[KarlStromberg]

I think the problem with a review such as Tyll did was declaring the headphones to be bad. If a lot of people like them, but they are technically flawed and don't meet the reviewer's tastes, are they really "bad"?

For that one reviewer they might feel/measure "bad" and I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to express that in his review. There are enough reviews around, where the reviewer tries to find less clear words, just for the sake of people, who like the product or feel/hear/measure differently or maybe even for their sponsors. However I tend to find reviews more interesting, where the reviewer takes a clear position, without being afraid to annoy anyone. Tyll has his opinion on the headphones and if anyone owns and likes them, they should be able to cope with it or read some review, which suits their opinion better.

 

[nanaholic]

Harman is not a reference just like free-field and diffuse-field aren't. People say that a particular headphone is a good reference headphone but you'll see +5dB differences in loudness between a headphone and a level-matched reference speaker setup on an individual basis. The headphone might get it right in some frequency bands for some people but it won't get it right for everyone and in all frequency bands.

I think you are confusing a couple of things. Your definition of reference is "true perfect accuracy sound production" (which of course, doesn't exists), whereas "reference" here in the head-fi world - at least recently - most certainly means the Harman ideal curve.

Quoting Innerfidility's own post on the matter:
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/acoustic-basis-harman-listener-target-curve

As I explained before (and in these slides) the Harman Headphone Target Response matches the preferred in-room loudspeaker response with some tolerances ( +/-1 dB ) in the preferred bass and treble gain.

And much further down the page, straight from Tyll's own words:

I predict the resulting curves would be similar to the Harman listener preferences and would be an excellent technical definition of a neutral headphone curve.

(Bold emphasis mine)

Because of this, the Harman curve is often held up as the signature to aim for in headphone tuning for what is a neutral headphone, and it seems a number of reviews when it comes to quoting how "accurate" a headphone is, also tries to measure the FR to this curve, and then concluding how "accurate" that phone is based on how close it resembles the Harman curve. And any headphones that deviates too much from this curve is then labeled as technically flawed.

Also if it is as you said there is no "true reference", then would that make most claims that certain headphones being "flawed", or any measurements, meaningless? Of course not and that is certainly not how measurements are used these days. The headphone world currently most definitely have a reference (not THE reference), and that is the Harman curve.

 

[up late]

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.

having a universally accepted headphone frequency response curve doesn't necessarily mean that all headphones would end up sounding the same. loudspeaker designers can already aim for the ideal of achieving a flat frequency response if they wish, and yet it's evident that loudspeakers from different manufacturers don't sound the same. competent designers and manufacturers of loudspeakers and headphones bring a combination of audio engineering chops, their ears and their personal preferences to the task. which is why I find this interminable debate along objectivist/subjectivist party lines so removed from reality.

btw, I'm sorry to learn of your present circumstances and hope that you'll be in a position to acquire another pair of z1r's in the near future.

 

[Undertones]

Undertones, I think you put your finger on the key point when you said, " . . . if you don't like the reviews then don't read them".

That's the problem. Tyll has lost more readers than he has gained by the way he worded the review. It's more out of sadness at losing a reviewer than anything else that is causing the reaction you're seeing.

The only thing Tyll should care about his review being representative of his opinions. If people stop reading his reviews then that isn't his problem and shouldn't be his concern.

I think you are confusing a couple of things. Your definition of reference is "true perfect accuracy sound production" (which of course, doesn't exists), whereas "reference" here in the head-fi world - at least recently - most certainly means the Harman ideal curve.

Quoting Innerfidility's own post on the matter:
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/acoustic-basis-harman-listener-target-curve

As I explained before (and in these slides) the Harman Headphone Target Response matches the preferred in-room loudspeaker response with some tolerances ( +/-1 dB ) in the preferred bass and treble gain.

And much further down the page, straight from Tyll's own words:

I predict the resulting curves would be similar to the Harman listener preferences and would be an excellent technical definition of a neutral headphone curve.

(Bold emphasis mine)

Because of this, the Harman curve is often held up as the signature to aim for in headphone tuning for what is a neutral headphone, and it seems a number of reviews when it comes to quoting how "accurate" a headphone is, also tries to measure the FR to this curve, and then concluding how "accurate" that phone is based on how close it resembles the Harman curve. And any headphones that deviates too much from this curve is then labeled as technically flawed.

Also if it is as you said there is no "true reference", then would that make most claims that certain headphones being "flawed", or any measurements, meaningless? Of course not and that is certainly not how measurements are used these days. The headphone world currently most definitely have a reference (not THE reference), and that is the Harman curve.

The Harman curve is based upon listeners having access to a bass and treble dial and people adjusting it to their preferences for particular headphone tracks. It is then averaged into the Harman curve. Different age brackets did prefer different amounts of bass and treble.

It's not neutral and Tyll is wrong to call it neutral but it's a good target curve to aim that on average people will find pleasing. Neutrality is the frequency response you hear at your eardrum from headphones being the same as the frequency response of speakers in a reference room but even this is an oversimplification as you have the issues of loudspeaker crosstalk, ITL and ITD differences that affect your perception. Thiele has done research on sound pressure level divergence for perception of equal loudness between loudspeakers and headphones.

 

[up late]

And you chaps do understand that by even picking a headphone measurement target in the first place, you are making a subjective preferential decision about what it means for accuracy? So you have one subjective decision (measurement target), and then you can draw objective conclusions from that (maybe, if you are even measuring it "correctly" which is not even well defined).

But no one has to agree with your target choice. In fact, in many cases, all your target choice is saying is what other people prefer!

It's subjectivity all the way down, in either case.

The problem is that people are coming into this thread pretending they are from the Ministry of Truth, and will not be satisfied until everybody recognizes that this headphone is "flawed". It is double plus ungood behavior. I'm not saying you are doing that. But if you don't recognize it is happening, you have blinders on.

I mean, plenty of people have come into this thread, said they listened to the Z1R, and admitted it wasn't for them. Plenty of people have, and will, say they don't like the presentation of the bass, and don't like the presentation of the treble, and some combination in between. No issues.

The issues arise when you have these voices (several of which have not even listened to the Z1R, mind you), continually hounding everyone on why this headphone that this person in question did not even listen to is flawed.

you portray headphone frequency response curves to be so arbitrary in nature that they may as well have been plucked out of thin air on a whim. in the sciences, assumptions or hypotheses are posited and then tested until they are proven or debunked. the Fletcher-Munson curves were arrived at by conducting field research based on an underlying assumption, as is the Harman target response curve. dr olive's scientific research involves objectively analysing subjective responses in a controlled test environment. dismissing this work as "subjectivity all the way down" is misguided imo. do you regard clinical trials in the same way?

I think they would be quite proud, and I think it speaks to the revolutionary nature of the Z1R that it could cause so much controversy. It challenges assumptions about what it means to listen to music, what accuracy means, and it challenges people to define and find their preferences. It challenges the status quo. Sony hasn't had a flagship cause this much emotional response in a while, and I think it speaks to the success they had to truly bring something new to the table.

Of course, for some of us, we simply bought a great sounding headphone, and are thoroughly satisfied. But what the hell do we know? The Z1R is an existential crisis, and who can put a price on that?

i wouldn't call the z1r revolutionary but it is unique. the controversy that it has generated stems from a critical review as I see it and that's nothing new. the separate but related argument over the validity of headphone measurements is also nothing new, but it has been extraordinarily protracted in this thread.

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.

I agree with you for the most part but again, you've made some sweeping generalisations in the bolded text. and you also have the luxury of not having to verify your subjective assertions.

Judging by the responses in this thread, there seems to be a business opportunity to create a movie review aggregator, where by all the reviews are written entirely by people who have not seen the movie. This seems to be the popular trend these days.

fair point with regard to some of the posts in this thread. I've been unimpressed by the folks who have come here to argue at length over a headphone that they haven't actually heard.

 

[Whitigir]

So what exactly is Neutral in Headphones world ? Neutral is the ability to represent the sound, tonal body just as realistic as it is supposed to be in real life. However, such thing is not possible, taken into account that from the moment these energies passed through a microphones and into the composers, engineers, it already got altered. So, the next step up would be to referring the Word "Neutral" to the closest tone of the studio that recorded it originally ? That is why Z1R was tuned in Sony Studio, but then what about other studios ? Composers ? The music industry itself is vast, and with each personal taste, it is almost infinite.

 

[Beagle]

Just want to add to the endless debate about flaws...and reproducing live music in cans.

Some time ago I went to a Dream Theater concert, it's was the 25 years anniversary for the album "images and words". The concert hall where it were held is made for music, the acoustic is one the best I've heard in any concert hall, and it was the second time I heard Dream Theater in this hall. It's seating only which is a little bit strange for metal concert, but probably adds to the perfect acoustic. No matter where you are sitting you get the same impressions/sound.

To get the point... Of all the cans I have heard the one that were closest to the sound in this concert hall, were the B&W P9. Especially the drums were spot on. Talk about a headphone with flaws and polarizing views. Personally I have a love/hate relationship with this headphone and 100% prefer the Z1R. But it does something that no other (I have heard) headphone can do. So what is right and wrong? Did B&W have this in mind when they tuned the P9? I don't know, but who does?

One last thing. I hope Tyll are aware of the power he has in this industry/hobby, with power comes responsibility! Basically the last 30-50 pages is because of one review only.

I made mention of this in the P9 thread. It does a good job of portraying the energy and 'size' of live music...the "gestalt" as HP from TAS used to say.

If you come off of a headphone that is a bit lean in the mid/upper bass, the P9 sounds booming. But against the real thing, it's more in line.

One last thing. I hope Tyll are aware of the power he has in this industry/hobby, with power comes responsibility! Basically the last 30-50 pages is because of one review only.

Well, he is a veteran reviewer, who knows his stuff and has for a long time. I've been aware of Tyll's presence in the headphone realm since around 1994. But "power"? I think you only have power over people who don't think for themselves or don't trust their own ears and judgement. You can use a reviewer as a guideline but he's not a cult leader.

 

[nanaholic]

The Harman curve is based upon listeners having access to a bass and treble dial and people adjusting it to their preferences for particular headphone tracks. It is then averaged into the Harman curve. Different age brackets did prefer different amounts of bass and treble.

It's not neutral and Tyll is wrong to call it neutral but it's a good target curve to aim that on average people will find pleasing. Neutrality is the frequency response you hear at your eardrum from headphones being the same as the frequency response of speakers in a reference room but even this is an oversimplification as you have the issues of loudspeaker crosstalk, ITL and ITD differences that affect your perception. Thiele has done research on sound pressure level divergence for perception of equal loudness between loudspeakers and headphones.

Again I understand all this, but you haven't addressed the elephant in the room - that a lot of recent headphone reviewers or enthusiasts, seems to hold the Harman curve as the gold standard for what would be a "neutral" FR (ie the "reference"), and thus, headphones which comes close to this curve is labeled as neutral/accurate while headphones with large deviation away from that curve is thus often labeled as flawed (including the Z1R in this case)

Now just as you have pointed out that the Harman curve doesn't represent "true neutral" in the headphone world, then would that make criticism of headphones that doesn't aim for that FR curve as "flawed" be in itself, a flawed opinion? That's what this will boil down to....

 

[PCheung]

Thanks, very much appreciated, going to roll that song right after my Deadmau5 tune ends (Slip from Random Album Title).

Edit: Nice suggestion! My daughter got me listening to K-Pop and J-Pop. So I do actually enjoy this music style. We used to watch Sword Art Online and Fairytale together.

Glad you enjoyed it.

J-Pop or Anime song pair well with the Z1R, which I always enjoy it with my WM1Z combo.

 

[headr]

you portray headphone frequency response curves to be so arbitrary in nature that they may as well have been plucked out of thin air on a whim. in the sciences, assumptions or hypotheses are posited and then tested until they are proven or debunked. the Fletcher-Munson curves were arrived at by conducting field research based on an underlying assumption, as is the Harman target response curve. dr olive's scientific research involves objectively analysing subjective responses in a controlled test environment. dismissing this work as "subjectivity all the way down" is misguided imo. do you regard clinical trials in the same way?

Correction: I portray them as if there is no scientific consensus for a frequency response target to model accuracy, which I believe if you peel back all the layers from all the discussion here, is what some people are assuming regarding what frequency response graphs tell them.

Dr Olive's research for the Harman curve "objectively analyzed subjective responses" yes, and the key term in that is: subjective responses. Harman International's research was centered on the desire to sell audio equipment. They wanted to target listener preferences that would reach the widest audience. So they researched what frequency response would give them the highest preference among listeners. They don't care if the music is accurate, they want people to enjoy themselves. In that way, they don't care if they distort the music, as long as it is distorted in such a way that the most people like the sound.

You'll also note that some of the best selling most popular audio equipment sold these days are Beats headphones and Bose speakers. Just sayin'.

If someone is truly chasing accuracy above musical enjoyment - such that it doesn't matter if you want to pour bleach in your ears after listening as long as what you hear matches the artist's intention - the Harman curve is one of the worst frequency response targets to use, because the fundamental basis for it isn't accuracy, but rather people's enjoyment.

So you can see why it is a bit ironic for people to be acosting fans of the Z1R for distorting the artist's intention, while putting the Harman curve on a pedestal of musical accuracy.

Your comparison of frequency response targets to medical trials I think is revealing of a fundamental misunderstanding of frequency response targets. People who follow objective measurements of headphones seem to want to equate things like the Harman curve to the theory of gravity, such that people who deny the Harman curve are akin to flat earthers. But the Harman curve is not like the theory of gravity, it is like a recipe for an omlette. If you averaged people's taste, and wanted to sell a good tasting omlette to the most people, you would have some standard ingredients mixed in a standard way. The Harman curve encapsulates that recipe for audio.

But if someone prefers red chili flakes in their omlette, that doesn't make their recipe "wrong", or "inaccurate".

Yes, you can use words like "science" and "objectivity" to describe the theory of gravity, clinical trials, and headphone measurements. But the expressive power of your conclusions in each area is not the same, and each has a unique frame of reference for the science that needs to be understood, especially before people enter a thread like this and start calling things "flawed".

 

[nordkapp]

I do not believe the issue of Tyll's "not recommended" review is the crux of the hysteria. More likely due to preferring the ATH M50x. It's not exactly considered "high end"-at least in pricing. But that's all fine. It's only another opinion-like all of Headfi. Just opinions people. Kinda like a beauty pageant.

 

[beowulf]

Correct me if I am wrong. So in summation, the Z1R is a musical HP as intended by its designers and the HD800 is more of a tool? To me music should sound, well, musical.

Without having heard the MDR Z1R, I'd say yes, musical... is the aim. Musical doesn't mean that it's lacking resolve of micro/macro detail nor that it's sluggish with it's transients, it's the frequancy response combined with what I would hope is excellent transients that should result in a musical flag ship. I really need to hear it for my self

But the problem is, that Hi Fidelity which we short hand to HiFi by definition is a high degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced
The HD 800 embodies that, it's very exact. Where as the MDR Z1R may... be less Exact and more "musical" and really for it to be advertise as a Hi Fidelity product is a disservice to the community. Some people here seem to want to prove it's fidelity, or it's exact manner of reproduction, but it's already been documented that... exactness isn't it's strong suite.

I have both of these on my desk and haven't been picking up anything else lately, since most of the time they complement each other decently. They are quite different and a hybrid of the two would be perfect, although that is next to impossible to achieve due to design constraints. One advantage turns out to be a problem if you look at it from a different perspective.

In the way I listen, I don't consider the HD800 to be more "accurate", regardless of measurements and reputation. In some cases, it can sound way off and you get the impression it is not revealing the music the way it was being played. Most likely it actually is, but the listener just prefers a slightly different sound. In the same sense, the Z1R sometimes leave me with a "Hmmm this isn't quite right" feeling after listening to the 800, but none of the two is bad (or less enjoyable than an ATH-M50x... hehe).

Different tools for different purposes. Some people mention model X or Y as their "grail" or "endgame". I've heard these comments on Head-Fi for over a decade. It's not going to happen. Every single top model can be linked to a list of flaws, regardless of price or tech. Sadly I don't have an HE-1 here, but if I did, I can assure you that there would be something to bitch about, something wrong or worse than what you'd hear with a different, cheaper set.

While I enjoy reading about technical aspects and accuracy, measurements, ultimately it's the fun factor AND comfort that settle things for me (with the latter being ignored by reviewers way too often).

With certain types of music and recordings/masterings, the Z1R excels at fun, regardless of what it would measure (I'm not even saying it measures poorly). That's the core of the hobby, IMHO: Fun. Comfort. Enjoyment.

Headphones that achieve that well tend to survive the passing of years, regardless of how they were received or looked on paper at launch.

And just for fun, anyone who remembers the 2000s can google comments about some of the cans that are now considered "good classics". No matter which, there's always something wrong about them.
Here's one about the MDR-R10... it seems that just like the Z1R, it was way overpriced...

"Are they worth $4000? This may surprise many of you after reading all my rhapsodic remarks, but I’m afraid the answer for me is “no”. I think they are over-priced for what you get. Build quality is not up to its price tag, period. Sonically, it’s a huge jump up from the $400-$700 headphones most of us are familiar with. If you paid $2500 for them, that would be fair."

Ultimately, time will tell who has placed the bets right, regardless of what we are measuring...

 

[Imperfectionist]

I made mention of this in the P9 thread. It does a good job of portraying the energy and 'size' of live music...the "gestalt" as HP from TAS used to say.

If you come off of a headphone that is a bit lean in the mid/upper bass, the P9 sounds booming. But against the real thing, it's more in line.


Well, he is a veteran reviewer, who knows his stuff and has for a long time. I've been aware of Tyll's presence in the headphone realm since around 1994. But "power"? I think you only have power over people who don't think for themselves or don't trust their own ears and judgement. You can use a reviewer as a guideline but he's not a cult leader.

To be frank, I do not care about Tylls reviews. In actual fact, I came to headfi to get information on the z1r (before purchase) instead of waiting for that certain someone's review. I already knew about his bias against certain sound signatures and I like what I have heard.

 

[Odin412]

I think the problem with a review such as Tyll did was declaring the headphones to be bad. If a lot of people like them, but they are technically flawed and don't meet the reviewer's tastes, are they really "bad"? If a product succeeds in the goals set by the manufacturer, and it satisfies many people, what is the problem? It (they) might be "bad" for some people. If we fix a set of criteria, including the tastes of a person, or a handful of people as what is "good" then we'll end up with a lot of headphones and equipment that only suits that person or people. That would be very boring.

Tylls reviews seem to put a lot of focus on frequency response, especially following the Harman curve. I really hope headphone manufacturers don't all aim to fit the Harman curve as closely as possible - how boring this hobby would become if every headphone sounded the same! I applaud Sony for doing their own thing and going for their own sound. I personally like the Z1R, but I can understand that others won't like it - and that's a big part of why this hobby is fun and enjoyable!

 

[beowulf]

Let's not take this topic too seriously. @Tyll Hertsens and @jude have been in the hobby for ages and - as far as I've seen throughout the years - they mostly respect each other's opinion and methods, even with different preferences sometimes. They're both also experienced enough to be able to stand for their own opinions without needing any followers.

There's a bubble of negativity [herd-like,IMHO] towards the Z1R in "the other places" but this thread is mostly vigorous in the opposite direction, sometimes equally hyped; Nothing new there, it's up to the potential customer to follow some gut and logic to discern between noise and facts.

What I'd like to see is Tyll having an open mind towards the Z1R and considering its strengths a bit more carefully, using more samples he might be receiving. His initial impression was - in my opinion - excessively negative, but I also believe it was not intentional at all. In parallel, Jude likes the Z1R, so it will be interesting to read his fresh thoughts on some negatives, probably taking into account more measurement data too. An open mind on both sides might yield a good twistaroo to the story.

I find quite interesting that these two guys are diverging on a model that I know very well by now [and really like in general] and I'm very curious to see how their opinions about it mature after more exploration.

Tyll had some good points and knows his stuff, Jude has some good points (and awesome new gear to provide a lot of interesting measurements) so let's give these guys some space and time to get to know the Z1R, without taking it too personal...