[Hifivoice]

Positional variation on a test rig may not always match variation across individuals. Some variables (such as clamp force for example, presence of hair, etc.) aren't accounted for, and conversely some of these positions might not be superbly representative of how a cohort of real humans would wear the headphones.

Absolutely agree with you here. My point is that with moving the headphone around on a jig, you can anticipate on variations already. You can add hair, glasses etc. (off-topic, I already grew through my hair line , so the hair for me is less of an issue).

Indeed and being able to assess how headphones vary across individuals in light of the latter's variation in HRTF is one of the things I'm eagerly waiting to learn more about.

Yeps; the question is if some sort of personal measurement with in-ear microphones, can result in a correcting profile (as a good start), and whether a reference measurement can be defined for that.

So you measured this by shoving a UMIK-1 in between the pad and the side of your head ? Did you repeat these measurements with other headphones ?

Yes, for instance with a HD660S; here you see that due to the driver being much closer to the ear, you get measurement issues at higher frequencies. In general, I would say that these sort of measurement from 4kHz onwards are getting unreliable due to the wave length of the sound getting close to all the dimension that are present in the measurement space:

Mmm without questioning the method used, that would still result in highly audible differences between them to me.

Be aware that the UMIK-1 measurement is not "Harman corrected", it is only corrected for microphone deviations. The HEQ target curve (which is the call "Harman-inspired") has a tilt from 300Hz onwards, which explains the difference. You cannot compare those measurements 1-1, and you always need to understand the measurement conditions before being able to interpret it.

See here the title from say 200-300Hz to 1kHz from different Harman Targets (also showing they vary a lot over time).

 

[MayaTlab]

Yeps; the question is if some sort of personal measurement with in-ear microphones, can result in a correcting profile (as a good start), and whether a reference measurement can be defined for that.

Have you experimented a bit with in-ear measurements (ex blocked ear canal entrance mics) ?

Yes, for instance with a HD660S; here you see that due to the driver being much closer to the ear, you get measurement issues at higher frequencies. In general, I would say that these sort of measurement from 4kHz onwards are getting unreliable due to the wave length of the sound getting close to all the dimension that are present in the measurement space:

Which one of these is the one made on the EAR ?

Be aware that the UMIK-1 measurement is not "Harman corrected", it is only corrected for microphone deviations. The HEQ target curve (which is the call "Harman-inspired") has a tilt from 300Hz onwards, which explains the difference. You cannot compare those measurements 1-1, and you always need to understand the measurement conditions before being able to interpret it.

See here the title from say 200-300Hz to 1kHz from different Harman Targets (also showing they vary a lot over time).

Ok I understand a bit better now.

May I suggest trying blocked ear canal entrance measurements on both a DIY rig using these pinnae and in your ears ?

 

[Hifivoice]

Have you experimented a bit with in-ear measurements (ex blocked ear canal entrance mics) ?

No, but a friend of mine did. Still on my wish list.

Which one of these is the one made on the EAR ?

Bottom one; don't like to do sweeps too loud on my own ears.

May I suggest trying blocked ear canal entrance measurements on both a DIY rig using these pinnae and in your ears ?

A friend did also a measurement of the Expanse on a jig that does not have an ear, but a flat plate with the microphone positioned in a hole where the mouth of the mic has been aligned to the surface of that plate. He measured 5 similar positions as I did (RAW, not corrected).

I will definitely follow up with some other measurements in the future; too curious to get an understanding of what I hear versus what I measure. It's more out of curiosity; the headphone sounds perfectly fine to me (and even better with minor EQ).

 

[adrianm]

Yeah it's hard to say if you'd fancy the Stealth or Expanse, but as @alxw0w somewhat indicated I wouldn't write them off until you've heard them. I'm one of the unabashed fans of the Stealth and I often wax lyrical about it. I personally prefer Stealth to Expanse, but they are both excellent.
My view is that Stealth and Expanse, but more so Stealth, take on a a less is more approach to delivering sound. I ran track back in college and one of the perspectives of who won a particular race was to simply conclude that it was obviously the person who ran the fastest. However, often more didactic was to view it from the lens that the winner was the one who slowed down the slowest. That way as an athlete you don't just focus on what will make you powerful and strong or faster, but you can also work on minimizing those actions that do not propel you forward, or slow you down. I find that the Stealth in particular is a headphone that to my ears doesn't come with a lot of the baggage that demonstrably show audio as a zero sum game. It appears to simply focus on doing the "least wrong." Note that this is not to say that it is too safe or boring, it is just far too mature to be engaged with fads. The AMTS acts like blackhole that does not allow any nastiness, especially in the treble to escape to your ears.

With the type of gear you have, the Stealth's will really show what each bring to the table. I've listened to my Stealth via Hugo 2, Ferrum Stack, Topping A90D or via WA23 Luna and Tambaqui combo in various permutations and it is a vastly different experience for each. The rather unadulterated sound provides the transparent template to show how each component change the sound. I have lately become rather enamored with what source improvements can do. I used to think amps were unequivocally more important than the source for many headphones. I've now realized a more nuanced approach is needed because in the same way no amount of zooming into an already blurry picture will produce a clearer picture, so too no amount of amping an already degraded sound will make it better. You cannot recapture what has already been lost upstream.

With the Hugo 2 and Topping A90D, Stealth sounds good, but somewhat lacking in timbral information relative to when I add the Tambaqui and Luna combo, which significantly injects effortless musical flow and a real life corporeality to everything. When I add the Grimm MU1 to the Tambaqui, the sound which was already the least digital sound I've heard becomes even less digital, more realistic, clearer and somehow gives me more detail and impact whilst paradoxically being smoother. Sometimes I'd admit that I want a bit more bite in the treble. I sometimes have ephemeral cravings for the type of hard hitting dynamics and bass that would cause "weeping and gnashing of teeth", but then the Stealth's whisper with quiet confidence, "Why go out for burgers when you got steak at home?"

This was spot on and extremely insightful. After a month of owning the Stealth, I agree with everything you said. It does sound vastly different on other gear and it has completely reaffirmed my love for the Rossini and source gear in general.
It's shocking how much more information the Stealth displays compared to everything else I've heard. I could happily live with it as my only headphone, even with the slightly smaller soundstage than a few other flagships, but I might get the itch to try the Expanse soon.
Also curious if the Corina can be a meaningful upgrade. I know reception was lukewarm at best, but I'm much less inclined to take those impressions seriously after hearing the Stealth for myself.

 

[gadus]

The first and most important thing is the level of performance of the headphones, that is - how well will the headphones convince you that you are really listening to a musical instrument, do they manage to reproduce the sound in a way that will make you forget for a short time that it is only a reproduction and immerse yourself deeply in the music, for this the headphones need to have transparency and resolution maximally, that they convey all the information obtained from the recording in its entirety with all the layers and nuances, that they manage to give a perfect sound image, and that they do not suffocate to death in a particularly busy section,
Everything else - tonality for example, these are things that can be changed, amplification, equalizer, even cable,
Maybe people will prefer the tonality of certain headphones, and really at first listening it gives more fun and wow, but bottom line to really enjoy equipment you need it to be perfect in terms of performance,
This is exactly the Expanse,
It reproduces sound in an amazing way without adding unnecessary color, without heat and volume, with a lot of resolution and layers, all the information is transmitted to the listener perfectly and a perfect sound image is obtained,
She manages to convince you that you are really listening to music.
without beautifying reality,
And it's really not boring or analytical, it's just accurate and correct, and convincing,
My 2 cents.

 

[number1sixerfan]

The first and most important thing is the level of performance of the headphones, that is - how well will the headphones convince you that you are really listening to a musical instrument, do they manage to reproduce the sound in a way that will make you forget for a short time that it is only a reproduction and immerse yourself deeply in the music, for this the headphones need to have transparency and resolution maximally, that they convey all the information obtained from the recording in its entirety with all the layers and nuances, that they manage to give a perfect sound image, and that they do not suffocate to death in a particularly busy section,
Everything else - tonality for example, these are things that can be changed, amplification, equalizer, even cable,
Maybe people will prefer the tonality of certain headphones, and really at first listening it gives more fun and wow, but bottom line to really enjoy equipment you need it to be perfect in terms of performance,
This is exactly the Expanse,
It reproduces sound in an amazing way without adding unnecessary color, without heat and volume, with a lot of resolution and layers, all the information is transmitted to the listener perfectly and a perfect sound image is obtained,
She manages to convince you that you are really listening to music.
without beautifying reality,
And it's really not boring or analytical, it's just accurate and correct, and convincing,
My 2 cents.

Yup, that's exactly what I love about them. Out of all the headphones I've owned and have demoed, they are up there for resolution, clarity and tonality. It has a very, very natural presentation and tonality that to me is very reminiscent of the R10, HE90 and HE60. This is the first newer headphone that has that kind of tone, which many of the vintage TOTL headphones are known for. It's a very rare trait imo.

 

[HONEYBOY]

This was spot on and extremely insightful. After a month of owning the Stealth, I agree with everything you said. It does sound vastly different on other gear and it has completely reaffirmed my love for the Rossini and source gear in general.
It's shocking how much more information the Stealth displays compared to everything else I've heard. I could happily live with it as my only headphone, even with the slightly smaller soundstage than a few other flagships, but I might get the itch to try the Expanse soon.
Also curious if the Corina can be a meaningful upgrade. I know reception was lukewarm at best, but I'm much less inclined to take those impressions seriously after hearing the Stealth for myself.

I'm glad that my impressions align with your findings. Really goes to show how finding audio nirvana is akin to trying on shoes—only you can tell if they fit just right. If you already own the Stealth, acquiring the Expanse may resemble purchasing the same luxurious car, only with a slightly different interior decor. Stealth and Expanse are more alike than not; Dan even provided EQ settings to simulate the transformation between the two. Perhaps begin there and see if the itch is still there .

Initially, the Expanse struck me as having a more impactful mid-bass and warmer tonality, while I personally favor the Stealth's focus on sub-bass. Although the Expanse's open-back design might suggest a more spacious soundstage, I didn't find its improvements significantly meaningful compared to the closed Stealth. Nonetheless, the Expanse does lend a touch of warmth and fullness to vocals and instruments, which some may prefer.

Ultimately, I still preferred the Stealth for its superior transparency, timbral accuracy, and from what I perceive as sharper imaging capabilities. This clear imaging, coupled with its exceptional ability to showcase the silence between notes, makes the Stealth's minor limitations in soundstage more than acceptable to me—especially for a closed-back headphone.

To your point on how much more information Stealth is picking up, I too am shocked. Its capacity to convey intricate details is truly astonishing. Even when compared to the Bravura electrostatic system, Stealth's aren't losing out on detail and is an excellent reminder that brightness does not equate to detail. Its paradoxical talent for displaying absolute silence between notes heightens the nuances in music, making them more noticeable. An excellent album that demonstrates this notion of music as also being "the space between the notes" is Amber Rubarth's Sessions from the 17th Ward. I recall listening to that on the Susvara, Expanse, and Bravura and thinking none of them was handling the silences as deftly as the Stealth.

As for the Corina, my Can Jam experience left me with mixed feelings. Its bass was voluptuous and I could swear had a curved middle finger out to those that thought Expanse and Stealth lacked bass. It seemed a departure from the ethereal sound that I typically associate with electrostatics. While not lacking resolution, it initially felt too dense. The second day, paired with the Grand Cayman and Blue Hawaii SE, it fared better, and I'd choose it over the much-praised Shangri-La Sr. Nevertheless, I wasn't convinced it was an upgrade to the Stealth, which I had hoped for. I'd like to audition them again in a more controlled environment. I still think like you hinted that it's wise to take Can Jam impressions like a bubble in a soda.

 

[Hifivoice]

And here we have a comparison of the RAW measurements of my friend on his jig with a mic on a flat plate (left), and with a mic in a 15mm deep ear channel of an aliexpress silicon ear (poor man's miniDSP ).

That gives a good indication of what a certain ear shape is doing.

 

[DarginMahkum]

Today on Expanse & Stealth...

 

[jlbrach]

save yourself some money and get the Raal CA-1a...as good as anything and a fraction of the price...I have had the stealth and expanse...have the susvara and abyss TC so I speak from experience...

 

[DarginMahkum]

What I really like about the Expanse is the "built-in" EQ! Pulling it back and up slightly will slightly elevate the highs / air. If the music is too bright, I use the recommended positioning, if it is a dark mix and want some air, just positioning it differently will compensate that. Bass is not effected.

Interestingly not the case with Stealth. At least with my unit.

 

[alxw0w]

What I really like about the Expanse is the "built-in" EQ! Pulling it back and up slightly will slightly elevate the highs / air. If the music is too bright, I use the recommended positioning, if it is a dark mix and want some air, just positioning it differently will compensate that. Bass is not effected.

Interestingly not the case with Stealth. At least with my unit.

What range of frequencies are affected by that? I know - "highs" but can you try to specify it a bit closely? Like 3-5khz etc., I know it could be hard especially in high (-er) frequencies.

 

[DarginMahkum]

What range of frequencies are affected by that? I know - "highs" but can you try to specify it a bit closely? Like 3-5khz etc., I know it could be hard especially in high (-er) frequencies.

I feel like it is >7 kHz and mids are not really effected.

 

[MFZZ]

I am having a difficult time giving credence to many reviews either pro or con on the Expense or any other HP mentioned. If reviewers listen to hip hop or euro techno pop the review is useless to me as I listen to symphonic, jazz, acoustic. I have found most HP lack the range to capture bass violins, percussion, keyboards, violins in symphonic music. I would really appreciate reviewers mentioning the type of music they listen to and how a particular HP affects a specific type or piece of music. Without context, reviews are akin to liking a Minivan over a Corvette.

 

[DarginMahkum]

I am having a difficult time giving credence to many reviews either pro or con on the Expense or any other HP mentioned. If reviewers listen to hip hop or euro techno pop the review is useless to me as I listen to symphonic, jazz, acoustic. I have found most HP lack the range to capture bass violins, percussion, keyboards, violins in symphonic music. I would really appreciate reviewers mentioning the type of music they listen to and how a particular HP affects a specific type or piece of music. Without context, reviews are akin to liking a Minivan over a Corvette.

I completely agree. People often say A is better than B but never talk about the context. Not just the reviews but also the comments by the people here. A is definitely better than B, C is crap, I had the D and it was horrible, E is the best.

I try to understand why and I often hear statements like "bass is lacking, stage is small, vocals are not emotional" etc. Some people listening to overly processed death metal that has pretty much no natural sounds goes around and make strong expressions like "this is crap, that is much better" without thinking that some people prefer accuracy above all. I don't want hollow mids just to imitate a larger stage or thicker vocals just to have more bass, exaggerated higher treble for more airy presentation with fake details.

I hope both the reviewers and user making such strong judgements consider that.