[acidtripwow]

HP2 is my reference. Ety ER4S is great with clarity but not really that last bit of detail. Go for an HP2 and then get a good amp if you don't have one already. RS-1 is another good choice if you want a bit more sparkle on top.

 

[M Rael]

I like the comparison between the Ety and electrostatics. Mechanically, since the Ety's are actually in your ear canal, they would seem to offer that much better hope of detailing everything possible thats on a recording. However, there are two offshoots to that:
A) Do you need a canal device to enable you to extract all the possible detail in a recording?
B) Isnt it true that a canal device actually prevents certain kinds of sound perceptions, by the nature of its placement?

Its my own belief that you dont need a ear canal device by definition to extract all the possible detail on a recording. I think its within the possibility of an electrostatic to do that, given good electronics and a quiet environment. It seems to me that the amount of detail available is finite.. its not a 'tip of the iceberg' situation, where if you 'only' have say, Grado SR325's then you are barely hearing anything in terms of detail. But its also true that mechanically, some headphones or ear devices are going to be superior to other designs in getting at the detail. The Ety's and electrostatics have the advantage over dynamic designs. On paper.

I would be concerned that the very design of the Ety would prevent certain acoustic perceptions! Its obvious that having them in your ear canal is going to make it more intimate of an experience, but you also eliminate a whole layer of natural outer-ear decoding and air movement.. the Ety solution reminds me in a way of those 'Swedish foam' mattresses. They were developed for bed ridden people primarily, and only later marketed to the general public. Personally I hate sleeping on one (we have one here in the house.) So too, the Ety springs from hearing-aid applications does it not? All I'm saying is that the added intimacy of the Ety might not be required for detail extraction, and that whatever degree it aids in detail it also probably diminishes in terms of naturalness that the outer ear and air movement provides for music. I dont (personally) think I should 'get used to' wearing an Ety in my ear. Hearing is a natural process, and I resist a device that needs to take as much getting used to as an ear canal hearing aid, frankensteined into a music reproducer.

 

[Tomcat]

I am not sure that Quality Guru is talking about detail per se. I thought he was talking about the detail, resolution and ambience information that comes from a headphone's efficiency and dynamic range. A very clear, fast and detailed treble isn't necessarily the same thing as the ability to reproduce low-level signal content across the entire frequency range. While electrostatic phones, for example, are great when it comes to speed (which means about the same thing as high frequency extension), they aren't all that great at low low-level resolution. I'd even say that they start to run into increasing trouble from the upper mids on down. They are fairly inefficient and they're dynamic range isn't all that great, especially in the bass. So, if one is looking for low-level resolution, especially from the lower mids on down, dynamic drivers might be a better choice.

I have never heard Etys, but what Vertigo describes as their dryness and lack of ambient detail and air might be effects caused by their inefficency at lower frequencies, similar to that of electrostatic headphones.

 

[M Rael]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat I am not sure that Quality Guru is talking about detail per se

Hi Tomcat. We're talking about extracting low level detail. Thats different than low frequency low level detail by itself, though low frequency low level detail is part of the equation. Electrostatics advantage is that the mass of their diaphram is so low. They will react quicker to input than a driver with a higher mass- thats a fact by definition. The radiation pattern of an electrostatic is also very different than a dynamic driver since the electrostatic diaphram is flat and not cone shaped. The Stax, for example, will respond more instantly to tiny levels of input, even if they are low frequency in nature. Some people feel that electrostatics have an inferior low frequency representation compared to dynamic headphones, but I havent found that to be especially true. Certainly the differences between those are going to be much less than the difference between Ety bass and non-Ety bass.
There is plenty of room for listening impressions, but some aspects of low level detail are governed by simple design. The Stax is 'faster' because its diaphram mass is lower, and that extra speed is not limited to high frequencies. Of course not.

One other point:
Low level detail that is also low frequency is often heard as the sound of the air in the room or concert hall where the recording was made. There is a peculiar 'weight' that the air in a room has and that gets excited when note is struck and then decays.. and then natural reverb too is part of all that. Theres a difference between the Stax being able to resolve tiny variations in room air decay, and the Stax being able to reproduce pipe organ blasts of 16Hz at full volume. The low mass of the Stax diaphram has an advantage when we're talking about responding to small imputs. Like room air and natural decay reverberation.

 

[RickG]

Umm...I agree, Mark. I personally feel that detail (resolution) throughout the frequency spectrum is the escence of electrostatics.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

The Stax is 'faster' because its diaphram mass is lower, and that extra speed is not limited to high frequencies. Of course not.

Well, Mark (nice to have you back, btw, with or without the W2002

),

the effects of that extra speed are limited to higher frequencies. The lower the frequency, the more energy is involved in reproducing it. And that's where things become difficult for electrostatic drivers. A common dynamic subwoofer overcomes the problem of the increase in "acoustic impedance" (the air's unwillingness to move) at lower frequencies through larger membrane size and excursion. Electrostatic drivers are incapable of huge excursion and electrostatic speakers that offer a halfway decent bass response tend to be really large. Still: Many designs pair the electrostatic midrange/treble unit with a dynamic subwoofer. There simply is no such thing as an electrostatic subwoofer. An electrostatic driver's ability to efficiently transform electrical energy into kinetic energy (air movement) isn't all that great.

And looked at from the viewpoint of frequency response, speed and bandwidth are one and the same thing. A driver's ability to follow the tiniest changes in a waveform (think about the picture an oscilloscope creates from a natural sound) is caused by its treble extension. Wavelength and frequency are directly related, they are indirectly proportional.

There are at least two ways to look at the term "detail": one is in regard to frequency versus amplitude considerations, the other is in regard to amplitude versus time. The latter one, which is closely related to dynamic range, I'd call low-level resolution.

 

[M Rael]

Thanks.
Yeah but Tomcat: electrostatic headphones do not have to move a lot of air, unlike in a floor system -and- even if electrostatics are more challenged in lower frequencies than dynamics are, still that challenge is vastly less when we are talking about extremely small signal demands as in 'low level detail resolution.'
Thats why I said it is different to talk about an electrostatic reproducing the sound of note decay in a room compared to a pipe organ blast at regular/full volume. Those demands on the diaphram are very very different.

I still believe that headphones demand such small amounts of air be moved (compared to floor systems) that the point you make about electrostatic subwoofers does not apply with full strength, not to headphones. My mouth is moving more air in arguing with you about all of this than a headphone will ever have to do!!

 

[Tomcat]

Mark,

wouldn't you think that the very same character traits reappeared at the lower SPLs needed in headphone listening? I believe that's what I hear when I compare electrostatic and dynamic heapdhones. And while the power requirements and the SPLs involved are ridiculously low, would you say that, because of this, all headphones sound the same? Or all headphone amps? I bet you wouldn't. I have never liked electrostatic sound (not even the Omega II system) and I blaim the thin bass response and the lack of low-level resolution for it.

 

[wildmonkeysects]

In the new/unused category, the Stax 3030 form audiocubes is close to budget, and IMNSHO is PFG. A great foundation, and a very good value, factoring in the cost of a good driver for comparable dynamic cans. Be prepared for a long burnin time, if your belief systems support burnin/breakin. Once dialed in, I found it to be most chameleon like *and* very low fatigue.

To my ears/brain, there is a certain, hard to word, magic for lack of better words that for all their faults, electrostaics in general have...like jazz music, it is felt more than heard. Maybe it's genetics? Some of us have a preference built in?

A while back I did the permutations of a 3030 and 4040 system: 303 & 404 hps with the 313 and 006t drivers. Ended up with both systems! Have not auditioned the Omega system, don't wanna know, these are more than adequate at the pricepoint. That is my current threshold for diminishing returns...

The 4040 has more of that hard to describe magic, but I could live quite happily with the 3030. I know this seems simplistic, but differences were about evenly split, ie the 303 with the 006t driver and the 404 with the 313 driver were about equal and half way between the 303 with the 313 and the 404 with the 006t. The 313 driver was a bit more tolerant of power, as it was relatively less improved when fed AC from a PS P600 compared from straight out of the wall. But, the 006t driver with two inputs, one with XLR/balanced as an option, is more convenient than fumbling around the back with more than one souce. Stayed with single ended input(s) for comparisons.

As to perceived bass, both systems (actually 4 permutations) are not bloated, with I believe the 006t having less "impact" if not fed clean, tight AC. But, the opening heartbeats of Dark Side of the Moon had more extension and slam than most speakers I've heard.

Everytime I thought I was hearing too much top end, sizzle, tizz, brightness, it turned out to be something upstream. Conversely, murkyness, lack of low level resolution *always* was something upstream. Although they "should'nt", cables made a major difference: I settled with Stealth M-7 for single ended, CWS or PGS for balanced.

Sources used were modded Philips CD-80, modded SF T3/P3, and stock Denon DPS1/DAS1.

How to reconcile differing perceptions? You may be as happy, or happier with an AT W100 or W11, or a Senn 600. Anywhere you can get a listen under relaxed conditions?

cheerio...

WMS

 

[M Rael]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat Mark, And while the power requirements and the SPLs involved are ridiculously low, would you say that, because of this, all headphones sound the same?

What I know is that for a while I had the W2002, the Grado HP2, and an old Stax SRX MkIII and I listened to them and compared them using my music and what mattered to me in terms of sound. It was in fact the old Stax that made me aware of a new kind of transparency that I didnt hear in the dynamics. It wasnt a night-and-day contrast with the others- but there is something to electrostatic technology that is good for playing back music. I'm not a bit surprised that electrostatic sound involves a potential compromise in one area or another; everything is that way, no?
Certainly dynamic drivers have their own issues, though like electrostatics, the best of them are very very good.

p.s. the Grado HP2 constantly surprises me with its ability to show detail, even compared to the 303. The reason I have swung over to the high end Grado camp (besides the sound) is that I can wear them around my neck easily. Its that simple.
There is something majestic about walking around outdoors listening to the HP2. I feel very lucky. And I take very long walks.

 

[Vertigo-1]

I think electrostats have no problemo hitting those ultra low bass notes...audibly. It's "Ety-like" for sure, but I think they do quantitatively reproduce more bass down there then the Ety's tiny drivers. What's strange though is the utter lack of visceral response that comes with hearing those low bass notes. My guess is that's what bugs Tomcat about electrostats...and anybody else that considers visceral bass part and parcel of true low frequency reproduction.

Mark (welcome back BTW, glad to see you typing more then a sentence or two

), I think I can agree with you on the part of Etys hindering the reproduction of certain elements by their canalphone nature. Strangely for all their low level detail presentation, there are other, more obvious notes that sometimes I can barely make out on the Etys, but are much more easily heard on full sized headphones. It could be a frequency response thing, but also it's very likely to be how it interacts with my ears. Likewise the Ety's lower bass energy is quite weak...even in the audible sense, it's hard to hear those really low bass notes, in that I have to pratically strain to hear them.

Quote:

Originally posted by wildmonkeysects Sources used were modded Philips CD-80, modded SF T3/P3, and stock Denon DPS1/DAS1.

Whoa, those Denon units are very nice.

How do you like them? I was very tempted to get the DCD-S1 CD player myself except it was a bit out of my price range...

 

[wildmonkeysects]

...when they want to, they produce some very nice electronics. I think the S series are among the "best kept secrets" in audiophileland...not the latest whizzbang stuff, even referred to as boat anchors by one dealer I talked to, so can be obtained relatively (hey, it's all relative, right?) inexpensively in the used market if one is patient. I say they have a bit of ONGAKU in them, obviously designed and voiced by music lovers, not just analytical en-ga-neers.

The DPS1 tranny is a classic, one of the few that does not benefit from isolation platforms, just sounds musical no matter where it sits. Looks out-of-this world. Not portable.

The DAS1converter is dated technically, but still holds it's own. Not portable, either.

The combo allows master/slave (gen-lock in Denonspeak) clocking, avoiding SPDIF clock extraction, which I find to be generally evil. But, it must have been an afterthought, because although the DAS1 has an array of front panel selectable inputs, there is a rear panel 3 position mini-toggle switch to enable it. Leans towards warm rather than forward, opposite of Spectral gear for example. Excellent communication of the musical intent, ebbs and flows. A lot of equipment, no matter how clean it seems, leaves me somewhat underwhelmed, restless, bored. Not the case here, lots of involvement. Good synergy with the Stax 4040 and balanced ICs.
In some, but not all, setups, like with Newform ribbon speakers, the DAS1 can sound a bit fuzzy in the top end. Still not sure which it is, ribbons revealing fuzz from the converter, or the ribbons being fuzzy...such is the quest for the holy grail in audiophileland.

Dunno about the DCDS1, but the current in Japan/Asia DCDS10-3 might be a good one, maybe (relatively) affordable through audiocubes?

cheerio...

WMS

 

[The Quality Guru]

Thanks for the input from everyone! Many of you have helped me out greatly and I truly appreciate it! Now, for a few questions . . .

Quote:

(M Rael) I have the Stax 303 -w- the Stax T1 tube amp and also the HP1000(HP2), and I can say a few things about how they compare in detail. On paper it would seem that the Stax has it all over the Grado in detail resolution since the Stax diaphram is so incredibly thin (2 gnat pubic hairs.) Anything that thin would promise to respond to the slightest inputs. But even with lower quality electronics the HP2 does amazingly well in that department. Really, really well. Probably people who listen to classical or other acoustic music might notice more resolution out of the Stax, since there is more natural 'air' in the recordings. On heavily mixed and panned studio rock there is less to choose between the two, and thats the kind of music I listen to most.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hirsch Of the dynamic phones I've heard, the second best at retrieving low level detail is the RS-1, which is better IMO than the HP-1 at detail. The best dynamic headphone for low level detail is rather expensive

This confuses me a tad. Hirsch, you have said previously in threads that the HP-1 retrieves "a trace amount of detail," while M Rael and others in archived posts have said that the HP-1 is excellent in detail. I'm not trying to put you on the spot; it's just odd that a headphone that M-Rael calls similar to Stax in terms of detail you call ultimately lacking in detail. Please elaborate; I'd really appreciate it.

Perhaps it is the cords attached to the HP-1000's you are both using? I was reading in the archive about "old" and "new" cords on the HP's and perhaps this might account for why Hirsch calls the HP's less detailed. Is there any way to tell which cord one has on their HP? Hirsch is the first person I've heard call them "less detailed" which simply makes me wonder about why this is so contrary to opinions from many others.

M Rael, when you describe the HP-1 as detailed, you are talking about low volumes, correct?

Quote:

HP2 is my reference. Ety ER4S is great with clarity but not really that last bit of detail. Go for an HP2 and then get a good amp if you don't have one already. RS-1 is another good choice if you want a bit more sparkle on top.

What exactly do you mean when you say "a bit more sparkle on top"? I've heard this referred to before, yet it still falls into my list of audiophile jargon that is yet undefined.

Quote:

Why don't you spend the money on a good source? Biggie.

Biggie,
I plan to do exactly that. Soon I will get either a used CAL DX2 or Marantz CD6000 OSE. Or maybe the SACD budget angel the Sony NS500v . . . Does anybody know anything about the DX2?

Quote:

Hey Guru, Your 1 away from 500!

Not anymore!

 

[M Rael]

QG: I thought by 'low level detail' you meant detail that was nearly inaudible. You say you really meant it to mean low volume level?? Jesus! well my 'new unused' headphones in an open box sounded ok to me at first at low volume, but...

I dont know how to reply to your other questions with my misunderstanding in mind. Suffice it to say that most every top level headphone is going to give you scads of low level detail, the way I understand that term. As for low volume I wouldnt know; concert level rock music since high school has left me with dain brammage, so no comment.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Quality Guru This confuses me a tad. Hirsch, you have said previously in threads that the HP-1 retrieves "a trace amount of detail," while M Rael and others in archived posts have said that the HP-1 is excellent in detail. I'm not trying to put you on the spot; it's just odd that a headphone that M-Rael calls similar to Stax in terms of detail you call ultimately lacking in detail. Please elaborate; I'd really appreciate it. Perhaps it is the cords attached to the HP-1000's you are both using? I was reading in the archive about "old" and "new" cords on the HP's and perhaps this might account for why Hirsch calls the HP's less detailed. Is there any way to tell which cord one has on their HP? Hirsch is the first person I've heard call them "less detailed" which simply makes me wonder about why this is so contrary to opinions from many others.

My HP-1 has the Signature cable. From all reports by people who own both, the difference between the Signature and the Reference cable are minimal. Since I haven't heard the Reference cable, I don't personally know.

I have never said that the HP-1 is not a detailed headphone. Compared to most it has plenty of detail. However, there are other headphones that are better. IMO this is the one area where the RS-1 is better than the HP-1. Since I prefer the HP-1 over the RS-1 (by a lot!), this is clearly not a problem for me. IMO the CD3000 is also more detailed than the HP-1. So is the Ety ER-4S, and the Sony R10. This does not mean the HP-1 is poor at detail, or somehow lacking. It simply means that these headphones are all very good at detail.