[earfonia]

Thanks Jude! Very informative interview, I learnt a lot from it.

 
But one thing puzzles me, when a pair of headphones is designed to mimic a stereo speakers, how will it performs with binaural recordings 

Binaural recordings sound best on headphone, and not on speaker system, if a headphone is designed to sound like speaker system, then....

 

 

[TheDreamthinker]

 
Thanks Dreamthinker, that does make sense now.   It's a very interesting subject.   As MayorDomino says above, who were the people that were asked -  a random cross-section or people who are after a high-fidelity, therefore a "neutral" sound?
 
I suppose that many "mainstream" headphone manufacturers - if they are trying to capture the biggest share of the market possible - are doing their best to approximate a sound that will appeal to the widest number,  or the widest number within a certain musical preference demographic.  I presume each manufacturer has a different idea of what that would actually be since they all have different sound signatures and it has been the trend for a while for many headphones to emphasise bass response rather than be neutral.   
 
Jeb. 

From what I heard I they also conducted research on golden ears (although only vaguely explained) - it seems that they concluded that there are no vast difference between 'golden ears' and 'normal people'. So I suppose they tested these on different people of different backgrounds. 
I could be wrong - i currently cannot rewatch the video in order to reconfirm.
 
Again I do not have the papers, so i cannot independently confirm the statements.
 
It should be noted that the NRC conducted these test on speakers and not on headphones which have vastly different properties. And looking at the evolution of speakers since that research, we can see that speakers have not molded into one and all sound identical (in accordance to these findings).
Every company (Consonance, Magico, Linn, WilsonAudio...) all sound different and have their own characteristics (at different price points) - simply because the perfect, agreeable sound signature is not the ultimate goal. The goal is to create and carve out a unique character which makes each producer stand out from the crowed and caters to a certain listener/fan-base.
 
From what i suppose, that for young audio companies (beats, bose...) this neutral sound is not the goal, because this is not what the target audience wants. Young people these days tend to prefer a bassier sound because this is how they experience music on a day-to-day basis.
They probably would find this sound signature understandable or even appealing - but in the end go back to what they know (and they think is therefore superior), namely their bass boosted colourful plastic headphone.
 
---
 
Your statement which implies the correlation:
 
Neutral = high fidelity = audiophile sound = audiophile's target sound signature = our sound signature (which we all aim for).
 
is not something which i can confirm. (Mr Barton speaks of measured neutral sound which results in being bass light and not enjoyable)
 
Although yes the (perceived) neutral sound is probably the most versatile and agreeable (see the research they talk about). This is not necessarily what people (also us audiophile) are looking for in our purchases. 
We all have individual preferences which we (for one reason or another) prefer to the scientifically perfect.
 
If your statement were valid, Grado Labs for example would have gone out of business 60 years ago. But they still have a loyal base of followers. Because there are people not looking for neutral.
 
For demonstration purposes (picture by fellow head-fi'er kayandjohn):

qed.

 

[Jeb Listens]

From what I heard I they also conducted research on golden ears (although only vaguely explained) - it seems that they concluded that there are no vast difference between 'golden ears' and 'normal people'. So I suppose they tested these on different people of different backgrounds. 
I could be wrong - i currently cannot rewatch the video in order to reconfirm.

Again I do not have the papers, so i cannot independently confirm the statements.

It should be noted that the NRC conducted these test on speakers and not on headphones which have vastly different properties. And looking at the evolution of speakers since that research, we can see that speakers have not molded into one and all sound identical (in accordance to these findings).
Every company (Consonance, Magico, Linn, WilsonAudio...) all sound different and have their own characteristics (at different price points) - simply because the perfect, agreeable sound signature is not the ultimate goal. The goal is to create and carve out a unique character which makes each producer stand out from the crowed and caters to a certain listener/fan-base.

From what i suppose, that for young audio companies (beats, bose...) this neutral sound is not the goal, because this is not what the target audience wants. Young people these days tend to prefer a bassier sound because this is how they experience music on a day-to-day basis.
They probably would find this sound signature understandable or even appealing - but in the end go back to what they know (and they think is therefore superior), namely their bass boosted colourful plastic headphone.

---

Your statement which implies the correlation:

Neutral = high fidelity = audiophile sound = audiophile's target sound signature = our sound signature (which we all aim for).

is not something which i can confirm. (Mr Barton speaks of measured neutral sound which results in being bass light and not enjoyable)

Although yes the (perceived) neutral sound is probably the most versatile and agreeable (see the research they talk about). This is not necessarily what people (also us audiophile) are looking for in our purchases. 
We all have individual preferences which we (for one reason or another) prefer to the scientifically perfect.

If your statement were valid, Grado Labs for example would have gone out of business 60 years ago. But they still have a loyal base of followers. Because there are people not looking for neutral.

For demonstration purposes (picture by fellow head-fi'er kayandjohn):


qed.

Excellent post and explanation - thanks for taking the time to write it. I'm yet to hear a Grado but very much looking forward to!

All the best,

Jeb.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

Excellent post and explanation - thanks for taking the time to write it. I'm yet to hear a Grado but very much looking forward to!

All the best,

Jeb.

Always happy to help.
Of course this is just my personal take on things. Everybody is welcome to add to it.
 
Grados are great headphones if one happens to like that type of sound signature.
Fast, in-your-face attack, small soundstage, treble focus...all that jazz (no pun intended). The UK should have a few stores selling them. Remember having visited one a (long) while back.
Never buy them outside the US. Get a friend/family member to bring them over - saves you 1/3 of the price.

 

[Bansaku]

I have read several papers and articles on both Paul Barton and the NRC. Needless to say Paul's work literally changed the home Hi-Fi speaker market. As a youth I played around with some of my Dad's stage monitors and hi-fi loudspeakers from the 1960's and early 1970's and can tell you first hand it was a mess! Think of how headphones are today and how much variety in sound there is. Terms like bleeding bass, recessed mids, or 'sibilance' simply do not apply to modern day loudspeakers. In my opinion headphone manufacturers need to wake up and take note as to what Paul is doing, again. There needs to be a standard, and I have faith/confidence once Mr. Barton has finalized his research other manufactures will follow.
 
Have you ever listened to music through an amplifier and loudspeakers? Of course we all have, whether it be a home hi-fi system or a night out at the movies. Do you think they all sound bad? Like with everything technology wise some perform better than others; Virtually all technology has a standard. Once you have a standard it then comes down to quality of the output of certain device over their competition.
 
I know some of you folks think a standard might conflict with your personal taste in a sound signature. Not to your liking? There is a reason such things like the bass/treble knobs and equalizers exist. No offence but some people need to ditch their purist attitude. I often wonder if they purchase an HDTV, take it home and set it up, and NOT adjust such things like backlighting, contrast and hue. It would be pretty silly if they didn't and returned the TV because the picture was not to their liking and they never touched any of the picture adjustments. My 2 cents.
 
The way I see it present day headphones are like Hanna Barbera's Wacky Races, while modern loudspeakers are akin to Iroc or F1. 

 
 

 
Having heard the M4U 2, I can attest that they are headphones where I personally could not find any immediate fault. Every frequency was pretty much where it was supposed to be, the soundstage was fairly expansive, the placement was fine.
Unexciting, yes - but very competent and enjoyable. As I described above - neutral-warmish sound, a sound how it is 'supposed to be' for casual listening.
 
 

 
Was ANC important to you when you auditioned the M4U 2? If not highly recommend trying the M4U 1 and pairing it with a really good DAC/amp. In reading review comparisons the M4U 1 is a slight improvement in sound quality in the upper-mids/lower treble vs M4U 2. Neutral-warm is how I would describe the HD598. I would also not use the word 'unexciting' at all to describe them. I prefer to listen to high energy genres like SynthPop or PowerMetal on my M4U 1 over my DT 770 or SR-60. 
 

 

 

[TheDreamthinker]

  I have read several papers and articles on both Paul Barton and the NRC. Needless to say Paul's work literally changed the home Hi-Fi speaker market. As a youth I played around with some of my Dad's stage monitors and hi-fi loudspeakers from the 1960's and early 1970's and can tell you first hand it was a mess! Think of how headphones are today and how much variety in sound there is. Terms like bleeding bass, recessed mids, or 'sibilance' simply do not apply to modern day loudspeakers. In my opinion headphone manufacturers need to wake up and take note as to what Paul is doing, again. There needs to be a standard, and I have faith/confidence once Mr. Barton has finalized his research other manufactures will follow.
 
Have you ever listened to music through an amplifier and loudspeakers? Of course we all have, whether it be a home hi-fi system or a night out at the movies. Do you think they all sound bad? Like with everything technology wise some perform better than others; Virtually all technology has a standard. Once you have a standard it then comes down to quality of the output of certain device over their competition.
 
I know some of you folks think a standard might conflict with your personal taste in a sound signature. Not to your liking? There is a reason such things like the bass/treble knobs and equalizers exist. No offence but some people need to ditch their purist attitude. I often wonder if they purchase an HDTV, take it home and set it up, and NOT adjust such things like backlighting, contrast and hue. It would be pretty silly if they didn't and returned the TV because the picture was not to their liking and they never touched any of the picture adjustments. My 2 cents.
 
The way I see it present day headphones are like Hanna Barbera's Wacky Races, while modern loudspeakers are akin to Iroc or F1. 

 
----
 
Was ANC important to you when you auditioned the M4U 2? If not highly recommend trying the M4U 1 and pairing it with a really good DAC/amp. In reading review comparisons the M4U 1 is a slight improvement in sound quality in the upper-mids/lower treble vs M4U 2. Neutral-warm is how I would describe the HD598. I would also not use the word 'unexciting' at all to describe them. I prefer to listen to high energy genres like SynthPop or PowerMetal on my M4U 1 over my DT 770 or SR-60. 
 

 

Thanks for your input.
 
The 'standardisation' is probably the reason why I have yet to find a speaker which inherently sounds bad. From my Notebook loudspeakers, over my Technics home speaker on the bookshelf, to the $50.000 speaker setup a relative owns in his listening room. I have not yet come across something which sounds absolutely off.
- Comparing this to the headphone / portable audio space, one notices how this standard is not yet established and all companies are doing something (very) different from one another. But again i  think this standard will establish itself over time, once manufacturers see what has worked on the speakers market.
 
On the other hand this inconsistency is what makes the Head-Fi business so interesting...it is still very much evolving and changing (for the better or for the worse) - we have many exciting things to choose from in this hobby.
 
---
 
To my surprise it had less an effect on the sound than I would have expected. I previously owned a Denon NC732, which sounded very congested without the NC. Here it had more of an amping effect and created that 'pressure'-feeling usually attributed with NC.
The M4U 2 has three modes: 
 

1. Nothing on (pure)
2. NC on
3. internal Amp on

 
I must say although the sound is changes by the different modes, i do not find that the sound is altered considerably. I preferred the NC on mode over the other two, mostly because of the perceived volume boost due to the NC. I have not had a chance to listen to the M4U 1. 
From what i can tell the M4U 2 is the closest I have yet heard a headphone comes to a speaker (in terms of tonal balance).
 
It really depends on the understanding of 'exciting'. 
To me exciting headphones/iems are those which have extreme decay properties and a treble emphasis. Say the ER4s and the SR325is - listening to high energy music on higher volume (especially the SR325is + MacIntosh) gives me goosebumps.
Due to this I have never head a warm iem sounding exciting. The M4U 2 is capable of delivering fast music, but the overall tonal balance doesn't give me goosebumps.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Jeff Y]

  Thanks for your input.
 
The 'standardisation' is probably the reason why I have yet to find a speaker which inherently sounds bad. From my Notebook loudspeakers, over my Technics home speaker on the bookshelf, to the $50.000 speaker setup a relative owns in his listening room. I have not yet come across something which sounds absolutely off.
- Comparing this to the headphone / portable audio space, one notices how this standard is not yet established and all companies are doing something (very) different from one another. But again i  think this standard will establish itself over time, once manufacturers see what has worked on the speakers market.
 
On the other hand this inconsistency is what makes the Head-Fi business so interesting...it is still very much evolving and changing (for the better or for the worse) - we have many exciting things to choose from in this hobby.
 
---
 
To my surprise it had less an effect on the sound than I would have expected. I previously owned a Denon NC732, which sounded very congested without the NC. Here it had more of an amping effect and created that 'pressure'-feeling usually attributed with NC.
The M4U 2 has three modes: 
 

1. Nothing on (pure)
2. NC on
3. internal Amp on

 
I must say although the sound is changes by the different modes, i do not find that the sound is altered considerably. I preferred the NC on mode over the other two, mostly because of the perceived volume boost due to the NC. I have not had a chance to listen to the M4U 1. 
From what i can tell the M4U 2 is the closest I have yet heard a headphone comes to a speaker (in terms of tonal balance).
 
It really depends on the understanding of 'exciting'. 
To me exciting headphones/iems are those which have extreme decay properties and a treble emphasis. Say the ER4s and the SR325is - listening to high energy music on higher volume (especially the SR325is + MacIntosh) gives me goosebumps.
Due to this I have never head a warm iem sounding exciting. The M4U 2 is capable of delivering fast music, but the overall tonal balance doesn't give me goosebumps.

Thanks for reading.

Wondering if you have heard the NAD Viso HP50s but I personally found the M4U2 to be a little laid back to my tastes, especially with the amp off. If I were to be some average guy with a phone who has been used to most noise-cancelers (Bose, Beats), I would love them but as an audiophile with a portable player with a good amp, the amp thing just turns me down. Plus, it was heavy and the NC doesn't really help out the sound but made it messier imo.
With all that pushed aside however, I am waiting for the new phones! Cheers.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

  Wondering if you have heard the NAD Viso HP50s but I personally found the M4U2 to be a little laid back to my tastes, especially with the amp off. If I were to be some average guy with a phone who has been used to most noise-cancelers (Bose, Beats), I would love them but as an audiophile with a portable player with a good amp, the amp thing just turns me down. Plus, it was heavy and the NC doesn't really help out the sound but made it messier imo.
With all that pushed aside however, I am waiting for the new phones! Cheers.

No, I haven't yet heard the HP50 (interesting headband design though).
 
DIfferent hearing expereinces...

To me they also lacked that treble sparkle which to make music sound engaging. But for long haul flights i guess this warm sound is less fatiguing.
 
The biggest drawback for me was the weight. These are good for frequent flyers, but for everyday use they are simply to cumbersome and as you said - heavy.
Currently my ER4s is noise isolating enough for my needs.

 

[coletrain104]

Really cool stuff, its always nice to hear the ideas of someone whose job (type of job, not trying to replace him ) I aspire to have myself. I can't comment on the HP50, but the M4U1 sounded incredibly natural and real to me when I listened to it (admittedly before I knew much about audio). I do wish the earholes were a bit larger side-to-side, but regardless, its a nice headphone

 

[LajostheHun]

The NAD Viso HP50 is my reference can, it really does everything well, if not excellent, and yes it reminds me best of my speaker set up at home as far it's tonal balance goes. All my other cans introduce major colorations, some enjoyable some isn't, It won't need fancy amps and DACS to sound it's best, though it can't hurt either.Now if anyone can chime in with their experience with the HP20 IEM it would be great.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

  The NAD Viso HP50 is my reference can, it really does everything well, if not excellent, and yes it reminds me best of my speaker set up at home as far it's tonal balance goes. All my other cans introduce major colorations, some enjoyable some isn't, It won't need fancy amps and DACS to sound it's best, though it can't hurt either.Now if anyone can chime in with their experience with the HP20 IEM it would be great.

The NAD Viso HP50 is beginning to be quite tempting...except for the unusual headband design.

 

[intlsubband]

  The NAD Viso HP50 is beginning to be quite tempting...except for the unusual headband design.

 
I prefer the PSB (I own both). The headband design is definitely comfier with the PSB, and to my ears, it sounds slightly better (though they are very close). Internal amp is the clincher - it matches the headphones beautifully, and you don't need to worry about carrying a portable amp around.

 

[TheDreamthinker]

 
I prefer the PSB (I own both). The headband design is definitely comfier with the PSB, and to my ears, it sounds slightly better (though they are very close). Internal amp is the clincher - it matches the headphones beautifully, and you don't need to worry about carrying a portable amp around.

Thanks for the input.
 
This is essentially the goal of integrating an amp circuit into the headphone itself. Yet it also makes the headphone very heavy and somewhat impractical and/or uncomfortable. 
In the case of the M4U 2, I found the weight to be more of an issue than the comfort (good clamping force and nice cup material). But using it for some time without any neck support was to me not ideal. 
i can imagine it working in a lying position, flight seat (preferably business) or home armchair. But not commuting or extended periods of walking.

 

[intlsubband]

  Thanks for the input.
 
This is essentially the goal of integrating an amp circuit into the headphone itself. Yet it also makes the headphone very heavy and somewhat impractical and/or uncomfortable. 
In the case of the M4U 2, I found the weight to be more of an issue than the comfort (good clamping force and nice cup material). But using it for some time without any neck support was to me not ideal. 
i can imagine it working in a lying position, flight seat (preferably business) or home armchair. But not commuting or extended periods of walking.

 
This is really where it becomes a matter for personal choice, and why it's always a good idea to test headphones if you can before purchase. For me personally the weight is not an issue. I have it on for most of the day (in the office, and on the train), and even in long-haul flights it doesn't leave my head, but I find it very comfy and I don't feel the weight at all. But I'm perfectly aware that I'm much less sensitive to weight than others (my home reference can is the HE-500, which is even heavier, yet once it's on my head I don't really feel the weight).

 

[TheDreamthinker]

 
This is really where it becomes a matter for personal choice, and why it's always a good idea to test headphones if you can before purchase. For me personally the weight is not an issue. I have it on for most of the day (in the office, and on the train), and even in long-haul flights it doesn't leave my head, but I find it very comfy and I don't feel the weight at all. But I'm perfectly aware that I'm much less sensitive to weight than others (my home reference can is the HE-500, which is even heavier, yet once it's on my head I don't really feel the weight).

You must have impeccable neck muscles...

 
But yes, apart from the headphone's properties the fit is obviously also determined by the wearer's anatomy. I must say that to me the weight is the major deterring factor, apart from the plastic build quality. Although i do not find it bad as good plastics are used and some metal part make up the hinges, I never was a fan of glossy plastic to begin with (see white version).
 
Yet i must commend PSB for equalising the weight of both earcups. Unlike some other NC headphones i have tried, the weight on the M4U 2 is fairly equal. Add to this the metal hinges, foldability and one sided cable and one gets a well though out headphone.
But is the cable actually replaceable with 3rd party cables (U shape at the bottom of the cups)?