Reader advisory: This is a long posting. It has three parts. It is long because it describes a lengthy journey that takes a few side trips (relevant ones, I think) along the way. But in a medium where Tweets rule, some people become impatient plowing through anything longer than 140 characters. Readers here, clearly, are more patient, but, still, those who do not enjoy lengthy posts might want to give this one a pass.
_____________
Definition of Solipsism:
1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. 2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.
Definition of Quintessential:
Adj. representing the perfect example of a class or quality.
_____________
At times members of forums criticize reviews for what they take as absolutist positions; that is, they accuse reviewers of presenting opinions as "facts." Sometimes that accusation is just. It would not be in this case.
Every judgement, assessment and interpretation here is my opinion, nothing more or less. My opinions are offered not in the expectation, but rather the hope that some readers might find them useful.
I also emphasize that opinions, mine included, are like socks: they are for changing. If there is little in life that is immutable, there is nothing on Mother Earth more deserving of being described as mutable than a human opinion. Without embarrassment or apology, I can say that there have been times in my life as an audiophile when I feel I have changed my socks less often than I have my audio opinions. And this has happened most of all with respect to headphones. So the opinions expressed here are the socks I'm wearing today. I reserve the right to change them tomorrow.
And I recognize the limits of opinions about audio. Every audiophile, despite many frequent debates and controversies on forums such as this, ultimately makes decisions about audio systems and components not based on the opinions of others, expert or collective, but on one, and only one, opinion - his or her own. The audiophile may be influenced by other opinions, but there is no escaping that final, and lonely, judgement. It is expressed this way: "I like it" or "I don't like it."
But what about the "objective facts?" - the "objective/subjective" debate?
The objective/subjective debate in audio is one that often sheds more heat than light. It can trigger forum brawls. I've seen contenders sling insults back and forth for days until moderators no longer can stand the mindless bitterness and vitriol. These brawlers, who may have other problems in their lives, are not just talking past one another or are at cross purposes. They are battling, from an audio user's perspective, about mutually exclusive subjects. For me, as an audiophile, a consumer, a lonely jury of one, it is a false fight.
I won't go through the particulars of this debate. They can be found elsewhere. The most thorough assessment of this contentious (and IMO often silly) quarrel was written by NwAvGuy here:
http://nwavguy.blogspot.ca/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.htmlI agree with those who say that objective measurements, tests and specifications are important and "true" because they are based on scientific and demonstrable facts. I wouldn't want to buy audio equipment from manufacturers who have no knowledge of, or respect for, the principles of electrical engineering or what has been scientifically found to be true of audio equipment. I would be suspicious of a company that doesn't provide buyers with useful specifications.
My most successful audio purchases have been made buying equipment from companies and individuals that excel in their engineering knowledge and prowess, that carefully test and measure, and take pride in publishing detailed specifications. The ones with which I'm most familiar that embrace these things as the foundations of their designs are Bryston, Axiom, and NwAvGuy. I think they have created great products.
If one reads their views carefully, even the strongest knowledgeable proponents of objectivity in audio recognize and accept that personal decisions by users are based on subjective tastes and preferences, not science, which is not different than taste in vegetables. Peas may be "scientifically" good for her, but I couldn't get my wife to eat one no matter what. I love them. But forget about lima beans. I never touch them.
NwAvGuy, the most "objective" oriented writer I've found says: "When choosing a car, new laptop, and audio gear, the subjective side matters. It’s not all numbers. Things like ease of use, aesthetics, and build quality are all important. When it comes to the sound of different speakers and headphones, subjective opinions are often what matter most. Are you a basshead, like it bright and detailed, laid back, or as accurate as possible? I’m not trying to dispute subjective preferences. If you like the sound of tube gear, even if it measures poorly, that’s your business. If it puts a smile on your face that’s what matters most. And some buy high-end gear for the quality, looks, status, etc. My concern is misleading objective data, objective claims with no basis in reality, marketing “pseudo-science”, and when the line between subjective and objective is intentionally blurred."
Tyll Herstens, also a great believer in measurement and testing, asserts, "In the final analysis, you have to listen. You have to discover what you like. Learning what neutral sounds like is an excellent exercise mainly because it allows you to learn the magnitude and direction of deviations from neutral that are pleasing to you. Your pleasure is the ultimate goal, and nobody, no measurement, no blind test, can tell you what you find pleasing, and which headphone will push that button."
So do I believe that because subjectivity in audio is not scientific and is merely about personal preferences, it has no useful role for audiophiles, including headphone enthusiasts - or that the subjective assessments, the opinions, of others - are without value? Absolutely not.
I read reviews. Lots of them. Just as I look to specifications as helpful indicators in terms of buying and judging audio equipment, so, too, do I find the opinions of others to be helpful indicators. The challenge for me, as an audiophile, is to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Some reviews help, some don't, just as not all product specifications are of much assistance.
The trick I found is to triangulate the objective and subjective material I read, and most of all assess it against certain basics, which are the things I am looking for in terms of outcome - what kind of sound I like. I don't expect or demand that specs and reviews necessarily will point me to Nirvana or Absolute Truth, but they can point in a direction that can help me decide what product to consider purchasing.
If audio generally is solipsistic because it's about you - what you want and what want you can and does change - there are forms of audio and circumstances where total self-centeredness may not apply. For example, where audio is used in shared spaces, the opinions of others are as valid as your own. Many an audiophile is familiar with the "wife veto."
But headphones are a whole other thing.
Of all audio components, headphones are almost always just about you. Unless you regularly share headphones with someone else, it is entirely self-centered. It is the quintessential exercise in audio solipsism. When you put on a headphone to make the critical judgement of whether or not you like it, your opinion is "the only reality."
I've spent a long time and a good deal of money seeking the headphone that would give me the sound I like. And over that time, I have redefined what I like, making the search that much more complicated and, on occasion, frustrating. I've bought a number of headphone amps and even more headphones. The saving graces of this work have been the fun of the search - one of the audiophile's principal motivators - and the fact that when compared to doing the same thing with a speaker-based system, it is relatively affordable.
But as U2 put it, until now, I have had to admit, "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." I have heard lots of headphone gear that was good and I liked it, but only in the last week have I found what I've been looking for, a headphone that matches exactly what I set out to find.
What is my Golden Fleece?
The AKG Q701, the AKG signature version of the K701 and K702, named for the famed music producer, Quincy Jones.
How did this come to past?
After a lot of fits and starts, it dawned on me rather late in the day that unconsciously I had for years used my best speaker-based system as the measure against which I judged all other music systems. I stumbled on this fact when I made a wrenching discovery comparing the performance of my PMC MB2i speakers against Axiom M80 speakers (I wrote about that experience on this forum:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=106431.0). The modestly priced M80, for me, performed better than the much more expensive MB2i.
Once the M80 became the new benchmark of what I liked in audio, I immediately began to reassess my previous audio preferences and experiences based, primarily, but not entirely, on three specific desiderata, i.e., the things I want to hear.
The search to find them all expressed well in a given headphone recently was made easier with the purchase of the JDS Labs version of NwAvGuy's O2 (Objective 2) headphone amp. Marvelous specs, but the main attraction for me is that it's the first headphone amp I've owned (the list includes ones by Grado, Musical Fidelity, Creek, Grace Designs, and Schiit) that is completely noiseless at any volume and without any discernible distortion or coloration. Now I get to hear the headphone, not the amp. This amp should have been called the Oh!2.
So here is the list of things I have been looking for in a headphone (Note, other factors, which I will mention here are important but not deal breakers for me):
1. Neutrality: that is sound that is free from coloration. I don't want headphones that emphasize one part of the frequency range over another. I don't want boomy or overly bright ones. No bass heavy or treble or midrange predominant headphone for me. This also has been described to me as tonal balance.
2. Accuracy: Stereophile's glossary of terms calls this "the degree to which the output signal from a component or system is perceived as replicating the sonic qualities of its input signal. An accurate device reproduces what is on the recording, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the original sound."
I want to hear everything that was put on the recording in its final form, the product that the artists, producers and audio technicians decided to sell to me. I want it all to come through my headphones - the good, the bad, the beautiful and the ugly. If a recording, in this sense, is like a book, I don't want an abridged version, abridged by something lacking in or added to my headphones. To put it another way, I want the closest reproduction of what I paid for.
Obviously, an end-user can't know for sure if what he hears is exactly the same image as the producers of the music intended. They would be the best judges, of course. But they are not available to me. To deal with this conundrum, I take this approach, which I confess, is strictly speaking, a flawed one. I assume (sometimes unjustifiably) that professionals producing music want what I'm looking for - see my list above. For the kind of music I like (straight jazz) this is not an unreasonable assumption. But it might be if I were into electronic dance music. And naturally I listen to lots of specific musical selections I have heard time and again on numerous systems. As most audiophiles know, some of the best equipment makes badly recorded music sound terrible, or brings out flaws in well-known recordings that lesser equipment masks.
3. "The Real Thing:" I want the music I listen to sound like - I emphasize "like" - real instruments and voices as if they were in the room with me. By this, I don't expect any sound system, and especially not headphones, to be exactly true to life. All audio reproduction, after all, is only an imitation, a copy of the real thing. The goal is to get as close as possible.
And that, too, is a matter of experience and interpretation. Normally, we don't have instruments and voices performing in our sound rooms or while we have donned our headphones. Very difficult to A/B this. So we approximate what we hear through audio equipment to what we remember real voices and instruments to sound like. This is particularly difficult for me because I seldom listen to live music. This is another reason for readers to appreciate the limitations of reviews, including this one, and to be ready to parse them accordingly.
In the interest of making this parsing a little easier, and to help you judge whether my take on the Q701 is of any value to you in accepting any of this as valid in terms of your own preferences, your personal headphone desiderata, here are some quick an dirty assessments of the headphones that I own or have owned, roughly in the order of when I acquired them:
Stax SR-40, with an SRD-4 Electret adapter, which is wired between the amp and speakers. It has a switch to change from headphone to speaker use. It's an oldie! I received it as a gift in the 1970s, and it cost something like $200 at the time, I believe. In current dollars that would be around $900. The sound is still OK, but compared to newer headphones, it is somewhat washed out and has a weak bass. I didn't care to have the adapter between my Bryston amp (then a 4B) and my speakers. Not used for long or often.
AKG K141: I have described these very old (20 years or more) and hard-to-drive headphones in another posting, where I wrote: "There is plenty of bass, although, of course, not with the extension of the LCD2. Good resolution and linearity, but a touch harsh in the high end. And not surprisingly, it is not very airy being closed backed. Nor is it as sweet and as balanced as the AKG 550. The Grado RS1 bests the K141, but is not as comfortable."
Grado: I own the RS1 and SR80. At one time I liked both and then when the PMC speakers became my benchmark, I couldn't stand them. However, I rediscovered their good qualities when the M80 replaced the PMCs as my audio model. I don't find either especially colored, but I find them not to have the accuracy I prefer. No part of the frequency range predominates over the other, but the overall sound is not authentic to my ear because I find the audio images on soundstage of these headphones rather muddled.
Stereophile's glossary of terms includes "definition," "that quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between, and follow the melodic lines of, the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group." The Grados don't have particularly good definition. Nor I feel, do they have good focus, defined as "the quality of being clearly defined, with sharply outlined phantom images."
Sennheiser HD800: I bought it on whim, together with a Grace Designs m903 headphone amp. There seems to be a widely held view that it is among the great headphones. I don't disagree.
Technically speaking, I think it probably is the best I've owned. Great soundstage; wide, open, airy. Very accurate. But from the outset, I never enjoyed it much. I found it cold and analytical and, frankly, boring. More importantly, even though my Grace amp drove it well, it was only at high volumes that were uncomfortable to me that I could get anywhere near the level of bass I thought sounded right or good. And at those high volumes, the high resolution treble was just impossible for me; shrill, sharp. So, given these limitations, from a practical personal point of view, the HD800, regardless of its technical merits and potential, in my use of it, that is, played at the lower volumes I could tolerable, it was not neutral. In practice, for me, then, it had a high end bias and a weak bass.
Moreover, the PMC MB2i speakers at the time defined my preferred baseline sound signature. Compared to their well-extended rich bass, the HD800, as I had to use it, sounded just wrong for me.
More than one reviewer had come to the same conclusion I had. They praised the HD800, they respected it, but didn't care much listening to it. There is not much disagreement that it is the go-to, must-have headphone for those doing pro audio work. When I started using the LCD2, I knew I wouldn't be using the HD800. I thought it was a waste to let this excellent headphone gather dust. I found a young man who is creating and producing music, so I gave him the HD800 and the Grace. He has confirmed that both are perfect for his use and that they have done a lot to improve his work.
I have not had the HD800 since shifting my baseline sound to that of the Axiom M80 or since getting the O2 amp. But I am confident that my bottom line judgement about the HD800 would not change since it performs as I want them to only at volumes that hurt my ears.
End of Part 1
Dave
