ZMF Caldera Headphone Review

[IAtaman]

Did you hear the Caldera or is your statement based Amirs review?

Did not hear it, my opinion that the tuning is not great is based on the FR graph, which is a reliable source of tuning information. I like Harman OE target tuning and the bass shelf, so flat bass is no good. And I don't see what greatness the big hole in 4K is supposed to achieve.

I understand you did not like Amir's EQ? What is it that you did not like specifically?

 

[amirm]

I understand you did not like Amir's EQ? What is it that you did not like specifically?

I have asked him to show us his EQ and he says he doesn't have time to do it. Until then we don't know what he has tried.

 

[next2nothing]

I have asked him to show us his EQ and he says he doesn't have time to do it. Until then we don't know what he has tried.

Never said I had no time, I dont have access to pc with Roon atm, being on the move. Not sure why you are claiming I said that. I will post the roon EQ I copied ( basically 1:1 pasting the numbers you propsed) when I get a chance. I am still very curious about pads you used, the chain aswell as the reference tracks you used for the review and the tuning. Another thing is, was the mantle mesh installed? Since if so, it might explain the FR and why your EQ sounds the way it does, its enough to have a badly intalled mantle mesh to have a massive deviation from the original tuning.

Did not hear it, my opinion that the tuning is not great is based on the FR graph, which is a reliable source of tuning information.

If you didnt hear the headphone why do you state that its original tuned is not great? I thought we agreed that the FR graph alone doesnt give accurate idea of how a headphone sounds.
Regarding the FR, yeah the dips is something I found intersting too, hoped to read a discussion with the designer here why certain choices have been made during the design process.

I understand you did not like Amir's EQ? What is it that you did not like specifically?

To repeat what I already said in the initial feedback:

Amir claimed to have have made the headphone to sound excellent with the EQ he proposed, while the tuning by Zach was disregarded as bad according to the FR graph, with the conclusion Zach can make nice headphones but tuning is just not his thing.
In my opinion the tuning of the headphone fell apart with that EQ on my stock configured Caldera without mantle mesh and with stock pads. The bass was bloated and started to bleed into the mids to an extent that instruments that sounded natural and life-like with stock tuning began to sound bassy. The treble was just too much, the sound became too bright and there was considerable amount of glare. I find the stock tuning by far more pleasing and would have probably sold Caldera long ago, if it sounded stock the way it does with Amirs EQ.

 

[IAtaman]

If you didnt hear the headphone why do you state that its original tuned is not great? I thought we agreed that the FR graph alone doesnt give accurate idea of how a headphone sounds.
Regarding the FR, yeah the dips is something I found intersting too, hoped to read a discussion with the designer here why certain choices have been made during the design process.

We agreed that there is more to how a headphone sounds than just the FR. Balance between different levels of different frequencies, i.e the tuning however is can be derived mostly from the FR.

Amir claimed to have have made the headphone to sound excellent with the EQ he proposed, while the tuning by Zach was disregarded as bad according to the FR graph, with the conclusion Zach can make nice headphones but tuning is just not his thing.
In my opinion the tuning of the headphone fell apart with that EQ, the bass was bloated and started to bleed into the mids to an extent that instruments that sounded natural and life-like with stock tuning began to sound bassy. The treble was just too much, the sound became too bright and there was considerable amount of glare. I find the stock tuning by far more pleasing and would have probably sold Caldera long ago, if it sounded stock the way it does with Amirs EQ.

Interesting. As the ZMF website says, there were more configurations within that system than I could wrap my brain around, so hard to say what is being compared to what here. In any case, you like the headphone, enjoy it.

I am not sure who is writing the content on the Caldera product page but it reads:
For me, I really appreciate the upper mids of the Harman target - as the ascent of the curve from 1-3 KHZ does meet my preferences pretty closely (...)

Which brings up the question, if the ascent of the curve between 1 to 3KHz is great why the headphone does not follow it?

 

[next2nothing]

We agreed that there is more to how a headphone sounds than just the FR. Balance between different levels of different frequencies, i.e the tuning however is can be derived mostly from the FR.

I think the tuning choices made still have a lot to do with geometry of the cups, angle of the drivers, the materials used, the dampening system, the design and shape of the pads, the driver characteristics and many other factors. Its the overall tuning presentation that matters in the end.

Interesting. As the ZMF website says, there were more configurations within that system than I could wrap my brain around, so hard to say what is being compared to what here. In any case, you like the headphone, enjoy it.

Yep. At this point I question the graph, since its unclear which configuration of the headphone was messured. What I enjoy a lot about ZMF, while stock configuration are usually well balanced, you have a lot of options to further fine tune your unit to your hearing and personal preference with different meshes that tame the treble or affect the bass, different pads that increase the stage size, elevate the bass and tame or elevate the treble and so on. My experience with Amirs EQ might alone be based on him using a different configuration of Caldera than my stock one, which would result in different messurements and very different experience with the tuning.
Thats why I think such things are very important for to be mentioned in a review, especially in one with such high objectivist ambition and adamant definitive statements.

 

[zach915m]

Which brings up the question, if the ascent of the curve between 1 to 3KHz is great why the headphone does not follow it?

I keep an open mind when tuning our headphones to find what works best for each system.

One thing that does change the peaks and valleys especially in the 1khz+ area is spinning the Caldera pads during measurement (circular around the baffle to adjust the z axis of the pad and where it lands) which can also be done in use on your head. The Caldera pads are Asymmetrical purposely to adjust peaks and valleys via fit to each person's HRTF/anatomy and it is worthwhile when doing during measurement as well.

 

[amirm]

FYI owner told me that it has the stock lambskin perforated pads. I updated the review with that.

 

[next2nothing]

Interesting. No mesh? If you ever get your hands on the headphone you might want to try the caldera thick pads to elevate the bass further, since you missed that.

 

[amirm]

You yourself are validating your “scientific approach” with “what most people like” Its obvious that ZMF is very successful and a lot of people from the audiophile scene do like the tuning.

Why do you keep repeating this? Today's audio market is not rational. Owners don't buy based on reliable data. You can be successful selling junk. Or great gear. Heck, you can make a ton of money selling products that don't do a thing for your audio! Examples are cables, power tweaks, etc. So please don't keep making this argument, it has no value.

We review gear the way we do to change the above dynamic. We create data, not arguments or subjective remarks that can't be verified. I just tested a Marantz AV processor that finally delivered good performance after testing unit after unit with poor performance, yet high prices. Until I tested them, everyone thought Marantz products were better than average. They were actually worse. Company finally listened, put measurements front and center and what do you know, much better performance could be had.

In headphone space this is starting to happen. And that development is around compliance with Harman target with a bit of tuning by the manufacturer which I am fine with. Constantly defending status quo by saying a company sells products and its owners who made buying decisions outside of proper metrics serves the interest of manufacturers than consumers has no value here.

 

[amirm]

Interesting. No mesh? If you ever get your hands on the headphone you might want to try the caldera thick pads to elevate the bass further, since you missed that.

To what exactly?

 

[amirm]

This statement would be true if the maker spent the past 12 years only with woodworking perfecting his craftsmanship creating nice looking earcups. Which as you know is simply not true. The maker is using measuring equipment and is finetuning the frequency response and many other aspects of sonic reproduction of his designs. For years. I highly doubt that the he isn’t aware or interested in listeners preference. It was stated in this thread several times that Harman target is something that is one of the steps during the design process. You ignore all of that.

First, you are not him so don't tell me what you "doubt" or know about him. Him being aware of Harman work, or listening performance doesn't do us a darn thing. We care about the final product. That product doesn't comply with research into what majority of listeners prefer. It doesn't comply with anything actually. To convince us that such a response has merit, it needs to come with a study showing its superiority relative to Harman curve. Without it, there is no thing there to defend.

The measurements show the deficiencies. And my listening tests agree with that. You claim to like it and my answer is fine. You like it. That doesn't make for any evidence of our testing being wrong, or my subjective assessment. As a fan of the brand, you have to bring a ton of data to counter the implicit bias you have and demonstrate in every post.

 

[MacClintock]

Interesting. No mesh? If you ever get your hands on the headphone you might want to try the caldera thick pads to elevate the bass further, since you missed that.

I am pretty sure these magic pads will turn the headphone into 100% Harman compliant.

 

[amirm]

Maybe there is some common ground of what “most people” like but I don’t think you can make a finite statement like “it is definitely what most people like” alone because of the sheer amount of different audio gear, different approaches that lots of people highly appreciate. Apart of that I believe that mainstream consumer and hi-fi market are very different groups of people with different preferences. And I am yet to find a that mythical 250 usd headphone that is loved by the mainstream market, which performs to a level of a high end design that is tuned to my personal preference. Personally I buy ZMF primaly because of the tuning NOT because of the craftsmanship and the luxury aspect, which sure are a nice cherry on top.

The competition is not from $250 headphones. It is from headphones like this:

Since this headphone was announced just yesterday, I could not talk about it in the ZMF review. But I performed a number of AB tests against it. The bass is hugely superior to the Caldera. It reproduces sub-bass that is simply absent in Caldera. It also very accurate sounding reminding me of reference grade Genelec and Neumann studio monitors I have tested. And far better resembles my own speakers. It costs $2000. It doesn't look as nice as the Caldera but you said you don't care about looks.

Dan Clark has been super successful company as well and much more so since they started to so closely align their response with Harman. They are able to innovate, and put a signature touch on the response (e.g. the slight upper bass hump). So by your standard, they have all that ZMF has.

The opportunity for ZMF is the same. Keep your gorgeous casework, design, etc. but please work on creating a neutral response per above. The era of anything goes should be over. Our audience is waiting to purchase your products if you design them as such.

 

[amirm]

Apart of all of this noone in this thread could answer how you measure the size of the stage, the natural body and decay of the instruments, the texture of the bass and the illusion of holography.

None of that matters if you get tonality wrong, putting aside some of what you say being nonsensical. The typical reviewer gushing about soundstage width and such is totally imaginary, or made up. And at any rate, is listener dependent. You are also wrong in saying no one commented on it. I did in the review:

There was impressive bass and excellent detail and quite good spatial effects.

Spatial effects refers to separation of instruments outside of left and right ear. By the way, if you care about those effects, then the response of this headphone works against you. Per my review comment, those effects only manifested themselves once I filled the holes in lower treble. That is where a lot of channel separation is in your content and where your ability to locate things exists.

Texture of bass and other things like that are just audiophile nonsense. They have no place in this forum.

 

[amirm]

Harman research is one of the steps in understanding audio and understanding what we like and what not, but its no singular holy book that is to be blindly followed, there much more research and empirical trial and error to be done before we arrive at something that we can call a universal music reproduction standard.

And we are supposed to accept that from you, why? Are you a researcher in the field? Have you written papers on it? Have you read all the research? If the answer is no, then what you are saying is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). We know the research. And we know its benefits and limitations. That is what we discuss constantly in this forum and have researchers themselves participate. We are of no need of this generic argument of "we don't know everything." Or that "you are saying it is bible."

Learn the research. Be more critical of your own opinions developed in absence of it. We are not here to keep answering word arguments.

 

[amirm]

That’s a question of your approach and of your ethos, but no absolute truth with a right and wrong. Many people on this board will agree with you since the idea of creating one singular standard is nothing bad per se and might help many of us, especially new people in the hobby with finding some orientation.

The entire video production chain has what I advocated for audio. Everything from source to playback devices are made and can be calibrated to a single standard. That way, you can be assured that the shade of red you are seeing is correct. In audio, there are no standards. Someone could mix music using the Caldera and boost the bass way up to hear it. Then we listen with the Dan Clark E3 and find the bass overwhelming. Worse yet, the next track is mixed by someone else with a different response, making our treble too high. This is why we need a standard like it exists in video.

It is remarkable to me that a consumer would advocate having no standards. Only new people would like it? Really? It is companies that like that wild west so no one can judge the accuracy of their work. You as a consumer should be all in favor of standardization. It will allow you for the first time to hear what was produced. And have a proper metric of comparison.

You are sitting here arguing that my EQ sounds wrong. You can do that because I have no idea what music you are listening to and what frequency response was used in its production. Likewise you don't know the same thing about what I listened to. This is definition of something being wrong.

 

[zach915m]

You can do that because I have no idea what music you are listening to and what frequency response was used in its production.

Amir - serious question, if all headphone mfr were to adhere to a singular target and all music production going forward as well, is the idea that all past music previously recorded would be remastered to the Harman curve in some capacity? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the totality of your expectations here and would like to understand them better. What would all music and reproduction look like in a perfect world and how would you expect that that task is carried out?

 

[Benesyed]

I've still got to dive in deep but amir perhaps you can clarify.

When developing the target curve did they discover how many hertz separation in peaks in audibly perceptible reliably? For example if you take a identical FRC and you shift a peak from 1 hz to 1.2hz is that audible or does there have to be a big enough difference for human ears to perceive.

Also do we know certain deficiencies are universally or near universally disliked?

My understanding of the work being done here is that the FRC suggested here or elsewhere is a representation of a curve most people prefer (though it's unclear to me what other curves/tunings were offered and how strong the preference is).

I ask only because I've had a very strange experience when I tried the DCA stealth and expanse. I did not like the former at all but went into the experience expecting to like it if not love it. But more confusingly I enjoyed but did not love the DCA expanse. But, and this was strangest of all for me I liked the same songs on the Susvara which is bass anemic and I consider myself a bass lover. Now this might be because I listen to modern music mostly electronic with some modern indie thrown in.

 

[Tachyon88]

@next2nothing IMO, you're simply engrossed into a particular manufacture and other companies lore. The hand crafted, boutique, family owned.....etc. A narrative that is irrelevant to what Amir is doing by showing the objective performance. Yet you keep telling us how many people like the products.....and I say, "so what" ?

 

[zach915m]

@next2nothing IMO, you're simply engrossed into a particular manufacture and other companies lore. The hand crafted, boutique, family owned.....etc. A narrative that is irrelevant to what Amir is doing by showing the objective performance. Yet you keep telling us how many people like the products.....and I say, "so what" ?

The interesting aspect of this entire discussion, particularly its relevance to the industry, especially concerning Harman's perspective on "right" versus "wrong," is that the user or owner you're referencing chose ZMF headphones based on their sound preferences.

While Harman's approach is undoubtedly valid, those purchasing ZMFs aren't doing so solely because of my amiable character, any lore, or boutique-ish-ness surrounding our business. People don't typically act recklessly with their money on such a grand scale.

The majority of our interactions, whether at shows or online, revolve around sound, and many individuals appreciate ZMFs for various reasons. Exploring the "why" behind these preferences remains an intriguing area for future research, as I don't claim to have all the answers. As @madeconomist pointed out, there's still much to uncover about sound, making ongoing and future research both enjoyable and exciting.

My efforts, whether utilizing measurement devices or relying on my subjective and observational work and others' preferences, have always aimed to meet the needs of our owners and align with my own taste. I believe there may be undiscovered explanations for why people are drawn to headphones tuned like ZMFs based on their sound preferences. I pay close attention to factors such as CSD, impulse response, square wave, etc., as I believe they contribute to acoustic perception.

The significant number of audiophiles who appreciate the sound of ZMFs cannot be dismissed as an anomaly or outlier. Clearly, I've been able to shape a career around my preferences in sound. I believe it's worth questioning rather than dismissing, but, perhaps my worldview is overly optimistic.