See, this is like the definition that I’m familiar with. It even cited photography.
Grain is texture (according to this definition) which I generally wouldn’t consider bad if it’s in the recording.
1 Like
@orrman apologies if I threw your thread off topic.
we share our impressions and thoughts to drive more discussion so it’s not throwing the thread off topic, it’s engaging with it!
5 Likes
Do you wanna experience grain? DT1990 off the Jot 1. 
I don’t see grain as texture. Texture is in the mix and a good headphone and or amp will present it properly. Grain is the nasty stuff that’s roughing up the notes (bad distortion). And I guess really bad distortion would be gritty 
So I should say there’s some grain on the V2 and empy, but the DT 1990 is gritty lol.
Not saying I’m right, that’s just how I perceive it.
2 Likes
This makes sense to me.
Grain is inherent to recordings (like tape hiss), and excessive distortion on the playback chain can exaggerate it.
Headphones distortion isn’t linear (measurements show this), so I can see how people would interpret that as grainy in certain regions of the FR like bass, mids, or male/female vocals (spanning throughout different ranges).
1 Like
I think the Focal Utopia strengthens this argument.
It’s an extremely resolving headphone (not just its tuning, but in its technical abilities, IMO) and it’s also extremely low in distortion (as measured). Impedance shifts aside, this could be one of the reasons why they are notoriously difficult to pair.
Too much distortion in the amplifier/DAC and Utopia will let you know.
1 Like
But how do you know what’s in the recording?
Generally you define grainy based on hearing equipment without it, it’s obvious going back to a piece of equipment, but not always obvious f you don’t have a point of reference.
Grainy Treble is a very common thing in low/mid priced equipment.
I does tend to get mistaken for detail, and components can be overly smooth, but better gear tends to be able to produce the detail and timbre without adding harshness or grain.
2 Likes
I rely on the engineer to properly master the recording and trust that he did his job. I verify when there’s a remaster released that’s better.
Right so you know it’s high quality, but you don’t know what it was intended to sound like.
How much grain should that violin have, or the breath of the Flutist.
Or the distortion on the guitar.
Hell if you only had one amplifier, that had a noise floor of white noise, how would you determine how much tape hiss is on the original recording?
My point is in most cases we simply don’t know, we can only compare the recording on the equipment on which we’ve heard it, we can try and match it to our experiences, but were expressing a preference, not comparing to what’s on the recording, because we don’t actually know.
Now yes I’m being pedantic, we can extrapolate to a point. but grain in particular is difficult to quantify, unless you’ve heard something “smoother”, and where you draw the line on too smooth is going to be as much about personal preference as it is what’s on the recording.
I find the ZMF Aeolus too smooth, and a lot of richer tube amps for that matter, but I’m not basing that on a reference level of grain.
2 Likes
And I never will unless I can hear the recording on the same chain used to master, which is unlikely (especially with an older recording where the studio no longer exists). I have to put my trust into the end product.
I don’t typically listen to instrumental ensembles that include violins or flutes for the grain of the violin or the breath of the flutist, I listen for the notes those instruments make. I listen to music.
Sure we all do but what separates listing to a HD580 pugged into the headphone jack on front of my PC and listening on a way too expensive stand alone system with silly amount spent on cables isn’t the notes.
This is way off topic my only real point here was that Grain is obvious when it’s present if you have a reference without it, but as you rightly pointed out there should be some, and there is a point where a component is smoothing over detail.
As a point of reference a lot of entry level DAC’s tend to present with a lot of treble grain.
3 Likes
Are those the only pads you have?
Yes. To my very limited knowledge these are suede non ported pads. First Diana I ever heard.
1 Like
If they are completely flat under the pad (plastic piece) then they’re non ported.
I’m interested in the suede but not sure how they’ll truly compare. Josh valour likes them but he also liked the DT1990 and Diana TC, which I hear is pretty bright.
They are flat under the pad. Very comfortable too.
2 Likes
2.5 hours of listening so far.
MR disappeared on my head with no comfort issues that I know some people have with Dianas.
These are easily a step up over Empyrean 2 to my ears and don’t sound like the 1266 TC at all, just really great “normal” tuning with good midrange and a full body that’s really enjoyable and musical to listen to, at least not critically.
I’m very surprised by how much I like them. Did not expect this at all and compared to a few other things that passed here in the last few weeks, really nice to have that new toy excitement with them.
9 Likes
That’s good to hear. I really think they’re an Improved V2.
Yeah they’re different than the TC from everyone’s impressions.
Too bad they didn’t send some leather pads your way!
Using the normal cable?
I’ve used the stock cable so far but also have a DHC mini-Chimera here to try out
2 Likes
Cool. Wasn’t sure if it came with a superconductor