[vid]

  if you really want to talk science & measurements I would happy to indulge you

 
Sure. How do you typically measure headphone performance - and what is headphone performance, exactly? Which compensation curve do you find most apt - would you say you should know your target population, and would you trust stratification to be minimal? If you wrote your own software, which fft library did you go with? What do you think about ear canal resonances in decay plots - should they be included or not, and why? Would you or would you not measure with multiple ear shapes, and how would you see this affecting the reliability of your graphs? So many things I want to know, but I don't want to inconvenience you.

 

[money4me247]

I really don't care... ten bucks, fifty bucks a hundred bucks... those are just arbitrary lines in the sand. The point is, you don't have to pay a thousand bucks to get top quality sound.

+1 on this. i totally agree.

 

[catspaw]

Im unsure on how this works.
Many people say that when making a HP, amp, dac... you first get the gear, make the measurements lok good, etc etc, and at the end, you bring it to an audiophile and ask him what he thinks.
So I guess there are two concepts here.
One, objective measurements (what this thread is about).
Two, Subjective perception of sound quality (here we would have to include a lot of factors).
 
So, many say that a 1K headphone aint worth the money, others argue it is.
I doubt at that point we can say who is "right". As soon as you have one subjective measurement, you are off the clock.
Thats why while I enjoy threads like this to know what headphones to keep an eye on for a possible audition, I would not base my purchase on this information alone (but I would on auditioning).
 
For example, I have a bias towards the Sennheiser HD800. I have not heard it, I want it and I think it will be good. But I wont buy it till I test it, even if threads like this reinforce my bias. Once I listen the HD800 through my "torture test" I will know if its worth it or not compared to my HE-400.
 
In terms of diminishing returns, I dont expcet the HD800 to be 5 times as good as the HE-400 (I think thats around the price they have now), but If I pay 1.5K I expect at least a 50% increase in quality (again, subjective).
 
Since I dont see anything considered at that price point to have that sort of performance (yet I will try other HPs as well), I might buy it regardless of diminishing returns.

 

[Me x3]

  For example, I have a bias towards the Sennheiser HD800. I have not heard it, I want it and I think it will be good. But I wont buy it till I test it, even if threads like this reinforce my bias. Once I listen the HD800 through my "torture test" I will know if its worth it or not compared to my HE-400.

If you like HE-400's kind of bass you'll find the HD800 very bass light.

 

[catspaw]

  If you like HE-400's kind of bass you'll find the HD800 very bass light.

So people keep telling me, yet I liked the bass on an AKG 701 , and that was from a cowon i9, no amp.

 

[bigshot]

I have Oppos and they have great bass without an amp.

 

[James-uk]

To my ears the HD800 are very neutral and the bass is pretty much perfectly balanced with the rest of the frequencies. Not only is the bass volume spot on its detail is like nothing else I've personally heard. I never realised bass could have so much detail from headphones or speakers until I heard the hd800.

 

[Me x3]

  So people keep telling me, yet I liked the bass on an AKG 701 , and that was from a cowon i9, no amp.

In that case you won't have much troubles with HD800's bass. I also like the bass presentation of my K702. The HD800's bass is more extended and even more clear.
I think the K702 kicks harder when called for but its bass is not as linear as HD800's (take this with a grain of salt, I haven't made any volume matched comparison)
 
My T1's bass has more body (No. 16xxx), more so than DT880. While it's maybe not as precise as HD800's bass, it's still very precise.
It's a warmer headphone and that's why it's so highly regarded as an all rounder.
 
If you can enjoy both HE-400 and K701, then you can enjoy pretty much every serious high fidelity headphone in the market.

 

[PDVJAM]

BTW, according to Tyll's (from InnerFidelity) measurement of latest versions of LCD-3 (with Fazor), they have significant bass roll-off. Don't know, maybe this is a measurement error, but bass starting to roll-off from 60Hz!

 

[money4me247]

  BTW, according to Tyll's (from InnerFidelity) measurement of latest versions of LCD-3 (with Fazor), they have significant bass roll-off. Don't know, maybe this is a measurement error, but bass starting to roll-off from 60Hz!

I thought the LCD-X sounded better than the LCD-3 anyway hahah

 

[bfreedma]

BTW, according to Tyll's (from InnerFidelity) measurement of latest versions of LCD-3 (with Fazor), they have significant bass roll-off. Don't know, maybe this is a measurement error, but bass starting to roll-off from 60Hz!

Interesting. None of the LCD3F FR charts I've seen from Audeze show that rolloff. I've had 3 LCD3Fs personally (don't ask) and neither my response charts or personal listening experience indicate a rolloff under 60hz.

 

[PDVJAM]

That is strange for me as well. Today I listened to music on both LCD-3F and LCD-XC. LCD3 has very deep bass, but not so strong as XC has. For my ears XC has more strong and impact bass. But more artificial mids and highs
 
Added: On russian forum doctorhead I've found a topic with frequency charts of audeze's. All new cans has bass roll-off starting from 30-40Hz, 3-4dB.

 

[bfreedma]

  That is strange for me as well. Today I listened to music on both LCD-3F and LCD-XC. LCD3 has very deep bass, but not so strong as XC has. For my ears XC has more strong and impact bass. But more artificial mids and highs
 
Added: On russian forum doctorhead I've found a topic with frequency charts of audeze's. All new cans has bass roll-off starting from 30-40Hz, 3-4dB.

 
The FR charts from Audeze for the 1 LCD3C and  3 LCD3Fs I've had.  Don't see significant changes in the rolloff.  The first "F" is slightly less rolled off, but that could easily be a measurement anomaly.
 
 
LCD3C

 
 
Next three are LCD3Fs

 

 

[catspaw]

Im a bit sad this did not have a lower end stax included.
It would have been quite interesting.

 

[briskly]

This was made from analysis of headphone measurement data from innerfidelity, and at the time there weren't many lower range Stax measured.
You can always go over it yourself using the criterion established in the first post, and the Lambdas generally do well based on that, besides some minor quibble with the bass response.