[bigshot]

You could probably come up with something you like with EQ, but it's going to be a compromise, because warm and detailed are opposite poles. You will have to figure out a compromise that works for your particular ears and tastes. You might not be able to hit it though. I'm not sure it's possible to come up with something that is hot and cold or sharp and blunt at the same time. You might need to experiment with EQ and find out exactly which frequencies you are reacting to.

 

[SilverEars]

Have any examples of hps? Or amps that do this

I'm just going to provide some examples, but you'd have to figure out what you should end up with. DCA Ether 2 didn't sound wet, but warm tilted due to the bass emphasis, and treble recession, and I sort of preferred that type of tilt without much reverb in the cups. I don't like reverb type of sound engulfing the sounds, and it feels like it's more of an interference with other sounds.

LCDi4, wet warmth in the mids, and reduces clarity, and with upper-mids recession, not much resolution. DCA Ether Flow Open which is more closed than open, and there were reverb in the cups creating wetness to the sound, and thus too much warmth engulfing the response, reducing clarity on particular tracks that increases this wetness too much.

Hifiman HEK series - lacking warmth, but high clarity and some find Hifimans a bit on the bright side as well, or a bit much treble energy than preferred. Hardly any wetness to the sound, and for those into that type of sound. HD800 is similar.

Electrostatics generally fit the characteristic that isn't wet, but can have warm tilt. Like STAX SR-007, or Koss ESP950. Electrostatics has their characteristics that doesn't provide reverb in the response, particularly in the lower frequencies. This is why the bass sounds weightless from the result of membrane diaphragm that doesn't seem to have as much excursion as dynamic drivers (And this excursion likely depends on how strong voltage can be provided, and Estat amps are expensive!), and thus not much weight in the way the sound impacts. The frequency response can be tilted on the warm side, and I mean this to be without treble emphasis, with these types of electrostats. ESP950 is quite smooth. Interestingly, electrostats are known to have very low distortion? Is this how very low distortion sounds? Without weight to sounds?

 

[SupperTime]

I'm just going to provide some examples, but you'd have to figure out what you should end up with. DCA Ether 2 didn't sound wet, but warm tilted due to the bass emphasis, and treble recession, and I sort of preferred that type of tilt without much reverb in the cups. I don't like reverb type of sound engulfing the sounds, and it feels like it's more of an interference with other sounds.

LCDi4, wet warmth in the mids, and reduces clarity, and with upper-mids recession, not much resolution. DCA Ether Flow Open which is more closed than open, and there were reverb in the cups creating wetness to the sound, and thus too much warmth engulfing the response, reducing clarity on particular tracks that increases this wetness too much.

Hifiman HEK series - lacking warmth, but high clarity and some find Hifimans a bit on the bright side as well, or a bit much treble energy than preferred. Hardly any wetness to the sound, and for those into that type of sound. HD800 is similar.

Electrostatics generally fit the characteristic that isn't wet, but can have warm tilt. Like STAX SR-007, or Koss ESP950. Electrostatics has their characteristics that doesn't provide reverb in the response, particularly in the lower frequencies. This is why the bass sounds weightless from the result of membrane diaphragm that doesn't seem to have as much excursion as dynamic drivers, and thus not much weight in the way the sound impacts. The frequency response can be tilted on the warm side, and I mean this to be without treble emphasis, with these types of electrostats. ESP950 is quite smooth. Interestingly, electrostats are known to have very low distortion? Is this how very low distortion sounds? Without weight to sounds?

I have an rme adi-2 dac and love it but it sounds bright.
I have a DCA ether flow C 1.1 and love it. But at times it is peaky in certain *claps * *snairs*
I wonder if some tube amp would smooth it out? Idk?

 

[SilverEars]

I have an rme adi-2 dac and love it but it sounds bright.
I have a DCA ether flow C 1.1 and love it. But at times it is peaky in certain *claps * *snairs*
I wonder if some tube amp would smooth it out? Idk?

I don't know what tube amps really does to planars. I always thought solid-state was ideal for planars. Tubes seem to flatten out the bite in the mid treble, and not sure if that's desirable in all cases. Sometimes claps and snairs need to glare and sparkle. They need to have bite to define the sound.

 

[bigshot]

Just use a DSP. Adding coloration with hardware is imprecise and not adjustable.

 

[Blackwoof]

Interestingly, electrostats are known to have very low distortion? Is this how very low distortion sounds? Without weight to sounds?

THD is inaudible, Sounds like you being shocked by a driver that outperform's dynamic drivers decay. Than any distortion being the issue. Not always the case most planar, Estats can have worse THD than DD/BA drivers. I highly doubt <0.1% is audible, Let alone the 1.1% that the ER4XR can have?.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I think sound being warm and wet (or there's certain level of reverberations inside the cups) will mask upper-frequencies to certain degree and thus sound less detailed.
[2] If we consider headphones that people say are detailed and resolution, they tend to have fitiguiging qualities with recordings that reveal such qualities of the headphones.
[3] This is partially due to recording mastering variations, and not consistant due to usage of various types of equipment used by audio engineers. Also, certain genres do not put out certain sounds can reveal annoyance of the sound coming out a particular headphone.
[4] I think what you are looking for is a warm tilted headphone but not wet with ample amount of upper-frequencies that do not sound peaky in anyway.

1. There are no perceivable "reverberations inside the cups" and therefore there can be no "wet" or "dry" headphones. To be more precise, there probably are reverberations (reflections) inside the cups but they cannot be perceived as reverberation. The perception of reverberation requires a delay between the source sound and it's initial reflection to be at least about 2-3ms (2-3 milli-seconds), less than this and you don't perceive reverb, you perceive a single (frequency modulated) sound without reverb. Even with the delay up to around 8ms, you still don't generally don't hear this as reverb but just as a "thickening" of the sound. Baring in mind that sound travels at about 34cm per ms, the initial reflections inside the cups are going to have a delay of about 0.2ms or so, a long way below the threshold for perceiving reverb, unless the interior dimensions of your headphone cup is more than about 70cm (2.2ft)!

"Being warm" is also somewhat problematic. In general, "warmth" is a function of EQ (the freqs roughly between 200Hz - 600Hz), however, other factors affect or can cause warmth, for example the addition of even numbered harmonics, compression or distortion of higher freqs (say with tape saturation). Furthermore, adding more 200Hz - 600Hz doesn't necessarily increase the perception of "warmth", it can just as easily result in the perception of "muddy" rather than warmth, depending on the relative amount of 200Hz - 600Hz in the recording. "Relative amount" is crucial here, because given the same overall loudness, more bass is perceptually the same as less mid and treble. Therefore:

2. As a generalisation (IE. Not exclusively true), "detail" lives in the roughly 1kHz - 5kHz range. So, "warmer" (potentially more 200Hz - 600Hz), being perceptually similar/the same as less mid (and treble), is very likely to result in less perceived "detail". Also, the frequency range where the perception of "detail" lives significantly overlaps the frequency range where "harshness" lives (around 2kHz - 7kHz), So the difference between more detail and harshness can be a very fine (and entirely subjective) line and harshness can certainly contribute to fatigue.

3. Certainly the recording itself will have a huge impact; what is recorded, how it is recorded and then, how it is mixed and then mastered. And all of this is in turn largely dependant on genre and the targeted consumer reproduction conditions. So, "usage of various types of equipment used by audio engineers" is largely dependant on the genre and IS relatively consistent within genres, as are "mastering variations".

4. What @SupperTime is possibly looking for is headphones with slightly raised 200Hz - 600Hz (for warmth) and a slightly raised 1kHz - 5kHz range, to maintain "detail" after raising the lower freqs. However, there's a fair chance that this advice is completely wrong, depending on what sort/genre of music he listens to and what his personal perception and preferences are. The best solution is therefore, as others have mentioned, a good set of cans and EQ. And, as I've just mentioned above, te advice for headphones that are not "wet" is superfluous, as no headphones are "wet".

DCA Ether 2 didn't sound wet, but warm tilted due to the bass emphasis, and treble recession, and I sort of preferred that type of tilt without much reverb in the cups. I don't like reverb type of sound engulfing the sounds, and it feels like it's more of an interference with other sounds.

This and your other descriptions cannot be accurate because there cannot be perceivable "reverb in the cups", as discussed above. However, reverb is sound reflections of a sound source but has a smaller frequency range than the sound source (due to absorption) and is typically EQ'd during mixing. Therefore, an EQ setting or a set of headphones that boost (or reduce) a particular range of freqs can make the reverb in a particular recording higher (or lower) in level relative to the dry sound and therefore, it could sound like a particular set of headphones have more reverb. However: A. This is simply an interaction of the headphone's frequency response with the frequency range of the reverb on a recording, not the headphones adding or not adding their own reverb and being "wet" or "dry" and B. Is entirely dependant on the recordings you listen to. A particular set of cans might make the reverb more noticeable on some recordings, less noticeable on other recordings or no noticeable difference on others.

[1] What is the warmest headphone, most detailed headphone with no treble peaks, sharp, and sibilant
[2] I have an rme adi-2 dac and love it but it sounds bright.
[3] I have a DCA ether flow C 1.1 and love it. But at times it is peaky in certain *claps * *snairs*
[4] I wonder if some tube amp would smooth it out? Idk?

1. We don't know exactly what your perception is, what your preferences are and what sort of music you listen to. As mentioned above, depending on how you perceive warmth and what recordings you're listening to, more warmth *could* necessarily require less detail. Likewise, more detailed *could* necessarily require more sibilant and sharp.

2. But the adi-2 isn't "bright", it's very flat. Therefore, either you listen to recordings that are particularly "bright" or your personal preference is for a "dull" sound (less bright than flat) or, some combination of the two.

3. How do you know that at times the recordings are not supposed to be "peaky" in certain claps and snares? If they are, then that's a question of your personal preferences conflicting with the intention of the artists/engineers, not your DAC sounding too bright/peaky. You have three choices which in order of preference IMHO would be:

A. Adjust your preferences and accept high fidelity and the intention of the artists/engineers or
B. Change the recording with EQ, compression or some other effect to match your preferences.
C. Try and find some coloured hardware combination that effectively does the same as "B".

4. Tube amps can be made that are virtually transparent, in which case "no it wouldn't" (unless you get placebo effect from believing that it does!). Others however don't have such a flat response, they can add even harmonics and or compress/distort the higher freqs which, depending on your personal perception could sound warmer and/or smoother or could sound distorted and less "detailed". None of us have your personal perception and therefore none of us can answer your question, you'll have to try and see for yourself, although again, this harward solution is the worst option IMHO.

G

 

[SilverEars]

1. There are no perceivable "reverberations inside the cups" and therefore there can be no "wet" or "dry" headphones. To be more precise, there probably are reverberations (reflections) inside the cups but they cannot be perceived as reverberation. The perception of reverberation requires a delay between the source sound and it's initial reflection to be at least about 2-3ms (2-3 milli-seconds), less than this and you don't perceive reverb, you perceive a single (frequency modulated) sound without reverb. Even with the delay up to around 8ms, you still don't generally don't hear this as reverb but just as a "thickening" of the sound. Baring in mind that sound travels at about 34cm per ms, the initial reflections inside the cups are going to have a delay of about 0.2ms or so, a long way below the threshold for perceiving reverb, unless the interior dimensions of your headphone cup is more than about 70cm (2.2ft)!

"Being warm" is also somewhat problematic. In general, "warmth" is a function of EQ (the freqs roughly between 200Hz - 600Hz), however, other factors affect or can cause warmth, for example the addition of even numbered harmonics, compression or distortion of higher freqs (say with tape saturation). Furthermore, adding more 200Hz - 600Hz doesn't necessarily increase the perception of "warmth", it can just as easily result in the perception of "muddy" rather than warmth, depending on the relative amount of 200Hz - 600Hz in the recording. "Relative amount" is crucial here, because given the same overall loudness, more bass is perceptually the same as less mid and treble. Therefore:

2. As a generalisation (IE. Not exclusively true), "detail" lives in the roughly 1kHz - 5kHz range. So, "warmer" (potentially more 200Hz - 600Hz), being perceptually similar/the same as less mid (and treble), is very likely to result in less perceived "detail". Also, the frequency range where the perception of "detail" lives significantly overlaps the frequency range where "harshness" lives (around 2kHz - 7kHz), So the difference between more detail and harshness can be a very fine (and entirely subjective) line and harshness can certainly contribute to fatigue.

3. Certainly the recording itself will have a huge impact; what is recorded, how it is recorded and then, how it is mixed and then mastered. And all of this is in turn largely dependant on genre and the targeted consumer reproduction conditions. So, "usage of various types of equipment used by audio engineers" is largely dependant on the genre and IS relatively consistent within genres, as are "mastering variations".

4. What @SupperTime is possibly looking for is headphones with slightly raised 200Hz - 600Hz (for warmth) and a slightly raised 1kHz - 5kHz range, to maintain "detail" after raising the lower freqs. However, there's a fair chance that this advice is completely wrong, depending on what sort/genre of music he listens to and what his personal perception and preferences are. The best solution is therefore, as others have mentioned, a good set of cans and EQ. And, as I've just mentioned above, te advice for headphones that are not "wet" is superfluous, as no headphones are "wet".



This and your other descriptions cannot be accurate because there cannot be perceivable "reverb in the cups", as discussed above. However, reverb is sound reflections of a sound source but has a smaller frequency range than the sound source (due to absorption) and is typically EQ'd during mixing. Therefore, an EQ setting or a set of headphones that boost (or reduce) a particular range of freqs can make the reverb in a particular recording higher (or lower) in level relative to the dry sound and therefore, it could sound like a particular set of headphones have more reverb. However: A. This is simply an interaction of the headphone's frequency response with the frequency range of the reverb on a recording, not the headphones adding or not adding their own reverb and being "wet" or "dry" and B. Is entirely dependant on the recordings you listen to. A particular set of cans might make the reverb more noticeable on some recordings, less noticeable on other recordings or no noticeable difference on others.



1. We don't know exactly what your perception is, what your preferences are and what sort of music you listen to. As mentioned above, depending on how you perceive warmth and what recordings you're listening to, more warmth *could* necessarily require less detail. Likewise, more detailed *could* necessarily require more sibilant and sharp.

2. But the adi-2 isn't "bright", it's very flat. Therefore, either you listen to recordings that are particularly "bright" or your personal preference is for a "dull" sound (less bright than flat) or, some combination of the two.

3. How do you know that at times the recordings are not supposed to be "peaky" in certain claps and snares? If they are, then that's a question of your personal preferences conflicting with the intention of the artists/engineers, not your DAC sounding too bright/peaky. You have three choices which in order of preference IMHO would be:

A. Adjust your preferences and accept high fidelity and the intention of the artists/engineers or
B. Change the recording with EQ, compression or some other effect to match your preferences.
C. Try and find some coloured hardware combination that effectively does the same as "B".

4. Tube amps can be made that are virtually transparent, in which case "no it wouldn't" (unless you get placebo effect from believing that it does!). Others however don't have such a flat response, they can add even harmonics and or compress/distort the higher freqs which, depending on your personal perception could sound warmer and/or smoother or could sound distorted and less "detailed". None of us have your personal perception and therefore none of us can answer your question, you'll have to try and see for yourself, although again, this harward solution is the worst option IMHO.

G

You make such absolute statements like you have experience everything from some textbook knowledge. Lol.

I have been reading your way of discussions (and stopped reading as it was a waste of time), and there is no point in responding to a person like you and please do not with me any more. Thank you.

 

[gregorio]

[1] You make such absolute statements like you have experience everything from some textbook knowledge. Lol.
[2] I have been reading your way of discussions (and stopped reading as it was a waste of time), and
[2a] there is no point in responding to a person like you and
[2b] please do not with me any more. Thank you.

1. I make such absolute statements based on the textbooks I've read, the scientific papers I've read, from actually applying and manipulating reverb professionally for more than 25 years and from discussing it with other experienced professionals. You make such absolute statements based on what? That you haven't read any textbooks or scientific papers, that you have no practical experience of using/applying reverb? In fact, based on nothing at all except your own assumptions or some marketing? "Lol"!

2. What's really a waste of time is people posting impressions and assertions which contradict the science/facts in the Sound Science forum!!
2a. Of course there isn't, what are you going to respond with, just more made-up nonsense and insults?
2b. You OBVIOUSLY don't get to define facts based on the ignorance of science/facts. And, you don't get to dictate who I respond to and if you continue posting nonsense, I'll continue refuting it! Maybe you haven't noticed but this is the Sound Science forum, not the SilverEars forum or the "I can make-up any old nonsense and then insult anyone who refutes it" forum! Jeez!!

G

 

[castleofargh]

I was going to say the same about reverb and I find @gregorio's 3ms to be pretty optimistic in this context(still too small to matter for the reverb from a cup and back to the eardrum). The amplitude threshold to allow the perception of a distinct sound(echo) goes down over time, but if I remember correctly(huge if), even at 50ms it's still not back to resting sensitivity and temporal masking can still affect what we hear.

Frequency response(in part caused by the cup, for that the distance is enough), subjective impact of being more isolated from ambient noises, and maybe higher distos from airflow limitation, those 3 have at least a reasonable chance of participating in causing that "closed headphone feeling". Reverb perceived as reverb from the cup doesn't seem possible for human hearing.

THD is inaudible, Sounds like you being shocked by a driver that outperform's dynamic drivers decay. Than any distortion being the issue. Not always the case most planar, Estats can have worse THD than DD/BA drivers. I highly doubt <0.1% is audible, Let alone the 1.1% that the ER4XR can have?.

The matter of distortion is complicated. For one, THD isn't all there is, but it's all we measure. Even though a few papers suggest that it is not a very interesting variable(beyond showing big amounts as symptoms of a problem). For audibility on headphones/IEMs, or for preference, which is a very relevant question for distortions, we should have moved on to something different as an extra measurement. Some people contest such and such measurements, but it should be clear to anybody that having them would not hurt the consumer. Even if they only help on occasion, that's already better than nothing. ^_^

 

[gregorio]

I was going to say the same about reverb and I find @gregorio's 3ms to be pretty optimistic in this context(still too small to matter for the reverb from a cup and back to the eardrum). The amplitude threshold to allow the perception of a distinct sound(echo) goes down over time, but if I remember correctly(huge if), even at 50ms it's still not back to resting sensitivity and temporal masking can still affect what we hear.

Yep, 3ms is optimistic but possible. 50ms is the figure discovered by Haas but it can vary considerably depending on the attack/envelope of the sound/instrument but it refers to identifying reflections as separate/distinct sounds (echoes). Below about 50ms we don't hear separate echoes, we hear a single sound but with a sense of space (reverb), so we do hear reverb with far smaller delays than 50ms. But when we get down to just a couple or so ms, we hear more of just a freq modulation. But a 3ms delay equates to roughly 100cm, not many headphones have cups that are a metre in diameter!

You (or others) might find this introduction to reverb by Izotope useful because it's very basic and has several audio examples. The first example is 3 snare drum hits, a dry one, one with 2 delays at 50ms and 100ms and one with two delays at 15ms and 30ms. You still get a sense of space/reverb with the last one, although it's becoming more a sense of a thickening of the sound.

This is all dead easy to test for yourself. Most free DAWs/Audio Editors have a built in digital delay plugin or you can download free ones and of course you can download free audio samples of various instruments to play with.

G

 

[bigshot]

I never cease to be amazed at audiophiles' complete lack of understanding of scale. Mountains are molehills, and elephants in corners aren't big enough to attract their attention!

I have been reading your way of discussions (and stopped reading as it was a waste of time), and there is no point in responding to a person like you and please do not with me any more. Thank you.

There is a button for putting your head in the sand, Mr Ostrich. Click on the name and in the pop up window, select IGNORE. If you don't want replies, don't post. This is a conversation, not a place for you to make unfounded and unsupported proclamations.

Moving on to more useful discussion...

The matter of distortion is complicated. For one, THD isn't all there is, but it's all we measure. Even though a few papers suggest that it is not a very interesting variable(beyond showing big amounts as symptoms of a problem). For audibility on headphones/IEMs, or for preference, which is a very relevant question for distortions, we should have moved on to something different as an extra measurement. Some people contest such and such measurements, but it should be clear to anybody that having them would not hurt the consumer. Even if they only help on occasion, that's already better than nothing. ^_^

The degree of distortion in headphones is WAY below the level of even the best speakers, yet a decent speaker system sounds better. Distortion was more an issue back in the analogue era with LPs and primitive electronics. In the digital era, I really think response is much more important. That is the aspect that has the most room for improvement... sometimes it's even defective by design.

 

[Blackwoof]

The degree of distortion in headphones is WAY below the level of even the best speakers, yet a decent speaker system sounds better. Distortion was more an issue back in the analogue era with LPs and primitive electronics. In the digital era, I really think response is much more important. That is the aspect that has the most room for improvement... sometimes it's even defective by design.

Which is why i find distortion charts mostly pointless within a review. Since most I'll use it as a reason as why headphone X sounds off, When under 80db any headphone that 1% will be <0.4%. Also it dosen't help when few use it as a excuse to bash headphones they never tried or had, SRH1840 or the grado's headphones & most BA based in ears(ER4). I've had few on other sites get immature when i point that bit out.

Distortion for non audio part, bit can give a taste on how it performs with EQ or if the driver is struggling with the FR. Solderdude showed the SR1540 THD can lower if you EQ out the 10db bass boost and at more treble past 12k?.

 

[manueljenkin]

My point was that headphones may measure better in a lot of ways, particularly when it comes to distortion levels, but speakers sound more natural. The reason for that has less to do with the speakers than the real three dimensional effect of the room perhaps. Headphones can't seem to match that, even with binaural recordings.

Got any objective proof for that?

 

[bigshot]

Which? The fact that headphones measure better than speakers, or that speakers use the space within the room to create a dimensional effect? I don't think either of those things are particularly controversial. Do you have a speaker system? If you do, the latter would be self-evident, and just checking specs will prove the former.