I'm going to try some black foam from a ksc75 earpads swap to yaxi pads, will try fit to the notch and attach with some double sided tape, see how that goes. I might try that today, will post results.
Ok so I tried this, cut a single ksc75 earpad in half, I tried to stuff it in, and also tried some double sided tape, and while the result was much more aesthetically pleasing, the foam of the earpad just isn't as soft as cotton wool so it is a little annoying. I've gone back to the little bits of white cotton wool, which I'm very pleased with. Might try and see if I can find some black dyed cotton wool somewhere, as that would be perfect I reckon.
What would be a headphone that might be more expensive, but better in any way than 560S , and not require an amp, and have a decent built, and not uggly?
I am interested in analytic sound, as close to Hartman as possible.
It's not 600,650,660S,800. So ?
And ... I haven't seen comparison to Audeze LCD-1 , have anyone compared?
What would be a headphone that might be more expensive, but better in any way than 560S , and not require an amp, and have a decent built, and not uggly?
I am interested in analytic sound, as close to Hartman as possible.
It's not 600,650,660S,800. So ?
And ... I haven't seen comparison to Audeze LCD-1 , have anyone compared?
What would be a headphone that might be more expensive, but better in any way than 560S , and not require an amp, and have a decent built, and not uggly?
I am interested in analytic sound, as close to Hartman as possible.
It's not 600,650,660S,800. So ?
And ... I haven't seen comparison to Audeze LCD-1 , have anyone compared?
We discussed a few pages ago about how difficult it is, for various reasons, to be certain that two headphones have the same FR curve response at a listener’s eardrum, and how difficult it is to base your idea of a particular FR curve target based on someone else’s EQ presets.
So I thought that a concrete illustration of how EQ presets may still differ quite significantly when on someone's head may be interesting. I’ve measured with in-ear mics on my own head the HD560S and the HD650, both with Oratory1990’s EQ presets for Harman’s target.
Luck would have it, the various headphones that I've tried over the years made me realise that my mirrors have been lying to me all along and that I actually look like this, so I think that I'm a pretty neat subject for that sort of test :
What I actually just meant is that a lot of headphones are still very poorly designed to ensure a consistent fit across a wide range of listeners. I'm much more handsomely normal than that (so says my mum, but I'm not sure I can trust her either). I blame headphones manufacturers, not my head (for which I haven't had any complaints).
Some important clarifications regarding these measurements below. This is long so I’ve put them under the spoiler banner. But to make it short :
THESE RESULTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO YOU. ON YOUR HEAD THE SAME METHODOLOGY IS LIKELY TO PRODUCE DIFFERENT RESULTS.
In other words, these measurements are only able to rationalise my own experience of these headphones, not yours.
For reasons detailed below, the confidence I can realistically have in these measurements has tolerances that differ across various parts of the FR range, and therefore should be interpreted with a lot (A LOT - I don’t think I was loud enough - A TREMENDOUS LOT) of care. In fact for reasons detailed below they're so inaccurate above 5khz that I'm not even going to show them in that range. So don't read too much into it.
Read the paragraph below for details. Feel free to criticise :
Equipment :
Microphones : Sound Professionals SP-TFB-2 high sensitivity. These are binaural microphones that you can insert in your concha - not deep in your ear canal, close to your eardrum (this has very serious implications). More on fitment issues later.
USB interface : Zoom H1n (connected to a MacBook Pro run on battery - the mic line in of the Zoom is susceptible to AC power issues on my Mac for some reason)
Software : Room EQ Wizard 5.1
Headphones DAC / amp : Qudelix 5K (largely enough power to drive both headphones to levels measurements can be made at and me to go deaf performing them).
The left and right microphones of the SP-TFB-2 were tested for FR curve matching (ie, are they the same ?) against a known near field monitor, aimed straight at it in somewhat near-field conditions (several measurements with slight re-positioning of the mics to make sure). The idea here is to know whether their FR curve is the same or not.
This is the case between 50-60hz and 5000hz - at least largely below other variability factors, so good enough.
Below 50-60hz I can’t test them with my speaker.
Above 5000hz they start to diverge, albeit in a fairly constant fashion (I think that I could eyeball a high-shelf calibration and make them somewhat valid up to around 8000-10000hz).
They were also tested for pseudo-linearity (ie, are they “flat-ish” ?) against a UMIK-1 + calibration file (which we’re going to presume is flat, but I can’t test for that, and most likely isn't perfect). I’m not confident about being too specific regarding the results for various reasons, but in the 50-60hz to 5000hz range I didn’t notice any red flag.
Now it is very, VERY important to note the following points :
My head is asymmetrical, and so are my ears. Even with a good seal, this may introduce variations between the left and right channels across the whole FR spectrum. For example, it’s not impossible that the overall volume of air between the drivers and my ears is slightly different because of jawline / neck thickness, etc. between the left and right sides, which could maybe affect bass response ? And obviously the shape of my ears is different.
Positioning of the mics can severely affect the FR curve response. The most egregious differences will be found above a few kHz, but they may start as soon as 700-800hz or so. A lot of care was given to position in the mics in my ears in a consistent way across several measurements, and even more care was given to position them in a way that the capsule isn’t obstructed by the features of my ears. Since these aren’t probe microphones one can insert deep into the ear canal no attempt was made to get somewhat realistic measurements above 1khz anyway, I just wanted repeatability.
Pads are always asymmetrical, even new ones, and can have an influence on the results. On that matter both headphones had recent stock pads, only lightly "broken in" by a few dozen hours of use (which IMO is how headphones' pads should be tested, not completely fresh out of the box).
Sample variation is a thing.
After dozens of measurements across a few days, I’m somewhat confident about the measurements but with different tolerances across different FR ranges, and only for relative differences for the most part, cf. below.
This also means that you can’t say anything about the headphones’ channel matching if it falls within +/- 1dB, particularly if it’s a broad, linear difference. Don’t read too much into that.
Sealing issues, ie variability in the response across different listeners, typically happen below 300hz or so, depending on the HPs' design. The results you will see correspond to MY OWN HEAD.
The influence of the shape of the ear on FR curve typically starts at around 1khz. The higher you go, the more important it is. Relevant paper here : https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
What does this mean ? That you have to chop up the FR curve into several different ranges and assess them according to different criteria for these measurements.
Below 50hz, the response of the mics is unknown both in terms of channel matching and linearity. I think that they should only be used for relative comparisons on the same channel. I also don't like to test at very loud volume on my own head so noise may be an issue.
Between 50hz and 1khz, the measured values may be used, with care and a pinch of salt, for absolute comparisons, but ON MY OWN HEAD below 300hz. With a +/- 1dB tolerance or so (we’re not being too precise here), and a good deal of circumspection. Between 300hz and 1khz the results may be not too dissimilar from what you’d experience on your head actually (like a head and torso simulator anyway).
Between 1khz and 4-5khz, the measured values may be used for RELATIVE comparisons only, and with an even stronger pinch of salt, and still ONLY ON MY OWN HEAD. I believe, after EQing headphones according to these relative differences, that the +/- 1dB tolerance may not hold that well in that range - particularly if the earcup design and volume are very different, but that the general “gist” of it does. I can still successfully EQ headphones according to results in that range to make them match better for me. I like to think of my confidence in that range as a gradient, with still reasonable confidence closer to 1khz and less and less as we move upwards. On your head, these results are likely to be different and you shouldn’t use them to judge how the headphones would behave for you, even in relative terms.
Above 5khz the results are totally inaccurate in every way. Not only because of the deficient channel matching between the two mics, but also because this is the range where individual variations start to go haywire, and because the type of mic used and their position within my ears make them necessarily and invariably inaccurate. So I’m not even going to show them, the results are useless and I can't even get started to EQ headphones on their basis. The peaks and valleys are not matching at all what I hear.
So, here are the results for one channel only (the other showed similar differences). Purple trace is the HD650 with Oratory1990’s EQ preset (Harman), red trace the HD560S with Oratory1990’s EQ preset (Harman) :
So what do we get ?
We can see that there remain quite significant differences, above the audibility threshold - and we aren’t even touching the range above 5000hz.
What could be the cause of these differences ? I’m not sure. I have a few hypothesis but I doubt that any one of them would hold to scrutiny to be honest and it’s probably best left to actual engineers .
What I know, however, is that the HD560S’s earcup / headband / yoke design prevents them from angling upwards and rotating backwards enough to conform well to my head shape, on both sides (a very frequent problem for me with headphones that try to reinvent the yoke mechanism I’ve noticed), while the more traditional yoke design of the HD650 has no problem doing so. The HD560S’ pads are also stiffer.
I also think that this article on pad compression may provide some pointers in regards to the wiggles Oratory1990 measured below 150hz on the HD560S which I knew from the get go, before my own measurements, I never experienced to such degree (we can see that on my head Oratory1990's profiles over-corrects them) : https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/earpads/
In the 1-2.5khz range I instantly noticed that Oratory1990's EQ for the HD560S wasn't going to work on my head when running sweeps and my own EQ doesn't follow it at all. No idea why the discrepancy, but this is the range where individual variations may start to happen. Perhaps with sample variation combined as well.
What to take from this :
If you think that you can EQ two headphones to reach the exact same FR curve at your eardrum - at least below threshold of hearing, particularly by using EQ presets, and therefore think that FR curve is a controlled variable and that you can attribute to other factors the cause of what you’re hearing, you’re most likely wrong .
These two headphones are fully open headphones (the volume of air between your ears and the driver is leaky by design), passive, made by a company fairly well known for decently tight tolerances for their audiophile range, and were already measuring somewhat similarly. Discrepancies between third party measurements and your own experience are likely to be (much) higher for other headphones, particularly for headphones with a closed front volume (closed headphones, most planars or electrostats, etc.) . If the headphones are poorly designed and manufactured to start with… it’s even worse *cough* AKG K371 *cough*.
ANC headphones with a feedback mechanism and an Adaptive EQ that can shape the FR curve in real time below 1khz or so to ensure a constant, precise FR curve delivered at your eardrum below that frequency are a great solution to these problems . Now we need the same sort of real-time compensation solution for above 1khz + anatomical compensation to tailor the FR curve to your own features (won't happen any time soon, it's unfeasible right now for a deliverable product).
In no way does it mean that HATS or third party measurements are useless, far from it ! A pair of headphones that measure really poorly on these (that’s the majority of headphones in existence) will not suddenly have a Cinderella moment on your own head and transform into a paragon of acoustics perfection. These measurements are immensely useful to weed out the crap. EQ presets are also extremely useful for headphones that deviate a lot from each others or from desired targets. After all, we're talking about two headphones here that already are two decently measuring headphones and the remaining differences aren't the end of the world .
In any which way the research that’s been done in regards to FR curve targets can’t be dismissed and we have a rather strong correlation between preference and decent adherence to these FR targets (within individual preferences variations which Harman’s research fully acknowledges and attempts to characterise - they’re not FR curve target nazis contrary to the way some people present their research) - at least up to a point.
But a pair of headphones that measure well may not measure quite as well on your own head, and EQing according to third party measurements can only help you go so far. The last leg of the journey needs to be done on your own for now - and it actually probably can’t be done above 5khz to a point where you can EQ two headphones to below audible differences anyway.
Are the HD 560s a good or bad step up from the HD 599 for a mix of non competitive gaming and music (EDM mainly). Would one find them too detailed and not mellow enough? Or are they kinda good in all areas, but not amazing in any specific area? Cheers.
Are the HD 560s a good or bad step up from the HD 599 for a mix of non competitive gaming and music (EDM mainly). Would one find them too detailed and not mellow enough? Or are they kinda good in all areas, but not amazing in any specific area? Cheers.
Ok probably not the best for my usage then. The Zeus is slightly outside of my price range looking at USD to CAD + shipping & duty.
How are the 58x Jubilee for a nice mellow/chill headphone vs the 560s being very detailed? Or are they similar and just more of a side grade to the 599? Thanks!
Are the HD 560s a good or bad step up from the HD 599 for a mix of non competitive gaming and music (EDM mainly). Would one find them too detailed and not mellow enough? Or are they kinda good in all areas, but not amazing in any specific area? Cheers.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
.
