Hifiman HE400i Review (planar headphone)

[amirm]

The HE4XX is a better headphone than the HE400i:

That kind of difference is all within margin of error for headphone tests. No way you can draw any inference from that differential.

 

[solderdude]

This leaves me with the following to choose between at current prices
and availability (in no particular order):

AKG K553 MKII - $99 = spare pads are not available, decent headphone with some mods.

Audio-Technica ATH-M40x - $99 = lesser sounding version with less bass/thickness compared to the M50X, needs some mods.
Audio-Technica ATH-M50x - $149 = sturdy and a bit bassy/thick sounding

HIFIMAN HE-35X - $75 = not the most tonally balanced one, it is colored but pleasantly. No high flyer. Decent for the money
HIFIMAN HE4XX - $180 = decent entry level headphone in the planar headphone world. Better than the Monoprice ones.
HIFIMAN HE400i 2020 Version-3.5mm - $169 = decent entry level headphone in the planar headphone world. Better than the Monoprice ones.

Philips Fidelio X2HR - $145 = Clamping force can be adjusted (bending the headband). treble can be filtered. Downside is original pads can not be obtained (are replaceable but Philips does not offer them) so when the pads are worn you need sound altering alternatives.

Philips SHP9500 - $75 = not bad, non replaceable pads, a bit bass light
Philips SHP9600 - $110 (no idea)

Sennheiser HD 559 - $100 = needs the prescribed modifications. Once done it sounds good, in stock form not a good headphone.
HD58X Jubilee (Drop) - $170 = Good headphone, needs some amping. underwhelming from a phone/tablet. Clamping force is easy to change.

Out of the selected ones: Hifiman HE4***, X2HR (you need to be lucky), HD559 (with mods+filter), HD58X .

 

[LBec]

Maybe, but after watching my HE4XX fall apart with minimal use, I am hesitant to recommend them, I cannot speak for the reliability of the HE400i, but I assumed they are better from reviews I have seen.

Not sure how prevalent the problem however I just looked and there are reviews talking about construction quality issues of the HE400i.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Not sure how prevalent the problem however I just looked and there are reviews talking about construction quality issues of the HE400i.

The issue was a defect in the yokes and has long since been resolved...

 

[Robbo99999]

That kind of difference is all within margin of error for headphone tests. No way you can draw any inference from that differential.

That doesn't seem quite right to me. I would have thought that if you did a number of different measurements on the same headphone and took an average of them, then I would think you'd be able to resolve differences between headphones of the difference we see between the HE400i 2020 version and the HE4XX.....I'm fairly certain they're not just the same model of headphone underneath, so you'd expect to see differences between them and by extension I think the trend of difference between them would be that which Oratory has pictured & which bobbooo showed in his post:

For instance, this is a slew of measurements from Oratory on HD600:

The variation between the different measurements in the above graph is pretty stable up to 4kHz, and the average is gonna be pretty representative over that range. The main differences between the 400i 2020 version and the 4XX as seen in the first graph in the post is happening between 500Hz and 5kHz (most of which is the highest area of accuracy on the graph) so certainly over most of that range I think it's possible to resolve an average 1-2dB "real" difference between these two headphone models with no issue. If you rely on just one measurment, then no you can't resolve the difference with any confidence, but with enough measurements I think there's validity in the difference seen.

 

[LBec]

Out of the selected ones: Hifiman HE4***, X2HR (you need to be lucky), HD559 (with mods+filter), HD58X .

Thank you for the help. I am leaning towards the X2HR however not sure how lucky I am.

 

[Robbo99999]

(I just got a tracking e-mail saying my 4XX has just shipped, gotta wait for it to get to the UK now!)

 

[Jimbob54]

That doesn't seem quite right to me. I would have thought that if you did a number of different measurements on the same headphone and took an average of them, then I would think you'd be able to resolve differences between headphones of the difference we see between the HE400i 2020 version and the HE4XX.....I'm fairly certain they're not just the same model of headphone underneath, so you'd expect to see differences between them and by extension I think the trend of difference between them would be that which Oratory has pictured & which bobbooo showed in his post:
View attachment 102118

For instance, this is a slew of measurements from Oratory on HD600:
View attachment 102119
The variation between the different measurements in the above graph is pretty stable up to 4kHz, and the average is gonna be pretty representative over that range. The main differences between the 400i 2020 version and the 4XX as seen in the first graph in the post is happening between 500Hz and 5kHz (most of which is the highest area of accuracy on the graph) so certainly over most of that range I think it's possible to resolve an average 1-2dB "real" difference between these two headphone models with no issue. If you rely on just one measurment, then no you can't resolve the difference with any confidence, but with enough measurements I think there's validity in the difference seen.

The question about which other Hifiman the 4xx are based on seems to occupy its own special corner of the Internet. I can promise you one thing for sure though, their internals will be based on one (or more) of the existing or legacy models. That is the Drop way. The question is which. That being said, they measure well regardless, but no way are they based on unique drivers and electronics.

 

[dorirod]

Comfort is REALLY important. Need to be able to wear the headpones
for a few hours at a time. I have thrown out workable headphones because
I could not relax the clamping pressure.

Of your list I have M40x, SHP9500 and HE4XX. Most comfortable by far are SHP9500 but they need EQ. M40x I replaced pads, need mods or EQ for channel imbalance. HE4XX I would say are best out of the box but also most uncomfortable on my ears (get hot, and also press my ears so unless you have small ears, I would take them out of consideration).

 

[Robbo99999]

The question about which other Hifiman the 4xx are based on seems to occupy its own special corner of the Internet. I can promise you one thing for sure though, their internals will be based on one (or more) of the existing or legacy models. That is the Drop way. The question is which. That being said, they measure well regardless, but no way are they based on unique drivers and electronics.

Sure, but it doesn't mean there's no difference between the headphones in terms of measurements (& sound). So we don't disagree.

 

[amirm]

That doesn't seem quite right to me. I would have thought that if you did a number of different measurements on the same headphone and took an average of them, then I would think you'd be able to resolve differences between headphones of the difference we see between the HE400i 2020 version and the HE4XX.....

Averaging is just a filter. It does nothing to impact the accuracy of the underlying system. Indeed as a filter, it actually robs you of accuracy. Average the temperature for the entire year where you live. What does that tell you? Nothing. It is a number devoid of any predictive power. Averages allow humans to understand data sets better but do not do more than that.

Same is true here. The underlying transducers, measurement systems and individual measurement sessions vary. That variance is quite a bit higher than the comparison graph showed. If you average a bunch of headphones you just get less accuracy, not any representation of true value and distribution of said values.

The people who do have this data are the manufacturers. They build fixtures that give them pass/fail in manufacturing. The fixtures hold the headphone in strict compliance so that this important variable is ruled out. No one else is so situated with mounting headphones on fixtures and testing them.

Note that I have no information on 4XX vs 400i. I am just commenting on "proof point" put forward. There is none there. If anything, the data shows them to be the same within the margin of error.

 

[pkane]

Averaging is just a filter. It does nothing to impact the accuracy of the underlying system. Indeed as a filter, it actually robs you of accuracy. Average the temperature for the entire year where you live. What does that tell you? Nothing. It is a number devoid of any predictive power. Averages allow humans to understand data sets better but do not do more than that.

Averaging increases S/N ratio in the presence of noise. If measurements are noisy due to random errors, averaging can help bring out meaningful data above the noise, it’s not just a low pass filter. Averaging measurements from multiple positions with the same headphones can be helpful. Averaging results from multiple headphone samples probably is not.

 

[Robbo99999]

Averaging is just a filter. It does nothing to impact the accuracy of the underlying system. Indeed as a filter, it actually robs you of accuracy. Average the temperature for the entire year where you live. What does that tell you? Nothing. It is a number devoid of any predictive power. Averages allow humans to understand data sets better but do not do more than that.

Same is true here. The underlying transducers, measurement systems and individual measurement sessions vary. That variance is quite a bit higher than the comparison graph showed. If you average a bunch of headphones you just get less accuracy, not any representation of true value and distribution of said values.

The people who do have this data are the manufacturers. They build fixtures that give them pass/fail in manufacturing. The fixtures hold the headphone in strict compliance so that this important variable is ruled out. No one else is so situated with mounting headphones on fixtures and testing them.

Note that I have no information on 4XX vs 400i. I am just commenting on "proof point" put forward. There is none there. If anything, the data shows them to be the same within the margin of error.

I disagree with the idea that averaging multiple results does nothing to improve accuracy beyond a single lone measurement. If there is a certain spread of accuracy within a system then you have to do multiple measurements to avoid relying on one measurement that might be sitting to the outer extremes of "reality" and an offset from the average that would have otherwise been measured/determined. Given the relatively large difference between the 400i and the HE4XX in the 500Hz-5kHz zone, which I showed was the area of least variance on the HD600 that Oratory measured, then I'm confident that it's possible to make a distinction in measurements between the two headphones seen in this graph that I've shown before:

I'm quite sure that would be an easy & consistent trend difference to spot between headphones given all the points I raised in my last post, as well as re-covered in this post. Averages do show trends in data sets that have variance, and indeed beyond the validity of doing a single measurement as a means of comparison. I don't really see how you can dispute that, I'm not really in agreement with your viewpoint, it seems unscientific for want of a better word. Personally and from a previous background in scientific work/subjects, then I believe it's possible to make a reliable distinction between headphones to the degree seen in the graph above (as done by Oratory who is himself no stranger to the scientific realm, I think it's his day job).

I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on this particular point rather than hashing it out over pages, but I felt I had do at least this one reply.

 

[amirm]

Averaging increases S/N ratio in the presence of noise. If measurements are noisy due to random errors, averaging can help bring out meaningful data above the noise, it’s not just a low pass filter.

But an average *is* a low pass filter. Look up any text on DSP: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299485551_Average_Filtering_Theory_Design_and_Implementation#:~:text=A special implementation of a,that carrying high frequency distortion.

"A special implementation of a low pass algorithm is the averaging filter. It calculates the output sample using the average from a finite number of input samples. The averaging filter is used in situations where is necessary to smooth data that carrying high frequency distortion. "

Basically, an average is a crappy low pass filter in that you have no control over its cut off frequency or its strength. It gets used because it is so fast and easy to compute.

Averaging measurements from multiple positions with the same headphones can be helpful. Averaging results from multiple headphone samples probably is not.

Let's test that. In my measurements I am showing the left and right response. People often average those two and build a filter based on that. Problem with that scheme is that the filter is no longer match either channel now.

Harman did a study of their Room EQ where they tested optimizing for one location versus a few locations around the seating position. The one optimized for one location won in listening test versus weighted averaged of multiple locations.

In my amplifier SINAD rating bar graphs I compute the geometric mean. That way, you have a real value of an amplifier that has as many products below it, than it has above it. Make an average and it doesn't stand for any and can be easily skewed by a single very high or very low value. This is actually a problem when I was testing headphones with B&K 5128. It is common to get a single outlier and with it, generate really bad "average." It is best to use GeoMean or discard that sample.

Anyway, we really don't need any of these arguments. Basic intuition shows that the two graphs that were show are essentially the same and could not come from two different designs:

If I breath on my fixture I can get one or the other. No way any kind of crude signal processing like averaging bail you out of the inaccuracy of the measurements. And the small sample size to boot.

 

[amirm]

I disagree with the idea that averaging multiple results does nothing to improve accuracy beyond a single lone measurement. If there is a certain spread of accuracy within a system then you have to do multiple measurements to avoid relying on one measurement that might be sitting to the outer extremes of "reality" and an offset from the average that would have otherwise been measured/determined.

You have no idea what the pdf of these systems are. You have no idea how exacting the measurements are. You have no idea what the variance is. Averaging things doesn't bail you out of any of this. Remember, I am measuring devices with this fixture. I am telling you it doesn't remotely produce data to that resolution. If you want to believe otherwise, fine. I don't have the motivation to keep explaining it.

 

[solderdude]

I disagree with the idea that averaging multiple results does nothing to improve accuracy beyond a single lone measurement.

All you get is a bit more smoothed plot due to product variances being averaged. The measurement does not become more accurate.
Small individual peaks and dips that exist in all headphone measurements just may seem smaller in an averaged plot when they are caused by product variances but when all the measurements are seated properly and the HATS has a sharp dip at say 10kHz smoothing makes it seemingly smaller but averaging will not.

 

[DualTriode]

Averaging increases S/N ratio in the presence of noise. If measurements are noisy due to random errors, averaging can help bring out meaningful data above the noise, it’s not just a low pass filter. Averaging measurements from multiple positions with the same headphones can be helpful. Averaging results from multiple headphone samples probably is not.

Completely untrue.

Averaging only hides the noise, real time with the headphones on your head the noise is unchanged.

Thanks DT

 

[solderdude]

Completely untrue.

Averaging only hides the noise, real time with the headphones on your head the noise is unchanged.

Thanks DT

I don't think pkane means noise as in audible noise and suspect he means noise from the measurement such as from mic, pre-amp, surrounding noises and differences from slightly different seating positions.

 

[pkane]

Completely untrue.

Averaging only hides the noise, real time with the headphones on your head the noise is unchanged.

Thanks DT

I don't believe we’re talking about the same noise here.

 

[pkane]

But an average *is* a low pass filter. Look up any text on DSP: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299485551_Average_Filtering_Theory_Design_and_Implementation#:~:text=A special implementation of a,that carrying high frequency distortion.

"A special implementation of a low pass algorithm is the averaging filter. It calculates the output sample using the average from a finite number of input samples. The averaging filter is used in situations where is necessary to smooth data that carrying high frequency distortion. "

Basically, an average is a crappy low pass filter in that you have no control over its cut off frequency or its strength. It gets used because it is so fast and easy to compute.


Let's test that. In my measurements I am showing the left and right response. People often average those two and build a filter based on that. Problem with that scheme is that the filter is no longer match either channel now.

Harman did a study of their Room EQ where they tested optimizing for one location versus a few locations around the seating position. The one optimized for one location won in listening test versus weighted averaged of multiple locations.

In my amplifier SINAD rating bar graphs I compute the geometric mean. That way, you have a real value of an amplifier that has as many products below it, than it has above it. Make an average and it doesn't stand for any and can be easily skewed by a single very high or very low value. This is actually a problem when I was testing headphones with B&K 5128. It is common to get a single outlier and with it, generate really bad "average." It is best to use GeoMean or discard that sample.

Anyway, we really don't need any of these arguments. Basic intuition shows that the two graphs that were show are essentially the same and could not come from two different designs:

If I breath on my fixture I can get one or the other. No way any kind of crude signal processing like averaging bail you out of the inaccuracy of the measurements. And the small sample size to boot.

Inaccuracy of measurement due to random variables can certainly be improved by averaging. No need to argue here, but, again, S/N of any signal with noise can be improved by averaging and has nothing to do with headphone measurements but with noise statistics.