[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Time /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the HD650 were a singer, that singer would be Bing Crosby, whose singing voice / style was very smooth sounding and liquid-like as compared to many other voices / styles.

and Maybe Grado Vocals are Sinatra. punchier yet still full of body

 

[rhythmdevils]

wow, am I the only one who finds the HD650/600 to be "dry" sounding?

 

[anadin]

Beyerdynamic DT 990 Premium Edition.

 

[Aruna]

Me too! rhythmdevils. But they're best compared with other open headphones.
I rank Smooth->Dry : HD650~HD600~K701~AD2000>DT990

I found closed headphone like Audio-Technica A950LTD is more smooth than senn with same source & amp. but you'll miss the soundstage that open cans provide.

 

[REB]

Nobody has mentioned the ad2000s yet? They have the most liquid (liquidest?) mids I've heard. Smooth, effortless, warm, rich, no graininess. The esw10jpns are a good second. And now that I think about it, the hd600s sounded smooth, effortless, warm and rich also, although in a different way.

 

[Dr.J]

Liquid?

I have a pair of K701's and I'm sure most people would not describe them as liquid, but, instead, somewhat cold and analytical, precise and detailed (reference phones).

Nevertheless, when I have them plugged into my Zana Deux, with a NOS, Tung Sol input tube, listening to the local classical station through my NOS MR67, I wouldn't, could not describe the listening experience as anything other than liquid; in fact, I jokingly refer to the experience as listening to liquid gold!

Each can has its own sonic signature, I'm sure, it's own, general, sonic footprint. Nevertheless, the equipment that's driving the can and the source used, plays a significant role in the sonic outcome; it's a package deal!

Talking about the performance of HP's, in isolation, is a bit like talking about the performance of a car, in relation only to its wheels and tires, rather than the overall package.

My 2c.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.J /img/forum/go_quote.gif cold and analytical... (reference phones).

Doesn't that mean that they are decidedly not reference phones?

 

[Reticuli2]

I think one of you mentioned a radio station playing classical music.  Compressors are often capable of doing this by boosting low level resolution once the volume's been brought back up. Tube-based ones seem even more able to do this.  Liquid to me does not mean a lack of detail.  Liquid versus dry.  The Head-fi audio dictionary whatever for lack of midrange detail but smooth, flat, and grain-free should be "glassy", in my opinion.  Glassy is not the same as liquid.  Liquid seems to come from a lack of grain but very high low-level resolution, no resonances in the mids and treble, and a proper balance.  Liquid is the same as a smooth headphone with "inner light" to the sound, but there are plenty of headphones with that lit quality that are not smooth and grain-free.  I don't think it's possible to have a liquid midrange and lower treble (that must integrate seamlessly) without extremely good rendition of detail.  And the biggest way to mess up liquidity is with grain (low level distortion) or a resonance in there that can make it gritty or powdery, respectively... hence a sense of dryness to the sound.  Not every headphone can sound liquid, but any headphone capable of it requires proper matching to an amp for sure.  Both have to be capable of this for it to happen.  If everything else is there except low-level resolution, in my experience it seems a spoofed or exaggerated lower treble peak can sometimes help bridge the resolution deficiency and come off as somewhat liquid.  But with that, you've ended up with too much brightness.