Sorry to prolong this discussion, but one thing I’m struggling with is the idea that knowing a headphone’s tonality in relation to the Harman curve means you can guess how the headphones sound. As a new Caldera owner as well as owner of Harman darling Expanse, it seems to me there is so much more to the experience of listening to these headphones than the frequency response. The damping used in both headphones has a large impact on the way sound is conveyed. The Expanse sound like a well treated room, while the Caldera in my short time sound more like a stage in a hall. Is that just a subjective statement, or is it something that can be measured but not yet? What I’m saying is there’s data that is not represented by frequency response.
Anyway, I’m far from a scientist, I’m barely even a functional human most days, but this is what I don’t get about the “objectivist” viewpoint. An objective standard target may be desirable, but the target chosen is not a full data set. So how and why is that the only standard?
It's fairly simple in that my work with the Atrium damping system and my methods of damping are the opposite of DCA, where DCA pays attention to front damping and manipulation via a patented tech, I pay attention to rear damping via a patented tech and much less on front damping (and yes we both utilize both). Is there a right or wrong, absolutely not! DCA headphones are awesome, and I hope people like ZMF's too.
My work with the Atrium damping system largely focuses on impulse response, CSD's, and transient response that has a lot to do with how the air-flow exits the driver and at what speed and where and on what "level" it's damped and in what direction, so my final tuning even though I always try and pay attention to Harman, deviates from it because of the tuning methods I've created. And ofcourse at times it leads me closer to harman, like with the BOKEH and Atrium Closed, and other times leads me further away like with the Verite series.
What the earpads do by changing material is changing the "reflection" of the room in pretty vast ways along with the room size, shape, and angle. Whenever I am at a show and someone who hasn't had the experience before of swapping pads they are always shocked by how much of a change it makes, and almost never will a small group of people agree on which of the many pads we offer is the "right" one.
I am fully aware that I've spent the majority of my time in practice, and not in theory, and this same stuff came up when I was making films as well, the theory side and the practice side are always going to clash and generally it's healthy and leads to better things as the answer is always somewhere in the middle.
I also am confident that the Atrium damping system, in allowing me to more precisely tune each headphone to, or from the Harman target is a benefit, and has allowed me to make some of my best work. But I can also be aware that I haven't spent the time to prove ADS via peer-reviewed research so many will question it. The same is true for most new practical implementations in many fields. This is why my soapbox is always going to be to keep an open mind either way with this stuff, it'll allow me to be better at my main goal of making headphones.
