[Sonic Defender]

I've been following this "debacle", here and elsewhere, for quite a bit now, and really you guys have simply confirmed that I AM RIGHT in doing what I've done all along. And that is:-

Listen to what what you enjoy, and not what you've been told to enjoy by some loud idiot on a small internet site.

Personally I'm going to check these out next weekend as from what everybody has said these may well have a tonal balance that's right up my street.

What I would suggest you really listen for is the very rich soundstage. Since selling mine I notice very easily how 2D my other headphones sound. While not exaggerated to the point of being artificial I find the Z1R had a very organic and 3D sense to how it presented music. There was depth behind vocals. That is one quality I miss greatly already. Everything else I listen to now seems far less engaging in the vocals.

 

[kman1211]

What I would suggest you really listen for is the very rich soundstage. Since selling mine I notice very easily how 2D my other headphones sound. While not exaggerated to the point of being artificial I find the Z1R had a very organic and 3D sense to how it presented music. There was depth behind vocals. That is one quality I miss greatly already. Everything else I listen to now seems far less engaging in the vocals.

That's one of my favorite things about the Z1R when I heard it. Not many headphones can portray 3 dimensionality of the image very well. I found I got a nice tactile texture and physical presence to the sound. Really want to spend more time listening to the Z1R sometime. I actually really dislike headphones that sound flat in their imaging, honestly it's why I settled on Beyers for the time being until I can afford something higher-end. The Z1R is on the top of my list. I'm sorry you had to let go of the Z1R.

 

[Sonic Defender]

That's one of my favorite things about the Z1R when I heard it. Not many headphones can portray 3 dimensionality of the image very well. I found I got a nice tactile texture and physical presence to the sound. Really want to spend more time listening to the Z1R sometime. I actually really dislike headphones that sound flat in their imaging, honestly it's why I settled on Beyers for the time being until I can afford something higher-end. The Z1R is on the top of my list. I'm sorry you had to let go of the Z1R.

Thanks mate, I'm sorry as well, but in a world with real problems I guess I'll count my blessings. I do hope you get to own the Z1R, it is quite special I think. And the build quality, it is deceptively under stated, but when you really hold it and take the time to appreciate the design it is hard not to think it is beautiful.

 

[Vansen]

I’ve been spending the past week with the Z1R on loan. I have to say that my impressions, simply put, are very much in line with Tyll’s. I don’t really care for the Z1R, with my prime point of contention against the headphone being the exaggerated bass emphasis. And that emphasis seems to venture a little too much pass bass the bass range, too. I could probably forgive the funky stuff going on in the treble range if it wasn’t for the bass also not being to my liking.

What I do love about this headphone is it’s build: it’s beautiful, it’s solid, it’s light, and it’s comfortable. I wish all headphone looked this good and were built this well.

 

[up late]

A lot of things are being confused here. Speaker measurements, Harman curve for speakers, Harman curve for headphones, and so on.

The Harman curve is fundamentally based on listener preferences. I don't know why people are so resistant to this idea, as it is called out clearly in the research. The curve is defined by what people preferred. It seems many people are not basing their opinions here regarding the actual research, but rather what they wish the research said. How very unscientific of you.

As to speakers measured in an anechoic chamber, it seems to me you couldn't pick a worse baseline measurement for audio reproduction, as it doesn't meet any criteria. An artist could not possible intent their listeners to listen in an anechoic chamber, a sound engineer does not mix in an anechoic chamber, a listener does not listen in an anechoic chamber. How many listeners even know how music sounds inside an anechoic chamber? I'd guess under 1% of listeners. Perhaps even 1% of artists themselves. So if we are trying to say that accuracy implies an artist's intention, an anechoic chamber is irrelevant.

As such, there is a very real basis for attacking the fundamental definition of neutral in the Harman studies.

That said, even if we assume such a baseline, people's taste differed from a totally flat response in Harman's research. This is also explicitly called out in the research. People didn't like acoustics that generated a flat response, even when room corrected for a totally flat response. This is the basis for the Harman curve - people preferred something different.

Now here is where the sleight of hand comes in, and marketing takes over. Harman wants to redefine this Harman curve as what natural means, because they want to say, that the curve fixes inherent problems in the speakers and the room to give a totally "natural" presentation. You can see how this is a rather loaded assumption, because they already knew how to correct the room for a totally flat response - and that isn't what people liked.

I encourage people to read the following as well (pay particular attention to the figure on page 17, which shows Harman curve deviating from a room corrected flat response): http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20170625/17839.pdf

Finally, Dr. Olive's research showed that in the context of headphones, people preferred yet another Harman curve which deviated itself from the speaker Harman curve which, to remind you, deviated itself from how a totally flat frequency response was defined (again, if you are paying attention, we are using the dubious assumption that the anechoic chamber is the ultimate ideal for flat and neutral).

In short, by making the jump from "the Harman curve encapsulated listener preferences" to literally "the Harman curve is the objective standard for natural sound for all people everywhere" is a rather large leap that would please Harman's marketing department very much.

Point being, if you truly want to be objective and scientific, limit yourself to what the actual science is saying. Any statement that presupposes the Harman curve as a target is a subjective value determination.

"I subjectivity choose the Harman target for headphones as my accuracy target, because I subjectively believe that preference consensus to the target threshold of 87% of listeners is enough to define said accuracy target".

It's subjectivity all the way down folks.

for the sake of clarity, i have been referring to the Harman target response curve for headphones in our exchanges.

who are these folks that "are so resistant to this idea" that the (objective) research undertaken by dr olive and his team at harman international is based on subjective responses? and why do you say that it has been "called out" rather than stated? it's not as if they had anything to hide. and there is no "sleight of hand". they're not playing a magic trick designed to deceive the audience. again, your choice of language reveals your bias.

there is nothing dubious about using an anechoic chamber for the purpose of measuring a loudspeaker's frequency response. they have been used in loudspeaker design for decades and headphone manufacturers have obviously seen the advantages in using them to measure a headphone's performance in a completely silent environment that is free from sonic artifacts caused by room reflections. this enables the loudspeaker or headphone designer to ascertain how the loudspeaker or headphone performs in isolation, trouble shoot and make adjustments accordingly. remember that the designer/manufacturer of any loudspeaker or headphone can tweak the frequency response to achieve their desired sound, and they do. this is not unique to Harman international and its subsidiaries.

the BBC built its own anechoic chamber in the 1960's and used it during the design of its legendary post-war monitors with the objective being to produce a "neutral" transducer. alan shaw of harbeth continued with this methodology of taking measurements in the same anechoic chamber (before it was eventually demolished) and free field measurements during the design of his loudspeakers, which are renowned for being "musica!" - go figure! chances are that the "high fidelity" loudspeakers you own have been tested in an anechoic chamber during the design process. and there is no logical connection between measuring loudspeakers and headphones in an anechoic chamber and "what the artist intended". it is the transducers that are being measured, not "the artist's intention" which is impossible to know with any certainty, let alone measure.

and again, who is saying that "the Harman curve is the objective standard for natural sound for all people everywhere"? it is an objective standard, not the objective standard; there are others.

I thought we were done with this debate but regarding your comments in bold, if you are going to continue to describe the Harman target response curve for headphones in that way, then you should do the same for every objective finding, model and standard that has been arrived at through research involving the collation and analysis of data derived from subjective responses.

 

[nanaholic]

For a little something different, yesterday I ventured away from my usual music diet of J-pop and anime music and listened to the Guardian of the Galaxy Vol.2 Awesome Mix CD that I got last week (long story short - the transformer of my Focal Book XS desk speakers that I use for my computer, which are active speakers, decided to blow itself up for no reason, with them being well outside of warranty and as all the electronics are complicatedly stuffed inside the speaker unit so there's no chance to revive them myself so I went shopping for a replacement and got a pair of KEF Eggs on discount from a big chain electronic store as they are running a Father's Day deal and the shop threw in the CD for free, actually quite fitting if you've seen the movie, heh). While I'm not terribly familiar with the music but I do know them, not just from the movie - since, yes, I do have fond memories from my own childhood when my dad would listen to Cat Stevens on his own awesome speaker setup (which includes large B&W floor speakers and huge Audio Research amps). Now I'll be lying through my teeth if I said I remember what those speakers sounded like and started comparing them to my Z1R, but just straight out of my 1Z walkman the music brought me straight back to the scene where the music were played, and it was just so enjoyable and fun sitting in my bed listening to them. There's a certain style to the music of that era that seems to lend itself to the Z1R which I cannot pinpoint, perhaps it's the simplicity or the arrangements (relative to modern music), or the slightly rasp male vocals that adds some rawness to the music, but I was just really getting submerged in the music, and it was really exciting to recall the exciting scenes where those music was played during the movie. Just really pure fun to listen to.

 

[ChijiroKuro]

Greetings from Spain to all!!!

It's very hot these days to listen to headphones with leather pads. This days I hear more the GH-2 (day) or the LCD-4 (night) with velour pads (yes, I change the pads for summer, only).
The Z1R is amazing in all terms but: Are velour pads for them?

Thank´s in advance!!

PD: waiting for 3,5 jacks...

 

[Sp12er3]

If any of you still wonder about how well Z1R's passive isolation is go to Youtube and search for ZReview's burn in (and later, Sound demo) test of it, he used a mic that's inserted into a Yoga block to place the headphone for tens of hours while monitoring it's sound with an HD600 (and of course recording it.. go out and back in in 10-16-32-64-128 mark hours to do check in), maybe if any of you hear a change? or have enough free time to do a proper analysis of before-after from it's FLAC samples?
Zeos' recordings are useful as always if you have a gear with relatively neutral signature may help you gander the sound sig of the gears he records.
It isolates just as much as I remember it did.

Interesting to say the least.

 

[Marc Lian]

A pair of speakers placed in a room doesn't actually display the Harman Curve, especially if that pair of speakers does not measure flat FR like the speakers used in the experiment.

A pair of speakers WILL display the Harman Curve if it measures flat in an anechoic chamber and placed in a normal room. Even if it's a speaker that doesn't measure flat it will still have boosted bass and rolled off highs as a result of the acoustic effect of room gain, which is the main characteristic of the Harman Curve. I'm not arguing that the test for listener preference between flat and Harman Curve is not subjective rather I said it pretty succinctly in my previous post that I'm just not surprised that majority felt the Harman Curve was more pleasing as it's what the average human ears are used to due to the fact that we hear the acoustic effects of room gain everyday in our lives.

 

[nanaholic]

A pair of speakers WILL display the Harman Curve if it measures flat in an anechoic chamber and placed in a normal room.

No it doesn't. The Harman Curve measurement is very specific about it's experiment setup, and we know that a slight deviation from that setup should and will cause those measurements to be off due to the nature of acoustics. Now following below:

Even if it's a speaker that doesn't measure flat it will still have boosted bass and rolled off highs as a result of the acoustic effect of room gain, which is the main characteristic of the Harman Curve.

That's the correct thing you should be saying in the beginning - that any speaker placed in a room will display CHARACTERISTICS similar to the Harman Curve - which is boosted bass and recessed treble. But it's not THE Harman Curve, which is very specifically a pair of speakers that measures flat in FR, placed in a very particular arrangement, and the resulting FR measured at a very specific point in space. There's a HUGE difference between the two statements that should not and cannot be confused as the same. A simple thought experiment can easily prove this - a speaker with a FR that is the inverse of the Harman Curve when measured at the measuring point will not show the Harman Curve but instead be flat.... plus you yourself have just stated the prerequisite of the experiment above....

 

[Marc Lian]

for the sake of clarity, i have been referring to the Harman target response curve for headphones in our exchanges.

who are these folks that "are so resistant to this idea" that the (objective) research undertaken by dr olive and his team at harman international is based on subjective responses? and why do you say that it has been "called out" rather than stated? it's not as if they had anything to hide. and there is no "sleight of hand". they're not playing a magic trick designed to deceive the audience. again, your choice of language reveals your bias.

there is nothing dubious about using an anechoic chamber for the purpose of measuring a loudspeaker's frequency response. they have been used in loudspeaker design for decades and headphone manufacturers have obviously seen the advantages in using them to measure a headphone's performance in a completely silent environment that is free from sonic artifacts caused by room reflections. this enables the loudspeaker or headphone designer to ascertain how the loudspeaker or headphone performs in isolation, trouble shoot and make adjustments accordingly. remember that the designer/manufacturer of any loudspeaker or headphone can tweak the frequency response to achieve their desired sound, and they do. this is not unique to Harman international and its subsidiaries.

the BBC built its own anechoic chamber in the 1960's and used it during the design of its legendary post-war monitors with the objective being to produce a "neutral" transducer. alan shaw of harbeth continued with this methodology of taking measurements in the same anechoic chamber (before it was eventually demolished) and free field measurements during the design of his loudspeakers, which are renowned for being "musica!" - go figure! chances are that the "high fidelity" loudspeakers you own have been tested in an anechoic chamber during the design process. and there is no logical connection between measuring loudspeakers and headphones in an anechoic chamber and "what the artist intended". it is the transducers that are being measured, not "the artist's intention" which is impossible to know with any certainty, let alone measure.

and again, who is saying that "the Harman curve is the objective standard for natural sound for all people everywhere"? it is an objective standard, not the objective standard; there are others.

I thought we were done with this debate but regarding your comments in bold, if you are going to continue to describe the Harman target response curve for headphones in that way, then you should do the same for every objective finding, model and standard that has been arrived at through research involving the collation and analysis of data derived from subjective responses.

Wow thanks for this, my thoughts summed in a nice package.

 

[headr]

there is nothing dubious about using an anechoic chamber for the purpose of measuring a loudspeaker's frequency response.

Absolutely - it offers a very good baseline for one reason and one reason alone - it removes confounding variables and allows studies to cross reference each other without those variables confounding results. From a purely scientific perspective, it makes sense as a baseline.

If you read what I actually said, the dubious part is assuming that the music presentation in an anechoic chamber is at all "natural", "neutral", or "desirable".

Harman's research starts from the position that sound reproduction inside a anehoic chamber is the very definition of neutral. That is the aspect that is dubious.

And if you consider the conclusions of the Harman research itself, in which no one preferred a room equalized frequency response that mimiced an anechoic chamber, you'll understand how Harman's own research confirms this.

In fact, I'm not aware of any study which correlates the absolutely flat acoustics of an anechoic chamber with anyone's preference for ideal sound reproduction.

All of these things support my original claim that assuming an anechoic chamber is natural/neutral/desirable is dubious. When proposing an ideal target for sound reproduction defined as neutral/natural/desirable - the acoustics in an anechoic chamber are not a good definition for that.

That is where the hand waving from Harman comes in. They want to say that listener preferences magically correct for optimal ideal frequency response. The fact that 87% of listeners preferred the Harman curve, they argue, is evidence that it is natural/neutral/"correct". There is scientific evidence that 87% of listeners prefer the Harman curve, there is zero scientific evidence for the sweeping claim that listener preference implies neutral/natural sound reproduction.

So again, my point is simply that by choosing Harman has an objective standard, you are making a subjective determination about what is important to you (which, in turn, is based on the subjective determinations of the research subjects involved in the study). 87% of listeners agreeing with a certain sound signature is, subjectively to you, enough to propose an objective standard. Your objective standard target is fundamentally based on your own subjective value decision.

You have used a lot of words to dance around this point, and stopped short of admitting this in all of our exchanges. I long ago said that the Harman curve is one objective standard of many, and that you can make objective decisions regarding equipment that deviates from it. The manner in which you are continuing to reply to me, you continually want to weasel out of admiting that by even choosing the Harman standard in the first place, you are making a subjective decision, and you don't want to admit that it is "subjectivity all the way down".

 

[pietcux]

SOUND SCIENCE FORUM.......

 

[nordkapp]

Guys, interesting read. It kinda reminded me of this ongoing debate here. Sort of.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/06/what-is-a-music-first-audiophile/

It may apply to the Z1R.

 

[Beagle]

Guys, interesting read. It kinda reminded me of this ongoing debate here. Sort of.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2017/06/what-is-a-music-first-audiophile/

It may apply to the Z1R.

Yes this is the way it used to be...the folks who would buy the audio gear and the folks who sold it at hi-fi shops. They would more often pull you into the store to hear a cool piece of music than a new piece of gear.