[gipsy]

So it wont make much of a difference if I go 4 or 8 cores ?

Did you try Meze Silver plated PUCHD? It is 8 wire cable.... I have one, unused in sealed box for selling if interested.
I got it with headphones but too short for my use, 2.5meter and I need 3.1 to my couch.

 

[Roybenz]

Yes i have it. Want something more transparent if possible.

 

[gipsy]

I made myself 4 wire cable for my use, it's bit thicker, 24awg, litz 7n occ and quite happy with it.
Same construction like this one(I use this with Qudelix 5k) just much longer

 

[Ichos]

So it wont make much of a difference if I go 4 or 8 cores ?

It won't hurt if you can't stretch your budget.
4 cores will give you what you are seeking.

 

[Roybenz]

Anyone tried the silver dragon against the lavricable Grand? How is the silverdragon with the elite?

 

[OhHeyItsLou]

From Romania to my house in three days, impressive! Giving the angled alcantaras a spin. Hoping they remove a little of that mid-bass bump and add some detail and texture back into the mid, upper-mid, treble ranges.

 

[OhHeyItsLou]

From Romania to my house in three days, impressive! Giving the angled alcantaras a spin. Hoping they remove a little of that mid-bass bump and add some detail and texture back into the mid, upper-mid, treble ranges.

Update & Early Impressions:

As far as I'm concerned there's two necessities for the Elite, angled alcantara pads and the upgraded PCUHD silver cable. These pads help to remove some of the mid-bass hump in the FR which clears up the mid-range and allows the treble to shine. The sound stage is more spacious, not necessarily bigger. There's more room around instruments to breathe which creates this crazy 3D imaging effect. This technical ability existed before but it's amplified now, which is a good thing. This is a feather in the Elite's cap allowing it be in the conversation among other summit tier cans. Admittedly, this is taking me a little bit to get used to but it's clear that the Elites paired with the alcantara pads have some of the best separation & imaging of any headphone I've heard. Bass is more textured with less bloat. My main gripe with the Elites has been they seem a bit veiled. I'm happy to report that the upgraded pads sort that out.

 

[WDitters]

Update & Early Impressions:

As far as I'm concerned there's two necessities for the Elite, angled alcantara pads and the upgraded PCUHD silver cable. These pads help to remove some of the mid-bass hump in the FR which clears up the mid-range and allows the treble to shine. The sound stage is more spacious, not necessarily bigger. There's more room around instruments to breathe which creates this crazy 3D imaging effect. This technical ability existed before but it's amplified now, which is a good thing. This is a feather in the Elite's cap allowing it be in the conversation among other summit tier cans. Admittedly, this is taking me a little bit to get used to but it's clear that the Elites paired with the alcantara pads have some of the best separation & imaging of any headphone I've heard. Bass is more textured with less bloat. My main gripe with the Elites has been they seem a bit veiled. I'm happy to report that the upgraded pads sort that out.

My angled pads arrived today... Really curious about the effects... But full positive anticipation

Quick first update... *Wow*!!

 

[thingwfeathers]

Update & Early Impressions:

As far as I'm concerned there's two necessities for the Elite, angled alcantara pads and the upgraded PCUHD silver cable. These pads help to remove some of the mid-bass hump in the FR which clears up the mid-range and allows the treble to shine. The sound stage is more spacious, not necessarily bigger. There's more room around instruments to breathe which creates this crazy 3D imaging effect. This technical ability existed before but it's amplified now, which is a good thing. This is a feather in the Elite's cap allowing it be in the conversation among other summit tier cans. Admittedly, this is taking me a little bit to get used to but it's clear that the Elites paired with the alcantara pads have some of the best separation & imaging of any headphone I've heard. Bass is more textured with less bloat. My main gripe with the Elites has been they seem a bit veiled. I'm happy to report that the upgraded pads sort that out.

These angled pads seem like they are the real deal. I'm sold!

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Hello folks. This is the follow-up to my last post (#4,541) which covered my first encounter with the Meze Elite and the lead-up to my purchasing it a month ago, this post now covering my findings from my last listening session with the competing headphones when I picked up my Meze Elite Tungsten last Saturday.

tl;dr: The Meze Elite still wins for both comfort and the result from EQing each of the headphones to the same target.

Listening setup:

I purchased my Meze Elite Tungsten from Bay Bloor Radio in Toronto. It's a great audio shop with a whole lot of products on display, and I believe nigh every headphone they stock is available for audition (they have a pretty nice headphone wall and IEM display), giving them an edge over the other local shops I called up. Below is my setup in the headphone listening room that they had across from the main headphone counter. I didn't use the tube amps or Naim that they had. My FiiO K9 Pro ESS as mentioned last time happened to be plenty capable of driving the DCA Expanse. I had brought my HiFiMan Arya Stealth for reference. The EQ profiles I had available on Equalizer APO mostly were the same as those I had used in the last session. All headphones auditioned except for the DCA Expanse and my HiFiMan Arya Stealth were unbalanced. My stance is that the only audible difference I have found between balanced and unbalanced is in loudness for the same amplifier volume setting.

My listening setup​

In the following, I will refer to test tracks used in the previous by the same names I had used there rather than repeating the links and embeddings here.

Initial listening impressions:

tl;dr: With EQ, there were things I was subtly preferring with the Meze Elite, and that was a nice feeling to have.

I started with the Meze Elite. "Diablo Rojo" from last time sounded good both with and without EQ (Meze Elite headphones.com GRAS target V1 - only up to 9350 Hz.csv), though it could sound a bit boomy without EQ. I still find the hybrid pads' stock tuning too warm, laid-back, and muffled, whereby I again find that substantial clarity and "lifting of a veil" can be achieved with EQ. EQed pink noise generated through https://download.cnet.com/BurninwaveGenerator/3000-2169_4-10711592.html sounds reasonable through both the Elite and my EQed Arya. The latter sounded a bit darker, probably due to my updated treble EQ (HiFiMan Arya V3 EQ headphones.com GRAS target V1 - adjusted by ear - treble revision 3 - latest refinement - smoother - somewhat increased sense of violin soundstage.csv; I was always listening to the Arya using this EQ profile throughout this whole session; the stock tuning sounds too "veiled" or masked by the treble to me) where I had EQed down a perceived 6 kHz to 7 kHz peak that was causing that region to sound unnaturally amplified, the EQ now allowing busier tracks like "Parade" and orchestral music to sound more clear and spacious. The Elite's stock cable has excellent microphonics other than for the lowest bass vibrations. The extra guitar fullness or "sweetness" I heard around 1:39 and on within "Diablo Rojo" was still perceived. Guitar transients still had a good and "tactile" or sharp and present feel.

The DCA Expanse had a lighter clamp, but still didn't have the most pleasant seal to me, particularly with the front and back feeling too light. I still find the stock cable's microphonics to be poor in isolating higher-frequency vibrations or rubbing. My EQ profile brought up too much treble. The stock tuning sounded the best to my neutral-preferring sensibilities out of all these headphones' stock tunings, though it felt a bit mid-heavy. I needed to use medium gain on my amp for pink noise to sound right. Guitar transients were reasonably tactile, though the Arya's transients probably still felt sharper. Sometimes, I felt like the Arya might have still sounded clearer, at least thanks to my having fine-tuned its EQ. The Arya might have also felt like it had a slightly more forward image per the larger pads and other ear interactions.

I while first listening to the Elite had the feeling that the hype from last time would not return, but fortunately while listening to "Diablo Rojo", this subtle thing with my EQ profile that I just really liked started to return. It is those subtle preferences that can build a feedback loop of excitement and pleasance that might cloud one's perception of a headphone. Somehow, it was the Elite which despite my usually austere classical music leaning sensibilities got me nodding my head to the music.

At 2:33 of "Diablo Rojo", you hear this tapping of the guitar with the fingers in the background, whereby I felt like the Expanse might have been the best at rendering that, or something in its tuning brought that tapping further forward (in loudness). It also handled the microdetails of the strumming in 2:05 quite well, though I suppose its default bass quantity may have slightly hurt clarity there.

The 2022 Focal Utopia's pads felt better this time around, or I was no longer "repulsed" or surprised by the feeling of the front and back of the pads seemingly disappearing. It still feels quite open. The pads were lightly touching the top and bottom of my ears, which is an experience I ideally don't want to be returning to amid an "upgrade" from the Arya. The stock cable's microphonics were decent. I had to use my 3.5 mm to 6.35 mm adapter that came with the K9 Pro ESS. The EQed sound of pink noise did sound different through the Focal Utopia; this is to say that even when measured on the same rig, EQ profiles are not guaranteed to correct other units to the same frequency response received by your own eardrums, but as you will see in my next point, with much work, you can indeed get two headphones to sound nigh identical, differing only in soundstaging and the feeling of the pads and the space around your ears, among other qualities that you actually can't change with EQ. I did need to bring down the two peaks in my EQ's top octave which turned out to be unnecessary or excessive compensations for supposed dips or nulls in that region. The sound with this EQ happened to sound kind of spacious. As for the thumps at 1:24 of "Diablo Rojo", it seemed like the Expanse was providing more impact despite my having EQed up the Utopia's bass toward the target.

I would later have the opportunity to quickly check out the Sennheiser HD 800 S and revisit the Final Audio D8000 Pro (I unfortunately could only spend 10 minutes with each before my ride home arrived). The HD 800 S felt reasonably open, though like when I auditioned the Arya at Headfoneshop, I wasn't so fond of the comfort. Particularly, there wasn't enough pressure or seal on the front or back of the pads on my head.

HiFiMan Arya Stealth versus Sennheiser HD 800 S ear space; the latter is shorter but wider​

I particularly wanted to revisit the matter of "soundstage" which I amid that last audition didn't really find particularly impressive or "wide" on any of the headphones insofar as they could all sound pretty "big" when driven loud enough; this was still the case here, with or without EQ. The only difference was the feeling of the amount of space around your ears, and perhaps the distance of the drivers. In later EQ experiments for simulating the HD 800 S's wide upper mids (early ear gain) recess, I'd say that indeed had the effect of making everything in that region sound a bit quieter or more distant, achieving that form of what I call timbral soundstage (distance perception pertaining to timbre) as opposed to imaging soundstage which I am of the stance is highly dependent on the recording and hence the headphone's tuning's ability to render those timbral spatial cues, and then to what extent the space around your ears does or does not feel like it is obstructing or intersecting with that image.

As for differences in imaging quality, I am of the stance that this all boils down to the quality of the driver matching among other measurable things, and you can determine that either through published measurements or by listening through a sine sweep and checking whether the imaging of the pure tones shifts left or right at points, particularly around resonances or within the treble (though it could be a mismatch between your own ears); I would later find that the Elite was indeed an improvement over the Arya in this regard, though much cheaper headphones might also achieve great driver matching. Otherwise, for the feeling of one headphone having "sharper images" and a more vivid "presentation", I'd say this depended largely on transient sharpness, the feel of the sound wave front presenting a larger or flatter "canvas" or window, and EQed tonal clarity, whereby I suppose I did simply prefer the Arya and Elite which minimized the amount of stuff between your ears and the diaphragm compared to the Expanse with its AMTS and the D8000 Pro with AFDS.

As for the D8000 Pro, I, like with the Utopia, was no longer put off by the comfort. Their pads are of a similar size and feel, with a similarly slightly lighter pressure on the front and back.

Qualitative perception of impulse response:

tl;dr:

• In order of increasing sharpness or intensity: DCA Expanse, Meze Elite probably tied with the Focal Utopia, Sennheiser HD 800 S, and Final Audio D8000 Pro, HiFiMan Arya Stealth.
• In order of increasing cleanness (quietest or shortest audible decay or post-ringing): Focal Utopia, Sennheiser HD 800 S, HiFiMan Arya Stealth, Meze Elite, DCA Expanse, Final Audio D8000 Pro.

Other than assessing "tactility" in transient-heavy tracks, I suppose that the purest way to test one's perception of a headphone's "speed" is to listen to its impulse response as produced by a single-sample spike like this one from http://pcfarina.eng.unipr.it/Differentiation_Integration.htm, or I suppose you could make your own file on Audacity for your desired sample rate. I conducted this test on high gain to maximize the available voltage. Start with lower volumes and increase it to acceptable levels where you don't feel like you'll break the driver or poke a hole into your eardrums. I tested how it sounded at different volumes on each, seeing whether it was just a matter of more volume for one headphone to sound sharper than the other.

The Expanse's impulse response sounded pretty sharp, the decay or trailing edge sounding fairly short and higher-pitched, like a "twing". The Arya out of all of these yielded the most "powerfully snappy" impulse response sound that is accentuated when turning off my EQ, its being the closest to sounding like the pop of a spark, though it hast a post-ringing of the sort centered or capped around the upper mids; I suppose these could be the tradeoffs of its extremely thin "nanometer" or "submicron" diaphragm which is probably the thinnest out of this lineup. I could also hear a distinct "tip" to the sound in the form of the 4 kHz resonance visible in its CSD (spectral-decay) here (scroll down). The Elite doesn't sound as sharp as the Arya, maybe as sharp as the Expanse, but with a "weight" or bass quality that I attribute to the bass resonance visible in the CSD here. When comparing CSD charts, the Arya has a much cleaner bass, which I suppose is reflected in how sharp its impulse response sounds to me. As such, I would expect that the Arya does indeed have the "faster" and cleaner bass, while the Elite might (this isn't scientific by any means) have a "fuller" bass thanks to its bass resonance, and that resonance might be responsible for the guitar transients on the Elite feeling like they have a bit more "weight" to them. The Elite otherwise has a very similar post-ringing sound to the Arya, possibly characterized by the more numerous mids resonances seen on both headphones' CSDs, and these CSDs may also corroborate my perceiving the Elite's decay as sounding like it is slightly lower in pitch center than the Arya's. I have yet to find a CSD chart for the Expanse. The resonances described or visible on these CSDs were still audible with or without EQ. I so far have not been able to EQ away the 3 kHz to 4 kHz resonances on the Arya without hurting the tonal balance.

Curiosity: One oddity that I would find later at home was with how even after EQing both headphones to sound virtually identical with many pure tone frequencies volume-matched (I will later discuss how this isn't necessarily a bad thing), differing only slightly in soundstage, openness, or pad feel and comfort, despite their both having an impedance of 32 Ohms and a very flat impedance curve, and the Elite having a 101 dB/mW sensitivity while the Arya's sensitivity is 94 dB/mW, the Arya's impulse also somehow sounds louder (though the decays were of similar loudness). My guess is that there may indeed be slight changes in frequency response, or at least overall sound level (a vertical translation of the frequency response) due to one diaphragm being heavier than the other and not being able to be accelerated to as high of an amplitude for each frequency for the duration of the impulse, whereas with pure tones or pink noise, the levels and tonal balance are able to sound nigh identical. Perhaps it is a group delay thing, whether or not such happens to matter more when it comes to sharp transients.

The Utopia's impulse response sounded reasonably sharp or comparable to the Expanse and Elite, but with the worst decay or post-ringing closer in quality to a sharp rattle of a lower pitch center than the decay on the Elite and Arya. This is consistent with the large quantity of resonances in that band on the Utopia's CSD here. I suppose the Utopia's impulse response sounded the most "plasticky" out of these, though I have yet to hear "plasticky timbre" in general music out of Focal headphones. The transient also felt like it had less treble, and somehow not as much body or impact compared to the others. Overall, its impulse response sounds more like a "chp" per the sound of its decay sounding more prominent, while the Elite's impulse response sounds like a slap, but as though hitting a harder material than on the Expanse which I suppose sounded like tapping on plastic, the Arya finally sounding and feeling the sharpest or snappiest. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the dulling of the Expanse's transients was indeed due to my amp actually not being powerful enough, though again, we have that aforementioned oddity with the Arya sounding sharper than the easier to drive Elite, and I knew that I could still get the Expanse's transient louder and toward unsafe levels with my volume knob headroom.

The HD 800 S's impulse response sounded reasonably sharp, though a bit "lean and anemic in feel", I guess like the Utopia, or not as "aggressively sharp" as the Arya, at least initially. Despite the fairly clean CSD here, I think I could still hear some post-ringing. The D8000 Pro's impulse response sounded reasonably sharp, not as sharp as the Arya, sounding like a knock, but with the fastest and highest-pitched decay, probably making it the "fastest" or cleanest for transients or such microdetails, though the Arya will probably render such in a more pronounced and incisive fashion, its sharpness potentially masking its decay, though said decay might mask other details. Anyways, this transient speed, or at least cleanness, may indeed be thanks to their AFDS technology. https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...k-ages-of-ortho-tech.10824/page-2#post-344109 shows the CSD which looks to be reasonably clean, whereby with its apparent lack of sustained ridges, I probably did only hear its 10 kHz peaks.

Main listening impressions:

tl;dr: I really like large-driver planar magnetics with lots of space around your ears. For classical music, the DCA Expanse, 2022 Focal Utopia, and Sennheiser HD 800 are all acceptable with their stock tunings while the others need EQ for tonal balance and enhanced clarity.

A new test track I use is "Oblivion":

This track has a lot more sharp transients and a wider panning than "Diablo Rojo" or the other tracks from that album. 2:18 within "Oblivion" features some rapid transient sequences and some treble details. Of course, the Arya rendered these wonderfully. I was surprised to find that the Expanse sounded brighter here, though it was the case that it lacked the "spaciousness" EQ I had implemented for the Arya where I lowered the 5 kHz to 7 kHz region which sounds overly amplified to my ears, this probably being a main deviation of my ears from the GRAS or B&K measurement rigs. This brightness perhaps contributed to the Expanse sounding more "sterile".

The Elite sounds great, whereby I suppose I preferred its imaging of the guitars compared to the Expanse. As for soundstage, the Expanse does have the guitars sounding closer to your ears, or with the amount of space around your ears with the Elite and Arya, they produce a more convincing soundstage. Compared to the Arya's sharpness, the Elite somehow seemed to render the notes with a really (in my notes, I used an expletive instead) engaging weight and expressive impetus to it. The Expanse's greater bass quantity was also perceived, my finding it to be too much. I suppose it follows Harman bass more literally, whereby I have been most fond of headphones.com's GRAS bass target which seems to sit between Harman and B&K diffuse-field.

I didn't like the Utopia's sense of "body" for this track, with or without EQ, I suppose its sounding leaner like the Expanse. Its imaging did feel like it was "from a smaller place", or not as high or forward as on the planar magnetics.

Amid my quick impressions, the HD 800 S simply sounded "good" with these guitar tracks. The D8000 Pro also sounded reasonable, having sharp transients and a reasonable handle of the busier sections.

As for "Parade", which I use to test soundstage or "bigness" and how it renders exquisitely busy tracks (particularly 4:32 and on), I found myself preferring the Utopia's stock tuning compared to when it was EQed. As for the sense of "bigness of sound", it was still limited by the earpad size and the small, dynamic drivers. I simply feel like I would never give up the feeling of a planar wavefront. As for the other headphones, soundstage or "bigness" was indeed just a matter of the amount of space around your ears and the size of the driver, so probably starts with the Utopia, then the D8000 Pro, then the Expanse, then the HD 800 S, then the Elite and Arya. The HD 800 S sounded reasonable here, big when driven loud enough, but nothing sounding "wider", with or without EQ. The D8000 Pro sounded big, and I suppose this was a case where I preferred the warmth, fullness, or space that the stock tuning gave it. Otherwise, something about how the Elite's Harman EQ turned out had this track sounding special with it, just "beautiful", "more full and ethereal", maybe a bit bigger or grand, or it could have been the effect of some bias an increased susceptibility to a certain mode of listening.

As for "Best 8D song", which presents nice 3D panning, vocals, and bass impact, with my starting out with the EQed Elite at a relatively loud or full volume, I was rather impressed by how the Elite rendered the introduction of the bass at 0:31, just wonderfully full, visceral, and textured. The Arya sounded good, perhaps not as impressive. The Expanse I suppose came close to the Elite, or at least its greater bass quantity (and quality) could be felt. The Utopia's rendition of this impact by means didn't feel as satisfying, perhaps simply because I prefer the larger planar wavefront of the Elite and Arya. Now, I am pretty sure my amp is plenty sufficient for the Utopia (if the specs and math are to be believed), even with its larger impedance hump in the bass. I couldn't find much difference in the quality of the vocals between these headphones. As for the radial panning of the sound source around 3:10 and whatnot, I no longer experienced that "astonishing distance/soundstaging" that I experienced last time with the Elite, whereby all the headphones seemed comparable in their rendering of this, its just being a matter of which earpads obstructed or intersected with this image the least, and I suppose which tuning interfered with the simulated HRTF effects in the track the least. The EQed Elite was still the most engaging to me at the time, or whatever the bias was being perceived consistently at that time.

A new test track is Nunes' "Chessed I" in https://app.idagio.com/albums/edition-musikfabrik-vol-09-scherben (again, Idagio does offer a free version) for which other than for vibrant instrument timbre, I was looking for how the throbs of certain string instruments or bass woodwinds sounded. I couldn't notice much differences between the headphones here as to the "tactility" of those throbs other than one like the Expanse maybe having more bass in general. I suppose the Utopia didn't sound as clear as the others with or without EQ.

As for the opening of Chailly's Brahms Piano Concerto No. 2, The Utopia's string timbre sounded good, though with the low, ascending runs of the piano, it got a bit boomy. The Expanse also sounds good with EQ, clearer than the Utopia, and not boomy, though I found myself wondering if I actually preferred how the strings sounded on the Utopia. Maybe the Expanse sounded particularly rich when I turned on my EQ for it? It may have not sounded as clear as my EQed Arya, though somehow not in the sense of there being any treble energy masking things. I will note that I had discovered this recording on the night prior after cleaning my ears with Murine, whereby it sounded fantastic on the EQed Arya at least on the first listen. The EQed Elite sounded reasonably clear here, though the piano timbre was slightly different. Strings sounded good on the HD 800 S, though it might have not sounded as clear, perhaps due to treble energy and masking. The D8000 Pro sounded reasonable here, having reasonable clarity. I suppose of all these headphones, only the Expanse, Utopia, and HD 800 S have stock tunings that sound acceptable if not good with orchestral music without sounding veiled (the Arya with its slightly raised bass and its treble energy), muffled or overly warm (Elite hybrid pads), or having some other tonal imbalance (D8000 Pro midrange and lower treble).

As for the opening of Simon Gaudenz's Mahler 5's first and second movements, it sounded "nice" and big ("bigness" here mainly regards the two massive orchestral tuttis within the first minute) on the EQed Elite insofar as it wasn't too far off from the already very enjoyable reference of my EQed Arya. The "presentation" (imaging, planar wavefront, driver size, ear space) was similar, though the tonal balance was still slightly different. I'd say the soundstage felt quite grand.

A tidbit on soundstage and my perception of forward image or the limitations of headphone listening:

tl;dr: Well-EQed headphones paired with excellent recordings and bs2b crossfeed aren't too far from the live concert experience. I subjectively mainly correlate "soundstage" with earpad and driver size. "In the forehead" can happen to be how actually perceive a forward image, just that your headphones diverse that from the visual cues and head tracking.

On the evening of my original audition with the Meze Elite, I had the pleasure of seeing Mahler 5 live at Roy Thomson Hall from a nice and central position within Row O of the orchestra level. I had seen Bruckner 4 from the orchestra level a few months prior, and also remembered some experiences from the mezzanine some years prior. When listening to the Arya at home, what had me feeling like I had not yet truly met "diminishing returns" was that even with EQ, it still didn't sound "real enough" to me, or I was thirsting for yet more vibrance, vividness, and transparency, particularly for string timbre, or for the feeling of the drivers disappearing. Some tracks like https://app.idagio.com/albums/edition-musikfabrik-vol-09-scherben and "Uchoten" were already sounding about as good as it gets, but orchestral recordings, at least for certain works, still seemed like "the last frontier" for realism, even after sampling every recording Idagio had available and finding my favourites after many hours of listening.

Anyways, it was of course exquisitely pleasant to now be able to follow along with the symphony's actual sound and compare it to what I remember of the EQed Arya's sound on my reference recordings. If anything, I was pretty impressed with the Arya and the recording. It honestly wasn't too far off. There were points where the violins sounded "rasp" or "harsh" in the recording, and actually did sound like such in real life for that particular passage or instructed bowing technique. Now, the opening trumpet tones did sound a bit louder and more piercing than in my preferred recordings at my preferred listening volume, I suppose as piercing as it was in some of the recordings that I discounted for that reason. I then prepared myself for those fortissimo orchestral tuttis. I did not expect it to be that loud... I measure 95 to 97 dB on my sound meter tops when listening through the Arya at home, but this was probably 105 dB or more, uncomfortably and impressively loud, on the verge of pain if sustained any longer. In that regard, I obviously couldn't compare the "timbre" of that tutti to what I heard at home since my ears were saturated. The same goes for the unexpectedly loud cymbal crashes. Now, what this experience did yield was that at least for orchestral music, I can't say that "my whole body" was really necessary or active in the experience of that massive soundfront, whereby it was mostly my face and ears that felt it, or my fingers in feeling my programme notes vibrate. Yes, for the deepest bass, your "entire body" would probably feel it, but in this case, I felt like headphones were plenty capable of conveying the impact of an orchestral tutti.

Another observation was that for orchestral listening, what I was looking for wasn't actually an "ultra-wide or enveloping soundstage" in the conventional sense. Technically, the soundstage, or sound image, was of course no bigger than the orchestra I saw before me in the distance. In this regard, the "wideness of soundstage" was not from the sense of enveloping sound, not even from the concert hall acoustics, but rather from the sense of void or empty space around my ears where the main sound source isn't coming from (though reflections probably still paid a big part in imaging that orchestra before me within that large space). Or indeed, the feeling that this finite orchestra is being placed within a massive concert hall space as opposed to the feeling of being at the conductor's podium or within the orchestra. In that regard, I was already able to achieve that feeling with the help of bs2b DSP crossfeed used with foobar2000, plus foo_record and VB-Cable for allowing me to route YouTube and Idagio playback through the foobar2000 DSP (Equalizer APO fortunately does not interfere with this and can still apply its EQ settings to the processed sound), this greatly helping to move the image forward and away from the drivers. bs2b can do wonders for orchestral tracks or others that are panned too wide for headphone listening. As for the settings, the upper dB selector increases the amount of crossfeed when dragged to the left, in effect making the sound more and more mono or forward and central. In this case, the "Default" preset is the most central and forward while the emulations of "C. Moy" and "J. Meier" crossfeed yield incrementally wider presentations as though going closer to the sound source, turning bs2b off then putting you inside the sound source. bs2b does still struggle with bringing higher-frequency sounds forward in the image, which can only be slightly helped by dragging the lower frequency and interaural delay bar toward the right which would be consistent with less stereo speaker toe-in and hence less head shadow effect.

I also came to learn that what I was confusing for an "in the forehead" forward image through my headphones was actually how my real forward image felt, so in that regard, I was realizing that my headphones were actually more capable than I thought, and that I simply lacked the visual cues for assigning depth, or the recording did not encode such depth in the first place, though one could artificially implement such depth with EQ or headphone stock tunings.

Anyways, to me, assuming the same frequency response, the only increase in "soundstage" for me simply comes from having less of a feeling of there being ear cups between your ears and the virtual sound source. As such, in the chasing of soundstage or the feeling of one's headphones being portals for your ears into the original sound venue, unless a future audition with an HE1000se or other changes my mind, my next step would rather be toward HRTF measurement and DSP head tracking as with the Smyth Realiser or the lesser-known Earfish. Hopefully, that would finally have me feeling as though I were browsing the internet while seated in the middle of Roy Thomson Hall.

Listening impressions resumed:

The DCA sounded good and big, though there is still something different and preferable to me about having that huge planar wavefront with all that extra space around your ears. the Utopia sounded good with or without EQ, managing to produce a pretty big-feeling sound despite the smaller earpads. The HD 800 S was also good with or without EQ. The D8000 Pro sounded big, perhaps inherently not as big as those with larger earpads, and there were probably some things with the tonality that I didn't like, with or without EQ.

Conclusion:

Overall, the Meze Elite was still the most engaging to me during that listening session, and likewise very competitive with the Arya for comfort. I also gained interesting data in comparing the sound of single-sample impulses through these headphones to better judge which has sharper transients or faster decays, its in this case being the HiFiMan Arya Stealth that sounded the sharpest while the DCA Expanse and Final Audio D8000 Pro had the fastest decays, perhaps consistent with peoples' descriptions of their details or technicalities.

Coming up will be an unboxing post (#4,662) showcasing my at-home listening setup and what I have found after listening to music and meticulously experimenting with EQ over the past week.

 

[TheAttorney]

Anyways, to me, assuming the same frequency response, the only increase in "soundstage" for me simply comes from having less of a feeling of there being ear cups between your ears and the virtual sound source. As such, in the chasing of soundstage or the feeling of one's headphones being portals for your ears into the original sound venue, unless a future audition with an HE1000se or other changes my mind, my next step would rather be toward HRTF measurement and DSP head tracking as with the Smyth Realiser or the lesser-known Earfish. Hopefully, that would finally have me feeling as though I were browsing the internet while seated in the middle of Roy Thomson Hall.

Based on your strong interest in sound stage and cross-feed, and your view that the hybrid pads sound a bit veiled without EQ, I strongly recommend you get the angled pads before comparing your Elite with the HEKse. It will just save you a lot of time getting to the place where I think you're heading.

Secondly, I don't get why seemingly lots of people like "head tracking" (as provided by Smyth Realiser). In the purest sense of being immersed in a musical performance, I think it is a limitation of loudspeakers and live performance that the sound stage jumps to your left ear whenever you turn right. Conversely, it's an advantage with headphones that the orchestra always exactly comes with you whenever you turn your head - I imagine this is closer to what was in Beethoven's head when he was writing his symphonies, and it completely frees you from a physical limitation.

Of course it is personal preference, but I do feel this is a plus point for headphone listening that is rarely stated.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Based on your strong interest in sound stage and cross-feed, and your view that the hybrid pads sound a bit veiled without EQ, I strongly recommend you get the angled pads before comparing your Elite with the HEKse. It will just save you a lot of time getting to the place where I think you're heading.

Secondly, I don't get why seemingly lots of people like "head tracking" (as provided by Smyth Realiser). In the purest sense of being immersed in a musical performance, I think it is a limitation of loudspeakers and live performance that the sound stage jumps to your left ear whenever you turn right. Conversely, it's an advantage with headphones that the orchestra always exactly comes with you whenever you turn your head - I imagine this is closer to what was in Beethoven's head when he was writing his symphonies, and it completely frees you from a physical limitation.

Of course it is personal preference, but I do feel this is a plus point for headphone listening that is rarely stated.

I do in fact have the angled Alcantara pads as came with the Meze Elite Tungsten and I suppose all the latest releases of the Elite, and have a very detailed post about the capabilities of EQ and everything I have found superior about rather using the hybrid pads as the basis for such coming right up. Anyways, here is a preview for while you wait:

For good measure, I will be listening to the unEQed angled Alcantara pads while writing this.

Unboxing:

Other than post #4,478 which I think was photographed at an audio shop or event, I am probably the first here to post photos of their own non-Chameleon Meze Elite Tungsten on this thread. As for the rest of the internet, the only other non-commercial consumer coverage I have found was in and https://forum.gamer.com.tw/C.php?bsn=60535&snA=22837&tnum=1, and some Head-Fi classifieds listings. The recent release of this new finish was what allowed me to fall in love with the Elite's looks insofar as had my audition caused me to prefer the Elite's sound and comfort, I would have likely been left with a sour taste in my mouth regarding the aluminum finish. As nice as the "Chameleon" grilles look, I do find myself preferring the pairing of tungsten with the original black grilles.

The box had fairly simple bubble wrap around the case within. A fairly simple unboxing, I suppose like with the Arya Stealth, and indeed, folks want to get their hands on their new headphones as quickly as possible. I guess I'm too used to having to spend half an hour removing and cutting through padding when unboxing a large typewriter I purchased. The case appears to be plastic. The handle is leather-textured rubber which feels nice regardless. I am rather pleased with the polished gunmetal finish of the latches.

The more compact carrying case included with the latest releases of the Elite

Beautiful; all remaining padding is part of the case itself

This card (stuck into the front slot) and the manual / marketing booklet have a nice, textured finish evoking the character of the new Cerakoted "tungsten" finish

Looks like I'm lucky to have a pretty early serial number for this new finish (this kind of stuff gets typewriter collectors like myself giddy). I don't know what serial number Bloom Audio has.
​

You can also see it on the inside of the right yoke.

Inside of the left yoke

Each yoke has two compression springs rotating the pads upward. The vertical swivel of these yokes feels exquisitely smooth, solid, and precise.

I also find that the tungsten finish really highlights the exquisite precision with which these parts were machined. It is quite stunning to just look at the joints in person. the build quality of this thing is no joke. I just feel that it looks a whole lot cleaner than the exposed and minimally polished aluminum finish.

Under white LED lighting

Out in the sunlight with the beautiful headphone couch. The headphone couch while pricy is just beautiful, and its build and heft are commensurate with the price. The only other headphone stand whose aesthetics I like are those by ROOM's Audio Line, but the Meze Elite Tungsten really deserved this one. If you are concerned about pad compression from this style of stand, due to the contour, it will only press against the flanking edges of the pad and thus should not affect the seal.

The finish is a thin vegan leather stretched and adhered quite nicely to the couch's contours. I don't know if the body is made of wood or dense plastic and other weight additives. Both folding segments seem to be equally dense.

There is even vegan leather on this surface that is completely hidden when deployed. Now, I do wish the hinges felt sturdier and had less play.

Quite a beautiful driver. I believe the ridges in the traces are intentional for improving flexibility, and in this case, they produce a beautiful sunburst pattern when reflecting light. It is particularly impressive out in sunlight.

I love how you can see the drivers through the hybrid pads' grating.

The angled Alcantara pads can still yield a sparkly effect through the felt lining
​

Now, when you look at the translucent diaphragm's reflections around the edges between the gaps, you do see some small wrinkles or waves which I will hope are normal in this case; you can also see triangular creases from an I believe intentional sunray-like pattern around the diaphragm's perimeter. Some of the smaller wrinkles suggest the driver's indeed being as thin as advertised, just that its surface finish isn't as smooth and reflective as the green tint on HiFiMan's drivers. From what I've seen on my Arya Stealth, HiFiMan seems to achieve substantially cleaner and flatter-looking tensioning for their submicron diaphragms, which is probably reflected in the exquisitely sharp transients, and perhaps the lower sensitivity.

The mini XLR to 4.4 mm balanced silver-plated PCUHD premium cable came with a nicer-feeling leather (if not just a nicer faux leather) pouch than my Arya Stealth's mono 3.5 mm to 4.4 mm balanced silver-plated upgrade cable.

Fortunately, the connectors are of the nicer-looking sort (to me) as opposed to what they show on the website at the moment. The mini XLR connectors also look really nice in person and make a nice clinking sound when they hit each other.

Both cables have eight cores. The "upgrade cable" at the base has a twist of four twists of two cores; each core appears to be Type 1 Litz, unless it is actually stranded. The "premium cable" has a fancy eight-core braid, each core appearing to be Type 2 Litz.

The Y splitters also look nice. Now, on my "premium cable" Y splitter, on the other side is a small scratch or nick that unfortunately made it past quality control; I don't want to deal with the trouble of exchanging for a "perfect" one. The "upgrade cable" has a twist of two twists of two cores for each channel while the "premium cable" uses a different fancy four-core braid.
​

Both cables feel nice and pliable in the hand, the "premium cable" feeling slightly nicer with its larger cores and different braiding style. Both have good microphonics, though the stock cable might happen to be a bit better here except for low bass vibrations. As for "cable sound", well, again, I am an objectivist whose opinion is that if they measure identically and don't have significant defects such that truly, the exact same electrical signals are reaching the headphones, then I do not expect to and in my personal experience do not hear a difference from the stock balanced 4-pin XLR cable, and if one does, then it would be due to something extraneous to the signal, but I'd say that's not a problem so long as you find that you consistently hear these favourable differences. Maybe one cable performs better in the radio band. The tonal balance of pink noise (assessing frequency response) sounds identical between them for me, so both are probably as transparent as one can ever need. You mileage may vary. I haven't compared the sound of transients yet, but couldn't find such reliable given the overhead of switching between cables.

My at-home listening and A/B comparison setup:

Home sweet home. That's an IBM Model F AT keyboard, by the way.
Don't mind the 9 years abandoned 8-bit computer project in the corner.
​

Control center
​

My setup comprises the FiiO K9 Pro ESS in vertical configuration for smaller footprint and better heat dissipation, the HiFiMan Arya Steatlh I purchased at the same time as it to its right with the included "free" headphone stand formed by the packaging and the plastic base affixed to this removable piece of padding. The K9 Pro ESS's volume knob feels really smooth and pleasant, and provides quite fine volume control; I would definitely prefer using it when connecting the K9 Pro ESS to other amps in preamp mode. By the time of my first audition (post #4,541), I had added the switchbox setup to its left. This comprises a Nobsound Douk Audio "ONE Little Bear" 3-IN-1-OUT stereo 3-pin XLR switchbox with a corresponding 3-OUT-1-IN stacked above it. These switchboxes have a plastic shell and weigh 470 grams each, whereby I wish they had more bulk to improve their stability. The knobs also feel sharp in texture, and toggling them feels and sounds very scratchy. It otherwise does the job just fine.

I used a 1' Youkamoo male 4-pin XLR to dual male 3-pin XLR adapter to connect my K9 Pro ESS's balanced output to two 1.5' Monoprice Premier Series (I am quite fond of their looks and feel) cables. The included twist ties helped keep this looking neat. At least from ASR's findings, the switchboxes and Monoprice cables are measurably transparent, so I have no concerns that I am making a "bottleneck" with this setup, and I likewise do not perceive any degradation in sound from running signals through this setup.

Back​

I connected the lower switchbox's single output to the upper switchbox's single input with two 6" WJSTN 3-pin XLR cables. All these switchboxes, XLR cables, and adapters up to now were obtained on amazon.ca. Lastly, I obtained three dual female 3-pin XLR to female 4.4 mm adapters from microdot2009 on eBay for connecting headphones. As far as I know, "red" is supposed to mean "right", whereby the upper connectors on each switchbox are supposed to be for the right channel, but I found that either these adapters or the 4-pin XLR adapter had the channels swapped; I assumed that it was the 4.4 mm adapters for which they consistently messed up the colour convention given that for the 4-pin XLR adapter, the connectors also had 'L' and 'R' explicitly labeled. I also had to twist those 4.4 mm adapters' XLR connectors awkwardly to get them to fit and also nicely curve the cable toward the left.

Overall, this setup allows me to quickly switch between up to three amps and three headphones. I also acquired some splitters for connecting multiple amps to my DAC's output, or for other A/Bing activities. My only reason to get more amps would be if my preferred choice of a third high-end headphone were to indeed require more power, but I currently doubt that this will be the case.

(I am going to need to create another post since this one has maxed out the number of attachments.)

 

[betula]

Why still the Elites after 16 months?
Because most others sound like headphones but these sound like music.

 

[WDitters]

My angled pads arrived today... Really curious about the effects... But full positive anticipation

Quick first update... *Wow*!!

Quick second update... I am still as much in awe as I was the first time.... Shocked actually by the sheer improvement the angled pads bring....

 

[MrHaelscheir]

This post in response to @TheAttorney regarding the merits of the angled Alcantara pads and addressed to all readers will cover my EQing methodology, my closer comparisons between the Meze Elite Tungsten and my HiFiMan Arya Stealth, and why I believe that EQ can yield results substantially improving on top of either of these headphones' earpads' and drivers' stock tunings.

EQ setup and fast headphone A/Bing:

You can obtain my latest Equalizer APO setup here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DMX1xImBsQjzRK2bbB565txfQGSRMp8/view?usp=share_link (update: I've realized that not everyone has Gmail, so I have attached the .zip file here, and also added the text under each EQ profile shown).

To quickly switch between two headphones, I put their respective includes next to one another as in the config.txt file depicted below:

Then, while simultaneously using my left hand to flip the knob of the upper switchbox to the other headphone, I click on the "power icons" to switch to the target headphone's EQ and preamp settings. Either before or after this quick EQ and switchbox switch, I quickly physically switch from wearing one headphone to the other. This takes around 5 seconds, plus the delay of restarting the track you are comparing.

Stock tuning and earpad impressions:

tl;dr: The hybrid pads are too warm to me, but have bass extension and distortion characteristics plus preferred comfort and presentation that make them preferable to me as a platform for EQ. The angled Alcantara pads do sound agreeable, but I don't hear any advantages in soundstage or imaging, and still prefer the results of fine-tuned EQ.

As in post #4,660, hereon, I will not be re-embedding the links to music track videos I had already linked, whereby I will only refer to them by the name I used in quotations.

I personally find the Meze Elite's stock tuning for the hybrid pads too warm in the bass and mids, and lacking in the upper mids or ear gain region. Likewise, I've found that at least with my ears, even with the default Harman EQs, the treble region around 5 kHz to 8 kHz tends to sound too bright, forward, or unnaturally amplified. This makes the music I listen to (see my past few posts for examples) sound a bit muffled, dulled, veiled, or "hollow", like I am listening over a boom box from the early 2000s whence I was a wee lad, or inside a tube, whereas my ideal sound is exquisite vibrance, vividness, and clarity. Basically, while the stock tuning can lend a nice touch to more "lean" genres or tracks (in the sense of having more isolated bands for instruments as opposed to at any moment already taking up a substantial swath of the audio band), for spectrally busier recordings, tonal balance can be extremely important. Or with acoustic or orchestral tracks, you would definitely be prioritizing timbral accuracy, which as far as I know is indeed best captured by the Harman or diffuse-field target insofar as neutral speakers do produce a smooth bass and midrange response at the eardrums followed by an ear gain region between 1 kHz and 10 kHz that reflects how most human ears actually amplify sounds within that frequency band. But as you will find in this post, following the targets as-is is not guaranteed to yield the best results possible, whereby you may still need to do a lot of work in "EQing by ear" to dial in the EQ profile to nigh perfection. Anyways, there are some tracks where I can enjoy the warmth of the stock tuning, but I have so far sound my fine-tuned neutral EQ to be best all-rounder, giving me a clear view into any track.

As for comfort, the hybrid pads feel great and compared to the other headphones I have covered other than the Arya provides the most even pressure distribution all around my ears. I still feel that the Arya's HE1000-style pads (two and a half months worn-in) fit more perfectly around the sides of my head, its being very quick and easy for me to put them on and get the perfect seating, whereas I do need a bit more adjustment for the Elite, maybe less once the pads get more worn-in, though the patented suspension strap design has more give than on the Arya, making. Even when EQed to sound nigh identical, I can still at different times find myself preferring to enjoy the feel of one of these headphones' pads over the other's, their both having pleasant things to be enjoyed about them.

As for the stock tuning of the angled Alcantara pads, I do agree that they are an improvement over the hybrid pads in terms of clarity, and are quite acceptable for listening to classical and acoustic music, though I still find its bass a tad too much at some points, and still desire more out of its ear gain region. Likewise, at least to my ears, there might still be the 6 kHz to 7 kHz peak that sticks out within pink noise (my typical comparison listening level is around 83 to 84 dB; I use https://download.cnet.com/BurninwaveGenerator/3000-2169_4-10711592.html as my pink noise source) and spectrally busier tracks, whereby EQing this, and any other remaining flaws down would likely enable a yet cleaner sound. Compared to my reference neutral EQ, pink noise through these pads sounds a bit darker, but otherwise reasonably balanced without noticeable peaks, hence being suitable as an alternative tuning for some of my tracks. Otherwise, for adjusting the tuning to better showcase the headphone's "technicalities" and capabilities with respect to the competition, I think these pads do a great job and can sound very good with certain tracks. Regardless, I still find my final EQing results with the hybrid pads to be tonally superior, presenting to me a worthwhile improvement over relying on "EQing with earpads". Furthermore, the hybrid pads have better bass extension and lower bass distortion (the latter measurement result can be here; the angled Alcantara pads do have slightly lower midrange distortion, though; I confirmed with tone generators, well, clicking around a sine sweep video I use for EQing by ear, that the angled Alcantara pads do have a subbass roll-off as measured), qualities which I can still value for classical or acoustic music (e.g. taiko drumming and Chinese orchestra), making them my preferred platform for EQing the Meze Elite.

As for comfort, I find the Alcantara's texture a bit too "rough" compared to the exquisitely gentle and welcoming feel of the fabric that lines HiFiMan earpads. The angled Alcantara pads also feel a tad stiffer or not as compliant as the hybrid pads, not yielding as snug of a seal. Likewise, as you will see below, though the size of the ear "aperture" is the same as the hybrid pads' which is comparable (slightly shorter but wider) to the Arya's, these pads are quite thicker:

Angled Alcantara versus HE1000-style pads: back​

Angled Alcantara versus hybrid and HE1000-style pads: front​

I think this thickness causes the headband's clamping force to apply a slight forward torque that has these pads feeling less stable on my head than the hybrid pads or the Arya's. I guess for me, the less the headphones stick outside of my head, the better.

As for soundstaging, taking into consideration my stances already described in post #4,660, I don't experience that much of an advantage compared to the hybrid pads, mind I might even still prefer the latter's "presentation" of large soundfronts like the orchestral tuttis that open Mahler 5 in https://app.idagio.com/recordings/43791766 (for reference, my comparison volume for those dynamic peaks is around 95 dB, the rest averaging around 80 dB), or with Susumu Hirasawa's "Parade" (peaking at 90 dB)i. Here, the Arya still sounds the most immersive or "spatially transparent", perhaps both thanks to how the pads feel around my head, and how they are the most open sounding to me; e.g. when speaking, the Arya yields minimal attenuation of my voice to my ears, the Elite's pads or driver yielding a mild muffling or attenuation of higher frequencies, the angled Alcantra possibly less so. I suppose that while the angled pads may be thicker and deeper, this doesn't really feel any more "open" to me, or something about the material and the larger inner walls of the pads has these pads actually feeling more closed-in than the hybrid pads. Perhaps you can imagine sound radiating from the drivers a bit outward, whereby the deeper the pad, the more that sound will intersect with and be absorbed by the walls of the pads, and as such, I feel like I am receiving a smaller part of what the drivers have to give me. Perhaps they do sound a tad "wider" with the drivers being further away, but I think this needs to be balanced with one's also increasing the size of the ear aperture, say, a centimeter forward and backward.

As for openness, there is also the matter that the Meze Elite and Empyrean both obstruct the back of the driver with the fancy yoke design, as nice as those look, such possibly reflecting some sound back around that area, though I wouldn't be one to know what a Meze Elite with yokes purely coming in from the side would sound like.

As for imaging, I don't hear much improvement over the hybrid pads, or the differences between these or the Arya are too minor for me to care, whereby my stance in post #4,660 regarding imaging applies.

As for the Arya Stealth's stock tuning, this sounds too veiled and bright to me in a manner consistent with frequency response measurements, the bass being slightly lifted, the upper mids recessed, and there being audible peaks that you might not realize were dirtying the sound of your spectrally busy track (e.g. "Parade"), though some tracks can still sound pretty good, though the treble may indeed be a bit forward compared to my EQed results.

EQing journey - HiFiMan Arya Stealth:

tl;dr: EQ can do wonders for improving clarity and separation, and to me is the best way to achieve sonic transparency into the recording, presenting the music as it is, neither adding nor taking away anything from it.

Let us start by looking at my original "HiFiMan Arya V3 EQ headphones.com GRAS target V1.csv" Eq profile based on the frequency response measurement shown here.

Text: GraphicEQ: 20 3; 30 2; 40 1.8; 50 1.5; 60 1; 75 0; 80 -0.5; 100 -1; 150 -2; 200 -2; 300 -2; 350 -2; 400 -1.5; 430 -1.2; 500 -1.5; 540 -1.7; 600 -1; 700 0; 830 -1.3; 940 0; 1100 0.5; 1200 2; 1400 4; 1600 5.5; 2000 4.5; 2500 0; 3000 -1.5; 3200 -1.8; 3500 -1.5; 4300 0.8; 5300 -3.5; 7700 -2.5; 9100 0; 10200 -2; 12500 0; 14000 -2; 17000 -3

This sounded great to me and served me for a month, greatly improving clarity, but I was not yet aware of the remaining peak around 5 kHz to 8 kHz, or the resonances around 4 kHz. It was then in mid March that I decided to try "EQing the treble by ear" to sound flat. These issues were revealed by listening to pink noise (I use https://download.cnet.com/BurninwaveGenerator/3000-2169_4-10711592.html as my generator) and sine sweeps as in
(I do acknowledge that not everyone will be as tolerant to listening to pink noise and pure tones at 80 dB for hours on end while chasing that perfect tonal clarity.) When listening to sine sweeps, I keep the curves of my EQ profile, the headphone's frequency response with headphones.com GRAS Harman target, and the equal loudness contour as references to check whether I expect the perceived volume of the pure tones to be increasing, decreasing, or constant in volume. I adjust the Equalizer APO Graphic EQ profile accordingly and add or remove points if needed. If I hear a smaller fluctuation, I correct it until the loudness of the pure tones sounds smooth though that band. Variable-band Graphic EQ gives a "connect-the-dots-like" control as opposed to being limited to using parametric EQ filters as your building blocks.

This culminated with "HiFiMan Arya V3 EQ headphones.com GRAS target V1 - adjusted by ear - tamed highest treble compensation.csv" shown below:

Text: GraphicEQ: 10 4; 20 3; 30 2; 40 1.8; 50 1.5; 60 1; 75 0; 80 -0.5; 100 -1; 150 -2; 200 -2; 300 -2; 350 -2; 400 -1.5; 430 -1.2; 500 -1.5; 540 -1.7; 600 -1; 700 0; 830 -1.3; 940 0; 1100 0.5; 1200 2; 1400 4; 1600 5; 2000 4; 2500 0; 2700 -1; 3000 -1.5; 3200 -1.8; 3500 -1.5; 3990 3; 4200 3; 4300 -1.5; 5300 -3.5; 6500 -4.5; 7700 -2.5; 8100 0; 9100 0; 10200 -2; 11000 -1.5; 11500 -5; 11900 -5.5; 12500 0; 13000 -1; 13600 7; 14000 3; 15000 3; 15500 -3; 16000 -3.5; 17000 0; 18110 1.8; 19154 2.4; 20258 3

Here, I had somewhat addressed the 4 kHz resonance, and likewise some resonances and dips in the treble. My top octave treble particularly caused a higher-pitched percussion instrument to appear within the upper right of the sonic image within the middle of Yosi Horikawa's "Crossing". It was by mid April sometime after my initial audition and order of the Meze Elite that I in spectrally busy tracks like "Parade", in pink noise, and then in the sine sweep realized that despite my expectation of a monotonically decreasing loudness in pure tones from 4 kHz and on, it was actually increasing to a rather loud peak around 6 kHz to 8 kHz (you can experiment with Equalizer APO's parametric peaking filters and pink noise to hear what those peaks sound like so you can identify them and EQ them away). In EQing this down, I noticed that the sound of "Parade" and orchestral works had been cleaned up, my having not realized that it actually used to be too bright and was polluting the sound with this treble noise (practically speaking). Likewise, "Parade" and orchestral works sounded more spacious, perhaps as though violins had a sense of increased soundstage and now had the correct tonal balance. Given this, I recommend those of you who EQ to check out this band on your headphones and see if it might in fact be too amplified for your own ears as it was for mine.

I would later after picking up my Meze Elite Tungsten over the last week refine my "reference neutral EQ" for the Arya, cleaning up the treble and also addressing an area around 3.5 kHz that was still sticking out in pink noise. I gave in with trying to EQ the resonances between 3 kHz to 4.3 kHz since the location of the peaks and dips would change with each removal and donning of this headphone, whereby it would be best to leave the EQ around that region flat so that compensations from a previous seating won't accentuate peaks or dips in another one. Again, this problematic resonance region is corroborated by the CSD shown here. In this regard, the Arya has this disadvantage in regard to frequency response consistency and "EQability". Anyways, this EQ culminated with "HiFiMan Arya V3 EQ headphones.com GRAS target V1 - adjusted by ear - neutral reference V1 - flattenend 4 kHz region due to inconsistency of resonances.csv" shown below:

Text: GraphicEQ: 10 4; 20 3; 30 2; 40 1.8; 50 1.5; 60 1; 75 0; 80 -0.5; 84 -2; 100 -1; 150 -2; 200 -2; 300 -2; 350 -2; 400 -1.5; 430 -1.2; 500 -1.5; 540 -1.7; 600 -1; 700 0; 830 -1.3; 940 0; 1100 0.5; 1200 2; 1400 4; 1600 5; 2000 4; 2500 0; 2700 -3; 3000 -3.5; 3200 -2.5; 3500 0; 3600 2; 3700 2; 3850 0; 3900 1; 3950 1; 4000 1; 4070 2; 4100 1; 4140 0; 4300 -4; 4800 -6; 5000 -7; 5300 -8; 5500 -7; 6100 -10; 6500 -9.5; 7000 -10; 7700 -10; 8100 -5; 9100 -2; 10200 -2; 11000 -1.5; 11100 -2; 11600 -9; 11900 -8; 12100 -6; 12500 -4; 12800 -4; 13000 1; 13600 -1; 13800 -1; 14000 0; 15000 0; 15500 -3; 16000 -3.5; 17000 0; 18110 1.8; 19154 2.4; 20258 3

All I can say is that this sounds great. Just clear and balanced, with everything sounding as it should to me. I will also vie that neutrality or "clear and balanced" does not at all sound "sterile" or "lifeless" to me. When there is warmth in a recording, it will shine through. If the track is "fun" (as I have particularly found with Susumu Hirasawa in places), oh yes, will the headphone make it sound "fun". It is presenting the music as it is, and yes, sometimes you can from this neutral reference critique a track's tonal balance and adjust it accordingly with EQ (see "Tone Adjustment Console.txt"). From what I have gleaned about audio, the idea is that when you have peaks in the frequency response, this frequency bands can mask details situated adjacent to that band while possible bringing that band too far forward. Now, while in-ear measurements of reference speaker systems might actually yield a rough (lots of small rises and dips or resonances or reflections) measured frequency response, and you may also be able to hear such in sine sweeps played through that system, I have the stance that a very smooth frequency response or perceived sine sweep could still be regarded as a more "ideal" way of hearing, or an enhancement over human hearing provided that our "actual" equal loudness contour isn't actually already very smooth, whereby the only roughness would be in the recordings themselves as originate from the instruments, recording environment, or the recording equipment and chain itself. As such, a very smooth frequency response without peaks and dips where they shouldn't be is what I regard as "true audio transparency", or the best way to create a portal between your ears and the recording itself, indeed making the transducer (headphone driver) disappear provided that that happens to be your own audiophile goal, to get rid of imperfections and hear the music alone, only then applying tonal controls to suit one's preference.

As such, as I have read and heard some say, I would be weary about giving in to finding a peaky treble "detailed-sounding" or "highly resolving", but by all means, you can still enjoy such a sound signature. As for pink noise, this EQ profile now sounds very balanced, with virtually nothing but the top octave and that problematic 4 kHz resonance, or the entire ear gain region itself (which is suppose to be there) sticking out. This EQ produces the most realistic orchestral timbre among others for me, and exquisitely rich and clear piano tones within Grosvenor's Chopin Piano Concerto No. 1 (take 7:30 and on, for example, where I find the angled Alcantara pads slightly veiled due to the still prominent bass, still slightly relaxed ear gain region, and the 6 kHz to 7 kHz treble energy, or it still sounds too warm or dark, or a bit of the body of some of the strings is still partly robbed).

Susumu Hirasawa's music in general presents plenty of quite busy tracks with which one can test for clarity, tonal balance, peaks or masking, and instrument separation:

• "Technique of Relief":
• "Gipnoza":

The angled Alcantara tracks do sound good with these tracks, mainly slightly quietening the vocals and bringing some of the bass and mids forward.

EQing journey - Meze Elite Tungsten with hybrid pads:

tl;dr: It is indeed possible to EQ two headphones to sound virtually identical if you do it right, adjusting and volume-matching them frequency-by-frequency by-ear, their then only differing in soundstaging, earpad size and comfort, imaging (probably mostly related to driver matching), and transient quality, but one headphone can still be superior for EQ insofar as it has lower distortion, greater frequency response consistency, and less resonances, peaks, or dips. (See https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...n-susvara-headphone-review.50705/post-1853760 (post #1,137) for a more precise matching of two headphones using in-ear mics.)

Below is my initial "Meze Elite headphones.com GRAS target V1.csv" EQ profile based on the frequency response measurement shown here.

Text: GraphicEQ: 20 3.8; 50 3.9; 63 0.6; 80 0; 125 -1.5; 200 -3; 240 -3.5; 335 -3.5; 350 -4; 420 0; 440 0.9; 500 0; 560 -0.3; 670 -0.2; 750 -0.5; 830 0; 900 1.5; 1060 0; 1200 0; 1400 4.7; 1700 4; 1920 5.2; 2250 5; 2500 2.8; 2850 2.5; 3150 3.2; 4000 1.8; 5400 3.9; 6100 1.6; 7300 4.8; 8000 2.7; 9350 2.7; 12000 -1.2; 12500 0; 13000 1.8; 14000 -3; 14800 0.5; 16400 -9.8; 20000 -9.8

This was the EQ responsible for my coming to somehow prefer the Elite over all the other headphones auditioned and prefer some things about its tonality over my Arya. The first observation was that the "sweetness" I had heard in the guitars at 1:39 of "Diablo Rojo" was indeed grounded somewhere within the frequency response, in this case, within the EQed shelf around 400 Hz. When I listened through sine sweeps in that area again, I cam to realize that this region actually was in fact too elevated. I initially thought that I didn't hear the shelf at all, but then found that the decrease in volume around there was simply smaller than what the frequency response measurement suggested, whereby my original EQ had overcompensated this drop in volume, causing this "sweetness" to appear which I would have not EQed in for any of the other headphones since those all had rather flat bass to midrange responses. Regardless, I still regard the Meze Elite Tungsten as being aesthetic perfection and an engineering marvel, a lovely work of are that both sounds great and happened to be the most comfortable to me out of that lot.

"Aesthetic perfection". Who wouldn't love to be greeted by this sight every morning?​

Listening to the sine sweep of the top octave (10 kHz and up) revealed what was actually a very clean, smooth, and extended treble response other than the 14 kHz dip/null which I believe is a natural destructive interference that can't be EQed away; I think the Arya's 9 kHz dip wasn't as deep as on the Elite, and I think the Arya does also have a 13 kHz or 15 kHz null like the Elite, just that it didn't rebound as much or quickly as on the Elite which unEQed has more 15 kHz than the Arya, though the Arya seems to still have more 10 kHz. Note that the B&K measurement for the Elite shows a large peak around 15 kHz; I don't think I really heard this as a peak, its more so manifesting as this smooth and largely sustained treble extension. I also made note that through the ear gain region and top octave, the Elite's frequency response generally sounded a lot smoother than the Arya, and the imaging of the pure tones was more consistently central, suggesting better channel balance or driver matching compared to the Arya which had ought to be a semi-objective demonstration of the Meze Elite having an edge on imaging capabilities over the Arya, however hard that might be to hear in practice, and whether or not this clean driver matching can also be achieved on much cheaper headphones (or such cheaper headphones would inherently lose out on other qualities).

I had also created an EQ profile for the B&K target shown here (it's the last EQ profile shared in the main post). Below is "Meze Elite headphones.com BnK 5128 target V1 - only up to 8440 Hz - adjusted by ear including more spacious treble.csv":

Text: GraphicEQ: 20 0.7; 23 0.7; 24 0.4; 28.5 0.4; 33 0; 38 -0.8; 41.4 -0.2; 45.5 -0.6; 47 0.5; 60 -1; 100 -2.6; 140 -3.3; 200 -3.9; 320 -5; 340 -4.5; 410 -2; 470 -2.6; 610 -3.3; 740 -1.1; 815 1.1; 900 0; 1000 -0.8; 1170 0; 1240 2.9; 1450 1.8; 1650 3.5; 1810 5; 1860 5; 2150 5; 2250 3.5; 2420 4; 2750 4; 3000 4.2; 3220 3.5; 3370 2.2; 4000 2.1; 5000 -1; 5600 -3; 6000 -5; 6200 -7; 6500 -5; 6700 -4; 7200 -3; 7800 -4; 8200 -2; 8440 0

This EQ includes my "spaciousness" compensation for the peak that I hear around 6 kHz. I otherwise hadn't really fine-tuned this EQ, its still having some frequency bands sticking out within pink noise like around 2 kHz, and found that my ears probably matched up more with the GRAS measurements.

I eventually while listening to the aforementioned Mahler 5 and Chopin Piano Concerto No. 1 found this hybrid pad EQ wanting of more clarity compared to the Arya, even after EQing by ear a similar correction of the 6 kHz to 7 kHz peak I was hearing (what I call my "spaciousness EQ"). I came to find that what was likely happening was that the EQed Elite still had a bit too much bass, and that the serendipitous "sweetness EQ" of a raised 400 Hz to 700 Hz region was what was responsible for this loss of desirable clarity compared to my reference Arya EQ. As such, I with the help of my quick headphone switching volume matched the Elite's pure tones with reference frequencies on the Arya. I sometimes made adjustments to the Arya's EQ, too (e.g. upon noticing the remaining 3.5 kHz peak), but still this time had the goal of matching the two headphones as closely as possible to what I can only call "endgame EQ".

Below is my final "Meze Elite headphones.com GRAS target V1 - adjusted by ear - neutral reference V1.csv":

Text: GraphicEQ: 20 3; 50 2.5; 63 0; 80 -1; 125 -2; 200 -5; 240 -4.5; 300 -4.5; 420 -3.5; 500 -3.5; 600 -4.5; 670 -3.5; 750 -1.5; 830 0; 900 0.5; 1060 2; 1200 4; 1300 5.5; 1400 5.5; 1600 6; 1700 6.5; 1920 5.2; 2250 5; 2500 2.8; 2850 1; 3150 0; 3500 0; 3750 0; 4000 1.8; 5000 1; 5400 -2; 6000 -6; 6300 -8; 6800 -7; 7300 -6; 7800 -5; 8000 -3; 9350 0; 10000 0; 12000 0

Indeed, with this meticulously obtained EQ (for my ears), these two headphones are now about as volume-matched as they can ever be, and sound virtually identical tonally per music timbre and the sound of pink noise other than the Arya still having those 3.5 kHz to 4.3 kHz resonances. The only differences are in transient quality as already described in post #4,660, the Arya still being the king out of this lineup for transient sharpness, though the Elite's transients might still feel "weightier" and hence preferable for certain tracks or at certain times. Likewise, differences in soundstaging are subtle, or to me ultimately boil down to the subjective effect of how the pads feel. Both feel great when I switch to them, and that suffices to have me happy to be able to switch between two tonally identical headphones, else indeed, switching headphones allows those pads to cool down so they will feel nice after switching back to them once the other headphone's pads get warm. Even if I have found that despite what I originally liked about my original Elite EQ, I would indeed still lean in favour of my Arya EQ's clarity, and while I cannot say that the Elite as a pure platform for EQ actually sounds better, though it does probably have better driver matching and lower distortion, I am still very happy to be able to present this (to me) tonal perfection through this work of art. Likewise, if I didn't like either headphone's stock tonality in the first place, but still substantially preferred their presentation and other non-tonal characteristics, then I might as well EQ both of them to the same neutral reference EQ and use other EQ methods (see "Headphone simulation EQs applied to current Arya and Elite reference EQ.txt" and "Tone Adjustment Console.txt") or the removing of some parts of the EQ profile to experiment with tonal balance.

The final frontier:

tl;dr: I think I have already achieved "endgame EQ" for tonal balance and clarity. EQ is powerful and is a legitimate way to experiment with tonality and modify or emulate headphone sound. Given this, the next step for me other than looking for yet nicer recordings is most likely in pursuing HRTF measurement and head tracking for improved forward imaging and spatial immersion.

From this point in my headphone journey, my goal is to either come across a yet better platform for EQing featuring a yet smoother frequency response, a cleaner CSD, less resonances, yet sharper transients, better driver matching and hence imaging, and a better perceived soundstage from the driver size and earpads, or to finally be properly amazed by a stock tuning for which I would truly feel that EQ would be a disservice to it.

In "Headphone simulation EQs applied to current Arya and Elite reference EQ.txt" shown below, I based on Crinacle's measurements produced these EQ profiles relative to my personal neutral reference in order to simulate the tonal effects of how each of these headphones modify the midrange and ear gain region from 5 kHz to 4 kHz. All except for the Final Audio D8000 Pro whose bass is slightly raised had virtually the same, highly neutral bass to midrange response, mainly differing in the aforementioned band. As for their trebles, my stance is that I would probably find the majority of them veiling or hear peaks in some way that would need to be EQed anyways, whereby my current treble to top octave EQ is what "perfect treble" sounds to me. In this case, I would expect the LCD-5 to mainly bring vocals a bit more forward and slightly increase that sense of clarity. The D8000 Pro would do similar, but eat up too much from the 2 kHz to 4 kHz region, causing it to sound dulled there, yielding an unnatural ear gain sound, though I might like that sound for some tracks. the Focal Utopia's ear gain EQ only adds a subtle sense of increased or modified clarity. The Sennheiser HD 800 S's ear gain dip indeed makes everything in that range sound more distant or quieter, which I personally don't like, though in practice, that headphone's stock tuning is still very agreeable for classical music. Finally, the HiFiMan HE1000se's 1 kHz to 3 kHz ("early ear gain", as I call it) dip does make everything in the midrange, particularly vocals, sound more distance, perhaps giving them a bit more of a sense of space.

Anyways, the point here is that EQ can be a whole lot more powerful than you think it is, and this shouldn't cause one to be dismayed by the prospect of headphones converging upon the same target so much as your turning your favourite headphone to wear into an excellent platform for tonal exploration that doesn't require having to actually physically reach for another headphone or set of pads, or for which tonal adjustments can be immediately tested with a click of the mouse. I can still believe that there are things that high-end headphones or those within each tier can do that other headphones can't, but in that regard, my stance is simply to effectively pick your favourite "window into the musical world", choosing its frame and the size thereof (earpad and driver size and dimensions), and then choosing your favourite glass tint or lack thereof (tonal balance; distortion and veiling could be seen as blurriness or fogginess, and peaks could be seen as texture or waviness causing light to focus at certain parts of the otherwise clear glass).

Otherwise, I still feel like HRTF measurement and head tracking are still the main frontier for me insofar as I do not yet have the means to attain a proper listening room for speakers. Yes, it can be advantageous to be able to "rotate the entire concert hall with you" as you move your head, but I still feel that head tracking is absolutely essential to proper immersion and actually feeling like you are there, the HRTF changes reinforcing your sense of imaging with the sound sources staying fixed in space.

2024-02-08 update:

I had in September acquired in-ear mics from https://www.earfish.eu/ and by latter October finally received my HRTF SOFA files and EQed my headphones toward my free-field measurements. This is the absolute greatest breakthrough in my audio journey. The clarity, vividness, and imaging for great recordings is simply unreal. See https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rec...-virtualization.890719/page-120#post-17951999 (post #1,789) and the internal links for details.