[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari I think this expresses the virtues of the HD-650 more than anything else. I always thought its midrange beauty was because of its consistency in and around the critical midrange frequencies. Although it does have a mild treble roll-off I still think the response is uber!

Word!

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari I think this expresses the virtues of the HD-650 more than anything else. I always thought its midrange beauty was because of its consistency in and around the critical midrange frequencies. Although it does have a mild treble roll-off I still think the response is uber!

Now look at this!

 

[ssportclay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra Yes, more exactly around 9KHz. Each vertical line to the right of 2000Hz in Headroom's graph is a jump of 2000, so the 880's peak is right between the 8KHz and 10KHz lines:

For those of you not familiar with the DT880,this headphone has a smooth quality to it that will make that peak less noticeable.In other words it is so smooth that it will not shove that peak in your face.Do not take graphs too seriously.

 

[spike33]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea Uhm, whatever the peak's frequency (Stereoplay's graphs for the DT880, btw, are rather consistent with gerG's measurements - or the other way round ), I feel "uncomfortable" about such peaks, and I'm little willing to forgive of them, for fear of some consequence on my hearing in the long term. Just paranoia??

Wherever that peak is, I don't hear it. It is not fatiguing in the least.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by taymat This is RUBBISH! How can every different recording in existence, mixed by different engineers in different studios with different ears and different preferences, recorded on different budgets by different musicians with different ears and different amps/intruments, recorded on different mics, mixed on different monitors, played in different styles, mastered in different ways for different effects on different equipment all sound good on one headphone. With one eq built in to the headphone and one set of ears to judge sound quality, yours. You are either narrow minded, listen only to audiphile recordings, or just want to hear flaws not music in average recordings. I'm with James Bean on this one.

Because there's one way I believe music "should" sound, and the right system sounds that way with everything. Not that hard to understand

I don't care what the other guys (production, musicians, mastering technicians, etc) wanted, I know what I want.

Again, I ask.... are you listening to music, or listening to plastic discs?

If this is what you call narrow-minded, fine. I will be enjoying ALL genres and ALL levels of production quality (audiophile or not) while you sit around with 20 rigs and try to find that unnatainable perfection

 

[gerG]

Minor update posted. They were getting on my nerves, so I got impatient and equalized them. Without eq they have not changed any that I can tell. I will post an update next weekend.

gerG

 

[spike33]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerG Minor update posted. They were getting on my nerves, so I got impatient and equalized them. Without eq they have not changed any that I can tell. I will post an update next weekend. gerG

I'm at 80 hours mark and it is no longer too bright anymore. Be patient

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch Easy to say with speakers Sov, but headphones have a single driver that has to reproduce the full range of frequencies. That makes it a lot tougher, having no subwoofer/woofer/mid/tweeter and have to deliver delicate detail directly to the ear canals, with no air space in between. They also have to do the near-impossible in delivering good soundstage when the drivers are NOT in front of you!!

Yep but consider also that they use a lot of less power, less energy, so they work a lot less stressed, you will not need to separate the frequencies that much, but in any case we have also three ways headphones (even with built in crossovers...LOL) and the same happen is not a problem of drivers is a problems of that there are not a general consensus on how to make a good recording, every single engineer is trying to do their best with the instruments they have in hand, but sometimes just is not enough....and over that you will never know how the recording was done and how it will sound like in the media, so to try to make it sounds like real life is just an illusion, maybe in the first instance it was not even recorded even similar to real life....so it is a real dilemma....


Quote:

Originally Posted by taymat This is RUBBISH! How can every different recording in existence, mixed by different engineers in different studios with different ears and different preferences, recorded on different budgets by different musicians with different ears and different amps/instruments, recorded on different mics, mixed on different monitors, played in different styles, mastered in different ways for different effects on different equipment all sound good on one headphone. With one eq built in to the headphone and one set of ears to judge sound quality, yours. You are either narrow minded, listen only to audiophile recordings, or just want to hear flaws not music in average recordings. I'm with James Bean on this one.

Yep that is true also, but don't forget that all this music "mixed by different engineers, in different studios, with different ears and different preferences, recorded on different budgets, by different musicians with different ears, and different amps/instruments, recorded on different mics, mixed on different monitors, played in different styles, mastered in different ways for different effects on different equipment" has only one purpose, and all of them are trying to do the same, to sound real life like, so they should not be that different at the end, as IMO what is important is the final result, not the way you use to get it...


Quote:

Originally Posted by spike33 I'm at 80 hours mark and it is no longer too bright anymore. Be patient

Really? After 200 hours + on mine, it still was as bright as the first day, just that we get used to it, but I got mine used, so this is not a good example.....The highs definitely will improve over time, unfortunately the rest will not...

 

[Yada]

Hi Again gerG,

Is there any chance you could print some frequency response graphs showing the SA5k, the CD3K, and the 650?

The graph of the 650 on headphone.com shows pretty much what I would expect based on hearing the 650. It is reasonably flat (but not specatacular) from about 30 Hz to about 4 kHz (it looks like it's about +/- 4 dB or about 8 dB overall from 30 - 4k Hz). After 4kHz it rolls off pretty steep, so that from 30 Hz to 20 kHz it's about +4/-20 dB. No wonder it sounds like it has relatively little to offer on the high end. I don't get how any piece of audio equipment with that frequency response can get so much acclaim.

I've been following the thread here about whether one headphone should suffice or not. My opinion is that unlike high end loudspeakers and entire hifi systems, headphones don't cost so much that a person couldn't be entitled to a couple pair if they want. Having said that, my view is that the purpose of a hifi system (with speakers or headphones) is to play back the music FAITHFULLY as it was recorded, i.e., with Hi Fidelity (hence the term, HiFi). Now it is true that only the original musicians and recording engineers know exactly how the original music was intended to sound, but in general, if they recorded music that had a particular frequency response at a particular point in time during the music, that same frequency response is what we should be hearing at the same point in time when the music is played on a good system. The theory of hifi is that we should be able to take source material (on a LP or a CD, etc.) and play it back on our system and have the system neither add or subtract any information. In order to do that, the system should be flat in terms of frequency response.

It turns out that with a 2 channel speaker system even if you get a very flat set of equipment (speakers, amp, preamp, etc.) that getting the sound to your ears in a way that retains "flat" is difficult because in addition to the system you have to take the room acoustics into consideration. High end speakers will generally be +/- 3 dB from about 32 Hz to about 20 KHz. High end electronics will often be super flat: 5 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 1db, or better. Most rooms will dramatically change this near ruler flat system response because of the size and dimension ratios of the room's length, width, and height and also because of room's shape and surface treatments. Unfortunately, rooms are often reflective and abosorbtive in the wrong spots which substantially modifies not only the frequency response, but also the other subtle timing cues that enable us to percieve definition, detail, and sound stage imaging (a sense of width side to side and depth front to back).

The beauty of a headpone system is that (unlike a room) it has a very known acoustic environment and it should be much easier to engineer a flat response. If headphones are truly flat, then we should be able to hear what the musicians intended. Admittedly, as mentioned before, we don't know exactly what the musicians and their sound engineers intended. Some artists may have decided they wanted their music to sound right on car radios; others may have said they wanted to get their music as close to live for people with high end 2 channel speaker systems; others may have had other ideas. Additionally, some of the artists and their engineers simply did a better or worse job than their peers in recording their music. Having said all that, I think high end equipment should be engineered to produce the flatest response possible as the baseline and then with gross changes (like tone controls or equalizers) or subtle changes (like tube rolling) users can tweak sounds to their preference.

(Based on the headphone.com graph - and what I hear when I listen to the 650 - the 650 simply turns off much of the high frequencies; I am assuming this is because the engineers at Sennheiser decided that most music was designed for speaker systems and not headhones and that in order to make people perceive music over the headphones in a manner similar to how it would be perceived over speakers they needed to take out the highs - this is just a guess - but in my opinion, Sennheiser overshot the mark. It's kind of like sunglasses; they can work great outdoors on a sunny day, but when you wear them on a non-sunny day or inside, you simply don't see things that you would otherwise see. It seems like Sennheiser was counting on a very sunny day.)

Long story short, I'd really like to see if the SA5k and the CD3k show pumped up high ends (the opposite of the 650 from 4 k - 20 kHz) or if they come out much closer to flat than the 650.

gerG - any chance you can produce the 3 charts? The charts you make are very helpful - if possible, we need at least two more (one for the SA5k and one for the CD3k); ideally, we'd also get one for the 650; we do have the 650 graph from headphones.com, but we don't know if it was made the same way as you make your graphs, so having a 650 graph from you would allow us to more confidently compare the data between to the 2 Sonys and the Senn. 650.

Thanks, Yada

 

[seeberg]

HD700? I've heard the name tossed around a couple times, and where can I find out more about this elisive beast?
Also, are there plans for any body/company to do recables on the SA1,3,5k series? Personally, I'd like a Cardas'd or Zu'd SA1000 when I get mine

(Although the 6N-OFC cable seems pretty nice...)

And Dev(or whoever made it- I could be mistaken, it happens

), get that SA smiley into an administrator ASAP! I'm liking it!

Bounce,
Abe

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spike33 Wherever that peak is, I don't hear it. It is not fatiguing in the least.

Nonetheless, I'm somehow slipping towards the DT860 whose graphs seen so far are free of any 'serious' peaks. I'm not decided yet, anyway.

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeberg Personally, I'd like a Cardas'd or Zu'd SA1000 when I get mine (Although the 6N-OFC cable seems pretty nice...) And Dev(or whoever made it- I could be mistaken, it happens ), get that SA smiley into an administrator ASAP! I'm liking it!

I'd say springing for a higher model would be better bang/buck than recabling an SA1000, particularly with the bass differences. I have to admit, I've found myself wondering if a recable would be possible, the cable on the SA5000 is a little awkward. But that's a mechanical issue, like why I wish to DIY recable my 595s, and not sonic... not somewhere I wish to spend $250+

I will try an poke someone and see if my smile would be "acceptable"

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea Nonetheless, I'm somehow slipping towards the DT860 whose graphs seen so far are free of any 'serious' peaks. I'm not decided yet, anyway.

Andrea, don't let you fool by the relative harmlessness of the DT 860 graph -- it does sound awful (IMO, but confirmed by friends), while the DT 880 with the alarming spike sounds great. However, consider that the spike appears at different frequencies on different measurements -- a hint that you don't have to take it too seriously.

Although the corresponding Stereoplay graph seems to confirm HeadRoom's measurement, you may notice that almost all headphones measured by Stereoplay have such a peak around 9 kHz.

The DT 880 has just a bit of an overbrilliance, but sounds smooth and unfatiguing nonetheless.

 

[halcyon]

Not trying to blow my own horn, but I recommend that FR graph-o-philes read:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showp...54&postcount=8

AND

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showp...10&postcount=5

there was also an interesting discussion with j-curve when he did measurements also.

Long time readers can also compare graphs between Headphone, Stereophile, TM, Hifi, German mags, J-Curve and GerG to see how much of a difference there can be and on what frequency ranges the measurements most agree on.

I agree that measurements can be useful and often very educational.

However, in summary:

- doing headphone measurements is difficult/slow/expensive/error prone, even when done right by practising professionals in the field

- listening tests and graphs rarely match, sometimes they are in direct opposition (i.e. sounds good, measure bad or vice versa).

- an ideal headphone FR graph is not flat (it's a headphone/head coupled device one is measuring, not a free-field transducer in an anechoic chamber)

- headphone manufacturers have different sets of design criteria to which they design/tweak their headphone. They do NOT share a common and explicated ideal of a certain type of sound. Some go towards diffuse field equalisation, some toward free field type equalisation. Some trust measurements more, others only ears.

- There is no single set of headphones that has it all and which can be objectively proven as having it all

- headphone/transducer sensitivity is not always linear (throughout the frequency range) as sound pressure changes. When one combines this with the non-linear changes in human hearing sensitivity as a function of sound pressure, well one starts to understand why it's difficult to measure and even more difficult to compare measurements to listening results.

- Even, with all these disclaimers, measurements can be useful. However, they should be used as a tools for learning not tools for flamewars, because objectively they don't yet prove anything conclusively about how we hear things (i.e. how things 'sound' as there is no 'sound' without the listener).

As for GerG and SA5000 measurements, they somewhat confirm to me what I was hearing when I listened to them: a prominent mid-frequency coloration that is (IMHO) unacceptable for a headphone of this caliber/price.

This is of course, only to me and on my ears, using the music I used, wearing the way I wore them and with my listening preferences/sensitivities using a hearing of an older person who's hearing acuity is different from that of a an averaga 18-year old (in good and bad).

Some people might not hear what I heard, some headphone wearing position might change that coloration significantly (even when measured) and some might not care, even when hearing it.

Overall the measurements GerG is doing, are IMHO (and I'm not an expert in the field) getting along very nicely. It's a tough job and I don't envy him for the work load, but I do envy all the learning he's gone through. Good work!

I'm looking forward to more measurements in the future.

regards,
halcyon

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yada The graph of the 650 on headphone.com shows pretty much what I would expect based on hearing the 650. It is reasonably flat (but not spectacular) from about 30 Hz to about 4 kHz (it looks like it's about +/- 4 dB or about 8 dB overall from 30 - 4 kHz). After 4 kHz it rolls off pretty steep, so that from 30 Hz to 20 kHz it's about +4/-20 dB. No wonder it sounds like it has relatively little to offer on the high end. I don't get how any piece of audio equipment with that frequency response can get so much acclaim.

It has to do with different ears (ear shapes) with accordingly different acoustic interactions with the headphone, different sonic expectation from a sound transducer offering an artificial sound field (as the recordings are designed for speaker reproduction, not binaural), different sonic preferences... I for one find the HD 650 to be relatively close to my sonic ideal and not dark, if at all just very slightly rolled off in the treble but in a way that makes it easy to become accustomed to -- which is also a criterion: your own tolerance towards unavoidable flaws. I have grown accustomed to various sonic balances of different headphones, and although the HD 650 isn't perfect, it's closest to perfection of the headphones I've owned. The Stereoplay curve reflects my listening impression best.

halcyon...

...I completely agree with you.