or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton? - Page 162

post #2416 of 2423
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post


Can't make that assumption. Some audiophiles clearly believe that their algorithm is far superior to the algorithms that others use. etysmile.gif

Well they are wrong. It my algorithm that is far superior :wink:

post #2417 of 2423
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabta View Post

Well they are wrong. It my algorithm that is far superior wink.gif

ROFL
post #2418 of 2423

Jeezus! All this over a pair of mid-price headphones !? I was at CanJam and listened to some of the most expensive headphones avaiable, including the legendary Orpheus. All I can say is that I still love the sig of the HP50. There's something very clever going on with these phones that a lot of the other high end phones don't seem to get. You can disappear up your butt justifying the audiophile end of the spectrum but these are without any doubt the best on-the-go phones you can get for the money. Leave your waveform nonsense at the door and stop boring us! Use YOUR EARS!!!!

post #2419 of 2423
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgopunk View Post
 

Jeezus! All this over a pair of mid-price headphones !? I was at CanJam and listened to some of the most expensive headphones avaiable, including the legendary Orpheus. All I can say is that I still love the sig of the HP50. There's something very clever going on with these phones that a lot of the other high end phones don't seem to get. You can disappear up your butt justifying the audiophile end of the spectrum but these are without any doubt the best on-the-go phones you can get for the money. Leave your waveform nonsense at the door and stop boring us! Use YOUR EARS!!!!

It's called Research and Development - with some emphasis on the "research" end this time around. This is so obviously not a simple product for a "target audience", but an attempt to develop a product based around a better baseline for average listener preferences, as determined via science using trained and untrained human listeners (with all their unique ears and brains). I know most people hate the idea of fitting within an average (we are raised to feel special?), but I am grateful for Sean Olive, Paul Barton, Harmon Int. and whoever else made these things so cool. I am fast becoming a believer in my PSB's - certainly there is room for improvement, but the sound so far is just stellar.

 

I would just not be surprised to hear that most headphone companies "wing it", or in fact rely on their own ears to "tune" their phones. Or, dare I say it, sound quality is not priority #1.

post #2420 of 2423
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMateoHead View Post
 

 

I would just not be surprised to hear that most headphone companies "wing it", or in fact rely on their own ears to "tune" their phones. Or, dare I say it, sound quality is not priority #1.

Perhaps this is true with some of the mass market headphones, like beats etc. But that is not case with Audeze, Senns, Stax, hifiman, etc. Especially for the highest end ones, they are measured before sale to make sure they fall within certain desired parameters. But they all do a combination of critical listening and measurable metrics to develop the sound of their headphones. Even Paul Barton says that the Harmon curve was only a guide and that they also did some subjective voicing of the NADs. 

post #2421 of 2423
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMateoHead View Post

It's called Research and Development - with some emphasis on the "research" end this time around. This is so obviously not a simple product for a "target audience", but an attempt to develop a product based around a better baseline for average listener preferences, as determined via science using trained and untrained human listeners (with all their unique ears and brains). I know most people hate the idea of fitting within an average (we are raised to feel special?), but I am grateful for Sean Olive, Paul Barton, Harmon Int. and whoever else made these things so cool. I am fast becoming a believer in my PSB's - certainly there is room for improvement, but the sound so far is just stellar.

I would just not be surprised to hear that most headphone companies "wing it", or in fact rely on their own ears to "tune" their phones. Or, dare I say it, sound quality is not priority #1.
If Paul Barton makes a "TOTL-priced" cans, it will make all the other "TOTL" cans a run for their money. However, I don't think Paul Barton will do that based on his reputation for very reasonable pricing.

Lower frequencies being omni-directional and higher frequencies being uni-directional is the TRUTH. As such, nobody can distort it, no ears can falsify it, and certainly no algorithm can make it wrong.
post #2422 of 2423
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabta View Post

Perhaps this is true with some of the mass market headphones, like beats etc. But that is not case with Audeze, Senns, Stax, hifiman, etc. Especially for the highest end ones, they are measured before sale to make sure they fall within certain desired parameters. But they all do a combination of critical listening and measurable metrics to develop the sound of their headphones. Even Paul Barton says that the Harmon curve was only a guide and that they also did some subjective voicing of the NADs. 
IMO, they got the research end wrong then.

Why are you so fond of putting words into someone else's mouth? Paul Barton said they really applied the Harman-Olive curve in his HPs. The "voicing" is in the mids to create a room-like soundstaging, not a tweak in the FR.

And to people who are saying the NAD lacks sparkle...try listening to sparkly recordings in a really good clean speakers, and then listen to the HP50. Then come back here and tell us if the "sparkly" frequencies were rolled off.
post #2423 of 2423
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabta View Post
 

Perhaps this is true with some of the mass market headphones, like beats etc. But that is not case with Audeze, Senns, Stax, hifiman, etc. Especially for the highest end ones, they are measured before sale to make sure they fall within certain desired parameters. But they all do a combination of critical listening and measurable metrics to develop the sound of their headphones. Even Paul Barton says that the Harmon curve was only a guide and that they also did some subjective voicing of the NADs. 


If by "mass market" you are assuming that companies with big bucks and commanding market share are somehow "winging it", I would say, I think not. They are doing something right, whether you agree with it or not (good design, good marketing, whatever). But you don't deliver products with mass appeal by not engineering mass appeal. Sorry. Audiophiles are in the minority, I would think. Maybe one day we'll tailor speakers to an individuals ear drums, but that day is not yet here. Not to knock the other brands in your list, they all make some lovely products (and Sennheiser is certainly in a different league I would think), but I highly doubt they operate and commit the same resources to their product design and development (where "development" might have a significant research component). That stuff is not typically cheap, and does not always lead to a new product. What is more, it costs money, and many of these companies are small. They are lucky Harmon International has apparently not attempted to hoard the results of their research (but a final target is not yet published so it is likely to change overtime?) - and headphone manufacturers can now follow their example if they so choose (hence it would make sense that current products are "tweaked" by ear to achieve what may be a better result). But it is hard to tell if you are critiquing products, or the processes used to develop them at this point. I know you don't like the HP50s - so what?

 

"All are measured before sale, blah blah", sure - by themselves or their contracted manufacturers - but how reliable is that and what parameters are you referring too? THD? Frequency response? They really test each one? Or do they sample a few out of a batch and take an average (hint: to save time and money). Quality control does not in and of itself indicate that expensive headphones are more rigorously tested that Apple's earbuds.

 

It is well known, I suppose, that the PSB's and the NAD's are voiced differently, and of course it is - tailor the sound to a slightly different listener (or, on balance, a "brand") and ensure some product differentiation. My best to all the companies competing in the headphone space, but I am starting to realize you have some beef with science, or are resistant to the idea that, in fact, an "optimal" frequency response curve could conceivably be found, with the infinite variety of design, material, and driver choices then introducing some of the subtle differences which some people like to sweat over.

 

Or maybe someone with better knowledge of the business of headphones can chime in and explain how resources for development and the voicing of phones is typically accomplished at small companies and larger companies. I'd love to know more about that.


Edited by MrMateoHead - Today at 7:29 pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › NAD Viso HP50 : Another superb headphone from Paul Barton?