Differences between Markl D2000 and Markl D5000
May 14, 2008 at 1:49 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 45

antonyfirst

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
4,051
Likes
54
Location
Milan
I'm very curious if there are any differences between these two headphones. I know they use different cables, but I would recable either. They might also use different housings, but doing the markl mod modifies the housing anyway.
Given these things, would getting a markl modded & recabled D2000 be exactly the same as getting the markl'ed-recabled D5000?

Thanks,
Tony
 
May 14, 2008 at 3:16 PM Post #3 of 45
Hi guys,
At this stage, I'm probably the only one who has had them side-by-side to compare. Here's what I wrote elsewhere on what I found:

Quote:

[size=small]Denon D2000 vs. D5000[/size]
Many people have asked me what the differences are between the D2000 and the D5000. Well before today, I couldn't really say as I had not yet received one for modification. Now that I've dissected it, mod-ed it, and had a chance to do some listening, I finally have some answers.

From a physical/construction standpoint, here are the differences that I can verify:

1. Cable is different (duh, we all knew this).
2. Cup material is different (double duh).
3. There is a circular strip of material that resembles fiberloft within the D2000 cup (triple duh, we've all seen the pics elsewhere). Of course, in doing the mod, we remove this attempt at damping anyway.
4. However, the D2000 cup is unique in that it has a large circle in the middle of it of extra-thick plastic that makes the cup more rigid than the wooden cup of the D5000:
dscn5379mh9.jpg


5. The plastic cups of the D2000 have more deeply recessed screw holes which requires longer screws to attach the ear-cup to the assembly. This means it's unlikely the wooden cups of the D5000 will fit onto a D2000.


So, that is the extent of the physical differences (obvious to the naked eye) that we can easily see. Yet, as the good folks at Headroom have shown using their elaborate dummy-head measuring system, there are significant differences in the frequency response of the D5000 and D2000:

graphCompare.php


Do you believe that changing the material of the ear cup, and changing the cable would create this wide a diversion between the two? If so, what we see here is partial "proof positive" that a mere cable swap can radically alter frequency response of a headphone. Headroom have inadvertently proven something cable skeptics have been asking for for years.

Me, I don't think these minor physical differences can account for both the measured and audible differences between these two cans. I strongly suspect that there are actual physical differences between the drivers used in the D2000 and D5000.

Why? Because what you actually hear when you compare the two head-to-head, is *exactly* what Headroom shows. The D2000 is noticeably darker than the D5000, and the bass of the D2000 is audibly lower in level than that of the D5000, just as the graph shows.

I've seen some talk regarding the D5000, including that from the manufacturer themselves, that the wood used in the D5000 contributes to their sound quality. Denon sez:
Quote:

The enclosures employ housings made of natural wood Mahogany with superior acoustic characteristics that are rich with a broad, natural sound. Mahogany is a very popular material for drum making and guitars because of its great integrity and capability to produce very dark, warm tones compared to other more common wood types like maple or birch. Along with its acoustic characteristics, mahogany's light weight makes it an excellent headphone material as well.


A large part of what makes the mod successful is reducing vibrations within the headphone itself. There's a philosophical debate here which boils down to-- should the enclosure create "pleasant" resonances much like the body of a guitar or violin, or, should they be acoustically "dead" and disappear like all speaker designers hope to achieve with the design of their cabinets?

In any case, even after damping the plastic cups of the D2000 and the wooden cups of the D5000, and thus removing a large part of the difference between the two and thus (largely) removing the difference in cup material as a potential variable, there are still clearly audible sonic differences. Does the mod completely damp the cups and totally make the difference between them 100% controlled? No, if you hold your hands up to them you can still easily feel the vibrations through the wood and plastic.

However, the mods ought to eliminate (let's say) at least 50% of any sonic differences between the two, yet they remain fairly stark.

What am I getting at? Again, as much as I believe in the power of wires to change the sound, there is something more profound happening here. I strongly suspect that the D2000 has a different driver than the D5000.

Given the choice between the two, I would much rather listen to the D5000. The D2000 sounds "thinner", a bit more "rinky-dink" and "headphone-y" than the D5000. The D5000 has more body, and the appearance of more extension up top (the D2000 technically has more volume at extreme treble, but the D5000 has several more dbs of emphasis on the upper treble where more musical action actually happens), which gives them more air and sense of space. Soundstage is slightly smaller on D2000. The bass on the D5000 is noticeably lower in volume level, but still wobbly and loose on the stock phone. I am using a different strategy to mod this phone as it does not require as much damping or bass attenuation as the D5000. The D2000 appears to have a bit of a mid-range suck-out, which you can see in the graph, and I think that's the crucial difference. It's a question of EQ, and that means it's largely a question of taste and system matching. Like I said, I prefer the D5000 on my system.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that the differences amount to polar opposites, it's hardly that at all. They don't sound like two different headphones from different manufacturers; there is an obvious family resemblance. But I think most folks would appreciate the D5000 a bit more.

Cheers.


We're still working on trying to figure out for sure whether the drivers are identical or not, but my money is on the fact that they are different.
 
May 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM Post #4 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
We're still working on trying to figure out for sure whether the drivers are identical or not, but my money is on the fact that they are different.


Can you not simply email denon and ask?
 
May 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM Post #5 of 45
Thank you markl. I see the D5000 has a hill in the upper mids. Could you fix that to make them sound more neutral?
 
May 14, 2008 at 3:50 PM Post #6 of 45
antonyfirst,
As a MOT, I don't think I can answer your question directly except to note that people who have tried the mod on their own, as well as those I've done it for, have reported here already that they find the sound of the mod-ed phone to be very well-balanced.
 
May 14, 2008 at 4:15 PM Post #7 of 45
I don't see a hill in the upper midrange at all, unless you may consider something in the 2-4 dB range really a hill.
The only noticeable facts about the d5000 taking them away from measuring trully flat is the enhanced bass below 300Hz, which I bet gets better after the mods, and the hill in the mid-upper treble (between 6.5 and 9KHz) which is noticeable as an increase (slight and quite nice to my ears) in the "airy" feeling of the music. Something that the Triple.fi10 have too.

Regarding the differences compared to the D2000, I'm with Mark. I don't know if the drivers are the same or not, but looking at the differences in the graphs, whatever is the cause I don't care, I'd go for the D5000 anytime. Something that has a -5 to -8 dB dip between 1500Hz and 5500Hz won't sound balanced to my ears.

Rgrds
Rgrds
 
May 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM Post #8 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
graphCompare.php

The D2000 appears to have a bit of a mid-range suck-out, which you can see in the graph, and I think that's the crucial difference. It's a question of EQ, and that means it's largely a question of taste and system matching.



I'm sure this has been covered, but I can't find it. Does anyone know what the numbers are for the other ticks on the X axis? (AKA what frequencies I should play with (and how) to "fix" the suck out?)
 
May 14, 2008 at 4:23 PM Post #9 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by ricco87 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Can you not simply email denon and ask?


It was done before and the answer was "the same driver". Mark, as you had two dissected, can you tell the difference by just looking at the driver, I would expect part number stamped somewhere. If not, may be taking some measurements if that's feasible.
 
May 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM Post #10 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by bungle /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm sure this has been covered, but I can't find it. Does anyone know what the numbers are for the other ticks on the X axis? (AKA what frequencies I should play with (and how) to "fix" the suck out?)


Some time ago there was a thread commenting this and someone corrected me for my thinking of the X-axis marks are 10, 100, 1000. I think they're 20Hz until you reach the 200Hz mark, then they become 200Hz steps up to the 2000Hz mark where they become 2000Hz steps.
So the dip starts at 1200Hz and has some worsening between 2000-3500 Hz to keep lower than true midrange until the 6500Hz point is met.
In that range the D5000 are way more balanced and in a degree which is not explainable only for a cable difference. Not even comparing balanced to single-ended mode shows such differences.

Rgrds
 
May 14, 2008 at 4:41 PM Post #11 of 45
Quote:

It was done before and the answer was "the same driver". Mark, as you had two dissected, can you tell the difference by just looking at the driver, I would expect part number stamped somewhere. If not, may be taking some measurements if that's feasible.


I keep forgetting to do this, I'll try to remember on the next one.
 
May 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM Post #12 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool_Torpedo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't see a hill in the upper midrange at all, unless you may consider something in the 2-4 dB range really a hill.


Hills should be more pronounced to be called that way, but know the funny thing, people call something in the 4 dB range the "Sennheiser veil".


Quote:

The only noticeable facts about the d5000 taking them away from measuring trully flat is the enhanced bass below 300Hz, which I bet gets better after the mods, and the hill in the mid-upper treble (between 6.5 and 9KHz) which is noticeable as an increase (slight and quite nice to my ears) in the "airy" feeling of the music. Something that the Triple.fi10 have too.


I'm sure it's nice for classical and instrumental music, but wouldn't be sure it's as enjoyable with rock music or any vocal based music. Triple.fi have something like that, but shifted towards the treble. The 6-8 kHz region that's boosted here is critical for sibilance.
Markl, I'd like to talk privately with you to see if something can be done to tame that region.
 
May 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM Post #13 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool_Torpedo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Some time ago there was a thread commenting this and someone corrected me for my thinking of the X-axis marks are 10, 100, 1000. I think they're 20Hz until you reach the 200Hz mark, then they become 200Hz steps up to the 2000Hz mark where they become 2000Hz steps.


Okay, that seems pretty obvious now. The larger gaps and the diminishing size between ticks threw me at first, but now I understand how it works. The distance between doubles ([200,400], [400,800], and [800,1600]) are equal, which makes sense in this context.
 
May 14, 2008 at 7:08 PM Post #14 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by antonyfirst /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hills should be more pronounced to be called that way, but know the funny thing, people call something in the 4 dB range the "Sennheiser veil".


I'm sure it's nice for classical and instrumental music, but wouldn't be sure it's as enjoyable with rock music or any vocal based music. Triple.fi have something like that, but shifted towards the treble. The 6-8 kHz region that's boosted here is critical for sibilance.
Markl, I'd like to talk privately with you to see if something can be done to tame that region.



I'm afraid it's not as you state. The critical area for sibilance is not that high, it's at about 1500-3500Hz depending on the sound. /sh/ sound is the one with the higher frequency spectrum centered at about 3KHz. /s/ is kind of narrow band white noise and spreads its energy from 100Hz to 2KHz. /t/ is narrower, more explosive and centered at about 1KHz.

At 6-8KHz you hear mostly the recorded echoes and reverb effects. Very little relevant energy from the music is there, so you can imagine how little relevant information is above 12KHz.

To hear sibilances piercing and disturbing you need the peaks in the highs at the 3-5KHz band. Above that you hear the sibilances more prominent but kind of "airy" more than piercing. Some people take that as "refinement"
wink.gif


Rgrds.
 
May 14, 2008 at 7:26 PM Post #15 of 45
FWIW I'm posting 3 graphs for comparison of two Grado cans well known for being sibilant and also "airy" and "resolutive" (SR60 and SR325) compared to the more neutral Sennheiser HD600. You'll see that the Grados' critical area for sibilance, considering the frequency bands of the /s/, /z/, /sh/... sounds I commented before, is more in the 2KHz area and also at the 4-5KHz. The peaks at 8KHz do more for their "resolutive" appreciated character.

graphCompare.php


I hope this helps. Regards.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top