[shabta]

No, I don't agree with you at all.

No doubt. But if the inverse is true, using the same logic... It is necessary to be able to think logically I suppose, but I am pretty sure that is within most headfiers capacity. 

 

[diamondears]

No doubt. But if the inverse is true, using the same logic... It is necessary to be able to think logically I suppose, but I am pretty sure that is within most headfiers capacity. 

That's the best thing about technology...you can measure everything and you can rely on and trust them, removes any or separates us from subjectivity...I think its a level up, and it's sad that some argues otherwise to support their subjective views. I think people should look at the objective measurements first, because they're reliable, and from there see if they are looking at what they want. I understand though that some looks first at the subjective aspect, and even favors it, which is perfectly ok.

 

[shabta]

That's the best thing about technology...you can measure everything and you can rely on and trust them, removes any or separates us from subjectivity...I think its a level up, and it's sad that some argues otherwise to support their subjective views. I think people should look at the objective measurements first, because they're reliable, and from there see if they are looking at what they want. I understand though that some looks first at the subjective aspect, and even favors it, which is perfectly ok.

I agree that we should not dismiss objective data. But,  looking at objective data before you listen to a headphone and then making the claim that you are positive that you have never heard a headphone that contradicts the objective data, while not a false statement, is completely against the very logic that says we should accept objective data. I can imagine experiments we could try to determine whether or not an experience of listening to a headphone always agrees with the objective data presented that accounts for confirmation bias, it is just that you didn't do anything to normalize for it and so your statement is suspect. The same logic that infers:
"Originally Posted by diamondears 


The psycho-acoustic bias can also be argued inversely---you've been told or led to believe that FR graphs doesn't reflect the true frequency reaponse of a HP in the real world, hence FR graphs indeed doesn't reflect true frequency response!" 
 
Means that the opposite is also true: That looking at a graph before you listen to a headphone, will influence how you experience the headphone. 
 
There are lots of things that audiophiles hear that aren't yet measurable, for example, a holographic three dimensional soundfield when there is no special soundfield algorythms applied to the stereo (not 5.1) signal. Don't you sometimes hear depth in placement of instruments? Most people say they do, but we don't know how to measure that. So it could be that something else tricks us into believing we can. Just like audiophiles who first look at a graph and claim that everything they hear is accounted for when they later look at a headphone. I guarantee that if we try the opposite, you listen to a headphone and try to draw the graph, you graph will be filled with meaningful divergences from the actual measurement. Trying to argue against confirmation bias, but claiming that there are objective measurements that always are consistent with the perceived sound of a headphone is using your brain in one instance and turning the same part of your brain that you just used off in the second instance. My experience is that most people can't make logical jumps when to do so will contradict a cherished belief. There is a good deal of recent scientific evidence to back this up. Maybe just take a breath and think about what I said before writing the next post. It's not a big deal, I also get caught in this trap. It is human nature. 
 
Anyway, Sorry for going off thread topic.

 

[diamondears]

I agree that we should not dismiss objective data. But,  looking at objective data before you listen to a headphone and then making the claim that you are positive that you have never heard a headphone that contradicts the objective data, while not a false statement, is completely against the very logic that says we should accept objective data. I can imagine experiments we could try to determine whether or not an experience of listening to a headphone always agrees with the objective data presented that accounts for confirmation bias, it is just that you didn't do anything to normalize for it and so your statement is suspect. The same logic that infers:
"Originally Posted by diamondears 



The psycho-acoustic bias can also be argued inversely---you've been told or led to believe that FR graphs doesn't reflect the true frequency reaponse of a HP in the real world, hence FR graphs indeed doesn't reflect true frequency response!" 

Means that the opposite is also true: That looking at a graph before you listen to a headphone, will influence how you experience the headphone. 

There are lots of things that audiophiles hear that aren't yet measurable, for example, a holographic three dimensional soundfield when there is no special soundfield algorythms applied to the stereo (not 5.1) signal. Don't you sometimes hear depth in placement of instruments? Most people say they do, but we don't know how to measure that. So it could be that something else tricks us into believing we can. Just like audiophiles who first look at a graph and claim that everything they hear is accounted for when they later look at a headphone. I guarantee that if we try the opposite, you listen to a headphone and try to draw the graph, you graph will be filled with meaningful divergences from the actual measurement. Trying to argue against confirmation bias, but claiming that there are objective measurements that always are consistent with the perceived sound of a headphone is using your brain in one instance and turning the same part of your brain that you just used off in the second instance. My experience is that most people can't make logical jumps when to do so will contradict a cherished belief. There is a good deal of recent scientific evidence to back this up. Maybe just take a breath and think about what I said before writing the next post. It's not a big deal, I also get caught in this trap. It is human nature. 

Anyway, Sorry for going off thread topic.

Lol

 

[hoverkraft]

Update on this mod -- I ended up pretty quickly removing the blu tack that I had applied inside the cups. While it inarguably improves the solidity of the cans, and protects against any kind of creak, it also seems to have the effect of deadening the sound (eliminating some of that wonderful spaciousness). My guess is that the back of the cups is deliberately allowed to float free of the driver to allow for a sort of physical echo chamber, and the reverb of that chamber is affected by the blu tack. Seemed like a nice idea, but it kind of killed the magic for me.
 
In the end, simply tightening the (exceedingly loose on arrival) screws mounting the cups to the headband seems to have knocked out any creaking issues. Guessing that this will remain the case now that they're firmly tightened down.

 

[bgentry]

Update on this mod -- I ended up pretty quickly removing the blu tack that I had applied inside the cups. While it inarguably improves the solidity of the cans, and protects against any kind of creak, it also seems to have the effect of deadening the sound (eliminating some of that wonderful spaciousness). My guess is that the back of the cups is deliberately allowed to float free of the driver to allow for a sort of physical echo chamber, and the reverb of that chamber is affected by the blu tack.

Call me extremely skeptical of this claim. Even if I hadn't heard the HP50 before and after this mod, I'd be very skeptical. Having done the mod myself, I can report that there was no discernible change in sound, other than preventing extraneous creaking and other offensive sounds. Hey, I'm happy if you're happy with your results.

But for anyone else who has creaking HP50s, I couldn't disagree more with the above post. Do the mod and it won't change the sound. IME.

Brian.

 

[Stig-san]

According to this article, they DO!

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-20-headphone-makeover/

I'm REALLY wanting better pads for the HP50. I wonder if the Brainwavz pads change the bass response at all? Or if they will want to slip off of the body of the NADs. Amazon says the HM5 pads are 11 cm x 9 cm x 3 cm (for the deep ones). My ruler says the HP50 pads are roughly 10.3 cm x 7 cm x 1.7 cm.

I'm tempted to order them.

Brian.

 
 

Does anyone know if Brainwavz pads will fit the HP50?

 
I happen to have the HM5 velour pads on a pair of ATH-M50s.  I can do a quick swap and see what happens.  Just as a note though, they put the M50s too far away from the ears and everything sounds weird, so that may happen with the NADs too.

I also have the beyer dt250 velours around somewhere.  I'm moving next week and I think they are already packed, but I can dig them out post move and check those out too.

 

[Stig-san]

Well, that didn't take long.  The elastic part on the back of the HM5 pads are just too big for the lip on the NADs.  Even if they did fit, the pads are SUPER thick and would undoubtedly mess with the sound in unfavorable ways.  I'll give the dt250 pads a try when I get a chance.  They are much smaller and thinner, but still comfortable so they would probably be better if they fit.

 

[knudsen]

I believe I saw some images of a HP50 with a completely custom headband in a thread or something, but now I can't find them. Anyone have a link to them?
 
Been loving the HP50 for a week, however they're not as comfortable as I had hoped

 

[dakanao]

Ordered the HP50 on June 25 by a head-fi'er, hope they will arrive this week. 
 
The only thing I'm concerned at is if they'll lack upper treble sparkle. Because many people say that even the Momentum 1 over ear have more upper treble sparkle, and I thought the Momentum 1 over ear had too laid back treble for my taste.

 

[sheldaze]

  Ordered the HP50 on June 25 by a head-fi'er, hope they will arrive this week. 
 
The only thing I'm concerned at is if they'll lack upper treble sparkle. Because many people say that even the Momentum 1 over ear have more upper treble sparkle, and I thought the Momentum 1 over ear had too laid back treble for my taste.

I highly recommend giving it some time - take a moment, let your ears adjust to the quiet seal. Then see if you still think it is missing the highs. I personally don't think it's missing, but it often takes a while for my ears to "settle down" from the noise outside to really listen. I hope this makes sense - it's not going to jump up and grab you, hammer you with high frequencies. But the high frequencies are definitely present.

 

[dakanao]

 
I highly recommend giving it some time - take a moment, let your ears adjust to the quiet seal. Then see if you still think it is missing the highs. I personally don't think it's missing, but it often takes a while for my ears to "settle down" from the noise outside to really listen. I hope this makes sense - it's not going to jump up and grab you, hammer you with high frequencies. But the high frequencies are definitely present.

I won't be using them outside, but at home.

 

[peterinvan]

Ordered the HP50 on June 25 by a head-fi'er, hope they will arrive this week. 

The only thing I'm concerned at is if they'll lack upper treble sparkle. Because many people say that even the Momentum 1 over ear have more upper treble sparkle, and I thought the Momentum 1 over ear had too laid back treble for my taste.

I found that the HP50s changed as they broke in. Give them at least 100 hours before doing intensive listening tests or making any decisions.

 

[sheldaze]

  I won't be using them outside, but at home.

I use my exclusively at home. But it's still different for me, versus say an open AKG Q701 headphone where I still hear the room. Once I put on the HP50 headphones, it's almost like an IEM. HVAC, ceiling fan, refrigerator in a room nearby, transformer buzz from a home security system - all of it goes away and I'm left with nothing but the music. I think the headphones are correctly balanced in relation to the "black" background. But it still takes a minute to adjust to the "room" that is created in the sealed headphone.
 
Compare with other sealed headphones I own, Denon AH-D2000 or AKG K271, on which the closed isolation is not as dramatic. It truly takes a moment for my ears to re-adjust. And then the sound and the highs are immaculate.

 

[bgentry]

The only thing I'm concerned at is if they'll lack upper treble sparkle. Because many people say that even the Momentum 1 over ear have more upper treble sparkle, and I thought the Momentum 1 over ear had too laid back treble for my taste.

I haven't heard the Momentums, so I can't compare. But I'll tell you that the HP50s don't have any real emphasis on treble at all. To some this means they "lack sparkle". Or "aren't detailed". That sense of extreme detail and "air" you get from headphones with bright highs has a real wow factor to it. The pair of SoundMagic HP150s I owned had some serious wow because of the bright highs. I found them fatiguing to listen to, especially on older music that doesn't have as much low end as newer music.

To me, the HP50s are incredibly well balanced, but certainly have good highs. They don't sound like a speaker or headphone that clearly lacks highs. The highs are just where they are supposed to be. ...and surprisingly detailed though without a "grab you and make you notice" quality.

I had an occasional customer at the stereo store I used to work at named Chris. Chris was a pretty serious audiophile and owned a pair of Quad Electrostats. He liked to say that what made the Quads great was "you don't hear the tweeter". Meaning, the highs don't call attention to themselves. Instruments just sound natural. In my opinion, this is very high praise. I think the HP50s are a headphone Chris would have liked; if not quite as much as his beloved Quads.

Brian.