CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Soapbox => Topic started by: Marvey on January 17, 2013, 04:46:04 AM
-
"Musical"
"Wire-with-Gain"
Add: "Prat"
If anything, those two terms have negative connotations to me. I'm bored.
-
In what way is "wire-with-gain" negative?
-
^ There's no such thing. It's a nonsensical claim. At least it you take it seriously. It makes more sense if you don't and apply a relative context rather than absolute standards.
-
Ah. so trying to achieve wire-with-gain is like trying to reach infinity.
yeah, its complete nonsense to describe current amp technology as having achieved anywhere close.
-
Probably the worst thing is when people ask:
Q - What does it sound like?
A - It sounds like nothing. (it's wire w/ gain, totally transparent, yada yada)
-
I've heard "wire with gain" attributed to amps with these characteristics (it's all over the place)
- Amps designed by disciples of Douglas Self.
- Polite sounding solid state amps.
- Strident and nasty solid state amps. <-- somewhat common usage
- Sterile and boring/flat solid state amps. <-- most common usage.
Every time, I hear "wire-with-gain", I tend to assume either bright or boring (as in committing errors of omission.) Ultimately the term is a cop-out and doesn't mean anything.
-
Probably the worst thing is when people ask:
Q - What does it sound like?
A - It sounds like nothing. (it's wire w/ gain, totally transparent, yada yada)
Yeah, you know me and I assume you are riling me up.
A: It sounds like nothing. (it's wire w/ gain, totally transparent, yada yada)
Purrin: Fuck you.
-
Here's another. 'Tube sound'. More misused than being outright nonsensical.
-
I've heard "wire with gain" attributed to amps with these characteristics (it's all over the place)
- Amps designed by disciples of Douglas Self.
- Polite sounding solid state amps.
- Strident and nasty solid state amps. <-- somewhat common usage
- Sterile and boring/flat solid state amps. <-- most common usage.
Every time, I hear "wire-with-gain", I tend to assume either bright or boring (as in committing errors of omission.) Ultimately the term is a cop-out and doesn't mean anything.
Sounds like it's kind of the "revealing" of the amp world. Anytime someone says a headphone is revealing what they really mean is that it's bright and resonant. Switching the word around is more accurate. The bad recording is revealing the colorations of the headphone.
In fact, anytime someone even talks about recording quality when they're talking about a headphone, they have colored headphones.
-
Here's another. 'Tube sound'. More misused than being outright nonsensical.
I feel the term Lebenesque is more precise.
-
What's a non colored headphone? A headphone that masks all recordings equally? There is certainly an aspect to detail retrieval related to driver capability independent of FR bias. If someone can't tell 128kb from 320kb (assuming a properly dynamic track) that phone/rig is masking and simply not accurate.
-
I know it means something, but not to me: transients.
-
I know it means something, but not to me: transients.
What are you, a Republican? :)) ;)
(http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/07/70/46/2066875/13/628x471.jpg)
-
I like the term musical. 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 know it means something, but not to me: transients.
What are you, a Republican? :)) ;)
(http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/07/70/46/2066875/13/628x471.jpg)
Conservative, but close enough :D
No but seriously though, I still haven't read one definition of 'transients' that made me understand it fully.
-
I've never cared for the term PRaT. I have no reason why, it just irks me to no end.
-
Added.
Prat was a term invented by stereo sales people to make us NOT focus on technicalities such as tonal balance, resolution, distortion, timbral realism, etc., but rather concentrate on the rhythm or beat in order to sell us overpriced stuff that sounded like shit.
I'm serious. As a former graduate of the Don Cheadle Boogie Nights school of Stereo Salesmen, I shit you not. Some Jedi mind trickery is involved of course.
-
I know it means something, but not to me: transients.
It's just the same as "attack" - actually a shorthand for "transient sound". Think sharp percussion. Different from "impact", because that apparently applies to bass only.
"PRaT", "Tube sound", "Wire-with-gain" etc. is worthless junk.
However, I'd like to egg Purrin some more with that "nothing", hahaha.
A: It sounds like gain.
(That actually means it doesn't sound like: distortion, coloration, ringing... So, perceptually accurate? No tonality change?)
-
I know it means something, but not to me: transients.
It's just the same as "attack" - actually a shorthand for "transient sound". Think sharp percussion. Different from "impact", because that apparently applies to bass only.
"PRaT", "Tube sound", "Wire-with-gain" etc. is worthless junk.
However, I'd like to egg Purrin some more with that "nothing", hahaha.
A: It sounds like gain.
(That actually means it doesn't sound like: distortion, coloration, ringing... So, perceptually accurate? No tonality change?)
So basically how responsive or quick the diaphragm is (decay / impulse response)?
-
Yes. And how clean - without blurring of those transients.
Most transients are pretty dirty tho. They smell bad too.
-
I never heard of 'flibbertigibbet' and thought it was a nonsensical audioterm as well so am not going to use it in audio descriptions from this day forward.
Whether you prefer certain terms or not may be related to how one views it, be it from a technical angle or a completely non-technical angle.
I fully agree with the sentiments though.
How to construct a (manageable) list with meaningful words that could be used.
Creating a list like that might cure your boredom :P
-
For some reason, PRaT always reminds me of the common name Pratt. Or maybe it's a self-applied label for the salesman in question: brat.
-
Yeah, think of dynamics. Where DR is the Y or X axis/Range or domain, you could conceive of transients as 'm' or rate of change. Impulse response and CSDs are supposed to convey this to a large degree. Think masses of strings in an orchestra muddled together because the driver is too slow, then a faster driver separates the mass individually so you can pick out the strings. This is most evident in comparing amps that lack driver control versus those that grip the transducer by the ballz.
-
PRaT is incredibly obnoxious, and often used by terrible audio reviewers. The only thing worse, this: "I thought the Swiss ’table and arm set new standards of transparency and low-level resolution in vinyl playback, extending dynamic range on the p-to-pppp side in the same way that the great Walker Black Diamond record player extended dynamic range on the f-to-ffff side of the dynamic spectrum."
FUCK YOU TAS.
-
Added.
Prat was a term invented by stereo sales people to make us NOT focus on technicalities such as tonal balance, resolution, distortion, timbral realism, etc., but rather concentrate on the rhythm or beat in order to sell us overpriced stuff that sounded like shit.
I'm serious. As a former graduate of the Don Cheadle Boogie Nights school of Stereo Salesmen, I shit you not. Some Jedi mind trickery is involved of course.
I believe in PRaT too LOL. Its like comparing the same system connected to Linux vs Windows.... Linux just has the PRaT hahahaha seriously try it :)p13
-
My interpretation of PRaT is that it's a combination of visceral tactile bass, and euphonic midrange with lots of harmonics.
Keyword there is 'interpretation', it means the term itself is just b.s., and is what people want it to be.
-
IMHO you can only influence PRaT during the recording session itself by 'whipping' the performing artists. :)p12
As Jerg already stated the terminology is often misused.
-
PRaT is the one I can't stand. It kinda makes sense with things like turntables (where the RPM might be very slightly off), but to use it to describe amps and headphones makes me want to shut off my computer.
-
"Even my wife loves it!"
Used to be one of the most used tropes in audio reviews.
-
"Toe tapping."
I know what it's supposed to convey, but it irritates me.
-
PRaT is incredibly obnoxious, and often used by terrible audio reviewers. The only thing worse, this: "I thought the Swiss ’table and arm set new standards of transparency and low-level resolution in vinyl playback, extending dynamic range on the p-to-pppp side in the same way that the great Walker Black Diamond record player extended dynamic range on the f-to-ffff side of the dynamic spectrum."
FUCK YOU TAS.
ROFL. Was that really from TAS? I haven't read it since I was in high school or something like that. I just look at pictures and read the ads.
-
"Even my wife loves it!"
Used to be one of the most used tropes in audio reviews.
lololol, I hate that one too.
I also find people tend to misuse the term "fast."
-
"Toe tapping."
I guess that's why I never hear Debussy at HiFi stores or shows. Unless said equipment imposed toe-tapping with Clouds. But then something would be seriously wrong.
-
Probably the worst thing is when people ask:
Q - What does it sound like?
A - It sounds like nothing. (it's wire w/ gain, totally transparent, yada yada)
Yeah, you know me and I assume you are riling me up.
A: It sounds like nothing. (it's wire w/ gain, totally transparent, yada yada)
Purrin: Fuck you.
LOL!
So that's what you are thinking when I say that. :)p13
-
"Confused". Sound quality isn't a skinny teenage boy standing in a locker room during my high school junior year.
-
Added.
Prat was a term invented by stereo sales people to make us NOT focus on technicalities such as tonal balance, resolution, distortion, timbral realism, etc., but rather concentrate on the rhythm or beat in order to sell us overpriced stuff that sounded like shit.
I'm serious. As a former graduate of the Don Cheadle Boogie Nights school of Stereo Salesmen, I shit you not. Some Jedi mind trickery is involved of course.
Makes sense that Naim and Linn would adopt those terms. Most over rated brands ever. Though I agree with Milos, that the old Rega-philes tended to use it to describe their turntables... probably because they tended to run a bit fast :)p13
Now someone write a review with every term mentioned in this thread and post it
-
Heh yeah. I had an all Linn Aktiv system at one point in my life (I knew a few guys who sold Linn.) It was replaced with DIY speakers, a modded Behringer DCX2496, and Crest CA2 amps. Still, I wouldn't consider Linn or Naim a poor value. There is much worse out there in terms of value proposition.
-
ROFL. Was that really from TAS? I haven't read it since I was in high school or something like that. I just look at pictures and read the ads.
Yep. From the esteemed Mr. Valin. http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/da-vinci-audio-labs-aas-gabrielda-vinci-mk-ii-turntable-with-da-vinci-grand-reference-tonearm-grandezza/ (http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/da-vinci-audio-labs-aas-gabrielda-vinci-mk-ii-turntable-with-da-vinci-grand-reference-tonearm-grandezza/)
TAS is pretty sad at this point. Even HP left because the pay to play culture had gotten so disgusting there.
-
Yes, you have to wonder how the Overdrive keeps winning the TAS Golden Ear award...
-
Hey, TAS said the Apex Pinnacle is world class!
Don't get me wrong, I like the Pinnacle a lot, but the way it's being sold and how it's being protected (as of recent) just smells bad.
-
Hey, TAS said the Apex Pinnacle is world class!
If TAS said it...it must be true! facepalm
-
Well, my T1 amp has a sound that is reminiscent of chopped nuts mixed into warm chocolate with a rich creamy latte feel in the bass and a tingle at the top. Just a squeeze of lemon to pull out those ringing cymbals and hear not just the splash but the brassy gong sound behind it. The bass is more than one note and I can clearly hear the rumble of syrup oozing through the layers of sound that drip from my earpieces.
Lots of PRAT too. :)p3
Nothing wrong with that. p:/
-
"Even my wife loves it!"
Used to be one of the most used tropes in audio reviews.
Yeah, that along with the "wife approval factor". Just condescending as hell.
-
"The Absolute Sound"? The name alone is for me pretentious enough to just skip the entire magazine...
In the Netherlands there's this newspaper called "De Volkskrant" which in English translates to something like 'The Peoples Paper', a socialist newspaper. For some time I read it but opinion and comment articles/columns became more and more preachy. Even satirical pieces became unbearable thus I declared the newspaper wasted paper.
I now mostly read business newspapers because those are more to the point.
Nonsensical audio terms... I used that 'vocabulary' because I didn't know better. Once you learn to listen and start listening you don't need many words to express what you think of a headphone. The moment you ignore it like a piece of trash you know enough. I do like the term "musical" but I refrain from using it because I can't explain it.
-
Blacker blacks.
Always liked that one (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,254.msg16813.html#msg16813) :)p8
-
'You're not amping it properly' has always been a nonsensical statement that's a pet peeve of mine. What does that even mean?
Outside of the few atrocious amps and infamously hard to drive headphones (HE-6) out there, there's plenty of well sounding amps with higher amounts of refinement the further up you go. Never have I heard a case where something isn't 'amp'd properly.' Usually it's people hawking about a lack of synergetic sound signatures between two perfectly good components.
My most recent experience was a fellow on head-fi who remarked in a thread regarding a Denon D2000 and lack of bass saying that it was because the topic creator was using bad amps-- and instead of a Fiio E11 of Xonar soundcard, to get a Fiio E9 and all his problems would be solved.
-
Blacker blacks.
Always liked that one (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,254.msg16813.html#msg16813) :)p8
We talkin' music or politics?
-
That actually makes sense. The E9 has 10ohms and 43ohms output Z depending on 1/4 or 1/8. Denon is like around 32 ohms right? Hello bass.
-
Blacker blacks.
Always liked that one (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,254.msg16813.html#msg16813) :)p8
We talkin' music or politics?
There's a difference?
I just hope that when the assault-weapons ban is re-introduced in Congress, the definition of "assault weapon" is broad enough to encompass the Beats Solo.
-
Blacker blacks.
Always liked that one (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,254.msg16813.html#msg16813) :)p8
We talkin' music or politics?
The former. I'm just amused when a reviewer uses that phrase. Replacing black with grey would be more accurate, since black is an absolute shade.
-
Blacker blacks.
Always liked that one (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,254.msg16813.html#msg16813) :)p8
We talkin' music or politics?
The former. I'm just amused when a reviewer uses that phrase. Replacing black with grey would be more accurate, since black is an absolute shade.
The Absolute Shade
That should be our bi-annual periodical here on Changstar. :)p2
-
I actually had no idea what PRaT meant until looking it up a few days ago despite seeing it used for years. I would just feel irritated and skip the post, like a reflex reaction.
Not a term per se, but I hate being told I don't care about the music because I don't like some weird ass synergy someone's favorite bad amp and headphone combo have.
-
Oh, here's a new one straight from DramaFi: "chameleon".
Meaning "changes from track to track" - except it doesn't say what, so apparently everything.
-
A satirical review piece based on price... I like the idea.
-
Fcuk me.. whats everyone gonna use to comment on audio gear now!!
PRaTs out.. MUSICAL is out.. Tube sounding amps are out!! toe tapping is out!! sheeet
I agree on the 'its not amped properly' connotation. I keep seeing comments around places where kids go
'WHAT? no bass on your 80 dollar IEM? its not amped properly'.
WHAT? no soundstage on your 90 dollar IEM? its not amped properly.
WHAT? your 100 dollar IEM sounds veiled? its not amped properly.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Table+flip+rage_186b91_3363657.jpg)
-
"toe tapping" is still in I believe. But PRaT is definitely out.
Other acceptable terms and descriptions:
- No bass
- No soundstage
- Veiled
-
Well, poor amplification actually does happen IRL.
-
You mean like trying to run an HD800 from a Sansa Clip?
-
Lol, I remember the looks JDS reps gave me when I connected the Abyss to the clip.
It made sound
-
You mean like trying to run an HD800 from a Sansa Clip?
Even the DACPort...
-
HD800 makes pretty loud sounds directly from my iPhone 4.
LOL.
Folks watching me do that had some strange expression on their faces.
Can't help it.. I'm a scientist.
Poor amplication DOES happen of course. But I get agitated when dudes claim their budget, low impedance, high sensativity IEMs are not performing because they're underpowered and needs a good amp to give them juice.
-
Yup. The HD800 is pretty easy to get loud. Absolute gain is not a problem at all w/ them.
-
I'm not sure if I remember the words correctly, but I recall a scenario not too long ago that went something along the lines of this:
person a: my akg701 still sounds rather thin with the Schiit Magni
person b: the akg701 are very hard to amp properly, you need to give them more power
I've never heard the Sansa Clip but I'll assume to put it in the small 'garbage' category.
-
i think we could change "wire with gain" to "wire with grain" as a useful term.
-
I won't say that grain itself is a nonsensical term, but it's something that I just havn't been able to wrap my head around yet.
What I hate most is when people try to use absolute statements instead of relative statements in order to try and describe their experience or their components. Wire with gain is in that category.
-
i don't think that "grain" is an absolute term. i was only playing with words in an attempt to be humorous.
-
I've never heard the Sansa Clip but I'll assume to put it in the small 'garbage' category.
It's really very good for the money.
-
i don't think that "grain" is an absolute term. i was only playing with words in an attempt to be humorous.
Oh, sorry. Perhaps you misunderstood my post-- admittedly I didn't separate it the best. I didn't mean to make it sound like I thought saying grain in general was an absolute term. It was a separate thought. I do think wire with gain is one of those absolute statements though.
-
The Clip is good for what it is. Think of an Apple. It's healthy for you but I would not advise them as a cure for cancer. Did I just say that? :&
-
A small apple. For bigger fruit the old iRiver DAPs with Rockbox are still serious value...
-
"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.
-
"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". p;)
Now I want the "razor-edge" of a balance between the two, tunable to my mood and the recording.
-
You mean like... a convolution reverb DSP?
-
Blacker blacks.
Always liked that one (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,254.msg16813.html#msg16813) :)p8
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.
-
I wouldn't think anyone has an issue with some creativity in reviews. It's the ones that go off the deep end that spoil it for all the others. It is a review after all, not some creative writing assignment. Musical as term makes little sense to me because all headphones will play back music. It may not sound good, but it's still musical. Describing a headphone as having a smoother or harsher sound makes a lot more sense to me.
-
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.
-
The only problem is that some people, such as myself feel, that a certain level of "analytical" is necessary for something to be "musical". For example, I consider the Paradox, (or even the HD800 or Grado RS2) to be far more musical than the "musical" pre-RMA veiled LCD3.
I find the Mjolnir, who some say is on the unrelenting side, a far more "musical" amp than the Burson HA160, which to me sounds far too polite and forgiving.
This is why I feel "musical" is a nonsensical term - especially in this context:
The MadDog is more musical than the Paradox.
So basically, WTH does that mean precisely? Especially when we are tying to communicate sonic qualities to someone else (not an easy task!) One is better of simply saying that one prefers the MadDog over the Paradox. In other words, the term "musical" without the support of any further elaboration is really the ultimate cop-out when we think about it.
-
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!! p:0
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. :)p1
-
The only problem is that some people, such as myself feel, that a certain level of "analytical" is necessary for something to be "musical".
Exactly. At a minimum, you have to be able to discern what you're hearing. For example, if you hear a double-reed instrument deep in the mix of an orchestral recording, it should be instantly obvious whether you're hearing an oboe, an English horn, or a bassoon, because those instruments inherently sound different from each other. If you can't tell that, then some piece of gear somewhere in the signal chain has failed to do its job in a very fundamental way. Similarly, if Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck are playing together, and you can't tell which is which, something is wrong somewhere. If that minimum level of accuracy is absent, I lose interest in a hurry.
So used in that sense, "analytical" is a proxy for "accurate." Alas, if you or I say that word to somebody for whom "analytical" is a proxy for "excessively bright" or "boosted from x kHz to y kHz in a way that makes music sound artificial" then what we have is a failure to communicate.
-
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.
-
Agree with you Purrin about the term musical being a copout. All it really means is "I like this" and want to use an audio term but don't really know what to say. Which is fine because describing sound is really hard as you say, but better to be honest, and just say "I like this". It's a non-descriptive descriptor. I think most of the time terms like "musical" are followed closely by phrases like "we all hear different" which is another copout.
PRaT seems similar. A super technical sounding term that really is just describing a subjective experience and doesn't mean much. Funny, when that term was brought up i remembered when I first signed up on HF, reading reviews by some of the "big time" reviewers, PRaT was always a term that I never understood and made me feel like a noob. I'd think "gosh darn these guys sure know a lot of fancy words to describe sound". I guess that's the point though, and why speaker salesman would use it too.
How about the references to location in the audience that people frequently use? Can't remember the exact phrasing. But I often read people placing headphones in a very precise location in an audience. Like "the Grados man, I love them cause they put me ON the stage man, the ATH's are like 4 rows back, and the HD650 is just boring, it's way in the back of the concert hall and I just fall asleep". I'm always thinking ...."what?" What the hell does that mean? Maybe I haven't been to enough concerts or something I don't know, it just seems like BS to me.
-
Grados man, they put you right up to the horn of a a considerable THD PA speaker man. It's like you were there..man.
-
Actually spatial placement is true but it also can come from amps/dacs. The craziest was the SM3 IEM. Most times on the stage, sometimes behind the band members, sometimes under the stage like WTf?! Hated that. Guess that falls into 'chameleon'. The Westone W4 did this concave SS thing where the L/R extremes were more intimate and the center stage was pushed back. I don't experience things like that as positive traits.
-
I just don't see how soundstage size relates to a concert. It's just small soundstage. Or the soundstage is projected behind you.
I think chameleo- like is a meaningful term. One of the best ways to tell where neutral really lies is when a headphone or component can shift in all directions. Something like an RS1 can never sound dull and rolled off and polite. An HP1 can, out of an amp that sounds dull and rolled off and polite. The less a component has a sound of it's own, the more sound characteristics it takes on from upstream. Hence, chameleon.
Of course, there's crazies out there who probably use this term to describe their mood swings more than anything else
-
What's a non colored headphone? A headphone that masks all recordings equally? There is certainly an aspect to detail retrieval related to driver capability independent of FR bias. If someone can't tell 128kb from 320kb (assuming a properly dynamic track) that phone/rig is masking and simply not accurate.
I get what you're saying about ultimately everything is colored, and there are different ways of being colored. Making errors and masking information. But I was just talking about the blame game. "revealing" is probably the most misused word on head-fi.
-
How about the references to location in the audience that people frequently use? Can't remember the exact phrasing. But I often read people placing headphones in a very precise location in an audience. Like "the Grados man, I love them cause they put me ON the stage man, the ATH's are like 4 rows back, and the HD650 is just boring, it's way in the back of the concert hall and I just fall asleep". I'm always thinking ...."what?" What the hell does that mean? Maybe I haven't been to enough concerts or something I don't know, it just seems like BS to me.
Interesting example, here's a translation:
"the Grados man, I love them cause they put me ON the stage man"
=
"the drivers are pressed right against my fucking ears"
"the ATH's are like 4 rows back"
=
"holy fuck, the driver's further back and the pads are comfy. it's like, more spacious and engineered and shit"
"the HD650 is just boring, it's way in the back of the concert hall and I just fall asleep"
=
"dude, where did the treble go?"
(it's way too easy to translate pompous audiophile to stonerspeak)
-
(it's way too easy to translate pompous audiophile to stonerspeak)
For me it was one and the same.
-
I always wonder how bad reality must sound to people who say that. I obviously like headphones, but... they sound like headphones. Every one I've ever heard, if nothing else for the fact that my brain doesn't contexualize what I'm hearing with anything in my enviornment.
I guess the Smith Realizer came close to not sounding like headphones, but its less-than-stellar synergy with the HD800's gave everything an opaque fuzziness.
-
So basically, WTH does that mean precisely? Especially when we are tying to communicate sonic qualities to someone else (not an easy task!) One is better of simply saying that one prefers the MadDog over the Paradox. In other words, the term "musical" without the support of any further elaboration is really the ultimate cop-out when we think about it.
Its actually based more on taste than anything else but if you check my dt250 thread on headfi I think everyone there actually agrees with me on those particular cans so there may be very well some cans out there that appeal more than others in that sense... ex.hd650. I dunno... just throwin it out there for people to think about. :wheel:
-
Did we already cover "fun?" The 'u' in "fun" stands for the sound signature usually associated with the word. MOAR FUN.
-
What's a non colored headphone? A headphone that masks all recordings equally? There is certainly an aspect to detail retrieval related to driver capability independent of FR bias. If someone can't tell 128kb from 320kb (assuming a properly dynamic track) that phone/rig is masking and simply not accurate.
I get what you're saying about ultimately everything is colored, and there are different ways of being colored. Making errors and masking information. But I was just talking about the blame game. "revealing" is probably the most misused word on head-fi.
There^^^ I can't agree with uou more on that one. I hate it when something is bright and peaky, its always called revealing. Its more like picky because of being colored LOL
-
Did a Beyer man just say that? :)) :)p17
-
I just don't see how soundstage size relates to a concert. It's just small soundstage. Or the soundstage is projected behind you.
There is equipment that really has no appreciable "sound" to it. I wouldn't call it "chameleon", just perceptually flat - the problem is that some people associate flat with "atonal". "Chameleon" feature is usually due to mostly flat signature - slanted is also ok, as long as the slant isn't huge. Meaning no dips/humps.
SE-5 is not it at all, it has some relatively small peaks in 3-5k range, a bass hump and a high end shelf, with peaks too. It definitely has a sound.
So yes, the soundstaging is all over the place (w/o equalization) due to those features, like in SM3. Even with equalization, the weird gradation of thickness also plays a role, from thick, hard hitting bass to thin highs with some Ety-style "oversharp" ringing.
-
How about the references to location in the audience that people frequently use? Can't remember the exact phrasing. But I often read people placing headphones in a very precise location in an audience. Like "the Grados man, I love them cause they put me ON the stage man, the ATH's are like 4 rows back, and the HD650 is just boring, it's way in the back of the concert hall and I just fall asleep". I'm always thinking ...."what?" What the hell does that mean? Maybe I haven't been to enough concerts or something I don't know, it just seems like BS to me.
Interesting example, here's a translation:
"the Grados man, I love them cause they put me ON the stage man"
=
"the drivers are pressed right against my fucking ears"
"the ATH's are like 4 rows back"
=
"holy fuck, the driver's further back and the pads are comfy. it's like, more spacious and engineered and shit"
"the HD650 is just boring, it's way in the back of the concert hall and I just fall asleep"
=
"dude, where did the treble go?"
(it's way too easy to translate pompous audiophile to stonerspeak)
It's interesting to see how you translate those statements as well because that's not exactly how I would translate them. You're kind of taking what is said 'literally' which is not what is meant (I think) when it's written.
"the Grados man, I love them cause they put me ON the stage man"
=
They are aggressive sounding because the music sounds as though it's very close.
"the ATH's are like 4 rows back"
=
They are smoother sounding and not too aggressive.
"the HD650 is just boring, it's way in the back of the concert hall and I just fall asleep"
=
(What you actually said) Where's the treble?
Interesting in that you are equating the statements mostly to 'physical causes' of the sound and I think of it more in terms of how would you describe the sound.
I obviously like headphones, but... they sound like headphones. Every one I've ever heard, if nothing else for the fact that my brain doesn't contexualize what I'm hearing with anything in my enviornment.
That's about it really. Two inch drivers trying to cram a band or orchestra in there. So back to 'what is neutral' or correct in a headphone? One man's bass is another man's poison. One man's shrieky treble is another man's detail. Who is 'correct'?
I like the figures but enjoy reading what people SAY about their gear. One's fact, the other's an emotional response. Room for both.
-
Oh, there is one thing that "PRaT" could be meaningfully translated to.
Whether a headphone or IEM sounds distorts at higher SPL. I'd call it "compressed" instead though, as in dynamic range compression.
Pace/Timing, gets affected due to the delay in percussion. Rhythm, same. Tune/Pitch, obviously if the compression happens at higher frequencies too.
I know two IEMs and one headphone myself that have this issue: Brainwavz B2 in bass, Sleek Audio SA6, Sennheiser HD497. It's not that common.
A different related phenomenon is "one note bass", that one is due to frequency response peak in the bass.
Here's someone's endeavor into this term: http://www.tnt-audio.com/edcorner/prat_e.html
I don't agree with this.
I prefer this translation: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prat
-
Urban Dictionary...
That gives "throwing the book at it" a new spin. How pratty...
-
Did a Beyer man just say that? :)) :)p17
I'm not a beyer man, I hate standard beyers :vomit: The beyer I have is darker than an hd600 :)p13
-
SE-5 is not it at all, it has some relatively small peaks in 3-5k range, a bass hump and a high end shelf, with peaks too. It definitely has a sound. So yes, the soundstaging is all over the place (w/o equalization) due to those features, like in SM3. Even with equalization, the weird gradation of thickness also plays a role, from thick, hard hitting bass to thin highs with some Ety-style "oversharp" ringing.
I think there's more to it than FR in that case. I used to have the SM3 and Monster Miles Davis side by side. They both had a very similar FR they way I was listening to them. While the SM3 was all over the place the MD's were consistent in their presentation with each track. Leads me to believe there was some impact from the multiple drivers and crossover network versus a single full range driver.
-
This thread has got me looking for quotes now:
Do you know what they mean by faster and upfront?
A headphone that is faster? (more treble?)
-
It has been said that a strong treble edge gives the impression of greater speed or 'PRaT'. Hence Grados+rock.
-
Indeed, "speed" is one of those elusive qualities. It is acted upon by frequency balance and harmonic distortion patterns.
-
It's interesting to see how you translate those statements as well because that's not exactly how I would translate them. You're kind of taking what is said 'literally' which is not what is meant (I think) when it's written.
...
Interesting in that you are equating the statements mostly to 'physical causes' of the sound and I think of it more in terms of how would you describe the sound.
Those were quick simplifications, I'm not one to deny the effects of tonality :)p4
-
It has been said that a strong treble edge gives the impression of greater speed or 'PRaT'. Hence Grados+rock.
Are speed and PRaT really the same? I tend to associate PRaT with fun factor due to a good combination of speed and coherence which gets my toe tappin. I feel that PRaT is also another subjective thing just like musicality. I understand why Purrin calls them BS terms. They are personal and don't really describe anything in specific detail analytically speaking. I like using those terms though when I am enjoying the music more than listening to flaws.
-
I just don't see how soundstage size relates to a concert. It's just small soundstage. Or the soundstage is projected behind you.
There is equipment that really has no appreciable "sound" to it. I wouldn't call it "chameleon", just perceptually flat - the problem is that some people associate flat with "atonal". "Chameleon" feature is usually due to mostly flat signature - slanted is also ok, as long as the slant isn't huge. Meaning no dips/humps.
It seems like you're contradicting yourself here, and possibly missing the point. And my post about soundstage wasn't referring to "chameleon".
The point is that the less a pair of headphones impart their own sound, the bigger effect upstream changes have, esp recordings, and the final sound changes more with upstream/recording changes. Even something like a K701 imparts so much of it's own signature, that no matter what recording you're listening to, the final signal always sounds like a K701. Nothing against the K701, just an example of something that is pretty good but still has a lot of it's own sound.
-
True, but it cannot be "chameleon" if the soundstaging is obviously wrong. That's where certain multi-BA expensive IEMs, like SE-5, fail hard.
(This specific one, while adaptable, has also a layered quality due to obvious differences in timbre between gross frequency ranges.)
On the contrary, my equalized modded RE-ZERO reacts far closer to the track than anything I've heard yet, including soundstage, balance, any recording flaws etc.
Yet it still sounds like RE-ZERO, because this IEM imparts a plate reverb quality, which suprisingly doesn't interact badly with anything, as it's relatively subtle. I bet it would mess up the rare true binaural recordings though.
So, what the hell does "chameleon" mean? Is that one a chameleon with stripes or what? Can you grade "chameleonness"? "Chameleonier"? It's ridiculous.
It has the same problem as "wire-with-gain".
Everything has its own sound, more or less subtle. Especially in case of headphones.
(Amps and sources can at times be indistinguishable from each other.)
I forgot to mention: there is "chameleon" as in "reproduces track faithfully" and "chameleon" as in "every track sounds completely different". Note the former is accuracy, the latter is weird. That's perhaps why you're noticing the contradiction. I was talking about both accuracy and weirdness in the same post.
(SE-5 is quite accurate up to and including midrange - except some bass boost, which can mess with soundstaging rarely. However, highs are peaky enough to be annoying and sound different with every track.)
-
Do you know what a chameleon is?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon
-
I am familiar with the "karma" variant.
-
It has been said that a strong treble edge gives the impression of greater speed or 'PRaT'. Hence Grados+rock.
Are speed and PRaT really the same? I tend to associate PRaT with fun factor due to a good combination of speed and coherence which gets my toe tappin. I feel that PRaT is also another subjective thing just like musicality. I understand why Purrin calls them BS terms. They are personal and don't really describe anything in specific detail analytically speaking. I like using those terms though when I am enjoying the music more than listening to flaws.
Speed would be a subset of PRaT, which could mean many things.
-
In the end no-one will probably be using another 'vocabulary' other that the one close to their own 'world' and what they are familiar with.
This will always annoy others, Techs will be annoyed with technical terms used 'wrongly', non technical people will likely not fully understand (or interpret wrongly) the technical descriptions, techs won't be able to grasp or misinterpret what is meant with some colourful words e.t.c.
GE does have a 'subjective sound evaluation' as well, but shown in a technical and comparative manner in the form of 'sliders' (below the graphs in a section called 'reviewers opinion' but may not give the total picture to everyone.
To really 'understand' some-ones sonic description (perhaps only for the pirates website) would be a list of unmistakeable descriptions AND a short list of familiar music that is easy to obtain AND can show differences.
The list should be easy to find and use (not too long) and descriptions that non-technical people can translate their sentiments to.
-
To really 'understand' some-ones sonic description (perhaps only for the pirates website) would be a list of unmistakeable descriptions AND a short list of familiar music that is easy to obtain AND can show differences.
The list should be easy to find and use (not too long) and descriptions that non-technical people can translate their sentiments to.
Seconded. :)p2
-
Do you know what a chameleon is?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon
The whole problem is that this term is just used to mean "presentation changes depending on the track". Heck, everything changes more or less.
It does not mean that it's so accurate as to disappear apparently, as I've found out in case of SE-5. It is wonderfully undefined. It doesn't specify what changes, on which tracks - or even provides a hypothesis why.
It does not specify the degree of accuracy (if that's what the author meant) and let's be honest, there's always more and less accurate.
It's like "PRaT" or other undefined qualities.
Unlike "speed", which is quite reasonably defined, just there are a bunch of factors affecting it, shadings and gradations.
Here's a fun fact straight from wiki: "Often when caught for analysis the chameleon may turn a dark color, indicating its anger or irritability at being disturbed."
Actual chameleons don't necessarily match their environment.
-
In the end no-one will probably be using another 'vocabulary' other that the one close to their own 'world' and what they are familiar with.
This will always annoy others, Techs will be annoyed with technical terms used 'wrongly', non technical people will likely not fully understand (or interpret wrongly) the technical descriptions, techs won't be able to grasp or misinterpret what is meant with some colourful words e.t.c.
GE does have a 'subjective sound evaluation' as well, but shown in a technical and comparative manner in the form of 'sliders' (below the graphs in a section called 'reviewers opinion' but may not give the total picture to everyone.lO
To really 'understand' some-ones sonic description (perhaps only for the pirates website) would be a list of unmistakeable descriptions AND a short list of familiar music that is easy to obtain AND can show differences.
The list should be easy to find and use (not too long) and descriptions that non-technical people can translate their sentiments to.
I agree with that as well. If you take part in more subjective discussions it's quite important to know other peoples' preferences, using your own as a reference. Objectivity kind of speaks for itself with no regard for listener taste.
It can also make things difficult on some forums in that each side often seems to misunderstand the other with one using (often flawed) ears as proof and the other using measurements. It's also one of the things that seems to cause the biggest flare ups!!
We should all show a healthy respect for what the figures say, but equally, we should show respect for what people try to describe.
Unless a forum is really only for technical people and the ones that don't understand measurements just keep away. My guess is that anyone who is a musician (actually making recordings) would make a hasty exit if that were the case.
I enjoy both aspects although I do find find a ' figures only' approach very tedious and feel that the reviewer has no real feelings of their own. Cold figures don' t say everything and neither do pretty descriptions.
However, a technically minded person with the gift to translate into the real world is great to read and for me, more interesting.
The title of this discussion could equally read, ' Meaningless Measurements' if the measurements being taken are not really noticed by listeners. The sine wave measurements used as proof of a good amp in the 70's/80's come to mind here. Also, something I find hard to not take offence to is the quoting of figures at people to prove them wrong and put them down.
It can be such a touchy subject that it can be impossible to discuss on many forums. It seems, not here though!! :)p1
-
I agree with that as well. If you take part in more subjective discussions it's quite important to know other peoples' preferences, using your own as a reference. Objectivity kind of speaks for itself with no regard for listener taste.
How do you subtract preferences from the review?
Simple, by falling back on relative objective measurements. They might be incomplete, but ones made here are comprehensive enough.
After you do that, the rest of the review gets clearer.
The title of this discussion could equally read, ' Meaningless Measurements' if the measurements being taken are not really noticed by listeners. The sine wave measurements used as proof of a good amp in the 70's/80's come to mind here. Also, something I find hard to not take offence to is the quoting of figures at people to prove them wrong and put them down.
It can be such a touchy subject that it can be impossible to discuss on many forums. It seems, not here though!! :)p1
Yes, meaningless measurements do happen. In case of headphones though there are many more things that are measurable and subjectively different.
Ignoring them or making excuses does not help at all.
If someone takes offence at objective reality, they should exit it. Fast. I recommend drugs for this purpose. :money:
-
I don't think anyone takes offence at 'objective reality' as long as the reality is actually relevant.
However, the suggestion to exit fast and take drugs is the kind of statement fired at people for being 'wrong' seen in so many forums on the internet. poo
There are other considerations with hi fi other than current reality which could be tomorrow's newspapers. p:/
Room for both as long as each can tolerate each other without drugs.
-
Indeed, that's quite a harsh statement. However, it annoys me to no end where people that are completely non-objective (heck, even by choice) write reviews.
Especially when they don't acknowledge their preferences.
This includes all too common shills. People with vested interest, including fans of a brand or people who have no business describing sound due to lack of skill.
Like any skill, comparative review can be learned and trained.
-
I guess all I'm saying really is that there are some who take measurements as the 'gospel' and are not actually capable of describing what effect the measurements would have on the sound.
That's an important part of what the objectivist should do imo. I've seen one person who is able to communicate really well what a set of graphs show in plain English without resorting to some kind of inverted 'snobbery' or funniness if anyone dare to ask a question.
It's that part of objectiveness that subjective listeners take real offence to I think. (Like your suggestion to take drugs p:8)
The real skill is the interpretation of the measurements, not the measurements themselves and that's also where a little subjectiveness might creep in anyway.
I find the waterfall graphs fascinating actually but if you look at Goldenears, the facts are there in graphs, but not really the whole story. Find a headphone you've not tried and look it up on there. Make up your mind what you think it sounds like from the graphs and then listen to it.
Results can be surprising.
People taking measurements should refrain from listening to the headphone. Take the measurements. Predict how it will sound and see how close they were.
The reality often is, they will listen first, measure and then confirm what they measured is audible.
One thing that I have enjoyed so far on Changstar is the way that those measurements are taken but the added 'gung ho' attitude with it. There's that humour and openness mixed in with hard facts that is really enjoyable and refreshing to see from hi fi people who often don't get out much to hear live music anyway!!! :)p13 (That's a joke btw facepalm)
-
I guess all I'm saying really is that there are some who take measurements as the 'gospel' and are not actually capable of describing what effect the measurements would have on the sound.
That's an important part of what the objectivist should do imo. I've seen one person who is able to communicate really well what a set of graphs show in plain English without resorting to some kind of inverted 'snobbery' or funniness if anyone dare to ask a question.
There's the whole problem in that words are fuzzy. Fuzzy words are better than no words though. However words without any measurement are quite worthless until you "decode" the reviewer, which is often impossible. For people like Joker or purrin, I happen to have some sort of a "decoder ring" because of shared experiences. (Listening to enough IEMs and headphones for comparison on comparable gear.) It's not accurate though, and it can never be - people change.
Measurements made using the same methodology stay extremely consistent assuming the gear is good.
It is very expensive and/or time consuming to "decode" any single review. Even more so if it's full of worthless terms and weasel words.
It's comparatively easy to "decode" a set of measurements. You can even cross-correlate between different measurement gear to a certain extent.
It's that part of objectiveness that subjective listeners take real offence to I think. (Like your suggestion to take drugs p:8)
Seriously though, many people hate having the flaws of their favorite thing pointed out. Objectivist or subjectivist alike. The "cold shower" approach can sometimes work. This is what piracy is partly about, not mincing words. There's bilion of other, nicer ways to explain the sentiment I felt, but every other would be less genuine.
The real skill is the interpretation of the measurements, not the measurements themselves and that's also where a little subjectiveness might creep in anyway.
You can interpret anything enough so that it becomes meaningless. The less there is to interpret, the better. (as long as what is there is accurate and descriptive enough)
I find the waterfall graphs fascinating actually but if you look at Goldenears, the facts are there in graphs, but not really the whole story. Find a headphone you've not tried and look it up on there. Make up your mind what you think it sounds like from the graphs and then listen to it.
The whole problem is that without measurement equipment or lots of experience there's no way to point out broken measurements.
Purrin here is keeping conservative and scientific here, e.g. by trimming IEMs to 10k (I'd prefer error bars/blur myself), removing lowest end from CSDs (same), providing exact metodology used to create the CSDs from impulse response (included in every CSD). The only thing missing is the complete description of measurement gear (but it makes repeatable measurements) and the exact compensation curve.
Golden Ears are missing the CSD settings in their methodology part. Frequency response though is reasonably close and they do provide "raw" data as well.
Results can be surprising.
People taking measurements should refrain from listening to the headphone. Take the measurements. Predict how it will sound and see how close they were.
That's one way to tune up your skills. Predict and check for errors. You can also do the other way around, listen to the headphone and try to predict the measurements. What matters most is the feedback between the two.
The reality often is, they will listen first, measure and then confirm what they measured is audible.
Or vice versa, measure first, and then describe what they heard in terms of what they measured. It's unavoidable if measurement and/or opinion are mutually accurate.
It's when the two diverge much when one has to be careful - there's an error somewhere or perhaps an inconsistency, or an ignored factor not described by the measurements. (hidden variable)
-
So, no BS. What's the best headphone? Measuring them should be able to point this out with ease. p:8
-
Nothing is perfect, so "best" has to be qualified. Since it's a human interaction device, ergonomics matter as well.
It's easier to say which are great. It's been done already somewhere. ("state of headphone hobby" I think) I meant "Pirate Booty".
:)p1
Plus, there can be budget considerations.
-
How do you subtract preferences from the review?
With all due respect, why would you want to? Knowing what a reviewer has liked and disliked over an extended period (and why), and comparing it to what I have liked and disliked (and why), gives a decided advantage in translating future reviews into actionable intelligence.
Even knowing what a reviewer considers to be his "reference" gear can provide valuable information that you can use in evaluating reviews.
Are you seriously saying that it would be of no use to you, in evaluating a review of a headphone amp by a particular reviewer in Hi-Fi News, to know that his reference headphone amp is the Lehmann Black Cube Linear? If yes, then you and I should just agree to disagree, because I find that to be incomprehensible.
-
You've misread, it was a rhethoric question. I've meant to point out the best way to account for preferences.
Exactly what you said - it is superbly important to know the preferences of the reviewers, then "subtract" them from the impressions and "add" your own tastes.
Say, the reviewer loves tube rolloff, you don't. This doesn't mean you have to toss out all the reviews, but you need to keep that in mind.
However you can still make a mistake then if the fuzzy terms don't match exactly.
Many reviewers don't state their preferences directly unfortunately. That makes an objective measurement an even more vital tool to validate reviewer's likes and dislikes.
-
So, no BS. What's the best headphone? Measuring them should be able to point this out with ease. p:8
Judging from measurements alone made by Purrin a handful qualify.
I have to say I never heard a single one of them.. (I know it sucks, but think I am on par on 3rd place)
1: Modded HE AudiJade.
2: Sennheiser Orpheus HE90
3: LFF Paradox + my filter to lift the 'missing' top end.
4: Stax SR009
5: HiFiMan HE-6 (if it weren't fro the terrible ringing at 6kHz
6: Sony R10 B.H. if it didn't have a peak at 15kHz (which can be filtered)
Note 3rd place ... a modified T50RP and the price range compared to the top.
For people on a bugdet it is a no-brainer.
For people that have plenty and care nothing about spending money..
HE-Audiojade / HE90 / SR009 + the needed amplifiers
As stated never heard any of these so only seen from 'measurements only'
Personal preference, comparative listening sessions, subjective preference, bias (of owning one) may, however, alter the ranking and or remove/add items from this list.
I think musical, analytical, PRaT, and the 'wive loves them too' (if they didn't know what it had cost you) may all apply and ... they are all 'fast' and do transients well.
No farting one-note bass in sight.
-
:)p13
Thanks Solderdude. After that it becomes more a question of personal preference!! It is quite amazing how variable the costs of those headphones are and how the cost doesn't necessarily reflect the sound that you're getting.
So, the amount you're prepared to spend isn't really a huge barrier to quality sound either. You are slowly getting me more and more interested in those LFF Paradox in spite of what they look like!! I wonder how different the straight Fostex is by comparison? There's quite a difference in price - probably the time spent on them I guess.
The other thing though, is that these headphones will all sound so different as well. So none of them can be 'flat'? So we're back to personal (subjective) preferences once they've been proved technically good headphones.
It looks like a very tasty collection too!! :)p1
-
So, no BS. What's the best headphone? Measuring them should be able to point this out with ease. p:8
Judging from measurements alone made by Purrin a handful qualify.
I have to say I never heard a single one of them.. (I know it sucks, but think I am on par on 3rd place)
1: Modded HE AudiJade.
2: Sennheiser Orpheus HE90
3: LFF Paradox + my filter to lift the 'missing' top end.
4: Stax SR009
5: HiFiMan HE-6 (if it weren't fro the terrible ringing at 6kHz
6: Sony R10 B.H. if it didn't have a peak at 15kHz (which can be filtered)
Note 3rd place ... a modified T50RP and the price range compared to the top.
For people on a bugdet it is a no-brainer.
For people that have plenty and care nothing about spending money..
HE-Audiojade / HE90 / SR009 + the needed amplifiers
As stated never heard any of these so only seen from 'measurements only'
Personal preference, comparative listening sessions, subjective preference, bias (of owning one) may, however, alter the ranking and or remove/add items from this list.
I think musical, analytical, PRaT, and the 'wive loves them too' (if they didn't know what it had cost you) may all apply and ... they are all 'fast' and do transients well.
No farting one-note bass in sight.
I think you need to look at the distortion measurements as well before you can rank them.
The Jade does not have the levels of transparency of the SR-009 or HE90. Not sure what mods were done, but I had a stock final version Jade and used it with my Blue Hawaii. Just from what I heard my ears tell me it has higher distortion than the HE90 and SR-009. SR-Omega also measures well in FR and sounded like it had low distortion. To use an old school (perhaps nonsensical) goredwingsfan term, the Jades have a Fuzzy McFuzz coloration to them that doesn't quite give you the absolute clearest window to the recording.
-
Seems some have missed/forgotten the modded HD800s and how far the noise floor can be dropped on them compared to even the 009. No way is it not a top 5 phone objectively. Top 3 in my book.
-
Jades are not as clean at the 009 or as resolving as the HE90. The mods do not make the Jades any any cleaner sounding - they simply even out the FR wrinkles.
I don't think anything touches the 009 in terms of clean presentation and transient response. My issue with the 009 is its tonal balance. I like it on some days and not so much on others. Also, I've never felt the 009 were that resolving in terms of plankton extraction.
-
'Plankton extraction' ...... what a great term!! :)p13
So when we get to a top ten, words become important. We can't avoid it. Mind you, your wording is slightly better:
I don't think anything touches the 009 in terms of clean presentation and transient response.
=
The 009 is a better headphone because it puts you in a front row seat and it really is a fast headphone. Really musical too?
It almost sounds like a Grado when put like that. p:8
-
Grado has better PRaT. >:D Who said that?! :-00
-
No, that's the name of the person wearing them. :)p13
-
Jades are not as clean at the 009 or as resolving as the HE90. The mods do not make the Jades any any cleaner sounding - they simply even out the FR wrinkles.
I don't think anything touches the 009 in terms of clean presentation and transient response. My issue with the 009 is its tonal balance. I like it on some days and not so much on others. Also, I've never felt the 009 were that resolving in terms of plankton extraction.
As said I never heard any of them and ranking would depend on other things as well.
The HE90/AudioJades/SR009 seem like the best ones including the Paradox which is unusually flat for the price tag (upto 10kHz) and shows no peaks or dips worth mentioning.
In any case there seems to be consensus that these 3 electrostats are exceptional headphones.
Money no object = SR009 BUT since money is no concern get yourself 2 or 3 other headphones and amps as well such as HE-90 e.t.c. ;D
Those on a tight budget IMO should get a T50RP and mod them properly (I don't care for them in stock form)
Next we need a (short) list with excellent (reference) recordings that can be easily obtained so we can all discuss the same 'findings' with as least as possible nonsensical terms.
-
popcorn
-
Money no object = SR009 BUT since money is no concern get yourself 2 or 3 other headphones and amps as well such as HE-90 e.t.c. ;D
Money no object <> SR009. At least for me.
-
If money is no object, then my own house in the middle of nowhere and the very best speaker system with the freedom to be played all day.
Technicality is a word that's in the verge of being nonsensical to me, but only because it has so many differing definitions on head-fi. One man's technical superior headphone is another man's thin and sibilant headphone. People also use it moreso for subjective arguments rather than objective arguments.
-
Oh yes, I'd forgotten that one - 'Technically speaking, it's a superior headphone'. Used quite a bit to suggest a superior knowledge on HF!!
That argument was used against me concerning the DT880 way back when it came out. There was a fanboy on there who got really offended because I dared to suggest that I found it a bit toppy.
He told me that it was a 'technically superior' headphone and got really irate. It turns out that he was using two CMoy's linked together to drive it. p:0
-
Money no object <> SR009. At least for me.
The troubling part for me is... I believe you ...
Having listened for many years to some really good electrostatic speakers, these too do not compare to dynamic speakers.
I find the modded T50RP (+ added 10kHz + part) too makes the 'headphone' disappear in much the same way as the electrostatic speakers (with a massive active subwoofer) were not present listening to music while I can always hear the drivers of 'normal' speakers.
To form a sort of reference... for my own sake... never having heard those HP's.
How does the SR009 'compare' to the Paradox or is that comparison nonsensical ?
Just curious... (and afraid) as I think the SR009 might also 'disappear' from the chain listening only to performance of music instead of gear reproducing it.
Did hear the HD800 on a couple of occasions and some cheaper Stax's, T1, D7000, HE500, LCD2 though.
Nice headphones but all had 'something' that could not satisfy me or became 'obvious' as a limitation when switching headphones around.
I should stop doing direct comparisons though ... but I can't ... its like an addiction... dammit
-
Don't worry, we don't do FOTMs here. Just listen to some music before you torture that suffering wallet...
-
Personally I'd be hesitant about people impressions of the HD800 and 009. They both change more with upstream gear than any other phones I've ever heard. I've heard a few here and there. Modded Jade can too somewhat.
-
Spot on, Anax. The HD800 and SR-009 are some of the most chameleon-like headphones around. With the wrong gear they end up sounding flat, lifeless, and irritatingly strident to my ears. On the right system however they're pretty much unparalleled in refinement by anything else on the headphone market today.
While not as extreme, I find the HE90 is somewhat similar in this regard: on some amps it sounds too romantic and uneven for my liking. With the right amp however, I still feel it comes out on top. An Orpheus rig with the proper synergy is still one of my potential "end game" rigs.
For me the stat ranking sort of looks like:
1st - Sennheiser HE90 (on the right amp)
2nd - Stax SR-Omega
3rd - Stax SR-009 (on the right amp)
4th - Jecklin Float QUAD Atelier
5th - HeAUDIO Jade / EH-1.2B / EH-1.3 (non-modded)
6th - Stax SR-007mk1
7th - Stax SR-007mk2
8th - Koss ESP950
9th - SR-009 on the wrong amp
I omit dynamics for the sake of brevity.
It's variable tho. When my biological clock's alarm goes off, SR-007mk1 would be much higher up there, probably ahead of everything but the HE90. I'm sure the modded version of the Jade would be higher up too.
-
Wow, this is becoming quite a thread - from nonsensical terms to Name and Shame!!!
What is really nice is the fact that these are all technically at the top of the pile but ultimately, we all seek slight variations.
I must admit, it is fascinating seeing what guys see as THE headphone to have.
Maybe another one for the best at each price level? This is a seriously interesting topic actually and I am kind of riveted to looking at the recommendations. I also love the honesty!!! :)p7
-
LOL could we get a definition of plankton for the unitiated limeys amongst us :)p14
I have a rough idea of what you are referring to, but don't want to put my foot in my mouth assume wrong.
-
If I understand we are whales who consume plankton by listening to music. You see the oceans of music are our habitats and plankton is our food. Our plankton addiction varies though... :)p8
-
I believe plankton = low-level detail. To me, its the biggestplus for the HD800 as no other headphone I've heard can extract "plankton" like the HD800 (and I use speakers for staging). My personal belief is that some find plankton distracting, and this may be a key to preference of amps like the WA22 which totally fail to extract the plankton with the HD800 vs amps like the BA (and Anax would say the S7) which do not prevent the HD800 from extracting everything it can from the recording.
To be a jerk about the whole chameleon thing, I find us humans to be more chameleon-like than any of our gear. Chameleons change color based on mood, light, temperature - I find my tastes and whims do as well.
-
To be a jerk about the whole chameleon thing, I find us humans to be more chameleon-like than any of our gear. Chameleons change color based on mood, light, temperature - I find my tastes and whims do as well.
I think the metaphor works well for both people and certain gear.
Some headphones sound largely the same no matter what you feed them, whereas others change a lot more depending on their "environment." How I feel also depends in part on my environment, and how I feel determines the sort of gear I seek.
Then again, the other day someone was telling me they felt the HD800 sounded best on a Leben with bass boost. That exceeds my range of chameleonic adaptation.
-
Cheers Tari, I wasn't too far off. I took it to mean low level resolution combined with micro-dynamics.
HD800 are certainly what I would call chameleon. Another phone that is like that is the HD650. For a dark headphone it sounds characteristically different from different amps and sources. The HD800 and HD650 also respond quite dramatically to balanced drive... more so than the Hifimans and Audezes that have come through here. Actually I think both those Sennheisers are far more chameleon than the HE-500, LCD-2 r1 or 2.
I'm not sure what the SR-009 amp would be. After hearing it in a controlled setting with the BHSE I never felt the need to run out and buy one. A nice combination, but it didn't resonate with me. They couldn't disappear, similar to the SZ3 O2... just something "there" about them that I can't characterize.
-
Some people are 'prawn' people. They don't like their music served as 'plankton', they like bigger chunks as in 120kbs MP3.
Maybe Plankton = good headphones and a nice source.
Prawns = 120kbs MP3 on an Ipod with dock connection to an amp and a DAB radio.
Cuttlefish = podcasts on a Sansa without an amp.
Crabs = 78RPM on a 6 inch nail and soundboard.
All perfectly good for pirates and hi fi. :)p13
I loved the reference to Plankton in a thread about nonsensical terms.
-
HD800 are certainly what I would call chameleon. Another phone that is like that is the HD650. For a dark headphone it sounds characteristically different from different amps and sources. The HD800 and HD650 also respond quite dramatically to balanced drive... more so than the Hifimans and Audezes that have come through here. Actually I think both those Sennheisers are far more chameleon than the HE-500, LCD-2 r1 or 2.
It's not really the difference in the amplifiers but the difference in output resistance (voltage division, not damping factor) that makes certain headphones chameleons (at least it appears as that is what 'chameleonism' is)
I would call it nonsensical as better technical terms exist.
At least now I have the 'technical translation' for 'chameleon'
I had difficulties in comprehending that term, thanks for the pointer Omegakitty...
I hope you guys don't let me walk the walk the plank ton
-
Is there something fishy about this thread. p:8
-
Solderdude and Astralstorm, it seems you have a hard time comprehending something unless you can see numbers or graphs. What I'm talking about is a concept and a pretty important one despite the silly animal metaphor. Maybe I'll draw you some pictures at some point.
-
Solderdude, it seems you have a hard time comprehending something unless you can see numbers or graphs. What I'm talking about is a concept and a pretty important one despite the silly animal metaphor. Maybe I'll draw you some pictures at some point.
Indeed I did not understand how a headphone could be different at times but I assumed it was meant as it sounding different on the same gear somehow.
The better headphones can sound bassless or sibilant on the same setup and warm/lush as well depending on the recording and thought that was meant by the term (not being HF'er).
Omegakitty's description clarified the point to me so I understand.
My viewpoint really has little to do with numbers or graphs being important to me, IMO more with the fact that I "believe" audio = electronics.
Been in audio (electronics, and electromechanics side) for over 30 years which may explain why I feel knowledge analog electronics knowledge (not hobbyist level) could be of relevance including the numbers and graphs that come with it, which I think has a clear relation to what I think I hear (perceive might be more accurate term).
P.S.... I am not one of Voldemorts minions but my findings have great resemblances with what he used to preach, though not everything nor in the same condescending way.
I also fully understand there is a difference in hearing ability (which I believe most can be learned/trained).
I also fully understand the border between 'religion' and 'science' is a variable one and not set in stone meaning for some it is clear where that border is and that border may be slightly shifted to either 'side' depending on how one listens/tests e.t.c. while still being certain their perception of that border feels 'rigid' and non-negotiable.
This too is relevant to what one sees as sensical or nonsensical audioterms or descriptions of others.
Not coming from a producer or musician but from a technical corner does put me in a corner and would really (not lying here or sucking up) someone painting me pictures of how they see it.
Omegakitty's picture was immensely clear and really appreciate those kind of descriptions.
Some may have perceived that remark as 'cynical' but it was intended as 'true'.
I hope I painted my picture in the right colors :-S
-
By the way, how is the term "sweet" defined exactly? I keep on hearing it from a more non-audiophile crowd for treble, I never really got it. Is it supposedly a less dry and airier treble?
-
Solderdude and Astralstorm, it seems you have a hard time comprehending something unless you can see numbers or graphs. What I'm talking about is a concept and a pretty important one despite the silly animal metaphor. Maybe I'll draw you some pictures at some point.
You underestimate Solderdude. A tech guy who paints the most accurate pictures in words of headphones and is able to translate what is seen in measurements into understandable words. Some of the most accurate descriptions I've seen have been written by him. :)p8
-
HD800 are certainly what I would call chameleon. Another phone that is like that is the HD650. For a dark headphone it sounds characteristically different from different amps and sources. The HD800 and HD650 also respond quite dramatically to balanced drive... more so than the Hifimans and Audezes that have come through here. Actually I think both those Sennheisers are far more chameleon than the HE-500, LCD-2 r1 or 2.
HD800 are at least a gear chameleon more than track chameleon. Or rather, their ability to sound chameleon-like (ugh, what the hell is this word) depends on the gear used to drive it. From my experience, it's not balanced vs unbalanced - they don't seem to matter one bit. Just try the adapter from balanced to unbalanced on the same amp to check.
It's not output impedance alone in this case - it's more like it makes amplifier's distortion stand out because it has little of its own. (Also FR rolloffs.)
If you apply an equalizer to them (or some mods? I've heard them stock only and with balanced cabling mod), they do sound very adaptable - bah, let's use the proper word: accurate. Otherwise, the bright coloration reduces this ability considerably by messing up soundstaging.
That said, their dynamics and detailing is probably the best regardless.
--
rhythmdevils, you're quite a troll, you know that?
-
By the way, how is the term "sweet" defined exactly? I keep on hearing it from a more non-audiophile crowd for treble, I never really got it. Is it supposedly a less dry and airier treble?
Prolly it means that they like it!
-
By the way, how is the term "sweet" defined exactly? I keep on hearing it from a more non-audiophile crowd for treble, I never really got it. Is it supposedly a less dry and airier treble?
I would think it is about similar to velvet(ty) highs, in other words 'soft' opposite of piercing (peaky) or coarse/rough highs.
Some, leaning towards coarse, recordings could sound more pleasant from a 'sweet' headphone.
Rounded treble or gently rolled off comes to mind while retaining small details.
Mostly combined with little elevated lows/warmish mids envokes the 'sweet' reaction.
HD650 comes to mind as an example.
Also one could call the older DT990 (600 Ohm) 'sweet' sounding eventhough it has peaked treble.
Ofcourse that is my interpretation of 'sweet'. :(
It would be interesting to see what 'sweet' sounding might mean (describes what aspects) to other pirates as well. :-\
-
HD800 are certainly what I would call chameleon. Another phone that is like that is the HD650. For a dark headphone it sounds characteristically different from different amps and sources. The HD800 and HD650 also respond quite dramatically to balanced drive... more so than the Hifimans and Audezes that have come through here. Actually I think both those Sennheisers are far more chameleon than the HE-500, LCD-2 r1 or 2.
Just try the adapter from balanced to unbalanced on the same amp to check.
I have, I wouldn't have stated my opinion on the matter if I hadn't... p:8
My GS-X does both balanced and unbalanced output off the balanced input. And with 3 gain switches it's pretty easy to level match with an spl meter.
Maybe it doesn't make a difference off some sources... but my DAC has a true balanced output.
edit: looks like I might have bought a BA... looking forward to hearing that with HD800.
-
Bah, I don't want to turn this fun thread into a tirade about the pointlessness of balanced wiring for short interconnects - and why a good amplifier wouldn't care one whit about being fed differential, balanced or unbalanced (assuming it's designed for that topology), much less headphones. Never mind that the difference is not measurable, unless you have a ground loop somewhere.
The fact is that almost all DACs have balanced output, even these with unbalanced connectors - and nobody really complains.
Carry on, nothing to see in this post.
EDIT: Something to see here: minijack sucks for crosstalk. TRS works better. RCA/XLR/dual-mono jacks work best. That might be audible.
-
Yes I was using TRS. I know what I was hearing, and it's not insignificant, sorry if it can't be explained in numbers :)
And while most DAC ICs do output a balanced signal many of them are converting it to single ended and then using opamp phase splitters to send it back to balanced out on the XLR. Ours is balanced all the way with no conversion to S/E
-
And while most DAC ICs do output a balanced signal many of them are converting it to single ended and then using opamp phase splitters to send it back to balanced out on the XLR. Ours is balanced all the way with no conversion to S/E
^This. So true. It's hard to believe how so many "high-end" DACs and CD players skimp on the balanced output portion with cheap op-amps.
Bah, I don't want to turn this fun thread into a tirade about the pointlessness of balanced wiring for short interconnects - and why a good amplifier wouldn't care one whit about being fed differential, balanced or unbalanced (assuming it's designed for that topology), much less headphones. Never mind that the difference is not measurable, unless you have a ground loop somewhere.
Using the balanced outputs (instead of the SE) from DACs do make a difference sonically, at least with the the two balanced DACs I own and on the Mjolnir and BA. Think principle of paralleling DAC chips (as opposed to noise cancellation / CMRR, etc.)
Heck, even the BA balanced output sounds different and slightly better from the SE output, despite that its an SE transformer coupled amp. No one knows why. There are a lot of things which are not measurable.
-
You mean bridging. It's well known to improve noise floor, might drop even order harmonic distortion too if implemented correctly, improve maximum current output. (3 dB in noise, 6 dB in harmonic distortion. Latter is rarely important, perhaps for some rare orthos.) Quite well-known and measurable. However, the same benefit can be had without actual balanced wiring in the headphones. Not that you shouldn't use it if you have one, but there's no real reason to mod them.
-
You mean bridging. It's well known to improve noise floor, might drop even order harmonic distortion too if implemented correctly, improve maximum current output. (3 dB in noise, 6 dB in harmonic distortion. Latter is rarely important, perhaps for some rare orthos.) Quite well-known and measurable. However, the same benefit can be had without actual balanced wiring in the headphones. Not that you shouldn't use it if you have one, but there's no real reason to mod them.
No I don't mean bridging. The BA is one single-ended amp to OPTs which are inherently balanced, not bridged. The balanced jack (without the common ground) does sound better. Deeper bass, more precise imaging, and possibly more resolving.
In the case of the DAC's, I guess you can think of the balanced differential outputs as "bridged."
-
Is there anything in headphone response that shows any benefits to a recabling with separate plugs for each side?
It keeps your head from leaning to one side or the other... :)p17
-
If this is off topic then ignore me ....
Has anyone here done any form of testing with balanced/unbalanced cables. I dared to mention once that I fancied trying a different way of cabling the headphones and almost got laughed off the forum. (Don't laugh)
Is there anything in headphone response that shows any benefits to a recabling with separate plugs for each side?
Haven't tested but my view is this:
When a HP is connected to a bridged amplifier that has a 'considerable' output resistance (>10 Ohm) there could be sonic effects due to voltage division as the output resistance doubles.
Another, technical reason, that is most appear-ant in low impedance headphones is the fact that both drivers are fed with their OWN wires (4 wires in total) where as when fed with a common 'return' wire there simply is a measurable crosstalk.
When a headphone is wired dual entry (so with 4 wires) and the 'return' wires are connected in the plug I can't see much benefits of balanced drive unless one needs the extra power as the voltage doubles (and thus the power quadruples) if that is needed.
Maybe Purrin (if he has the time and is interested) can do similar measurements as done with the HE500 on different amps, but this time balanced and unbalanced
(SPL level matched) this would answer this often asked question.
Can't do this myself, measuring rig almost finished but no balanced HP's not amps. :-[
-
The measurements will all be the same. Seriously. I've done enough comparisons with different amps to see. As long as the amps are reasonably linear and are close enough in output impedance, the headphone measurements will be identical.
-
The measurements will all be the same. Seriously. I've done enough comparisons with different amps to see. As long as the amps are reasonably linear and are close enough in output impedance, the headphone measurements will be identical.
Aha. That's what I've heard as well. It's these claims of low level crosstalk being cut with no proof that I have wondered about.
-
The measurements will all be the same. Seriously. I've done enough comparisons with different amps to see. As long as the amps are reasonably linear and are close enough in output impedance, the headphone measurements will be identical.
Agreed, I don't think there's really any change in frequency response, if that is what you mean by headphone measurements. But put on a well mic'd acoustic recording and the differences are pretty obvious in resolution and imaging with certain headphones and amps... not all.
I would think the differences would be smaller (or non-existant) with the BA since it is only the OPT that is balanced, but who knows. I will hopefully get to make the comparison myself in a week or so :wheel:
-
The measurements will all be the same. Seriously. I've done enough comparisons with different amps to see. As long as the amps are reasonably linear and are close enough in output impedance, the headphone measurements will be identical.
Agreed when both channels are driven at the same time (or at least have been fed the whole spectrum at full power).
3 wire cables will show (low level) crosstalk in the other channel when only 1 channel is driven.
The amplitude of this will depend on: wire resistance, HP driver impedance.
In any case it won't show in normal FR/CSD measurements at all.
The audibility of this would thus be harder to determine (in an objective matter) but as it is linear (cables simply do not add non-linear distortion) it might only influence stereo image slightly on those old L-R beatles alike recordings or show very small level differences.
The theory behind is in this article:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?82kf0r5kdckdcer
page 7 and 8
-
What an excellent article. Thanks Solderdude. :)p3
-
You'd need some crossovers causing weird impedance shape for any impedance to matter - high min/max spread. Or a balanced armature.
About crosstalk, it will also influence the resolution somewhat - cross-channel IMD is worse when there's high crosstalk. So the effect of it would be more audible on worse amps more.
I find the -15 dB vs -30 dB vs -60 dB crosstalk quite audible and easy to discern, with e.g. -15 dB vs -23 dB is about as easy to discern as -30 dB vs -45 dB - pretty hard. Increasing differentiation threshold, so to speak - only dramatic differences are really distinguishable.