[JaZZ]

That's an opinion, not a fact.

So which of these is the one that sounds neutral?

 

[bagwell359]

So which of these is the one that sounds neutral?

In the ears of the beholders.

So which type of EQ?

Analog - needing two pairs of cables and a box that may or may not have dust in the pots? Graphic? Hmm, tough to get flat with those.

On line in the digital domain? So did we lose bit perfect?

Digital parametric with two pairs of cables, and a D/A & A/D converter inferior to one's own DAC?

Sorry, I've owned some, and seen lots more in action. They are not pure solutions as they do bring issues of their own.

Some of us do like that straight wire with gain with the full knowledge that transducers are not flat. Some people like me spend thousands on room design and treatments, and find that far more efficacious than another box and cables that change ONE variable, but isn't adjustable to any other use.

They say beware of the man of just one book. Do you have other techniques to improve sound, or just the one?

 

[JaZZ]

In the ears of the beholders.

That's a bit vague. Many of the beholders own more than one pair of headphones, which certainly deviate from each other. So both can't sound neutral. It will become obvious with every switching.

So which type of EQ?

Analog - needing two pairs of cables and a box that may or may not have dust in the pots? Graphic? Hmm, tough to get flat with those.

I would avoid analogue equalizers. Too many electronics components in the signal path which will degrade the sound. Graphic: with enough bands (e.g. ⅓-octave), yes! The ambition is not to get a flat response – that's impossible –, just a flatter response. We're talking of perfecting the amplitude response, not making it perfect.

On line in the digital domain? So did we lose bit perfect?

«Bit perfection» is often used for a misconception. The term itself is flawed anyway, but what it usually stands for is the lack of resampling (upsampling, downsampling), an alteration of the sample values is absolutely wanted, otherwise there would be no effect. For a better understanding: Let's say you have a perfect DAC/ADC and a perfect analogue equalizer that you use for a certain compensation curve: convert the signal to analogue, equalize, convert the signal back to digital. The resulting sample values will be the same as if you would have used a perfect digital equalizer with an identical compensation curve.

Digital parametric with two pairs of cables, and a D/A & A/D converter inferior to one's own DAC?

Now that would be a flawed configuration. What does D/A and A/D conversion have to do with a digital equalizer? And what are the cables meant for?

Sorry, I've owned some, and seen lots more in action. They are not pure solutions as they do bring issues of their own.

Fair enough: You have made your experiences, just like I have made mine. And I haven't encountered any fundamental issues so far. Just one: It's extremely time consuming and needs a lot of patience and dedication – and a sensitive hearing with the ability to translate the perception to a useful compensation curve.

Some of us do like that straight wire with gain with the full knowledge that transducers are not flat. Some people like me spend thousands on room design and treatments, and find that far more efficacious than another box and cables that change ONE variable, but isn't adjustable to any other use.

If your ambitions are really high, it's mandatory to respect all fields, and among them a flat amplitude response is one of the most important aspects. I'm not into speakers anymore, but have been a fanatic speaker builder years ago, during almost half my life. I'm fully aware of the importance of room tuning.

They say beware of the man of just one book. Do you have other techniques to improve sound, or just the one?

Hey, that's quite a bit of hostility! (Sorry if I misinterpret you, english isn't my native tongue.) There are indeed several (other) fields which I consider important for good sound: a really good digital source/DAC in the form of a Chord DAVE with a Hugo M Scaler in front, a pairing that might be one of the best digital sources you can get, for the money anyway. Ultimate clarity due to sophisticated signal processing on all levels, Rob Watts' phenomenal pulse-array DAC (based on PWM) and a one-million taps low-pass filter for unmatched transient accuracy, able to reconstruct the original analogue signal with a higher accuracy than any other DAC on the planet, as well as Rob's phenomenal noise shaping for ultimate transparency and smoothness. Not «analogue» sound, but just as little the typical «digital» sound with its known weaknesses. Cabling is very important to me as well, starting with the Wave Storm dual-data cables between M Scaler and DAVE which have to transfer a 705,6- or 768-kHz signal and manage to eliminate the RFI produced by the M Scaler's intensive processing by means of 2x 20 selected ferrite cores tuned for 2 GHz. For my headphones I use the Lavricables Grand (HE1000se) and the Lavricables Master Silver (HD 800), which both make the sound smoother, more detailed and more transparent than the stock cables, particularly in the case of the HE1000(se). As you can see, there's no headphone amp involved, since the DAVE (like the other Chord DAC/amp combos) allows the direct connection of the headphone to the DAC output stage (= line out) in the interest of a signal path as direct as possible – which corresponds exactly to my own audio philosophy. Because no amplifier sounds neutral, and that's why it's better to renounce them if you can – or reduce them to the absolute minimum, respectively. Then there's the choice of headphones: The HE1000se is the acoustically most open headphone that I know (if we ignore Mysphere and Raal, I haven't heard the latter anyway), and that's something I really appreciate, as it stands for transient accuracy with little «time smearing» through (multiple) near-field reflections within the ear cups. My second favorite is the HD 800 – that I had to modify to achieve the mentioned virtues, although to a slightly minor degree. Both can't renounce equalizing, though.

I almost forgot my two electrostats, which you can see in my signature. Since I wasn't satisfied with the original Stax earspeakers, I had to build my own (around Stax Lambda Pro and Signature Pro drivers). The two most important features are angled drivers and careful inner damping. They need a separate amp, though (which goes against my grain), and the interconnects for it also needed special care (Moon Audio Silver Dragon).

Back to your first post: Of course everything I post here is an opinion. However, I stand by my statements, which are not lightheartedly stated, but reflect my convictions based on intensive and extensive experiences with audio and audio equipment.

 

[batfier]

.
So which type of EQ?

Analog - needing two pairs of cables and a box that may or may not have dust in the pots? Graphic? Hmm, tough to get flat with those.

I prefer parametric EQ.

As a digital source (streaming, files) only listener I prefer to have the EQ at the very beginning of the chain.

I'm currently using Roon (Rock). The EQ is done in Roon Core, with sufficient compute power. Then the already compensated signal is send to an Aries Femto (Roon Bridge Mode). For the Aries and the subsequent DAC, its like a normal signal. No extra efforts in this timing critical domain are required.

Using the EQ in Aries works also well and follows the same concept. Aries Femto is currently "limited" to 5 Bands and can only save 1 setting. While 5 Bands are fine in many cases, mainly the number of settings was the reason for me to use Roon. In Roon I can save as many settings as required, to quickly switch between different headphones or directly compare settings.

Before roon I used RME Adi-2 Pro for EQ, which good results. The RME provides up to 7 Bandes (5 EQ + Bass + Treble). You can store up to 20 settings for the 5 band EQ, but it does not save the Bass and Treble settings. The setting parameters are not as granular as in Roon, but should be sufficient in the majority of cases. The nice things are, that the RME provides 2 independent EQs. So you can connect 2 different headphones at the same time with the RME and select individual EQ settings for each. Or you can connect e.g. the He-1000se incl EQ to the RME and the second EQ of the RME for the XLR output path for an external amp, as required e.g. for Stax. The RME also provides pretty good AD conversion and reclocking. Therefore, if I would be an analog source, or CD or DAT lover, the RME would be my first choice for me for EQ.

 

[batfier]

Just more thing to mention. When I'm talking about EQ on headphones, I don't mean "playing around" with settings and only relying on my current mood/taste.

I clearly prefer to use measurements.

The minidsp eaers gives already some nice indications, but are not on the same level as professional equipment, especially around 4,5khz.

Does somebody know about professionally created EQ settings for HEKSE and can share it?

The v2 is easier to EQ as the SE.

For the v2 I use the settings found here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/list_of_presets

 

[thecrow]

It looks like i’m just going to be flicking through the next few pages of this thread without reading too much

my suggestion if you want to eq then eq. And if you don’t just don't

Most of us have scene these debates before

anyway let’s talk about how good cables can be as we all agree on that

Or how much better apple products are over android phones and pcs as there’s no argument there.

I’m going to wait in the lobby for a few days

 

[batfier]

It looks like i’m just going to be flicking through the next few pages of this thread without reading too much

my suggestion if you want to eq then eq. And if you don’t just don't

Most of us have scene these debates before

anyway let’s talk about how good cables can be as we all agree on that

Or how much better apple products are over android phones and pcs as there’s no argument there.

I’m going to wait in the lobby for a few days

Not sure, if I can get the value out of this post.

There was a question regarding EQ and some answers to it. The "debate" just started with the last post.

By reading instead of flicking through, you would notice it was about 'how' not 'if'.

 

[thecrow]

Not sure, if I can get the value out of this post.

There was a question regarding EQ and some answers to it. The "debate" just started with the last post.

By reading instead of flicking through, you would notice it was about 'how' not 'if'.

I think it was the way I was reading the posts before your posts and not your posts at all.

I’ll go sit quietly and just respectfully observe and keep my jaded reactions to myself

Ps I do eq the sound if and where I see fit (if I can be bothered if it bothers me) with whatever I have at my disposal - but that’s neither here nor there

cheers

 

[JaZZ]

It looks like i’m just going to be flicking through the next few pages of this thread without reading too much
my suggestion if you want to eq then eq. And if you don’t just don't
Most of us have scene these debates before
anyway let’s talk about how good cables can be as we all agree on that
Or how much better apple products are over android phones and pcs as there’s no argument there.
I’m going to wait in the lobby for a few days

I wonder what your real problem is.

Equalizing is not a sin, right? But talking about it is? Even though it all started with a proposed compensation curve for the headphone this thread is about? A tool for perfecting the headphone-listening experience (...for those who want a neutral sound)?

The rest of the discussion was just about refuting unjustified «technical» arguments against equalizing generally, which is absolutely justifiable.

Moreover, can you point me to a statement of mine that says everyone has to equalize their headphones?

It's just for those who are interested. You are not, and that's fine by me. But it sounds like you're saying it's interesting to nobody, therefore I should shut up.

I have my theory as to why this topic is so toxic – but I wait till I'm challenged the next time.

 

[sahmen]

I wonder what your real problem is.

Equalizing is not a sin, right? But talking about it is? Even though it all started with a proposed compensation curve for the headphone this thread is about? A tool for perfecting the headphone-listening experience (...for those who want a neutral sound)?

The rest of the discussion was just about refuting unjustified «technical» arguments against equalizing generally, which is absolutely justifiable.

Moreover, can you point me to a statement of mine that says everyone has to equalize their headphones?

It's just for those who are interested. You are not, and that's fine by me. But it sounds like you're saying it's interesting to nobody, therefore I should shut up.

I have my theory as to why this topic is so toxic – but I wait till I'm challenged the next time.

Okay, here's my own take, but it is really not a challenge. I am just stating my position as to why I consider the whole business of measurements and EQ'ing, while necessary and unavoidable sometimes, can become exaggerated beyond measure, and even get in the way of the enjoyment of the music, when one becomes obsessively pre-occupied with them.

Measurements : audio gear that measure the best according to many experts in the industry, do not necessarily sound the best. There's a considerable dimension of audio technologies, aesthetics, tastes, and the relationship between audio and the pleasure of listening, that cannot be accounted for by measurements. I consider this fact to be well recognized and non-controversial, so I won't dwell on it too much. Personally, I get the best produced gear I can afford at any given time, following the best advice and impressions I can get from enthusiast sites, such as this one. However, ultimately I trust and give the last word to own my ears as the final judge and jury, and not some measurements, which can become seriously overrated, not to mention even touted as purveyors of puerile gimmicks and plain bad faith (which is why I personally avoid that other "audio-science" site like a plague, but that is another story).

EQ'ing : Hey I have been known to dabble in EQ'ing every now and then, when the tools are available and ready at hand... Sometimes I use Audeze presets that come with Roon, Sonarworks Systemwide filters for headphones that I have, and DIRAC filters in my Amarra Luxe software and my Pre pros, for example, because they are already there, and I am not beyond doing a minor tweak here and there, if it seems to enhance bass by giving it more body, or treble, by making it sound more airy or less fatiguing, for example. However, such tweaks only happen at quite rare moments in my listening experience. Most of the time, I am a set-it-and-forget-it kind of guy, and I always make sure that my headphones, sources, amps, dacs, and accessories such as cables have enough synergy to perform to my liking for most, if not all of the music genres and audio gear I listen to, without my having to bother with any EQ tweaks most of the time, or worse, obsess with them.

My favorite critical listening position is sitting on lying down in the sweet spot, occasionally bobbing my head, tapping my feet, smiling, or even shedding a tear or two when the mood strikes, and fiddling with my remote only when I want to change albums, artists, or tracks, and moving from that spot only when I need to go to the fridge for a cocktail or snack, or visit the bathroom for a "technical" stop. However, if I can help it, no EQ tweaks or measurements are tolerated at such moments, absolutely none, again, if I can help it at all, and most of the time, I do not find that I need any.

If I have any quarrel with your approach, it would be about your take on how to achieve "neutrality," which all your concern with EQ'ing seems to be predicated upon. In my own eyes, "neutrality," while relatively useful in certain pragmatic circumstances as a conventional standard for evaluating the performance and production of audio gear, is hardly a truly or naturally "objective" standard that everyone can agree upon without controversy, but one better characterized as a moving target at best, and at worst, a hopelessly unattainable illusion, for all kinds of technical and psychological reasons, too numerous to list here. On that point of the standard of audio neutrality, I agree with the spirit of this read :

https://www.gcaudio.com/tips-tricks/what-is-neutrality/

With all that said, I fully recognize and respect the fact that there might be enthusiasts who might like EQ'ing a lot more than I do, and for whom the constant tinkering with measurements, EQ'ing filters, and different kinds of audio gear, might be an inseparable component of their experience and enjoyment. Without necessarily sharing it, I would respect that approach in any hobby such as ours, which must necessarily have the capacity and flexibility to accommodate a wide range of human idiosyncrasies and inclinations, beginning with my own.

Again, this is not being offered as a challenge. I am more interested in explaining why the HEKSE (and most of my cans--thank God!) performs to my satisfaction in most circumstances and contexts without me feeling any real need to tinker with EQ' tweaks or obsess with measurements, while also respecting the rights of those with other preferences, in the spirit of YMMV.

I also hope we can move on to discussing other matters that are less controversial, and more interesting to forum members and HeKSE owners, although, again YMMV.

 

[franz12]

Not sure, if I can get the value out of this post.

There was a question regarding EQ and some answers to it. The "debate" just started with the last post.

By reading instead of flicking through, you would notice it was about 'how' not 'if'.

I understand why people tend to frustrate with EQing. It is hard to get proper measurements in the first place, unless one is professional in that area, and on top of that there might be some product variations. Also I never satisfied with eq done by myself.

Still I do think EQ is a powerful tool if it is done correctly. I did get my previous hekse measured by sonarworks. It solved all frequency peakiness I am aware of. Never fatiguing even with poorly recorded track going on endlessly, preserving extreme details and transparency. It was the best but humble $200 investment on it.

unfortunately, i had to part with my hekse before i bought the sr1a, so i had to rely on my memory.
But my eqed hekse seems to win over an uneqed sr1a as an overall package at this moment, which may change again when I change an amp for the sr1a in the future.

 

[thecrow]

I wonder what your real problem is.

My only concern was if you were concerned with how people reply. But if you are ok with it then so am i

as you wrote:

Hey, that's quite a bit of hostility! (Sorry if I misinterpret you, english isn't my native tongue.).

(and as mentioned I do eq)

 

[bagwell359]

That's a bit vague. Many of the beholders own more than one pair of headphones, which certainly deviate from each other. So both can't sound neutral. It will become obvious with every switching.


I would avoid analogue equalizers. Too many electronics components in the signal path which will degrade the sound. Graphic: with enough bands (e.g. ⅓-octave), yes! The ambition is not to get a flat response – that's impossible –, just a flatter response. We're talking of perfecting the amplitude response, not making it perfect.


«Bit perfection» is often used for a misconception. The term itself is flawed anyway, but what it usually stands for is the lack of resampling (upsampling, downsampling), an alteration of the sample values is absolutely wanted, otherwise there would be no effect. For a better understanding: Let's say you have a perfect DAC/ADC and a perfect analogue equalizer that you use for a certain compensation curve: convert the signal to analogue, equalize, convert the signal back to digital. The resulting sample values will be the same as if you would have used a perfect digital equalizer with an identical compensation curve.


Now that would be a flawed configuration. What does D/A and A/D conversion have to do with a digital equalizer? And what are the cables meant for?

Fair enough: You have made your experiences, just like I have made mine. And I haven't encountered any fundamental issues so far. Just one: It's extremely time consuming and needs a lot of patience and dedication – and a sensitive hearing with the ability to translate the perception to a useful compensation curve.


If your ambitions are really high, it's mandatory to respect all fields, and among them a flat amplitude response is one of the most important aspects. I'm not into speakers anymore, but have been a fanatic speaker builder years ago, during almost half my life. I'm fully aware of the importance of room tuning.


Hey, that's quite a bit of hostility! (Sorry if I misinterpret you, english isn't my native tongue.) There are indeed several (other) fields which I consider important for good sound: a really good digital source/DAC in the form of a Chord DAVE with a Hugo M Scaler in front, a pairing that might be one of the best digital sources you can get, for the money anyway. Ultimate clarity due to sophisticated signal processing on all levels, Rob Watts' phenomenal pulse-array DAC (based on PWM) and a one-million taps low-pass filter for unmatched transient accuracy, able to reconstruct the original analogue signal with a higher accuracy than any other DAC on the planet, as well as Rob's phenomenal noise shaping for ultimate transparency and smoothness. Not «analogue» sound, but just as little the typical «digital» sound with its known weaknesses. Cabling is very important to me as well, starting with the Wave Storm dual-data cables between M Scaler and DAVE which have to transfer a 705,6- or 768-kHz signal and manage to eliminate the RFI produced by the M Scaler's intensive processing by means of 2x 20 selected ferrite cores tuned for 2 GHz. For my headphones I use the Lavricables Grand (HE1000se) and the Lavricables Master Silver (HD 800), which both make the sound smoother, more detailed and more transparent than the stock cables, particularly in the case of the HE1000(se). As you can see, there's no headphone amp involved, since the DAVE (like the other Chord DAC/amp combos) allows the direct connection of the headphone to the DAC output stage (= line out) in the interest of a signal path as direct as possible – which corresponds exactly to my own audio philosophy. Because no amplifier sounds neutral, and that's why it's better to renounce them if you can – or reduce them to the absolute minimum, respectively. Then there's the choice of headphones: The HE1000se is the acoustically most open headphone that I know (if we ignore Mysphere and Raal, I haven't heard the latter anyway), and that's something I really appreciate, as it stands for transient accuracy with little «time smearing» through (multiple) near-field reflections within the ear cups. My second favorite is the HD 800 – that I had to modify to achieve the mentioned virtues, although to a slightly minor degree. Both can't renounce equalizing, though.

I almost forgot my two electrostats, which you can see in my signature. Since I wasn't satisfied with the original Stax earspeakers, I had to build my own (around Stax Lambda Pro and Signature Pro drivers). The two most important features are angled drivers and careful inner damping. They need a separate amp, though (which goes against my grain), and the interconnects for it also needed special care (Moon Audio Silver Dragon).

Back to your first post: Of course everything I post here is an opinion. However, I stand by my statements, which are not lightheartedly stated, but reflect my convictions based on intensive and extensive experiences with audio and audio equipment.

Yes, a dollop of hostility because I expected a by the book ABX'er to step forward, but you are a far different being with very respectable ideas and experiences. Please accept my apologies. I'd like to continue right away but the Holidays followed by a two week trip is going to put me out to about 1/10. I built my first kit amp in 1971. Owned or had over 10 planar speakers from 1978 thru 2003, and again in 2014-2015. I don't see your sig. Be back in about 2.5 weeks.

 

[JaZZ]

Okay, here's my own take, but it is really not a challenge. I am just stating my position as to why I consider the whole business of measurements and EQ'ing, while necessary and unavoidable sometimes, can become exaggerated beyond measure, and even get in the way of the enjoyment of the music, when one becomes obsessively pre-occupied with them.

Certainly I'm not advocating a preoccupation and exaggeration, and if it gets in the way of enjoying music it's better to consider a new, more human approach. That said, I'm indeed somewhat fanatic in this respect, but only insofar as I don't accept any other measures for tayloring the sound – I'm talking of synergetic colorations provided by amplifiers, because those inevitably mean lost transparency, a step away from the original. So I could be surprised that the latter are well accepted in any headphone threads as recommended partners for this and that – and I've never seen any objection against this practice. And I suspect your own behavior would match this scenario (no offense intended!). So one could say the best tool for tayloring the sound with a real gain instead of loss is sort of ostracized on this forum.

Of course the occupation with equalizing can hold you off from unrestrictedly enjoying the music, particularly in the moments where you believe to have discovered the culprit for the last bit of intransparency or coloration. But this applies to any sort of ugraditis, not just equalizing. I would say the most powerful spoilsport of all is reading and posting on Head-Fi. New, even better gear is waiting to be explored...

Measurements : audio gear that measure the best according to many experts in the industry, do not necessarily sound the best. There's a considerable dimension of audio technologies, aesthetics, tastes, and the relationship between audio and the pleasure of listening, that cannot be accounted for by measurements. I consider this fact to be well recognized and non-controversial, so I won't dwell on it too much. Personally, I get the best produced gear I can afford at any given time, following the best advice and impressions I can get from enthusiast sites, such as this one. However, ultimately I trust and give the last word to own my ears as the final judge and jury, and not some measurements, which can become seriously overrated, not to mention even touted as purveyors of puerile gimmicks and plain bad faith (which is why I personally avoid that other "audio-science" site like a plague, but that is another story).

I on the other hand am a firm believer in measurements. But not in the spirit of said subforum. mind you! It's just that you have to know what you have to look for and respect every possible criterion. If the sound is worse than the measurements say, you have measured the wrong thing or wrongly or left out an important subfactor. In the realm of headphones it's hard (or rather impossible) to find amplitude-response graphs that really reflect the acoustic result. Part of the problem is the lack of standardization with the compensation curves which should actually display a perfectly neutral headphone as a straight line. Sadly we're far from it, as can be seen on Inner Fidelity with their hundreds of «compensated» curves which all show a more or less distinct drop-off toward high or ultra-high frequencies. Other sources aren't any different, though. As it stands, a headphone with a straght line as amplitude response would sound awfully treble-emphasized.

If you go a few posts back, you'll notice that I don't rely on single amplitude-response graphs. I don't rely on those graph at all, but they're nevertheless essential as a rough guideline. The compensation curve isn't the only issue; what makes it just as hard to get comparable results with different measuring systems is that they interact in significantly different ways with the headphones to be measured. Particularly the upper-treble response is highly questionable. What's left is to finally rely on your own ears, also and particularly when it comes to the (perceived!) neutrality.

EQ'ing : Hey I have been known to dabble in EQ'ing every now and then, when the tools are available and ready at hand... Sometimes I use Audeze presets that come with Roon, Sonarworks Systemwide filters for headphones that I have, and DIRAC filters in my Amarra Luxe software and my Pre pros, for example, because they are already there, and I am not beyond doing a minor tweak here and there, if it seems to enhance bass by giving it more body, or treble, by making it sound more airy or less fatiguing, for example. However, such tweaks only happen at quite rare moments in my listening experience. Most of the time, I am a set-it-and-forget-it kind of guy, and I always make sure that my headphones, sources, amps, dacs, and accessories such as cables have enough synergy to perform to my liking for most, if not all of the music genres and audio gear I listen to, without my having to bother with any EQ tweaks most of the time, or worse, obsess with them.

You're in a fortunate position and definitely don't have to care about what I say. Sometimes I wish I could simply let go, but my skin is that of a perfectionist. And the rewards this approach brings is sometimes worth the effort.

If I have any quarrel with your approach, it would be about your take on how to achieve "neutrality," which all your concern with EQ'ing seems to be predicated upon. In my own eyes, "neutrality," while relatively useful in certain pragmatic circumstances as a conventional standard for evaluating the performance and production of audio gear, is hardly a truly or naturally "objective" standard that everyone can agree upon without controversy, but one better characterized as a moving target at best, and at worst, a hopelessly unattainable illusion, for all kinds of technical and psychological reasons, too numerous to list here.

The ears of the listener (in my case: myself) are the benchmark for neutrality. It's as simple as that. Instruments, voices and environmental noises sounding lifelike and natural, lacking any artificial coloration: job done! In my experience equalizing is the only tool able to bring you (or should I say myself?) to this goal, because headphones with their factory settings by nature sound colored, and amplifiers are prone to cultivate pleasing and masking colorations, so don't even try.

I also hope we can move on to discussing other matters that are less controversial, and more interesting to forum members and HeKSE owners, although, again YMMV.

A bit of controvery is indispensable for a lively interaction. I don't feel any remorse taking too much space with my posts, it's all about getting most out of our headphones and the HE1000se in particular, thus very much on topic. You may know the cases where Head-Fiers buy different headphones for different genres or with different characteristics to get one specific tonal strength from one pair, another strenght from a second or third pair. In fact you can have all strengths together in one package. The HD 800 is an excellent headphone with a large soundstage and great clarity, but it lacks bass: Not an issue if you know how to use an equalizer (not too difficult for a mere low-bass boost). Save the curve as preset, so you can switch to the next candidate and make it a musical allrounder as well. Or stick with one pair of headphones at all. That's what I practice in my system (no, not the latter example, the one before): I can use all of my headphones for all genres, despite some still existing tonal deviations).

 

[thecrow]

I recently tried my lcd4 and z1r's out of my ipad pro 3,5mm and i am shocked over how good it sounds. I really cant understand that the sound is so close to my desktop setup of chord qutest and moon 430had. It sure sounds lager and more "calm" but its not a night and day difference as i would expect. This meaning that ipad really are descent as source. This was with Roon. Tidal app doesnt give as high volume as roon does.

Please write back when you have tested A-B with your setup

Using the stock cables and Tidal streaming I played a few tracks via my ipad and now playing through my desktop set up and yes the desktop setup is wider in soundstage and space. There's probably a better sound in a number of ways starting from the lack of (relative) congestion and more available power but I won't bother AB'ing it too much at all as I can't be bothered. Definitely a better sound on the desktop set up

However the he1000se does come up really well when used with modest gear (eg my ipad mini) that makes it enjoyable on the couch or bed for when I do not need a more attentive listening session at my desk and happy to just chill out on a mattress and /or cushions