电视

交易区新帖推荐

那就说一个字吧。

谷雨

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="宋体">引用:</font><HR>发起人 电视:
<B>那就说一个字吧。</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>&lt>矮

WHITE313

看那篇翻译简直比看原文还累，哎

苏安楠

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="宋体">引用:</font><HR>发起人 小白:
<B>苏的翻译是什么软件翻的？许多地方错误，因为这个翻译软件不懂音响评价术语。</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>&lt>这里 gb.transea.com

电视

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="宋体">引用:</font><HR>发起人 谷雨:
<B> 矮</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
?&lt>

小白

这是我读过的最接近我个人体会的、写得最确切的耳机比较评论之一，强烈推荐。
Introduction
This is a listening comparison of four headphones that range between $330 and $800 in the US. These are neither the cheapest good headphones nor the most expensive headphones you can buy, but they are in the same price range as some very good (but not the most expensive you can buy) headphone amps. I抣l be concentrating on the sound of these phones, as there is lots of information in other places about their physical properties. At the two ends of the price range we have two Audio Technicas, the ATH-W100 at the lower end and the ATH-W2002 at the higher end. The W2002 was a limited edition model that has been recently sold out. The other two headphones are the Sennheiser HD 600 with the Clou 212 Blue cable which sells in the mid to high $3XX range, and the Grado RS-2 which is close to $500 new. Unlike the AT phones, both of these are the open type, providing a little less isolation and leaking more sound to the outside. All of the headphones in this comparison have been played for over 110 hours before I started. The Audio Technicas have the least amount of burn-in and may continue to improve, but I don抰 think the differences would result in any significant change to my findings. By the way all but the HD600 are low impedance and fairly easy to drive, the W2002 being the most efficient by a noticeable margin. The W100抯 sound changed a little as you moved its position on your head, so I tried to keep it centered.
The equipment used is a Rega Jupiter/IO CD player fed into a Sudgen HeadMaster Headphone amp via MIT MI-330 Plus Series II cables. I also used the tape out of the HeadMaster to feed a Berning MicroZOTL via Straight Wire Encore II cables. Both amps and all of the headphones have the larger 1/4" phone jacks and plugs. The ZOTL was at somewhat a disadvantage of having to go through the HeadMaster and have one more cable, but actually the sound I heard from either of these two amps did not change my overall impression.
I listened to a variety of music, rotating the headphones in a somewhat random order, which isn抰 reflected in the listening notes where I抳e listed the phones in the same order. Each headphone sounded different which was quite apparent upon doing the switch. In most cases you can get used to the sound presented by each headphone, much the same way that hearing a live performance in a different venue or even a different area of the same venue will sound different but you get used to it after awhile. So I listened long enough to each phone to get used to its particular presentation. I抣l give my impressions to each selection that I used, and summarize everything at the end卼he impatient can jump ahead. Enough rambling, on with the show.
The Music
Doug MacLeod, You can抰 take my Blues, JVCXR-002702, tracks 1, 5.
This modern blues singer/guitar player抯 CD has great sound. The W2002 had excellent transparency and sounded very good overall, although the cymbals were a little weak and the overall sound was a bit lean. The W100 had slightly boomy bass and a bit of emphasis of the drum sticks hitting the outer edge of the drums and in the highs in general, but the music was also very enjoyable and very full sounding. The RS2 was also pretty transparent particularly in the midrange and below, especially in the vocals. But those sticks hitting the drum edge were too sharp sounding. The bass was leaner than all of the other phones but was quite punchy without being real full. The HD600 had somewhat too heavy bass but was very smooth sounding, like you were in the back of the hall of a live performance rather than in the first few rows like the other phones.
Muddy Waters, Folk Singer, Mobile Fidelity UDCD-593, track 4.
This is a classic for sound and performance. Just re-released by Classic Records on LP too. The 2002 sounded great, open and airy. The 100 sounded similar with a little fuller bass and maybe just a touch less air. The RS2 actually sounded too intense, with the sound of the pick hitting the strings of the guitar a bit too pronounced. The 600 was rich and laid back. The details came through in a way that was not overly intense.
The Rolling Stones, Stripped, cut 2 (live) and cut 14 (studio).
The 2002 sounded slightly hollow on the live track but had excellent detail on the guitars. The studio track had a piano that was a little plunky sounding but excellent airiness and detail and very dynamic with a good overall balance except as noted. The 100 had slightly heavy bass as wasn抰 quite as dynamic sounding but was nevertheless quite enjoyable. The RS2 had excellent vocals and was very dynamic sounding, with good detail in the guitars. The cymbals were a little too crisp and it lacked a little body in the lower end. The 600 was a little bass heavy but smooth and rich and a bit more distant. It sounded nice but maybe a little too polite for this kind of music.
Tommy Flanagan, Thelonica, Enja CD, track 1
This is another one with great sound and performances for this jazz piano trio (piano, bass and drums). The 2002 had a nice sharp bite to the acoustic bass and were very transparent and airy. The cymbals were a little down in volume and the piano sounded slightly colored, but overall very enjoyable. The 100 had more bass and cymbals and very good sounding piano. The RS2 had a noticeable boost in the treble and the bass seemed a bit light. The 600 sounded a bit dark, the cymbals sounded good if a bit distant. Just during this cut I also listened to the AKG K501, which sounded light on the bass but had a nice balance overall, with more treble than all of the other phones except the RS2.
Brahms, Trio for Clarinet, Cello and Piano, Opus 114, BMG 09026-63504-2, tr. 1
The 2002 had a little hollowness to the overall sound, but had a nice spaciousness. The 100 seemed to have a more natural sound to each instrument, and the cello had a particularly nice bite to it. The RS2 emphasis was on the violin rather than the cello, and sounded a bit lightweight overall. The 600 had a nice warmth and richness to the sound, and were very easy to listen to and relax.
Listening Summary
I actually listened to a few more CDs, but enough already, I think you got the idea. The W2002 was the most transparent and airy, but had some coloration in the lower midrange area. The W100 had less coloration other than it was a little too heavy in the bass, but had slightly less overall transparency and air compared to the W2002. The RS2 had a very transparent midrange, a punchy but not full bass, and a boosted high end. The HD600 had a thick bass but otherwise was free from coloration and was very easy to listen to and the most forgiving of harsh sounding material. It had a more distant perspective than the other headphones and was overall the least transparent.
Measurements
After I completed the listening tests I took some frequency response measurements with my foam coupler setup with the Radio Shack SPL meter. Headphone measurements are hard to do with any accuracy but I was pleased with how close mine came to HeadRoom抯 graphs of the HD600 and RS2 over most of the range as well as correlating to some things I heard. Frequency response only tells part of the story about how something sounds, so keep this in mind. My measurements on the W2002 show a dip in the 200 to 500 Hz range, which seems to correlate with the coloration I heard. The W100 had a big boost in the 50 to 200 Hz range which was the bass heaviness I heard. Other than this it was pretty smooth except for a peak at 3-4 KHz. The RS2 measured pretty smooth except for a peak at 2KHz, a dip at 2.5k, and a broad peak between 4-6KHz. All of the phones show a dip in the highest frequencies but the RS2 had less of a dip than the rest. My guess is that this dip is intentional because with flat measuring loudspeakers the high frequencies are very directional and get absorbed easily by the room acoustics. The HD600 had a broad bass rise between 80 and 200 Hz but otherwise was the smoothest of the bunch.
In conclusion, each of the four headphones had a different sound, although not surprisingly the two Audio Technica phones were the most similar. The ones you chose will be based on the sound you want and the trade-offs you are willing to make. Enjoy!
原文太长没空细翻，大意是：HD600低音有点过于膨胀，声音较远但很柔顺，能容忍不好的录音，除低音外染色最少，声音最轻松；RS2低音最有冲劲最结实但不丰满，中频很透明，高音有强调；W2002透明度和空气感最好，中频有种轻微染色，W100低音有些过重，透明度比W2002稍差一点儿，，但中频没有W2002那种染色。