[buzzlulu]

Not meaning to be aggressive towards anyone however it would be really nice if those commenting on what the Z1R sounds like - etc. - actually own or have at least heard them.
Everything else is meaningless speculation and uninformed opinion

 

[Sonic Defender]

We have seen the CSD plots and we can all agree from objective and subjective information, the Z1R is not then a Hi Fidelity device, if accuracy of reproduction alone is the true measure of Hi Fi. I don't think anyone hear has pretended the Z1R is anything but a very musical, coloured sound signature. Why those of us like it who do is that the signature was intentional and where it has compromises, it also has strengths that we appreciate.

 

[EDN80]

Without having heard the MDR Z1R, I'd say (...)

Hmm... we have a problem.

Second poster here who has been arguing page after page without having heard the headphones! Any more?

And how does one go about that BTW? Arguing without once listening to the headphones in question? And more importantly, why?

Strange practice IMO.

 

[Whitigir]

To me, the "musical" of which I keep saying about the Z1R is literally the "thickness of timbres" and how fluidly the layering and separations are being presented when connected to Solid State devices. My Stax SR009 is not "musical" but is more kind of an "accuracy/references" in tonal timbres thickness. The differences are in the nuances speed, separations and layering.

Ofcourse, pairing with different amps will change this, but most of the time the Z1R musicality or 009 accuracy will remain what it is, and so I deem them being that way. It lead to the same direction where you pair musicality to any Snappy amp, and Accuracy toward any Musical amps (typically Tubes)....unless, you want an overwhelming senses of either one

My 2 cents

 

[Beagle]

Hmm... we have a problem.

Second poster here who has been arguing page after page without having heard the headphones! Any more?

And how does one go about that BTW? Arguing without once listening to the headphones in question? And more importantly, why?

Strange practice IMO.

I think it might be a wise idea to open up a separate thread entitled "Sony Z1R....listening impressions". Maybe I'll do that. And this one can continue barreling down the tracks into the abyss.

 

[nordkapp]

I think it might be a wise idea to open up a separate thread entitled "Sony Z1R....listening impressions". Maybe I'll do that. And this one can continue barreling down the tracks into the abyss.

I'm in......do keep us posted!

 

[headr]

I think we can all understand in this age where thousand dollar headphones are common, that there is a push towards understanding how these headphones sound without listening to them. Customers want to be informed of their purchase decisions before spending their hard earned money, and that has partially led many many many people to turn to objective measurements to get these questions answered. The high cost of some of these headphones has also encouraged broad skepticism about price and performance relationships in general.

I think we can all understand fundamentally part of the motivation for learning about a headphone outside of actually listening to it.

The problem is, that even the most staunch "objectivist" will tell you that the measurements will only tell you so much. The picture they paint is one of a shadow on the wall. And those measurements themselves, while they may do a good job of informing customers about certain aspects of the equipment, are not a replacement for actually listening yourself. I believe most objectivists would still weigh subjective listening impressions as the single most important aspect of any potential purchase, doubly so at this price level.

From the angle that people want to be informed and learn about headphones, partially because they may be spending a long time saving up for a big purchase and want to know what they are getting and make sure they make the right decision for themselves, objective measurements help inch them along. The gravity of these purchase decisions has increased along with their price tags.

But I think we can all admit, that endless back and forth about "objective flaws" coming from a peanut gallery of individuals who admittedly have never heard the headphone themselves is a bit counterproductive. These people are fundamentally saying things (and worse, recommending products) based on shadows on a wall. Fundamentally, these people do not understand what objective measurements are telling them, and the incomplete picture that they paint. If they did, they would not be so adament about trying to prove to a community of owners who enjoy said headphone about how objective measurements tell them more than an individual actually sitting there listening to the headphones themselves (as I am as I type this, Fleetwood Mac Rumours for those still interested in listening to music, a classic made better by the Z1R).

I've noticed a trend also among this crowd of individuals who seem unusually focused on objective measurements, that they tend to skew younger. In college, in high school, just out of school on their first job. It is a bit of a combination of:

• lacking the disposable income to make purchases like this very easily and therefore putting disproportionate faith in objective measurements,
  
• a bit of an overzealous young person's over confidence in that they have discovered something no one else has and know the One True Way,
  
• having grown up in hostile and generally toxic environments online, such as twitter, Facebook, and others, where the bully personality dominates, (say what you want about head fi, it bends over backwards to avoid the toxic and overly hostile trap of other communities),
• and it must be said a general immaturity in general towards their approach to discussions like this.

I know that head-fi recently changed forum software, and I am not sure if it is possible, but I think it would be very helpful for equipment threads like this to be able to tag contributors based on whether they own a product, whether they have even heard a product, or whether they are commenting from a position where they neither own nor have heard the product.

I have seen other forums where once contributors are appropriately tagged, other members of the forum can easily filter out responses based on the category. This tagging system could also be used to tag conversations such as those that talk about measurements, so that those who really don't care, can filter those responses out as well.

 

[Beagle]

I'm in......do keep us posted!

It's up..

 

[buzzlulu]

and I just posted to it!

 

[nordkapp]

It's up..

Oh man, am I bad. Could you post me a link.......can't find it.

 

[Undertones]

Spoiler

Wow. We didn't expect or intend for the response to our measurements and comments to be as controversial as they turned out to be. In posting those measurements, as well as my opinions and assumptions about them, we simply wanted to add to the discussion. We certainly didn't post them to stir things up, or to say "I'm right, you're wrong."

• When we first saw Tyll's measurements (and his accompanying impressions), we were--like many of you--surprised. Based on my own subjective experience with the MDR-Z1R, and our observations of the general subjective consensus here on Head-Fi, Tyll's article seemed to us to offer a contrasting assessment.
  
  
• With our curiosity aroused, we then measured our prototype, as well as another Head-Fi'ers production unit. While they weren't exactly alike, we think it fair to say they were similar, and neither exhibited the magnitude of the treble peak shown in InnerFidelity's measurements. To be clear, we did not say our measurements are right or Tyll's are wrong. We simply stated that neither of the MDR-Z1R units we had on hand exhibited the treble peak to the magnitude present in InnerFidelity's findings with the one he has on hand.
  
  
• Our measurements also exhibited significantly lower harmonic distortion, particularly in the bass range, compared to InnerFidelity's. Again, are we saying his measurements are inaccurate or wrong? No. Nor are we saying that our measurements are more accurate or right, relative to InnerFidelity's. We are saying our measurements of the two units we have here showed less total harmonic distortion than Tyll's measurements showed for the unit he had there. Tyll felt the bass distortion he measured looked problematic and assumed/suspected that the distortion he was seeing might be due to excursion-limiting from a small magnet, and I can understand (given what he measured) why he would venture a guess at possible reasons for the distortion he was seeing, because...
  
  
• ...when we review and/or measure, we all have to make a modicum of reasonable assumptions. For example, if we're sent a sample unit (and most of us who get review units usually only get one of a particular model), we assume it's representative of the ones others are purchasing. We, therefore, assume our impressions of the headphone are impressions of a unit representative of the ones others are purchasing. When we measure the headphone, we assume the same about our measurements. Tyll measured a large treble peak and also heard it. We don't doubt him.
  
  
• Discussions of compensation curves came up as one possible cause (as there can certainly be differences between compensation curves--we use the KEMAR DF compensation that was provided to us), so I was asked to post uncompensated measurements. I posted uncompensated frequency response measurements of prototype X009 (since that's the unit I'll be sending to Tyll).

• Today, we wanted to see (using the production unit, since it seems a bit more consistent in terms of measured performance) if we could coax this one into producing a treble peak similar to the one InnerFidelity was seeing and hearing from their unit. To do this, we put the headphone on the head, and we tried to maximize its output around 10 kHz. To get it to peak required gentle nudging while watching the monitor in real time--even very small movements can substantially change levels ~10 kHz. Focusing only on maximizing output ~10 kHz--independent of anything else that we'd usually consider as we position the headphone--we were not able to get the treble peak level that InnerFidelity measured in their uncompensated plot, but we were certainly able to get the ~10 kHz level significantly up versus our normal measurements. Here's InnerFidelity's uncompensated plot (red arrow pointing to it below--it's the bottom plot). (Note that I truncated their X axis down to 20 kHz for an easier comparison (our X axis only goes to 20 kHz.)):

​

• Here's our attempt to maximize ~10 kHz on both channels. Please note that there may be a couple more left-channel (blue) plots than right-channel (red) ones, as we had an easier time coaxing it out of the left channel from positions that looked more normal, so on a couple of the measures we focused solely on the left. Here's what we got:

​

• Again, focusing only on maximizing the output ~10 kHz, we were able to get a higher reading than with our typical measurements, though still not as high as InnerFidelity's measurement shows there. In doing these, the 30 Hz square wave comparison (a technique we first saw Tyll do in a video years ago, and that we and others have since regularly employed) was not the same for the two channels in any single measurement, and more poorly formed than when focusing on getting the square waves as right as the headphone allows. Again, this is because, for this exercise, exacting overall measurement placement wasn't the main focus, maximizing output at ~10 kHz was.
  
  
• We then decided to try something else, which is to do a hybrid between our normal headphone placements for measuring and the above. Specifically, we mounted the headphone for measurement and worked placement as we normally do (including Tyll's square wave tests and other checks). However, once we had it set, we'd then move the earcups in small increments to increase output ~10 kHz (monitoring the measured level in real time) before running the sweeps. The difference from the test above was that we limited the placement and movement to keep the 30 Hz square waves intact and equal between channels (or relatively close anyway). Doing this, we were able to squeeze a few more decibels out ~10 kHz (though not to the extent that we were able to above), with a mild increase in right channel variance down low in a couple of measurements (versus the left), in terms of both frequency response and THD. Here's what we got when doing this:

​

Our conclusion? Again, it is simply too soon for anybody to be drawing firm conclusions as of yet, assuming any firm conclusions will ever be drawn. Again, our frequency response and THD measurements of the two MDR-Z1R's that we have on hand continue to differ from InnerFidelity's measurements of the one they have. This could very well be due to different measurement rigs, or different MDR-Z1R units, or both. We look forward to measuring (and listening to) the unit that Tyll had, and we are sure he looks forward to doing the same with ours. We expect there to be more illuminating discussion, too, but hopefully with fewer snits in britches.

Our measurements also exhibited significantly lower harmonic distortion, particularly in the bass range, compared to InnerFidelity's.

Tyll has a system that is fully capable of showing low distortion and has numerous headphone measurements showing as such.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/NADVISOHP50.pdf

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SonyMDRZ1Rsn3922.pdf

You haven't got some typical headphones used as a comparison point such as the consistent Sennheiser HD600 which is helpful as a comparative tool.

Can you keep all these measurement in a single thread with uncompensated and minimal smoothed measurements as well. Showing the ugly variance of headphone measurements is helpful in getting people who are less knowledgeable to understand that a singular flat line is not real or neutral. Headphones vary a lot with position and compensation curves are based on a mathematically averaged head. Bass measurements can be deceptive due to coupling as well.

To be clear, we did not say our measurements are right or Tyll's are wrong.

What's our conclusion? Right now, we'll assume that perhaps Tyll has an outlier Sony MDR-Z1R.

You declared that Tyll had an outlier on weak evidence. All this confusion could have been avoided if you'd contacted Tyll, done a set of measurements of his Z1R and then done a long blog post. We all make mistakes but much of the confusion caused here was because of hasty conclusions being reached and it being put on the front page of Head-Fi.

There is also a great deal of confusion in understanding what compensation curves are and how they don't represent individuals but an average that could represent you well or poorly.

 

[Beagle]

Oh man, am I bad. Could you post me a link.......can't find it.

HERE

 

[Bern2]

You declared that Tyll had an outlier on weak evidence. All this confusion could have been avoided if you'd contacted Tyll, done a set of measurements of his Z1R and then done a long blog post. We all make mistakes but much of the confusion caused here was because of hasty conclusions being reached and it being put on the front page of Head-Fi.

There is also a great deal of confusion in understanding what compensation curves are and how they don't represent individuals but an average that could represent you well or poorly.

Welcome aboard. All this has already been mentioned. Several times in fact.

 

[Beagle]

We all make mistakes but much of the confusion caused here was because of hasty conclusions being reached and it being put on the front page of Head-Fi.

I'd say a lot of the confusion stemmed from a certain proportion of "contributors" having not actually heard the headphone, instead relying on two different sets of measurements to attempt to determine what it actually sounded like.

 

[wormcycle]

I think the Z1R is an excellent sounding headphone, it is a presentation style that works for some and not all. I agree in principle with using an objective standard to compare against, but given the absence of a universally accepted standard, not saying the current efforts as discussed couldn't provide one; however, be that as it may, as it stands now there is no universal standard. In that context I agree calling something flawed when it might deviate is inaccurate. If we have a standard and everybody is to use it as a target template frankly why bother having different headphones, or even different companies? There could just be one company that produces all headphones in a way that conforms with the universal standard and we would lose the diversity of sound signatures, but we could obtain the goal of a headphone that is perfectly in compliance with a universal standard. What a dumb goal I think. It is precisely the variation in sound signatures and tuning opportunities that make this hobby so compelling. There is room for the Utopia, Z1R, Ether Flow, Stax 009, HD800S and on and on, I love the diversity. I don't want some universal standard to strangle the life out of this hobby.

And the proponents of this universal standard are doing just that if they know it or not. So what should be the correct deviation from perfect reproduction off of this standard? Who will decide that? The only logical conclusion is that there should be no deviation allowed in which case we circle back to only having one sound signature crafted to tightly fit to one universal standard. If we reject that idea, but accept that a standard can be used as a baseline, but accept that all kinds of deviating interpretations can yield a variety of signatures that appeal differently to different people, we have what we have today. So stop coming in here and telling us the Z1R is flawed, nobody has that right, nor is there some hallowed absolute ground to make that determination from. The Z1R is lovely sounding for those who like it, it was designed to sound as it sounds. Nobody will hold a gun to your head and force you to buy. Go and make your own decisions that satisfy your needs, I won't tell you your choices are flawed, so stop telling me and others here that our choices are flawed. It is ridiculous.

I have no reason to question that Z1R are fine headphones. There are no standards therefore no basis for discussing the sound quality, only taste counts. By thaty "logic" if there is some ear piercing crap on the market, as long as some poor sucker is willing to pay few grands for it, everything is fine..That's what makes this hobby so compelling. Right...