Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The Beyerdynamic DT880 Appreciation / Discussion thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Beyerdynamic DT880 Appreciation / Discussion thread - Page 473

post #7081 of 7091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

Hi Chris - I wrote this a few months ago on the HD600 thread when I was posed a similar question.  It still mirrors my thoughts today.  Funny thing was that one of the Admins here obviously thought it was worth highlighting, and it actually made the front page for a while.  Anyway - here's the post .....

 

 



Duh!
I'm embarrassed to say that I've already read this review, and I had forgotten that you had written it!
A nice review BTW.
It only increases my HD600 lust.
post #7082 of 7091
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

 

Those are interesting impressions, Brooko. I'm one who's owned the HD600 (and the 650 for about three years) and remained dissatisfied with it for classical. I find there's too much energy in the 1--5khz area, and this gives mass violins a rather screechy quality. If you compare FRs of HD600 and DT880 you see what I mean. I prefer a slightly laid back effect in that area. Yes, the 600 will provide more general punch and detail because of its forwardness here, but at the cost of listening fatigue. I just could never come to terms with that.

 

DT880

 

HD600

 



The tale of the tape...

Don't forget that our perception of the sound of the headphones is also informed by other factors that are described by:
- impulse response
- square wave response (yes, it's related to impulse response)
- waterfall response
- THD plots
- IM plots
post #7083 of 7091

I just conducted a listening test with my DT880s and a high sample rate music file that I converted. I was interested in hearing the difference between a 24-bit/96 khz FLAC versus a 16-bit CDQ WAV that I converted using dBPoweramp.

 

I started off by taking Tame Impala's "Lonerism" Album and converting the files.

 

Then I did an A/B test over and over again and determined the following:

 

Going from FLAC to WAV I noticed these differences.

 

To test I listened to Tame Impala's single "Feels Like We Only Go Backwards" in WAV and FLAC from the same file.

 

Here's the differences I found between the files:

 

WAV: Sounds slightly more upfront with a barely noticeable decrease in soundstage. I had to lower the volume level by about one hour on my volume pot to find the "sweet spot". The snare drum that sounds less pronounced on the 24-bit FLAC sounds slightly more "in your face" than the higher resolution file (volume matched this to make sure this was true). The differences are almost too small to pick out one by one but as an overall package they are there.

 

FLAC: Sounds pretty much like the WAV but has slightly more volume play (about 1-2 hours if you imagine a clock for a volume knob). Like I said the overall presentation is more even and the snares don't sound as bright as the WAV. Soundstage is slightly larger but almost not noticeable without paying close attention.

 

Conclusion: 24-bit/96khz FLAC has more volume play and sounds more "analog" to me without sacrificing micro details and transients in the overall sound. WAV is very closely behind the FLAC and sounds "louder" it needs to be reduced in volume. Even when volume matched to the FLAC the soundstage is reduced by a hair and the snare sounded more pronounced like I said before.

 

I just wanted to share my impressions : ]

post #7084 of 7091

I would like to know if anyone here have paired DT880 600 ohms with Bottlehead Crack..Thanks!

post #7085 of 7091
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahsmoh View Post
 

I just conducted a listening test with my DT880s and a high sample rate music file that I converted. I was interested in hearing the difference between a 24-bit/96 khz FLAC versus a 16-bit CDQ WAV that I converted using dBPoweramp.

 

I started off by taking Tame Impala's "Lonerism" Album and converting the files.

 

Then I did an A/B test over and over again and determined the following:

 

Going from FLAC to WAV I noticed these differences.

 

To test I listened to Tame Impala's single "Feels Like We Only Go Backwards" in WAV and FLAC from the same file.

 

Here's the differences I found between the files:

 

WAV: Sounds slightly more upfront with a barely noticeable decrease in soundstage. I had to lower the volume level by about one hour on my volume pot to find the "sweet spot". The snare drum that sounds less pronounced on the 24-bit FLAC sounds slightly more "in your face" than the higher resolution file (volume matched this to make sure this was true). The differences are almost too small to pick out one by one but as an overall package they are there.

 

FLAC: Sounds pretty much like the WAV but has slightly more volume play (about 1-2 hours if you imagine a clock for a volume knob). Like I said the overall presentation is more even and the snares don't sound as bright as the WAV. Soundstage is slightly larger but almost not noticeable without paying close attention.

 

Conclusion: 24-bit/96khz FLAC has more volume play and sounds more "analog" to me without sacrificing micro details and transients in the overall sound. WAV is very closely behind the FLAC and sounds "louder" it needs to be reduced in volume. Even when volume matched to the FLAC the soundstage is reduced by a hair and the snare sounded more pronounced like I said before.

 

I just wanted to share my impressions : ]

 

@ wahsmoh

 

Suggest that you repost this in the Sound Science section to avoid the inevitable debate that would probably ensue.  I'd be interested in your methodology.  I noticed you said A/B and not ABX - so presume it was sighted.  I'm also assuming that you didn't volume match the two samples before comparing (from your other comments).  Difference in volume will give the impression of more vibrancy, more detailed etc.  Both abx and volume matching can be done in Foobar.

 

Interestingly enough - any competent DAC will have no problems decompressing FLAC to give the exact same PCM output as the WAV file - ie no difference at all in the analog output (except perhaps volume).  The difference between 16 bit redbook and 24/96 is useful for recording and mastering (noise floor), but not for playback.

 

Here's a thread which shows how to set up a proper ABX test (if you're interested) - http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.  But again, suggest taking to SS Forum if you're interested in discussing further.  


Edited by Brooko - Yesterday at 2:05 pm
post #7086 of 7091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

Don't forget that our perception of the sound of the headphones is also informed by other factors that are described by:
- impulse response
- square wave response (yes, it's related to impulse response)
- waterfall response
- THD plots
- IM plots

 

Agreed. Yet I seem to be one of those who 'hears' the FR. Time and again I've correctly predicted the FR on phones after a short listening session. I'm not claiming a special talent, just a sensitivity to this particular factor. Right from my first listening session with the HD600 I was bothered by this over-exuberance in the lower treble, so wasn't the least bit surprised to see every FR chart show a rise around the 3--6khz area. I'm sure this characteristic is beneficial on much music, and will certainly bring the tone of certain instruments into prominence. But my ears apparently need the more laid back, dulcet delivery of the DT880.   

post #7087 of 7091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

 

@ wahsmoh

 

Suggest that you repost this in the Sound Science section to avoid the inevitable debate that would probably ensue.  I'd be interested in your methodology.  I noticed you said A/B and not ABX - so presume it was sighted.  I'm also assuming that you didn't volume match the two samples before comparing (from your other comments).  Difference in volume will give the impression of more vibrancy, more detailed etc.  Both abx and volume matching can be done in Foobar.

 

Interestingly enough - any competent DAC will have no problems decompressing FLAC to give the exact same PCM output as the WAV file - ie no difference at all in the analog output (except perhaps volume).  The difference between 16 bit redbook and 24/96 is useful for recording and mastering (noise floor), but not for playback.

 

Here's a thread which shows how to set up a proper ABX test (if you're interested) - http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding.  But again, suggest taking to SS Forum if you're interested in discussing further.  

I will send this to the SS forums :D but I did volume match and even then I felt the WAV file sounded more upfront than the FLAC in both treble and bass energy. I swear I am not hearing things!!! : D

post #7088 of 7091

At this moment I'm listening to my new DV 336 with stock tubes, and I'm really happy. First off, I ordered it on Friday, it shipped Monday, and I got it Wednesday morning. WOW. (from Shenzhen Audio via Amazon).

 

Physically it's much bigger than I thought it would be. No hum. The front panel is not silkscreened with the logo like I expected. A badge sits on top panel at the front.

 

I can't really use specific audio terms to describe the experience of listening to this amp. I listen for a living, but it's more of the "critical monitoring" type -- in a utility way. The impetus for me buying the 880s was to have some fun on my time off and dabble with audiophile sound. 

 

What I'm hearing isn't exactly what I expected; in a way it's better. Everything is "there", probably more than I've ever heard. It's big, tangible, and palpable. It's not the warm lush sweet tube thing I expected. In fact there's a ton of detail in the music, at least at this point in the break-in. The DT-880s harshness that crops up now and then has not changed (I have a grey-glass RCA 6sn7GT (JAN) coming that may help that). I guess I'm surprised that the frequency/sound signature isn't the change I'm noticing -- it's the presentation. Everything is very engaging, and I think I understand why some people say it's hard to analyze it, because you tend to get lost in the music. I would say the low-mids and low end are thicker, and the soundstage is definitely improved over most of my other equipment. 

 

Granted, the amp and tubes are certainly not broken in, but as I said, I'm really happy with this. To someone with unexperienced ears, I'd say it may not be worth the money. On one hand, it's a very subtle thing. On the other, this is unlike anything I've ever experienced and at this point in my life it's very worth it. Well, there's my vague mini-review. 

post #7089 of 7091
Shenzhen is great, 5 days to get a big box out of Mainland China... Yet it takes a week to send a letter across town.

Isn't it great how we have SS amps that have very close to 0% harmonic distortion, yet we go after an amp that has dominant second order harmonic distortion. smily_headphones1.gif

Welcome to the rabbit hole of chasing quality 6SN7's. biggrin.gif
post #7090 of 7091
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrollDragon View Post

Shenzhen is great, 5 days to get a big box out of Mainland China... Yet it takes a week to send a letter across town.

Isn't it great how we have SS amps that have very close to 0% harmonic distortion, yet we go after an amp that has dominant second order harmonic distortion. smily_headphones1.gif

Welcome to the rabbit hole of chasing quality 6SN7's. biggrin.gif

Yes, we are quite twisted! LOL!tongue.gif
post #7091 of 7091

I've had my Beyer DT880 since this morning (about 12 hours). Power hungry little gremlins aren't they. :D

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The Beyerdynamic DT880 Appreciation / Discussion thread