[ThanatosVI]

Then try the Stellia

NOMAX

I'll add it to the list
Thx for the recommendation

 

[jlbrach]

The idea of ranking headphones against the Harman target curve is completely asinine. There seems to be an addiction amongst certain people that have them treating science as some kind of God-like arbiter of goodness and truth that the result comes to something closer to religion than actual science. Even on the most superficial level, the ranking ignores the most basic issue of individual unit variations (and then, don't get me started on the impossibility of measuring Apple's Airpods, due to the way they work). More fundamentally, it completely ignores the limitations of Sean Olive's work -- even the very intent of what his research aimed to achieve.

put them on your head and listen and ignore all the graph talk....I love the abyss TC and it measures poorly I am told,who cares?

 

[801evan]

The idea of ranking headphones against the Harman target curve is completely asinine. There seems to be an addiction amongst certain people that have them treating science as some kind of God-like arbiter of goodness and truth that the result comes to something closer to religion than actual science.

Asinine? The ranking is a great observation and comparison of measured headphone and a target curve that the community is aware of due to the research behind it. No one is even shoving the top 3 headphones down anyone throat yet you call it an addiction?? Doubt DMS is 'addicted' to the Harman curve, and is actually critical of it but highly praises the headphone ranked 4 and 5 in the list.

Even on the most superficial level, the ranking ignores the most basic issue of individual unit variations (a

I mean...you may wanna check your Diablo or chain since you are oddly clipping on the stealth at 80dB if you're gonna talk about individual variation.

 

[ra990]

I mean...you may wanna check your Diablo or chain since you are oddly clipping on the stealth at 80dB if you're gonna talk about individual variation.

You have an unhealthy fascination with Currawong's chain...

 

[801evan]

You have an unhealthy fascination with Currawong's chain...

He keeps making claims about clipping this clipping that and blames the devices. 7.7w tt2 clipping on an HP that only requires 2mw at 85dB. And he's clipping at 80dB on the stealth that's 5w while I can drive it loud at proud at 142mw low gain.

 

[Nomax]

The idea of ranking headphones against the Harman target curve is completely asinine. There seems to be an addiction amongst certain people that have them treating science as some kind of God-like arbiter of goodness and truth that the result comes to something closer to religion than actual science. Even on the most superficial level, the ranking ignores the most basic issue of individual unit variations (and then, don't get me started on the impossibility of measuring Apple's Airpods, due to the way they work). More fundamentally, it completely ignores the limitations of Sean Olive's work -- even the very intent of what his research aimed to achieve.

Partly I agree with this
For me personally it may be less on the left side to the target (less low end as Harman Curve shows)
I personally agree more on the right side to the curve (enough Higs and mids...important for me for the details)

NOMAX

PS.lol

 

[801evan]

Partly I agree with this
For me personally it may be less on the left side to the target
I personally agree more on the right side to the curve

NOMAX

Left side is heavily dictated by chain than the natural response of the HP anyways and why ppl hear the same HP differently on different chains. Nevermind unit variation.

 

[DarginMahkum]

There seems to be an addiction amongst certain people that have them treating science as some kind of God-like arbiter of goodness and truth that the result comes to something closer to religion than actual science.

I also find the evaluation there problematic. Also statistics gives us a way to model chaotic nature of things, so that we can deal with some issues but it does not promise individual solutions. So it is very much possible that it does not cover everyone and everything. We just make compromises in our models to cover as as many individuals as possible. Statistics as a science does not deal with individuals. This is also what Harman model is based on. So I think we shouldn't do any religion comparisons of something that has no absolute claims. Unlike religion, science has no absolute claims, as otherwise Newton would be a prophet and his theory would be the rules of a god. Science constantly improves itself and tries to find better answers - again unlike religion, which is based on rumors (hype?) only.

But just because we still cannot mathematically model the extreme cases like black holes does not mean our model for what we can observe is complete wrong and does not work, as we can achieve wonders with what we know. This particular page happens to make their own claims, most probably based on some mathematical model, but I don't think it takes into account the acoustics properly, so it is a weak model and evaluation. That is all. It should just not be taken very seriously, especially when there are so many varying parameters and the outcome of the evaluations are so close. Even a variation of the measured particular unit can change the rank.

 

[801evan]

I also find the evaluation there problematic. Also statistics gives us a way to model chaotic nature of things, so that we can deal with some issues but it does not promise individual solutions. So it is very much possible that it does not cover everyone and everything. We just make compromises in our models to cover as as many individuals as possible. Statistics as a science does not deal with individuals. This is also what Harman model is based on. So I think we shouldn't do any religion comparisons of something that has no absolute claims. Unlike religion, science has no absolute claims, as otherwise Newton would be a prophet and his theory would be the rules of a god. Science constantly improves itself and tries to find better answers - again unlike religion, which is based on rumors only.

But just because we still cannot mathematically model the extreme cases like black holes does not mean our model for what we can observe is complete wrong and does not work, as we can achieve wonders with what we know. This particular page happens to make their own claims, most probably based on some mathematical model, but I don't think it takes into account the acoustics properly, so it is a weak model and evaluation. That is all. It should just not be taken very seriously, especially when there are so many varying parameters and the outcome of the evaluations are so close. Even a variation of the measured particular unit can change the rank.

I rather have a shift of mindset where, with the harman response, or it's goal is to help bridge what we hear in a loudspeaker setup and translate that to the headfi experience. Ultimately it's having a playback chain that's standardized and conforms to the response in a finishing studio setup. So it has nothing to do with preference and 'we hear things differently' or 'golden ears'. So its entirely possible that a bunch of finishing studios (for film) has followed and conformed to a workflow and response that has been standardized yet off the mark in some area (say just the upper mids response). But since everyone is on the same page and mastering engineers have subconsciously compensated the upper mids, that is still the target curve I would like my HP to follow...even if it is wrong on a FR graph measurement.

Only the anti-harman group is making out the Harman target curve is trying to be a perfect 'something', no different from it's only the anti-mqa group that's overinflating the benefits of MQA. That Harman ranking list isn't even pushing anything. It's just a metric of what people can buy commercially and how it lines up to Harman.

 

[Currawong]

Unlike religion, science has no absolute claims, as otherwise Newton would be a prophet and his theory would be the rules of a god. Science constantly improves itself and tries to find better answers - again unlike religion, which is based on rumors (hype?) only.

QFT. Religion is based upon the desire to have answers which one doesn't have to question.

 

[mrspeakers]

The Harman curve is like the pirate's code, more of a guideline really. People should understand that the methodology does impact the results, and the results are statistically derived based on responses that truly covered a very large range of many decibels off the target curve. That said I felt like the curve really did a fantastic job on the midrange, the upper and lower frequencies have more variability relative to the target, as looking at the raw data from their research shows.

It's a big win for the industry to have a research based "target" with which to explain the pros and cons of different tuning strategies, it's a big loss to the industry to treat the curve like it's some absolute target and any variation is an error. That approach misunderstands the methodology and the conclusions.

 

[Kentajalli]

The Harman curve is like the pirate's code, more of a guideline really. ....., it's a big loss to the industry to treat the curve like it's some absolute target and any variation is an error.

Absolutely!
But I doubt those certain people will ever hear that!
No matter how you tune it, they will equalize the crap out of it using 32+ filters with 0.1 dB steps.
It's similar to those people who have to modify a device, just to put their own mark on it! Whether it needs it or not.
Trust me, I know ...

 

[alota]

The stealth has a common dna with aeon 2 black edition? Thanks in advance

 

[elira]

The stealth has a common dna with aeon 2 black edition? Thanks in advance

Very similar frequency response, but the Stealth are better on every regard.

 

[alota]

Very similar frequency response, but the Stealth are better on every regard.

Thank you. For price i believe you. So same way of delivering the sound message?