[chesebert]

<IMO> Using a transducer to fix a problem with the recording that should have been fixed with EQ is not the right solution. If your recording sounds harsh to you and you have already exhausted all your options on the source end (i.e., you have dumped $25k+ in your source, mitigated any ground plane interference, power interference and other noise contamination) and the harshness is actually intended by the mastering engineer, then your best bet is to EQ rather than to choose a transducer with certain deficiencies to offset the deficiencies in the recording. </IMO>

 

[padam]

Sorry to say to you, but there are no transducers without "deficiencies" and people can decide with their own brain and ears which method works for them.
There are many different ways recordings can be made with different equipment mixed by people who have different ideas regarding sound. Here is Bob Katz saying the 007 Mk2 for his ears was far more accurate and more like this Dynaudio speakers than a whole lot of other headphones that he tried before. (He has switched now but it does not mean that it may not work for someone, there is a certain degree of adaptation involved no matter what is your headphone of choosing making others appear alien at first.)

There are no universal standards and vinyl is just as relevant as it was when there were no other options and EQ does not achieve much if it does not change certain things. It is still that headphone rather than another headphone.

Listening to a recording with your ears is like looking at a photograph with your eyes. Your mind is heavily involved either way.

You can look or listen at it 'close' or 'far away'.

It is already abstract and not reality. You may feel that it seems more real than with others that you might have tried based on your perception.
But is it real?

It was made by a certain camera with a certain lens in a certain (analog or digital) format processed in a certain way (or today maybe all this was completely made by AI) looked at on a certain monitor or a print made in a certain way.
Hope the amount of variables is clean in this equation and that is in a subjective experience that may be pleasing or it might not be depending on how we perceive it with our senses.

Just to "understand" the 007 a bit, in the grand scheme of things, yes it is quite soft and coloured. But you "zoom in" with your mind and at least in parts, it somehow can feel quite real - or even "better" than the "real" thing. (And you wouldn't know that if you just looked at measurement graphs.) https://www.headfonia.com/stax-omega2-mk2-review/3/

 

[chesebert]

Sorry to say to you, but there are no transducers without "deficiencies" and people can decide with their own brain and ears which method works for them.
There are many different ways recordings can be made with different equipment mixed by people who have different ideas regarding sound. Here is Bob Katz saying the 007 Mk2 for his ears was far more accurate and more like this Dynaudio speakers than a whole lot of other headphones that he tried before. (He has switched now but it does not mean that it may not work for someone, there is a certain degree of adaptation involved no matter what is your headphone of choosing making others appear alien at first.)

There are no universal standards and vinyl is just as relevant as it was when there were no other options and EQ does not achieve much if it does not change certain things. It is still that headphone rather than another headphone.

Listening to a recording with your ears is like looking at a photograph with your eyes. Your mind is heavily involved either way.

You can look or listen at it 'close' or 'far away'.

It is already abstract and not reality. You may feel that it seems more real than with others that you might have tried based on your perception.
But is it real?

It was made by a certain camera with a certain lens in a certain (analog or digital) format processed in a certain way (or today maybe all this was completely made by AI) looked at on a certain monitor or a print made in a certain way.
Hope the amount of variables is clean in this equation and that is in a subjective experience that may be pleasing or it might not be depending on how we perceive it with our senses.

Just to "understand" the 007 a bit, in the grand scheme of things, yes it is quite soft and coloured. But you "zoom in" with your mind and at least in parts, it somehow can feel quite real - or even "better" than the "real" thing. (And you wouldn't know that if you just looked at measurement graphs.) https://www.headfonia.com/stax-omega2-mk2-review/3/

We all can have different opinions about the same thing as we are all looking for different things from headphones to fit our tastes and preferences and our music selection. I was simply pointing out that IMO 007 does not the technical performance befitting a TOTL designation, without taking away anything that makes 007 special to you and others. There are other estats that are TOTL however; 007 is just not one of them.

 

[padam]

We all can have different opinions about the same thing as we are all looking for different things from headphones to fit our tastes and preferences and our music selection. I was simply pointing out that IMO 007 does not the technical performance befitting a TOTL designation, without taking away anything that makes 007 special to you and others. There are other estats that are TOTL however; 007 is just not one of them.

I originally explained that most of the criticism simply attributes to being an estat, they generally don't quite have the dynamic capability.
Which is actually not automatically a drawback. Why?
Because if you listen loud (that might be required for an estat as depending on the recording they can feel a bit "dead" when that is insufficient, other types just don't work the same way with volume) having a high dynamic range recording put on can be quite fatiguing or in the long-term even damaging to the ears if one does not take out an SPL meter to examine the peak level.
So back to the original post, something that is only middle level in terms of dynamic capability is also forgiving.

But by the same token other designs cannot make the distortion quite as low or the separation (the review I linked calls that black background) quite as pin-sharp (even other estats that are more TOTL in your view), even newer ones or just have quite the same seamless sound which can a certain character of what the OP was asking about.
As long as you can judge its technical strengths equally it is fine.
But I see it categorized only by its drawbacks without considering those fairly as well.
Above a certain level, do not think it matters to me that much.
I judge headphones based on what they are doing rather than their technical capability.

 

[chesebert]

I didn't want this to be a thread about why 007 is not TOTL, but since you wanted an overall assessment of 007 here it goes (007 on T2):

below average sub bass
average weight of musical notes
average body of instruments
average spacial rendition
average holographic/transparency
average visceral impact
average/below average in engagement (depending on music)
average PRaT
good bass definition (re mid and upper bass)
excellent mid range purity
excellent timbre accuracy (only for certain instruments that emphasis mid and high)
excellent treble realism
good soundstage
good resolution

I don't see how the above attributes taken as a whole can be considered TOTL. My ears, my notes, my opinion.

 

[number1sixerfan]

I agree with others that the 007 is one of the few stats that are pretty forgiving. Would I build a stat system around it simply for that? Probably not.

But one thing I will say related to the last few posts is that my impression of the 007 changed entirely when amped by the T2 vs. the BHSE. I already thought it was good, but I felt like it lacked detail and dynamics and was not on the same level as the 009. This drastically improved on the T2. I'm not saying you "need a T2" (I would think a Carbon would fair really nicely), but rather pointing out that a lot of people are listening to them with less than adequate amplification and are not experiencing them optimally (as I was). It is still a bit less spacious and resolving as the 009, but I would put it in the same TOTL tier at just a slightly lower rating for my tastes. It's all personal perspective, but just sharing since I learned I wasn't giving it a fair shake for a while.

 

[chesebert]

I agree T2 is a must to get the most out of 007. When I first heard 007 on BHSE, I rated most "average" as "poor" and "above average" as "average. 007 sounded pleasant and very good on T2, but not TOTL by any means, IMO

 

[padam]

Yep, what I can see from this assessment is that why other people judge certain things as average.
I just can't dissect sound like this without examining how it works as a whole. There are certain things that bother me about the 007 but most things that are rated here I don't care about.

I find other headphones that are 'not average' in certain areas to be more unnatural.
They just "overdo" or "over-exaggerate" it while the SR-007 does it an "average" level which I consider to be "more normal".

Again, this is totally dependent on the recording that's been played and there is no universal playlist to judge this either, that's why I just don't get a purely 'technical' assessment.

 

[TommehHiFi]

Dynamic TOTL - ZMF Atrium if you consider it true TOTL (I do) but even then it can get hot in the treble for me. Wish I could hear the Nutopia
Planar TOTL - Meze elites
Electrostatic TOTL - DCA Corina

just for people to listen to our stuff and/or their other headphones with the plethora of amps that we have on hand.

Get a liquor license and I'm moving to Schaumburg

 

[dbull12]

Would the HE1000 V2 fall into the more forgiving category? From what I've read it seems they're less fatiguing in the treble than most Hifiman headphones. I've only ever had the HE400i and HE5XX, both of which felt pretty flimsy when it came to build quality which has made me hesitant to look at any of Hifiman's higher end offerings even though I'm sure they're built better. Are there any headphones in the current Hifiman lineup that would be like a 'baby HE1000 V2', specifically staying away from sibilance but retaining good separation, soundstage, and timbre that isn't unnatural?

Edit: I think The Meze Elite is really standing out as a TOTL that would probably fit my preferences really well even if it isn't as resolving as similarly-priced headphones. The HE400i and HE5XX are actually the only two planars I've ever had, so easing my way back into planars with a mid-fi Hifiman might be a good idea if there is indeed one with that more forgiving tonality.

 

[bagwell359]

Would the HE1000 V2 fall into the more forgiving category? From what I've read it seems they're less fatiguing in the treble than most Hifiman headphones. I've only ever had the HE400i and HE5XX, both of which felt pretty flimsy when it came to build quality which has made me hesitant to look at any of Hifiman's higher end offerings even though I'm sure they're built better. Are there any headphones in the current Hifiman lineup that would be like a 'baby HE1000 V2', specifically staying away from sibilance but retaining good separation, soundstage, and timbre that isn't unnatural?

Edit: I think The Meze Elite is really standing out as a TOTL that would probably fit my preferences really well even if it isn't as resolving as similarly-priced headphones. The HE400i and HE5XX are actually the only two planars I've ever had, so easing my way back into planars with a mid-fi Hifiman might be a good idea if there is indeed one with that more forgiving tonality.

HEK v2 is a bit less bright than some HFM, for sure easier to take than the Arya. The HEK v2 has a huge soundstage and cannot sound small/intimate. The newer Stealth is a bit bright around 6k, but has a more natural soundstage than the v2, and conforms to the Harman better (if you care) than any other HEK version. It's a better deal than the SE or Susvara - IMO. Having owned/own 9 HFM's, it's the best headphone for me (acoustic setting addict) than any HFM I've heard which is most of them since 2011 aside of the Susvara - which even an "open box" at $3800 wouldn't be at all interesting to me given the Stealth at $1399.

 

[TheMiddleSky]

Would the HE1000 V2 fall into the more forgiving category? From what I've read it seems they're less fatiguing in the treble than most Hifiman headphones. I've only ever had the HE400i and HE5XX, both of which felt pretty flimsy when it came to build quality which has made me hesitant to look at any of Hifiman's higher end offerings even though I'm sure they're built better. Are there any headphones in the current Hifiman lineup that would be like a 'baby HE1000 V2', specifically staying away from sibilance but retaining good separation, soundstage, and timbre that isn't unnatural?

Edit: I think The Meze Elite is really standing out as a TOTL that would probably fit my preferences really well even if it isn't as resolving as similarly-priced headphones. The HE400i and HE5XX are actually the only two planars I've ever had, so easing my way back into planars with a mid-fi Hifiman might be a good idea if there is indeed one with that more forgiving tonality.

Nope, HE1000 (any models) will not join the title as forgiving headphone. Actually Susvara is a little "easier" to my ears than HE1000 and Arya models. Other than that, both Sundara and Sundara closed also forgiving, but this more like entry level of course. Ananda OG supposed to be a little at more forgiving side, but new Ananda Nano changed that.

Set aside of Meze Elite, Audeze LCD-4Z also quite forgiving as high end planar.

 

[bagwell359]

Missed the comments on the 400i and 5XX, those are entry level and nowhere near the quality of whats available at your price range.

The Meze Elite by FR graph and my ear is seriously deficient from 1.5-12k.

The LCD-4z another good suggestion for a dark tuning, but also needs EQ to pick up upper mids/lower treble and the 5k+ treble.

The fact that the HEK Stealth has more bass impact under 70 Hz, and a nearly normal curve in the upper mids vs the other 3, makes the treble fit better than the other HEX's IMO. The Stealth does not a decrease of a few db around 6k. It conforms to the Harman better (by a good measure) than the other 4 cans listed above - IMO, and per FR charts.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

The Meze Elite by FR graph and my ear is seriously deficient from 1.5-12k.

It is not. Ear anatomy may be playing a big role here or you may need to acclimate from the very bright tilt of Hifiman cans. The Elite actually tracks fairly close to Harman and is above neutral in the upper treble range.

 

[bagwell359]

It is not. Ear anatomy may be playing a big role here or you may need to acclimate from the very bright tilt of Hifiman cans. The Elite actually tracks fairly close to Harman and is above neutral in the upper treble range.

Firstly, I said nothing about the upper treble in my post - recall I said "1.5-12k". So your comment is not applicable to what I said, but, thanks for pointing out it is bright in most of the top octave.

I've included (tried to) a Crinicle chart for the Meze Elite w/ Hybrid pads, which assuming it is the headphone you are talking about is indeed under the Harman from 1.3-12.5k according to the chart. The Alcanta pads fare better being close to Harman but still under from 1.4k-11k, but are quite close from 3.7k-6k, but still under - so that's better, but still a dark tuning.

https://crinacle.com/graphs/headphones/meze-elite/

I'd post the two graphs but they didn't display well.