"It sounds more analog."

Usually comes from religiously anti-digital, "you kids get off of my lawn" -types.  Though I appreciate vinyl, for me noise floor and surface contaminants are the first things that come to mind.

I used to think about that statement: "people used to room reflections and standing waves vs. people dealing with peaks and resonances".   


Now I want the "razor-edge" of a balance between the two, tunable to my mood and the recording.

Blacker blacks.

Always liked that one 

For me, that kind of thing makes me think that there's more a sense of space.

I think that some descriptions click with some people while others wonder what on earth they're talking about. A 'musical' headphone to me is one that has a rounded bass and not too harsh in the treble. I'd say the HD650 is 'musical'.

We haven't adopted an official set of 'key words' yet, I guess and nothing's worse than reading a dry, figure packed review of a headphone. I like the figures, but I enjoy the descriptions.

Donunus said something kind of similar about 'musical' earlier which I would Identify with too ..

When i say musical for instance, I just mean that it makes me enjoy the music more than thinking of the details in describing everything analytically.

I'd agree with that.

a certain level of "analytical" is necessary for something to be "musical".
This is why I feel "musical" is a nonsensical term - especially in this context:

The MadDog is more musical than the Paradox.

I agree that a level of 'analytical' is needed. It can also inform what we listen for. Your graphs certainly point out areas to listen out for in my zoo of headphones. Just listening makes it very easy to overlook something.

For me, a good review is a combination of figures but also the ears and how those graphs sound in the real world.

If the MadDog is being described as more musical than the Paradox, I'd assume that the Paradox is focused more towards picking out detail and the MadDog is perhaps warmer which is often perceived as 'less detail'.

Mind you, come to think of it - it would also depend on what music is being listened to as well, I guess, so all kinds of variable come into it.

When I look at the excellent Goldenears site, there are no comments at all and I do find that a bit lacking. Sure, it gives the facts as measured but it doesn't tell the whole story and I actually enjoy hearing the enthusiasm (or lack of) from listeners.

I think the two go hand in hand but there are some people that get fixated on distortion figures and graphs while others get stuck on graphic 'wordy' descriptions.

There is one very talented guy on this site that I know of, who can read graphs like words and his descriptions of those graphs and data are SO spot on and line up with what I hear on the actual headphone. I wish I could do that but it's that ability to translate the graphs into a description that is the real art of reviewing imo.

It's a skill that I really wish that I had. However, the guys that have this skill don't see it as a skill at all. People like that are quite rare.

If we could get the mix right and kind of 'fix' the terms, perhaps headphones would be taken even more seriously by the 'speaker' based hi fi fraternity who tend to regard headphones as a poor man's route to music. It's changing, but review quality doesn't help as you rightly say, if we use objective based terms only to describe headphones.

My feeling is the middle ground is way safer since with speaker set ups, measurements are (of course) important, but so is the reviewer's description.

What is funny in hi fi mags in the UK is how piss poor many of the reviews of headphones often are. It's almost as though the reviewers really don't know what to listen for and are delighted if it resembles music in any way. It's as though they regard headphones as an accessory and only to be used in emergencies or something!! 

I also have a slight problem with what exactly is flat? When you send a sound in the same sound should appear at the other end and thereby, it should be flat I guess. But once plonked on the head, it's not longer flat and I do find that headphones don't portray very often what I'm hearing in real life in the room. It seems like a 'smaller' version in a headphone to me. Maybe something to do with the size of drivers and proximity to ears and all those variations of ear sizes and shapes. Let alone what volume you listen at, or take the measurements at.

It's full of compromises and that's where real life descriptions can help. How it actually sounds on head. However, a good review requires someone with a large experience which as we all know doesn't always happen on forums like this.

I saw a hilarious review of a $2 headphone as a joke here and that's just about what you really do see on headphone forums. Those kinds of reviews do nothing for the headphone fraternity. They are funny to read though.

I would always take note of figures if I can find them but a review consisting of figures only is a resource, not a review.

However, I REALLY enjoy your waterfall graphs which really help to focus the ears when the headphones are on your head. Thank you for taking the trouble to do them.   

Yes exactly! (BTW, I would say neither the MadDog is more "analytical" than the Paradox or vice versa.)

What I've been holding back on is that I feel the term "musical" has become analogous to "polite and forgiving" (the opposite of analytical, forward, aggressive, or unrelenting) for most, but not necessarily all people.

So there's a serious disconnect here. I consider the ECBA (with KR PX4) or Mjolnir or Pinnacle far more "musical" than 90% of most other amps out there, yet these amps are actually among the more "analytical" sounding. On the other hand, there are many others who feel the Leben (a tubey syrupy sounding amp) is extremely "musical" (BTW, the Leben does not sound "musical" to me at all. IMO, it sounds like shit, that is a tubey syrupy sounding amp.) Thus why I feel the term "musical" is essentially a nonsensical or at worst a term with possibly negative connotations.

Likewise, instead of "analytical", perhaps bright, strident, lean, sharp are better descriptors if indeed the equipment sounds that way.

No one is ever going to be happy with all descriptors, but honestly, I think "wire-with-gain" and "musical" and by far the most nonsensical of all of them.