[pp312]

Quote:

Quote:

Very insightful post. You hear a lot on these forums about how revealing a certain phone is, and then you hear that the owner is looking for another phone to "complement" the first phone. To me that's a sure sign something isn't quite right, and I think you've put your finger on the problem. For long term listening on a variety of CDs, nothing is more important than low listener fatigue, and for that nothing is more important than a flat frequency response. Large dips and peaks lead to inconsistent results, to a phone sounding great on this CD but just a bit harsh on that, to that sense of unease you get between swooning over how revealing the phone is. If swooning is what you want, then a revealing phone is what you need, but if long-term pleasure is your goal, go for low listener fatigue even if you have to give up the odd speck of detail. IOW, forget the wow factor and go for the hmmmm factor.    

 
I know what you are saying, but needing a flat frequency response is too much of a constraint.  Remember, the frequency response just tells you how loud the specific frequency is, not how it sounds.
Like I said though, I know what you are saying and I agree.  Smooth audio equipment that is not fatiguing is really nice, especially when it also sounds good.

Actually I made a slight error in the wording you've highlighted. It should read: "nothing is more important than to have as flat a frequency response as possible". Obviously a truly flat FR is an impossible goal, but I do believe that a phone with a relatively flat response (I'm talking free of wild deviations, not small wiggles) is the first step toward fatigue-free listening. It isn't the only factor, but it's high on the list of necessary conditions. The HD800 does show some quite major deviations, and while I'm sure its measured results in every other area are exemplary, I can't help wondering if those deviations are contributing to the inconsistent results from one recording to the next. I know my chief criteria when I buy a new headphone is not how great it sounds on the best recordings but how bearable on the worst, and though I can't speak to the 800 as I've never heard it, I have a suspicion from the comments that it isn't always as kind to the worst recordings as some other, less detailed phones. I guess in the end it comes down to your own criteria: whether laser-like precision and a true wow factor is your goal, or overall long-term satisfaction with even the most mediocre recordings in your collection.  
 
 
 
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Very insightful post. You hear a lot on these forums about how revealing a certain phone is, and then you hear that the owner is looking for another phone to "complement" the first phone. To me that's a sure sign something isn't quite right, and I think you've put your finger on the problem. For long term listening on a variety of CDs, nothing is more important than low listener fatigue, and for that nothing is more important than a flat frequency response. Large dips and peaks lead to inconsistent results, to a phone sounding great on this CD but just a bit harsh on that, to that sense of unease you get between swooning over how revealing the phone is. If swooning is what you want, then a revealing phone is what you need, but if long-term pleasure is your goal, go for low listener fatigue even if you have to give up the odd speck of detail. IOW, forget the wow factor and go for the hmmmm factor.    

 
I know what you are saying, but needing a flat frequency response is too much of a constraint.  Remember, the frequency response just tells you how loud the specific frequency is, not how it sounds.
Like I said though, I know what you are saying and I agree.  Smooth audio equipment that is not fatiguing is really nice, especially when it also sounds good.

Actually I made a slight error in the wording you've highlighted. It should read: "nothing is more important than to have as flat a frequency response as possible". Obviously a truly flat FR is an impossible goal, but I do believe that a phone with a relatively flat response (I'm talking free of wild deviations, not small wiggles) is the first step toward fatigue-free listening. It isn't the only factor, but it's high on the list of necessary conditions. The HD800 does show some quite major deviations, and while I'm sure its measured results in every other area are exemplary, I can't help wondering if those deviations are contributing to the inconsistent results from one recording to the next. I know my chief criteria when I buy a new headphone is not how great it sounds on the best recordings but how bearable on the worst, and though I can't speak to the 800 as I've never heard it, I have a suspicion from the comments that it isn't always as kind to the worst recordings as some other, less detailed phones. I guess in the end it comes down to your own criteria: whether laser-like precision and a true wow factor is your goal, or overall long-term satisfaction with even the most mediocre recordings in your collection.  
 
 
 
 

There is NO SUCH THING AS A FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE WITH HEADPHONES.
 

 

[rhythmdevils]

But there is "flat" frequency response as perceived by our ears.  If I'm understanding you right, you are saying that there is no flat FR because what sounds flat to our ears doesn't make a straight, flat line on paper.  But that is just because the measurement gear isn't good enough yet.  It certainly seems possible to make a headphone that sounds completely flat, even though maybe only a few people have ever come close. 

 

[sokolov91]

Pretty sure the concept was that "flatness" in a headphone is enjoyable/desirable -something for designers to strive for, and to some a must for long term enjoyment. Obviously there are many obstacles that are insurmountable by todays meant to achieve a perfectly flat headphone.
 
I didn't read any references to flat headphones existing or being possible.
 
I for one would like to think the LCD-2 are flat in comparisons to most other headphones I have hard. But that is just me.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

But there is "flat" frequency response as perceived by our ears.  If I'm understanding you right, you are saying that there is no flat FR because what sounds flat to our ears doesn't make a straight, flat line on paper.  But that is just because the measurement gear isn't good enough yet.  It certainly seems possible to make a headphone that sounds completely flat, even though maybe only a few people have ever come close. 

You are correct that what sounds flat to our ears does not measure flat, but you are incorrect in your assertion that our measurement gear isn't good enough yet.  It is plenty good.  
 
Everyone hears differently, so the Head Related Transfer Function is unique to each individual.  There is no one headphone that can sound perfect to everyone because of this fact.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Not going against anything you heard, but I do think the HD 800 and LCD-2 are bad headphones to A/B especially at a meet. Going from one to the other will really reveal each headphones flaws, and whichever headphone you are more used to will most certainly be the "normal" sounding one.  
going directly to the HD 800 they sound bright and basslight. Going directly to LCD-2 they sound dark and crowded. If I pick either up first though it is always the second headphone that sounds slightly "wrong" at first.
 
Without knowing either headphone intimately I think it would be tough to come to a conclusion at a meet.
 
my 2c.

I've never thought the HD800 were bass light.  The only times I've thought they were lacking in some dynamics (specifically in the bass) it was because of the amp they were paired with.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

but you are incorrect in your assertion that our measurement gear isn't good enough yet.  It is plenty good.  

This would be referring to microphones with relatively flat frequency responses?
 
I thought microphones were a direct parallel to the headphone world (some strive for the flattest microphones, while others prefer warmer sounding mics).  Obviously for measurements though, flatness is desired.  But I wonder how level they actually are...

 

[dallan]

Quote:

 I know my chief criteria when I buy a new headphone is not how great it sounds on the best recordings but how bearable on the worst, and though I can't speak to the 800 as I've never heard it, I have a suspicion from the comments that it isn't always as kind to the worst recordings as some other, less detailed phones. I guess in the end it comes down to your own criteria: whether laser-like precision and a true wow factor is your goal, or overall long-term satisfaction with even the most mediocre recordings in your collection.  

 
 
 
 

I have to say that a large amount of my collection is audience made concert recordings(archive.org) and while some have better sound than i can believe for that, many are a bit lacking as you can imagine.  I routinely listen to all of them happily on the HD800s and it give a real feeling of being there.  Don't know, just saying........

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Quote:

but you are incorrect in your assertion that our measurement gear isn't good enough yet.  It is plenty good.  

This would be referring to microphones with relatively flat frequency responses?
 
I thought microphones were a direct parallel to the headphone world (some strive for the flattest microphones, while others prefer warmer sounding mics).  Obviously for measurements though, flatness is desired.  But I wonder how level they actually are...

Calibrated lab grade mics are ruler flat.  You seem to be missing my point about HRTF altogether.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

I've never thought the HD800 were bass light.  The only times I've thought they were lacking in some dynamics (specifically in the bass) it was because of the amp they were paired with.

Just listen to the LCD-2 first in the day and viola, the HD800 will sound bass light after that out of the same amp. But if you listen to the HD800 first out of that amp, the bass will seem fine. It's all about relativity and perception.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

Quote:

Actually I made a slight error in the wording you've highlighted. It should read: "nothing is more important than to have as flat a frequency response as possible". Obviously a truly flat FR is an impossible goal, but I do believe that a phone with a relatively flat response (I'm talking free of wild deviations, not small wiggles) is the first step toward fatigue-free listening. It isn't the only factor, but it's high on the list of necessary conditions. The HD800 does show some quite major deviations, and while I'm sure its measured results in every other area are exemplary, I can't help wondering if those deviations are contributing to the inconsistent results from one recording to the next. I know my chief criteria when I buy a new headphone is not how great it sounds on the best recordings but how bearable on the worst, and though I can't speak to the 800 as I've never heard it, I have a suspicion from the comments that it isn't always as kind to the worst recordings as some other, less detailed phones. I guess in the end it comes down to your own criteria: whether laser-like precision and a true wow factor is your goal, or overall long-term satisfaction with even the most mediocre recordings in your collection.  

 
 
 
 

There is NO SUCH THING AS A FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE WITH HEADPHONES.
 

 
 Er, I believe I said that.
 

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

 
Quote:

I've never thought the HD800 were bass light.  The only times I've thought they were lacking in some dynamics (specifically in the bass) it was because of the amp they were paired with.

Just listen to the LCD-2 first in the day and viola, the HD800 will sound bass light after that out of the same amp. But if you listen to the HD800 first out of that amp, the bass will seem fine. It's all about relativity and perception.

Actually, I have, on 2 different amps.  And I thought the LCD2 sounded bass light in comparison.  Maybe that was just because the soundstage was congested and everything sounded muffled to me coming from the HD800, I don't know.  But I know which headphone I prefer.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

You seem to be missing my point about HRTF altogether.

If that's what you think...................... 

 
PS:  I 'seem' to do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they are true.

 

[rgs9200m]

I'm also starting to think that having a single headphone work for all recordings is the real impossible dream.
And if it did, maybe the compromise of one-size-fits-all would not be worth it.
That's the advantage we headphone fans have over the speaker-guys, as we can swap them when needed.
So basically, stop looking for the holy grail and Vive La Difference.
 
Someone wrote above that having multiple sets of phones complement each other means something is fundamentally wrong.
When I sit down to listen, I take out 3 pairs and love hearing how something sounds on each.
I think that should be the goal. If I had a zillion $, I would have multiple listening rooms with cone speakers in one, planars in the other, and horns in the next.
 
And the interesting thing is how the source and recording makes all the difference in the world.
If a great SACD on music I love sounds awesome on my HD800s, I don't question the value of these phones
nor want them to be changed in any way. I accept that they don't perform well in many circumstances.
I really stop blaming the headphone if I see it can sound great with the right recording.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Actually I made a slight error in the wording you've highlighted. It should read: "nothing is more important than to have as flat a frequency response as possible". Obviously a truly flat FR is an impossible goal, but I do believe that a phone with a relatively flat response (I'm talking free of wild deviations, not small wiggles) is the first step toward fatigue-free listening. It isn't the only factor, but it's high on the list of necessary conditions. The HD800 does show some quite major deviations, and while I'm sure its measured results in every other area are exemplary, I can't help wondering if those deviations are contributing to the inconsistent results from one recording to the next. I know my chief criteria when I buy a new headphone is not how great it sounds on the best recordings but how bearable on the worst, and though I can't speak to the 800 as I've never heard it, I have a suspicion from the comments that it isn't always as kind to the worst recordings as some other, less detailed phones. I guess in the end it comes down to your own criteria: whether laser-like precision and a true wow factor is your goal, or overall long-term satisfaction with even the most mediocre recordings in your collection.  

 
 
 
 

There is NO SUCH THING AS A FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE WITH HEADPHONES.
 

 
 Er, I believe I said that.
 

No, you didn't say that, you implied it is a goal.  It is not a goal because a flat response curve would sound terrible and unnatural to the listener.  Most designers know this and don't even play the game.