[SolarCetacean]

This is exactly what makes Stealth so unique and transparent, no artificial reverb/decay, only what's there on the recording. It gives the effect of an anechoic chamber which can be very unnatural to our ears (ever heard a balloon pop in such a room? Very weird). I can totally see why you don't vibe with it.
However for me live recordings sound extremely natural with the proper amount of decay. My conclusion was that for other music the fault lies in the mix and not the headphone. In the end however accuracy is not the aim but musical enjoyment is and if the Stealth is not enjoyable for you then so be it.

Have you heard it on a high end tube amp? Haven't myself but I've read of tube amps adding thicker note decay that may alleviate this effect for you.

I haven't been in a fully anechoic chamber, but at work, we have a sound isolating booth that we use for hardware noise measurements, and it has a similar effect. I was discussing fan noise testing with a coworker in the booth the other day, and her voice was oddly emphasized and intense while in there. Once we continued the conversation outside, her voice returned to normal. That vocal character is similar to what I heard on the Aeon 2 and Stealth. I've also clapped while inside the booth just for fun, and yeah, the reverb or lack of it is similar to how I hear drums on the DCA headphones.

I keep on hearing about these mythical perfect recordings that sound extremely lifelike on the DCA headphones, but I have not encountered one myself. Or rather, I have not encountered any that I would consider more lifelike on a DCA than on a Stax or something like that. More neutral, sure. More detailed, sure. But more lifelike? I don't spend my time in recording studios or anechoic chambers. I have no reference for what instruments should sound like there. I don't look for a headphone that tries to render instruments as if they were played in such spaces. If anything, given my musical background, I'd expect more reverberation from an instrument than average.

I haven't heard the Stealth on a good tube amp, unfortunately. However, I have heard the Aeon 2 on the Ferrum Erco, and I think that DAC/amp has a very dynamic and punchy sound that alleviates some of those 'DCA house sound' issues. I've also used the Aeon 2 with dynamic EQ which I configure as an expander, so all transients in the music get overdriven and expanded. Then it sounds really good! There's more impact, there's more pronounced decay, there's more openness to the sound, etc.! If the DCAs weren't damped to the extent that they are, I'd love them! I'm sure I would love the Stealth if I applied the same dynamic expansion to its input. But then I'm adding in the extra reverb and decay that Dan Clark intentionally tried to avoid in his designs... There's also the issue that what pairs well with the DCAs also pairs well, perhaps even better, with my electrostatics, and I don't know that if I had the DCA and a Stax or Shangri-La Jr in the same setup if I would ever reach for the DCA. The Corina quickly lost vs the X9000 at CAF, and honestly the Stealth did too as both were available at the HeadAmp table.

I cannot say that the Stealth is deficient in any regard. To me, "deficient" implies that the designer was unable to properly tune the headphone. But nothing that the Stealth does is due to Dan being unable to tune something better. Dan Clark is a master of the trade; everything I've seen in interviews shows that he knows what he's doing. I just disagree with his design choices. For me, the Stealth, Corina, and DCA headphones in general remind me of the Rene Magritte "This Is Not A Pipe" painting. This is not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe. For DCA headphones, I'm always reminded that "this is not music, it's a recording of the music". I get why the Stealth does this, and it's a good headphone, but it is not great to me. My philosophy is that great headphones bridge the gap between recording and reality. It shouldn't sound lifelike only if the recording is lifelike; it should make recordings sound lifelike. Ultimately, it's this fundamental philosophical divide that makes me not enjoy the Stealth and DCA headphones, even though I understand their strengths and their underlying design goals.

 

[number1sixerfan]

I keep on hearing about these mythical perfect recordings that sound extremely lifelike on the DCA headphones, but I have not encountered one myself. Or rather, I have not encountered any that I would consider more lifelike on a DCA than on a Stax or something like that. More neutral, sure. More detailed, sure. But more lifelike? I don't spend my time in recording studios or anechoic chambers. I have no reference for what instruments should sound like there.

Most of us simply don't. And even for some that have some exposure, they don't have a clue what the artist/sound engineers intended for the final output and things done to achieve it, the unique setup/studio they used, etc. There is simply no reliable way to argue about what an original recording is "supposed to sound like". My personal take is that playing instruments live or being exposed to them being played live in various settings (intimate settings) supplies the most relevant experience, but even then, no cigar, because again you don't have a baseline reference for any song's engineered intentions and performance.

From what I gather on this site, most people reference larger scale live performances, but even that is shotty as the venue and equipment drastically changes even the same song performed.

 

[Ciggavelli]

Most of us simply don't. And even for some that have some exposure, they don't have a clue what the artist/sound engineers intended for the final output and things done to achieve it, the unique setup/studio they used, etc. There is simply no reliable way to argue about what an original recording is "supposed to sound like". My personal take is that playing instruments live or being exposed to them being played live in various settings (intimate settings) supplies the most relevant experience, but even then, no cigar, because again you don't have a baseline reference for any song's engineered intentions and performance.

From what I gather on this site, most people reference larger scale live performances, but even that is shotty as the venue and equipment drastically changes even the same song performed.

I agree with you. I don't personally like live venue sound that much. They simply don't have good equipment at most places. I'm always like, this sh!t sounds so much better at my place. I don't think there is a "true" sound. Maybe non amplified instruments, but that's not my cup of tea. I never got the timbre or realism side of audio. Maybe that's just me, but it's really hard to assess that sort of thing objectively. I think many of us are just trying to find that "distortion" that sounds the best to us. That's why many like tubes. If "realism" was all we cared about, everybody should just stick with solid state amps and clinical dacs. But I'd guess most of us want some "flavor" with our setup. The hobby then revolves around figuring out which "flavor" suits us best.

 

[SolarCetacean]

So I'm not actually a timbre-head, and I don't value timbre to the same degree as other people in the community. Heck, most of my music is EDM which is synthetic to begin with. But the issues with instrument timbre I described using recorded instruments earlier are part of what make even EDM unsatisfying to me. I just find it easier to illustrate the issues with recorded instruments, and head off any objections of "well, the Stealth works better with real music on real instruments that real audiophiles listen to." You see this point being thrown around sometimes.

Regarding timbre, the Stealth presents me with a dilemma. I know that from measurements, it's extremely accurate. So it should be reproducing the music exactly as it's encoded in the track. However, with pianos and drums, the resulting output does not match the sound of any piano or drum I've heard in real life. Secondly, I still don't like the way music rendered even in the absence of real-life experience in the case of synths. If I enjoyed the sound even if it didn't match my experience, I'd be fine with that, but I don't enjoy it all that much. Do I side with the Stealth, and say that it is correct even if it conflicts with my personal experience and preference, or do I side with my experiences and preferences as being more relevant than any audio test suite? If I were to take the path of "the Stealth isn't wrong, it's the mastering that's wrong!" then I would need to find tracks that do sound lifelike on the Stealth. I have yet to find any. So then if I wanted to fully enjoy the Stealth, then I'd need to get entirely new music, as none of the 4,000+ tracks in my existing library will do. For me, that's a bridge too far. Sure, new music is always great, but headphones need to work well with my existing collection too. So I've chosen to side with my experience and say that the Stealth just isn't for me.

As @number1sixerfan and @Ciggavelli have pointed out, it's extremely difficult to tell exactly what a piece of music is supposed to sound like. I can only judge based on what I've heard myself. And different people will differ in what they think is natural because of different experiences, hence the variety of sound signatures that different people enjoy. I like the headphones that I do because they make music sound more like music and voices and instruments that I've heard in personal experience. They make things sound plausible and convincing, as if they could have been recorded at an event I attended. The Stealth did not, to me.

 

[plumpudding2]

Most of us simply don't. And even for some that have some exposure, they don't have a clue what the artist/sound engineers intended for the final output and things done to achieve it, the unique setup/studio they used, etc. There is simply no reliable way to argue about what an original recording is "supposed to sound like". My personal take is that playing instruments live or being exposed to them being played live in various settings (intimate settings) supplies the most relevant experience, but even then, no cigar, because again you don't have a baseline reference for any song's engineered intentions and performance.

From what I gather on this site, most people reference larger scale live performances, but even that is shotty as the venue and equipment drastically changes even the same song performed.

I think the most reliable judge of timbre is playing an instrument yourself. Your brain becomes so intimately familiar with the sound of it you know perfectly well what is 'right' or not. I play the violin and know exactly what it should sound like in a small room. Also play in an orchestra so I know exactly how that should sound in either an echoing church or a dry performance theater hall

Also last weekend I got a nice reminder that the real thing is not always better. Went to a concert of the Lithuanian National Symphony orchestra playing Saint-Saens cello concerto and while the orchestra had a fullness and separation I haven't heard reproduced by headphones, the soloist sounded horrible. Thin, lifeless and muddy, like she was playing behind a curtain.

 

[number1sixerfan]

I think the most reliable judge of timbre is playing an instrument yourself. Your brain becomes so intimately familiar with the sound of it you know perfectly well what is 'right' or not. I play the violin and know exactly what it should sound like in a small room. Also play in an orchestra so I know exactly how that should sound in either an echoing church or a dry performance theater hall

Also last weekend I got a nice reminder that the real thing is not always better. Went to a concert of the Lithuanian National Symphony orchestra playing Saint-Saens cello concerto and while the orchestra had a fullness and separation I haven't heard reproduced by headphones, the soloist sounded horrible. Thin, lifeless and muddy, like she was playing behind a curtain.

I definitely agree. I think playing an instrument yourself is probably the most reliable reference point for timbre. I just think there are a lot of variables to be aware of. Even with instruments themselves, you have variables across brands, instrument types (i.e. not every guitar or piano sounds the same), etc. That's extremely complicated with the addition of other variables like differences in recording studios, how tracks are engineered/mastered, differences in concert venues, etc. Still, all informative data points, just pretty impossible to determine what an artist/music engineer intended their song to really sound like. Yet and still, timbre accuracy discussions are definitely really important imo and timbre is one of the biggest factors I judge a headphone by, along with tonality, resolution and imaging.

 

[jlbrach]

I agree with you. I don't personally like live venue sound that much. They simply don't have good equipment at most places. I'm always like, this sh!t sounds so much better at my place. I don't think there is a "true" sound. Maybe non amplified instruments, but that's not my cup of tea. I never got the timbre or realism side of audio. Maybe that's just me, but it's really hard to assess that sort of thing objectively. I think many of us are just trying to find that "distortion" that sounds the best to us. That's why many like tubes. If "realism" was all we cared about, everybody should just stick with solid state amps and clinical dacs. But I'd guess most of us want some "flavor" with our setup. The hobby then revolves around figuring out which "flavor" suits us best.

I attend tons of live shows and to be honest many times I find the performance undermined by dreadful sound...I have heard the same band at the same venue on different nights and loved it one night and disliked it the next simply due to the sound quality so using "live" as a baseline can be very variable....that said when the venue gets it roght the sound quality can be awesome

 

[TheMiddleSky]

I attend tons of live shows and to be honest many times I find the performance undermined by dreadful sound...I have heard the same band at the same venue on different nights and loved it one night and disliked it the next simply due to the sound quality so using "live" as a baseline can be very variable....that said when the venue gets it roght the sound quality can be awesome

Because even with same venue and same band, different day of show time may lead to different sound engineer that do all the sound setting. Different person = different taste.

I definitely agree. I think playing an instrument yourself is probably the most reliable reference point for timbre. I just think there are a lot of variables to be aware of. Even with instruments themselves, you have variables across brands, instrument types (i.e. not every guitar or piano sounds the same), etc. That's extremely complicated with the addition of other variables like differences in recording studios, how tracks are engineered/mastered, differences in concert venues, etc. Still, all informative data points, just pretty impossible to determine what an artist/music engineer intended their song to really sound like. Yet and still, timbre accuracy discussions are definitely really important imo and timbre is one of the biggest factors I judge a headphone by, along with tonality, resolution and imaging.

Truly agree on this. We will never know how the song itself recorded (different microphones have different character) and how it mastered.

 

[silversurfer616]

In an age where people listen to reviewers/influencers on YouTube to hear how some speakers sound etc, you know the ship of fools is overcrowded.

 

[jlbrach]

Because even with same venue and same band, different day of show time may lead to different sound engineer that do all the sound setting. Different person = different taste.

this is absolutely true and it surprised me when I was at the beacon theatre in NYC a great venue and I complained to the venue about the muddy sound and they told me they have nothing to do with it,the band has somebody who manages the sound

 

[Daniel Johnston]

I keep on hearing about these mythical perfect recordings that sound extremely lifelike on the DCA headphones, but I have not encountered one myself. Or rather, I have not encountered any that I would consider more lifelike on a DCA than on a Stax or something like that. More neutral, sure. More detailed, sure. But more lifelike? I don't spend my time in recording studios or anechoic chambers. I have no reference for what instruments should sound like there. I don't look for a headphone that tries to render instruments as if they were played in such spaces. If anything, given my musical background, I'd expect more reverberation from an instrument than average.

There is no shame using spatializing DSP. Same with EQ. The DCA Stealth give you a solid, not overly colored tuning to start. You take it from there. Throw in reverb, crossfeeed, and bass boost. Make the music sound like you expect. The Stealths will take whatever you throw at them.

haven't been in a fully anechoic chamber, but at work, we have a sound isolating booth that we use for hardware noise measurements, and it has a similar effect. I was discussing fan noise testing with a coworker in the booth the other day, and her voice was oddly emphasized and intense while in there. Once we continued the conversation outside, her voice returned to normal. That vocal character is similar to what I heard on the Aeon 2 and Stealth. I've also clapped while inside the booth just for fun, and yeah, the reverb or lack of it is similar to how I hear drums on the DCA headphones.

I've not experienced this per se with the DCA Stealth, but you described the challenges of closed back headphones. Not even the genius of Dan Clark can match open back e stats speed, soundstage, and decay with the Stealth.

I've not found EDM satisfying on the Stealth without tweaks. Classical on the otherhand sounds fantastic with a good amp. I'm using the Naim Uniti HE. Incidentally, I best enjoy the Aeon 2 Noire with the Schiit Folkvangr.

 

[SolarCetacean]

Gave the Stealth another shot today at The Source AV. Interestingly, the comfort was a lot better on this unit - no single hotspot on the headband. Jason said it was a new unit that just came in two weeks ago. So that's a very significant plus.

Sadly, the quieter listening conditions did the Stealth no favors. Lower listening volume means that the equal loudness contours work against the headphone, making the lack of impact in the bass more prominent. The midrange is the center of attention, and treble is subdued, but not dark. For those valuing that type of tuning, you can't get much better than this. It's extremely detailed too, with the less aggressive treble not actually diminishing its detail resolution. Timbre is better than on a stock Aeon 2 Noire, no rubberiness or sponginess in the bass and far less fatiguing, more like a Noire with some of the more aggressive dampening filters. But I prefer a more energetic and exciting tuning with more treble sparkle and air, so the controlled treble just comes across as dull. Furthermore, the issues with how the trailing ends of tones are presented, that lack of extra reverb and the resulting lack of "openness" in the sound, still occur on the Stealth and make it an unenjoyable listen, and now it's compounded by the lack of bass impact. It frustratingly is a very good headphone that I understand and admire intellectually yet fail to connect with emotionally.

 

[ubs28]

Gave the Stealth another shot today at The Source AV. Interestingly, the comfort was a lot better on this unit - no single hotspot on the headband. Jason said it was a new unit that just came in two weeks ago. So that's a very significant plus.

Sadly, the quieter listening conditions did the Stealth no favors. Lower listening volume means that the equal loudness contours work against the headphone, making the lack of impact in the bass more prominent. The midrange is the center of attention, and treble is subdued, but not dark. For those valuing that type of tuning, you can't get much better than this. It's extremely detailed too, with the less aggressive treble not actually diminishing its detail resolution. Timbre is better than on a stock Aeon 2 Noire, no rubberiness or sponginess in the bass and far less fatiguing, more like a Noire with some of the more aggressive dampening filters. But I prefer a more energetic and exciting tuning with more treble sparkle and air, so the controlled treble just comes across as dull. Furthermore, the issues with how the trailing ends of tones are presented, that lack of extra reverb and the resulting lack of "openness" in the sound, still occur on the Stealth and make it an unenjoyable listen, and now it's compounded by the lack of bass impact. It frustratingly is a very good headphone that I understand and admire intellectually yet fail to connect with emotionally.

I disagree.

I had the new Utopia against the Stealth. And while the Focal Utopia had pretty much a similar tuning, it had actually bass impact due to being more dynamic headphone. Seems all Mr.Speaker headphones I heard have bad dynamics which make it appear that they have weak bass, while the bass is actually on point.

Hence for this type of tuning, Focal Utopia (new) > Stealth.

It also helps that the ear cups inside Utopia provide more space as my ears was constantly touching the headphone in the Stealth, which is an automatic disqualifier for me. It would have been a nice set of office headphone if the headphone cups were a bit bigger.

 

[ThanatosVI]

I disagree.

I had the new Utopia against the Stealth. And while the Focal Utopia had pretty much a similar tuning, it had actually bass impact due to being more dynamic headphone. Seems all Mr.Speaker headphones I heard have bad dynamics which make it appear that they have weak bass, while the bass is actually on point.

Hence for this type of tuning, Focal Utopia (new) > Stealth.

It also helps that the ear cups inside Utopia provide more space as my ears was constantly touching the headphone in the Stealth, which is an automatic disqualifier for me.

Every time I read posts like this, I can't shake the feeling that the DCA Was severely underpowered in that comparison.

The Stealth has Harman tuning Bass, the Expanse has even more midbass than that. Both don't Fall under "weak bass" at all. (Or depending on Definition, Utopia etc would also fall under weak bass)

Either the listeners did a horrible job at volume matching or severely underpowered the headphone.

 

[ubs28]

Every time I read posts like this, I can't shake the feeling that the DCA Was severely underpowered in that comparison.

The Stealth has Harman tuning Bass, the Expanse has even more midbass than that. Both don't Fall under "weak bass" at all. (Or depending on Definition, Utopia etc would also fall under weak bass)

Either the listeners did a horrible job at volume matching or severely underpowered the headphone.

If the Stealth requires a nuclear fussion reactor in order to have dynamics as good as a Focal Utopia, it kinda defeats the purpose of a closed headphone, as you are not going to bring a nuclear fusion reactor to the office.