I don't like headrooms graphing technique, as it it applies the same functions to all headphones, and there are a range of responses. I'd like to see a raw response, more than anything. From their graph, it looks great, but not perfect. The DT880 is a widely acknowledged headphone that is close to diffuse field hrtfs. I also don't like their scale.
Originally Posted by maverickronin
Headroom uses DF EQ right? Wasn't that your favorite?
Take a look at this response, as an example of a 0.25" electret microphone.
Here's the same, zoomed out
Certainly the goals are different, though I'm sure you can appreciate how close it would be to DF if placed in a dummy head in a diffuse field
Here's an electrostat microphone produced by (I think) one guy.
Certainly you can see it's less ideal, but it has other benefits that come wth it, and it's still very, very good. Especially when you consider that the actual microphone is $35~
Here's a graph of a small electret that comes from a $50 matched stereo pair. This mic has problems other than response, such as self noise and max SPL. These are all omnidirectional microphones which capture sound fairly evenly, the small-group mic probably has the most deviation off axis, and as you can see it's very small
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik
Probably because dynamics are easier to manufacture and cost a lot less. They also work with portable gear. I would not be surprised if 95% or more of headphones sold were developed to work with DAPs. Electrostats are very much a niche and I don't think the sales volume is enough to pay attention to. Reminds me of the RX-7 I had. The rotary engine is wonderful and has some great advantages. Having a real mid-engined car was a joy. There's enough demand for one manufacturer to make a specialty car, but it just isn't different enough to justify everyone switching over.
Also, the amplification is a huge stumbling block. Expensive and little variety. There would have to be a major difference to convince people to switch. 'Stats sound great, but so do a lot of dynamics. I like the O2, but in the big picture, it is about as enjoyable as the HD-800. The SR-009 is probably fantastic and I'd have "new toy" excitement for several months. Then I'd probably return to the baseline of happiness I have with my current rig, which is high.
Also, I prefer electrostat speakers. If you're going through the expense and trouble of running electrostats, you might as well have a dipole. You can get into nice Quads for the same price as high-end Stax, the amplification is a lot cheaper, and you get a much better soundstage.
With regards to portable devices, every portable field recorder has something called "plug in power", which is basically a few volts applied to microphones - it's much less than phantom power, though (about 1/5th). There are quite a few electrostat microphones that work from portable sources that only have PiP, and no Phantom Power, including a small company called Naiant, who release very good microphones for the price (about $35, if you want to use plug in power). No doubt the capsule costs about $5 at most. (I'll be making a free album from them later ;))
Not that I don't agree with everything you've posted: the current "layout" of all DAPs definitely adds a stumbling block to adding an electrostat, but one has to wonder why it hasn't made the swap, like most field recorders have.
One possible reason I've come up with, besides cost is producing a reasonable SPL for the general public. Using microphones as an example, a cheap variant of some very popular measuring microphones (earthworks, etc) from behringer (not too respected), is only capable of about 70dB SPL before it starts to malfunction. It's pretty much dead flat, though, and other that spec and it's self noise (due to size), it's an exceptional mic at $50 for hte matched pair
Originally Posted by Shike
See maverickronin's post, I purchased the K601 due to specifically how flat it was DF equalized -- flatter than the HD800 even. You're right about it not being that hard though, since the K601 is only around $200. The only thing I can say is some electrostatics have "fun" traits, but if that's all we're looking at there's just as many orthos and dynamics (cheap and overpriced) that do the same thing.
Not every electrostatic headphone is as accurate as an Orpheus, and if they were I'd hate to see the price tag.
Most stax lambdas have a near-perfect free field response curve. Not diffuse field, but anyway. The same applies for the original SR-Omega. I'm not sure about the SR-009, or the 007, but judging by my experience from the SR007, I don't suspect it does. Etymotic is another source of diffuse field equalisation (for canalphones, obviously)
Edited by MrGreen - 8/2/11 at 4:37am