Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New Abyss planar magnetic headphone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Abyss planar magnetic headphone - Page 30

post #436 of 547
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post

I'm inclined to agree, but my HE500s + jergpads have pretty silky treble so I can't.

Indeed, as both of us know from the modding we've done to our own orthos, earpads play a large 50% factor in sound, due to fit, comfort and the sealing properties of the material used in the pads, it is a matter of having a good seal with good sound, or having a poor seal with bad sound.

post #437 of 547
After the design was finalized and subjective goals met, I chased the CSD's for a few weeks and wound up coming full circle only to determine they were of little use. With headphones we can make the CSD look any way we want by settings, test set-up, headphone placement on the test head, etc, etc. In the end it was determined the diaphragm was not necessarily the source of HF ringing in the measurements. In other words, chasing measurement ghosts proved a waste of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

Besides the misinterpretation of n3rdling's comment, I would add the blaming of the amp is a bit easy. If these phones had a wild impedance swing like multi-drivers armature iems, yes I can totally imagine some weird thing happening. But these are like 50Ohm flat, the amp would need to be seriously messed up to add the kind of distortion / ringing since in Tyll's measurements.

Besides, I did not get the priviledge to look at them, but I noticed purrin mentioned he got very similar results to Tyll in the other thread if I recall correctly. It would be interesting to  watch the CSD from 7kHz up.

Arnaud
post #438 of 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski View Post

After the design was finalized and subjective goals met, I chased the CSD's for a few weeks and wound up coming full circle only to determine they were of little use. With headphones we can make the CSD look any way we want by settings, test set-up, headphone placement on the test head, etc, etc. In the end it was determined the diaphragm was not necessarily the source of HF ringing in the measurements. In other words, chasing measurement ghosts proved a waste of time.
 


By jesus, just when you think all is lost, a little gem appears.biggrin.gif

 

That is by far the single most intelligent post on whole CSD nonsense I have ever read. Thanks Joe!

post #439 of 547

Curious take on computer-aided design... Still, plenty of time to fix it later.

post #440 of 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski View Post

After the design was finalized and subjective goals met, I chased the CSD's for a few weeks and wound up coming full circle only to determine they were of little use. With headphones we can make the CSD look any way we want by settings, test set-up, headphone placement on the test head, etc, etc. In the end it was determined the diaphragm was not necessarily the source of HF ringing in the measurements. In other words, chasing measurement ghosts proved a waste of time.

Joe, am I wrong in assuming that you didn't like how the prototype sounded after you got rid of high frequency resonances (using felt type of absorbers behind the driver for example), hence your coming back to the original design?

To me, it does not invalidate your approach in the least, as you eventually trusted your ears rather than the fft analyzer. On the contrary, it takes guts to release something so radical.

But, transducer design is most always an affair of compromise and there clearly is some range for playing with the sound signature to make it subjectively more pleasing or involving. Not saying you're pulling an s-logic on us, but curious to hear your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post

That is by far the single most intelligent post on whole CSD nonsense I have ever read. Thanks Joe!

I admit you can make CSDs tell you whatever you wish depending on the settings, but that´s no different than any other objective metric like a frequency response function.
CSDs are standard tool to design loudspeakers and THE most easy tool to identify resonances in the driver, enclosure and such. What's your beef with it?
post #441 of 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post


Joe, am I wrong in assuming that you didn't like how the prototype sounded after you got rid of high frequency resonances (using felt type of absorbers behind the driver for example), hence your coming back to the original design?

To me, it does not invalidate your approach in the least, as you eventually trusted your ears rather than the fft analyzer. On the contrary, it takes guts to release something so radical.

But, transducer design is most always an affair of compromise and there clearly is some range for playing with the sound signature to make it subjectively more pleasing or involving. Not saying you're pulling an s-logic on us, but curious to hear your thoughts.
I admit you can make CSDs tell you whatever you wish depending on the settings, but that´s no different than any other objective metric like a frequency response function.
CSDs are standard tool to design loudspeakers and THE most easy tool to identify resonances in the driver, enclosure and such. What's your beef with it?


My "beef" as it were, is in the way it is being (mis)used. Joes post itself gives enormous insight into the follies that can ensue when so called empirical objective measurement is held as the grail.

 

I have stated before that there is no standard test rig for headphone measurement, and that in itself is a huge concern. When I see a plot I have no idea how much clamping force was involved, what the actual seal was like, what mic was used (and every mic has its own colouration) and what the surrounding acoustics were like. This makes just about every plot I see published subjective rather than objective.

Now if someone were to take the bull by the horns and spec a standard mic, an anechoic box, and dummy head, and further specify the axis of the centre of the driver to the ear opening. I'll start to take it a little more seriously. Until then these published results are thumbnail guidelines at best, and terribly misleading at worst.

post #442 of 547
post #443 of 547

Interesting.....

post #444 of 547

2 things noted about the Abyss is that they have

(1) Great soundstaging (like an open field);

(2) Somewhat ringing/fatiguing highs.

 

IME, these 2 characteristics always seem to go together in both headphones and speakers.

It's as if the spatial information is somewhere in the very high frequencies.

 

Examples: HD800s, HE6s, several Grados, or speakers with Beryllium or Titanium tweeters (like JM Labs/Focal).

 

So the reports on the Abyss sound strangely familiar.

As if, here we go again, the phones sound open and spacious like speakers, but there are issues in the treble (ringing).

Same old story.

 

It's a rare bird of a system that can get both of these right, and a good design uses a somewhat closed in feeling for relaxing and musical tonality.

 

Thus, phones like HE500s, TH900s, and LCD3s strike an ideal balance in this  (at least for me they do, and that's why I love all of these three as my go-to phones).

Phones like HD650s have the opposite problem and sound too closed and claustrophobic to me.

 

Comments?


Edited by rgs9200m - 7/28/13 at 11:07am
post #445 of 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

2 things noted about the Abyss is that they have

(1) Great soundstaging (like an open field);

(2) Somewhat ringing/fatiguing highs.

 

IME, these 2 characteristics always seem to go together in both headphones and speakers.

It's as if the spatial information is somewhere in the very high frequencies.

 

Examples: HD800s, HE6s, several Grados, or speakers with Beryllium or Titanium tweeters (like JM Labs/Focal).

 

So the reports on the Abyss sound strangely familiar.

As if, here we go again, the phones sound open and spacious like speakers, but there are issues in the treble (ringing).

Same old story.

 

It's a rare bird of a system that can get both of these right, and a good design uses a somewhat closed in feeling for relaxing and musical tonality.

 

Thus, phones like HE500s, TH900s, and LCD3s strike an ideal balance in this  (at least for me they do, and that's why I love all of these three as my go-to phones).

Phones like HD650s have the opposite problem and sound too closed and claustrophobic to me.

 

Comments?

Well apparently the "ringing" is actually in the right spot for the Abyss so it's not particularly offensive, but sometimes makes the treble sound "hollow". I think I get what Purrin was trying to say. I think that's very minimal price to pay for a much improved HE-500 (apparently that's what the tonal balance of the Abyss sounds like, sort of). I would love to own them, but the price and the looks, not to mention the stupid name gives me pause. But yeah I guess it's all about the sound in the end, but it's like they purposely tried to annoy my other sensibilities.

post #446 of 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post

Well apparently the "ringing" is actually in the right spot for the Abyss so it's not particularly offensive, but sometimes makes the treble sound "hollow". I think I get what Purrin was trying to say. I think that's very minimal price to pay for a much improved HE-500 (apparently that's what the tonal balance of the Abyss sounds like, sort of). I would love to own them, but the price and the looks, not to mention the stupid name gives me pause. But yeah I guess it's all about the sound in the end, but it's like they purposely tried to annoy my other sensibilities.

Thanks M-13 for those insights. Could you maybe elaborate or re-explain what a hollow treble is? Do you mean the highs sound like they are in a hall or area with strange reverb? Thanks.

post #447 of 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

Thanks M-13 for those insights. Could you maybe elaborate or re-explain what a hollow treble is? Do you mean the highs sound like they are in a hall or area with strange reverb? Thanks.

Having never heard the Abyss in person, I can only imagine what "hollow" sounds like. I think "strange reverb" or sounds like a hall would also come to my mind as well.

post #448 of 547
Thread Starter 
There is no ringing in the highs, the treble and mids are the two biggest flaws atm with the AB. Bass and soundstaging are the only two positives.
post #449 of 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefQon View Post

There is no ringing in the highs, the treble and mids are the two biggest flaws atm with the AB. Bass and soundstaging are the only two positives.

Its strange how many reviews and opinions from people who actually own the headphone differ from yours. Hmmm ... An unexplained phenomena from a two minute test in a shop or perhaps something else
post #450 of 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

I bought a pair, dBel bought a pair, and I know Purrin would most likely buy a pair if he weren't into speakers primarily now (and swearing off headphones in general). 

 

This may be the headphone that brought me back to headphones.

 

I've been giving the Abyss some thought on why I really like it: The Abyss is the only headphone with "high-end" technicalities which have an overall tonal balance and low bass impact most similar to my reference speakers. The HE-500 and Paradox also come close in terms of tonal balance, but they are not "high-end" in terms of transient response, articulation, separation and layering, "openness", stage depth, and retrieval of low level information. The HD800, LCD3, and especially the SR-009 have "high-end" technicalities, but not the same overall tonal balance.

 

The weakness of the Abyss is the rough treble, but there are ways to mollify this with proper selection of upstream gear and tweaks.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New Abyss planar magnetic headphone