[Music Alchemist]

So I'm wondering...if the Harman HRTF is the compensation curve that produces a perceived flat frequency response in headphones, why do so many who have heard the STAX SR-009 report that it is the most neutral headphone they have heard? Are all these people deluded?
 

  I too think Audeze, even the LCD-X, sound too thick, buttery/vaseline-y, and dim/dark for my tastes.
But I like very sharp, clean, detailed phones.

 
You should tell us about how you think the Sony MDR-V6 is more neutral than every other headphone, like you mentioned in that other thread.
 
Some people say the Sony MDR-7506 is supposed to be the same headphone and thus sound the same, but you told me your V6 sounds better to you. My 7506 is so bright and nasty it's painful sometimes!
 

 

At this point I'm just going to assume you're not an English speaker and blame this constant misunderstanding-- or rather failure to see my point-- as a language barrier

 
What nonsense. English is my native language and the only language I know. I had a college reading level at age 6. I'm 28 now. There is nothing I am incapable of comprehending.
 

I've said it at least 2 time within the past couple of posts that my comments about planar magnetics all having measurably flat bass, yet still sounding different in the bass response, was only geared as a retort to your remark about how they're all touted as the most realistic in the bass.  This has nothing to do with interpreting accuracy in which it relates to this notion of neutrality based off FR data, but only to illustrate a point which I've been trying to make time and time again in this topic-- one that you seemingly can't get your head wrapped around-- in that FR measurements aren't the end-all story when it comes to perceived sound.
  So I will try to make it crystal clear again:
 
Take this for what it is, and nothing more.  This response has nothing to do with target curves and which methodology is more accurate than the other.  This has only to do with the limitations of measurements-- particularly in the bass region for this specific case. 

 
I never said anything about most realistic bass; I said they have measurably flat bass, which you happened to agree with.
 
Yes, FR is only the beginning of a headphone's sound, but if you are going to say that a headphone's bass is flat, you might as well be consistent with your terminology. There is no point calling a headphone's FR flat if it follows the green line and the green line is in fact not what produces a perceived-to-be-flat (as in the same perceived sound as a flat-tuned speaker system in a room treated to produce a balanced frequency response) FR.
 
If you say that the Harman curve is what produces an accurate sound in headphones, then measurably flat bass should follow it instead. The green line (flat speaker HRTF) should be discounted entirely if it has no relevance to perceived accurate sound in headphones.
 
But tell me this...why do all planar magnetic headphones follow the green line instead of the black one in the bass, if they are supposed to follow the black one to be neutral to our ears? This question must be answered to support the assertion that the Harman curve is more accurate for headphones.
 

  I feel those two terms have always meant very different things.
 
I feel warmth means, as others have said, a pronounced bass and lower mids response, coupled with enough 2nd & 3rd order harmonic distortion to make those aforementioned areas of the frequency range, sound overly smooth, soft, and pleasing.  This warmth can be present in a headphone with a bright top end, or a dark/dim top end.
 
I feel dark/dim, specifically means a headphone which lacks treble quantity.  Or a closed phone which has sooo much bass and lower mids, that by sheer volume and refraction, drowns out the highs.

 
Good points.
 
The Bose QC15 is the most exciting headphone I've heard. (See my profile for past gear.) It has boosted bass and treble, so I guess you could say it's warm, yet also bright.
 

So Tyll is smarter than the engineers at Sennheiser who are using the wrong graph?

 
I must wonder...why would all these headphone companies with enormous experience design their headphones with a frequency response centered upon the flat speaker HRTF curve if it was not what would produce a perceived flat frequency response in headphones? You'd think they would not be so incompetent as to get that wrong...but honestly, I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Harman curve is accurate. All I have seen is: people prefer it. Well, so what?

 

[Dobrescu George]

The most accurate headphone I heared so far is sennheiser hd800 by a large margin. 
 
I am yet to hear stax, and a few other flagships. 

 

[TMRaven]

  I never said anything about most realistic bass; I said they have measurably flat bass, which you happened to agree with.
 
Yes, FR is only the beginning of a headphone's sound, but if you are going to say that a headphone's bass is flat, you might as well be consistent with your terminology. There is no point calling a headphone's FR flat if it follows the green line and the green line is in fact not what produces a perceived-to-be-flat (as in the same perceived sound as a flat-tuned speaker system in a room treated to produce a balanced frequency response) FR.
 
If you say that the Harman curve is what produces an accurate sound in headphones, then measurably flat bass should follow it instead. The green line (flat speaker HRTF) should be discounted entirely if it has no relevance to perceived accurate sound in headphones.
 
But tell me this...why do all planar magnetic headphones follow the green line instead of the black one in the bass, if they are supposed to follow the black one to be neutral to our ears? This question must be answered to support the assertion that the Harman curve is more accurate for headphones.
 

 
What is accuracy if it's not realistic?  You of all people should know this, since you're a musician with past experience.
 
I've heard instances where measurably flat bass sounded more realistic and balanced and a measurably boosted bass sounds realistic and balanced, there are factors other than the FR graph that come into play as you acknowledged.  Time domain and distortion also play a large role in the bass quality and quantity.  
 
I understand your eagerness to adhere to a target response and be done with it, but it's not that simple, hence the Harman Research still goes on.  Hell, different manufacturers are still probably mixed with their approaches as to HRTF compensation while tuning whether they should go diffused field or free field.
 
The core problem here is that you just need to go out and get some of these headphones already and listen to them for yourself and make your own conclusions.  There are enough takes on accuracy within the flagship realm that one of them will for sure tick most of your boxes.  It's sure a better way to go about it then trying to rebuttal every other poster's listing in the thread with these FR measurements with Harman curve overlay.  Go get some HD800, HE-560, Audeze LCD-X or some Stax and tell us what you think, not what your graphs think!  

 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  The core problem here is that you just need to go out and get some of these headphones already and listen to them for yourself and make your own conclusions.  There are enough takes on accuracy within the flagship realm that one of them will for sure tick most of your boxes.  It's sure a better way to go about it then trying to rebuttal every other poster's listing in the thread with these FR measurements with Harman curve overlay.  Go get some HD800, HE-560, Audeze LCD-X or some Stax and tell us what you think, not what your graphs think!  

 

 
Yup, I agree. But I don't have unlimited funds...so I want to just focus on the STAX, since it has the best reputation.

 

[diamondears]

So Tyll is smarter than the engineers at Sennheiser who are using the wrong graph?

Depends on their reasons why they adopted such a FR. HD800 is their TOTL, which means expensive, which means relatively older people are the target market, which means they have ears that are less sensitive to treble. So the Sennheiser guys are actually smart. If they adopted a Harman curve FR, the HD800 would sound really warm or dark or dull to that target market.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Depends on their reasons why they adopted such a FR. HD800 is their TOTL, which means expensive, which means relatively older people are the target market, which means they have ears that are less sensitive to treble. So the Sennheiser guys are actually smart. If they adopted a Harman curve FR, the HD800 would sound really warm or dark or dull to that target market.

 
My best friend is in his early twenties and insists that the HD 800 is easily the most neutral headphone he has heard.
 
Anyway, guys, let's not argue anymore about what is neutral and what is not. This thread is about what sounds the most accurate to your ears.

 

[goropeza]

Yeah the HD 800 is the most detailed and neutral headphone I have heard. More neutral to me than the SR 009 (bright) and the Ether (warm). The HE 500 is close to being more natural sounding but the HD 800 is so detailed and transparent its really tough to compete on timbre alone.

 

[TMRaven]

When the treble plateau of the HD800 is tamed via EQ and/or mods, I would agree with your buddy.  Stock, the HD800 has a troublesome glare at 6khz.  Its treble isn't as nasty as a lot of other headphones and not as problematic as some people would make you believe.
 
I think there's good reason why a lot of HD800 owners still like their HD800 even over more expensive and newer cans on the market, because the imaging and soundstage alone has yet to be beat.  The technical capabilities of it is most likely also why Harman chose to use it and EQ it while conducting its recent research.
 
Its only weakness to me is bass extension, of which it can't quite compete against planars.

 

[diamondears]

When the treble plateau of the HD800 is tamed via EQ and/or mods, I would agree with your buddy.  Stock, the HD800 has a troublesome glare at 6khz.  Its treble isn't as nasty as a lot of other headphones and not as problematic as some people would make you believe.

I think there's good reason why a lot of HD800 owners still like their HD800 even over more expensive and newer cans on the market, because the imaging and soundstage alone has yet to be beat.  The technical capabilities of it is most likely also why Harman chose to use it and EQ it while conducting its recent research.

Its only weakness to me is bass extension, of which it can't quite compete against planars.

Does the HD800 respond well to EQ on bass extension?

 

[diamondears]

My best friend is in his early twenties and insists that the HD 800 is easily the most neutral headphone he has heard.

Anyway, guys, let's not argue anymore about what is neutral and what is not. This thread is about what sounds the most accurate to your ears.

I know someone whose ears are substantially less sensitive already during our college days due to constant exposure to live dance sound as a DJ as his side business/hobby.

I think the Harman curve research is quite scientific in determining the GENERAL subjective opinions of test/sample ears, so I believe them that they looked for what really people subjectively think as NATURAL or REALISTIC sound.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I know someone whose ears are substantially less sensitive already during our college days due to constant exposure to live dance sound as a DJ as his side business/hobby.

I think the Harman curve research is quite scientific in determining the GENERAL subjective opinions of test/sample ears, so I believe them that they looked for what really people subjectively think as NATURAL or REALISTIC sound.

 
Yeah, I totally accept that what sounds natural and so on to individuals is what ultimately matters. It's just that when you mix objective and subjective things, it can get confusing. For the record, I enjoy all sorts of sound signatures...but when spending thousands of dollars on a headphone, I demand accuracy!

 

 

[TMRaven]

Does the HD800 respond well to EQ on bass extension?

 
With minimal EQ it does, but anything that's beyond 3-4db and it starts sounding muddy real fast in the low bass.  It's not quite as capable of low-bass EQ like planars.

 

[Dannek]

  Which headphones sound the most accurate and realistic to you? Rank them here!

I do not have the experience to answer your question, but it made me think about something which raised a question in my mind...
 
How does "tonal balance" relate to  "accuracy"?
Is it possibly just one aspect that defines accuracy?
 
I ask, as after reading your question I immediately thought about something that I had read when reading one of Tyll's reviews.
He was reviewing the Fidelio X2, which of course isn't a summit fi headphone, and he stated this...
 
"With their offerings over the past year or so, I think Philips has become one of the major power-houses in headphone development. And for me, the X2 may be their best effort yet. For the first time, I think I'm hearing a near perfect tonal balance in a headphone—it's as if the entirety of the music is front and center."
I was surprised to hear him say this about a $300. headphone after all the flagships he's listened to, and I wonder how the "tonal balance" that he refers to relates to your question?

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I do not have the experience to answer your question, but it made me think about something which raised a question in my mind...
 
How does "tonal balance" relate to  "accuracy"?
Is it possibly just one aspect that defines accuracy?
 
I ask, as after reading your question I immediately thought about something that I had read when reading one of Tyll's reviews.
He was reviewing the Fidelio X2, which of course isn't a summit fi headphone, and he stated this...
 
"With their offerings over the past year or so, I think Philips has become one of the major power-houses in headphone development. And for me, the X2 may be their best effort yet. For the first time, I think I'm hearing a near perfect tonal balance in a headphone—it's as if the entirety of the music is front and center."
I was surprised to hear him say this about a $300. headphone after all the flagships he's listened to, and I wonder how the "tonal balance" that he refers to relates to your question?

 
Tonal balance (the proportion of bass, mids, and treble) is only one small part of the overall accuracy of a headphone.
 
Check these out for audiophile terminology relating to some of the other aspects:
http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/

 

[alpha80]

  So I'm wondering...if the Harman HRTF is the compensation curve that produces a perceived flat frequency response in headphones, why do so many who have heard the STAX SR-009 report that it is the most neutral headphone they have heard? Are all these people deluded?
 
 
You should tell us about how you think the Sony MDR-V6 is more neutral than every other headphone, like you mentioned in that other thread.
 
Some people say the Sony MDR-7506 is supposed to be the same headphone and thus sound the same, but you told me your V6 sounds better to you. My 7506 is so bright and nasty it's painful sometimes!

Sony MDR-V6 with DT250 pads, for a closed back headphone, are very good for monitoring in situations when I need a closed headphone, better than any other closed headphone I've tried to date, including the Audio Technica M50X, Sennheiser HD280, Sony MDR-7506, Beyerdynamic DT250, DT770.
 
I also own the MDR-7506, and despite having the same housing, headband, drivers, etc.  They're not the same sound.  It's more than wiring/crossfeed mimicking a nearfield sweet spot.  MDR-V6 has significantly more bass, and flatter, less overly vocal-centric mids.  And when paired with beyer pads, it has smoother, less biting treble, and a hint of soundstage.  The MDR-7506 is made for vocalists to wear while tracking, because of the dip just below the bump through human vocal range.
 
Do you own both MDR-V6's and MDR-7506's ?