy", I'll take "muffled" and "wooly" (as you describe the HD-600s) in a heartbeat, because the HD-600s sure sounded a heck of a lot more like the real thing to me than the CD3000s did out of any of those same amps.

 

[Nosferatu]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl To say that the R10 is the same thing as the CD3k is disingenuous at the very least. I've owned a Home and a MOH and found them very lacking. So, no it's not all conjecture. markl

I was not referring to R10 vs CD3k, I was talking about your "perhaps" as they pertained to Tyll and headroom amps.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude To me they sounded bright, ringy and reverberant. I tried listening to them again at the most recent Detroit World of Headphones stop (this time just out of the amp they were originally plugged into -- I think it was a Home), and the results were the same. If those 3000s represented "clarity" and "immediacy", I'll take "muffled" and "wooly" (as you describe the HD-600s) in a heartbeat, because the HD-600s sure sounded a heck of a lot more like the real thing to me than the CD3000s did out of any of those same amps.

It looks to me as if Jude and I were listening to the same headphone. I'd agree to concede to "different strokes" and all that, but I don't think changing the source and amp will make me a CD3000 fan--at least not so long as I can keep a working pair of HD600.

My criticisms of R10 are price, availability and the fanaticism of their owners. I've not the experience to criticize them in any other way yet.

 

[markl]

How "scientific" is a 5-minute "audition" in a crowded meet on unfamiliar equipment with unfamiliar music with 5 guys hanging over your shoulder giving you that "are you DONE yet" look? I had the CD3K in my home on my gear and at my leisure.

Do you believe in psychological break-in? I'm referring to your brain "burning in" to the sound of a new component, not the component burning in to your system.

If your current standard is the HD600 and you're already happy with them, the CD3K will indeed sound very different. Isn't it interesting that most people seem to be relieved to conclude that the headphones they already had were the "best"? What a coincidence! Good thing they didn't spring for the "awful" Stax Omega!

Well you're used to the sound of your current phones-- everything else sounds "alien". Your current phones have burned into your head how your favorite CDs are "supposed" to sound.

Food for thought...

As for Headroom-- I've spent a heck of a lot more with the terrific folks at headroom than 90% of the people here, so I certainly don't have it in for them.

Tyll is running a business though. Is it that "impartial" of him to tell you the 590s "suck" but lo and behold the pricier HD600 is better?

markl

 

[Hirsch]

I have four headphones that I consider to be reference quality, despite wildly different sounds, in systems that allow these headphones to play to their strengths (R10, HD-600, HP-1, CD3000). Each of them can also sound awful in a system that is not compatible, or plays to their weaknesses. Calling one "better" or "worse" than another is IMO a pissing contest with little point (even though I must confess to having done this myself. Call it a weak bladder

)

Anyone who thinks the HD600 is muffled and wooly is wrong. Anyone who thinks the CD3000 is ringy and reverberant is wrong (can't argue with bright, though, but it can be tamed

). Let's zip up our flies and move on.

Kelly, to understand the fanatacism of R10 owners, you have to hear it, preferably over time. I have trouble understanding it myself, although I'm experiencing it. It's not a perfect headphone, by any means. There are certain things that each of my other headphones seem to do better at various times. But the R10 seems to be qualitatively different in some way I can't describe, and may never be able to. They are the only headphone I've heard that delivers music in a way that I consider comparable to a good speaker setup...something I had been convinced no headphone could ever do.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl How "scientific" is a 5-minute "audition" in a crowded meet on unfamiliar equipment with unfamiliar music with 5 guys hanging over your shoulder giving you that "are you DONE yet" look? I had the CD3K in my home on my gear and at my leisure.

The "unfamilliar" music at the HeadRoom tour stop was my personal collection of CDs that I typically use as reference.

I was never rushed at any of the headphone stations and the CD3000 was not exactly crowded. It was a pretty lonely headphone, actually.

I'm not sure how "scientific" it needs to be. The first time I tasted poy, I didn't think to myself that I should give it more time. When I tell people I don't like poy, most people accept that without asking me if I left it in my mouth long enough. Is it so difficult to accept that I didn't like the sound I heard?

Quote:

Do you believe in psychological break-in? I'm referring to your brain "burning in" to the sound of a new component, not the component burning in to your system. If your current standard is the HD600 and you're already happy with them, the CD3K will indeed sound very different. Isn't it interesting that most people seem to be relieved to conclude that the headphones they already had were the "best"? What a coincidence! Good thing they didn't spring for the "awful" Stax Omega! Well you're used to the sound of your current phones-- everything else sounds "alien". Your current phones have burned into your head how your favorite CDs are "supposed" to sound.

My complaints about the HD600 have been stated numerous times and have not changed. Although I am accustomed to their flaws, I have not grown to prefer them. I still use my Etymotic on a daily basis. I still had kind words to say about both the Orpheus and the Stax 007. And I've never displayed a bias toward "equipment I own." Sennheiser sends me no royalty payment for advertising and have no reservation about selling a piece of equipment the moment I find another piece more favorable. I've stated publicly that I intend to purchase a Stax at some point.

I think one could just as easily counter argue that people often prefer sounds that are "different", that audiophiles like to "upgrade" and that numerous people here collect headphones simply to have variety. In fact, except for a couple of people, almost all of us own more than one headphone. Let me stop to think of whether I know someone who only owns one headphone... ah yes, there is someone isn't there.
[/QUOTE][/B]

Quote:

Food for thought... As for Headroom-- I've spent a heck of a lot more with the terrific folks at headroom than 90% of the people here, so I certainly don't have it in for them. Tyll is running a business though. Is it that "impartial" of him to tell you the 590s "suck" but lo and behold the pricier HD600 is better?

I tend to not ask salesmen for advice on whether to buy their products. However, if your intent is to discredit Tyll's opinion, it's odd to me that you site the 590 and overlook the 580. You do know that Tyll likes the 580 more than the 590, right? I do too. A lot of us do. That is--a lot of us with no monetary stake whatsoever dislike the 590 by comparrison. You don't have to agree with someone's opinon but it should not be so ease to dismiss them out of hand.

 

[jude]

"scientific"? Doesn't have much to do with this, if you ask me.

First of all, my time with the CD3000s at the December 2001 Detroit show was anything but rushed, and it was using my music. And while it admittedly doesn't represent living at home with them, my impressions of them were strong enough that I can't imagine they'd ever be for me.

As far as psychological break-in goes, I'm sure there's an element of that in audio, but, again, I don't think that would help at all in this case, if the CD3000s I heard were any indication. Considering this, the Orpheus sure psychologically broke in with the utmost rapidity, because I pretty much loved those from the get-go. Over the weekend, I was at a private piano recital at a private residence with a Steinway Concert Grand, and that must've broke in with me pretty quickly too, because it sounded amazing from the first note.

You can discredit the validity of any conclusions drawn at the World of Headphones Tour stops, but, hey, it was as good a practical opportunity to hear gobs of headphone gear as we're probably ever going to see. I find the opinions from the show stops very valid, whether or not they walk lock-step with mine. As I read all the impressions from the many attendees, I find it fascinating the sometimes wildly varying opinions -- I think this is more the case here, markl, than it is an example of the show auditions being somehow un-"scientific".

Regarding something sounding very different than what I'm used to: the Orpheus sure sounded different than the rigs I listen to every day. But it was a good different -- a very good different. For me, the CD3000 at the show was different, but not in a good way -- so much so that, again, I can't see any amount of psychological burn in making them so.

Does this mean I think that people that like them are fools or deaf? Absolutely not. I can't argue what you hear (or what anyone else hears) versus what I hear. It is what it is.



[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by markl How "scientific" is a 5-minute "audition" in a crowded meet on unfamiliar equipment with unfamiliar music with 5 guys hanging over your shoulder giving you that "are you DONE yet" look? I had the CD3K in my home on my gear and at my leisure. Do you believe in psychological break-in? I'm referring to your brain "burning in" to the sound of a new component, not the component burning in to your system. If your current standard is the HD600 and you're already happy with them, the CD3K will indeed sound very different. Isn't it interesting that most people seem to be relieved to conclude that the headphones they already had were the "best"? What a coincidence! Good thing they didn't spring for the "awful" Stax Omega! Well you're used to the sound of your current phones-- everything else sounds "alien". Your current phones have burned into your head how your favorite CDs are "supposed" to sound.

[/size]

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Kelly, to understand the fanatacism of R10 owners, you have to hear it, preferably over time. I have trouble understanding it myself, although I'm experiencing it. It's not a perfect headphone, by any means. There are certain things that each of my other headphones seem to do better at various times. But the R10 seems to be qualitatively different in some way I can't describe, and may never be able to. They are the only headphone I've heard that delivers music in a way that I consider comparable to a good speaker setup...something I had been convinced no headphone could ever do.

Hirsch, You know me well enough to know by now that I take deep interest in any of the opinions you share about audio. That I dislike fanaticism as a concept should not reflect upon my opinion (or lack thereof) of the product that draws fanatacism. I have a checklist of remaining headphone equipment I'd like to hear--the appearance of some of the items on that list and the priority of them can sometimes be attributed directly to your opinions. I'd very much like to audition the microZOTL, the R10, the HP-1 but I haven't yet. I'd be willing to bet that if and when I do get to audition them, no matter how much I like them, I will not suddenly find myself converted to Markl-styled fanatacism.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Tyll really has it in for the Sony phones as he can't carry them, so his "opinion" is biased. To say that the R10 is identical to the CD3K is laughable and incorrect.

1) I think anyone who has ever talked to Tyll has a hard time believing that he would "have it in" for a product just because he doesn't carry it. He actually recommends a lot of products he doesn't carry. Conversely, Tyll doesn't recommend a lot of stuff he does carry. This common refrain of "HeadRoom doesn't like Sony products because they can't carry them" sounds more like sour grapes than the truth. After all, doesn't Tyll include the 3000 in his composite of the "Ten Best Headphones?"

2) I asked an honest question above about Tyll's statement (might the CD3000 and the R10 actually be very similar but with a vastly different enclosure and a few small changes in parts?) -- but the only responses I've gotten have been from R10 owners saying "oh, no, that's impossible."

Maybe Tyll's not that far off-base. (Don't worry, R10 owners, I'm not saying they're the same headphone and you spend $2500 more for yours -- I'm curious about this from a headphone fan's point of view. If it were true, it would really add credence to the idea that enclosures matter a heck of a lot.) Anyways, if anyone has concrete information about the mechanical similarities & differences between the two, I'm interested.


Quote:

Perhaps the clarity and immediacy of the CD3K shows the limitations of Headrooms amps more than the wooly HD600.

LOL, maybe the brightness of the CD3000 makes them sound bad with neutral, solid state amps?

You said yourself they sound best on a tube amp, which would make sense from every review I've read of them (even their fans call them "very detailed").


Quote:

How "scientific" is a 5-minute "audition" in a crowded meet on unfamiliar equipment with unfamiliar music with 5 guys hanging over your shoulder giving you that "are you DONE yet" look? I had the CD3K in my home on my gear and at my leisure. Do you believe in psychological break-in? I'm referring to your brain "burning in" to the sound of a new component, not the component burning in to your system.

Yes, but in all fairness, someone could use that same argument against you, mark

Maybe you've just "burned your brain" into the bright sound of the CD3000, so anything else sounds "muffled." I'm not saying it's true; just pointing out that it's a possibility.

Quote:

Isn't it interesting that most people seem to be relieved to conclude that the headphones they already had were the "best"? What a coincidence! [snip] Well you're used to the sound of your current phones-- everything else sounds "alien". Your current phones have burned into your head how your favorite CDs are "supposed" to sound.

If someone (like Kelly) was claiming that the HD 600 were "the" sound, and the best, maybe that would be true. But Kelly also claims that Etys are phenomenal headphones as well, even though the sonic signature of the Etys is *very* different from the HD 600. I'm in the same boat -- my two favorite headphones are the HD 600 and Etys, even though they sound very different. So I don't think that you can just dismiss contrary opinions as "you're just used to the sound of your own headphones."


Quote:

Tyll is running a business though. Is it that "impartial" of him to tell you the 590s "suck" but lo and behold the pricier HD600 is better?

He also says the HD 580 are better than the HD 590... yet they're cheaper! There are plenty examples of Tyll, Todd, etc. recommending less expensive headphones for someone when such recommendations would better suit their needs -- it happened to me 8 years ago, and it was one of the things that made me buy from Headroom again. I've read about the same experience many times here at Head-Fi. So, again, I think that you're making insinuations that don't hold up when you look at the big picture

 

[markl]

Oy, where to start:

Quote:

I have four headphones that I consider to be reference quality, despite wildly different sounds, in systems that allow these headphones to play to their strengths (R10, HD-600, HP-1, CD3000). Each of them can also sound awful in a system that is not compatible, or plays to their weaknesses. Calling one "better" or "worse" than another is IMO a pissing contest with little point (even though I must confess to having done this myself. Call it a weak bladder )

Well said. I would not say the CD3K is leagues better than the HD600 in every respect. I would argue they are in the same class as the RS1, ER4S, HD600. R10's, now those are in a different class (Omega, Orpheus).

Quote:

I'm not sure how "scientific" it needs to be. The first time I tasted poy, I didn't think to myself that I should give it more time. When I tell people I don't like poy, most people accept that without asking me if I left it in my mouth long enough. Is it so difficult to accept that I didn't like the sound I heard?

Everyone seems hung up on my use of "scientific". Fine. But you *know* what I was trying to convey! I HATE arguing over semantics!

Quote:

And I've never displayed a bias toward "equipment I own." Sennheiser sends me no royalty payment for advertising and have no reservation about selling a piece of equipment the moment I find another piece more favorable.

But I get one from Sony, right?

Quote:

almost all of us own more than one headphone.

I only own the R10 unless you count my SportaPros for workouts. When you have the R10s there's no need for other phones, IMO.

Quote:

However, if your intent is to discredit Tyll's opinion, it's odd to me that you site the 590 and overlook the 580. You do know that Tyll likes the 580 more than the 590, right? I do too. A lot of us do.

Tyll can seel you a 590, a 580 or 600. He can't sell you a CD3K or R10.

Quote:

As far as psychological break-in goes, I'm sure there's an element of that in audio, but, again, I don't think that would help at all in this case, if the CD3000s I heard were any indication. Considering this, the Orpheus sure psychologically broke in with the utmost rapidity, because I pretty much loved those from the get-go.

I had the same instant contact high from the R10. Why? Because it's in a whole different class than the CD3K, HD600 Rs1.... CD3K vs. HD600 is more of a fair fight.


Quote:

You can discredit the validity of any conclusions drawn at the World of Headphones Tour stops, but, hey, it was as good a practical opportunity to hear gobs of headphone gear as we're probably ever going to see.

I'll be going to my local and I look forward to it, and I can't wait, and I love Headroom. OK?

Quote:

I will not suddenly find myself converted to Markl-styled fanatacism

Kelly I'm disappointed. I'm merely trying to provide a different perspective. Why am I a fanatic for trying to provide folks with some contrasting info?
And MacDEF, Jude and co. are somehow NOT HD600 fanatics for sticking up for them at every turn? Why am I the bad guy? Because I'm in the minority here? Very very unfair Kelly.


Quote:

1) I think anyone who has ever talked to Tyll has a hard time believing that he would "have it in" for a product just because he doesn't carry it. He actually recommends a lot of products he doesn't carry. Conversely, Tyll doesn't recommend a lot of stuff he does carry. This common refrain of "HeadRoom doesn't like Sony products because they can't carry them" sounds more like sour grapes than the truth. After all, doesn't Tyll include the 3000 in his composite of the "Ten Best Headphones?"

OK, fine. Strike my comment from the record. It's not worth arguing over.

Quote:

2) I asked an honest question above about Tyll's statement (might the CD3000 and the R10 actually be very similar but with a vastly different enclosure and a few small changes in parts?) -- but the only responses I've gotten have been from R10 owners saying "oh, no, that's impossible." Maybe Tyll's not that far off-base. (Don't worry, R10 owners, I'm not saying they're the same headphone and you spend $2500 more for yours -- I'm curious about this from a headphone fan's point of view. If it were true, it would really add credence to the idea that enclosures matter a heck of a lot.) Anyways, if anyone has concrete information about the mechanical similarities & differences between the two, I'm interested.

Tyll and everyone else on this board claim to hear the differences between the HD580 and the HD600, two TRULY VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL HEADPHONES. Yet the CD3K and the R10 which are obviously made of COMPLETELY DIFFERENT materials sound the same, eh? OK

Quote:

Yes, but in all fairness, someone could use that same argument against you, mark Maybe you've just "burned your brain" into the bright sound of the CD3000, so anything else sounds "muffled." I'm not saying it's true; just pointing out that it's a possibility.

The difference, MacDEF is that I was coming off of 6 months with the HD600 AND a Clou cable blue before going to the CD3K. Shouldn't I have brushed aside the CD3K immediately? No, I gave them a fair audition and concluded they were more to my tatste.

BTW, if the HD600 is so flawless, why are there now 3 aftermarket cables for them trying to give them more energy up top?

Gotta go.

markl

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl BTW, if the HD600 is so flawless, why are there now 3 aftermarket cables for them trying to give them more energy up top?

I might have missed something from someone else in this thread, but I don't recall anyone saying the HD-600s are flawless.

And regarding the replacement cables for the HD-600s, the reasons are simple:

1. The cables detach from the HD-600s and HD-580s and so can be replaced.
2. The Sennheiser HD-580/600s together represent a great deal of the high-end headphone market share. In fact, based on user profiles here, the HD-580/600s (together) have as much distribution as most of the other headphones combined.

I list the two points above to make no point other than that the market exists for HD-580/600 aftermarket cables for these reasons.

Whether or not the intent was to give more energy up top, I have no idea. Maybe, by simply designing better cables than the stock cables, this just happens.

If some other major market share headphones (in terms of the high end market) had detachable cables (a description that may start fitting Etymotics earphones soon), you might see more aftermarket cables for other models.

The MDR-R10s, in the hands of someone who could install a better cable, would likely benefit from such a mod too.

 

[kelly]

Markl

It is fair to talk about your fanatcism and not Jude and MacDef's because you are criticizing my decision and (at the moment) they are not. My enemy is the one attacking me.

Remember that I make no claims about any kind of objectivity here, I only stated that I preferred the HD600 to the CD3000 and defended my ability and qualification to have this preference.

I feel that the availability of aftermarket cables for the HD600 are a good thing, not a bad thing.

It is both in my experience and in my sincere belief that there is no perfect component. Like Stereophile's mantra, I believe every component is flawed and that these flaws are audible. It is therefore never a disappointment to me when an already good product is made better through modification. The HD600 is good. The Cardas cable makes the HD600 better.

Your grievances with people comparing the R10 to the CD3000 are not with me--I can only offer my distaste for the CD3000 relative to the HD600. No matter how similar two product designs may seem, it is premature to judge one based on the other. Indeed, while the differences between 580 and 600 are subtle and are of the same "family sound", the W100 and W2002 are entirely different sounding headphone despite the claims that the drivers are actually identical. That this would also hold true for the R10 would not surprise me. I'll make no judgment either way about the R10 until I have heard it myself. If the CD3000 and R10 have a similarity, it is that you like them both. But since I like both peanut butter and prime rib, I will try not to discredit the R10 based on this similarity alone.

 

[DanG]

I've heard the CD3000 in two set-ups -- the Marantz 63SE -> Headroom Home -> CD3k at the Headroom show at New York (HE01) and then Marantz CD6000 OSE -> Wheatfield HA1/Holmes-Powell DCT-1 -> CD3k at Vka's house. The sounds I heard were completely different... they were not incredibly bright or peaky especially with the DCT-1, a warm amp by most people's standards. I did hear some unnatural reverberation, though, which is why I didn't like them then... also the bass seemed a little boomy. With the Headroom Home the CD3k was very bright, as others have said.

Regarding the validity of a headphone if it only works in certain set-ups... I don't see the big deal if a headphone doesn't work in every set-up. If the point of this hobby is to achieve sound reproduction that is most faithful to the original sound or most pleasing to one's ears, then I don't think it matters how many set-ups the headphone works with if you're building a system ground-up.

Regarding Tyll's alleged bias, I couldn't help but feel that he has a natural bias for his equipment -- not intentional and not a salesman's bias, but it's there. When he said that the Orpheus is boring or not as natural as the Blockhead, it's his opinion, and I really felt that he honestly likes the Blockhead more -- and maybe that's why he makes them. If you had a company making a certain product, wouldn't you make what you think is the best? Regarding headphones which Tyll doesn't make, I think it will be an issue of compatibility with his amps, not a matter of whether he doesn't like the company or not -- though Tyll hates Sony, and that's no secret.

 

[KR...]

Glad to hear you guys enjoyed the meet