[jude]

To be fair, Tyll and I have exchanged very cordial emails this week, and I don't feel there are any issues between us. We're both curious and will look further into this. He's asked for other measurements from me of other headphones (just for further comparisons), and we'll exchange all that (and those measurements will also be posted on Head-Fi).

This has been a more impassioned discussion than I expected, but this is also a community passionate about the hobby, so that happens. But, to be clear, Tyll and I are not bickering behind the scenes--to the contrary, actually.

---

On a separate note, I have previously posted other measurements of a couple of headphones that many here are familiar with, using the G.R.A.S. 45BB-12 KEMAR:

• Sennheiser x Massdrop HD 6XX (also with the HD 650): https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/s...view-preview-head-fi-tv.824703/#post-12981409 (this one reflects diffuse field correction)
  
  
• Periodic Audio Be (but the one that more are familiar in this one is the Etymotic ER4SR): https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/periodic-audio-iems-mg-ti-be.840451/page-8#post-13421091 (this one is uncompensated)

Due to changes in the measurement setup since then (including replacing the Rupert Neve Designs RNHP with the Audio Precision APx1701 as the amp), we will be posting re-runs of some measurements, but I think you can expect similar looking results.

 

[jscmd2000]

Well said, beowulf.

If Jude and Tyll don't have problems with each other, the rest of us should chill out.

 

[Undertones]

Let's not take this topic too seriously. @Tyll Hertsens and @jude have been in the hobby for ages and - as far as I've seen throughout the years - they mostly respect each other's opinion and methods, even with different preferences sometimes. They're both also experienced enough to be able to stand for their own opinions without needing any followers. There's a bubble of negativity [herd-like,IMHO] towards the Z1R in "the other places" but this thread is mostly vigorous in the opposite direction, sometimes equally hyped; Nothing new there, it's up to the potential customer to follow some gut and logic to discern between noise and facts.

What I'd like to see is Tyll having an open mind towards the Z1R and considering its strengths a bit more carefully, using more samples he might be receiving. His initial impression was - in my opinion - excessively negative, but I also believe it was not intentional at all. In parallel, Jude likes the Z1R, so it will be interesting to read his fresh thoughts on some negatives, probably taking into account more measurement data too. An open mind on both sides might yield a good twistaroo to the story.

I find quite interesting that these two guys are diverging on a model that I know very well by now [and really like in general] and I'm very curious to see how their opinions about it mature after more exploration. Tyll had some good points and knows his stuff, Jude has some good points (and awesome new gear to provide a lot of interesting measurements) so let's give these guys some space and time to explore the Z1R, without taking it too personal...

Are you implying that Tyll was closed minded and made a poor review based upon him not liking it. It's not as if Tyll doesn't have a massive collection of headphones to compare the Z1R to. Lets not throw so much shade around. Few people have spent as much time reviewing as him and even fewer have heard or have a collection as large as his own for quick reference.

Tylls reviews seem to put a lot of focus on frequency response, especially following the Harman curve. I really hope headphone manufacturers don't all aim to fit the Harman curve as closely as possible - how boring this hobby would become if every headphone sounded the same! I applaud Sony for doing their own thing and going for their own sound. I personally like the Z1R, but I can understand that others won't like it - and that's a big part of why this hobby is fun and enjoyable!

Frequency response is by far the most important factor in preference. That is just a fact. You can have a 0.01% THD headphone but if the frequency is extremely unbalanced then it will sound bad to you and nothing else will make it sound otherwise. A headphone like the HD600 is still a top recommendation precisely because it has an agreeable frequency response to many whereas others like the DT990 are much less popular.

 

[mypasswordis]

To all the people claiming the frequency response is deeply flawed:

Almost all of these graphs seem to have a "spike" at 8-10kHz:
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-two

Anyone see any similarities between those graphs, this one, and Jude's uncompensated Z1R graph?

 

[beowulf]

Are you implying that Tyll was closed minded and made a poor review based upon him not liking it.

That's an easy answer. Like the super obvious. No.

 

[Undertones]

That's an easy answer. Like the super obvious. No.

Well apologies then but when people start talking about how others need to have an open mind it implies they were closed minded and biased against something.

 

[james444]

Harman International's research was centered on the desire to sell audio equipment. They wanted to target listener preferences that would reach the widest audience. So they researched what frequency response would give them the highest preference among listeners. They don't care if the music is accurate, they want people to enjoy themselves. In that way, they don't care if they distort the music, as long as it is distorted in such a way that the most people like the sound.

Maybe. However, here's what they found out:

Listeners Prefer Headphones With An Accurate, Neutral Spectral Balance
When the listening test results were statistically analyzed, the main effect on the preference rating was due to the different headphones. The preferred headphone models were perceived as having the most neutral, even spectral balance with the less preferred models having too much or too little energy in the bass, midrange or treble regions. Frequency analysis of listeners' comments confirmed listeners' spectral balance ratings of the headphones, and proved to be a good predictor of overall preference. The most preferred headphones were frequently described as "good spectral balance, neutral with low coloration, and good bass extension," whereas the less preferred models were frequently described as "dull, colored, boomy, and lacking midrange".

You'll also note that some of the best selling most popular audio equipment sold these days are Beats headphones and Bose speakers. Just sayin'..

Looking at the individual listener preferences, we found good agreement among listeners in terms of which models they liked and disliked. Some of the most commercially successful models were among the least preferred headphones in terms of sound quality.

Source: [URL='http://seanolive.blogspot.co.at/2013/04/the-relationship-between-perception-and.html']"Relationship between Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality" by Sean Olive[/URL]

Sorry for the somewhat OT post. But I'd encourage those interested to read the first-hand account of Harman's research.

 

[headr]

Tyll doesn't typically do bad reviews, so his Z1R review was a bit uncharacteristic. It was also relatively short. His comparison to the M50x I took to be his honest opinion, but in the context of the review, there wasn't really much room for nuance, and owing to it's relatively short length, and the fact that there aren't many negative Tyll reviews to compare them with, it's a recipe for big headlines with not much substance.

Jude's original post in this thread regarding measurements was short, to the point, and had similar issues with lack of context and data. He shared his results, gave some high level thoughts on his interpretation of the results, and wanted to share with the community.

Perhaps there is an argument to be made here that Tyll's approach to this review and it's subsequent reaction are indicative he didn't handle things "perfectly". The same could be said of Jude's initial reveal of his measurements for the Z1R. That said, it seems to me the simplest Occam's Razor explanation, is that these are two passionate headphone enthusiasts, who have an obvious love for this hobby, who simply wanted to share things they thought were important. And perhaps, all things considered, given how much of a service the two of them provide in the broader community of headphone enthusiasts, perhaps we could forgive them for not doing absolutely everything "perfectly" every single time.

 

[Beagle]

If criticism is valid then it should be listened to. It doesn't matter who says it.

If you haven't heard it, you have no opinion on it.

 

[greggf]

Tyll has always stressed measurements because he was the only one who had the gear, and that allowed him to sound more "authoritative". That situation is now over. Interesting times.

 

[nordkapp]

The problem with Tyll isn't that he doesn't like the Z1R. It's that he professes them bad and a poor value. It's as if he possess some profound truth based upon measurements and completely arbitrary standards.

"Truth" no longer exists as such, whether we like it or not.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

We're offended that Tyll would be so cocksure in such a 1950's way. Is this how the media conglomerate that operates STEREOPHILE and INNERFIDELITY, The Enthusiast Network, wants to go forward, with an angry ol' man telling us to get off his lawn?

+1

 

[Sonic Defender]

...

btw, I'm sorry to learn of your present circumstances and hope that you'll be in a position to acquire another pair of z1r's in the near future.

Hey mate, sorry to be late thanking you for the well wishes, I had meant to and got called away from my computer and then forgot. I really appreciate the well wishes, and yes, I actually liked the Z1R enough that I would certainly consider reacquiring one if that was ever possible. Cheers.

 

[JimL11]

Correction: I portray them as if there is no scientific consensus for a frequency response target to model accuracy, which I believe if you peel back all the layers from all the discussion here, is what some people are assuming regarding what frequency response graphs tell them.

Dr Olive's research for the Harman curve "objectively analyzed subjective responses" yes, and the key term in that is: subjective responses. Harman International's research was centered on the desire to sell audio equipment. They wanted to target listener preferences that would reach the widest audience. So they researched what frequency response would give them the highest preference among listeners. They don't care if the music is accurate, they want people to enjoy themselves. In that way, they don't care if they distort the music, as long as it is distorted in such a way that the most people like the sound.

If someone is truly chasing accuracy above musical enjoyment - such that it doesn't matter if you want to pour bleach in your ears after listening as long as what you hear matches the artist's intention - the Harman curve is one of the worst frequency response targets to use, because the fundamental basis for it isn't accuracy, but rather people's enjoyment.

So you can see why it is a bit ironic for people to be acosting fans of the Z1R for distorting the artist's intention, while putting the Harman curve on a pedestal of musical accuracy.

Your comparison of frequency response targets to medical trials I think is revealing of a fundamental misunderstanding of frequency response targets. People who follow objective measurements of headphones seem to want to equate things like the Harman curve to the theory of gravity, such that people who deny the Harman curve are akin to flat earthers. But the Harman curve is not like the theory of gravity, it is like a recipe for an omlette. If you averaged people's taste, and wanted to sell a good tasting omelette to the most people, you would have some standard ingredients mixed in a standard way. The Harman curve encapsulates that recipe for audio.
.

Well not really. The situation is not nearly as dire as you portray it. I think you are missing the background and history of Sean Olive and Floyd Toole's research at both Harman and the National Research Council of Canada. Their initial research was in loudspeakers, trying to determine the objective qualities that described the subjectively best sounding loudspeakers. What they found was that the predominant quality of the subjectively best sounding loudspeakers using trained listeners was...(pause for emphasis) a FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE. Now, since loudspeakers are broadcasting into a room, frequency response is somewhat variable depending on how you measure it, on-axis, off-axis, power response, etc. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that speakers with flat frequency response tend to sound the best subjectively. Toole made an analogy with the visual arts that makes sense - when viewing a painting or photo, most people prefer viewing it under white light rather than colored lights.

This is the background that they brought into their research on headphone frequency response. Yes, the research is aimed at finding the best subjective frequency response curve for headphones, but behind it is their research that says that best subjective frequency response is one that sounds flat, neutral, whatever term you want to use. It is NOT completely arbitrary as you seem to suggest.

Furthermore, I think there is a relatively broad consensus among experienced listeners on what is neutral in headphones. For example, within the context of relatively neutral headphones, I think there is general agreement that, say, the Sennheiser HD800 and Stat SR009 are on the analytical side whereas the Sennheiser HD650 and Audezes are on the warm side. This suggests that there is indeed a target frequency response curve that fits somewhere in between the measured frequency response curves of these headphones, whether it be the Harman curve or something similar to it.

 

[canali]

have my sony z1r up for sale...i'm just not into cans (sigh)
so nothing about the sound sig (only listened to them for 5min, pink noise burn in 20 hrs)
am original owner so pm me if interested.

i just feel that spending 2k for cans isn't worth it (for ME, that is)..esp when i don't listen
to music as much as others (prefer my desktop focal alpha 50s)...also have my sony mdr 7520
closed cans for home/portable...which i might also sell or send into sonarworks for pro calibration..am selling my mint senn 650s, too.
i prefer my portable gig more: FLC 8S and chord mojo when out and about.

suggestions are welcomed:
love rock, blues, jazz...detail, balance, great bass slam (but not overdone)

and no, marv and ring-in-ears and others from Super..
i'm not getting out of this hobby...to think you're ''the iceberg..'
smh...puh lease...tone down your haughtiness...jesus.
recalibrate your meds..

 

[JimL11]

I think the problem with a review such as Tyll did was declaring the headphones to be bad. If a lot of people like them, but they are technically flawed and don't meet the reviewer's tastes, are they really "bad"? If a product succeeds in the goals set by the manufacturer, and it satisfies many people, what is the problem? It (they) might be "bad" for some people. If we fix a set of criteria, including the tastes of a person, or a handful of people as what is "good" then we'll end up with a lot of headphones and equipment that only suits that person or people. That would be very boring.

I think it's good Sony dared to do something different, instead of following the current trends. I was lucky enough to have a variety of headphones here at the same time as the Sonys. While I like the more technically excellent MrSpeakers, HiFiMan and Focal headphones, there were times when I reached for the Z1Rs and enjoyed listening with them. I did sometimes consider buying a pair, but not in the end as their flaws intruded too much on my ability to enjoy them fully with all the music I like.

I disagree with this. One purpose of a reviewer/critic is to distinguish good from bad, and point people towards one and away from the other. Of course, audio must be pleasing to the listener, but high fidelity (remember that old term?) is self-descriptive as to its goal - it is to reproduce faithfully. If a headphone fails to do so, it is by definition not high fidelity, and the reviewer's obligation is to say so. To do otherwise is an abrogation of responsibility. After all, one major reason for a reviewer's existence is to sift through a large market and identify items that are worthy of attention. And with a good and experienced reviewer, the reader can compare their tastes with his or hers and decide whether to accept or discount their conclusions.

That doesn't mean that a listener, or group of listeners, might not prefer inaccuracy - after all, we all have heard (suffered) people listening to their car audios at high volume, turning their cars into subwoofers that blast everyone within a city block. Obviously they like it, as much as it may afflict the rest of us. A critic saying it is bad will not dissuade someone who likes that sound from listening to, or buying it. In fact, as long as said critic describes the sound accurately, it may actually lead some people to buy it because that's what they like.

Finally, in a way you are contradicting yourself, because first you say it's bad that Tyll said they were bad, but then you admit they were too flawed for you to buy a pair.