What a loser, he couldn't use another point to feel good in his sad life than calling names. Oh boy if I had a buck for every moron in this category not knowing half the part of his genomic origins.

For the record, I know the difference between boobs & headphones.

IBTL!

3 hours ago, Dusty Chalk said:

He's been banned, don't respond to him further, please.

Muchos gracias ?

6 hours ago, jpelg said:

For the record, I know the difference between boobs & headphones.

IBTL!

Me too.  Headphones don't wear boobs.

But there's a lot of boobs wearin' headphones!

Exactly!

only the finest drivel will do

8 hours ago, tin ear said:

only the finest drivel will do

 

Ha!  I looked for a Z1R thread here to link to at the bottom of my review....um, yeah, don't think this one is very informative. 

Fucking funny, in a Head-Case sort of way, but no.

Love you guys!

Edited June 5, 20179 yr by Tyll Hertsens

Always glad to help....  

Very much agree with you Tyll on the Z1R review.  I much prefer the recabled SA5000 and CD3000 actually.

Well that's a bummer.

 

Hey.

Head-Case happens.

What the fuck are you linking back to us, anyway?  If it were anyone else...

 

as the odd man out I really like these and prefer them to most headphones that I have heard in the $1500 - $2500. At least on the ECBA there is moderate amounts of bass but it never overshoots the mids. 

That makes me feel a bit better, because I also enjoyed them at the NY meet.

They are enjoyable that's for sure but they are hardly a "reference" type headphones.  Plus, they are less balanced sounding and bassy heavy compared to headphones in the same price bracket.

If they sound better to you than the other headphones you've used, then they are indeed your "reference" headphones.

This idea that we all hear the same, value the same sound signatures, or need to use the headphones others say are best is total bullshit!

I thought the Qualia left a lot to be desired. If memory serves, you loved them. What's the problem?

Agreed. Pretty much every "high end" headphone has as many shortcomings as mid-tier headphones and everyone's hearing is different, so it's all about picking what flavor works best for you. Actually, the shortcomings tend to be more interesting/extreme because they're playing with the edges of physics.

At this point I fully expect a discovery 3 months from now that the review pair is different from others. 

Edited June 6, 20179 yr by mypasswordis

I guess you never know.

9 hours ago, swt61 said:

If they sound better to you than the other headphones you've used, then they are indeed your "reference" headphones.

This idea that we all hear the same, value the same sound signatures, or need to use the headphones others say are best is total bullshit!

I thought the Qualia left a lot to be desired. If memory serves, you loved them. What's the problem?

For the Qualia it is all about the fit.  Mine has a small headband so it does fit me perfectly.  The sonic difference can be night and day between good and bad fit Qualia.  I do enjoy the Z1R as well but I don't think it is as balanced sounding as a recabled CD3000 & SA5000 in a direct comparison.  If you like a lot of bass and punchy sound signature with good sense of soundstage, the Z1R can easily be your favorite headphones.  Never said that we all hear the same or prefer the same sound signatures.  Plus, the Z1R works well with portable source.

Edited June 6, 20179 yr by purk

1 hour ago, purk said:

For the Qualia it is all about the fit.  

Gee, never heard that before. 

It really is.  

11 hours ago, swt61 said:

This idea that we all hear the same, value the same sound signatures, or need to use the headphones others say are best is total bullshit!

I disagree.  The reference is real life.  If you have a recording, and you know what it is supposed to sound like approximately one inch from the ears (where the drivers of most headphones are, and if that's where your mics are), reference headphones are ones that recreate that soundwave as accurately as possible.  Ones that deliberately colour (ones that accentuate the presence or attenuate the sibilance regions, for example, or play up the midbass to trick bassheads into thinking there is moar base), are not reference headphones.

Of course, this leads me to be very confused about the Sony MDR-V6/-7506, because I do consider them to be reference headphones in terms of bandwidth, once you mentally compensate for the colouration they introduce.

headphones interact more directly with your ears than speakers, so headphones that interact in a way that is accurate for one person might interact with another person in a way that is less accurate.  And different people value different aspects of sound when they're determining what is a reference headphone for them.

The brain-ear system accommodates for the first part.  That's the whole point in developing our hearing from infancy to adulthood.

And the second part is just a contradiction.  I mean think about what a soundwave is -- a localized variation in air pressure.  If you recreate that localized air pressure variance just outside the ear as accurately as possible to reality, that should correspond to sounding as real as accurately as possible.

I still disagree -- you have convinced me of nothing.