[MatW]

I'm surprised Resolve didn't find the soundstage to be as large as the HD800. I had a HD800S with me recently for a while and thought the Abyss offered a much better soundstage, at least as large, if not larger. The 800S seems mushed in comparison, although that could have just been the difference in frequency responses of the two.

It looked to me like Resolve did not really know what to do with it... he looked rather uncomfortable with the headphone, it was kind of funny to watch. It is no surprise to me that he did not like it. It is too different from 'normal' headphones, and imo you really need to spend time with it (actually listening to it and playing with the fit, rather than focus on measurements). And in general, he tends to like what I don't and vice versa... Probably genre preference is also a big factor here.

 

[Sajid Amit]

It looked to me like Resolve did not really know what to do with it... he looked rather uncomfortable with the headphone, it was kind of funny to watch. It is no surprise to me that he did not like it. It is too different from 'normal' headphones, and imo you really need to spend time with it (actually listening to it and playing with the fit) rather than focus on measurements. And in general, he tends to like what I don't and vice versa... Probably genre preference is also a big factor here.

Agree with your assessment.

I appreciate Resolve’s contribution to the community. But I am convinced that when you start becoming well-known for your measurements, even if you claim that you understand that Hartman 2018 is merely a target that conforms to 64% of the sample being considered, sooner or later, subjectivity goes out of the window, and the target curve starts becoming an objective end goal.

That’s why a Resolve or a Crin, as much as I respect them for their efforts, don’t have much time for the TC, the SR1a, or many estats.

 

[trellus]

Agree with your assessment.

I appreciate Resolve’s contribution to the community. But I am convinced that when you start becoming well-known for your measurements, even if you claim that you understand that Hartman 2018 is merely a target that conforms to 64% of the sample being considered, sooner or later, subjectivity goes out of the window, and the target curve starts becoming an objective end goal.

That’s why a Resolve or a Crin, as much as I respect them for their efforts, don’t have much time for the TC, the SR1a, or many estats.

Resolve consistently mentions that deviations from the curve do not make headphone “bad,” and he specifically mentions in this review for the 1266 TC that for people seeking a W-shaped sound, they will be happy with the 1266 TC, and that it’s just not a tuning for him personally.

Also, he generally doesn’t use the 2018 Harman fully, but Harman 2018 for everything but the bass, for which he uses an earlier (2014?) Harman curve.

It’s not as if he gave it a bad review, he simply explains the deviations from the target curve in order to explain its frequency response objectively, recognizing that not everyone is looking for something as close to the target as he does.

I actually find his reviews very informative precisely because of his consistent approach to FR and tuning, even knowing I tend to be less married to the target curve than I perceive him to be — so, for example with this review, I left thinking, “yup, I think I’d dig these still.”

 

[tholt]

Hello, I have been searching over the pages trying to find an impression comparing the phi (pre CC) with the TC. I am sure it is somewhere, just need more time to search thru the pages (using search function). Any kind soul that has a link or would care to repost here?

I am thinking with almost 50% of the TC cost, if I could get a phi version, it could be a good opportunity to 'dive' into this abyss

I had the Phi for over a year and upgraded to the TC a few months ago. The Phi is very good, but I was surprised at just how much better the TC is in pretty much every area. I wasn't sure what to expect; there were reports saying the TC was incrementally better and ones that the TC was significantly better. I'm more in the latter camp. Bass still hits hard and deep but is much better controlled, mids are more fleshed out (a bit of a weak spot in the Abyss sound signature IMO), highs are more refined and less bitey, and overall things just sound more immersive and real vs Phi, which is impressive in all the "hifi" ways but never really got out of the way. All that said, if you're looking to get into Abyss, the Phi is still great. But if you end up liking the Phi, you'll probably be saving/spending more to get the TC.

 

[Sajid Amit]

Resolve consistently mentions that deviations from the curve do not make headphone “bad,” and he specifically mentions in this review for the 1266 TC that for people seeking a W-shaped sound, they will be happy with the 1266 TC, and that it’s just not a tuning for him personally.

Also, he generally doesn’t use the 2018 Harman fully, but Harman 2018 for everything but the bass, for which he uses an earlier (2014?) Harman curve.

It’s not as if he gave it a bad review, he simply explains the deviations from the target curve in order to explain its frequency response objectively, recognizing that not everyone is looking for something as close to the target as he does.

I actually find his reviews very informative precisely because of his consistent approach to FR and tuning, even knowing I tend to be less married to the target curve than I perceive him to be — so, for example with this review, I left thinking, “yup, I think I’d dig these still.”

Kudos to you for being able to distill the review appropriately.

For many though, expressions like “A weirdo Susvara with better macro dynamics” or some such description is likely to be discouraging.

I like Resolve a lot. Don’t get me wrong. I find his reviews very informative.

 

[trellus]

Kudos to you for being able to distill the review appropriately.

For many though, expressions like “A weirdo Susvara with better macro dynamics” or some such description is likely to be discouraging. Just saying.

I like Resolve a lot. Don’t get me wrong. I find his reviews very informative.

Yeah, that quote is definitely, eh, heavily flavored with his subjective take, good point. But in the context of the review, I'm not sure it's inaccurate given I'm confident he means it's "weirdo" relative to the Susvara largely on the dimension of frequency response.

For me, I know I'd probably thoroughly enjoy the "weirdo" tuning, given that I find I often like a headphone he's reviewed without his recommended equalization, which he shares. This is true for the Elegia and the LCD-2F, both of which he recommends with equalization, particularly the latter. I find, however, that I just listen to them stock, despite their deviations from the reference curve.

 

[Jon L]

And in general, he tends to like what I don't and vice versa... Probably genre preference is also a big factor here.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

[BassicScience]

Agree with your assessment.

I appreciate Resolve’s contribution to the community. But I am convinced that when you start becoming well-known for your measurements, even if you claim that you understand that Hartman 2018 is merely a target that conforms to 64% of the sample being considered, sooner or later, subjectivity goes out of the window, and the target curve starts becoming an objective end goal.

That’s why a Resolve or a Crin, as much as I respect them for their efforts, don’t have much time for the TC, the SR1a, or many estats.

There may be something to your hypothesis. Resolve said something similar about ASR, perhaps a form of projection (?). OTOH, I (twice) had similar subjective impressions of the TC to Resolve's and I wasn't aware of its technical specs at the time. Specifically, I didn't hear a particularly capacious soundstage. I will be auditioning the TC again in a month at Canjam and will play around with the fit to see if I can improve on my earlier results.

I will also say that I tend to seek out well-measuring gear because 45+ years of listening has shown me that there's a high correlation between that and what typically sounds best to me. I usually don't read the FR specs before I audition just to remove the potential bias you allude to.

 

[qboogie]

Hypothetical question. If TC did not do what it does with the bass, would some of you still own it ?

Probably not, at least not for my music tastes. Without that bass, it would probably be replaced by the HEDDphone which IMO comes closest to doing what the TC does in terms of detail and forwardness of the overall sound. It has a more typical FR. The stage dimensions come close but were amp dependent in my experience. That weight is a dealbreaker though.

 

[Solan]

I am wondering why many are against EQ'ing. It's not like they don't EQ and colour the sound in studios. Rather, it's the name of the game to tune the sound until it sounds the most pleasing in their monitors. So why not apply a studio type EQ at your own end if the studio hasn't EQ'ed it to fit your liking? As for the Harman curve ... that's really pointless, since it presupposes neutrality from the studio side. If the studio has EQ'ed it one way, you adjust the music one way to maximize for your taste. If they have EQ'ed it a different way, you obviously have to compensate by EQ'ing in a complimentary way. That's just logical. So the way you best EQ and flavour the sound will be different from one recording to the next. Same goes for choice of headphones.

 

[Shahrose]

Kudos to you for being able to distill the review appropriately.

For many though, expressions like “A weirdo Susvara with better macro dynamics” or some such description is likely to be discouraging.

I like Resolve a lot. Don’t get me wrong. I find his reviews very informative.

An unusually off-base review from a great reviewer. Other than his commentary on timbre/tone, I felt he missed the mark in most other areas.

My hunch is some of it stems from a lack of long-term comparison across a range of ancillaries. Can't understate the importance of time and experience in gauging these things...

 

[cangle]

I am wondering why many are against EQ'ing. It's not like they don't EQ and colour the sound in studios. Rather, it's the name of the game to tune the sound until it sounds the most pleasing in their monitors. So why not apply a studio type EQ at your own end if the studio hasn't EQ'ed it to fit your liking? As for the Harman curve ... that's really pointless, since it presupposes neutrality from the studio side. If the studio has EQ'ed it one way, you adjust the music one way to maximize for your taste. If they have EQ'ed it a different way, you obviously have to compensate by EQ'ing in a complimentary way. That's just logical. So the way you best EQ and flavour the sound will be different from one recording to the next. Same goes for choice of headphones.

I'm not really against EQ'ing I just find that whenever I try an EQ that I end up going back to the stock tuning and preferring that. In the case of the 1266 and LCD-4z, the stock tuning had more excitement and forwardness whereas the EQ made it smoother sounding and more laid back to my ears. The only headphone that I liked to EQ was the HD800S by adding a bass shelf but even with that I found that the bass boost came across as unnatural on some tracks.

The other issue I have with EQ'ing is I always wonder if I'm missing out on some EQ settings that could elevate the sound further so I end up tweaking it constantly instead of just listening to the music. So, due to all these reasons I tend to stick with the stock sound of the headphones.

 

[jlbrach]

If I need to EQ a HP then I choose another HP...that is just me, there are too many great options out there

 

[paradoxper]

I am wondering why many are against EQ'ing. It's not like they don't EQ and colour the sound in studios. Rather, it's the name of the game to tune the sound until it sounds the most pleasing in their monitors. So why not apply a studio type EQ at your own end if the studio hasn't EQ'ed it to fit your liking? As for the Harman curve ... that's really pointless, since it presupposes neutrality from the studio side. If the studio has EQ'ed it one way, you adjust the music one way to maximize for your taste. If they have EQ'ed it a different way, you obviously have to compensate by EQ'ing in a complimentary way. That's just logical. So the way you best EQ and flavour the sound will be different from one recording to the next. Same goes for choice of headphones.

Likely a perceived notion. Likewise, the same for the perceptions that EQ solves for everything and costs nothing.

 

[Sajid Amit]

An unusually off-base review from a great reviewer. Other than his commentary on timbre/tone, I felt he missed the mark in most other areas.

My hunch is some of it stems from a lack of long-term comparison across a range of ancillaries. Can't understate the importance of time and experience in gauging these things...

Yeah. He is definitely a great reviewer. Arguably the best on YouTube, IMHO.