[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif And fourthly, it does sound «dry» in some way. a) excellent transient response with very short decay b) like all IEMs the sound waves bypass the outer ear and therefore reach the ear drum more directly than with full-size headphones or speakers.

These 3 things, as far as they're accurate, mean essentially the same thing.

BTW I'm assuming that when you say transient response you mean that of the system, not transducer, since that's untrue for the transducer. Even then, the statement is only accurate as far as it relates to decay time.

Quote:

Thirdly, the ER-4P isn't bright to my ears. Actually it's almost dull on top. The ER-4S borders on brightness, though.

Brightness doesn't refer to what's "on top". It refers to the region in the upper mids, around 6-8khz (give or take).

More importantly though, it's irrelevant what it sounds like to your ears, or to my ears. I trust you understand the myriad reasons which make those kinds of statements useless. The general consensus is that they're fairly bright, and that's what I was referring to.

Quote:

Firstly, all balanced-armature drivers have relatively high harmonic distortion. Secondly, it doesn't have much audible effect (at least with the ones I've heard).

Those harmonic distortion products are well in the established audible range.

Also, the distortion you see in that graph is about as much as you'd get from a "tubey" sounding tube component. Actually, since armatures have a lot more odd distortion than tubes do, armature distortion would be even more obvious. Do you find tube distortion inaudible too?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif These 3 things, as far as they're accurate, mean essentially the same thing. BTW I'm assuming that when you say transient response you mean that of the system, not transducer, since that's untrue for the transducer. Even then, the statement is only accurate as far as it relates to decay time.

I was speaking of the transducer. It's very fast and accurate. Add to this the lack of outer-ear reflections, and you get the dryness that's been referred to.

Yes, I consider the ER-4 a very fast and accurate transducer, even compared to other IEMs I've auditioned. The measured high-frequency limitation doesn't invalidate this rating. It's a consequence of the canal acoustics and transducer-ear coupling with their low-pass function, not too high moving mass (which is actually tiny).


Quote:

Brightness doesn't refer to what's "on top". It refers to the region in the upper mids, around 6-8khz (give or take).

If you want to be dogmatic on this, well... However, to me it doesn't sound bright, and that's the only thing I've stated.

Quote:

More importantly though, it's irrelevant what it sounds like to your ears, or to my ears. I trust you understand the myriad reasons which make those kinds of statements useless. The general consensus is that they're fairly bright, and that's what I was referring to.

I'm not interested in the pretended general consensus, just what I hear. Some consider the HD 800 smooth and neutral in the treble, whereas to me it has a treble emphasis. Different ears hear differently.

Quote:

Those harmonic distortion products are well in the established audible range. Also, the distortion you see in that graph is about as much as you'd get from a "tubey" sounding tube component. Actually, since armatures have a lot more odd distortion than tubes do, armature distortion would be even more obvious. Do you find tube distortion inaudible too?

I do hear tube distortion, but not as distortion, just as a warmish coloration. And to me balanced armatures don't have audible distortion. Also, the general consensus is that they sound very clean and accurate, irrespective of the harmonic-distortion measurements. The highest rated IEM to date is a multiple-driver balanced-armature design.

I also have a dynamic IEM for comparison, which by no means sounds clearly «cleaner» or more natural, let alone faster than balanced-armature IEMs. (My references are in my signature.)

But we digress...

.

 

[metalgear]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree. Voices are a strength of the HD 800. .

I haven't heard the HD800, but I found the ATH W5000 to be best at voices and acoustics. It was too closed for me and I eventually sold it. Anyone can compare the mid range and vocal performance of the HD800 and ATH W5000?

 

[AC1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a misconception. Technically it's virtually impossible for a driver to artificially shorten the decay of a signal. What's happening with the Etys and most IEMs in general is the bypassing of the pinna and the consequential lack of reflections on it. Which makes the sound unnaturally dry and may lead to the impression of sound emanating directly from the brain.

Fair enough. I am describing more the end result of what I hear than technically what is actually happening.

And as far as harmonic decay. That is my term (made up) to describe what I am hearing however much of a misnomer it can be. Kind of like headstage. Technically, there is no stage in my head, it is just a concept.

 

[music_man]

i see what you guys mean. for classical and acoustic jazz. they are amazing. as were the hd6xx at the time. they don't grab me at all for studio pop/rap/funk recordings. they simply are not fluid or flowing on these recordings to me. i want a certain snap when i listen to these genres. they are probably much too accurate and resolving for this music. technically superior is not better for everything apparently. remember this music was mainly mastered for listening on sub $500 stereos with loudspeakers. i know this because i do it. on the other hand many classical and acoustic jazz recordings where made with very high end playback in mind. in fact i am sure the ps1000 is poor at this. i certainly think the gs1000 is poor at it. really it seems that the cheaper headphones are better at this. which is no surprise. for instance i think the sr225 is very good at this. i however will not let my taste in music preclude me from owning all the best headphones

music_man

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was speaking of the transducer. It's very fast and accurate. Add to this the lack of outer-ear reflections, and you get the dryness that's been referred to. Yes, I consider the ER-4 a very fast and accurate transducer, even compared to other IEMs I've auditioned. The measured high-frequency limitation doesn't invalidate this rating. It's a consequence of the canal acoustics and transducer-ear coupling with their low-pass function, not too high moving mass (which is actually tiny).

Ofcourse it invalidates it. What you're saying is like saying "My car goes super fast, even though it only goes up to 30Km/h". It's nonsense. If there's a low-pass due to the way IEMs couple with the ear, I would ask you - what does it matter? What's important is what reaches the ear. If the ear never hears anything that could be described as fast transient response - whether due to low-pass filtering due to coupling or due to transducer limitations - then there is no fast transient response.

Again - the perceived fast transient response of armatures is purely due to their fast decay (nothing to do with the transducer), relatively bright response (where this is true), and very high odd harmonics which are often misinterpreted as missing "detail".

Your other points - well, to be honest I don't think you're making any effort to understand what's being said so I'll leave it at that.

 

[jherbert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Decay is much more related to the enclosure than the transducer. If recordings were made for headphones, no decay would be ideal. But, practically, that decay is needed to give the impression of a "large" soundstage when recordings are made for speakers (with some exceptions around this point).

You are talking about the reflections in the the listening room, not about the decay of the speaker. The transducer should always be as fast as possible and follow faithfullly the signal it is fed with.

A fast transducer should give you all the information of the room the recording was made in.

There are headphones that add reflections for that matter, like the JVC HP-DX1000. They create a very special kind of stage, but then, they add to the recording what is not there in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you mean the very subtle tail end of the note is being cut off by the HD800? Could it be that the damping factor is actually too high? Like stopping the motion of the driver too quickly, just before the last little bit of the sound is actally finished?

The driver moves as long as there is an input signal. So if there is no input (from the recording) it is supposed to stop immediately.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jherbert /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are talking about the reflections in the the listening room, not about the decay of the speaker. The transducer should always be as fast as possible and follow faithfullly the signal it is fed with. A fast transducer should give you all the information of the room the recording was made in. There are headphones that add reflections for that matter, like the JVC HP-DX1000. They create a very special kind of stage, but then, they add to the recording what is not there in the first place.

You are responding as though we disagree when in fact we agree. I wasn't talking about the decay of the speaker. In fact I said that explicitly: "Decay is much more related to the enclosure than the transducer."

 

[jherbert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are responding as though we disagree when in fact we agree. I wasn't talking about the decay of the speaker. In fact I said that explicitly: "Decay is much more related to the enclosure than the transducer."

I guess its a different understanding of decay vs. reverbation. and "speaker" as a system (enclosure plus transducer) and its interaction with a room vs. the merits of the transducer itself.

So I would agree that we disagree and leave it to that.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ofcourse it invalidates it. What you're saying is like saying "My car goes super fast, even though it only goes up to 30Km/h". It's nonsense. If there's a low-pass due to the way IEMs couple with the ear, I would ask you - what does it matter? What's important is what reaches the ear. If the ear never hears anything that could be described as fast transient response - whether due to low-pass filtering due to coupling or due to transducer limitations - then there is no fast transient response.

According to your concept no tranducer can be «fast» when heard with CDs (and their bandwidth limitation). To me this term means accurate transient response, not extended bandwidth..
.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif According to your concept no tranducer can be «fast» when heard with CDs (and their bandwidth limitation). To me this term means accurate transient response, not extended bandwidth.. .

Redbook extends beyond the bandwidth of a typical single-driver armature, but I think I see what you're getting at.

I'm not saying that no transducer can be faster than another (assuming both have >= redbook bandwidth) when listening to redbook. What I'm saying is that the enclosure will play a much greater role in what we're talking about - blackness between notes, how quickly after the music signal stops does the signal arriving at the ear stop, etc. With those, the enclosure has the biggest effect, not the transducer. This affects "detail" as well, because if you have a complex passage, you want concluded sounds to get out of the way as soon as possible so that they don't drown out other sounds which should be heard at that precise moment.

This is only a part of transient response ofcourse. There's also how quickly the transducer can go from stopped to some other excursion offset (i.e., the leading wave of a transient as opposed to the wake, discussed above). Here the enclosure doesn't have much of an effect. But notice that, not all, but a great deal of this measurement is how fast the transducer can move, which is directly measured by the frequency response.

I don't wanna get sidetracked too far into this here though, since this thread is supposed to be about HD800s

Happy to discuss this in PM or another thread.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Redbook extends beyond the bandwidth of a typical single-driver armature, but I think I see what you're getting at. I'm not saying that no transducer can be faster than another (assuming both have >= redbook bandwidth) when listening to redbook. What I'm saying is that the enclosure will play a much greater role in what we're talking about - blackness between notes, how quickly after the music signal stops does the signal arriving at the ear stop, etc. With those, the enclosure has the biggest effect, not the transducer. This affects "detail" as well, because if you have a complex passage, you want concluded sounds to get out of the way as soon as possible so that they don't drown out other sounds which should be heard at that precise moment. This is only a part of transient response ofcourse. There's also how quickly the transducer can go from stopped to some other excursion offset (i.e., the leading wave of a transient as opposed to the wake, discussed above). Here the enclosure doesn't have much of an effect. But notice that, not all, but a great deal of this measurement is how fast the transducer can move, which is directly measured by the frequency response. I don't wanna get sidetracked too far into this here though, since this thread is supposed to be about HD800s Happy to discuss this in PM or another thread.

Bodhi...

...I entirely agree with you on this!

BTW, one of my (balanced-armature) IEMs sounds astonishingly similar to the HD 800: the Phonak Audéo. Of course in terms of realism the HD 800 is clearly better.
.

 

[Darksyde]

Great review! I demoed the HD800's as well, and I felt the same was as you. However, I must say that I mantain my belief that the RS-1's are the best headphones that I've heard yet.

 

[Audio-Omega]

What's balanced HD650 like compare to unbalanced HD800 ?

 

[RedBull]

Great discussion guys, I learned a lot form experts like you, Jazz, b0dhi.
Glad it all ended as gentleman