[Resolve]

I can't wait for the day that when anyone asking for FR graphs and objective data is not meet with obstructionist philistines with trivial objections that have answer to them.

A lot of it comes from a place of not being familiar with the material, and for that I really have to empathize. It's not easy to make sense of if you don't have the background, or read the studies, and even if you're willing to pay to read them it still takes time and effort to do. I will say, I had similar reservations about the established conventions around this stuff before reading through the research to understand why the conventions are what they are. If anything it points to more work needing to be done to make this stuff more accessible and easy to understand. It's probably time for another "why this is important" video haha.

 

[P007]

A lot of it comes from a place of not being familiar with the material, and for that I really have to empathize. It's not easy to make sense of if you don't have the background, or read the studies, and even if you're willing to pay to read them it still takes time and effort to do. I will say, I had similar reservations about the established conventions around this stuff before reading through the research to understand why the conventions are what they are. If anything it points to more work needing to be done to make this stuff more accessible and easy to understand. It's probably time for another "why this is important" video haha.

I understand the use of FR, and agree with your point of using it as reference. Kind of like knowing the rules in order to know how to break them.

Out of curiosity, how would you compare the soundstage of the Liric to the Noire? Watched the video after live stream ended, but there wasn't much comment on soundstage.

I would like to have a bit more bass impact then the Noire but would settle for wider soundstage... Which it's something focal doesn't seem to do well from reports, but it's very important for electronic music (beyond EDM). Also, focal has the clamp force. The Noire, while a bit less engaging are so dang comfortable and well tuned, plus great design (goes well with JDS Element II)

But 1k price might be hard to justify since I already have the Noires. Both have the right refined design aesthetic which I appreciate. however I might almost be willing to pay 1k to get the Liric and not have to spend time screwing around to adjust the foam of the earpads like on the Noire.

I also have the beyerdynamic T5 for trials, which has better impact and wide soundstage with good imaging, but I don't see many reviewing our comparing these as opposed to Beyers more popular lineup.

In a perfect world, I am happy to have just one pair

 

[Ichos]

This misunderstands the purpose of both target curves and headphone measurements in general - and I completely understand why this mistake often gets made, and I see it quite commonly. I'm doing my best to try and counteract the narrative that seems to emerge when people see graphs, targets, and EQs, that "all headphones should be tuned to the Harman target". No, that's not at all the purpose of what I'm doing, even if certain other reviewers treat it that way. What's more important than adherence to a target is that the balance between fundamental and resonant harmonic tones is intact. Harman's ear gain region (the area where our physical ear amplifies certain frequencies) is based on the in-room target derived from flat-measuring speakers, and it happens to achieve that balance (which flat-measuring speakers will also achieve), it's just shown at the eardrum reference point instead. The FR can be over or under the target in various places, as long as that balance is reasonably well-achieved. This is something that the Liric seems to do well for the upper mids and lower treble - the most challenging part to get right.

But beyond that, I'm going to echo the wise words of a friend of mine here by saying that headphones shouldn't be tuned to the Harman target, rather they should be evaluated in relation to it. That is to say, we understand what X sounds like, here's how this sounds relative to X. You don't need to like X, but X is a known reference point - a datapoint that allows us to better understand how the headphone is going to sound in relation to it, and this happens to be the one that uses the best publicly available and most widely adopted research on the subject. The purpose of the target is not to say "this is what everyone should like", but rather what people do like, as opposed to any other reference point.

Now when it comes to EQ, the reason to do it is to adjust to your preference. I personally prefer a kind of sound that's more similar to 'reference', and as we know, most listeners also prefer this. Does that mean you do? Not in the least. Maybe you like more bass, maybe you like more treble... this is where you need to understand your own preferences, and adjust accordingly. In other words, I don't tune my EQs to match Harman and call it a day, and that's also why you see some deviations in my results as well.

Thank you for chiming in, I am well aware of the reference point topic and certainly not against measurements.
Still can't understand your comment, ok the tuning is serviceable while I find it great out of the box.
Maybe you meant something else that I can't understand because I am not a native English speaking.
Furthermore it seems that most people and a lot of reviewers don't see measurements as a reference point and there is a trend to embrace the Harman target as a Holly grail.
Anyway I do think that you are doing a great job although I sometimes I don't agree with your personal subjective evaluations

 

[Toonartist]

"ok the tuning is serviceable"

I know what you mean. To me it means it's ok, acceptable but nothing fantastic. What he may have meant is the tuning/headphones take EQ well without any problems... but then again, maybe not

 

[henriks]

 

[Resolve]

To me it means it's ok, acceptable but nothing fantastic. What he may have meant is the tuning/headphones take EQ well without any problems... but then again, maybe not

In this context it was the latter - like easy to dial in to how I like it. But with that said, the former description is also how I'd assess it, subjectively. I think Chrono described the tuning well in his review, it's got its strengths, but also some less desirable quirks like the 1khz bump and the upper treble 'glisten' as he calls it haha. Of course, some people may like the 'W-shape' kind of tuning going on here.

 

[pr90]

A question primarily to @Malevolent, who has been a keen owner of D9200 (jack of all trades among closed-backs for many) and who couple of weeks ago still rated them higher than Liric. At this point, after a bit longer experience, would you still put D9200 above Liric as the better all-rounder, I mean, if you’d have to choose one of them only? And how do they compare in terms of sound isolation, comfort or soundstage and treble? And in terms of Denon’s often praised strengths like balanced frequency response, bass quality, timber quality, vocals? Which are the one to keep as the one and only? Which push your buttons better? Thanks! (P.S. probably to be paired with Mojo, but feel free to ignore that information, if you have no experience with that combo)

 

[FullBright1]

A question primarily to @Malevolent, who has been a keen owner of D9200 (jack of all trades among closed-backs for many) and who couple of weeks ago still rated them higher than Liric. At this point, after a bit longer experience, would you still put D9200 above Liric as the better all-rounder, I mean, if you’d have to choose one of them only? And how do they compare in terms of sound isolation, comfort or soundstage and treble? And in terms of Denon’s often praised strengths like balanced frequency response, bass quality, timber quality, vocals? Which are the one to keep as the one and only? Which push your buttons better? Thanks! (P.S. probably to be paired with Mojo, but feel free to ignore that information, if you have no experience with that combo)

Im assuming Malevolent will get back to you, soon.
Till then...

As compared to the D9200....he Liric has a more precise sonic nature. The mids, the middle mids are Laser-Like.
Where you really notice this is in instrument separation and vocal harmony and drum kits.

The D9200 is more about cohesive unity, and fluid presentation. It does not try to put a microscope on the music, as its main point of view.
It just tries to deliver it's excellent sound with musicality, first and foremost, yet, its a nicely detailed presentation of sound.

The Liric's Sub-bass is well extended and kept out of reach of the midrange. Almost like a Sub is separate from your Floor Speakers.
The overall tonality of the Liric is less bright then the D9200 and slightly more midrange forward, yet not dry and not punched in the mids or etched.
The Liric is more analytical and the D9200s is designed for pleasing sound first and foremost, similar to something like the Rosson Rad-O which also has as its sonic signature a pleasing sound followed by its well endowed micro detail retrieval ability.

 

[Beagle]

I can't wait for the day that when anyone asking for FR graphs and objective data is not meet with obstructionist philistines with trivial objections that have answer to them.

Again, a reviewer is one person with their own set of tastes and listening criteria. They can tell you what they hear and how it lines up with what they like. The very fact that they indicate their EQ settings for each headphone reviewed would indicate that. My problem with graphs is that it often throws people into a tizzy and they now find 'fault' with something they were enjoying up to that point, and the pleasure of listening has fallen by the wayside. I've found pleasure in headphones that would appear to measure "badly". If I relied on the graphs to find potential happiness, I would be forever disappointed. They are only flavours of music presentation. Nothing is perfect or will ever be. Use your own ears and find what you like and enjoy.

 

[FullBright1]

Again, a reviewer is one person with their own set of tastes and listening criteria. They can tell you what they hear and how it lines up with what they like.

Thats partly true...
It is a matter of taste.......regarding the reviewer..
But, its a stone cold fact that if you've owned or own over 200 sets of headphones, and you've been into this listening experience for 10-15yrs-20 yrs, then you have HEARD everything, and within that experience is found "a real reviewer".
Some, have not owned 30 sets of headphones, or even 20, and yet they have a high tech & glossy U-TBE invitation for you to "trust' their review....
= "enter with caution" their "take on sound".

 

[Tachyon88]

Again, a reviewer is one person with their own set of tastes and listening criteria. They can tell you what they hear and how it lines up with what they like. The very fact that they indicate their EQ settings for each headphone reviewed would indicate that. My problem with graphs is that it often throws people into a tizzy and they now find 'fault' with something they were enjoying up to that point, and the pleasure of listening has fallen by the wayside. I've found pleasure in headphones that would appear to measure "badly". If I relied on the graphs to find potential happiness, I would be forever disappointed. They are only flavours of music presentation. Nothing is perfect or will ever be. Use your own ears and find what you like and enjoy.

Nothing you said is relevant to me. I don't care about reviews or reviewers as I haven't read or watched the vast majority of them even about the headphone I own.

Then you go onto state that you are worried about how others may or may not lose their enjoyment because of a graph. Again, not relevant to me and seems to be a very strange thing for you to be concerned about. Its as if you have a very narrow perception of the people who want and use graphs and project that onto everyone, including me.

I do use my own ears......and like I stated earlier I know what I like. Using data and graphs has helped me quantify what I'm hearing and why I like it.

 

[FullBright1]

Nothing you said is relevant to me. I don't care about reviews or reviewers as I haven't read or watched the vast majority of them even about the headphone I own.

Then you go onto state that you are worried about how others may or may not lose their enjoyment because of a graph. Again, not relevant to me and seems to be a very strange thing for you to be concerned about. Its as if you have a very narrow perception of the people who want and use graphs and project that onto everyone, including me.

I do use my own ears......and like I stated earlier I know what I like. Using data and graphs has helped me quantify what I'm hearing and why I like it.

The most useless criteria that a "reviewer" can use to quality SQ is...

1. charts, graphs...

2. "but does it SLAM"....does it SLAM........i dont care about the sound, does it : SLAM SLAM SLAM".!!!!!

Here is the thing....As soon as i read or hear the reviewer start pining and whining and elevating : """Does it slam ???, ... this one really slams.....but does it SLAM . .Slam, Slam, Slam"....... then i know that this backwards reviewer does not have his REVIEWING criteria in order and should be out farming his Corn crop, and walking his flock of sheep, vs, talking about "slam, slam, slam slam, slam slam slam.....," as if this actually matters to the utmost.... inside a set of headphone cups that are 1.27cm from your ear drums.

Here is what matters.....This :

1. FR
2. SQ
3. Timbre
4. Midrange
5. Soundstage
6. Instrument Separation
7. Comfort.

Where is slam on this list , regarding what is important? ??????

Its' # 400 on the list,.....its right above being concerned with the wire not being "Janky" or the box not being impressive.


But FullBright1,...if it ain't got SLAM then what is the point. ?????

Ah.... well, i'll let you figure that out my budding little newbie audiophile friend.

Go figure....
-
-

 

[Resolve]

Where is slam on this list , regarding what is important? ??????

I share the concern about this. There are a number of communities who care deeply about this, but I'm personally not one of them, and I care far more about refinement and tonal balance. But I also think reducing it all to 'slam' is a bit of a crude interpretation of what this quality is, as it also tends to conflate it with bass level, which is something that's understandably not that interesting to many of us who care about other qualities. It's not 'slam', but rather a sense of contrast vs compression - compression being obviously less desirable. And for this quality, it doesn't matter what the bass level is at. Now, for me, it's only really an issue in examples where the compression is so noticeable that it prevents me from enjoying the other aspects of the sound, but this is also a dragon many enjoy chasing, and I know they rank it as their #1 priority. But again, for me that's low hanging fruit, and good sound consists of far more than just that.

 

[FullBright1]

But I also think reducing it all to 'slam' is a bit of a crude interpretation of what this quality is, as it also tends to conflate it with bass level, which is something that's understandably not that interesting to many of us who care about other qualities. It's not 'slam', but rather a sense of contrast vs compression -

Come now...
I dont think ive read a review of yours, or of those associated with your channel that is referring to "contrast vs compression" when they always compare the headphone being reviewed with 'Audeze slam".
Might we look forward to it in a future review?
Fantastic...
Till then, its always stated as low end, bass, ........ but if you want to spin it, then spin it, but i've read a good bit regarding what you've written (reviewed) and ive watched many of your reviews and enjoy them...... however, when you talk about slam, you are talking about BASS response, (low end visceral sonic impact) during your reviews..
You generally get into this aspect when you are comparing the headphone under review with others...
You even disqualify yourself from really liking some headphones because they don't slam quite enough. ( Bass response, low end....slam).
So, its not me that is reducing anything to a "crude" interpretation, it is you, who uses this term "slam, " as a "crude" interpretation of low end and its significance to you.
Ive personally written more reviews of headphones on this Forum, then you have posted on Youtube or written on your website.
I have never once used the term "slam" in any headphone review, as i dont find that association between headphones, when used as you use it, ...valid.
I listed my Criteria, and "slam" will never be on my list.

1. FR
2. SQ
3. Timbre
4. Midrange
5. Soundstage
6. Instrument Separation
7. Comfort.

 

[Resolve]

"Slam" is always used by you, and 100% of reviewers when talking about the LOW END and how it "slams"

This is false. We've also characterized the term as 'macro contrast', 'dynamics', 'punch' (this is how Tyll referred to it as well) as opposed to 'softness', 'compression', largely because these terms are part of the common vernacular for this quality within our communities. Also, it's not Audeze's that typically 'slam' - it's the Focals and Fostex Biodynamics that do (often dynamic drivers with hybrid designs or independent surrounds rather than corrugated/serrated designs). Planars are often not as good for this quality, especially the more modern ones. The only planars that are great at this are like the original HE-6, the LCD-4, and the AB1266.

Also, the reason why this quality is not associated with bass level, is because there are far too many counter-examples. In fact, there are more examples that are subjectively well-received for this quality that have lower level bass or linear bass than the opposite. Look at the frequency response of the original HE-6, look at the LCD-4, the Focal Utopia... those are not bass boosted headphones, and they are celebrated for this quality. I mean, even in the more obvious examples, it's the reason why dynamic driver and hybrid IEMs exist, and are sometimes preferred over pure BA configurations - and they are perceived differently when they have similar bass level.

Lastly... I find it strange that out of a 20 minute review, where an evaluation of this quality lasts less than 10 seconds and comprises only one aspect of the sound description, you seem to think that this is what we care about more than anything else. Let me clarify the priority for me, since that's obviously not clear.

1. FR - balance between fundamental and harmonic - 70%
2. Detail - 20%
3. Soundstage/Imaging - 5%
4. Dynamics/Contrast/Punch/etc. - 3%
5. Material or transducer related timbre - 2%

Even if you don't hear this quality, I promise you other people do - and I am one of those people, so I might as well comment on it.