[linkbane]

  Not to take away from the M4U 2 as I have not heard that headphone but regarding at least the HP50...imo my Magnum V6 sounds quite a bit better but it's a lot different being an open back headphone.
 
Edit:My other point being that the Magnum is in the ballpark of the HP50 price-wise.

You're comparing two different beasts altogether. It's great that you like open headphones, but the rest of us (considering this is literally a thread purely about the HP50s) would rather discuss the aforementioned product.

 

[shabta]

  You're comparing two different beasts altogether. It's great that you like open headphones, but the rest of us (considering this is literally a thread purely about the HP50s) would rather discuss the aforementioned product.

He is discussing the headphone and making a comparison to another headphone. He also points out the open backedness of the other headphone. That is what we do on head-fi: Compare headphones to one another, Sheesh.

 

[shuto77]

You're comparing two different beasts altogether. It's great that you like open headphones, but the rest of us (considering this is literally a thread purely about the HP50s) would rather discuss the aforementioned product.

He is discussing the headphone and making a comparison to another headphone. He also points out the open backedness of the other headphone. That is what we do on head-fi: Compare headphones to one another, Sheesh.

It's understood that open headphones sound different - and oftentimes - better than closed cans. With that said, if you're going to compare an open to a closed can, it's more helpful to explain how they compare in specific areas: clarity, soundstage, resolution, accuracy, etc. While these terms are indeed subjective, just saying one is better than another or you simply like one more than another isn't particularly helpful.

Just my 2¢; YMMV.

 

[joeq70]

@shabta: thanks

@linkbane and @shuto77: seriously?

One chastises me for mentioning another headphone at all and the other complains that I wasn't detailed enough with my comparison. Just ask next time man. I like talking about headphones.

 

[shuto77]

@shabta: thanks

@linkbane and @shuto77: seriously?

One chastises me for mentioning another headphone at all and the other complains that I wasn't detailed enough with my comparison. Just ask next time man. I like talking about headphones.

I apologize.

Sometimes I need to stop and remember that we're all here to have fun.

 

[joeq70]

I apologize.

Sometimes I need to stop and remember that we're all here to have fun.

All good man no hard feelings! When I get time in the next day or two I will put out a more detailed comparison in case anyone out there could find it helpful.

 

[Pianist]

Closed headphones have their advantages. The most important is probably bass performance. It's far easier to implement a tight and well extended low end in a closed design than an open design. In fact, right now, I can't think of an open back dynamic driver headphone that can match the low end extension, combined with the low distortion that HP50 achieves. I am pretty sure only open planars and stats can do this. Even HD800 has higher distortion and recession in the sub bass compared to HP50. I also felt that HP50 had a more satisfying low end punch than HE-500 when I owned both at the same time, and HE-500 is one of the best planars. HE-500 was more textured and refined in the low end, but the difference was not great. I think the low end on HP50 is one of the best in headphones. It lacks some resolution and maybe the last bit of speed, but it's still awesome. It's one of the best in the sense that it is quite technically competent, I would say sufficiently so, even when compared to the best open backs that are twice its price (like HE-500), while having that perfect extension <20 Hz and maintaining well under 1% distortion at very high volumes that most open backs cannot achieve.
 
I also find that well designed closed headphones tend to deliver a more intimate and focused listening experience. This is at least partially due to the isolation that closed headphones provide, but likely also a result of a tighter control of the driver in the well damped closed acoustic space. For example, the clearest sounding headphone I've heard is ATH-MSR7 and it's a closed back design. HP50 is not far off the MSR7 though. To my ears, MSR7 sounds clearer, more focused than even the HD800 and I attribute that laser-sharp definition of MSR7 to its highly resolving and fast driver placed in a very well designed and damped closed capsule. MSR7 is still lacking compared to HD800 in overall sound quality though, because the open back of the HD800 allows for a more even frequency response, much more soundstage, dynamics, etc. HD800 is a bit less clear, but it has natural clarity so it sounds more accurate and realistic. MSR7 is too dry, shouty, sharp, forward, compressed, closed in, etc, compared to HD800. Still, that clarity is very impressive on the MSR7 and it wouldn't sound so clear without the help of its well designed closed capsule IMO.
 
And, of course, closed headphones have the obvious advantage of much better isolation than open backs, so the former are usually much more versatile and can be used in many more environments and situations than open backs... In fact, personally, I wouldn't use a good open headphone anywhere outside of a very quite home or office environment. Even a bit of background noise causes masking of details with open backs, so the extra resolution of the really great open backs will be largely lost in environments with even moderate background noise. I know it may seem very obvious and silly to mention, but I have seen many people use open headphones, and some very good ones too, outside on the streets and public transport... which I think is a real waste in every way, including waste of hearing ability.

 
 

  You're comparing two different beasts altogether. It's great that you like open headphones, but the rest of us (considering this is literally a thread purely about the HP50s) would rather discuss the aforementioned product.

 
No, I think it's fine to compare any type of headphone and even headphones vs. speakers. You just need to do it properly, keeping in mind the inherent differences between the different types of listening devices (IEMs bypass the outer ear, so they can't do soundstage like good over the ear headphones, closed backs can't do soundstage like open backs, headphones can't give bass sensation like speakers, etc). I compare my HP50s to my HD600s and X2s all the time and more often than not, HP50s are quite competent with those open headphones in sound quality to my ears.

 

[MrMateoHead]

  Closed headphones have their advantages. The most important is probably bass performance. It's far easier to implement a tight and well extended low end in a closed design than an open design. In fact, right now, I can't think of an open back dynamic driver headphone that can match the low end extension, combined with the low distortion that HP50 achieves. I am pretty sure only open planars and stats can do this. Even HD800 has higher distortion and recession in the sub bass compared to HP50.
 
I also find that well designed closed headphones tend to deliver a more intimate and focused listening experience. This is at least partially due to the isolation that closed headphones provide, but likely also a result of a tighter control of the driver in the well damped closed acoustic space.
 
 so the extra resolution of the really great open backs will be largely lost in environments with even moderate background noise. I know it may seem very obvious and silly to mention, but I have seen many people use open headphones, and some very good ones too, outside on the streets and public transport... which I think is a real waste in every way, including waste of hearing ability.

 
 
No, I think it's fine to compare any type of headphone and even headphones vs. speakers. You just need to do it properly, keeping in mind the inherent differences between the different types of listening devices (IEMs bypass the outer ear, so they can't do soundstage like good over the ear headphones, closed backs can't do soundstage like open backs, headphones can't give bass sensation like speakers, etc). I compare my HP50s to my HD600s and X2s all the time and more often than not, HP50s are quite competent with those open headphones in sound quality to my ears.

 
I largely agree with everything in this post - including the fact that it is not "ridiculous" to compare different kinds of speakers to each other - I do it all the time to broaden / deepen my appreciation for different music playback products out there. There is no bass like my car bass, no depth like my planar headphone's depth, no neutrality like my M4U1's neutrality, no astonishing clarity like my Pioneer's. My Alpine Class D amp pounds so much better than my Brothers JL Audio A/B (with the same basic power rating) that I would buy a quality Class D amp anytime. Like with cars, there is most always a subjective experience to go along with the "objective" one, so the more speakers the merrier! It can only teach me a little more about the world of music technology.
 
I must agree that using open-backs, in general, in outdoor environments is sub-optimal (or on-ears or other phones not designed to block noise). But I would PREFER to do it anyway! Why? Because, frankly, it is worlds safer than using closed-backs or in-ears with 20 dB of local attenuation and so on. I can carry on a conversation with open-backed, hear traffic coming, and so on. I don't personally take my cans out into the real world, but if I did, I wouldn't want to get killed because of them. I can't stand seeing a lot of runners / bikers, and occasionally even drivers wearing phones. I am into running, too, but it is very important to both see and hear the world, so I choose to leave the headphones at home.
 
For the record, the M4U1s, similar to the NADs, are very comparable to my HE-400s in the bass department, but the HE-400s just add that last 10% to the bass impact and texture. I'd love to hear a 50mm or even larger dynamic version of the M4U's. All the "tiny" dynamic drivers in my life are great and all, but its been a long time since I've hear the "effortlessness" of some big drivers driven with some big power.

 

[cel4145]

My Alpine Class D amp pounds so much better than my Brothers JL Audio A/B (with the same basic power rating) that I would buy a quality Class D amp anytime.

FYI: Unless you have switched out the amps to compare them in the same car with the same speakers, there are various reasons why that would be the case that have nothing to do with the amps.

 

[MrMateoHead]

FYI: Unless you have switched out the amps to compare them in the same car with the same speakers, there are various reasons why that would be the case that have nothing to do with the amps.

True - but in this case I have done such a comparison (same car, same speakers).
 
When an older amp blew we used mine (Alpine) to verify any installation issues. Then we installed the new JL after a period of time. While it wasn't double-blind A/B testing (I always knew which amp was being used), it confirmed my suspicion that the Alpine Class D was superior in power delivery (despite similar specs - 50w x 4, or 150w x 2 bridged) and because of that overall sound quality. Also, no lights dimming when asking for close to maximum power - another bonus for a car with a small alternator. Then there is the small footprint. In this case, powering normal speakers, SQ was similar. When it came time to push a 10 inch subwoofer that wants 300W RMS, the Alpine did it with more clarity, control, and SPL. The difference could be heard by ear.
 
Now my amp has been tested to do 60w per channel or almost 200w bridged by PASMAG, while I have no test data on the JL. But assuming that the JL met its specs, at least, it would seem that the extra 50 watts for the subwoofer, at those power levels, shouldn't translate into clearly better bass. But it did. And it did later when I hooked up a second sub and had at it. The JL amp is a good product but was definitely not up to the task of driving a demanding subwoofer, the Alpine was, period. I'm sure a higher-end JL amp (this was their lower end) would be a totally different story.
 
The knock was that I never heard the "hiss" from the JL A/B amp while you could hear one from the Alpine at max volume with no music playing. The hiss is irrelevant under "normal" listening conditions. Supposedly their higher-end PDX amps would have a black(er) background. In conclusion, I would purchase a Class D from either company for any car system with little hesitation, they are clearly not just "mono subwoofer" amps anymore. Maybe they have horrible high-frequency distortion, who knows, I didn't hear that. Given the good experience I've had, I'd also consider receivers from Pioneer that make use of Class D technology - the efficiency seems to grant them great dynamics and headroom.

 

[bgentry]

^ Unless you level matched with a meter your test is really, really hard to draw conclusions from. I've heard these types of claims for years from all kinds of different car audio people including installers. None of them would do a level matched comparison.

Now your comparison about efficiency is certainly true: Class D amps tend to be around 70% efficient (more for REALLY efficient ones) while AB amps tend to be 40 to 55% efficient. So, if the alternator, battery, or power or ground wires aren't up to snuff, the AB amp might not get enough input power to make it's output power.

Anyway...

Brian.

 

[MrMateoHead]

^ Unless you level matched with a meter your test is really, really hard to draw conclusions from. I've heard these types of claims for years from all kinds of different car audio people including installers. None of them would do a level matched comparison.

Now your comparison about efficiency is certainly true: Class D amps tend to be around 70% efficient (more for REALLY efficient ones) while AB amps tend to be 40 to 55% efficient. So, if the alternator, battery, or power or ground wires aren't up to snuff, the AB amp might not get enough input power to make it's output power.

Anyway...

Brian.

I'm not sure you are catching the spirit of my post, clearly I wasn't seeking scientific "rigor". I was also upfront about that, I thought. Clearly this was an example of amp A and amp B, with similar power ratings, not delivering the same listening result. The more powerful amp got louder, which was "better". In this particular case I'll leave it up to those with the measuring equipment to tell me why. My guess is that the JL barely meets, if does not meet, its specs. In addition the Class D topology was probably a boon working with a small-car alternator.
 
Otherwise the power and ground, and source, and RCA interconnects, speakers, etc., were all the exact same. There was no variable left aside from human ears and a volume knob. Because I did this install, and have done many others, I know the stuff used was of good quality and overkill for the amp's needs.Literally, it was amp A versus amp B. Literally, you didn't need blind level matching to notice an obvious difference.
 
Were I in your shoes (listening to someone else claim two amps of similar power were very different), I would also be skeptical. But I don't have to be because I was there, I heard it, end of story. I would most definitely have purchased the one amp over the other, given no option to change the speakers.

 
Take the subwoofer out of the equation, and I'm sure it would be difficult if not near impossible to tell the two apart in terms of SQ - unless you pushed each to near-clipping (in which case the Alpine would be louder). Or, unless you turned the things to max volume with no music playing as the faint "hissssss" of the Alpine would give it away every time. This isn't to say that I believe that a "bass watt" is greater than a "watt". But the subwoofer revealed the difference to my ears in an easy to hear way.
 
I've also heard car audio buffs tell me multiple times that "alpine amps" don't do "have [good/loud] bass" (incorrect). I once had pioneer separates and was told they "sounded bad" and "couldn't handle X watts" like this $300 speaker. Probably true, but they still sounded excellent and ran comfortably for years with twice their rated power available to them. I still will choose alpine when the price is right, but mostly I would choose Class D for cars these days as they just make the most sense. I say that having owned top-shelf A/Bs with megawatts as well - they were lovely but cars are lousy listening environments so why seek out the same "refinement" you might seek at home?
 
This is a long-winded way of saying, sure, I agree with you. But given that the jobs of the amps was to amplify, and one clearly did it better, I think can easily conclude that the Alpine amp was better in/for that system. We could level-match and claim that each amp sounded 100% the same, but it would probably have had to be done at 50-60 dB or so to make THAT claim, in this case. Push the knob up to 80dB with 90dB peaks, to overcome highway noise, and you'd be pretty disappointed in the person that told you "they sound the same in a level matched double-blind test". I think what I discovered was JL amp that didn't live up to its own specs, or somehow couldn't damp a (admittedly demanding) subwoofer properly. That or, the subwoofer used really does need at least 200 watts or so to do its thing. So, take it or leave it. Anyway . . .

 

[bgentry]

We could level-match and claim that each amp sounded 100% the same, but it would probably have had to be done at 50-60 dB or so to make THAT claim, in this case. Push the knob up to 80dB with 90dB peaks, to overcome highway noise, and you'd be pretty disappointed in the person that told you "they sound the same in a level matched double-blind test". I think what I discovered was JL amp that didn't live up to its own specs, or somehow couldn't damp a (admittedly demanding) subwoofer properly.

I'm not trying to start any kind of contest here. I'm trying to share my experience and expertise. Level matching is important in car audio comparisons and is pretty much never done. The result is generally that the amplifier with the higher gain wins. Because when you turn the volume knob to a certain position (say 36 out of 50) the one with higher gain makes more power and therefore more sound. It's human nature to favor the one that's louder.

BTW, the level matching I'm talking about is done at the outputs of the amplifier. It's also a poor man's way of roughly verifying the output power. P = V^2 / R, so if you know the impedance and you know the Voltage (measured with a meter) you have a decent idea of the power output. This is also how a good installer calibrates a subwoofer amplifier. With a known signal and a known position on the volume control, the gain is adjusted until the Voltage reaches the target value. That target is determined by the output power of the amplifier into the rated load impedance.

But like you said, I wasn't there. I don't know all of the details. I didn't hear it. I just wanted to share the technical background with you.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled endless headphone debate!

Brian.

 

[MrMateoHead]

BTW, the level matching I'm talking about is done at the outputs of the amplifier. It's also a poor man's way of roughly verifying the output power. P = V^2 / R, so if you know the impedance and you know the Voltage (measured with a meter) you have a decent idea of the power output. This is also how a good installer calibrates a subwoofer amplifier. With a known signal and a known position on the volume control, the gain is adjusted until the Voltage reaches the target value. That target is determined by the output power of the amplifier into the rated load impedance.

But like you said, I wasn't there. I don't know all of the details. I didn't hear it. I just wanted to share the technical background with you.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled endless headphone debate!

Brian.

That is a great tip Brian thank you! I should definitely invest in a multi-meter someday if only to play around with things a little more (and take a more precise stab at power output). Indeed I would be a little concerned with the impedance swings of the speakers (a possible problem causing variable), but it is far more accurate to use some measurement than to rely only on the ear.
 
Back to the NADs / Harmon Curve / Nuetrality!
 
Cheers.

 

[shuto77]

Hey @bavinck what's the verdict on the Brainwavz pads? Are they more comfortable? Do they sound better? Any drawbacks? 
 
Everything I've read about them has been positive. 
 
My HP50s are en route, and should be arriving Friday night. I'm excited to put them through their paces. 
 
Thanks!