Other than price, you have not provided any details on what was different between the HD800 on an $85K system over your $10K system that might explain what you were hearing. Have you tried taping $1000 bills to you system to see if the sound improves?
The purpose of that post was only to try to explain why I understand the goals put into the HD800. I do believe they achieved a success and the pure detail surprised me.
Of course to drop numbers your always asking for the big can of worms to be opened.
It's hard for some to realize that members here have dedicated their entire life to the pursuits of grand sound after they stepped on the slippery edge and fell down the rabbit hole.
......actually we used $100s and rolled them to snort lines, the best mod their is.
No in all seriousness I believe that great sound to about 90% can be found on a simple buget. It's that last 10% that's killer.
My friend just had a better source. It all starts at the source, or your just amping a mistake.
can't talk about how they measure, but subjectively it was almost done for me. and not once but twice by joebloggs using only EQ. so in a blind taste I would guess it's easy to make people vote for a cheap crap that's been EQed and more(given they wouldn't recognize the headphone from wearing them). http://www.head-fi.org/t/726569/review-tour-somic-mh412-viper4android-the-put-up-or-shut-up-review-and-tour
in my feedback I said this and do believe it:
Quote:
Just based on sound, I would put the MH412+EQ in the 200 to 400$ price range. Only some sibilance makes me think it doesn't deserve more.
in fact I liked the sound so much that I have spent half of my time with the tour demo, making sure I had an equal loudness contour as right as I could so that I would work on making other stuff to sound about the same. as an anecdote, my EQ done like that for the hd650 ended up with something pretty close to what the olive&welti compensation would suggest. so I guess I have found my EQ guideline and preferred compensation.
the second time was also from that topic not long ago, when Joe mentioned again his good old and cheap phillips SHE3580, that I also tried with and without his EQ. and once again the result to me is worth what I would expect from a very nice 200$ IEM. not amazing, and it kind of shows that EQ might not be enough somehow. or at least that I didn't find my perfect EQ yet. also as a personal need, they don't isolate enough. but for the price(5.32 euro), it makes me reflect on money and sound.
I also got pretty nice result with EQ on a sony XBA-C10 and on the etymotic MC5, but both roll off like crazy soon after 10khz, so someone who really loves trebles might not share my optimism for those 2 ^_^.
on the other hand I never got what I was looking for with the ER4 or my IE80. obviously I'm still just an experienced noob when it comes to EQ and far below any average sound engineer, so I might fail from ignorance, but it starts to feel like some IEMs respond better to EQ than others somehow. don't ask me why or to prove it
(my wife heard it in the kitchen but I'm not married).
now one thing common to both JoeBloggs's IEMs, they have massive(too damn much) bass that extends real low. so it's very easy to EQ down and shape the bass until you get what you like. to me it's a big part of sounding right, as IEMs that roll off too soon usually sound bad when I try too hard to get the sub back.
oh and you're right about what you posted before for the measurements, getting the exact same thing up high in the trebles twice isn't an easy thing to do apparently. and same when testing the headphones, putting them on our head can change the sound a lot. but if I can leave with those changes for how I place one headphone on my head everyday, I imagine I also can live with that for going from one headphone to the other. it would be enough to mess an ABX, but probably good enough for me to enjoy the result.
The reason I'm defending it is I don't think you can take another headphone and EQ it to sound like the HD800 driver. This is due to the fact that the driver IS different and produces the wave forms in a different manner. Thus EQ can only go so far.
The point was the physical properties of a driver and how it is seated and enclosed make a sound signature that can not be approximated with EQ. EQ only goes so far. That simply has always been my point. The HD800 is revolutionary due to the driver and physical properties it contains.
Please elaborate how is HD800 driver design revolutionary? All I can tell is while the design is exceptional is far from a revolutionary technology. Why is it not possible to approximate the signature by EQ? What is so special that DSP can't approximate?
Looking at the design. all I can see is this is really a traditional design other than size is very similar to other drivers.
Please elaborate how is HD800 driver design revolutionary? All I can tell is while the design is exceptional is far from a revolutionary technology. Why is it not possible to approximate the signature by EQ? What is so special that DSP can't approximate?
Looking at the design. all I can see is this is really a traditional design other than size is very similar to other drivers.
That is a great question. Let me go and retrieve some information and post it here. As I'm out searching and collecting just remember this stuff is out for the gathering. Still it may be the items I post that may help you understand why there could be physical properties of a driver which can not be replicated with simple EQ.
Please elaborate how is HD800 driver design revolutionary? All I can tell is while the design is exceptional is far from a revolutionary technology. Why is it not possible to approximate the signature by EQ? What is so special that DSP can't approximate?
Looking at the design. all I can see is this is really a traditional design other than size is very similar to other drivers.
Check out these two pages and study what they talk about in relation to sound wave generation and what happens when they approach the ear. Note how it is in relation to construction and design of the headphones and drivers. Take note of the graphs, and have a subjective personal test on a system which will reveal the magic.
If you have heard a bunch of headphones you will find there is somthing new with the HD800s.
Your question is really that it is not true.
A true believer needs no proof and all the proof in the world will not convince a non believer.
Best for you to stop while your ahead? Of course you doubt the perception of human hearing to make a test and only understand what a microphone can record and graph.
The major technological advance in the Sennheiser HD 800 is the "ring radiator" driver. This driver delivers a couple of advantages: it reduces "cone breakup," which causes distortion at high frequencies; and it provides better imaging by being angled back towards the ears from a slightly forward position thereby emitting a rather more planar wave front than a normal headphones driver.
A regular driver diaphragm has a dome in the middle; the voice coil about half way to the edge; and a surround or suspension outside the voice coil that has a fixed attachment to the driver housing around its outside edge. The problem with this type of driver is that at very high frequencies it may stop acting like a pure piston moving only straight in and out, and may take on additional vibration modes so that the surface is wobbling or twisting as it moves in and out. This is called "cone break-up" in speakers.
The traditional approach to solving this problem is to make the speaker cone, or driver diaphragm in this case, stiffer so it is less likely to begin vibrating on its own. This is where you find folks making aluminum speaker cones, or cones with ridges and various features to make it more rigid. Sennheiser developed its Duofoil diaphragm material (used in many of its high-performance headphones) to combat this problem. Unfortunately this often leads to a heavier cone that is more difficult to accelerate, and therefore lowers the slew rate (transient response) of the driver.
Recently, another approach appeared commercially, called a "ring radiator." Both Scan-Speak and Vifa produce a version of this type of tweeter. In this case, the driver is not a simple circular driver, but a ring shaped driver which is attached both at its outer circumference and at its inner edge. The diaphragm is driven by the voice coil which is attached behind the "V"-shaped groove halfway between its inner and outer edge. This configuration dramatically increases the amount of structural support for the surface area of the driver, and reduces to amount of surface area that can begin to take on its own vibrations.
Because the new driver could become larger without breaking up, we also get two other sonic benefits: tighter bass and better imaging. A larger driver allows the diaphragm to displace more air for any given unit distance moved compared to a smaller driver. Moving more air means the driver can achieve better bass extension before it runs out of voice coil travel. It's pretty obvious when listening to these cans, they really have an astonishing sense of ease and control in the lows.
Let's put it this way. The only reason I believe modern manufactures hype is because when I heard the HD800 on a really really nice system it surprised me with what it could do. There was an amazing amount of space and detail.
A balanced response provides more detail because of a principle called auditory masking. An imbalance in one frequency can totally mask frequencies an octave above. If you have masking going on in several parts of the response curve at once, detail is going to be affected. When you balance out the response, detail is revealed. The 800s are quite balanced without equalization, but it is very likely that you could take a set of cans like the 595s and EQ them to have the same sound and the same revealing of detail.
A balanced response provides more detail because of a principle called auditory masking. An imbalance in one frequency can totally mask frequencies an octave above. If you have masking going on in several parts of the response curve at once, detail is going to be affected. When you balance out the response, detail is revealed. The 800s are quite balanced without equalization, but it is very likely that you could take a set of cans like the 595s and EQ them to have the same sound and the same revealing of detail.
Well, as I would say, I have not heard an EQ of the HD 595s and if I was able to do a blind test with the HD800s sounding like they did along with the EQed heaphones I may become a believer in what EQ can do beyond the physical capabilities of a driver.
I'm always open to change my belief system when proven wrong.
All it takes to find out for yourself is a really good set of cans, an averagely good set of cans and an equalizer. Then you know for yourself. That is what I did. And that is why I'm saying it is possible to EQ halfway decent headphones into sounding like high end ones.
Yeh, in science, you don't quite wait for someone to bring their lab equipment over to your place to convince you personally. Incidentally, if that's what you're waiting for, you may not be as "open to change" as you'd like to say.
can't talk about how they measure, but subjectively it was almost done for me. and not once but twice by joebloggs using only EQ. so in a blind taste I would guess it's easy to make people vote for a cheap crap that's been EQed and more(given they wouldn't recognize the headphone from wearing them). http://www.head-fi.org/t/726569/review-tour-somic-mh412-viper4android-the-put-up-or-shut-up-review-and-tour
in fact I liked the sound so much that I have spent half of my time with the tour demo, making sure I had an equal loudness contour as right as I could so that I would work on making other stuff to sound about the same. as an anecdote, my EQ done like that for the hd650 ended up with something pretty close to what the olive&welti compensation would suggest. so I guess I have found my EQ guideline and preferred compensation.
the second time was also from that topic not long ago, when Joe mentioned again his good old and cheap phillips SHE3580, that I also tried with and without his EQ. and once again the result to me is worth what I would expect from a very nice 200$ IEM. not amazing, and it kind of shows that EQ might not be enough somehow. or at least that I didn't find my perfect EQ yet. also as a personal need, they don't isolate enough. but for the price(5.32 euro), it makes me reflect on money and sound.
I also got pretty nice result with EQ on a sony XBA-C10 and on the etymotic MC5, but both roll off like crazy soon after 10khz, so someone who really loves trebles might not share my optimism for those 2 ^_^.
on the other hand I never got what I was looking for with the ER4 or my IE80. obviously I'm still just an experienced noob when it comes to EQ and far below any average sound engineer, so I might fail from ignorance, but it starts to feel like some IEMs respond better to EQ than others somehow. don't ask me why or to prove it (my wife heard it in the kitchen but I'm not married).
now one thing common to both JoeBloggs's IEMs, they have massive(too damn much) bass that extends real low. so it's very easy to EQ down and shape the bass until you get what you like. to me it's a big part of sounding right, as IEMs that roll off too soon usually sound bad when I try too hard to get the sub back.
oh and you're right about what you posted before for the measurements, getting the exact same thing up high in the trebles twice isn't an easy thing to do apparently. and same when testing the headphones, putting them on our head can change the sound a lot. but if I can leave with those changes for how I place one headphone on my head everyday, I imagine I also can live with that for going from one headphone to the other. it would be enough to mess an ABX, but probably good enough for me to enjoy the result.
In home audio, particularly in home theater where people don't poo poo the idea of EQ (a lot of stereo only audiophiles resist EQ), it's commonly pointed out that a $200 pair of speakers in a room that is well setup with room treatments and EQ can sound better than a $1000 speakers in bad room with no EQ because the difference that a good, smooth frequency response makes. So yeah. This makes sense to me.
BTW: It would be a heck of a lot easier to do with speakers. $100 mic + free software, and you could easily graph and see what you were listening to. If we ever get to accurate headphone measurements being easy, then it'll be much easier to develop your own house curve to suit your hearing and then apply to it any headphone you want.
I was kind of interested in what you had to say at first, but you've decided to make the conversation about how I should be. Ignore button just kicked in. Good bye!
Check out these two pages and study what they talk about in relation to sound wave generation and what happens when they approach the ear. Note how it is in relation to construction and design of the headphones and drivers. Take note of the graphs, and have a subjective personal test on a system which will reveal the magic.
If you have heard a bunch of headphones you will find there is somthing new with the HD800s.
Your question is really that it is not true.
A true believer needs no proof and all the proof in the world will not convince a non believer.
Best for you to stop while your ahead? Of course you doubt the perception of human hearing to make a test and only understand what a microphone can record and graph.
The major technological advance in the Sennheiser HD 800 is the "ring radiator" driver. This driver delivers a couple of advantages: it reduces "cone breakup," which causes distortion at high frequencies; and it provides better imaging by being angled back towards the ears from a slightly forward position thereby emitting a rather more planar wave front than a normal headphones driver.
A regular driver diaphragm has a dome in the middle; the voice coil about half way to the edge; and a surround or suspension outside the voice coil that has a fixed attachment to the driver housing around its outside edge. The problem with this type of driver is that at very high frequencies it may stop acting like a pure piston moving only straight in and out, and may take on additional vibration modes so that the surface is wobbling or twisting as it moves in and out. This is called "cone break-up" in speakers.
The traditional approach to solving this problem is to make the speaker cone, or driver diaphragm in this case, stiffer so it is less likely to begin vibrating on its own. This is where you find folks making aluminum speaker cones, or cones with ridges and various features to make it more rigid. Sennheiser developed its Duofoil diaphragm material (used in many of its high-performance headphones) to combat this problem. Unfortunately this often leads to a heavier cone that is more difficult to accelerate, and therefore lowers the slew rate (transient response) of the driver.
Recently, another approach appeared commercially, called a "ring radiator." Both Scan-Speak and Vifa produce a version of this type of tweeter. In this case, the driver is not a simple circular driver, but a ring shaped driver which is attached both at its outer circumference and at its inner edge. The diaphragm is driven by the voice coil which is attached behind the "V"-shaped groove halfway between its inner and outer edge. This configuration dramatically increases the amount of structural support for the surface area of the driver, and reduces to amount of surface area that can begin to take on its own vibrations.
Because the new driver could become larger without breaking up, we also get two other sonic benefits: tighter bass and better imaging. A larger driver allows the diaphragm to displace more air for any given unit distance moved compared to a smaller driver. Moving more air means the driver can achieve better bass extension before it runs out of voice coil travel. It's pretty obvious when listening to these cans, they really have an astonishing sense of ease and control in the lows.
Exactly. They came up with a way to implement large diaphram. This was done before as well. But this is still a dynamic driver. I would call this evolutionary not revolutionary. Same reason why the JVC carbon tube headphone is not revolutionary either. HD800 is one of the most linear headphone and there is no reason why an EQ can't EQ other headphone to a flat response as well.
Exactly. They came up with a way to implement large diaphram. This was done before as well. But this is still a dynamic driver. I would call this evolutionary not revolutionary. Same reason why the JVC carbon tube headphone is not revolutionary either. HD800 is one of the most linear headphone and there is no reason why an EQ can't EQ other headphone to a flat response as well.
If your implying that you can take example A and simply EQ it to sound like a HD800 with just EQ you have missed the concepts and points given. Yet you start off by eluding that you understand the benefits of driver size?
Again it's perfectly fine for you to believe the physical components and design of a particular headphone have no improvement or effect on sound quality.
Good luck with that one.
Example A. http://www.amazon.com/Sony-MDR-XB600-Driver-Premium-Headphones/dp/B009A6CZYY
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
(my wife heard it in the kitchen but I'm not married).
