I wouldn’t totally call the Clear analytical. They have a midbass hump and a tiny boost in the upper mids…but they are pretty neutral. They kind of strattle the line between fun and analytical and I agree, they are a great pair of headphones. I guess when I think of Analytical, I think of DT 1990 or Hifiman HE-1000 V2, etc.
Gotcha. So there’s a further distinction here between analytical ability and analytical tuning in a piece of gear. I actually still quite like studio headphones, including the DT17/1990 or CD900ST that produce a dryer sound. I don’t believe that they are colourless, for me, to present music especially vocals in a dry way is one form of colouration / presentation that can be enjoyable and subjectively perceived as musical (for me). It’s like I crave for teriyaki short ribs I also find plain toast and poach egg tasty - maybe not at first bite but it takes time for the flavours to release.
I agree and to that extent, some of that dryer analytical sounding stuff I tend to listen to on tube amps. I mean, I own an Hifiman Edition X (for sale actually) and a DT 880…I consider those analytical leaning for sure, but I tend to be careful when pairing them with amps to try and give them some more musicality.
1 Like
it’s complicated (my music relationship status)
In general:
75% of the time I’m listening for the joy of listening. Just having fun, getting lost in the music.
25% really focused, trying to hear the technical differences is headphones, amps, sources, etc.
But that said…
Getting lost in the music is predicated by the music sounding good. If something sounds technically wrong it sticks in my mind and I can’t ignore it. I’m fully distracted from enjoying the music and sucked into analytical listening to understand wtf is going on. Either a bad mastering, bad amp/headphone combo, power in my house is extra noisy, or I just have a cold and can’t hear right that day. When it’s not sounding as good as it can/should there’s no joy and I start changing things, swapping headphones, amps, cables, sources until I figure it out. Totally kills a relaxing night of just listening!
4 Likes
analytical for gaming in fps absolutely prefer musical fun for everything else
90-95% Musical
5% Analytical
For myself it really is musical listening that I do and prefer, because music is the medicine, an escape to past, present and future.
When I am “gone” to the music, the last thing I want to do is think about why I’m there. The only times I listen analytically is with new gear, and even then I find that I hear more of the differences while not trying to hear the difference. When I do identify differences I am hard pressed to tell you what it is, or why because again, so much of the listening and what I hear translates into emotion and feeling, making it difficult for me to quantify - “It just sounds better”, or “Whoa that ain’t right” are my objectively subjective responses in most cases. And I’m OK with that…
3 Likes
Once again we are reminded of how very different we are! Good to keep in mind.
1 Like
Question:
Several people here (and other places) have used the word “dry” to describe the sound of their system. Usually in conjunction with it being analytical. Can someone expanded a little bit on what is meant by “dry”? And maybe what is the opposite of a "dry’ sound? “Wet” sound? 
I’ve been trying to build my sound description vocabulary, and I’ve not got my head wrapped around “dry”
Thanks!
I believe it will be infinite. There’s way too much words in the audiophile dictionary, lol.
1 Like
It’s usually used to describe a difference in tube amps, wet is the presence of midrange richness/bloom associated with a lot of even harmonics, dry is it’s absence, a more SS/ clean like sound.
But it can be applied to SS amps as well.
The Dark Voice and BHC are wet sounding amps, the Haggerman Tuba with stock tubes is on the dry side.
Despite what Zeos likes to say, harmonics are only one aspect of tube amps, and for a lot of higher end tube amps often not what makes them sound good.
3 Likes
Thanks @Polygonhell, this was helpful.
I was considering creating a thread to try and tabulate “standard” audiophile vocabulary, but it turns out one already exists: Audiophile Terminology. Leaving this link here incase anyone else is interested.
2 Likes
Thinking about car audio reminds me of a third listening category, I’ll call it “Fun” to be nice about it.
The guy in the car next to me in traffic yesterday definitely buys into this listening category. It’s the polar opposite of analytical (and certainly not musical) - everything is compressed, processed, EQ’d within an inch of its life, and LOUD. No attempt at accurate or sounding like a real instrument. All wuba-wuba bass and highs (ultra V shaped?). I don’t think any real instruments (or possibly musicians) were involved in the creation of this music.
Maybe I should call this listening category “guilty pleasure” - father forgive me I have sinned, it’s been longer than I can remember since my last confession, I pegged the EQ and turned it up too loud last night!
I am the strange one. Go and do what i do since i don’t fit the mold.
It would be “testing” verses “music” and that’s all.
maybe 5% in testing something some system or gear vs. 95% just music and fun, quiet or loud and so on.
Would we consider something like studio monitors as something intended to be perfectly neutral to be “analytical”?
Or is analytical maybe something a bit brighter with an emphasis on treble / highs detail and resolution perhaps like the HD800 /S?
Is Musical more about punch and slam as well as sub bass extension? Is musical a warm signature or something that has more V curve?
Almost always musical or ‘fun’ listening for me. If it’s new gear I do try to focus a little more on the nuances compared to my other gear but never super intensely. As @Delta9K pointed out, I tend to find those differences more often when I am not trying to analyze them and just enjoy the music. Most, if not all, of my listening is done while working or playing with my kid, so heavy analyzing is usually distracting or impossible to accomplish.