[SP Wild]

Quote:

Just to clear some point.
First, I think condenser type MIC is more than enough to measure THD. If the MIC is distorting, than the figure would only be greater not smaller.
So since I can get lower than 0.05% from one test, we should assume that the MIC's distortion is smaller than 0.05%.
 
Second, you mentioned that HD600's official measurement is smaller than 0.1% THD, that's true! I got even better result from it.
But please remember, it's THD with 1k sine wave! What I wanted to express is across spectrum measurements.
Since my LCD-2 is still under burning in, I didn't really recorded the measure result, just a quick test and post the impression data.
But I did have my HD600's result saved in my hard disk.
Here it is:
 
THD under 1k sine:

 
It's even greater with higher frequency:
THD@4k:

 
than the THD rise a little higher in lower frequency:
 
500Hz:

 
100Hz:

 
I didn't save lower frequency test result but it's not going to be better. On the other hand, the new LCD-2 has very consistent result from 100~2000Hz
It didn't do better with 1kHz sine wave than HD600, but just more consistent through the spectrum.
 
Quote:

 

OK, I never realised distortion measurements are obtained using sinewaves.  This explains why most cans measure so immaculately, in terms of the laws of physics, sinewaves are easy on inertia and g forces with a gentle acceleration rate.  What is stopping you from using square waves to measure distortion? These are physically impossible to recreate.  The closer we come to impossibility, the closer we come to perfection.

 

[kwkarth]

You guys do not know what you're talking about, so why not move this THD discussion to the sound science forum and not clutter this discussion with misunderstandings.  This thread topic is about lcd-2 vs. hd800, not about how to measure thd, what thd is, etc... thanks

 

[donthuang]

You guys do not know what you're talking about, so why not move this THD discussion to the sound science forum and not clutter this discussion with misunderstandings.  This thread topic is about lcd-2 vs. hd800, not about how to measure thd, what thd is, etc... thanks

All right, IMO, THD and freqency response not so matter to headphone, a mini full-range driver close to ear.
(Human ear are not linear,i mean, much "inaccurate" than we imaging.)

But Dynamics and transient matters , that's the true limits of those Orthodynamics.
Those new Orthodynamics more like Grados, is vintage headphone's "Renaissance".

InnerSpace says the "Microphone -type " and "Speaker-type" different, it's not so wrong,at least.

 

[killkli]

Err... I think no THD measure would use square wave, because square wave is in fact, not a single frequency wave but infinite sine wave overlapping.
It would be impossible to have any THD result from such save single. 
Though one can indeed see whether the square shape is reproduce better or worse.
 
btw. I just want to clear the points. More, if THD really has no importance, why most producer still would state their THD in the product's specification page?
 
If I remember correctly, the THD of HD800 is very much lower than other Sennheiser product. Direct quote from Sennheiser page:
"

[td] THD, total harmonic distortion[/td] [td] ≤0.02 % (1kHz/1Vrms)[/td]

"
Why this couldn't be a point for whether a headphone performing well or not? Some are good, some are bad, and from my experience with several headphones, the result indeed has subjective relation with subjective listening experience. 
 
Though, this is just one aspect about headphone, just like what donthuang said, there are more to say about dynamic and so on.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Err... I think no THD measure would use square wave, because square wave is in fact, not a single frequency wave but infinite sine wave overlapping.
It would be impossible to have any THD result from such save single. 
Though one can indeed see whether the square shape is reproduce better or worse.
 

As much as this theory appeals to some, it displays a lack of understanding of what THD is, so let's drop it from this thread, ok?
 

 

[killkli]

Quote:

As much as this theory appeals to some, it displays a lack of understanding of what THD is, so let's drop it from this thread, ok?
 

I don't know where did I get wrong? Please point it out to me. Tell me how could you measure THD with a "square wave."
If not in the thread, personal message would be welcome. One don't just drop off and saying that "you got it wrong" but with no explanation at all.
It's quite rude.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

I don't know where did I get wrong? Please point it out to me. Tell me how could you measure THD with a "square wave."
If not in the thread, personal message would be welcome. One don't just drop off and saying that "you got it wrong" but with no explanation at all.
It's quite rude.

You can't measure THD with a square wave.  This is not the place to discuss it though.  this thread is about LCD-2s and HD-800s, not THD in a HD-600.
The spectral / frequency domain vs. time domain of a square wave would be a fun discussion, but not in this thread.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

And we could use you as an example too, not really sure what your W1000X mod has done but it has a nice juicy midbass hump. If you find that kind of bass "detailed" it suggests you prefer an uneven presentation of that region which seems to be pretty common with people who dislike the LCD-2. Same thing I would imagine for the HP-2 as a grado, but its just speculation as I have never heard those grados.

I think that's too much of a stretch - and reading too much into things (a lot of other stuff I've owned is not listed). To clarify, the "bass detail" I was referring to were the harmonics, the little fuzzy things, the low-level information, which are way up the frequency band. Perhaps a better way to put it is the "little details when there is loud bass." But even then, this was simply an illustration referring a specific LCD2 behavior during a Bob Marley track. I can't quite put my finger on it, but epoc's suggestion about the "congestion" on the high end may be a better description.   
 
Quote:

Awesome post!!  Sorry for forgetting, but I can't remember who you were at the meet.  Were you the Asian male, probably early 20s, that sat a few seats from me and talked about getting a O2/717 system?  Or were you the guy in the opposite corner of the room from me?
 

 
Indeed, epocs was the young asian guy a few seats down from you who was hogging up your rig!
 

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

 
Quote:

I think that's too much of a stretch. To clarify, the "bass detail" I was referring to were the harmonics, the little fuzzy things, the low-level information, which are way up the frequency band. Perhaps a better way to put it is the "little details when there is loud bass." But even then, this was simply an illustration referring the the LCD2's behavior during a Bob Marley track. I can't quite put my finger on it, but epoc's suggestion about the "congestion" on the high end may be a better description.  
 

 
Could you be more specific about the track, what you hear, and what you expected to hear? Congestion in the little fuzzy things is too vague for me to have a listen for... and I am curious about what it is that you hear.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

 
 
Could you be more specific about the track, what you hear, and what you expected to hear? Congestion in the little fuzzy things is too vague for me to have a listen for... and I am curious about what it is that you hear.

 
Bob Marley - Legend - Track 11. Waiting in Vain (or others too):
The bass-guitar texture, the attack, the string harmonics (not the bass) - LCD2 seemed to obscure these.
This was in direct comparison with pcf's Grado HP1i (the "i" meaning Joe Grado himself tweaked, replaced, or put voodoo magic on it) Both fed from the PWD/Peak.
 
K.D. Lang - Hymns... - Track 11. Love is Everything
Both sounded great.
This was in direct comparison with pcf's Grado HP1i.
 
Other music (various):
General timbre, texture, harmonics, etc. - LCD2 seemed to obscure these compared to below:
In indirect comparison to HD800<-Woo Audio 6SE (don't know what driver tubes and Sophia rectifier - this was epoc's rig)
In indirect comparison to STAX O2<-BH and STAX SR507<-Frank Cooter's DIY amp. This one wasn't even close.
 
I had two LCD2s at my table (and up to four at one point). rhythmdevils claimed one of them was more clear than the other. I'm not sure which one I used. Maybe I used a defective one or maybe there is a wide variance from production?
 
One thing I want to point out is that all of these setups were highly resolving. Most people are not going to have the DACs or amps for these observations to be relevant, i.e. there would be no point if I used, say a AMB γ2 -> Melos (modified), because even this setup (not that it is bad) would not even have the resolution to matter. The weakest sources probably at epoc's and Frank's setups (can't remember exactly what their CD Players were, but they were probably mid-end up.)

 

[MrGreen]

ope

Quote:

You guys do not know what you're talking about, so why not move this THD discussion to the sound science forum and not clutter this discussion with misunderstandings.  This thread topic is about lcd-2 vs. hd800, not about how to measure thd, what thd is, etc... thanks

I'm sure you can find Harmonic Distortion with a series of odd multiple harmonics of sine waves if you remove the fundamental of the resulting square wave. But that would provide only a limited shot. I also believe you can now do it (THD) with a logarithmic sweep with some programs using the Farina method documented here http://www.acoustics.net/objects/pdf/article_farina02.pdf but I haven't had the time to really digest the paper as I've been quite busy.
 
Quote:

I have a myriad of theories in my head that I wish Mr. Hertsen could test for me, but he is not under any obligation to test everyone's wild ideas.  I interpreted the square waves at 30hz as an indication supporting what I hear, that the LCD2s treble, whilst not as prominent as the HD800s, sounded more precise and cleaner to me...more resolution, transparency and tactile in the treble ranges.  This I theorised, is because as a soundwave approaches higher frequency, the peaks and troughs will become more angular and less rounded.  The 30hz signal is a signal containing a 90 degree angle...or infinite acceleration...the LCD2 is closest to infinite acceleration than any other measured headphone.  If it can track that angle more accurately, it will track treble waves more accurately.  My subjective hearing supports my crazy hypothesis...just ask my mind.

I certainly hear a cleaner low end from the LCD-2 as well, but my suggestions aren't really a "crazy hypothesis", it's a well documented extrapolation on what a loudspeaker vs a headphone should sound like. I definitely agree the lower end sounds cleaner on the LCD-2, but from my understanding the sine wave should be slightly rounder or at the very least, not slope downward. It's hard to say, as I'm not too familiar with Tyll's method, which is why I asked him about it.
 
FWIW I also think the LCD-2 had a cleaner bass end than my current Stax Lambda Signature setup, but I preferred the stax in every other area.
 

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by purrin /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Other music (various): General timbre, texture, harmonics, etc. - LCD2 seemed to obscure these compared to below:
In indirect comparison to HD800<Woo Audio 6SE (don't know what driver tubes and Sophia rectifier - this was epoc's rig)
In indirect comparison to STAX O2<-BH and STAX SR507<-Frank Cooter's DIY amp. This one wasn't even close.

 
I have a fairly ordinary dac (price wise) and my findings match yours in my brief exposure, although the setups I was comparing it to were probably a step short of a BH and a 507 and I agree for the most part, however I think I described it as slightly congested and further a bit "heavy" sounding

 

[purrin]

• To reiterate, the major fault I find with the LCD2 is its inability to clearly reproduce low level information that high-end sources and transparent amps are capable of. For 80% of head-fiers, this fault may not be perceivable; even if perceivable, it would not necessarily be an important factor or criterion.
• The extent of the heaviness, over/under-damping, solidness, earth-ness, or whatever for lack of better term, are not to my personal preference, but I could probably adjust to it if I lived with the LCD2 for a while, or maybe not. 
  
• The dark sounding aspect: I did not think the LCD2 was dark on the good setups I heard. The bass is clean. The tonal balance is fine. The lack of serious resonance peaks is re-assuring.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

• To reiterate, the fault I find with the LCD2 is its inability to clearly reproduce low level information that high-end sources and transparent amps are capable of outputting. For 80% of head-fiers, this fault will not be perceivable; even if perceivable, it would not necessarily be a important factor or criterion.

 
(snip)

Funny, but in direct comparisons between the HD800 and the LCD-2, using several different systems, I have never found the HD800 to retrieve any low level detail that the LCD-2 did not.  They can be presented slightly differently, of course, but there were actually times I heard things via the LCD-2 that I felt the HD800 missed.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Funny, but in direct comparisons between the HD800 and the LCD-2, using several different systems, I have never found the HD800 to retrieve any low level detail that the LCD-2 did not.  They can be presented slightly differently, of course, but there were actually times I heard things via the LCD-2 that I felt the HD800 missed.

The only time I heard the HD800 present detail differently to the LCD-2 was in treble (and at times it was very grating). I legitimately felt like the stax setup I was listening to (and eventually bought a similar one of) presented additional details compared to the LCD-2 across the spectrum, or at least presented them in a way that was more obvious.
 
I haven't heard them side-by-side but I seem to have a fairly good memory for this kind of thing and it was always with the same tracks.
 
Do you still like the R10 more than the LCD-2, Skylab?

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Funny, but in direct comparisons between the HD800 and the LCD-2, using several different systems, I have never found the HD800 to retrieve any low level detail that the LCD-2 did not.  They can be presented slightly differently, of course, but there were actually times I heard things via the LCD-2 that I felt the HD800 missed.

This was the closest (and least direct) of the comparisons above with a edge to the HD800 for me. The "sound-floor" of these two headphones, if you know what I mean, is very different. The HD800 seems to have a fluctuating threshold consistent throughout the entire audio band, whereas the LCD-2 sound-floor threshold was more predictable, to the point, and higher at certain bands (treble) than others (it had the most difficulty when there was a lot of "stuff" going on). The HD800 produced the lowest level information with a delicate fuzz, whereas the LCD2 either squished down the lowest level information or produced it more cleanly. I hope this makes sense. Could be DAC differences though.