[Asr]

Quote:

I'm more than interested in your impressions about HD800 vs Qualia vs LCD-2 out of your GS-X as an all around headphone! From your posts i understood that your SR-007 + BHSE combo is your overall favourite but i wonder which of the other three comes close to it as a complete experience?
What about JH-13s? Do the stand a chance approaching these levels of full size phones?
I'm asking because it would be helpful to know that there is a system that even compares to O2 MK1 + BHSE and costs less money..

 
The LCD-2 review that I mentioned in my previous post will contain comparisons to the HD800, Qualia, & JH13 (among others). It's not done yet though and may not be done until at least a few more weeks (probably longer).
 
I also wouldn't call the OII/BHSE system my favorite necessarily. Of the remaining headphones that I own, none of them are really all-rounders for me - each has its pros and cons, and I regularly rotate my setup between electrostatic and dynamic (usually on a weekly basis) to get a different flavor whenever I feel like it.
 
The Qualia was never an all-rounder headphone for me and at its peak I used it exclusively for bluegrass and ambient electronica. It was awesome at those though. The HD800 isn't an all-rounder for me either and serves the same role that the Qualia did. I sold the Qualia because the HD800 is a lot cheaper and I actually found it tolerable on my GS-X, so I didn't really need the Qualia anymore. Among the various types of music that I listen to, I don't see myself using the HD800 for anything more than bluegrass and ambient electronica either (at least on a regular basis). The LCD-2 has had some interesting results for me but I won't reveal those just yet, but I will say that it's not an all-rounder either. Among my dynamic headphones though, it's my first choice for classical and jazz. (I should add that it was actually my second choice for classical & jazz after the Grado HP2, but I sold the HP2 also recently, so the LCD-2 is now first by default.)
 
I don't see my JH13 as a replacement for any of my full-size headphones, as I never use them at my desk. But as good as the JH13 is, it really doesn't compare to the OII/BHSE - and I covered this subject in a review that I wrote of the JH13 here: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/482773/review-jh-audio-jh13. It is kinda cool that I have an amp with unity gain for my JH13 (the GS-X), but I never planned that part of my setup, that came out as an unintended side-effect. I don't really foresee using the JH13 much with my GS-X, but I'm sure I'll take advantage of that every now and then.
 
Nothing I've heard compares to the OII/BHSE, and IMO anyone who wants to get its performance out of something else for less money is barking up the wrong tree. There's nothing else like it, at least that I've heard.
 
Quote:

Asr: How are you finding the AD2000s compared to the LCD-2s?

It's been an interesting battle between these two headphones lately, that's all I'm going to say for now.

The AD2K will be one of the other headphone comparisons in my future review of the LCD-2.

 

[gomincha]

Thanks Asr! Now i can't wait for your LCD-2 review..

 

[MrSpenkelink]

Quote:

ElDoug I understood you. But the practice of measuring equency response, even of loudspeakrs, is as much alchemy as science. Look at the great lengths John Atkinson at Stereophile goes through, with fairly sophisticated equipment, and still he is contstantly saying that this or that part of the results graph is "likely an artifact of the measurement technique".

The measurement of transducer frequency response, by another transducer, and in anything short of an anechoic chamber, is not definitive. Headphone measurements are even more contested and debatable. Nothing is going to be "proven" in this thread by an endless and needless discussion of measurement techniques, and it has totally veered away from the topic of this thread.

 
This is a refreshing post to read in these forum threads, where I feel some here place far too much faith in headphone measurements and point to them as the final arbiter for differences of opinion over inherently subjective listening impressions.   
 
[size=medium]  [/size]
 
 
 

 

[vrln]

It´s a wide topic for debate in the entire audiophile sector. Personally I feel some good hard science is always preferable to subjective perceptions. Good to have both sides here

 

[MrSpenkelink]

I think the point of Skylab's post is that the science surrounding the measurement of headphone performance is not conclusive. That's not to say that it isn't useful. Sound science has a role to play in this hobby but it should not be what defines it.
 
What do you rely upon to make an assessment about the merit of a headphone in the end? Is it measurements or your ears? If it's the former, then why bother to listen at all? 

 

[Happy Camper]

Specs say a headphone can go 8-65k~ +/- 3db, why? Will we ever know how well they preform @ 50k? Specs are marketing tools as much as artsy prose about magic sound.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

I think the point of Skylab's post is that the science surrounding the measurement of headphone performance is not conclusive. That's not to say that it isn't useful. Sound science has a role to play in this hobby but it should not be what defines it.
 
What do you rely upon to make an assessment about the merit of a headphone in the end? Is it measurements or your ears? If it's the former, then why bother to listen at all? 

Right.  I think both are useful, but it is when both are presented together that the discussion is interesting.  Measurements alone tell you very, very little, IMO, and people all hear differently that isolated subjective opinions arent very helpful either.  When BOTH the measurements AND the subjective comments have a lot of depth to them, and historical perspective, that's the most useful information.

 

[ardgedee]

I send my headphones out to a trained doberman to perform listening tests on any headphone I am considering, specifically to confirm that the ultrasonic range is accurate and tonally pleasing even when I can't hear it.
 
The problem then becomes the difference in human and canine pinnae, which affects the spacial cues the dobie hears. So there ends up being a lot of acoustic processing necessary. Needless to say, dog-based headphone testing is still an inexact science.

 

[not_sure]

Quote:

Nothing I've heard compares to the OII/BHSE, and IMO anyone who wants to get its performance out of something else for less money is barking up the wrong tree. There's nothing else like it, at least that I've heard.

 
I think OII/KGSS would be more fair instead of BHSE to compare with LCD2/GS-X. BHSE seems to be bless amp exact made for OII. There is no amp exact made for LCD-2. I'm not trying to say that LCD-2 will be in similar level like your OII/BHSE but who knows, maybe it has potencial with right amp and maybe really not of course, as everything it is subjective.

 

[jamato8]

Quote:

Quote:

Nothing I've heard compares to the OII/BHSE, and IMO anyone who wants to get its performance out of something else for less money is barking up the wrong tree. There's nothing else like it, at least that I've heard.

 
I think OII/KGSS would be more fair instead of BHSE to compare with LCD2/GS-X. BHSE seems to be bless amp exact made for OII. There is no amp exact made for LCD-2. I'm not trying to say that LCD-2 will be in similar level like your OII/BHSE but who knows, maybe it has potencial with right amp and maybe really not of course, as everything it is subjective.

Good point. When I had all my equipment with me and built my own preamps and amps, I could tune them to my speakers and get the most out of that exact speaker, which was what I wanted, the most out of what my transducers had to offer. Most headphones are made to go with a number of amps, with no specific amp amp made just for them. Changing op amps and buffers in my fi.Q does offer me the opportunity to tune that particular amp, and for my situation and headphones, that does work but unless someone else has the same amp as me, there is no way for them to know what I am actually hearing, not discounting that they may not agree with me. 
 

 

[sokolov91]

off topic I suppose but wasn't the  KGSS(HV) made for the O2 too as well? Maybe it was the O2 but I am pretty he mentioned explicitly it was designed so he didn't have to purchase a stax amp for 2k.
 
To quote kg "[size=x-small]I bought the Omega II headphones without the amplifier ($1995 + shipping from EIFL Corporation in Japan). I would love to listen to the SRM-007t or SRM-717 amplifier, but really do not want to fork over $4000 to do so. I have been working on this solid state Stax headphone driver for a long time. It satisfies all of the design requirements. Of course it sounds absolutely amazing which is clearly the goal here. There are no capacitors in the signal path. Its fully DC coupled. No expensive parts, and can be built by just about anyone."[/size]
 
At the end of the day you have to realize even electrical engineers are only human... and guess what they look at technical specifications to design an amp.
 
They don't just listen to a headphone and say "hrm, I need blackgate caps and cryogenically treated platinum cables too be quick and counteract the highs in this headphone... but we will add some copper wire here to smooth the mids out... oh and add some super thick gague copper wire here to give the bass some depth"
 
That entire concept is asinine. They work very much as what they are, electrical engineers, and audiophiles second if at all.
 
They are bound by the constraints of the product they are designing an amp for...
 
As long as the systems are matched well, any O2 set up could be compared vs an LCD-2 set up or any other headphone set up.
 
Synergy is subjective, and system dependent. There is no way they could release a product baking only on synergy.

 

[MrSpenkelink]

 
Quote:

Quote:

I think the point of Skylab's post is that the science surrounding the measurement of headphone performance is not conclusive. That's not to say that it isn't useful. Sound science has a role to play in this hobby but it should not be what defines it.
 
What do you rely upon to make an assessment about the merit of a headphone in the end? Is it measurements or your ears? If it's the former, then why bother to listen at all? 

Right.  I think both are useful, but it is when both are presented together that the discussion is interesting.  Measurements alone tell you very, very little, IMO, and people all hear differently that isolated subjective opinions arent very helpful either.  When BOTH the measurements AND the subjective comments have a lot of depth to them, and historical perspective, that's the most useful information.

Indeed. Just as long as it doesn't keep me from the enjoyment of listening to music for too long.

 

 

[MrSpenkelink]

Quote:

I send my headphones out to a trained doberman to perform listening tests on any headphone I am considering, specifically to confirm that the ultrasonic range is accurate and tonally pleasing even when I can't hear it.
 
The problem then becomes the difference in human and canine pinnae, which affects the spacial cues the dobie hears. So there ends up being a lot of acoustic processing necessary. Needless to say, dog-based headphone testing is still an inexact science.

Woof!
 

 

[Badd99]

I disagree with most...I think tests alone show exactly what you should hear. Its show exactly what the drivers are reproducing so how can it be flawed? Science, proven science, is not flawed. Its not a 'proven' thing but the graphs do speak to me more than anyone's opinion. I obviously go with my ears for number one, but those various graphs are sure close behind. What I see on graphs and then when I go listen it just all makes sense. 
 
On a different note, the LCD-2 have treble for sure and it is a natural sound, not the boosted artificial treble I think most people say sounds better. 

 

[Badd99]

Your much better off, imo, sending a flat response to your ear and let your natural, uncontrollable, human eq'd ears do the rest of the work. Also, the inconsistencies on the graphs are +/- 3db or so which really is not much at all. Its a general outline, not a definite measurement. Plus, anything on an ordinary frequency response above 4khz is nonsense due to the method of measurement. 
 
I also think that your comment on having my 'headphone design so wrong' is atrocious because a lot of headphones do in fact have treble peaks, which most say sound better. My assumption may be, in fact, that a boosted treble response leads to, in some individuals, a more appreciated treble response. This would be a general hypothesis based on given data. 
 
side note: My re-cable is only because I feel the soundstage opens up a bit and in no way changes the treble response to my ears.