[E1DA]

Ideas made us a human.

 

[maziarshaghaghi]

do you know that the impedance sometimes matter but sometimes not?
because the lowest headphone impedance is 8 ohms & the highest headphone impedance is 600 ohms and if you calculate them u can see that the difference is 75 in ohms or mW, so the voltage is more than 8 and less than 9 V rms

8^2=64, 9^2=81

so don't worry about the high impedance, i know that the higher impedance decreases the volume and needs more voltages but the highest impedance will decreases less than 19 dB volume

if u have no problem with the highest impedance u can find some noise cancellation headphones that have more than 600 ohms active impedance & u can measure what the difference is.

 

[FourT6and2]

Informative thread. So how does one intelligently demo headphones? For example in a store. Let's say I'm comparing 3 different headphones in a store to decide which one to buy. But I'm using the same amp with all three. Amp's output impedance is... oh let's say 16ohms. Headphone 1 is 300ohm, Headphone 2 is 80ohm, and Headphone 3 is 36ohm. I would be better off using an amp with as low of an impedance as possible it seems. Let's through one more monkey wrench in there: amp power. amp with 16ohm output impedance can pump out 5 watts and is powered by mains/wall. There's another amp available, but it's battery powered and only puts out (35mW at 600ohm), but its output impedance is less than 1ohm. It's a fraction of an ohm.

So... what do?

Also, let's say I want to buy a quality planar magnetic headphone with a listed impedance of like 30-50ohms. And let's say my requirements for an amp are built-in DAC, balanced output (either 4-pin XLR or 4.4mm Pentaconn), and enough wattage to really get the job done. There aren't a lot of options out there it seems. Many headphone amp with DACs just don't have the wattage or their impedances are too high.

 

[bigshot]

The best way to compare headphones is with the proper impedance matching. You find the cans with the sound you want, and you build your system around that. However, that might not apply to portable rigs. You need to balance sound with convenience. People don't value convenience as much as they should. Hauling around a pile of black boxes and maintaining battery power in all of them is a pain. It might be better to sacrifice a tiny bit of sound quality in favor of simplicity.

 

[Àedhàn Cassiel]

Is there any truth to the notion that electrostatic "energizers" matter more than regular old headphone amps? People that admit the differences between regular amps are tiny often still think the differences between "energizers" matter a lot. I have an SRM-006t tube "energizer" that pairs with a SR-404 from Stax, and I've been told I shouldn't try the SR-007 out on it at all because it will just totally totally screw up the sound apparently. The SR-007 impedance is 170k ohms at 10kHz. Sensitivity 100dB/100V RMS at 1kHz. I can't find anything on the stats of the SRM-006t though.

 

[pinnahertz]

Is there any truth to the notion that electrostatic "energizers" matter more than regular old headphone amps? People that admit the differences between regular amps are tiny often still think the differences between "energizers" matter a lot. I have an SRM-006t tube "energizer" that pairs with a SR-404 from Stax, and I've been told I shouldn't try the SR-007 out on it at all because it will just totally totally screw up the sound apparently. The SR-007 impedance is 170k ohms at 10kHz. Sensitivity 100dB/100V RMS at 1kHz. I can't find anything on the stats of the SRM-006t though.

The SRM-006TS specs are here.

On one hand it doesn't appear that it would cause a problem driving the SR-007, certainly no damage would occur. As to "I've been told.....totally screw up the sound"....yeah, well who told you and why would you believe them? Are you here looking for a contrary opinion from someone equally uncredited and unqualified? How is that going to help anything? Why don't you just give it a try?

On the other hand, electrostatic headphones and the manufacturer's recommended driver are something I've always considered a closed system, especially within a particular brand. If you want different sound from the same headphones, then use actual equalization rather than messing with un-verified, un-documented, and un-predictable combinations. At least you'll know what you're getting, be able to document it, refine your settings, and progress forward.

 

[Àedhàn Cassiel]

My only way for me to try an SR-007 is by shelling 1400 out up front for a used pair. I was considering that, til someone warned me.

 

[pinnahertz]

My only way for me to try an SR-007 is by shelling 1400 out up front for a used pair. I was considering that, til someone warned me.

Why try an SR-007 in the first place? Who warned you not to? I would analyze my goals. What am I trying to achieve? Obviously "better", but there are many paths to "better" besides another electrostatic, recommendations either way not withstanding. Done the DSP/EQ thing yet? It's like painting with a limitless palette vs buying a different ($1400) paint and using the same brush.

If you bought a used pair and hated it, you can resell your used pair and recover most of the outlay. Then you'd know if your warning was valid, and more importantly, you'd be the expert and we could all ask you!

 

[Àedhàn Cassiel]

I've played around a lot with EQ over the last couple years, and have a good system down now for eliminating any troublesome peaks from new headphones. I tune my HD800 towards but not all the way to the Harman curve. I love the RAD-0 with no EQ, the Verite Closed needs a bit to reduce upper-mid shout with extreme metal.

I am inclined to agree that the only difference between different headphones is signature and distortion, but I think there are limits to how far digital EQ can take you, (1) because it gradually adds distortion and (2) because software just can't give you the number of taps you need running to truly take things to the next level - the studies emulating one headphone on another use dedicated DSP hardware running hundreds of taps, 200 is on the low end. So for a non-expert not planning to dump a hundred hours in, cutting troubling peaks, maybe throwing in a bass boost option is the most realistic use for EQ IMO.

I see an SR007 that's been going for sale here for a long while, looks like they aren't in high demand on the used market. Most people after that sound already flew to Japan and picked up a fresh pair, very few used buyers are looking there for Stax. I could easily get stuck with them and I'm already embarassed by the amount of money I have in headphones haha

 

[pinnahertz]

I've played around a lot with EQ over the last couple years, and have a good system down now for eliminating any troublesome peaks from new headphones. I tune my HD800 towards but not all the way to the Harman curve. I love the RAD-0 with no EQ, the Verite Closed needs a bit to reduce upper-mid shout with extreme metal.

I am inclined to agree that the only difference between different headphones is signature and distortion,

Those are not small. Add to them the method of delivery: closed, open, IEM...all very different.

but I think there are limits to how far digital EQ can take you, (1) because it gradually adds distortion and (2) because software just can't give you the number of taps you need running to truly take things to the next level - the studies emulating one headphone on another use dedicated DSP hardware running hundreds of taps, 200 is on the low end. So for a non-expert not planning to dump a hundred hours in, cutting troubling peaks, maybe throwing in a bass boost option is the most realistic use for EQ IMO.

Depends on the type of EQ. IIR-based EQ, sure, FIR not so much. The number of "taps" doesn't describe a real limit though. The real limits to EQ are how the curve is developed. You can use others measurements, your own measurements, or subjective judgement. All have issues with precision. Measurements and DSP that result in inverse FIR with target curve are limited only by the precision of the measurements, not filter complexity. However, there is also a practical limit based on audible change too. Lots of tiny corrections make for a complex filter with no audible effect. And if you alter the measurement setup even slightly, all those tiny excursions will change too, so you effectively need a cluster and logical means of combining them. An average is ok if you take a lot of measurements, something like fuzzy clustering would be better. Smoothing is appropriate in any case. Regardless, you don't need a complex filter to deal with the audible issues. And you can't EQ a change in headphone/ear coupling because you can't EQ more than one arrival angle from the driver to the ear.

I see an SR007 that's been going for sale here for a long while, looks like they aren't in high demand on the used market. Most people after that sound already flew to Japan and picked up a fresh pair, very few used buyers are looking there for Stax. I could easily get stuck with them and I'm already embarassed by the amount of money I have in headphones haha

I'm still not understanding what your goal is. I don't consider a used equipment purchase as being "stuck" with anything, if the purchase price is at or below market value. It's more like a rental or free loan.

 

[bigshot]

I have no complaints about the ability of digital EQ to correct cans. Digital EQs add no audible distortion, and a good parametric EQ can do pretty much anything that needs doing. It's not like decent headphones are that far off target. They usually just need a little tweak here and there. I'm lucky because my headphones are designed to not need EQ nor amplification. My major gripe against EQ is one of convenience, not quality.

 

[Àedhàn Cassiel]

I'm lucky because my headphones are designed to not need EQ nor amplification.

What headphones do you use?

I'm still not understanding what your goal is.

It's really neither here nor there, as far as establishing if there's a scientific answer to the question is concerned. I'm not sure why I should submit to probing over my personal purchase decisions at all, but especially if no one's sure about the answer to the question anyway I don't plan to make the leap unless I can find some objective knowledge to assure me this wouldn't actually be a "bad pairing" and that's that

 

[pinnahertz]

It's really neither here nor there, as far as establishing if there's a scientific answer to the question is concerned.

Understanding the goal would result in better information return. The goal was not initially stated clearly, it was vague, so the information you got is also vague and general, with opinion thrown in.

I'm not sure why I should submit to probing over my personal purchase decisions at all, but especially if no one's sure about the answer to the question anyway I don't plan to make the leap unless I can find some objective knowledge to assure me this wouldn't actually be a "bad pairing" and that's that

Probing was to try to extract more information so the response would be more useful. If you go to the doctor and say "I don't feel good", he's going to probe a lot more in order to prescribe a remedy or treatment.

"Good" and "Bad" are relative here. It's a non-destructive combination, and I see no reason (other than possibly manufacturer's recommendation) that the old driver box wouldn't work. You did clarify your goal somewhat by stating that you already own the older box. That makes your goal of owning and using the SR007 and driving them at the lowest possibly cost more obvious. However, the strong reverse bias of "don't even bother" from the mythical other authority is a lot to counter with either logic or science.

 

[bigshot]

What headphones do you use?

Oppo PM-1

Understanding the goal would result in better information return.

Bingo. Random information yields random results. You have to define your criteria.

 

[Nettlesomeness]

I salute you proton007, great explanation and specifically at the beginning with the pipes example. The rest is something I'm sorta ashamed that I couldn't digest fully, will be coming back to this informative post again.