Duggeh Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 They needs Moar Bias. Which version do you have?
mypasswordis Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 The latest version, I'm pretty sure, with the ribbon cord that's like 20 feet long and the PS2 transformer box with the fuses and the switch and stuff. Not sure which bias voltage that is, but I'm hoping for more. Because moar is better.
HeadphoneAddict Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Right, because we never make fun of people here who make noob mistakes like thinking the HD-25-I-II has no soundstage. Compared to the HD600 or even the D2000 that was being discussed, the HD25-1 have the soundstage of a Grado. I have a pair right here.
Deadneddz Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Compared to the HD600 or even the D2000 that was being discussed, the HD25-1 have the soundstage of a Grado. I have a pair right here. HPA, are you refering to the soundstage(preceived illusion) or headstage(actual sound localization), when you are refering to the HD-25-I-II and Grados?
morphsci Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Compared to the HD600 or even the D2000 that was being discussed, the HD25-1 have the soundstage of a Grado. I have a pair right here. You realize that only a part of the soundstage is due to the headphone, the rest is the processing done by your brain. I know it is often misused but variation among individuals in all aspects of sensory modality is a real, measureable biological fact. And of course you do realize that not all recordings have an actual soundstage, right.
HeadphoneAddict Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 HPA, are you refering to the soundstage(preceived illusion) or headstage(actual sound localization), when you are refering to the HD-25-I-II and Grados? It's more difficult to imagine the sound coming from outside of my head than with other phones when using these. I like their frequency response, bass punch and dynamics, but I don't tend to grab them for an enjoyable listen because it seems like something is missing. I sat here with them on my ears playing Eva Cassidy "Live at Blues Alley", and I can't say whether it is the lack of out of head experience, or the fact that I find it hard to put the instruments and singer in their own spot - they all seems squished together. I just can't get into that. Lord only knows why it's better with my Custom IEMs or other phones. You realize that only a part of the soundstage is due to the headphone, the rest is the processing done by your brain. I know it is often misused but variation among individuals in all aspects of sensory modality is a real, measureable biological fact. And of course you do realize that not all recordings have an actual soundstage, right. Yeah.
swt61 Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Try thinking about Steve in his lace underwear. Makes me laugh. I can see the shirt now: On the front: I like woodies On the back: Lathes 4 Eva! I need a special one... On the front: I like woodies On the back: Lace 4 Eva!
Fungi Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 And this is why I just tell people to get the typical <$50 goodies and let them be. Of course some are ready to spend more, in which case they'll speak up (or go learn on their own).
Dusty Chalk Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 I'm not sure I agree that there's a difference between "bias" and "established preference". I have an established preference for a certain "cleanliness" of sound, and another one for tube distortion. And I will be the first to admit that it's a bias. I think it's more important to let people know what my biases are, than to claim some sort of approximation of knowing good sound on some sort of absolute scale. Sure, there are a lot of common denominators, but look at the number of people who like Sennheiser's HD600/HD650 sound (I'm beginning to think that this is what dreadhead describes as the standard "diffuse field" response?) -- I don't like it, so I'd like to know upfront whether or not a reviewer I'm reading likes that sound or not.
Currawong Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Ha, talking to a co-worker on Sunday who is into hi-fi, he said, "You paid $1400 for a pair of headphones?!?!". Could be worse I suppose...my best friend in high school became a lawyer..
boomana Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Dusty, I don't have a particular sound signature I like more than others. I can't stand sloppy bass, and have a well-known sensitivity to treble, but that's about it. If the tone is off, the headphones suck. If the bass isn't clean, it destroys the music. I do appreciate being able to hear details and accurate imaging, or at least get close. I actually prefer liking things, and there are a lot of different sounding headphones that suit me well, including many budget, mid-fi, and high-end headphones I quite like, even if I prefer one more than another. The D2000s are not likable in that the tone is off and the bass is sloppy. I've really tried listening to them a few times, and I don't see how others can like them. I think the new Shure 840s are much better headphones, though they suffer from the same congested sound and poor imaging that most closed headphones do. I think the older ESW9s (I remain convinced they fucked with the original sound based on differences I've heard and what others have also reported) are better headphones, though they have fairly lousy imaging and too much emphasis on low mids (the newer ones have more treble focus from the two I've heard and also mid-bass emphasis). If you have a particular sound that you like, fair enough, but I also think that there's something to be said for variety while at the same time having basic standards for sound reproduction. Since when does having standards (accurate tone, decent balance, fast enough to provide detail, no bass bloat or shrieking highs, and decent imaging) mean someone's biased? Towards what? Good music?
deepak Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Hay guys, what's up in this thread? Do you guys think I should show my Jecklin Float Electrostats to others? They have large bias and a loooong cord. I want to hear these. Moar electrostats! successful thread derailing yet?
Asr Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Audio-Technica > Denon When is AT going to come out with a W7000 to quash the D7000?
cclragnarok Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 If the tone is off, the headphones suck. Tone is very subjective IMO. It's very easy to say "the tone is off" when you don't like a pair of headphones, but the tone may be just fine for other people. If you have a particular sound that you like, fair enough, but I also think that there's something to be said for variety while at the same time having basic standards for sound reproduction. Since when does having standards (accurate tone, decent balance, fast enough to provide detail, no bass bloat or shrieking highs, and decent imaging) mean someone's biased? Towards what? Good music? Biased against other people's opinions that are different from yours? Just because you call it "basic standards" doesn't mean that it's not just personal preference. Audio-Technica > Denon ATs suck because the midrange tone is off.
jp11801 Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 actually tone is tone, if you've heard a strat through a marshall or a p-bass through an ampeg you know what the tone should sound like as you have heard the original. Anyone that goes to see live shows should have a good idea of tone. Different headphones do different tones better some do most if not all tones better.
cclragnarok Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Different headphones do different tones better Even if what you said is 100% true and unquestionable, that alone makes tone subjective IMO.
grawk Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 2nd closed thread in 2 minutes. Spend more time reading.
boomana Posted August 28, 2009 Report Posted August 28, 2009 Even if what you said is 100% true and unquestionable, that alone makes tone subjective IMO. If Dan hadn't closed the thread, I would have after this comment. Seriously, keep this stuff at head-fi. If you have a trumpet in the room playing a particular song by one person, it sounds like a trumpet played by that one artist. If you have a recording of the same trumpet playing the same song by the same artist, it should sound as close as possible to that trumpet playing live for you. It shouldn't be brighter, with more trebley details, and the low-mids shouldn't be puffed up to make it sound fuller, than it really is etc. The trumpet should sound like it did live. That's tone. That's the standard, even if only an ideal. You may, on the other hand, prefer your trumpet to sound all sparkly or fat sounding, and that's preference and completely, happily, subjective. Heck, you may not even like the sound of a real trumpet. That's fine too. There's nothing wrong with liking what you like, but there are standards that are pretty easy to identify if you've been around live music a lot, or have been in the studio a bit and know the recording process from live to the ipod in your back pocket. I don't have golden ears by any means, but to toss that it's all subjective crap around here is the ultimate bs.
Recommended Posts