I think that the core of the problem is that it has become an accepted idea that headphone tonality is a question of personal taste rather than fidelity to the original recording. That makes sense to a degree since your headphones should be pleasing to you and because exactly reproducing the frequency response of the original recording would not sound accurate in a headphone. However, the downside is that it makes comparisons between headphones purely subjective and makes headphones with questionable frequency response acceptable because they please some people.
I think that the core of the problem is that it has become an accepted idea that headphone tonality is a question of personal taste rather than fidelity to the original recording. That makes sense to a degree since your headphones should be pleasing to you and because exactly reproducing the frequency response of the original recording would not sound accurate in a headphone. However, the downside is that it makes comparisons between headphones purely subjective and makes headphones with questionable frequency response acceptable because they please some people.
I get this point entirely. Especially coming from CanJam and seeing quite a few people I really respect all disagree over tonality with regards to the most expensive setups they tried. The subjectivity of the hobby is just hard to accept by many, but it just can't be denied. A hard pill to swallow.
The only thing I'd say and add is that tonality isn't the end all be all, although it's clearly important to most.
It's not first time that audiophiles prefer weirdness, what you gonna do.
I can understand personal tastes even I have my own. What I cannot understand is glorification of completely broken FR and using floral adjectives to back that with esoteric crap.
Some people prefer bassy sound some prefer brighter signature and that's what is called taste - that's why tone controls were invented (also to fix some of the broken recordings, to bring back their tonal balance). But there are headphones that completly throw harmonics of sounds completly to the trash it happens a lot in the midrange and lower treble area, there are big dips or peaks that throw natural sound completly off.
You know it's "known" company it's expensive it must be good, if it's broken that's probably your equipment is not good enough to extract every bit of that wonderful sound - LOL, hoe many times we have heard that nonsense.
From a design perspective our goal is to allow you to focus on the instruments/parts of the performance you choose to, instead of telling you what you should be listening to...
This comment hits the nail on the head. I compare a live concert experience to what I hear through headphones. I dislike colored headphones. I find the Expanse to be what I am looking for to reproduce the sounds of live symphonic and jazz music.
From a design perspective our goal is to allow you to focus on the instruments/parts of the performance you choose to, instead of telling you what you should be listening to...
I can certainly tell. It took a little time for the full image to materialize (in my head), but once it locked in, I was smiling ear to ear. One of the most comfortable headphones I've used. The headband design is brilliant. It's just so easy to get the right fit and seal. Received these off a trade and definitely got the better end of the bargain. Nothing against the D8K Pro, but the Expanse has it beat in almost every category to my ears. Same story with the LCD-5, the Expanse is just a better overall package in my opinion.
Usually how I describe the Expanse is either like this (best overall package), or that it does nothing wrong.
Comfortable, built well, cool/unique looking, folds up/compact, less bleed than other open backs, always detailed but never too detailed/harsh, enough bass slam/lift but not so much that it's bloomy/muddy, good timbre everything sounds "right", imaging is precise, soundstage is wide but not crazy wide. It's the goldilocks of headphones.
I've said it before, the best thing about the Expanse isn't what it does, it's that it does nothing wrong.
Not sure I know of any other headphone with zero flaws. There are specific things other headphones do better or other headphones that have a more "showy" sound signature but none just nail it across the board like the Expanse. Is a good estat/ribbon going to have more air than the Expanse? Of course, but then those have trade-offs.
I think maybe the strongest competition for the Expanse is actually DCA's own Corina in the sense it's another all around good headphone but with a bit of that estat air that Expanse can't quite hit. I listened to one a bit at CanJam NYC and felt it didn't have a place in my collection simply because I already have the Expanse and it didn't have as much of that estat magic since they went in the well rounded direction. Corina kind of like if Expanse and a STAX X9000 had a baby, you get a bit of both but not the best of either, which results in something very good on average and less peaky.
Anyway all that's to say if you have to buy just one headphone I think either the Expanse or Corina are some of the best choices you could make.
I agree with every word said here.
After many disappointments and various attempts, I realized that the thing I'm looking for is performance,
That is, are the headphones transparent, resolution, transfer the image as it is with all the information, dynamics, etc.
I don't check if it's 'hot' or 'cold', it's not a cup of coffee,
Tonality is very important, but if you have the best performance, you can change it with amplification and source equipment and with eq and adjust to personal taste,
Expanse definitely excels in this.
I think more manufacturers are starting to fall into that camp, make a headphone with great technicals and then let the user EQ to whatever tonality they prefer. You can fix tonality, you can't fix technical capability.
LCD-5 and CA-1a are both recent examples of TOTL headphones with bad tonality but excellent technical abilities. EQ is basically a must have on them.
Expanse was able to be designed in this way BUT with the big change that you don't need EQ because it effectively has hardware EQ built in thanks to AMTS. AMTS lets Dan design headphones with good capability first and then fix the tonality by adjusting resonant frequencies on the AMTS ports.
Would be cool if DCA made headphones with swappable AMTS that have different profiles. I imagine this is probably something they're already working on.
I agree, the CA-1a are very impressive. I recently acquired them and have been enjoying going through my music catalog on them. To his point though, the CA-1a without Mitch's convolution filters may be highly technical, but with bad tonality - whereas the Expanse/Stealth (way more Stealth, imo) nail both technicality and tonality out of the box, no special EQ or cable needed.
The Expanse and CA-1 are pretty similar in a lot of regards. Technically, I find them equally capable for the most part. I can’t at all agree on the tonality comment above, the CA-1a’s tonality is just fine, although I think the Expanse is very tonally correct and a bit more natural.
Where I disagree mainly with others is on the aspect of not having any faults. A lack of impact is the clear fault of the Expanse compared to other headphones imo. However, the clarity, which I believe is a clear trade off, is absolutely phenomenal.
A lack of impact is the clear fault of the Expanse compared to other headphones imo. However, the clarity, which I believe is a clear trade off, is absolutely phenomenal.
I used to think Expanse lacked impact... then I hooked them up to a speaker amp. What amps have you listened to them on and are you getting a good seal?
Fwiw I feel like Expanse has just as much impact as any other headphone in my signature. Utopia is generally regarded as pretty punchy, right? I'd say Expanse matches it.
I also get good impact on my Bliss, not just the speaker amps.
I agree the CA-1a is "better" (love my CA-1a) but I still find myself reaching for the Expanse when I'm gaming or just listening casually in the background. I only go for the CA-1a when I'm really planning on focusing on some music. Hence my feeling the Expanse is a better all-rounder.
Also the owner of RAAL flat out said they designed it with technicals first, tonality suffering for it, which was the only point I was making. Personally I think that's the best way to do it unless you can get both, like the Expanse does with AMTS. Tonality can be fixed with EQ, driver capability can't.
I used to think Expanse lacked impact... then I hooked them up to a speaker amp. What amps have you listened to them on and are you getting a good seal?
Fwiw I feel like Expanse has just as much impact as any other headphone in my signature. Utopia is generally regarded as pretty punchy, right? I'd say Expanse matches it.
I also get good impact on my Bliss, not just the speaker amps.
I’m using my Hegel H120 speaker amp. Have used my Evo 400 as well, along with my EC Studio B.
All with the same results. It just doesn’t have the impact that most other headphones have. The Utopia for sure, which I have, is quite a level above to my ears—easily. And a few headfi friends that have also heard them have concurred. And same deal hearing them again at canjam.
The CA-1a also has a bit better impact, but again I do think the Expanse has the clearer midrange and overall tonality. Its tonality rivals the absolute best ever, imo only second to the HE90 and R10, which is a huge, huge compliment btw. For me, it’s generally worth the trade off when it comes to impact.
I’m using my Hegel H120 speaker amp. Have used my Evo 400 as well, along with my EC Studio B.
All with the same results. It just doesn’t have the impact that most other headphones have. The Utopia for sure, which I have, is quite a level above to my ears—easily. And a few headfi friends that have also heard them have concurred. And same deal hearing them again at canjam.
The CA-1a also has a bit better impact, but again I do think the Expanse has the clearer midrange and overall tonality. Its tonality rivals the absolute best ever, imo only second to the HE90 and R10, which is a huge, huge compliment btw. For me, it’s generally worth the trade off when it comes to impact.
Hmm interesting. Maybe I'll back to back Utopia and Expanse tomorrow and see if I'm misremembering. I don't recall any in my collection standing out as having obviously more impact.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
