[rhythmdevils]

Wow, thanks for the link to the Bink audio test CD!  I've been wanting something like this for awhile.  This will be great for tuning orthos and will be interesting to reference my own hearing with these.  Nice. 
 
Good thing I read the info.txt.  Could have easily played the sine waves through my speakers....

 

[MrSpenkelink]

Laugh Out Loud!
 
Well you've been given the tools. Now go do some good with them citizen.

 

[Skylab]

 
Quote:

Quote:

IMHO, I don't think it's fair to compare headphones using tube-amps since they add coloring and distortions. Tube amps would no doubt be an advantage to the HD800 because of their warmth and the smooth top end, but for the LCD-2, it'll be like using a warm filter on tungsten lit setup using daylight film.
And personally, I find the LCD-2 slightly better in terms of comfort as there doesn't seem to be enough clamping force with my HD800 to keep them secured when I move my head around, and I have an average size head. 

  

Danz03, You are allowed you opinion about Tube Amps adding color and distortions.......That doesn't always ring true......A well designed tube amp can be just as correct SQ wise as a SS amp or Mos-fet etc.etc...... That's why I got off the commercial equipment at least 15 yrs. ago when I was introduced to Chris Ivan, of Chris Ivan Audio and tube builder/repair guru who just so happens to live in Dayton....He has many Nashville studios begging for him to "Fix or trouble shoot" their Mixing boards, Tube mics, Instruments, and even their Tube Limiters etc.etc.   I remember Chuck Leavell, going nuts over the difference in the studios tube limiter and tube adjustments Chris had made to the tube mixing counsel.....Chris would be the 1st one to tell you as he (shakes his head) while testing Big Buck equipment about all the color that the designer or builder didn't care about when throwing together some of these high $$$ buck gear that's out there today.........But Remember, you are allowed YO and yes to some, the LCD-2 fit their heads better then the other cans out there.....     

QFT.  Tube amps of the modern era are most definitely not noticeably colored or distorted.  All you have to do is look at the specs for a Woo Audio amp to see this.  I think this sort of idea that they are by nature super-warm makes people who buy a tube amp for the first time disappointed, because they do not end up getting what they think they are getting. 
 
The advantage of tubes for me is not what they do - it's what they DON'T do, which is add a grain and glaze over the music that I find in many SS amps.  As such, it is the tube amp that is the better tool for analyzing certain aspects of headphone performance, IMHO.  As always, YMMV.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

First, I do not take anything you said "personally," after all, we're discussing ideas and not people, right?
 
Let's look at the audibility of 16Hz first...
 
http://www.eminent-tech.com/RWbrochure.htm
http://www.rotarywoofer.com/howlowcanwehear.html
 
Please read the information including the links, on the above sites carefully.  Next, where does one get a verifiable 16Hz tone if one does not possess one's own 32 foot organ pipe rank or a good sine wave generator?
One convenient place is: track 11 on the Bink Audio Test CD.
 
http://binkster.net/extras.shtml
 
Now, let's discuss the LCD-2s ability to reproduce 16Hz vs. the HD-800s.
 
If you refer back to the measurements made at CanJam, notice the 30Hz square wave plots:
LCD-2

 
HD-800

 
Notice the slope of the horizontal plotted line in each of the plots.  The slope of that ideally perfectly horizontal line indicates air pressure leakage during the pressurized, positive or negative portion of the signal.  The steeper the slope, the greater the leakage.  This a an ideal indicator of the phone's ability to maintain realistic pressurization/rarefaction of the sound wave being reproduced.  Notice that the HD-800 plot is far better than most other headphones, but nowhere as good as the spectacular plot from the LCD-2.  This is what gives it the uncanny ability to faithfully reproduce very low frequency information.  Along with the flat line response curve to 10Hz, it tells the story pretty well.
 
I hope this was helpful.

While the rotary sub looks very interesting and I would love to have one you must realize you are just arguing semantics... none of this is particularly useful with regards to headphones. I do thank you very much for the link to the sound CD and I do wonder if my DAC can do lower than 20hz as I am to understand there is a digital cut off. EDIT: Maybe one day when I have 25k to blow.
 
Also I never said it was impossible to hear 16hz. I expressed skepticism that people would have an easy time hearing it due to various limitations and ridiculous spl levels. I did ask you at which spl level you needed to listen in order to hear 16hz and at these frequencies it is much more a sensation than it is a audible experience. That is not to say it is useless, and in the context of home theater I am sure such low frequencies would complement a system wonderfully... but that doesn't mean the average person on this site is going to be able to perceive a 16hz tone at any useful volume. For all intents and purposes it is still a subsonic/infrasonic frequency...
 
5hz at 110 decibels is dangerous and of extremely limited value... these are also done in testing environments and alone. How easy would it be for one to hear 5hz at 110 db in the context of a song?
 
I also respect you have a much greater technical understanding of sound and electricity than I do, and most people here. But I do perceive the information as being used in a convenient manner... I have still yet to see evidence other than the square wave graph that the HD 800 is incapable of 20hz... yes the LCD-2 do it much better, and I think overall they are a better headphone as do you... there is no denying the low end of the LCD-2 is more faithful and forceful... but I can still hear down to 20hz on my HD 800 with test tones. In the context of a song however it is higher frequencies that are more prominent, but about 30 hz and up are more than adequate.
 
It is a funny concept to think that a few years ago any headphone that could do low end with such precision it would have been lable coloured, bass heavy, and not for audiophiles.
 
I still assert the HD 800 can produce audible, if not entirely satisfying (very) low end and are a refreshing leap forward in traditional dynamic headphones... that is all.
 
FWIW my LCD-2 are balanced and I am interested to hear the HD 800 balanced. The headroom graphs suggest the square wave response in the bass region improves to a degree. IIRC correctly you think balancing is a scam, and it could very well be... but you also believe in cables so let me have my romance and I will let you have yours .
 
Also, If I am not mistaken the mythbusters played varying tones something like 20-2hz at 160 dB and no one heard anything but they felt sick and their voices modulated. They were wearing industrial hearing protection though. The only thing audible in the show was the mechanical noise of the subwoofers. Just a tid bit and a funny episode. They were testing the brown note.
 
And on that note I am going to listen to some beautiful music

 

[Danz03]

I agreed, modern tube amps can have very flat frequency response, but that doesn't mean that they can or should take away that nice character of the tube, which are the even harmonic distortion and the softer attack which gives a smoother, richer and less harsh sound.
Vintage tube microphones and pre-amps are still being used frequently nowadays not because of accuracy or transparency, they are highly valued because of their distinct sound signature which I love too. Guitarists love tube amps because of that nice soft clipping and warm distortion.
It may be true that some tube amps are better for analyzing certain aspects of headphones, but wouldn't a SS reference amplifier be better in testing and comparing headphones instead, apart from testing things like system synergy? 

 
Quote:

QFT.  Tube amps of the modern era are most definitely not noticeably colored or distorted.  All you have to do is look at the specs for a Woo Audio amp to see this.  I think this sort of idea that they are by nature super-warm makes people who buy a tube amp for the first time disappointed, because they do not end up getting what they think they are getting. 
 
The advantage of tubes for me is not what they do - it's what they DON'T do, which is add a grain and glaze over the music that I find in many SS amps.  As such, it is the tube amp that is the better tool for analyzing certain aspects of headphone performance, IMHO.  As always, YMMV.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Like any other science and technology, audio technology and the testing and measuring of it should continue to evolve and improve whether you are aware of it or not. 

 Now are you quite sure that the methodologies and technology used for the measuring of headphone performance is standardised across the industry? I really don't know if it is or it isn't but I'd be interested in ascertaining if the headphone manufacturers do this in exactly the same way and if Tyll Hertsen does it in exactly the same way as the headphone manufacturers. Are there absolutely no variables present that might lead us to question the accuracy of headphone measurements provided from different sources? Maybe kwkarth could clarify this for us.
 
I think I see headphone frequency response graphs for what they are - measurements. And measurements can be subject to change depending on who is taking them, how they are taking them and when and where they are taking them. I don't equate them to or confuse them with irrefutable scientific proofs. Nor do I have any expectations of how a headphone should sound to me based on its frequency response graph. I understand that how a headphone measures and how it actually sounds to me is not necessarily the same thing. 
 
Not that I even mentioned the W5000 but since you have, the HeadRoom frequency response graph shows that it has a severe bass roll-off. However, it's documented in these forum threads that the design of the W5000 works better on some heads than others. As someone posted earlier, our heads come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Some W5000 owners have complained that the headphone doesn't sit flush and that there is a gap at the top of the ear cups. And some of these owners have found that if they bend the wire arcs so that the headphone cups sit flush thereby creating a better seal, the bass presence improves as a result. I believe that there is an ear pad mod for the W5000 that also helps redress the problem. Others haven't experienced this fit issue and find the quality and quantity of the W5000's bass to be satisfactory. I find its bass presentation shares much in common with the HD800. The W5000 also has a reputation for being picky with amps. I took this with a grain of salt until I plugged it into my stereo amplifier and immediately noticed a marked increase in bass quantity. But it lost some of its delicate refinement as a consequence, and that's one of the qualities that I like about this headphone. I wonder what kind of seal the HeadRoom dummy had with the W5000 when the frequency response measurements were taken? 

 
And there's no need to get snarky sokolov91. 

 It wasn't clear from your post if you were just spouting off about Stax based on your own listening experience or if you were referring to frequency response graphs or both. I wanted to know what your rant was based upon. My experience with the three Stax models that I listened to was a very positive one. All three had more bass quantity than the HD800 to my ears and they seemed to go just as deep. However, I recall that the bass presentation of the SR-404 LE wasn't as well defined as the HD800 (or the SR-507 for that matter). Anyway, I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the frequency response graphs for those Stax models show if they're available.  

As always excellent arguments and points. And of course fit/seal modifies the sound... this is one of n3rdlings points of my not entirely positive experience with stax -could be a bad seal. We can continue via PM if you want but I think I am derailing the thread enough at this point... not to mention I really did not want to get into a philosophical debate trying to make one simple point about one aspect of one headphone in this thread.
 
I never heard the W5000 I just brought it up and example you would obviously know intimately and that is the only reason. It wasn't to be snarky. Compare your LCD-2 impressions with your W5000. Preferences aside, there is no denying one produces much more linear low end (for better or worse)... Maybe you really can hear all the way down with the W5000 (I know I can't with my SA5K without REALLY cranking the volume). Was just my point that unlike many other dynamic headphones the HD 800 can actually produce audible low end within the context of a song. Sure maybe the W5000 ultimately can produce 20hz but by the time you are really hearing it your headphones are too loud to listen to music... The same way that bump in the mids give the W5000 its signiature sound people love or hate... A lot of AT cans are known for this. The FR does not entirely explain your experience... but it explains far more than people give credit. And again I am not saying such things are necessary to enjoy music. Just in an ultimate context, some headphones can do low end in its entirety in a useful audible fashion, and many cannot. the HD 800 and LCD-2 are both headphones than can. 20hz is about the final useful hz and both reach it albeit with different spls.
 
Did you check the Stax graphs? If you go to the home page there are more btw.

 

[Skylab]

I agreed, modern tube amps can have very flat frequency response, but that doesn't mean that they can or should take away that nice character of the tube, which are the even harmonic distortion and the softer attack which gives a smoother, richer and less harsh sound.
Vintage tube microphones and pre-amps are still being used frequently nowadays not because of accuracy or transparency, they are highly valued because of their distinct sound signature which I love too. Guitarists love tube amps because of that nice soft clipping and warm distortion.
It may be true that some tube amps are better for analyzing certain aspects of headphones, but wouldn't a SS reference amplifier be better in testing and comparing headphones instead, apart from testing things like system synergy? 

 

IMHO, unless you are driving the amp into clipping, then no, a SS amp is no better for this purpose than a good transformer-coupled tube amp, or even a good OTL amp in the case of high-impedance headphones.

Just as an example - I do not find the Woo WA6 any softer, or warmer, than the Meier Concerto.

 

[kwkarth]

Trying to pour more in to an already full glass just ends up making a mess.  Sorry for the mess.
 
Clean up on aisle 5!

 

[sokolov91]

FWIW with my ears and system with the test tones Kevin provided 25hz was probably the last realistically audible tone with both headphones and even then the 31.5 hz tone comes across so much cleaner/louder. 20hz can be perceived on both, but I have to bump the volume up a fair bit. It is the type of thing that would piss me off at night trying to sleep when everything is dead silent otherwise I am sure someone could play a 20 hz tone and I could have a conversation with someone and not even notice it.
 
I did hear/feel something with the 16hz tone with the LCD-2. Whether or not it is harmonics I have no idea and don't really care because the volume had to be 50 out of my 99 steps with the LCD-2 balanced so it is essentially useless. My normal listening volume is 8/99. Sounds like a cop out but to be honest I am kind of worried about damaging my HD 800 with the 16hz tone because they sounded a little strained with the 20hz whereas the LCD-2 did not. Maybe other people will fare better. What was most apparent with the 16hz tone is how it chopped the sound of my computer fans up (they are very quiet).
 
the LCD-2 are noticeably more linear to me in the sweeps and warbles than the HD 800.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Trying to pour more in to an already full glass just ends up making a mess.  Sorry for the mess.
 
Clean up on aisle 5!

Yep, certainly funny how people can be very experienced and still make simple mistakes sometimes. At least when one spills something they are generally aware.
 
We are only human after all.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Quote:

Trying to pour more in to an already full glass just ends up making a mess.  Sorry for the mess.
 
Clean up on aisle 5!

Yep, certainly funny how people can be very experienced and still make simple mistakes sometimes. At least when one spills something they are generally aware.
 
We are only human after all.

Indeed!
 

 

[MrSpenkelink]

Quote:

As always excellent arguments and points. And of course fit/seal modifies the sound... this is one of n3rdlings points of my not entirely positive experience with stax -could be a bad seal. We can continue via PM if you want but I think I am derailing the thread enough at this point... not to mention I really did not want to get into a philosophical debate trying to make one simple point about one aspect of one headphone in this thread.
 
I never heard the W5000 I just brought it up and example you would obviously know intimately and that is the only reason. It wasn't to be snarky. Compare your LCD-2 impressions with your W5000. Preferences aside, there is no denying one produces much more linear low end (for better or worse)... Maybe you really can hear all the way down with the W5000 (I know I can't with my SA5K without REALLY cranking the volume). Was just my point that unlike many other dynamic headphones the HD 800 can actually produce audible low end within the context of a song. Sure maybe the W5000 ultimately can produce 20hz but by the time you are really hearing it your headphones are too loud to listen to music... The same way that bump in the mids give the W5000 its signiature sound people love or hate... A lot of AT cans are known for this. The FR does not entirely explain your experience... but it explains far more than people give credit. And again I am not saying such things are necessary to enjoy music. Just in an ultimate context, some headphones can do low end in its entirety in a useful audible fashion, and many cannot. the HD 800 and LCD-2 are both headphones than can. 20hz is about the final useful hz and both reach it albeit with different spls.
 
Did you check the Stax graphs? If you go to the home page there are more btw.

Like you, I'm very conscious of derailing threads. I have an aptitude for it so I'm told. 

 There's no doubt in my mind that the LCD-2 produces impressive bass. I liked the LCD-2 as I've said repeatedly but on balance I'd have to give the nod to the electrostats over it. Though I think it would complement the W5000. 

 
I wouldn't claim for a moment that the W5000 goes as low as the HD800 but I do hear similarities in the way both render bass notes - detailed, textured and tightly defined. I can also understand why they have been described as "bass lite". I thought the same of the HD800 when I first heard it and upon hearing it again, I still think that the bass presentation is a bit soft in the overall mix but it did go deep as I've also said a number of times now. The irony of such a statement coming from a W5000 owner isn't completely lost on me.
 
I've been to the Stax site numerous times and didn't see any frequency measurement graphs there. I'll go back and scour it for them.    
 
 

 

[9pintube]

You might be saying THANK GOD,  But I'm Done on this thread..............Happy listening to all, and on the headphones and associated equipment of your choice

 

[MrSpenkelink]

^ Good for you. Now where was I...

 

[Frank I]