The most *tonally accurate* headphones are...??
Jul 11, 2005 at 1:22 PM Post #31 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda
I've always been wondering how to determine a headphone's tonal accuracy.


Your best bet may probably be a comparison a la Dunlavy. Interestingly, the outcome of such a test tends to differ a lot from what people consider to be accurate when they have nothing to compare to...
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 1:59 PM Post #32 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda
I've always been wondering how to determine a headphone's tonal accuracy. Is it by comparison to high end speakers or to "reality" or to different headphones? Does tonally accurate imply that a headphone is capable of producing the highest amount of contrast between different kinds of music as outlined by Audio Note's "Road to Audio Hell" article or something else?

And how is it possible that a headphone can reproduce the timbre of certain instruments very well but fails to do so at other instances? If that's the case, what else besides frequency response is responsible for creating a tonally accurate reproduction? And if tonal accuracy is really dependant on certain instruments or musical styles, how credible is a rock lover's statement on tonal accuracy to the classical lover?

Another thing is that if there are headphones that are tonally accurate, why would other people knowingly and willingly buy a headphone that is apparently tonally inaccurate? Certainly some people admit that they prefer euphony over "accuracy" but I don't think there are so many people who would claim that.

And is it even possible to attain an objective judgement on tonal accuracy with headphones if you consider the various pyschoacoustical influences which are probably stronger in headphone than in speaker audio due to the proximity of the drivers to the ears?

For example, a lot of people refer to the HP-1000 as one if not the most tonally accurate headphone. However, tuberoller in his big review on various high-end headphoens writes: "I found the HP2 to be very colored but not in a completely bad way."

I don't think it's as easy as saying that different people hear differently although it certainly is true to a certain degree but if that was the entire truth, there would hardly be any consensus at all, even outside the audiophile world.

Just a few questions to which I couldn't really find satisfying answers myself. Until then I personally refrain from saying that something is tonally accurate or at least limited to certain areas.




You raise very good questions and points. To answer one of your questions, I am one of those headfiers who prefer warmth over musical accuracy. I am not sure why? I know you use to own the Rs-1's and that is one of the most musically inaccurate phones in terms of musical accuracy. But it is one of my faves.

I like to be romanticised in the music. I find it more enjoyable. If I stuck the hp-series and Rs-1 phones side by side then 9 times out of 10 I would grab the Rs-1's, for sure.

I think one of the reasons why the hp-series are regarded as tonally accurate is because they don't exhibit flaws or colourations. They are musically uninvolving compared to other headphones. THese other headphones have flaws or coulourations compared to the hp-series. Too some people they will sound so dull and boring. It's like going to listen to a live accoustic recording without the reverb of a live accoustic set and without the atmostphere.

It has the ability to show you how your system how it sounds. If you are one of those cable tweakers then the hp-series will show it. If you stick a new power cord then the hp-series has the ability to show what effect if any has occured.

No other headphone has this ability not even qualia's, r-10's etc.
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:03 PM Post #33 of 72
Quote:

Another thing is that if there are headphones that are tonally accurate, why would other people knowingly and willingly buy a headphone that is apparently tonally inaccurate? Certainly some people admit that they prefer euphony over "accuracy" but I don't think there are so many people who would claim that.


Well one reason that people would buy inaccurate headphones could be the price tag problem... The HP-1000's go from $500 to $1000. Not everyone has that much money, or are willing to spend that much, when they could get something a little to alot cheaper but still get great sound without the "100%" accuracy rating.
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:14 PM Post #34 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRedwings19
I think one of the reasons why the hp-series are regarded as tonally accurate is because they don't exhibit flaws or colourations. They are musically uninvolving compared to other headphones. THese other headphones have flaws or coulourations compared to the hp-series. Too some people they will sound so dull and boring. It's like going to listen to a live accoustic recording without the reverb of a live accoustic set and without the atmostphere.

It has the ability to show you how your system how it sounds. If you are one of those cable tweakers then the hp-series will show it. If you stick a new power cord then the hp-series has the ability to show what effect if any has occured.

No other headphone has this ability not even qualia's, r-10's etc.



I agree with the first paragraph, which why I no longer own HP-1000's. However, that "neutrality" is a signature in and of itself, and as with almost all headphones, will only sound "right" with certain amps. For the HP-1000, Melos is a great choice (but only available used), as is the Berning MicroZOTL (still current). Note that the phase switch on the HP-1 appears to increase the current draw of the headphone, so it's likely adding resistance. Sonically, it has a rounded off high end compared to a similarly cabled HP-2. Further, the frequency response of Grado's is highly dependent on distance from the ear and pad material (hence the flat vs. bowl pad discussions...). Which pad represents "neutral"? Which headphone (the frequency responses are not the same)?

I've found that once you know a headphone well, the higher the resolution, the better it will be at telling you what's going on in your system, regardless of any inherent coloration. In my rigs, the R-10 and Qualia can tell me what's going on in seconds, compared to the HP-1000, which simply didn't have the required resolution to highlight subtle differences that quickly. I'd even argue that that this insensitivity to system differences is part of the "neutral" signature.
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:14 PM Post #35 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRedwings19

I think one of the reasons why the hp-series are regarded as tonally accurate is because they don't exhibit flaws or colourations. They are musically uninvolving compared to other headphones.



mmm..
not so true for everyone , really ..

it's really difficult to call them uninvolving - or flat - and i come from hd650 and k501 , which are still mong king of music rep. , and surely also "involving" .

This to say that ( not only me btw ) some people find them very exciting , probably for the same facts one another find them uninvolving .


I must say that after passing some time with hp2 , returning to hd650 shows me colours I had difficulties to make so clear evidence about before ( they are obviously coloured now - still incredibly vibrant / musical on instruments! and involving / lively )

hp2 are more accurate , more ...mmm.. monitor type (?) headphones ...

hd650 after hp2 can be called musical emotional breathy and other things come to mind ...
in other words , i could very well say hd650 are not as accurate - speaking about tonality ; they are more accurate then hp2 in retrieving details -

a bass & mid vibrancy and an artificial soundstage / separation of instr. / notes - the same things that move me on many genres - are the things hd650 add the most to music , voices and instruments ...
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:23 PM Post #36 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils
no way! a grado? im not flaming anything here, i love my MS1´s, but grado/allessandro (the newer models) could never, in my opinion, be heiled as flat. i dont know what exactly would be flat for under 500, but i would definitely be interested...


eek.gif




Where do the UE-10s fit into this spectrum? Just wondering.
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:38 PM Post #37 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRedwings19
I am one of those headfiers who prefer warmth over musical accuracy. I am not sure why?

I like to be romanticised in the music. I find it more enjoyable. If I stuck the hp-series and Rs-1 phones side by side then 9 times out of 10 I would grab the Rs-1's, for sure.



Quote:

Another thing is that if there are headphones that are tonally accurate, why would other people knowingly and willingly buy a headphone that is apparently tonally inaccurate? Certainly some people admit that they prefer euphony over "accuracy" but I don't think there are so many people who would claim that.


... I'd argue the complete opposite - that people (headfiers included) are not looking for tonal accuracy but euphonic sound. Look at all the people, especially at the high end, who use tube amps for instance. Tubes are KNOWN to distort, abeit nice/pleasing/warm distortion. They're also slow in comparison to solid state.

I personally have two amps at the moment; the dtpakiller and the M³, the former is most probably more tonally accurate, but it's cold and uninviting (or technical) even fatiguing to listen to for extended periods (to me! with MS-1s), even with "warm" opamps. The latter is definately warmer and more euphonic(probably because of the beefy mosfet stage), but it's much more "fun" to listen to for longer periods, the detail is still there, but the sound is nicer/sweeter to my ears. A lot of the reviews that contrast the M³ with the PPA say the same thing (in a more long winded way). This sweetness, for lack of audiophile terms off the top of my head, may be distortion, it may be something else, may be character!..

Whatever it is, I like it!

So I suppose different people are looking for different things - as always.
If I'm looking to try and critically analyse music I'll listen on whatever I enjoy the most. But that's just me.
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:43 PM Post #38 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by rbaulbin
I own the Sennheiser HD600's, and I'm thinking that the highs on these cans are slightly veiled (as others have found). While I love these headphones, I'm using them in a studio environment, and tonal accuracy is more important than anything. Can anyone recommend a set of headphones under $500 that have a *measured* design philosophy of flatness from at least 20-20K (I suppose taking into account basic limitations of the ear)? I.e., what are the "Dunlavy" of headphones in this price range?


I thought recording studios have in abundance a selection of nearfield 'monitors', i.e genelec, dynaudio etc ? With those monitors / speakers in mind the ones that I found (from my limited experience) to be tonally accurate are Senns. I never consider those monitor class speakers to be bright in particular, in general more neutral overall. I remember some stereo mags' call that hd6xx could indeed serve as good monitor phones. However, 6xx's open design and relatively high price are not suitable for studio daily use (and rough handling) - so they might as well be the "Dunlavy" of phones.

I read that even hd265, despite its bass heavy nature and low popularity in general use are billed as neutral and suitable for studio purposes.

Regarding measurement results, I could not think of any Grado in headroom's FR database to be called neutral with those treble peaks.
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:52 PM Post #39 of 72
It's interesting to look for a completely flat frequency curve when we don't HEAR that way. Our ears (at normal listening levels) hears the frequency response like an upside-down "V". Our strongest hearing is right around the human voice (surprise, surprise).

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/grap...her-Munson.gif

You can understand why we like louder music when you look at that graph.

Anyhow, over the years, I've noticed I set my equalizer to look like a "V" (boosting bass and treble while slightly reducing around 1K). It's not exact as it depends on the speakers in question. For example, in both of my cars, I have to dramatically lower the bass as it is overcompensated by the designers.

Isn't it strange to look for a flat frequency response when we are talking about ears that cannot hear them flat?
smily_headphones1.gif


-Alex
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:55 PM Post #40 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch
I agree with the first paragraph, which why I no longer own HP-1000's. However, that "neutrality" is a signature in and of itself, and as with almost all headphones, will only sound "right" with certain amps. For the HP-1000, Melos is a great choice (but only available used), as is the Berning MicroZOTL (still current). Note that the phase switch on the HP-1 appears to increase the current draw of the headphone, so it's likely adding resistance. Sonically, it has a rounded off high end compared to a similarly cabled HP-2. Further, the frequency response of Grado's is highly dependent on distance from the ear and pad material (hence the flat vs. bowl pad discussions...). Which pad represents "neutral"? Which headphone (the frequency responses are not the same)?

I've found that once you know a headphone well, the higher the resolution, the better it will be at telling you what's going on in your system, regardless of any inherent coloration. In my rigs, the R-10 and Qualia can tell me what's going on in seconds, compared to the HP-1000, which simply didn't have the required resolution to highlight subtle differences that quickly. I'd even argue that that this insensitivity to system differences is part of the "neutral" signature.




In some parts you and I are in agreement. I can see why the hp-series, w2002's and ms-pro's never worked out for you.

Yes the Qualia does have the resoulution to show what's up with the system due to it's detail levels. But for under a $1000 hp-series are still the champs. The tonal aberattions as you like to call it are what let's the Qualia down or more simply a flaw. The fact you need an uber expensive amp and an after market cable (black dragons) to correct these flaws then buck for buck the hp-series trounce qualia's.

I am not knocking the Qualia. On the contrary I quite like the headphone. The hp-series is old. The Qualia's are sony's latest flagship design. It is unfair to compare the two. Had Joe Grado released another sucessor to the hp-series then who knows.
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 2:59 PM Post #41 of 72
I admit my personal audiophile vocabulary is far smaller than alot of folks' around there parts, so I'll just say this - with the HP2, things sound Real. Other things sound more fun, but they sound artificial. 'Nuff said!
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 3:37 PM Post #42 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexhifi
Isn't it strange to look for a flat frequency response when we are talking about ears that cannot hear them flat?
smily_headphones1.gif


-Alex



Well, speakers in this sense are not "flat" either. The problem with measuring headphones is that you can't measure the headphone's FR outside the headphone-ear-head system whereas with speakers you can. That's one of the main problems with headphones and absolute neutrality. Due to the close proximity or headphones and ear/head, there are much more intereferences to to consider, which is why headphones are already equalized to a certain degree to take this into account. If you measure a speaker signal at your inner ear, it's not gonna be a flat curve either although it will be interepreted as "flat" by the brain. Moreover, it also matters how far away you're sitting from the speakers because certain frequencies are more stronlgy attenuated by air than others. The extreme example is when you can only hear the faint low frequency growling from a rock concert a few hundred meteres away.

The Fletcher-Munson curve you cited also applies to speaker listening. The peak at 2-3 Khz for instance is caused by resonance with our ear tube (correlation between the wavelength and length of the tube), which makes that area particularly "louder". Now imagine that this kind of intereferences (although slightly different perhaps) takes place all the time with headphones due to the distance between ear and drivers. So basically, measuring headphones the same way you measure speakers (that is decoupled from the ear/head system) for being flat does not have any relevance. Nevertheless, most headphones are more or less flat anyway, otherwise it'd sound really bad.
tongue.gif


Also, different people have different perceptions of treble exactly due to our different ear forms that correlate to different head-related-transfer-functions (HRTF) whereas the bass or midrange is perceived in more or less the same manner by most people (see graph of HRTF measurements from 3 different people exposed to the same sound source). However, with headphones the seal between headphone and ear might play a role in regards to the bass.

04_abb3.gif


One you can do is to play pink noise via a reference speaker system that is neutral (whether this assumption is valid is to be argued) and then measure the FR graph at your inner ear (the exact method is also to be argued such blocked ear canal or not, etc.). Then take a pair of headphones and measure pink noise as well. Afterwards, equalize the headphones' FR to match the speakers'. The problem is that this EQ preset would only be "neutral" to your ears only due to the problems mentioned above.
biggrin.gif


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazper
... I'd argue the complete opposite - that people (headfiers included) are not looking for tonal accuracy but euphonic sound. Look at all the people, especially at the high end, who use tube amps for instance. Tubes are KNOWN to distort, abeit nice/pleasing/warm distortion. They're also slow in comparison to solid state.

I personally have two amps at the moment; the dtpakiller and the M³, the former is most probably more tonally accurate, but it's cold and uninviting (or technical) even fatiguing to listen to for extended periods (to me! with MS-1s), even with "warm" opamps. The latter is definately warmer and more euphonic(probably because of the beefy mosfet stage), but it's much more "fun" to listen to for longer periods, the detail is still there, but the sound is nicer/sweeter to my ears. A lot of the reviews that contrast the M³ with the PPA say the same thing (in a more long winded way). This sweetness, for lack of audiophile terms off the top of my head, may be distortion, it may be something else, may be character!..

Whatever it is, I like it!

So I suppose different people are looking for different things - as always.
If I'm looking to try and critically analyse music I'll listen on whatever I enjoy the most. But that's just me.



Admittingly, I don't know what other people are looking for in high fidelity but personally, I'm looking for headphones and amps that are able to make use of the potential given by the music, that is to be aggressive or soft, slow or fast, romantic or sterile - according to the situation. In my opinion, a well designed tube amp does that just as well as solid state amps and as for distortion, measurements don't always equal actual perception. There are tube amps with very high distortion patterns, which sound a lot more realistic and detailed than SS amps that measure better on THD.

Further, cold and analytical doesn't mean tonally accurate. For instance, I recently heard a balanced Dynamight extensively for several hours with various headphones from various multi thousand sources. The amp was fast, detailed, soundstageous and cold. Many consider the Gilmore Design to be "neutral". But does the coldness or "analytical" sound signature make the amp more accurate? I don't think so. Despite its technical greatness, a lot of things didn't sound realistic to my ears. Sometimes, warmth is what makes the music sound more realistic but I wouldn't want warmth when when it's not needed. One can philosophize about "What's really on the recording?" but we don't even have to go that far. For example, if you say that your other amp sounded fatiguing, how can that be tonally accurate? Music and sounds in real life are not faitguing either.

Well, I'm not an expert on this matter and I think experience to tell whether something is accurate or not is what counts in the audio world. Which kind of factors this experience might consist of, I don't know. However, I believe that every audiophile's ultimate goal is to make a system sound good and so far the best solution presented to me is "comparison by contrast" as marketeted by Audio Note's Road to Audio Hell article because you don't want everything to sound the same. Tube goodness can only be good when it's used in the appropriate way. I wouldn't want a thick layer of tube warmth when listening to music that sounds best when being "cold" and I think the best tube amps can do that just as well as SS amps can provide the necessary emotion for other kinds of music.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 3:50 PM Post #43 of 72
LOL, I think we scared the poor guy who started this thread away. One simple question and look at the discussion that breaks out! I'll be back later to add to the thoughts...
tongue.gif
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 3:50 PM Post #44 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda
Further, cold and analytical doesn't mean tonally accurate. For instance, I recently heard a balanced Dynamight extensively for several hours with various headphones from various multi thousand sources. The amp was fast, detailed, soundstageous and cold. Many consider the Gilmore Design to be "neutral". But does the coldness or "analytical" sound signature make the amp more accurate? I don't think so. Despite its technical greatness, a lot of things didn't sound realistic to my ears. Sometimes, warmth is what makes the music sound more realistic but I wouldn't want warmth when when it's not needed. One can philosophize about "What's really on the recording?" but we don't even have to go that far. For example, if you say that your other amp sounded fatiguing, how can that be tonally accurate? Music and sounds in real life are not faitguing either.


Fatiguing is probably a little over-stated, I'm highlighting a difference in sound type, more than an actual effect. By analytical, I mean it's easier to say, pick out the nuances (a singer's breath, someone talking in the background before a track, the exact punchyness of the drums/bass, etc etc ) and this analytical nature of the amp is more "tiring" to listen to, for me. I find I'm LOOKING for these things when I listen to that amp. When I listen to the M³ in contrast, I'm listening to the music as a whole, and with it I derive more enjoyment from the music. Yes it is "warmer", yes it is good sounding, fast, detailed, but it's a smooth fun amp, whereas the dtpa (which I hear sounds very similar to the ppa with discrete buffers but faster) is colder, and more neutral in terms of tonal colouration, to my ears.

As for speakers vs headphones, the major difference is the whole crossfeed effect of speakers as I understand it (if oversimplified with this statement).

further: I think tube amps on the whole have a warmness to them, so while you may try to put sterile music through them, they will still (to an extent) have the luscious tubey "warmness" added to the music. While this may not be the "Ideal" it is what I perceive. Same goes for the clinical feel of solid state (with the exception of mosfets, and other such devices)
 
Jul 11, 2005 at 4:07 PM Post #45 of 72
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexhifi
It's interesting to look for a completely flat frequency curve when we don't HEAR that way. Our ears (at normal listening levels) hears the frequency response like an upside-down "V". Our strongest hearing is right around the human voice (surprise, surprise).
. . .
Isn't it strange to look for a flat frequency response when we are talking about ears that cannot hear them flat?
smily_headphones1.gif



Not necessarily, imo the 'quest' for flat FR is trying to find best reproduction of sound / music - freq response wise that will be 0db in 0db out, within human hearing range - i.e. indifferent to live music, regardless our sensitivity to loudness.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top