or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Best Bass Headphones in The World
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Bass Headphones in The World - Page 4

post #46 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post
 

 

Really, the TH900 is almost certainly aeons ahead of the LCD-2. Orthodynamics can't deliver the same amount of raw slam that a dynamic driver can, and the TH900 measures FAR better than the LCD-2. Even the transients (which orthodynamics are known for) are far better on the TH900:

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/FostexTH900.pdf

The LCD2r2 30Hz squarewaves are textbook perfect dude. What the heck are you talking about?

post #47 of 197

I have a curveball.  How about the DEEPEST bass?

post #48 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post
 

 

Really, the TH900 is almost certainly aeons ahead of the LCD-2. Orthodynamics can't deliver the same amount of raw slam that a dynamic driver can, and the TH900 measures FAR better than the LCD-2. Even the transients (which orthodynamics are known for) are far better on the TH900:

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/FostexTH900.pdf

The LCD2r2 30Hz squarewaves are textbook perfect dude. What the heck are you talking about?

Nothing is textbook perfect when it comes to measurements. The LCD-2 still overshoots on the 30Hz (by a very small amount mind you) and slopes downward. The TH900 has comparable control with only a slight hump and doesn't overshoot, and the fact that the THD actually decreases as you go down farther is far more remarkable than most people realize. This coupled with the naturally superior slam of an electrodynamic driver makes the TH900's bass superior in nearly every sense of the word.

 

Another thing to consider is that orthodynamic transducers cannot produce bass at particularly high amplitudes without it becoming muddled and sloppy (often dubbed as "boomy") due to the trampoline effect; this is not true for dynamics. This is why the LCD-2 and any other good orthodynamic has an almost if not completely flat line FR plot below 1000 Hz. 


Edited by takato14 - 9/10/13 at 11:11pm
post #49 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post
 

Nothing is textbook perfect when it comes to measurements. The LCD-2 still overshoots on the 30Hz (by a very small amount mind you) and slopes downward. The TH900 has comparable control with only a slight hump and doesn't overshoot, and the fact that the THD actually decreases as you go down farther is far more remarkable than most people realize. This coupled with the naturally superior slam of an electrodynamic driver makes the TH900's bass superior in nearly every sense of the word.

 

Another thing to consider is that orthodynamic transducers cannot produce bass at particularly high amplitudes without it becoming muddled and sloppy (often dubbed as "boomy") due to the trampoline effect; this is not true for dynamics. This is why the LCD-2 and any other good orthodynamic has an almost if not completely flat line FR plot below 1000 Hz. 

 

I respectfully disagree.  To me the 30 hz square wave plot on the th900 looks like it fails to maintain the 30 hz tone as it slopes downward with a subtle overshoot.  The 300 hz wave looks like it initially fails to hold the tone then gradually overshoots it.  The LCD2's 30 Hz squarewave appears ruler flat and is pretty close to textbook perfect with just a small downard slope.  Concurrently, the 300 hz tone shows superior control and is also flatter.

 

With regard to high volumes, dynamic drivers have their own host of problems. Typically you are right about distortion at high volumes with planars, at least with regard to speakers and d/t to the limited distance the diaphragm can vibrate.  But the LCD2's though are surprisingly very resilient to this effect.  The THD plots you posted show this.  The LCD2's THD is lower than the TH900 at all frequencies at 100 dB and at the very least comprable to the THD of the TH900 @ 90 dB.

post #50 of 197

Sloping downwards on square waves isn't entirely all that bad.  Remember that square waves are a product of the fundamental tone and all of its harmonics-- reliant on the overall frequency response of the headphone as well.

 

I don't get the whole 'planar magnetics can't produce loud bass without it being muddy' argument.  They're among the leaders when it comes to producing clean, low thd bass at high DB levels.

post #51 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrahman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

 
Nothing is textbook perfect when it comes to measurements. The LCD-2 still overshoots on the 30Hz (by a very small amount mind you) and slopes downward. The TH900 has comparable control with only a slight hump and doesn't overshoot, and the fact that the THD actually decreases as you go down farther is far more remarkable than most people realize. This coupled with the naturally superior slam of an electrodynamic driver makes the TH900's bass superior in nearly every sense of the word.

Another thing to consider is that orthodynamic transducers cannot produce bass at particularly high amplitudes without it becoming muddled and sloppy (often dubbed as "boomy") due to the trampoline effect; this is not true for dynamics. This is why the LCD-2 and any other good orthodynamic has an almost if not completely flat line FR plot below 1000 Hz. 

I respectfully disagree.  To me the 30 hz square wave plot on the th900 looks like it fails to maintain the 30 hz tone as it slopes downward with a subtle overshoot.  The 300 hz wave looks like it initially fails to hold the tone then gradually overshoots it.  The LCD2's 30 Hz squarewave appears ruler flat and is pretty close to textbook perfect with just a small downard slope.  Concurrently, the 300 hz tone shows superior control and is also flatter.

With regard to high volumes, dynamic drivers have their own host of problems. Typically you are right about distortion at high volumes with planars, at least with regard to speakers and d/t to the limited distance the diaphragm can vibrate.  But the LCD2's though are surprisingly very resilient to this effect.  The THD plots you posted show this.  The LCD2's THD is lower than the TH900 at all frequencies at 100 dB and at the very least comprable to the THD of the TH900 @ 90 dB.

That may all be true but we are not looking for the "cleanest" bass, we are looking for the best bass. I own an orthodynamic of the same caliber as the LCD-2, the Fostex T50v1 (which measures staggeringly similar to the LCD series), and I find that the bass is still lacking for me somehow. The headphones sound damn beautiful, yes, but I greatly prefer the massive speaker-like bass I get from my 4AAA, even though it's significantly under the T50v1 in terms of technical merit.

It really boils down to opinion. Orthodynamic bass is the cleanest and tightest, but ethereal and somewhat weak. Dynamic bass can be almost as clean and have incredible girth and slam to it that an orthodynamic transducer could never hope to match.

I guess the answer depends on who you are. Audiophiles will prefer the former and music lovers will prefer the latter.
Edited by takato14 - 9/11/13 at 12:13pm
post #52 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post


That may all be true but we are not looking for the "cleanest" bass, we are looking for the best bass. I own an orthodynamic of the same caliber as the LCD-2, the Fostex T50v1 (which measures staggeringly similar to the LCD series), and I find that the bass is still lacking for me somehow. The headphones sound damn beautiful, yes, but I greatly prefer the massive speaker-like bass I get from my 4AAA, even though it's significantly under the T50v1 in terms of technical merit.

It really boils down to opinion. Orthodynamic bass is the cleanest and tightest, but ethereal and somewhat weak. Dynamic bass can be almost as clean and have incredible girth and slam to it that an orthodynamic transducer could never hope to match.

I guess the answer depends on who you are. Audiophiles will prefer the former and music lovers will prefer the latter.

 

Yeah subjective experiences are often very different from measurements; I only argued earlier about your statement regarding how TH900's bass measured better than LCD2's in the InnerFidelity archives, which was far from the truth.

post #53 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

That may all be true but we are not looking for the "cleanest" bass, we are looking for the best bass. I own an orthodynamic of the same caliber as the LCD-2, the Fostex T50v1 (which measures staggeringly similar to the LCD series), and I find that the bass is still lacking for me somehow. The headphones sound damn beautiful, yes, but I greatly prefer the massive speaker-like bass I get from my 4AAA, even though it's significantly under the T50v1 in terms of technical merit.


It really boils down to opinion. Orthodynamic bass is the cleanest and tightest, but ethereal and somewhat weak. Dynamic bass can be almost as clean and have incredible girth and slam to it that an orthodynamic transducer could never hope to match.


I guess the answer depends on who you are. Audiophiles will prefer the former and music lovers will prefer the latter.

Yeah subjective experiences are often very different from measurements; I only argued earlier about your statement regarding how TH900's bass measured better than LCD2's in the InnerFidelity archives, which was far from the truth.
The TH900 does however have the best square waves I've seen from a closed can. Beautiful. I'd almost go as far too say that the hump effect is caused simply by it being closed.
post #54 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post


That may all be true but we are not looking for the "cleanest" bass, we are looking for the best bass. I own an orthodynamic of the same caliber as the LCD-2, the Fostex T50v1 (which measures staggeringly similar to the LCD series), and I find that the bass is still lacking for me somehow. The headphones sound damn beautiful, yes, but I greatly prefer the massive speaker-like bass I get from my 4AAA, even though it's significantly under the T50v1 in terms of technical merit.

It really boils down to opinion. Orthodynamic bass is the cleanest and tightest, but ethereal and somewhat weak. Dynamic bass can be almost as clean and have incredible girth and slam to it that an orthodynamic transducer could never hope to match.

I guess the answer depends on who you are. Audiophiles will prefer the former and music lovers will prefer the latter.

 

Sure no one (no one reasonable at least) will ever argue against that what this all comes down to is subjective experience.  

 

But you must admit a statement like "...the TH900 measures FAR better than the LCD-2" really is suggesting that the TH900 is the technically superior headphone rather than the funner headphone.  The TH900 may be the funner headphone for some to listen to, but for everyone the LCD2 measures better.

post #55 of 197

i don't think i would care so much about measurements. obviously the LCD-2 measures very very well and has very clean bass, and the TH-900 for a dynamic headphone , especially a closed headphone, surely is also very impressive. its warm yet fast, doesn't sound closed in, has some of the best bass i've heard, its a bass monster so its a fun headphone, yet remains very detailed, oh and most importantly, its almost completely grain free and has a nice black background i rarely hear with headphones, i really like it. 

 

the LCD-2 has a different bass presentation, and a different sound. i don't think one is necessarily better than the other, though you can argue that the TH-900 can compete with the LCD-3 as well not just the LCD-2. i think both definitely belong in that upper echelon of headphones, both dynamic and planar.


Edited by Dubstep Girl - 9/13/13 at 3:04am
post #56 of 197

.


Edited by jibzilla - 6/3/14 at 4:35am
post #57 of 197
Unobtainium
post #58 of 197

Alright, I've been visiting Head-Fi for a couple years now, but never set up an account and commented.  I'm gonna try making an attempt to contribute, so try not to kill me.

Anyways, I can't comment on the best in the world since I haven't tried that many yet, but I do have a small collection of cans known for their bass, so here's a list and some thoughts.

 

Ultrasone Pro900 - good un-amped (unless in a noisy area).  Bass isn't very detailed, but gives a tight/solid impact.  Highs can be a little bright/painful on some songs.

Sony XB1000 - good un-amped.  Good impact.  Bass completely takes over sound spectrum.  Vocals sound like they're in a tunnel.  Great for dubstep and 80's electrobreakdance.  Not very good for anything that isn't almost 100% bass-oriented.

Beyerdynamic DT770 80ohms - good un-amped (unless you're in a noisy area AND want bass boost).  Bass has impact, but probably not enough for a basshead (un-amped).  I have these with me, but I'd have to check later to see how they are with amping.

Beyerdynamic DT990 600ohms - I don't know why some people swear these are bass monsters.  Even with amping/EQing the bass is foggy (not very tight) and is heard more than felt.

Denon D2000 - good un-amped.  Great all-around headphones with medium (um-amped) bass that hits excedingly well when you give it some power.

Denon D7000 - After amping/EQing, these have the hardest actual impact of my collection.  If I pull all frequencies down, and bump up what I call the "bass bar", it'll feel like your headphones are dancing on your head.  These aren't my favorite cans, but if pure bass impact is all you care about then these can deliver that sub-woofer feeling.

Audeze LCD-3 - strong bass, lots of detail, but more mellow/not as tight as the D7000's, and the impact is never AS hard (although, make no mistake, there is plenty of impact with EQ'ing).  The bass is more satisfying to me, but that's just a personal opinion since I like the overall darker sound signature.  I've let one of my friends audition both and he prefered the Denons, though he didn't give a reason why.

 

Out of my collection, I'd say the Pro900's physically hit the hardest without amping.  However, at that price range I'd go with the D2000's (which are better balanced and without the annoying high-end) and let an amp take care of the bass when I'm in the mood.  But anyone looking for headphones that don't just sound bassy, but physically hit like 12' subs and massage your head, keep in mind that you're not gonna get that without an amp and liberal amounts of EQ'ing (at least in my limited experience).  A portable device like an iPod/laptop just won't have the power.

post #59 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jibzilla View Post
 

Sony R-10?

 

Actually, the R10 is an intensely bright beast. Its ruthlessly detailed and extremely musical, with yes pretty good bass. However, that's certainly not what the headphone is known for. 

post #60 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post
 

 

Actually, the R10 is an intensely bright beast. Its ruthlessly detailed and extremely musical, with yes pretty good bass. However, that's certainly not what the headphone is known for.


Edited by jibzilla - 6/3/14 at 4:35am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Best Bass Headphones in The World