Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
I bought a PA2v2 from kool bubba ice. It was a very smooth and hassle free transaction. Highly recommended. SteveG
Mike (Kool Bubba Ice) purchased my SA5000. Transaction (including his paypal payment) was concluded very quickly within one hour. Notified me as soon as he got the headphones. Very easy and smooth transaction. Highly recommended. Will definitly do business with Mike again. Lionel
kool bubba ice was nice enough to give me his Sennheiser headphone holder for free since he didn't need it. Very selfless and kind gesture, I would not hesistate to deal with him should the need arise. retic3nt
I purchased some Sennheiser 595's from kool bubba. Due circumstances, we agreed to use USPS money order for payment. He was very accommodating, I received the headphones promptly after he received my payment. He charged 6 dollars in shipping costs and paid more than 12 to get it send packed in peanuts via UPS. I highly recommend kool bubba, very positive experience. sybaek
bought a diyden great march dac modded by pacific valve. Good communication and delivered all the stuff. coolshot
bought a portaphile from mike. it came in very neat packaging and very quickly.
mike is an exemplary seller and would gladly do business with him again feh1325
Mike bought a PSU from me, superb guy to deal with... solid as a rock.... deal with confidence. pinkfloyd
Thanks for the quick shipping. They look great. I wish I was more careful with my knife opening the envelope. Should I glue them or solder them together? Seriously, they look great. I will listen with them tonight if I get an opportunity. clockpilot
Mike paid fast for a mod I did on his X-10V3 tube buffer, Good guy. benny boy
Bought a Cardas cable from him. Shipped quickly and it was nicely packaged. ice nine
Bought a Little Pinkie from me. Pleasure to deal with. Fast paypal payer, excellent communicator. He rules! hershon2000
I fixed Mike's SA5000's for free.. Great Head-Fi member. Enjoy your newly working headphones. akzip
Mike gave me his HD 650 cable for free. Its people like him who make Head-Fi what it is. I'm really grateful for this, thanks DJshadow
Mike sent me his SA5000's for a full recable this time around. I recabled them to balanced and did a complete cleaning. Once again he was great to deal with. I hope you enjoy them! akzip
Honest and reliable - totally trustworthy.
Great guy to deal with. DRarthurwells
Bought a cardas cable from Mike. Shipped quickly and arrived in perfect condition.
thanks! hydrocity
Mike bought a balanced HD650 cable from me. Enjoy the cable! akzip
Item received in good condition. Packaging was a bit dodgy though for a looong route from US ---> UK. Item was well received and all in good condition as promised. mofonyx
sold him a pair of AKG K340s, quick communication and quick payment, highly recommended. kg21
Mike sent me a pair of AKG K340's for recable balanced. As always great to work with and will continue working with. Enjoy them! akzip
Sold Kool bubba ice a pair of DT990's. Prompt payment once we agreed on the deal - good experience. ph0rk
kool bubba ice purchased an HR-2 from me. He paid promptly and was easy to communicate with. Would happily do business with again. insomniac
I bought a Beyerdynamic DT990 from kool bubba ice. It was a very quick and clear transaction.
The phone is in excellent condition. It came very well packaged. The shipping was super fast.
I definitively would do business with him again.
Highly recommended! sr. burns
Sold my DT48a to Michael, great communication through out, it was a pleasure doing business with him. Highly recommended!! tottiflames
To Michael I sold a set of beyerdynamic DT-48
Communication was good, payment arrived nicely, and he told me when they got to him.
A nice deal. nikongod
Sold kool bubba some Technics headphones. He was great to deal with.
Id happily deal with him again.
Thanks. kabeer
I sold my beyerdynamic DT48E headphones to Michael who paid immediately. Great person to deal with. blent
Bought his YH1s. Arrived in mint condition and sounding great.
Cheers mate. nsx 23
Purchased Mike's MDR-F1 headphones. They were exactly as described and he was very communicative throughout the transaction. They were packed nicely as well. Quick and painless transaction.
Would love to do business again.
Thanks Mike solid snake
Bought a pair of sextett's from him and they came in GREAT shape, packaged really well, and arrived super fast. We both had busy schedules but Mike really went out of his way to arrange a way to get me the headphones even if we couldn't meet up locally. Great to deal with! zerodeefex
Bought his DT48Es. Great price, shipped right away, and was great to deal with. I would definitely deal with him again. oggranak
Bought a DT48a from Mike, really friendly guy, communicative, item exactly descibed, would absolutely deal with again. Thanks again! xan7hos
I sold Mike my modded bel canto DAC2. Great guy to deal with and a wonderfully smooth transaction. A great Head-Fier! newmexicat
Michael bought my vintage DT48A... great guy to deal with, very communicative, knows his stuff and is a serious buyer. Recommended! littlebear
bought a set of akg k280 headphones, great packing, great transaction pistolsnipe
Bought his Technics 810, fast shipping, brilliant packing, extremely smooth transaction! superfrag
Some portions are from a Chinese or Japanese blogger. The translation might be buggy, as sometimes you need to 'fiil in the space' so to speak, to get to what he is saying. Some comments made are from headfi members
There is a controversy. When I stated the DT48 sounds a lot like the K1000, I got flamed for it, ridiculed by some on headfi & headcase.org. The point is, they are similar in MANY ways.. If a person can't look past the great difference in sound stage size, then yes, the DT48 is as far away from the K1000 as possible. If you compare these two headphones based on, neutrality, tonality, timbre, balance, mid range, detail, & speed, they are like lost siblings. K1000 being the big brother. DT48 being the small brother. Some even feel the DT48 does a few things better.. IMO, the DT48 is the closed equivalent to the K1000. Erik/Miles & a few other DT48/K1000 owners agree with my assumption. The person I am quoting seems to feel the DT48 is actually better. I have no idea if he owns a K1000 or just auditioned a pair. One DT48/K1000 owner thinks the opposite. That they are not similar. Again, we all hear differently.. To cut to the chase, I do think the K1000 is the better headphone. Erik & miles who own both also feel the same way. I'm not trying to argue that the DT48 betters the K1000. I just feel the similarities are too close to ignore. I hope Kevin & Kees can weigh in on their opinion. He owns the DT48 & the K1000.
Members that I know who have both the DT48/K1000
Miles
Erik
Kevin
Kees
I personally have auditioned the K1000 at a 3 man meet for 45 minutes. It was a Cayin HA-1A tube amp with speaker terminals. The K1000 was reterminated with Stefan audio art speaker wire. Too be fair, it wasn't the best amp for the K1000, but was pleasing enough. Since I don't have the luxury of A/B them..This is based off my memory as what stuck out. I won't say so & so is faster or more detailed, for that I would need to compare them side by side. The K1000's highs are exquisite. Extend very high, natural without a sense of harshness or artificial boost. The K1000 has deeper bass. The Sound stage & imaging is speaker like & remarkable. IMO, both the DT48/K1000 have a very life like mid range. (but the vocal presence & wide vocal range gives the K1000 the edge over the DT48) Neutrality. Tone. Timbre. Transparency.
IF anyone would like to add their comparison PLEASE LET ME KNOW via PM on headfi.com. I will post it on this blog. If you think the DT48 & K1000 are the total opposite of each other that's fine. Viewers should be able to hear both sides. I just want it done in a respectful & professional manner. No flame bait antics.
The DT48 series is and AKG K1000/GRADO the GS1000 identical scale,
The Sennheiser hd600/650 scale cannot compare with 48 scales,
Hd600/650 is and AKG K701/the new DT990/880 identical scale.
Must contrast these many earphones is the chronologically sequenced historical records, I type slowly, does not want to hit such the chronologically sequenced historical records.
Only said 48A contrasts K1000 the performance, was good.
48A contrasts K1000: And is eternally grateful in the high frequency expandability is spatially K1000 is quite good, but is inferior to 48A in high frequency bright Ze and the thin moderation
Sounds of people aspect: The K1000 transparency is very good is also very exquisite, but does not have the 48A density high and crystal clear insightful and the faithful sounds of people
Low frequency aspect: K1000 is inferior to 48A in the low frequency sense of reality feeling of quantity dynamics, is only K1000 low frequency receives quite quickly
Sound field aspect: The K1000 volume 絕 contrasts on 48A big several times, but the scene feeling and the musical instrument degree of dissociation were inferior to 48A
Analysis strength aspect: 48A compared to K1000 abnormal many
Summary: 48A and the K1000 acoustic fidelity can only fight to a draw, because of each has its strong points, is KK is quite good in the broadcast symphony and the light music performance
But the stringed instruments, the sounds of people sketch, the fever day small dish, POP, ROCK is quite good on the 48A performance, should 48A be quite good by the integrity aspect.
(supplementary information: The integrity considered that the actuation difficulty/convenience degree/different music type suitability and so on results in)
Overseas head-fi also some net friends mention DT48 and the K1000 comparison
What amazes me is how a headphone that is so old technology wise could sound better than modern cans? i couldn't belive it until i had my K-1000 which are relativley �old� compared to newer models, but they did sound better than anything else i heard.
As for comparison to the K-1000, the DT48 has a similar neutral timbre and excellent range. The DT48 is faster, more transparent and more resolving to me. I can pick out details I haven't noticed before. That might be because the DT48 is closed and much closer to my ear. The K-1000 wins for soundstage, slightly better bass, and comfort.
But the DT48 is on a different plane of flatness -- the DFs are literally nowhere near the DT48's in terms of neutrality. Of the headphones of heard, nothing is (including my K1000's)
I am posting quotes from informed head fiers on what makes the DT48 tick & why they sound the way they do. The whys & hows. A lot is theory based, with no hard proof, so you can form your own opinion. A special thanks to Shamu144DroseraRhythmdevils & especially Kevin for the thought provoking questions & answers to arguably the most mis understood & unconventional headphone to ever be created.
Just a thought, most of the speaker drivers from the '60's and earlier used Alnico drivers which can loose charge (there are places that will re-charge your vintage Tannoy, JBL, Jensen etc. drivers). If the DT48 from those eras also used alnico, we could be hearing the effect of differingly magnetized (to some extent) drivers. One of the things that causes Alnico magnets to lose charge is a jarring force (like being dropped). One would be less likely to drop a speaker driver, but dropping a headphone would not be an unusual occurance... Kevin
Regarding magnetics, as the years progressed, there was a transition from Alnico to other magnetic material (ceramics, samarium cobalt, neodymium, etc) as Alnico became scarcer and prices rose. The "rare earth" magnets (samarium cobalt and neodymium) provide more magnetic flux for a given size, meaning equal strength magnets are smaller (you probably wouldn't want to use Alnico in a in-ear, for example). The vintage driver guys think the Alnico magnetics sound better, though, in theory, flux should be flux. Either way, changing magnetic material could be one of the engineering changes through the years to the dt-48... Kevin
Recently getting a 25 ohm version of the DT48E has led me to a strong re-appreciation of this peculiar headphone. This has also led me to reread most of this by now pretty sizeable thread (as I said, I like to read) and particularly the very interesting discussions around page 30-50 on natural vs. neutral. Taking these together I think I'm finally getting to grips with how the DT48 present music.
I think the real eye-opener is in comparing the frequency response of headphones to those of speakers. We've all seen that the DT48 measures pretty flat and that's also pretty much how it sounds if you, for example, test them with a sine sweep. However, most good speakers measure even flatter. Yet, if you listen to those speakers you'll experience the music in a completely different way than is presented by the DT48. Still, the measurements basically tell the truth: the DT48 sound like speakers strapped to your head. So why then do they sound so different from ordinary headphones?
Most headphones measure quite differently. Almost all frequency responses of headphones have some kind of variation on the smile curve. Why? Well, it seems it's all about necessary compensation for artefacts of headphones.
First there's the treble, which is in most headphones very far from flat, but marked by several judiciously placed peaks and dips. The dips are at least partly there to protect your ears for certain frequencies to which it is most sensitive, the peaks appear to emphasise those frequencies that determine definition (leading to impression of increased detail) and room reflections (giving you the illusion of spacious sound). Especially the fact that this last character is missing (or at least much less present) in the DT48 is probably the reason why a few people's first reaction after a brief audition is that it sounds 'murky' (or simply 'awful' ). It's no help here of course that the DT48 is a closed headphone. An open version would already sound far more spacious simply because it wouldn't isolate your ears from particularly the highest frequencies (16 kHz and above) that give the feeling of 'air' (as opposed to an acoustically 'dead' space). With speakers you need neither these peaks nor the dips, because the tweeters are not right next to your ear (so, protection against particular frequencies is not that necessary) and they also benefit from room acoustic and reflections which already create a more natural 'illusion' of spaciousness.
On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that the DT48 doesn't have that small elevation throughout the 20 to 1000 Hz range has a consequence that people will say it has 'no bass'. But more interestingly, it also is probably the main reason why it's such a 'cold' sounding headphone. In this it probably contributes more than the flat midrange does. No frequency is an island (to very badly paraphrase John Donne) and a warm midrange is usually the result of the relative amount of lower end information. Why headphones usually do 'need' this bumped lower end might have something to do with the small amount of room there is inside the cups for low frequency waves to develop...but I haven't fully figured that one out yet.
In short, if there's one thing the DT48 makes you realise, it's how weird headphones are. The irony appears to be that they need to have a completely unnatural frequency response in order to sound natural. Give a headphone a natural FR and, well, most people will understandably run in the other direction.
One of the most intriguing off-shoots of this is, is that if you are fond of using equalisation to tweak the sound of your system, there are probably few other headphones that can give such a chameleon-like response to such treatment. Try it out. Oh yeah, when you're done experimenting and you switch off the equalisation, be prepared for an 'unpleasant' surprise. Ye gods, that DT48E is bland!
So that's another way to describe the DT48: it's a headphone with equalisation switched off.
Okay, most of the above has probably been said a few times already in one form or another, but I felt like summarising it for myself. I also have probably simplified the matter quite a bit, there's certainly more to it than just this. drosera
Who is wrong? Well, that's the real interesting conclusion here. If I wanted to be PC about it I could say that neither side is wrong. Forced to be more critical I would have to admit that it's actually us who are wrong. We insist on listening to a headphone that may measure flat, but sounds bad because of it. 'Bad' in this case meaning that in overall perception of sound it's a less successful approximation of both speaker-like and real-life sound than most other headphones. The catch-22 here is that for a more natural sounding headphone, you do have to make the sound a lot more coloured. And this shows up primarily in the distorted timbre of acoustic instruments and human voices and to a lesser extent also hurts proper resolution and detail. So, what it comes down to is to which aspect you attach the most importance, because it's either one or the other. Either it's coloured and natural, or uncoloured and weird. The fact that they can't be both uncoloured and natural is probably one of the biggest handicaps of headphones. Drosera
At the risk of boredom, here's some info on headphone response:
I encourage people to read the article yourself, but to capsulize, Keith Howard (a British technical writer) did some reserch, measuring and listening. His reserch indicated that a headphone should not measure flat:
"If we are using headphones in place of speakers, then it might seem logical that the headphone's frequency response should imitate that of a sound source at head level, 30� off the median plane� ie, where the loudspeaker would be in a conventional stereo setup. In headphone parlance, this is termed the free-field or FF response assumption."
And showed what this response is generally considered to be.
But then comes a possible curve ball:
"Self-evident as the correctness of the FF-response assumption may seem, it came under concerted attack in the 1980s, principally through the work of G�nther Theile at the Institut f�r Rundfunktechnik (IRT) in Germany (footnote 4). Using a Gestalt model of auditory perception, Theile argued that a free-field headphone frequency response would be appropriate only if the stereo image were perceived to be forward of the listener, as it is when reproduced over loudspeakers. As everyone who has used headphones knows, this is not the case�the image is generally perceived to be either inside or close around the head. Because of this, Theile claimed, a headphone with a free-field frequency response is perceived as spectrally colored."
Oops... this FF curve is different! So what's the bottom line?
"If you suppose that, as a result of Theile's work, there is now a headphone-industry consensus that the DF response assumption is the correct one, prepare yourself for disappointment. Headphones continue to espouse widely differing response philosophies: some close to FF, some close to DF, and others nearer to flat. Which is "right" remains a bone of contention"
Open ended is more like it. But to cut to the chase, Mr. Howard measured 4 phones, corrected them for both FF and DF curves, then auditioned them with an eye (ear?) to trying to confirm one or the other technique. His determination:
"I am beginning to suspect that a response somewhere between DF and flat is actually optimal. But these are early days; as other headphones pass through my lab, it will become clearer whether this is indeed the case."
The DF curve, BTW, has a first dip slightly below 3Khz, a peak at about 6.5Khz with a dip back down at 8Khz and a recovery above 10 khz and the somewhat rounded curve from low bass to 1 Khz. Kevin
Great post. I haven't heard the DT48, but I'm not sure I agree with the premise that a headphone could measure flat, but not sound that way. I mean if a headphone is measuring differently then the way we hear it, then I think there is something wrong with the way it is being measured. Because measurements, if they don't help us to gauge the listening experience, are useless. I don't understand the idea of putting measured response above perceived response. I mean if you can't hear the full response of a bass guitar in a headphone, whether or not it is there in measurements is kind of irrelevant, you still cannot hear it. Same with treble. If it takes a dip and peak for treble to sound flat, then it seems the problem is not our hearing, but the way we are measuring the headphones that results in that dip and peak.
Just my thoughts, thanks for the thoughtful post!
In response to Drosera post Rhythmdevils
In response to Rhythmdevils
Read post 1503 on this thread. But to summerise in one sentence, literally flat measuring headphones would not sound like flat speakers in a room would (due to being over the ear and firing straight into the ears, etc), and there is no real consensus on what the proper measured response of a headphone should be to be perceived as flat. Kevin
In response to Rhythmdevils
Well, I'll second k3oxkjo's post and also add some of my own thoughts.
Accurately measuring headphones is a big problem and the usefulness of those measurements should certainly be a matter of debate.
One of the first problems is: how were the measurements taken? You can do it the Headroom-way with a calibrated dummy head (which, presumably, has ears). But the graphs produced by beyerdynamic for the DT48 versions appear to have been done with a NBS-9A coupler (picture below).
This is basically a metal cylinder that's only a rough approximation of the entry to the earcanal. (And beyerdynamic themselves admit that the headphones sound more flat than they actually measure, due to reflections within the coupler.)
But both these methods have a big limitation. Apart from the auditory equivalent of the kindergarten psychology problem "Is my blue your blue?" there's the very clear fact that people's ears are really physically different and as varied as fingerprints. The problem is not that it takes "a dip and a peak" for headphones to sound flat, the problem is that these variations in what is called the pinna anatomy (basically the visible part of the ear) will cause phase cancellation (but probably also phase amplification) that will vary from person to person.
There are of course 'phones that are less problematic in this regard. A good example would be earphones and IEMs which bypass the pinna (almost) entirely, another would be the DT48A with its large, almost flat rubber pads that have an opening that should be placed right over the ear canal.
The usefulness of headphone measurements (as Headroom also maintains, I believe) is in allowing us to compare the response of different headphones measured in the same way, but not to give a really reliable idea of what they'll sound like.
And actually, while the DT48E may be pretty flat in response, it is actually very far from perfectly flat. But more on that later... Drosera
In response to Drosera
I've read other posts saying this, and I just don't really buy it. If a person's ear is shaped in such a way that frequency X is amplified, then they hear everything like that, including real life, live acoustic music, etc. So the way a guitar sounds is going to have that peak in real life as well, and the headphones wouldn't sound off. (really though, since we all have different mechanics in our hearing, it's not really accurate to call it a peak, because I assume that the brain adjusts for this constant. the brain is really more of the hearing organ than the ear itself anyways) If there is a reason that explains why headphones in particular sound the way they do to a person, it has to be something that is unique to headphones. I don't see why the shape of the pinna would affect headphones and not everything else as well Rhythmdevils
In response to Rhythmdevils
Think of it this way. The sound a particular speaker makes (both perceived and measured) in different rooms will be different. That's because the speaker fires into an enclosure (the room) and different enclosures load the speaker differently. In the case of headphones, they fire into the ear and different ears load the phone differently. This is not conjecture, if you make two "dummy heads" with different ear arrangements, the measured response will be different. This is why there is a standard for dummy heads, so that measurements made in different labs can be compaired.
OK, here goes. I am the guy "immortalized" by Kool Bubba Ice with the quote:
"I think it is sacreligious in a way to compare the DT-48S to anything."
But I am known for going where angels fear to tread so...
To me, the difference between most headphones today and the DT-48 is philosophy. There seems to be three main issues that modern headphone designs are intended to address:
1) Wide bandwidth (extended bass and treble)
2) Tonal characteristics that approach the characteristic of a good speaker in a good room
3) Spatial characteristics that mimic the space heard through a good speaker in a good room
1) and 2) have been largely accomplished, especially in today's best available models, 3) is much more elusive and only tentative moves in this direction have been made by, say, the K-1000, HD-800, perhaps Ultrasone and a few others. But the point is that, today, the intent is to make a headphone that sounds much more like a speaker. Refering again to post 1503 on this thread reinforces this, the way modern headphone responses are tailored is in consideration of the sound of external speaker systems.
The DT-48 was designed before this was, I suspect, even considered. The DT-48 sounds unabashedly like a headphone. No tricks to try to take the sound "out of head" and no reference to far field equalizations to mimic speakers. The DT-48 doesen't even address 1) above, the frequency extremes droop, as a result the phones are "Midrange-centric".
This (in my view) is what makes the DT-48 so unique. NO ONE would manufacture a headphone this way today. The designer would never be able to hold his head up at a Audio Engineering Society meeting!
But wait. Who says that using this external speaker model to design a phone is the be all and end all? Perhaps a headphone sounding like a headphone is not a bad thing.
That is the core of the comparison between the HD-800 and the DT-48. The HD-800 has a "comfy" kind of sound, broadband and somewhat out of head with the familiar sonic thumbprint of a good modern hi-end speaker system. I can go from my HD-800 to my home Harbeth Monitor 40 without too much culture shock (though the Harbeth M-40 does have a warmer sound and there is always the presentation of space to consider).
The DT-48, on the other hand, at first sounds downright claustrophobic with its' rolled off treble and in-head sound. But after a bit, you appreciate the relaxed sound and midrange magic. I wouldn't say the DT-48 midrange is better really, it's just more "exposed" and to my ear draws your attention to the midrange (where most of the music is) and away from the filigree of the treble and (somewhat) from beat of the bass.
(BTW, I will award the "brass figligee with bronze oak leaf palm" to whoever knows who used to say this on the radio...)
The DT-48 reminds me of a speaker system I once heard at a vintage audio dealers house. It was his pride and joy, the pinnacle of his collection and made by Western Electric using a mid-treble horn with the throat bent at a 90 degree angle and a cone woofer in a large bookshelf cabinet beautiful with art deco detailing. It looked like it came right out of a '30's radio station! It suffered at the extremes, didn't image as well and was otherwise not quite as sophisticated sounding as modern systems. But somehow, listening to it made me think of "concentrated music", it seemed to squeeze out all of the music juice. And despite any flaws, communicated the music magnificently.
Now the DT-48 is more technically correct than this vintage system, but the communicative qualities are similar. The HD-800 does sound more like a modern hi-end stereo and, I dare say, closer to the literal sound of the concert hall on recordings that contain that sound. But perhaps, at least with headphones, this more complete sound can be too much and a bit overwhelming at such close quarters. The DT-48 may not give it all, but it gives what is most important and there is something to be said for that. And it's why I would be very loath to modify a DT-48 in any way, the least thing could just break their magic spell...
So maybe it IS sacreligious to compare the DT-48 to anything else. At this point, it's more or less unique to itself and, I suspect, never to be duplicated. So get 'em while you can.
BTW, hell yes, I won the pair recently listed on Audiogon... Kevin
Maybe we should simply start to assume there is no such thing as an accurate/natural sound field when listening through headphones.
Reading this interesting article from Head-Acoustics and Binaural recordings, it seems as whatever the equalization techniques are used for the headphone (FF, DF or ID), they are not universal, and will be better suited for some recordings while wrong for others... Since there is not such thing as a headphone with switchable equalization parameters , the quest for optimal equalization technique seems quite a vain effort to me.
The DT48 certainly do not intend to recreate the illusion of a real sound field but allow to perceive raw sounds as they were recorded, if not in their spatial location, at least in their texture and intensity. In the end, they connect me with the music more than any other headphones. Shamu144
In regards to Shamu144
Spatially, this all applies to speakers as well as phones. Differing recording techniques technically require different speaker positioning for optimum sound field recreation, and many recordings don't HAVE a natural sound field, they are multiple mono/multiple mic'ed creations by the recording engineer/producer, so there's no way to know what their sound field SHOULD be.
Tonally, there are many possibilites as well due to the response characteristics of different mic's, the common application of EQ and other manipulations. And the big problem is that we have to use recordings to judge systems and systems to judge recordings like a dog chasing his tail. Even if you were at the recording session, you don't really "know" what the recording will sound like. What the engineer captured may be very different from the sound in the hall, depending on the skill of the engineer, where the mic's were located and where in the hall you listened.
It could be argued that, due to the differences in recordings, the best system would be the one that "split the difference" the best to bring out the best in the largest number of recordings. And that probably would not be literally flat (whatever THAT is where headphones are concerned) unless you only listen to recordings made by "pedigreed" recording engineers known for their high level of skill and adherence to reasonably minimalistic mic arrangements (Tony Faulkner, Marc Aubort, Kavi Alexander and the RCA, Mercury, Decca and EMI recording teams come to mind, and even then...).
Basically, it's like trying to hit a moving target while blindfolded (smile). Kevin
I'm doing this for the simple fact that they are the most unappreciated, & most unknown hi end headphone in production today. This gem of a headphone dates back to 1937. The first hi fi stereo headphone ever created gets no respect from a lot of these so called 'headphone enthusiast.' My DT48 FAQ covers the majority about the DT48. This blog is all about praising the 'worst headphone ever created.' English is a 2nd language to some of the people I quoted, so bare with me.
There is NO more rugged headphone in existence. Blueneon
The ultimate in moving coil headphone technique Beyerdynamic
The DT48 headphones impressively illustrate how far ahead of their time our engineers can be..http://beyerdynamic.hk/T1/ Beyerdynamic
The DT48 earphone at that time was called Berlin (Berlin) the sign, as a result of its astonishing frequency response and the analysis, German arm force's Intelligence service and the gestapo even uses it to reconnoiter the sound which other earphones are unable to distinguish radically, gained the massive valuable information. Japanese website
their medium and high-frequency precision and fidelity remain unparalleled, so much so that some mixers, and not the least, won't use any other models, because their judgment is based on this sound quality. DCAudiovisuel.com
The truly transparent headphones I've listened to are the HD-800, K-1000, HP-1000, Omega II Mk. 1, DT48, and the K-240DF. That's why I bought them and they won't leave my collection. Uncle Erik
As for comparison to the K-1000, the DT48 has a similar neutral timbre and excellent range. The DT48 is faster, more transparent and more resolving to me. I can pick out details I haven't noticed before. Uncle Erik
And about the DT48... it is often said that the best gear is also the most unremarkable. There might not be flourishes and glitz, but hearing a transducer reproduce the piano so right is remarkable. Even moreso after hearing so many get it wrong. Uncle Erik
The DT48 is simply real. It's hard to describe exactly, but there is something very special about the DT48. The neutrality and transparency completely win me over. One of the reasons I bought the HD-800 was because its transparency is much like the DT48. Uncle Erik
If the K-240DF interests you, take a closer look at other professional studio headphones. My favorite is the Beyerdynamic DT48, an underappreciated gem perfectly suited to all things acoustic and vocal. If Beyerdynamic bothered to market it, it would be a top recommendation here. Uncle Erik
I did some experimenting whereby I placed my head directly above the microphone and alternately listened to the direct sound of the band, and then, by putting on the headphones, to the recorded sound. Except for the change in spatial perspective (the sound was inside my head instead of in front of me) associated with the headphones, the basic quality, and timbre of the sound was virtually identical. I remember being very pleased by the precision of this successful direct comparison. Mike Mclean Motown engineer.
It's simple, the DT48's are one of if not the most neutral, reliable, accurate, resolving headphones under 1000 dollars. Milezone
The DT48's sound like reality Milezone
Regarding your question about the DF's they are flat as they come within the realm of normal headphones. But the DT48 is on a different plane of flatness -- the DFs are literally nowhere near the DT48's in terms of neutrality. Of the headphones of heard, nothing is (including my K1000's) Milezone
The Dt48 has already opened my eyes to a whole new world of headphone listening above the Mid-Fi world of hd600 , K701 and the like Adanac061
In retrospect, I can honestly say that the DT48 were way ahead of their time. Adanac061
This is indeed a special headphone for a niche market, it really is amazing to think these were first made in the early 50's..!!
They really are from another world. Adanac061
The DT48e are for sure something special in the world of headphones, especially when you consider their price. Shamu144
I received mine yesterday, and it is far too early to make any judgment or write impressions, but I can say one thing for sure: those headphones are like d-y-n-a-m-i-t to me. Their speed or transcient response is amazing, and it feels like your are driving a F1.
Oh, and I liked them at first listem, and quite a lot... very promising. shamu144
I think you'll be really surprised what the neutrality of these headphones sounds like. (I hope it'll be a pleasant surprise. ) For me, it has become an ultimate reference, because it puts all other headphones I've heard in a different perspective. How I judge them now is all in relation to the sound of the DT-48E. Drosera
- truly excellent separation, clarity, and imaging
- good detail, probably the best i've encountered but it's not as mind boggling as i expected
- excellent speed - articulation for complex passages in chamber music is astonishing Kukrisna
The DT48 is supposed to be close to neutral, and it made so that your mids are flat so you can hear what's going into your equipment. Fouriermakesfunk
The comment is in French but to sum up the guy says this: "it has the most faithful and beautiful mids i've heard in 30 years". He also says both treble and bass are a bit rolled off, but nothing frustrating. The other headphones he had were not especially high end but the HE60 is a nice reference. mobbaddict
Because my CD drive stopped functioning I couldn't burn a test CD with a good number of tracks I'm familiar with, so I only got to listen to the two Sviatoslav Richter recordings I brought with me. The two recordings sound shockingly different with regards to tonality. The EMI Schumann recording sounded more bright and thin with little bass like many of the impressions here, but the DG Rachmaninov Concerto No.2 recording with Wislocki had thunderous bass. No other headphone I had the pleasure of listening to my Richter recordings changed so much in tonality. This leads me to believe that if there is one aspect of sound reproduction in which the DT48 is truly excellent, it may be transparency. Doping Panda
So I bought a vintage unit off ebay and liked it quite a bit. There is a certain beguiling sense of relaxed neutrality that really lets the essence of the music through. They don't "do tricks" such as provide a super wide stage or overly flatter certain kinds of music, they just sort of get out of the way. Not that "stupid headphone tricks" (smile) can't be fun and enjoyable, just sometimes you just want to hear recordings straight. K3oxkjo
I will say, though, that no matter how much I adjust to the DT880, it never sounds totally right to my ears (always a little too bassy and a little veiled sounding), whereas the DT48 really does manage to get 'just right'. Oggranak
And I say "was" because now that I got the DT48e (200 ohms) from PaulyT (thanks Paul ) I've got the sonic shape that fits my tastes.
I agree word by word with the description of Kees about them. Musical, bodied, detailed but not more than others, clearly-defined and with a sense of realism (from my personal taste) that makes me not looking for anything else.
I cannot comment on comparisons since I've got only wide experience with DT880Pro and Pro900 as major cans but, I had the chance of a brief contact with R10 (together with Linn Ikemi and Mapletree) and that was the ultimate experience for me. Nothing that I've heard after could equal the transparence, detail, body and, over all, midrange from that rig. Obviously DT48e wouldn't resist an A/B comparison. But for me (and only from my memories) the DT48e has the closest sound signature that I've listened.
Take this as it is: just the sensation of a newbie that knows for sure what kind of sound he's looking for. Vermellfort
I'm still considering the HD800 or the O2 with a dedicated amplifier, but for the time being I'm very happy with my purchase. On the downside, their resolution and tonal accuracy is so good that stopped being fun listening to some recordings, fortunately my favourite songs are still filled with passion and closer to reality. Axle 69
and finally, the object of my opinion: the BEYER DT48, which have, with my ear of music lover, the most beautiful medium just and (with fabulous stamps) that I heard in 30 years of passion; only the ends of the spectrum are slightly truncated, subjectively speaking, but without large frustation Axle 69
I don't think they intended to "down grade the technology" but you mess with a legend at your peril. While certain things sound more "technically correct" some of that DT-48S magic is gone. The DT-48e is not a bad phone, in fact it is, to me, quite good, but it sounds like a good "normal" headphone and not like a legend.
So far, the HD-800, in my view combines a technical correctness with a dollop of the hard to define magic such as the DT-48S has. Some of this is the midrange, which is nip-and-tuck with the Beyer. Some of it is the freedom from distortion which seems even better than the DT-48S. Some of it is the HD-800's ability to unravel musical threads and its' more spacious soundfield (still very different than a speaker system).
But I don't doubt that all this technical competence can sometimes lead to a sense of listening to the phone rather than the music. The DT-48S doesn't allow this, it just disarms you. You know there are things wrong, but you don't really care.
The HD-800 can sometimes appear to be a victim of it's own excellence, it's residual flaws can catch your ear despite their relatively small presence. This is not to say the HD-800 are perfect or even for everyone. I do think the HD-800 overall have to be compaired with the best.
But I think it is sacreligious in a way to compare the DT-48S to anything. They are unique unto themselves and pull you into their world when ever you strap 'em on...
K3oxkjo
I first came across these gems when I heard a few very respected head-fier's and various studio folks praised them as rivaling the AKG 1000 or better stax systems (I'll refrain from giving names to protect the innocent). Jrosenth
They don't have any bass and they are ultra analytic (as opposed to musical or organic) but if you can get past that they are the most revealing cans I've ever heard - as in they make the AKG 501 or the Beyer 880 or the Grado RS-1 or the Senn 600 all sound like they have a veil over them. You can clearly heard details in them that you can't with the other cans (things like background voices in a club recording, for instance). Jrosenth
On now, the sound. In short, astonishingly revealing - hyper-resolving. On the drier, analytical side, but worth that price of admission to hear details simply not audible on cans such as the RS-1, Beyer DT 880, Senn 600/650 or AKG 501/701. Seriously, no joke, no lie. A/B them side by side and your jaw will drop. That may not be too surprising considering research labs conducting medical studies on hearing as well as your local audiologist use them, but it is truly something to hear one in your life.
For example, I hear specific conversation in the back of the room on lives recordings, hear them as in can follow them clearly, conversations not present with any other cans. Tape drop out are not just notable but obviously so. crazy, crazy stuff. Jrosenth
I monitored for years on exotic electrostatics by Stax' and kinda blamed dynamic... then one day i found an offer on a brand new DT-48... it was pre-eBay Era... everything I read about it was true! My ears agreed.A fantastic sound, dynamic , detailed, very speakers like, and very silent vs. room noises.The recordings I made AFTER DT-48 are better miked, period! I also found in Germany, few years ago a 50 years old DT-48's which was used with special wiring and impedance, with EMT 927st and 930st turntables... FANTASTIC sound, too and an historic value added; they always used aluminium machined ear-speakers and leather ear-pads.P.S. - other Beyer's thus good ARE NOT DT-48's twogoodears
with the DT 48 you're paying for two things: build quality and accuracy. The response is actually very flat, and if you swap from the 48s to, say, DT 990s the difference in bass is very obvious. However, it's the DT 48s that are correct! That said, I still like listening to DT 831s. soundoff
They have tremendous amounts of detail, more then any other headphones should say Carloskleiber
These are without a doubt the most revealing & realistic headphones I have ever heard. Kinsale
I own both, and i almost have a hard time believing the K240DF is flat when you compare it to the DT48e. Sizwej
the DT48e takes it to another level all together, the detail retrieval of these things is simply amazing.Cans that i thought captured every detail of the music, are now either gathering dust in my closet or sold (re-cabled K501/K701/er4-p/dt880).As i stated before, the mid-range is simply unbelievable. Sizwej
the sheer fact, that it has been in production for 50 years, must meen, that it actually has some outstanding qualities Calypso
The improved sample rate really made a difference in how clean the DT-48 sounded, especially in the highs. The sounds im getting is very pure and harmonically correct. It is never tiring or harsh, but it is disorientating sometimes with all the detail and presise imaging. eyedrop
Originally Posted by kool bubba ice View Post
Is the HD800 that much faster,
I doubt it, but I didn't really test them for speed (that's far from my main concern with headphones). They do have a weird way with transients though that almost sounds 'overdamped'. The driver seems to start and stop very quickly (perhaps a property of the special ring-design) in a manner that's eerily reminiscent of electrostats. And just as I find that characteristic unnatural sounding with electrostats I have the same problem with it with the HD800.
Quote: Originally Posted by kool bubba ice View Post
& is it more resolving?
Even more difficult to answer really, especially because the highs in the HD800 are much more extended (and have bit of a nasty peak) it becomes very difficult to separate appearance of detail and resolving ability from the real thing. But on the whole I would say they are pretty evenly matched with the HD800 having the advantage of a much bigger soundstage, which always helps with keeping the different musical strains separate.
For me the most striking similarity between the HD800 and the DT48 is the frequency response from higher lows to lower highs, which is pretty damn neutral with both headphones. Drosera
Recently getting a 25 ohm version of the DT48E has led me to a strong re-appreciation of this peculiar headphone. This has also led me to reread most of this by now pretty sizeable thread (as I said, I like to read) and particularly the very interesting discussions around page 30-50 on natural vs. neutral. Taking these together I think I'm finally getting to grips with how the DT48 present music.
I think the real eye-opener is in comparing the frequency response of headphones to those of speakers. We've all seen that the DT48 measures pretty flat and that's also pretty much how it sounds if you, for example, test them with a sine sweep. However, most good speakers measure even flatter. Yet, if you listen to those speakers you'll experience the music in a completely different way than is presented by the DT48. Still, the measurements basically tell the truth: the DT48 sound like speakers strapped to your head. So why then do they sound so different from ordinary headphones?
Most headphones measure quite differently. Almost all frequency responses of headphones have some kind of variation on the smile curve. Why? Well, it seems it's all about necessary compensation for artefacts of headphones.
First there's the treble, which is in most headphones very far from flat, but marked by several judiciously placed peaks and dips. The dips are at least partly there to protect your ears for certain frequencies to which it is most sensitive, the peaks appear to emphasise those frequencies that determine definition (leading to impression of increased detail) and room reflections (giving you the illusion of spacious sound). Especially the fact that this last character is missing (or at least much less present) in the DT48 is probably the reason why a few people's first reaction after a brief audition is that it sounds 'murky' (or simply 'awful' ). It's no help here of course that the DT48 is a closed headphone. An open version would already sound far more spacious simply because it wouldn't isolate your ears from particularly the highest frequencies (16 kHz and above) that give the feeling of 'air' (as opposed to an acoustically 'dead' space). With speakers you need neither these peaks nor the dips, because the tweeters are not right next to your ear (so, protection against particular frequencies is not that necessary) and they also benefit from room acoustic and reflections which already create a more natural 'illusion' of spaciousness.
On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that the DT48 doesn't have that small elevation throughout the 20 to 1000 Hz range has a consequence that people will say it has 'no bass'. But more interestingly, it also is probably the main reason why it's such a 'cold' sounding headphone. In this it probably contributes more than the flat midrange does. No frequency is an island (to very badly paraphrase John Donne) and a warm midrange is usually the result of the relative amount of lower end information. Why headphones usually do 'need' this bumped lower end might have something to do with the small amount of room there is inside the cups for low frequency waves to develop...but I haven't fully figured that one out yet.
In short, if there's one thing the DT48 makes you realise, it's how weird headphones are. The irony appears to be that they need to have a completely unnatural frequency response in order to sound natural. Give a headphone a natural FR and, well, most people will understandably run in the other direction.
One of the most intriguing off-shoots of this is, is that if you are fond of using equalisation to tweak the sound of your system, there are probably few other headphones that can give such a chameleon-like response to such treatment. Try it out. Oh yeah, when you're done experimenting and you switch off the equalisation, be prepared for an 'unpleasant' surprise. Ye gods, that DT48E is bland! So that's another way to describe the DT48: it's a headphone with equalisation switched off.
Okay, most of the above has probably been said a few times already in one form or another, but I felt like summarising it for myself. I also have probably simplified the matter quite a bit, there's certainly more to it than just this. Drosera
i enjoy the dt 48 for what it can do and what it does plus it is a lot less expensive than the k 1000 or hd 800 yet people who know what those headphones sound like and i wouldn't be ashamed about the dt 48 sounding better than the most expensive headphones regarding vocals which is analytical but i feel it can be anything and at this price point well can't be beaten.
Anyhow when beyerdynamic states boldly the ultimate in magnetic coil design and that means it cannot be improved on because it is perfect and i feel that way towards the dt 48 s nagra so yea may as well call it the ultimate charmeleon and it has all the facts backing it up anyways. holylucifer
The DT-48 is like a perfect hologram picture of the music eyedrop
They are very very neutral with excellent harmonics, speed, timbre accuracy, and resolution. Not everyone likes the sound of a headphone though.... Most people expect a WOW type of powerful sound on first listen. But the DT48 are very plain yet very correct sounding if that makes sense. eyedrop
And they scale amazingly well with proper amp/source. Currently feeding my Lavry with an async USB/SPDIF HiFace device, and I must say that the sense of continuity and realism of the music is simply outstanding. shamu144
What it gets right for me with piano is especially the variety of sound available. The same key struck with different gradations of dynamics can sound very different. A lot of other headphones seem to emphasise either a soft rounded tone or a brilliant, sparkling tone.
A judiciously applied equaliser should help to compensate for the the roll-off in the highs, bringing out a bit more of the harmonics. Drosera
They are detailed within their range and very clear and articulate in the midrange with a non-spectacular but "true blue" sound. They create their own intimate, somewhat dark, world. While the other phones (try) to sound like a concert or a speaker, the DT-48 sounds like a mike feed in the control room, albeit with somewhat restricted bandwidth. Kevin
The DT 48 A.00 features excellent ambient noise attenuation due to the closed design. The matched transducer elements have an impedance of 5 Ohms per system and are carefully selected to achieve a maximum frequency response deviation of �1 dB. Broadcastor.com
beyerdynamic pioneered the development of the world's first Vice-moving-coil headphone DT48, have entered the field of high fidelity headphones. DT48 headset still in production and sales, can be regarded as the world's longest production history of the headphones che168.net
For the ultimate in ruggedness there are the DT48's james perrett
Why am I writing this F.A.Q?
The DT48 is a remarkable headphone. It wasn't meant to sound pleasing but revealing. They are unknown & under appreciated.
What makes the DT48 'special' & unique
First headphone ever created.
The DT48 was developed in 1937 & released to the public in the 50's.
The DT48 has been in production for 73 yrs, 53 being to the general public.
The DT48 was made for acoustical investigations, research facilities, scientific studies, & testing. Used in Hospitals, hearing test & used by Ear, nose, & throat physicians.
Maximum Frequency response deviation of 1db (DT48a brochure)
Flat frequency response
The ultimate in moving coil headphone technique (Engineering Data)
Precision control instrument for broadcasting & recording work (Engineering Data)
DT48a are made to order
Meets NAGRA's strict & extremely high standards.
5 & 8 ohm models
Unconventional in sound & design.
Build quality & Design
"The heart of the DT48 is a heat formed aluminum membrane to which a hand wound moving coil attached. This assembly is mounted within a housing machined from a solid block of aluminum, which also contains a special high powered magnet assembly held in a machine cut thread. The back cover is also machined from aluminum to such fine tolerances that a perfect hermatic seal is formed. The result of this unprecedented design and construction is a headphone with truly outstanding characteristics"
Engineering Data
What is the difference between the DT48a & the DT48e?
The Beyerdynamic DT 48 A.00 audiometric headphones are designed for use in aural-acoustical investigations and measurements by ear, nose and throat specialists, research laboratories, and educational facilities.
The supra-aural ear coupling headphones utilizes flat rubber ear caps that are easily identified by their color-coded, left/right-designated covers. All components conform to the currently accepted professional standards, and the cable is supplied bare-ended for application-specific termination.
DT48e
Circumaural closed back headphones for broadcast, studio or live field use. These headphones are particularly useful for critical monitoring during field recording, for use with professional DAT and Minidisc recorders
DT48 wiki
How many versions are there?
They are many variations of the DT48. The orginal DT48. The DT48 silver 5ohm & 25ohm. I even heard of a 200ohm DT48S, but never seen one. The DT48a 5ohm. The DT48e 5/8/25/200/250ohm. I also read about a 600ohm version. Some of the versions have a coiled cable or straight cable, & some are single entry, others are dual entry. Cup color & size may vary slightly. Some have numbers on them. I'm not sure the purpose of this.
Is the DT48 still in production?
Yes.
If the DT48 is so good why aren't they well known & popular?
The DT48 was never made for the consumer market.. Beyerdynamic markets the DT48 to a certain audience in the pro sector. Over 60 yrs old. The sound was meant to be of the highest fidelity instead of producing a pleasing sound.
Who likes the DT48?
A niche group of audiophiles who are looking for a unconventional, neutral & accurate sound.
What genres do the DT48 excel at?
Chamber music. Heavy vocal presentation. Jazz. Classical. Anything acoustic.
The DT48 doesn't do acoustics accurately. I been to many concerts. I know
There is a great spatial difference comparing live to a controlled studio session with headphones. So, yes, I'm sure there is a difference. Plus other variables.. But the DT48 was made for acoustic research & acoustic investigations, so the DT48 gets acoustics right compared to many headphones on the market today. Liking how a headphone sounds with acoustics does not mean they are accurate. Many correlate accurate with pleasing or have a pre conceived notion of what accurate should sound like.
What are the DT48 strengths?
Clarity, neutrality, accuracy, tonal balance, timbre, detail, speed, & mid range.
What are the DT48 weaknesses?
Treble extension. High roll off with the DT48a. No bass emphasis. The DT48 bass can be described as 'weak.' More so the DT48a. overly revealing. no colorization can make therm sound bland, un involving, & boring to some listeners.
Are the DT48 hi end?
Yes.. I'd put them in between hi end & 'ultra' hi end dynamic headphones in certain areas.. Natural timbre. Tonal balance. Mid range. Detail. Speed. Transparency. Clarity.
What is your headphone experience?
HD212. HD595. HD650 balanced. HD600. SA5000 balanced. K240 Sextett. K340. K280. K501. K701. K1000. DT48. DT480. DT770. DT880. DT990. Yamaha Y1. Technic 810.
Why do the DT48 cost so much? 449-500 retail?
Build quality. Design. & accuracy.
Do the DT48 benefit from a recabling job?
Yes.
Do the DT48 benefit from a balanced configuration?
Yes.
Is the DT48 the most resolving closed dynamic headphone in production today..
I would say yes. But others will disagree.
Is the DT48 the best headphone ever created by Beyerdynamics?
Yes. If you read the engineering data you will easily come to this conclusion too.
Any similarities between Beyers new statement headphone, T1 & the DT48a?
Yes.. The transducers are personally matched & carefully selected for both headphones for optimal L/R balance.
Are the DT48a mass produced?
No. They are made to order. Like the HD800, each DT48a is made individually by hand. & comes with a frequency graph chart like the HD800.. Some of the frequencies might differ a bit by phone.
Headphone amp/dac is all in one solution to fit gamers needs. No matter the objective. Casual or competitive play. Depending on your sound card or the prowess of your A/V receivers amp section, you should hear a noticeable improvement in overall SQ, fidelity, bass quality, bass response, richness, depth, detail, clarity, sound stage, etc.. Improvements varies between each & every amp/DAC combo. I have listed 28 so far. Enjoy.
Entry level
Hot audio DAC destroyer
49.00
USB only.
ebay.com
HA Sound Master 29 Plus
49.00
USB only.
ebay.com
V1
89.00
USB only
ebay.com
Musiland Lilio
99.00
USB only.
pacificvalve.net
style audio CARAT - HD1V
99.00
USB only.
ebay.com
Zero amp/DAC
111.00*
USB/Coax/Optical
ebay.com
Headroom total bithead
159.00
USB only.
headphone.com
Recently, there has been much interest in finding headphones with a big sound stage for gaming. Yes, the size of the sound stage does matter, but there is much more to a sound stage then mere size. Other factors come into play, and will make or break a sound stage.
Sound stage
Width. How wide is the sound stage horizontal. Think Left to Right.
Depth. How deep is the sound stage vertically. Think forward to backwards.
Spacious. The perceived space & distance pertaining to allies, gunfire, foot steps, & enemies combatants.
Parts of the puzzle. What makes a stellar sound stage.
1. Coherency. How consist is the audio in the sound stage. Think of proper physics, but relative in audio terms.
2. 3D/Full bodied. 2D/3D is an extension of imaging. 2D is flat. 3D is like a pop up book in audio terms. 3D allows you to get a better grasp of the anatomy of the sound. Shape, size, width, length and dimensions. This allows you to do a better job at interpreting the sound, while your brain visualizes what it would look like. Having a full sound fleshes out the audio. It gives them more weight. The sound feels more real and lively. A gun will have a sense of weight to it. To the point it will feel 'heavy.'
3. Accuracy. Positioning and locating sound through audio cues is only part of the equation. You can locate a sound in a general direction, but the accuracy of the can will enable you to pin point the sound easier and faster.
4. Separation. Separating audio with a 'distinctive' break. Fast transient can also play a factor. This is especially useful when using a 5.1 surround sound DSP. Better and more distinct channel separation.
5. Spatial ability. How well it portrays the audio between space. Can really be beneficial to the imagining quality.
6. Imaging. How well you can 'see' with your ears.
You can visualize the surrounding, enemies, and can resolve them in
good detail without seeing them.
Sound stage-
Both are wide and big. The difference between the two is Horizontal depth compared to vertical depth. The MDR F1 has much better L/R width, depth, and extension.. Not even close. The AD700 has a very impressive F/B depth, and feels more spacious as a whole. Plus it has a blacker, quieter background, Like a black void. It feels grounded compared to the airy MDR F1. But the MDR F1 gives you a holographic type presentation. With a personal sound field swirling around your head. Makes your gaming environment seems to pop up. Think of a triangle, the forward line is like a projector, but with audio. Very upfront. The AD700 is better in the forward position in regards to depth and space.
Winner MDR F1.
Imaging.-
At first listen you'd think the imaging of the MDR F1 would be much better. It is to a certain degree, but is bland. It will give you 3d and holographic portrayal of the sound, but the AD700 makes better use of the image, resolving more detail and a better sense of what it is. Images are fleshed out very well with a nice amount of weight.
Winner Toss up.
positioning-
This is the MDR F1 strong suit. You have a much easier time locating a sound that's in a general direction, especially the horizontally. Think of Maddens 'light bulb' features for QBs, and you will get an idea how much more field the MDR F1 cover. Think Manning vs Grossman. The AD700 are not bad at positioning. It's more of a design issue then anything else.
Winner MDR F1
Accuracy-
Remember when I said in a general direction regarding the positioning of the MDR F1? The MDR F1 will let you know the location of the sound better due to it's wider scope, but the AD700 are more accurate once they 'see the light'.
Winner AD700
For the rest-
Cohesiveness AD700
Detail Toss up
Bass MDR F1
Clarity AD700
Immersion factor MDR F1
Mid range MDR F1
Comfort MDR F1
Bang for the buck AD700
Special effect sounds AD700
Detail is very crucial for competitive gamers. Lets you hear noises further away then you would with headphones not as detailed. Most good cans offer good detail retrieval. It's just an inherent strength of headphones. But headphones with great detail always you to 'see' more and get an indepth view of the sound. A great detailed headphone can resolve even the most obsure sound. And can 'see' through the layers cleanly and clearly. IE, my favorite fight scene. GO GO Vs the Bride. I could hear 3-4 distint layers of the twirling ball and chain. The swoosh sound. The air. and the chain it self. The chain actually had a sub layer. This is good when you hear multiple foot steps. It is easier to gauge how many there are. Seperation, clarity, transient speed, imaging is also involved. I will go over those in another blog. I will list the lowest retail price, and used value of the headphone.
Note. The K1000/R10/Q10/501/340/Technics 810 are discontinued, and must be purchased used. These are also dynamic headphones, except the 340, which is a hybrid of dynamic/Stat.
Orthodynamics are usually very detailed, once modded. They are planar. The detail is natural and un harsh, unlike some dynamic headphones, No treble spikes.
