Beyerdynamic DT 1990 PRO // DT 1990 PRO MK II -- Impressions Thread

[megabigeye]

I don't know where you found those numbers, but Beyerdynamic says:
Nominal sound pressure level 94 dBSPL (1mW/500Hz)
Nominal SPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 dB SPL (1 mW / 500 Hz)

Starting with those numbers, I used this sensitivity/efficiency converter.

 

[audiobomber]

Starting with those numbers, I used this sensitivity/efficiency converter.

Cool! I was searching for that converter and hadn't found it. Very useful, I'll have to bookmark it this time.

 

[BS5711]

If they need a very long cable, they will obviously use the balanced cable. If you work two or three meters from the amplifier the unbalanced cable is absolutely perfect and no frequencies are lost to human hearing.

Once you are past the source to DAC and the DAC to amplifier interconnect cables balanced no longer matters in respect of noise suppression.

Balanced (differential) audio relies on two opposite signals where the difference between the signals is used so that any noise picked up on the cable will be common to both channels and is cancelled out at the receiving device.

When the headphone is the receiving device it has no way to read opposing signals to cancel noise, they simply turn electrical signals into sound.

Balanced versus single ended audio has nothing to do with frequencies being lost. Balanced (differential) audio is about noise suppression primarily.

In home enthusiast domestic applications balanced audio is mostly just about power since there are two amplifiers per channel not one. That comes with downsides since double the amplifiers means double the output impedance and increased noise floor. In most home applications, especially small desktop set ups, and especially with a DAC/amp combination, and even further still with battery powered devices, there isn’t really any need for balanced audio insofar as noise suppression is concerned, where is the noise being generated when there are no long cable runs and no external noise sources to transfer external noise to an interconnect cable ?

 

[megabigeye]

Yeah, these are not that much easier to drive than the mk 1. The 30Ω Mk 2 is 109.2 dBSPL/1V, the 250Ω Mk 1 is 108dBSPL/1V. You'd barely have to move the volume knob in order to volume match.

I also wanted to point out that the Mk 2 actually requires more power than the Mk 1, but I was being dopey with my math and couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong...
The 30Ω Mk 2 needs 6.3x more power than the 250Ω Mk 1 to reach the same levels.

P_t = 10^t-e/10 ("P_t" is power required at level t, "t" is target SPL, "e" is headphone efficiency (dBSPL/1mW) )
For Mk 1 @ 100dB: P_t = 10^100-102/10 = 0.63mW
For Mk 2 @ 100dB: P_t = 10^100-94/10 = 3.98mW

 

[Angel III]

You haven't understood John Siau's explanation. If you feed your headphone amp with 10 meters of cable, balanced will most likely be preferred due to lower noise. But a 10 meter headphone cable can be balanced or unbalanced, because a headphone cannot distinguish between them. Furthermore, a headphone fed by unbalanced cable should sound better, as it is a simpler circuit.

Thank you, before this evening I didn't know exactly how a headphone interprets cables.
I agree that unbalanced amplifiers do not tolerate very long cables.. I knew of a problem related to the loss of some frequencies (certainly it also increases noise).
I know that balanced amplifiers must be built very well to sound their best.. but if hypothetically we use an amplifier made well in both circuits, with their dedicated cables (balanced and unbalanced), we will not notice any difference in noise or anything else, if we use short cables in the order of 2m or 3m).

 

[audiobomber]

I also wanted to point out that the Mk 2 actually requires more power than the Mk 1, but I was being dopey with my math and couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong...
The 30Ω Mk 2 needs 6.3x more power than the 250Ω Mk 1 to reach the same levels.

P_t = 10^t-e/10 ("P_t" is power required at level t, "t" is target SPL, "e" is headphone efficiency (dBSPL/1mW) )
For Mk 1 @ 100dB: P_t = 10^100-102/10 = 0.63mW
For Mk 2 @ 100dB: P_t = 10^100-94/10 = 3.98mW

An amp can supply more power into lower impedance before clipping, which will level the playing field.

 

[megabigeye]

An amp can supply more power into lower impedance before clipping, which will level the playing field.

Most amps can supply more power into lower impedances. Not OTL, for example.

I guess my meaning with my previous post is that I think when people see low impedance they often think "portable." But the Mk 2 is actually more difficult to drive and will drain a phone's/DAP's/laptop's battery more quickly than the Mk 1 would. The Mk 2 uses almost the same voltage, but more than 7x as much current to reach the same level as Mk 1!

 

[BS5711]

In reality neither is going to tax even a relatively modest amplifier.

I have a similar comparison in terms of driving power requirements with DT1770 Pro versus Dan Clark Aeon Noire at 13 ohm and around 92-95 db/mw. On paper the current requirements are a great deal higher for the 13 ohm DCA but in reality the difference driving them from say my little Schiit Vali 3 is all but immaterial. The amplifier is quite happy putting out the current needed into low impedance and voltage into the higher impedance. Many amplifiers will behave just fine with either situation, OTL of course being the exception along with probably a small minority of solid state amplifiers.

But 100% agree, the low impedance doesn't by default mean portable.

 

[audiobomber]

In reality neither is going to tax even a relatively modest amplifier

I agree. Even my LG phone drives the original 1990 to levels beyond what I can tolerate for long. On my Schiit amps (Magni 3, Asgard 2, Jotunheim 2), I don't have to go beyond 1:00 in low gain mode to get too loud. Of course driving with an amp sound better than the phone.

 

[bizkid]

My Motu M2 drives the mkII just fine and sounds great too. Besides power where it lacks, it otherwise has great specs on the headphone output.

 

[headstef]

Moreover, doing some calculations with Ohm's law and sensitivity/efficiency data, one can find that for most modern headphones a few mW are enough to drive them to very high levels. Thus, what we really need with fine headphones is quality circuitry, not high power or balanced outputs. These are mostly a trend. My headphones can handle hundreds of mW but reach ear threatening levels with just 20-30 mW.

 

[arielext]

Moreover, doing some calculations with Ohm's law and sensitivity/efficiency data, one can find that for most modern headphones a few mW are enough to drive them to very high levels. Thus, what we really need with fine headphones is quality circuitry, not high power or balanced outputs. These are mostly a trend. My headphones can handle hundreds of mW but reach ear threatening levels with just 20-30 mW.

Now don't bring logic and science to the table, this is head-fi
Everyone needs at least 5w balanced in order to set the volume dial to 7 'o clock for "headroom".

 

[bizkid]

After some more listening i prefer the analytical pads (now called mixing pads) on the mkII. I didn't expect this because the analytical pads on the original DT1990 left me cold.. But with the missing 8khz peak these make much more sense now, very balanced, and still very enjoyable.

I prefer the mkII over the HD490Pro but that's just me. The 490Pro has limited macro dynamics and transient response compared to the mkII. Also something about the Sennheiser bored me a lot after the honeymoon period was over, never used it much after 2 weeks.

 

[kman1211]

After some more listening i prefer the analytical pads (now called mixing pads) on the mkII. I didn't expect this because the analytical pads on the original DT1990 left me cold.. But with the missing 8khz peak these make much more sense now, very balanced, and still very enjoyable.

I prefer the mkII over the HD490Pro but that's just me. The 490Pro has limited macro dynamics and transient response compared to the mkII. Also something about the Sennheiser bored me a lot after the honeymoon period was over, never used it much after 2 weeks.

Definitely planning on trying the MKII. I’ll keep that in mind about the analytical pads being better on the MKII. I preferred the balanced pads on the original myself.

That’s the problem I had with many Sennheisers in my experience, they end up being boring after the honeymoon phase, there’s only a couple exceptions. Enjoyment factor is a big reason I prefer Beyers and Focal’s to Senns.

 

[Chastity]

Definitely planning on trying the MKII. I’ll keep that in mind about the analytical pads being better on the MKII. I preferred the balanced pads on the original myself.

That’s the problem I had with many Sennheisers in my experience, they end up being boring after the honeymoon phase, there’s only a couple exceptions. Enjoyment factor is a big reason I prefer Beyers and Focal’s to Senns.

You can get the Senns to be lively, but you need a good amp to feed them. The balanced out on my Liquid Platinum makes my HD-580 step up in their performance.