[kman1211]

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.

No problem. Yeah the world has it's problems, thankfully I have some good friends to help me through. I hope so as well. Thankfully my Beyerdynamic Amiron Homes are satisfying me for the time being. The build on the Z1R is fantastic and really grows on you.

 

[Slaphead]

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.

Well, I went through that list and it totally and utterly applies to me.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I have myself really been guilty of taking this thread off topic, so I acknowledge that, but isn't it time that maybe this level of discussion move into the sound science forum? Not trying to be a censorist

No problem. Yeah the world has it's problems, thankfully I have some good friends to help me through. I hope so as well. Thankfully my Beyerdynamic Amiron Homes are satisfying me for the time being. The build on the Z1R is fantastic and really grows on you.

Yes, the build quality and stellar design of the Z1R is absolutely flagship worthy. It is so understated and light that it can be overlooked, but if you really take the time to hold and examine all of the nuanced design decisions and quality of construction the Z1R is outstanding in my opinion. There is a place for big heavy wooden cups, I can also appreciate that aesthetic, but damn Sony really knows how to design gear.

 

[nanaholic]

I'm opening an old can of worms here. I always wanted to own a pair of Denon ever since I got into headphones as they were always the alternative to the usual K701/DT880/HD650, never liked the D5000 nor the D7000 though, so pitting two old respected Japanese giants' return to form after a long depart with each other is gonna be fun. Saw these for 700 dollars new, too tempting to pass them up for a spin.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I'm opening an old can of worms here. I always wanted to own a pair of Denon ever since I got into headphones as they were always the alternative to the usual K701/DT880/HD650, never liked the D5000 nor the D7000 though, so pitting two old respected Japanese giants' return to form after a long depart with each other is gonna be fun. Saw these for 700 dollars new, too tempting to pass them up for a spin.

D7200? I hear that is a nice headphone, a friend of mine has it and seems to like it very much.

 

[nanaholic]

D7200? I hear that is a nice headphone, a friend of mine has it and seems to like it very much.

Yep D7200.

Long ago there was comparison between this and the Z1R, with some saying the D7200 would be their pick. It's a more neutral sounding phone compared to the Z1R and I can see why those who prefers neutral would pick this over the Z1R, though in the end both are "fun" headphones, just depends on how you like them seasoned. Comfort wise no contest though, Z1R hands down.... in fact I have a pressure point developing on the top of my head as I'm typing this while wearing the D7200....

 

[pietcux]

 

[up late]

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".

I'll address your last paragraph first. I don't dance and you have not said that “the Harman curve is one objective standard of many” until now, so I'll take that as a concession of sorts. you have said this, however:

"I think part of the blame is the rise of measurements in the first place. It gives the illusion of an objective standard by which to measure all other headphones. The problem is, it is just an illusion.”

“Strange, isn't it? People parade around these "reference curves" which are based entirely on people's preferences, then turn around and say that all preferences are invalid because accuracy is king. It's a certain ironic level of cognitive dissonance that is totally lost on them.”

“It's all over the top absurd. People can live and die by the accuracy illusion, because that's all it is, an illusion. A ghost. A false prophet. Chasing the dragon. The rest of us can get back to the music.”

you’re a dyed in the wool subjectivist and that’s your prerogative. If your goal all along has been for me to admit that by adopting the Harman headphone target response curve I would be making a subjective decision then I am happy to oblige – yes, of course it is. So what of it?

Is that really what you mean when you say “it is subjectivity all the way down’? if so, then based on your logic every choice I make renders the objective subjective and that is absurd. If I choose to use objective data, modelling, free-field, diffuse field or Harman target curves, census results etc., then I am making a subjective choice but what I have chosen is still objective.

with regard to the use of an anechoic chamber, you appear to be confusing it with a frequency response curve, which is actually the baseline or target. the anechoic chamber is used by audio engineers to measure the transducer against that target frequency response curve.

the measurements can be taken at a substantial distance away from the transducer in a large anechoic chamber. this can also be done outside in a suitably quiet environment. both methods are taking measurements in the “free field”. and as I said in my previous post, the objective is to obtain accurate loudspeaker measurements by eliminating sonic artifacts caused by room reflections.

and as I also said, Harman international isn’t the only loudspeaker manufacturer that does this. it’s common practice in the industry and has been for years. headphone manufacturers have also adopted it. so while you regard it as dubious, they clearly don’t.

with regard to your remaining points, well you’re just repeating yourself frankly, and I’ve already addressed them in my previous responses. the argument has become circular as these arguments usually do, so I think we should agree to disagree as they say.

here's a thought - let’s say that I audition a number of headphones and find myself preferring the pair that most closely aligns with the Harman target response curve, without actually knowing that it does. could that be compelling evidence for the accuracy of the Harman target response curve as a predictor of people’s sonic preferences and could that make it the new “objective” standard?

some interesting thoughts on "hard-core subjectivists" and neutrality in audio from a notorious headphone reviewer: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/response-cacophony-tyll-stance-reviewing

 

[JimL11]

So, Tyll has a nice blog post up which I think is well worth reading whether you agree or disagree (I happen to agree):

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/response-cacophony-tyll-stance-reviewing

 

[nc8000]

Well worth reading even if I don't agree with it all

 

[rnros]

SOUND SCIENCE FORUM.......

Indeed. Seems to be on an endless loop...
Perhaps, a new thread entitled "Headphone Review and Measurement Apologetics"?

 

[Whitigir]

So, Tyll has a nice blog post up which I think is well worth reading whether you agree or disagree (I happen to agree):

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/response-cacophony-tyll-stance-reviewing

Well worth reading even if I don't agree with it all

Ok Tyll, I get what you are trying to say...however, Z1R is worse than M50x ? loL ok

 

[nordkapp]

This is sad when you literally cannot find a way to enjoy something simply because it measures differently. I get they are not neutral sounding, but the fact that the measurements are what's causing the non-recommendation is weird.

 

[JimL11]

This is sad when you literally cannot find a way to enjoy something simply because it measures differently. I get they are not neutral sounding, but the fact that the measurements are what's causing the non-recommendation is weird.

No, I don't think that is what Tyll said, or meant. The non-recommendation is because it doesn't SOUND neutral, to the extent that he would consider them not recommendable, not because of the measurements per se. The measurements are supportive. Doesn't mean that YOU won't enjoy them, but Tyll doesn't. That's his opinion, he's the reviewer, he's entitled to state his opinion. I read movie reviews all the time that don't agree with my opinion, but I still enjoy reading them.

 

[Whitigir]

Never mind, i just realized that one of the joy of being in the forum itself is the ability to read and see people reactions on different point of views.