Jump to content

Showing My D2000 to others.


Takashi

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.