[Eagle_Driver]

HiFi Choice has never reviewed either the HD 580 or the HD 600 per se. They did, however, review lesser Sennheisers in the pre-"bionetic" line: the HD 545 and the HD 565. Both seem to be rated higher than the HD 590. But both of those pre-"bionetic" Senns have been discontinued, and hard to find.

Another British "high-end" publication, What Hi-Fi?, had never reviewed the HD 590 - but they did review both the HD 580 and the HD 600. And What Hi-Fi? seems to be on crack when they rated the HD 580 only three stars and the HD 600 five stars - but rated a mid-level "bionetic" Senn, the HD 570, four stars!

MacDEF, I've checked the Web sites of the three magazines that you mentioned as being "high-end magazines". And yeah, I've been to their archives, as well. All have reviewed the HD 600 - but none of them had even heard the HD 590 at all, let alone reviewed the HD 590.

 

[MacDEF]

Eagle:

HiFi Choice *has* mentioned the HD 580. It wasn't in a full review, but rather was in the context of another article. I used to have the issue at home. They liked it quite a bit (as compared to the HD 590, which they criticize rather strongly for its treble, which, ironically, is exactly the area Brian keeps saying is their strong point).

Likewise, Stereophile hasn't reviewed the HD 590, but mentioned it in the context of another article. Not to mention that if they thought it had any chance at beating out the HD 600 or even the HD 580, both of which have received frequent mention and review, they would have reviewed it. Combined with the fact that they call the HD 600 the best dynamic headphone on the market, that's a pretty good indication of which they prefer.

Also, remember that not all reviews are online

As I mentioned before, I've also seen others, but I don't want to guess which mags they were in, because I don't want to be attacked for being a "liar" if I get it wrong.


But the point is that I was posting mags I had seen that either reviewed both, or called the HD 600 the best can on the market (which logically means they're better than the HD 590). No magazine has ever called the HD 590 the best headphones on the market. Ever. When you read reviews of the HD 580 or HD 600, they often start out "generally considered one of the (or the) best headphones on the market. Do you ever see that for the HD 590? No. Which one is more highly reviewed here, on HeadWize, on Head-Fi? Heck, even GoodCans rates the HD 580 and HD 600 higher, and that reviewer is a Grado man who likes lots of treble! LOL

Look, this is all very silly, and indicative of Brian's attempts to weasel out of an unsupportable position by trying to discredit me. I made the statement that the HD 580/600 are widely considered to be better headphones than the HD 590, so HeadRoom not liking the HD 590 as much as the HD 600 isn't as outrageous position as Brian would have us all believe. Brian challenged me to "prove" my claim. The facts above, coupled with a lack of any evidence whatsoever to the contrary (that the HD 590 are generally considered better) lend very strong support to my original statement. (Unless you're Brian, in which case no amount of fact or logic seems to make a difference.)

But, again, this whole strain of discussion is silly. Does it matter which of these headphones is more widely respected? No, what matters is what each person likes better.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Like I had stated many times before, the HD 590's treble can be over-aggressive and shrill at times. I came to that conclusion after I've heard the HD 580 and the HD 600 at Headroom's WOH tour. Heck, I prefer even the AKG K#01 series headphones (and with some types of music, the *choke, choke* Sony MDR-CD2000

) to the HD 590.

And I also came to the conclusion myself that the HD 580 and the HD 600 both belong to the top tier of full-size dynamic headphones. The AKG K401 and K501 is on the borderline between the top tier cans and the merely "good" headphones. The HD 590 isn't bad, but isn't good enough for its price.

And as for sound-quality preferences: You say "to-MAY-to", I say "to-MAH-to".

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Oh well .... I might as well say something.

The purpose of having an averaged frequency response of the ten headphones is to, as best as possible, characterize that test set-up. By averaging a number of very good headphones, we assume that we have fed the dummy head a flat frequency response. Any difference (on average) then must be due to the physical and electrical characteristics of the combined head-mike-mike preamp-Audio Precision tester combination. We then take this average measurement to be the response of the test system and subtract it from the headphone measurement under the assumption that it will give us a more accurate representation of the headphone performance as viewed by the average consumer.

Secondly, meaningful objective measure of headphone performance is virtually impossible. I'll quote the international standard IEC 268-7 on headphone measurements Para 3.6:

-------Quote-------

Frequency Response

NOTE- Several different methods of measuring frequency response are specified in this standard because no method has yet bee developed that is universally applicable. Coupler or ear simulator measurements are relatively simple, but the results bear little relation to those from subjective assessments.

They are most useful for production testing, quality control and commercial specifications. The two types of subjective assessment themselves produce different results, as do the two types of ear canal sound pressure level measurement. These methods are more time consuming than coupler measurements, and are most useful in product development and for small batch production of special products. No known objective method produces a flat frequency response characteristic from an earphone which is subjectively judged to produce wide band uncoloured reproduction.

-------End Quote------

Sadly, this situation essentially gives license to marketing people to represent their headphone specifications pretty much any way they want. Which is why we decided to do the measurement thing---because YOU JUST CAN'T GET THE INFO ANY WHERE ELSE.

Now, I'll step sideways for a second and defend my publishing of our subjective opinion: John Atkinson (Stereophile’s editor) and most other subjective audio review magazines (and subjective reviewers of all sorts like movie reviewers) defend the use of subjective reviewing by saying that if you can find a person who's opinion matches yours, then you can follow that persons opinion with confidence. In addition, if you learn a reviewer’s preference (even if it's different than yours) then you can calibrate yourself relative to that opinion and can still find it useful. So as long as I'm consistently honest about my opinion, then you should be able to look at what I say and still find headphones you like. For example, I think the Beyer 911 is a bit bright and similar to the 590; therefore, you might like the 911.

Now, I don't like people having to "factor in" a comparative understanding of how I think because: A) it will take them time to figure it out (and who wants to subject themselves to my incessant drivel) and, 2) I'm fallible, and therefore my subjective viewpoint may vary from one headphone to the next. THAT'S WHY we decided to try to come up with a way to objectively measure headphones. Sure, it may not be absolutely accurate, but IT IT relatively accurate in that we use the same test set-up and test methodology on all the headphones. BTW, I do think I see a strong relationship between the measurements and what I hear.

Then, more directly to the point, when Danny and I were talking about how to do the tests and I came up with the list, we did talk about having the 580 and the 600 on the list and that it would, in a minor way, weight the curve towards those headphones being the norm. In fact, we talked about adding weighting factors to all cans based on a subjective assessment. We decided against that as we wanted as objective a measurement scheme as possible. But, we also decided that we would keep the 580 in because ... well ... we didn't have a 10th headphone to put in the mix. Everything else seemed to have some fatal artifact that would skew the averaged number too significantly. So, for all the reasons MacDEF has so eloquently discussed we threw the 580 in there knowing full well that we might be accused of poor methodology. Well, Brian, you've accused. There's the justification. Go spend $100,000 of your own money if you don't like it, or view ours perfectly FREE.

Also, when we design our amps, we use an Audio Precision System 2 Cascade (their best test system) to measure the products. So they don't have a "slant" in any direction except flat. In fact, if anything our amps are criticized as being too neutral and not lush-quick-mellow-laid back-up front or any of a jillion other subjectively descriptive words. Me? I want to here exactly what's on the recording; I want bad recordings to sound bad and good recordings to sound good. I have no problem with people who like the lushness of a tube amp; I just don't like it when that lushness gets in the way of punchy dynamics, for example.

(Let’s see … should I stop now or go on with what I’m feeling?)

(Nah, there’s always some ******* out there wanting to take potshots at people.)

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens (Let’s see … should I stop now or go on with what I’m feeling?) (Nah, there’s always some ******* out there wanting to take potshots at people.)

Oh do go on.

Since you already began, why not finish?

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim D If what headroom is doing is murder...how would Sony boasting their $10 earbuds frequency response specs as similar to electrostatic headphones rank in crime?

That Sony claim would amount to international grand larceny, IMHO, in terms of the rank in crime.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

With respect to Tyll's description of HeadRoom's difficulty with measuring the headphone response...

Isn't there some HRTF or other transfer function / graph that transfers the loudspeaker response to the equivalent headphone response? Shouldn't you be able to apply the inverse of that to obtain the 'normalized' response of the headphones?

If no functions / graphs currently exist to do this, the following methodology should work--it'd be a variation of my technique for matching one headphone's FR to that of another... better results can be obtained if you can find more subjects for this 'experiment'.

1. Get a pair of properly prositioned loudspeakers to have flat frequency response across the whole frequency spectrum, using EQ.

2. EQ them so that all frequencies SOUND as loud as each other to a subject at a certain loudness (e.g. 70 phons) instead of measures flat. Record the changes made to the EQ. (better done with an electronic EQ)

3. Grab any old pair of circumaural open earphones (I suppose you can afford to use the Orpheus, but I don't suppose the existing FR characteristics of the phones matters all that much) and EQ them to SOUND as loud as each other to the subject at the same loudness as at step 2, so that the FR of the EQed loudspeakers and the EQed phones now sound the same, FR-wise, to the subject.

4. Now apply the inverse of the EQ used in step 2 to both the loudspeakers and the headphones. Now the speakers and phones should both sound flat to the subject.

5. Keeping the EQ constant, record the FR of the headphones using an acoustic coupler. What you have now can be called the 'loudspeaker to headphone transfer function' ('LHTF') for one subject, for one pair of circumaural headphones.

6. Repeat steps 2-5 using different subjects to get a good average 'LHTF' for this pair of headphones (or all circumaural headphones, if you are satisfied with using only one)

7. (optional, I think? The same headphone types should have similar LHTFs, otherwise how can you generalize your results?) Repeat steps 2-6 using different circumaural headphones

8. Repeat steps 2-7 (with suitable modifications to 6 and 7) with supraaural, earbud, vertical and in-ear headphones to obtain average LHTFs for different types of headphones.

9. Now, after you measure each pair of phones with the acoustic coupler, you can apply the inverse of the appropriate LHTF to obtain the frequency response of the headphones relative to a response that ought to be heard as 'flat'.

Test the LHTF by playing actual music with headphones EQed to flat using the measurements - LHTF and see if the FR really sounds flat. e.g. I tried doing the inverse, EQing my cheap computer loudspeakers w/subwoofer using the etys as reference, and the bass was way off (too weak)--is it just my ears, or does that prove that etys have no bass?

(could be the fit--but I'm actually halfway satisfied with the ety bass)

note: The EQ you use should be of a electronic type where the exact filter response can be read out--as the readouts from conventional slider EQs can be misleading as detailed in this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...threadid=15592

For a small scale operation you can try out with just your staff as the subjects

.