Leonardo Drummond

Does anyone here have a JH-3A? I was recently considering getting one, but it's really difficult to find decent impressions about them.

It does! Sounds glorious on the Jamo R907s! x3

Nice! Found it weird on a first listen but now I can't stop listening to it. What's your favourite song? EDIT: found out it's being discussed in Upcoming Releases

Oh, I see! Yep, no more air cooling. The vintage ones look fantastic, but would you really have one instead of that Porsche replica?

I'm not sure what baywindow style means, but the VW bus is still being made here. We have some jurassic cars around. Only last year GM stopped making the 1995 Blazer, and it's not like it was cheap either, the TOTL version used to cost 65K USD, believe it or not. I like Beetles, but if I were in a position to buy a car like that, I'd go for one of these in a heartbeat: It's a Porsche Spyder replica - a pretty good one -, it's just cheap fun.

Oh, I see. I guess I'd trade definition for volume in a portable can as well. I think they're fantastic too, it's just that I was surprised nobody mentioned that relative lack of definition, which is quite noticeable when I compared the DT1350 with the Sony EX1000 and Grado SR225i.

Beefy, don't you hear some lack of definition in the bass dept? It sounded a bit loose to me. For example, in the last track of the new Storm Corrosion album, the bass drum is lost in a cloud of other bassy things, whereas in the EX1000 for example, it's a crystal clear bass drum in its perfect place.

Is he the guy who had three HE90s a while ago?

I think I'd say so. I recently had a Westone UM3X and a Shure SE535 on loan, had an SE530 and Senn IE8 for a long time and have a Sony EX1000 now. They all have somewhat major flaws that keep them from being very good all-rounders, something that many portables headphone tend to accomplish much more easily in my experience, even if they're less stellar in what they do well. For example, the UM3X has a good tonal balance but really weird mid-bass bump that gets in the way of the mids and makes them sound very muffled, the SE535 and SE530 have extremely good bass and nice, sweet mids but critical treble extension, the IE8 very good soundstage but completely overwhelming mid-bass hump and the EX1000 is really sweet and airy but gets weird on the highs, which can be piercing. So the thing is that to me they all have their advantages, but IME they're all seriously lacking in some areas, and none does all genres as well as, say, a DT1350 or a HD-25 II (P5 not so much I think, it can be way too mellow). If you want a do-it-all IEM, you have to go custom. I think portable headphones seem to have smaller flaws somehow, obviouly they have their problems, but to me they seem much less critical, and they're also less expensive than IEMs. But, of course, YMMV.

I like the DT1350, it's as amazing as Tyll described it. The only problem I found with it was that the bass was kind of fat and lacked definition somewhat, and the midrange had a slightly "wonky" character. But these are slight reservations and I guess the bass issue is desirable in a portable headphone to compensate for external noises. BTW, the isolation is unbelieavable - you'd never guess it isolates like it does. Speaking of portables, I now have an Edition 8 on loan, and I don't know what I think of it yet... but it has to be the most over the top portable I've ever seen!

I totally agree, even though I get the criticisms. I think academies are mostly necessary, but one area in which I think they fail dramatically is in teaching people beyond the obvious in the courses. If I had to choose the one reason why the world is as fucked up as it is now, I'd say that it's because people just don't question things. It seems they just suck up information (or not) and don't stop for one minute to think about everything around it. And that is the sort of thing that should be as stressed as possible in universities, through philosophy and theory of knowledge lessons at least, regardless of what the person is studying specifically. But then again, when they do offer courses like these, most people simply couldn't care less... My 2c, anyways.

Yup! Raciocínio, same thing, but with an accent mark. I didn't know this word existed in English, though.

I really missundestood everything then! Hahahahah I thought it was a mistake and that you were being funny about it! My mistake then

Oh right Torpedo, I hadn't noticed. But well, RudeWolf in the posts I've seen seems to be quite eloquent, I'm sure it was just lack of attention! Anyway, do you say academia in English as well, then?

Coincidentally, it means academy in Portuguese.

Which I'm yet to learn. LOL, nice! If you know cachaça, you probably know caipirinha as well, I suppose... I don't like them, but they sure look pretty. That looks interesting, thanks Mikey! I have to admit, I do enjoy a debate... and judging by what I'm reading there, it sure looks like a place to have a good one!

This has to be one of the funniest memes out there. Still, I really think there's a point in looking for neutral especially if you're building stuff. The whole point to me is that it's not good when it becomes an obsession. People end up craving so bad for something that doesn't really exist and then end up limiting what they hear. True... a friend of mine wanted to build a new home theater, with one of those new Samsung LED TVs. I told them they should get a plasma instead, which is better, larger and much cheaper, and a nice sounding set of speakers. They didn't listen and ended up getting the LED one and only had money left for those crappy Onkyo HT-in-a-box. They spent 7K on a TV and 1K in a HT, when they could've spent 5K on a better TV and 3K in a HT. It's really sad to see how audio got forgotten. I looked for it for a long time, but nowadays I don't really see the point - especially after getting the HD800s, which I'm not really liking. I'd much rather listen to my old SR-007 with the eXStatA... warm, lush, much less "neutral" but just purely seductive. Very well put! I still quite like neutral-ish sounding cans, especially the pro-oriented cans, but in the end of the day, euphonic mushiness is the way to go for me.

Oh dear... hahahaha well, sorry everyone then! I did say it could be lost in obliviom though... It really isn't about educating anyone, I'm very sorry if it came across that way with my tone. As I said, it's just me expressing my thoughts about the issue, which could lead to some interesting conversation or something... or maybe not. The fact that I take my time on simple and basic issues is not for educating, it's just a way of organizing what's in my head, so that it's possible to follow my train of thought. Hahahaha thanks, Wink! There you go! It's rather frustrating to see this hobby going where it goes on many places, and seeing that this particular place doesn't really follow the norm, I reckoned expressing those ideas could possibly lead to something interesting... in a way it did though, it's actually rather funny to see you making fun of people, even though this time it's me. But isn't that a sort of conversation you'd have in a bar? Sometimes I have really philosophical discussions with my friends at bars... the results can be quite intriguing. That's a very good point. To me, that "neutral" is our own subjective judgement, for instance, I've played bass for nearly 10 years now and had a band for a long time, so I know how some instruments are supposed to sound like in real life. I have my own idea of the sound they make. Then it's up to you to decide what is more lifelike to you. It's what my argument ended up with, in a way, but then again, this is pure reflection rather than something actually conclusive. Thanks As I said to Grawk, I'm indeed quite passionate about this, it's really sad to see what goes on at HF and on the Brazilian forums... that's why I wrote that, but given what went on here, maybe it should've been kept in Portuguese

I thought twice about posting this here since it became a bit long, but it's something I just wrote in my blog with my thoughts about this issue. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and this text just contains my reflections on the subject. I know you guys are not very much into long texts - as I've learned in my JH13 review -, but I hope I can be excused since this isn't a review and to me it's a rather complex issue, so drying it out would probably make it less successful in expressing what's complex to me. I posted this here in the off-topic since that way, if no one becomes interested, it can simply become lost in oblivion or deleted. Still, if anyone bothers to read it, I hope it's interesting and/or helpful. If not, my bad, I'll apologize in advance Again, it's just my opinions, so you might agree, disagree, think it's good or think it's crap. In any case, I'd love to know what you guys think. Here we go... One of the best definitions of the term “audiophilia” I’ve even come across says that it’s the recognition that the quality of the reproduction affects the enjoyment of music. I completely agree, but it’s curious to notice how much this quality of the reproduction is actually subjective. Consequently, there are many different schools in audiophilia, and choosing between them is simply a matter of taste. However, even those who prefer euphonic lushness over absolute fidelity, still worry a lot about neutrality. One of audiophilia’s greatest objectives is ensuring that the reproduction is as faithful as possible to the original performance. That’s where the much sought-after concept of neutrality comes from. Basically, an equipmanet is neutral when it presents the signal it’s fed with in an absolutely passive way, so that the final result is as faithful as possible to the original performance. I myself use that term – “neutral” – all the time. But is that really possible? Let’s first consider how a usual recording process happens. An acoustic instrument or a voice has its sounds captured through a microphone, which already imposes its “voice” to the signal, and this signal is transmitted to a pre amp and then to the mixer through cables. All of those may affect the signal in some way. In case the instrument is amplified, then you can record it using a microphone using a specific amplifier – chosen by the artist – and then the process begins again, or else it can be connected directly to a pre amp that goes to the mixer – in that case, there is an even greater need for adding effects, such as amp simulators, reverberations, and so on. Speaking of reverb, there we have another great influence to the process: acoustics. Recordings of pop genres usually happen in acoustically dead spaces. The sounds don’t bounce off the walls and sort of “die within themselves”, so to speak. The objective is to generate the rawest recording possible, and the reverb is artificially added later on. Some of the more pretencious recordings – or live recordings of acoustic performances, such as of classical music – are done on rooms picked specifically because of their acoustic properties. In those cases, they are purer recordings in a way. But there comes another issue: how is the soundstage on the recording? If more than one mike is used, which is the case in 99,9% of the recordings I know of, even those with audiophile pretentions, they have to be joined together by the sound engineer. In regular studio recordings, the problem is worse since the whole soundstage will be entirely artificial: the instruments are recorded separately and the reverb effects are also artificial, so the whole spacial information is totally fabricated. We also have the fact that music is always mixed and mastered – process where effects, eqs, adjusts, overdubs, auto tune and so on are added. It’s a long process, and in the end, we even have give way to the evil compression. Loudness War anyone? Do you realize how complex is the process? Even on recordings designed specifically to sound as close as possible to the original, we have numerous influences that make what’ recorded very distant from what actually happened during the day of the recording. If we are talking about pop genres, subject to different demands, we’d better give up. The point is that up until the actual media there’s a long way, and from the media to the reproduction, we know very well what happens: DACs, pre amps, power amps, CD palayers, headphones, cables, room acoustics... how can we expect to hear exactly what happens on the day of the recording? I know no one expects that, it’s just impossible. But even if we lower our demands, and deprive ourselves to ask only for something that’s faithful to what’s on the media, what’s there was produced by a human being, with his personal taste and according to what, according to his ears, on his reference monitors, with the recording equipment available, on the day of the mixing and mastering, sounded good and close to the original event to him. In another studio, with another sound engineer, the result would be different. And another piece of music, recorded in another studio, with another artist and other equipment, will have it’s mixing done in a very different way. It will be produced and judged in different circumstances and the result will achieve a certain “neutrality” at that moment that might not necessarily be replicated in the studio mentioned on the first scenario. Consequently, what’s recorded onto that media is not the original performance. It’s an interpretation, in many cases different from the event that originated it. Again, every sound is subject to this – in a smaller or larger proportion. Therefore, how can we demand neutrality from a specific equipment? How can it be “neutral” and render with competence Metallica’s Death Magnetic while being able to show the humanity and sincerity of Chris Whitley’s Dirt Floor? This to me seems impossible. What’s on the media is already distant from the artist, which went through several modifications, interpretations and subjectivism until it got there. From there to our hearing the process pretty much repeats itself, and at the end, what we hear is still prone to our own subjective judgement of what sounds neutral to us. We must be aware that this never ending search for neutrality at everything is not possible, and an equipment that does well with the visceral impact and energy of a rock piece will hardly be the most competent piece of equipment when dealing with the delicate performance of a piano sonata. The recording processes were very different, as well as the style of the recording gear used, the rooms, the sound engineers and even the artists’ intentions. The whole process, from the original event up to the actual recording, took diferent paths, so to make the media go back to the original event, probably we’ll need different reproduction systems. This reminds me of the difference between the HD800 and the Orpheus. In absolute terms, the 800s are the most neutral. They’re more passive, while the HE90 follows a more euphonic path. The problem is that what I hear from acoustic pieces on the Orpheus sounds infinitely more neutral and lifelike to me than what I hear on the HD800s, which sound colder and more sterile. It’s more human, much more like what I hear from an actual spanish guitar being played in front of me. It has a warm and inviting feeling that the 800s hasn’t. It could well be closer to the media, but the one that’s closer to the original event isn’t it – it’s the Orpheus. With its small colorations and particularities, it ends up going back to the original performance, while the HD800s limit themselves to the media. The problem is that many audiophiles don’t seem to understand this issue, and lose themselves building a thousand- or hundred-dollar system that sounds perfectly fine with Dynaudio’s test CD, which has music that they neither know nor like, and then then restrict themselves to listening and looking for genres that sound good on the systems that they built. What’s the point of this? Music and our preferences should dictate our systems, and not the other way around. What’s the point of spending time and effort in order to build something that will end up dictating what we hear? Music should be the focus. The result is the much feared equipment-phile: one who spends time and – more importantly – money building an exorbitant system for listening to that really well recorded percussion piece of music or for looking for telephone rings, birds singing or leaves cracking at 3.2 miles from the microphone in the moment of the recording. I’m not, at any point, saying that we shouldn’t look for neutrality. I myself look for it, but then I think it’s really important for us to be aware that this is no more than a utopia, and what we hear will never be absolutely faithful to what’s on the media and even less to the original performance. All the process is impregnated with imperfections and subjectivism. Obviously it’s in our interest to have a considerable level of passiveness from our equipment, but we can’t surrender to the obsession of extreme detail retrieval and absolute neutrality thinking that this is absolute neutrality at the expense of what’s more important: music’s humanity. The result can be a distortion of this hobby’s true objectives. In my opinion, we must embrace the idea that we’ll never achieve this absolute passiveness in our equipment, therefore it makes sense to have more than one headphone for different occasions – each one will interpret a specific situation in a different way, and each one will “accidentaly” be “more right” in different moments. It is possible to find a headphone that does it all, but it will hardly be the closest to neutral in every occasion. You’re the one who’s going to decide when it’s good – and in that decision, obviously respecting acceptable limits of tolerance, there’s no right or wrong.

Birgir, that's what I thought. But Larry, the thing is that to me it sounds like it could well have been a great SS portable amp, and having tubes, as Birgir said, looks much more like a gimmick rather than something that actually provides sonic benefits over a well designed SS amp. But then again, this is based on pure guessing as I haven't heard it.

Never knew about it, I thought those from ALO were the first ones. I can't see the point though, do you guys also think this is simply ludicrous or it's just me?

Hahahahaha shit... people don't run out of ideas, do they? Next thing you know, we'll be using tube based portable amps. Oh wait... http://aloaudio.com/alo-audio-the-continental-mobile-vacuum-tube-amplifier.html

Well, that one is an exception... it went too far

That's interesting... looks good, and I've been reading good things about the DX1000. Seems to be the only worthy competitor to the HM-801 available. I do hate the idea of having an Android DAP though. I like DAPs to be as simple as possible, instead of cluttered with stuff I don't need, such as apps, touchscreen and so on. iPod Classic FTW

I bought a HD800 about a week ago and so far I have to say I'm disappointed... I find it very good technically, but it leaves me cold and doesn't involve me in anything. And it's not a source/amp issue since I'm using it with a Meier Eartube, an extremely warm amp, and even that doesn't cut it for me. The cans sound too neutral to me somehow, with something on the mids and highs that remind me of the "hardness" that I hear on my K1000, and to me there's not enough bass to balance it out and make the presentation sweeter. This is undoubtely a very good headphone, but one that feels more like a machine to hear what's on the recording rather than a headphone for listening to music.