• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The science behind Stax's magic

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
So do you dispute that Stax headphones are "special"? :)

Define "special" :D. That's the whole problem, isn't it, just like when we ask what makes them "magical" ?

"Trebles smoothness" was actually a criteria for me when I started selecting headphones for their EQability, not their basal FR curve, as it's an area I just can't manage to EQ successfully so far to my satisfaction. The HD650 won at this little game when running sweeps or manually playing tones (heck in general playing music), not my SR507 (but both were a lot, lot better on my ears than my HD800). Now as it turns out most headphones on my head seem to produce fairly sharp painful peaks that I've never ever experienced with speakers so while I can't know whether the HD650's trebles response on my head is the right one - it probably isn't - I know that it's among the least off I've heard.

But that is just me. My own impressions will necessarily differ from yours unless your ears happen to be shaped in the exact same way as mines (cf article above for example). Hence why the hypothesis of treble smoothness is dubious to start with (just like the THD hypothesis).

Investigating further what Rtings' PRTF measurements attempts to assess would be interesting though.

I think the OP might mean electrostats more generally. Sennheiser, Hifiman, Shure, Dan Clark Audio and others have all picked the technology for their top of the line headphones/ earphones.

I'm not sure that says anything about their acoustics. But perhaps that says more about how you market TOL headphones.
Personally I find electrostatic HPs super cool and interesting, and I really liked the SR507. But I still sold it :D.
 
OP
Yoaime

Yoaime

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
6
Location
Belgium
So do you dispute that Stax headphones are "special"? :)

I think the OP might mean electrostats more generally. Sennheiser, Hifiman, Shure, Dan Clark Audio and others have all picked the technology for their top of the line headphones/ earphones.
I don't know, I said Stax because I couldn't hear any other estats.
 
OP
Yoaime

Yoaime

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
6
Location
Belgium
The audio store reopened ! I could try this morning 3 headphones.
HE-1000, Arya and HEDDphone. Unfortunately no Stax available, but I might be able to try one next week.

They sounded like headphones. The Arya was my favorite of the bunch. The HEDDphone was clearly the worst, feeling less transparent.
None gave me the feeling I got with Stax last time. But I really need to try Stax again to confirm.
 

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
The magic is that they don't have any bass.

That is easily fixable with the reversible blutac mod. That and convolution based EQ and you will be in heaven.
 

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
That is easily fixable with the reversible blutac mod. That and convolution based EQ and you will be in heaven.

Who's trying to do that though? Also convolution based EQ, yeah that's not available from all sources, and is yet another thing that needs accounting for.

But regardless, why do any of that when you can get all you need from another headphone. There's no Stax magic (sorry, there is, in the same fashion there's "real magic" to begin with at all in any sense).
 

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Who's trying to do that though? Also convolution based EQ, yeah that's not available from all sources, and is yet another thing that needs accounting for.

The mod is quite popular with Stax owners, here are the instructions: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-stax-thread-iii.677809/page-1172

The principle is quite clear, to improve bass response via improved seal and dampening of the enclosure. The results are clean and substantial:

stock SR-L500: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Stax SR-L500/Stax SR-L500.png

modded SR-L500: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Stax SR-L500 (blu-tac mod)/Stax SR-L500 (blu-tac mod).png

Regarding convolution based EQ, I use it because I can, but you can get to 90% of that with 5 band PEQ or 10 band FEQ. Furthermore, the headphones are very nice even without that, but tonality and coherence are of course much better with EQ.

But regardless, why do any of that when you can get all you need from another headphone. There's no Stax magic (sorry, there is, in the same fashion there's "real magic" to begin with at all in any sense).

I did not say there is "Stax magic", and that is a metaphor, of course. I said they sound great, and I know why -- I personally value transparency (low THD/SINAD) more than tonality (frequency response). Tonality can largely be fixed, be it with mods or DSP, transparency is inherent in the design of the sound transducer.
 
Last edited:

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
The mod is quite popular with Stax owners, here are the instructions: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-stax-thread-iii.677809/page-1172

The principle is quite clear, to improve bass response via improved seal and dampening of the enclosure. The results are clean and substantial:

stock SR-L500: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Stax SR-L500/Stax SR-L500.png

modded SR-L500: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/oratory1990/harman_over-ear_2018/Stax SR-L500 (blu-tac mod)/Stax SR-L500 (blu-tac mod).png

Regarding convolution based EQ, I use it because I can, but you can get to 90% of that with 5 band PEQ or 10 band FEQ. Furthermore, the headphones are very nice even without that, but tonality and coherence are of course much better with EQ.



I did not say there is "Stax magic", and that is a metaphor, of course. I said they sound great, and I know why -- I personally value transparency (low THD/SINAD) more than tonality (frequency response). Tonality can largely be fixed, be it with mods or DSP, transparency is inherent in the design of the sound transducer.

But if I can find lower THD headphones (which I also value along with you, since with that, I can EQ to whatever desire and still be safe from audible distortion if the THD figure is low enough) that don't need any of these sorts of mods for example, would you then agree that headphone would make anyone using the "Stax magic" metaphor just senseless?
 

Maki

Active Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
252
Likes
478
Who's trying to do that though? Also convolution based EQ, yeah that's not available from all sources, and is yet another thing that needs accounting for.

But regardless, why do any of that when you can get all you need from another headphone. There's no Stax magic (sorry, there is, in the same fashion there's "real magic" to begin with at all in any sense).
I can't. If it's psychological, there's no way to blind test headphones to get around the brain worms. Other suggestions welcome, it's getting hot here and running my class A STAX amps isn't helping.
 

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
But if I can find lower THD headphones (which I also value along with you, since with that, I can EQ to whatever desire and still be safe from audible distortion if the THD figure is low enough) that don't need any of these sorts of mods for example, would you then agree that headphone would make anyone using the "Stax magic" metaphor just senseless?

Absolutely! "Stax magic" is an emotionally charged metaphor, an expression of love for those who, like me, have come to appreciate what these headphones are capable of. :)

Of course, if you do find more transparent headphones for the same or lower amount of money, please do share with the community! Somehow I suspect that'd be difficult for either headphones or IEMs, especially if we factor in the price of 700 USD for headphones + headamp. I am following various sources, such as crinacle's ratings, and this forum, of course, on the lookout for the next frontier in headphones and IEMs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tks

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
Absolutely! "Stax magic" is an emotionally charged metaphor, an expression of love for those who, like me, have come to appreciate what these headphones are capable of. :)

Of course, if you do find more transparent headphones for the same or lower amount of money, please do share with the community! Somehow I suspect that'd be difficult for either headphones or IEMs, especially if we factor in the price of 700 USD for headphones + headamp. I am following various sources, such as crinacle's ratings, and this forum, of course, on the lookout for the next frontier in headphones and IEMs.

I tried getting LCD2C's to distort before doing something stupid like sending my ears to oblivion, so I'd imagine that's one headphone particularly, but obviously no measurements to confirm. Though I can't recommend these since comfort sucks.

Moondrop Kanas Pro's (sadly discontinued, but their sucessors like the Starfields would also suffice) have vanishingly low THD, to where I've tried them unsealed just hanging loose in my ear canal, and I can't hear distortion (if I had them sealed, it would literally hurt for more than a split second of sound).

You also have Sennheiser IE 40 for $98 on Amazon Prime shipped, which are almost identical in terms of THD spec (they also sound like their headphones somewhat tonally speaking). Amir also reviewed some Panasonic IEM (the RP-TCM125) which had insanely good THD

IEM's in my view blow headphones to pieces in terms of THD. But headphones have outstanding ergonomic issues (HiFiman stuff) if by chance there are some that are very good in terms of THD. Or they're by companies I've never heard about like the Sivga Phoenix which come in at quite a decent price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ata

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
I tried getting LCD2C's to distort before doing something stupid like sending my ears to oblivion, so I'd imagine that's one headphone particularly, but obviously no measurements to confirm. Though I can't recommend these since comfort sucks.

I had listened to a few LCD branded headphones in store, not sure which ones they were (3-4 years ago), and I would not listen to any of those without EQ.

Moondrop Kanas Pro's (sadly discontinued, but their sucessors like the Starfields would also suffice) have vanishingly low THD, to where I've tried them unsealed just hanging loose in my ear canal, and I can't hear distortion (if I had them sealed, it would literally hurt for more than a split second of sound).

Awesome reference, thank you! The super low THD for Kanas Pro and Starfield is news to me. I am a fan of the single DD IEMs, had a RE0, more recently getting an ER2XR from Amazon for USD 70, very happy with those. Yet, according to your source, they distort close to 1%.

I wonder what is the relationship between THD and resolution? For example, Kanas Pro is rated at <0.1% THD but Crinacle rates it only as B- for technical grade, whereas ER2XR is B+ technical grade. Of course, Crinacle's grading is somewhat subjective, but it seems there may be more to preferences than FR and THD alone...

IEM's in my view blow headphones to pieces in terms of THD. But headphones have outstanding ergonomic issues (HiFiman stuff) if by chance there are some that are very good in terms of THD. Or they're by companies I've never heard about like the Sivga Phoenix which come in at quite a decent price.

Agree about IEMs vs headphones in general, they have a smaller set of physical transducer problems to solve, if only they could offer the soundstage and imaging that some headphones (and most speakers) are capable of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tks

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
Crinacle's grading is somewhat subjective, but it seems there may be more to preferences than FR and THD alone...

Yes, everything else we try to account for (too many things to list, as they're psychological and too contextual even on a per-day basis, or even per-hour basis. All that's required is for you to have a slightly less than stellar day for every experience to be taken as "meh" for the rest of the day. Or lets say one day you've been testing a bunch of gear subjectively, and are suffering fatigue. The list goes on and on.

His reviews are too subjective in my view, but he provides FR plots (though he really should start looking into providing THD, but I think he fears this on some level, as it would require some unsavory conclusions).

Agree about IEMs vs headphones in general, they have a smaller set of physical transducer problems to solve, if only they could offer the soundstage and imaging that some headphones (and most speakers) are capable of.

I don't even know what soundstage and imaging even is on a technical level (I've never seen a transducer company advertise soundstage metrics, or imaging metrics). The only idea of soundstage that is worth quantifying outside the realm of other things like FR, is the levels of pinna activation which doesn't exist with listening to IEMs. Everything else is down to a few basic other already existing phenomena. Those being:

Recording quality, recording type (so mono vs binural and things of that nature), post processing (echo and reverb), and channel panning techniques.

But since these are aspects that contribute to what many people describe as what their feeling of soundstage is, it's pointless to ascribe some sort of metric to soundstage, as it's comprised far too much of many other things. I challenge people to listen to a mono recording, and then tell me which IEM has better soundstage and imaging, and also what a transducer needs done to it technically, to achieve more soundstage, but not messing with things like FR and post processing stereo effects and things of that nature. I get met with no responses, or just tangential nonsense besides the topic of contention.

Speakers producing some feeling of soundstage makes sense since it's literal massive amounts of soundwaves hitting your entire body, so one could argue the shape of the soundwave or things of that nature contribute to that sort of soundstage. Headphones also but to a lesser degree (but still some ear pinna activation at least), IEMs, I don't understand what soundstage could possibly mean outside of the things I listed which are already existing concepts that don't need to be co-opted into this notion of soundstage.

Lastly, IEM's simply due to isolation and propensity of being able to provide clarity of the sound itself, sometimes sound far more realistic than listening to headphones and especially speakers. Because there's no point of giving you a massive "soundstage" when the recording noise floor can be heard for example, or listening to some awful music in general. A binural track done properly, is scary good using IEMs for example. And in those moments I feel like I'm there, without having the speaker effect of sound hitting me all over (which isn't really required for all types of sounds, as the sound of a higher pitch bird noise, or ambient sound comes through far more faithfully out of an IEM than a speaker in a room where reflections galore is occurring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ata

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Good question about soundstage. I always thought that for speakers, soundstage is due to relative signal timing / phase differences in a stereo signal, converted into location by our brains. The pinna theory as to why soundstage is missing with IEMs and headphones sounds very plausible. The only things is some IEMs, such as ER2XR, have more of a soundstage than others, such as ER4XR -- same company, same physical size and shape, different transducer...
 

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
Good question about soundstage. I always thought that for speakers, soundstage is due to relative signal timing / phase differences in a stereo signal, converted into location by our brains. The pinna theory as to why soundstage is missing with IEMs and headphones sounds very plausible. The only things is some IEMs, such as ER2XR, have more of a soundstage than others, such as ER4XR -- same company, same physical size and shape, different transducer...

If you could blind test equally EQ'd Etys at the same output level. Then you would be on to something. Barring that, FR most certainly is imparting itself if not ther flatout psychological effects on top of it.
 

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
If you could blind test equally EQ'd Etys at the same output level. Then you would be on to something. Barring that, FR most certainly is imparting itself if not ther flatout psychological effects on top of it.

FR is key but not only factor in the feeling of transparency, this is why Crinacle has separate ratings for tone (FR) and technical grade. It may be a combination of FR + total distortion (not only THD?) + impulse response + something else. For example, BA bass vs DD bass can't be different due to FR only.

Has this been discussed on this forum before? What is the "scientific definition" of headphone/IEM transparency?
 

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
FR is key but not only factor in the feeling of transparency, this is why Crinacle has separate ratings for tone (FR) and technical grade. It may be a combination of FR + total distortion (not only THD?) + impulse response + something else. For example, BA bass vs DD bass can't be different due to FR only.

Well firstly, the fact that you're not aware (as am I last I checked) of him giving a concrete technical definition that can be used as a plotable scientific metric for this word "tonality", goes to show it's nothing but a subjectively derived thing (he also said so himself over a year ago when he talked about his actual views in quite a lengthy post on his site).

Likewise when he says DD bass vs BA bass, he, nor anyone else has demonstrated an IEM with identical FR + housing, to then demonstrate there is this so-called claimed difference between BA bass VS DD bass. I'd love for one day for someone to blind test FR matched + output level matched DD/BA drivers, and prove this is an actual thing, and not something that manifests in FR due to quirks with one driver or the other.

For there to be this difference in DD vs BA, he would have to be able to AT LEAST blind test random IEM's where he doesn't know what the driver configuration is, and pick out which are DD and which are BA (since I've heard him go on record complaining about BA bass).

Has this been discussed on this forum before? What is the "scientific definition" of headphone/IEM transparency?

There is no scientific definition simply in virtue of transparency not being a metric other than some culmination of metrics some sites have. The closest relation to that word would be fidelity (which would be signal preservation throughout the entire chain, where what came in through the mic, is what's coming out through eventual speakers). Naturally there's no such thing as true fidelity (would be literally impossible in my view from a physics standpoint) because every part of the chain imparts some level of stuff that wasn't there originally. For a system to be fully transparent, most people take that word to simply mean fidelity is at such a high standard, you wouldn't be able to blind test between a live sound versus played back sound. Ideal fidelity as you might gather now is impossible (because you would need to produce devices with literal zero distortion in order for true fidelity, which isn't possible in electric systems), while ideal transparency simply needs to be good enough to fool the brain into thinking what is being played, is the real deal in front of you perhaps.

Now I feel both speakers and headphones/IEMs both pull away ahead of one another in different respects while trending toward transparency. IEM's/Headphones for instance (with binural recordings for example), is a pretty magical experience, and you don't need to account for things like room reflections, while also having far lower THD metrics compared to speakers (and honestly power amps which Benchmark has been holding the crown to for half a decade completely unchallenged overall). While speakers will have a more bodily impact (something that can never be emulated with headphones for example) if you were playing some bass heavy instrument in real life (like beating some big drum). So while speakers may distort more (and many of them have annoying AF tweeter hiss that I can't understand why is still present in products in 2021), the transparency is good enough, that given a good room, and a proper setup (perhaps with multiple subs in a well treated room), could perhaps fool someone that the real deal was playing in your home.

But I don't know of anyone who has the pleasure of having a live band, a recording studio, and a playback system all in their own home and perfectly set up for equalized evaluation (thus the music recorded will never sound like the area you live in). And because of that, chasing fidelity to that level seems like a lost cause unless you can pony up the cash for such leisure. But at that point, why even bother if you can just call a band to play in your own home whenever you wanted?

This is why there's not really anyone that can provide an all encompassing word such as transparency a definition to where you can put it down under a single plot-able metric that isn't dependent on other factors for example like FR (and the others we use for evaluation). If it were that simple, what would be the point of actual test measurements. Like if we could test for transparency with our ears every single time, and plot it on a scale of 1 to 10 reliably as we reliably can label the color blue in a deck of colored cards - there would be no real reason for these other metrics, and we would just tell makers "do more transparency" (which rightly, they would laugh at).

One easy way to demonstrate how pointless this word is without blind testing accuracy and just overall idealistic machination... Is to ask the person to show you what "top tier transparency" looks like on a device that has it's bass and treble -30dB down, and something like 30-40% THD is injected. If they can provide a way to make such an audio output equal "high transparency" without touching those two factors, that would be something one would be interested in hearing about. But if you need an ideal FR target, and you require sub 1% THD for example. Then this word already is largely based on already existing concepts, thus serves zero technical/scientific merit.
 
OP
Yoaime

Yoaime

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
6
Location
Belgium
I got to test some Stax (202, L300 & L500) today, spent around 2h30 with them. There was also a HD660.

Started with the HD660 that sounded tight/precise compared to my M1060. In comparison the M1060 sounded dull, soft. They weren't much different for everything else I would say.

Then I put on the Stax from cheapest to most expensive. They are definitely more similar than different.
If we take the 202 as base, the 300 has a bit less low-end but sound more crisp in the highs and is a bit sibilant.
The 500 remove that harsh "s" from the 300 and add deeper and more present low-end.
But that's really minor. That, I'm sure of.

After that, I don't really know. They sounded different because the tonality is and the soundstage seems a bit wider and some other things maybe. Not better or magical but different.
Stax don't just have less bass and that's it. The L500 definitely gives you bass. I think they just have more forward mids and low highs, combined with peaks in the highs. But after some times my ears were too tired and all headphones sounded the same so I couldn't check anything anymore. Music stores aren't exactly quiet (especially this one) so I had to turn the volume up and got tired quickly.


While switching between the 660s, M1060 and l500 sometimes I was using one with the EQ preset of another for a few seconds and it sounded like the headphones I was putting on, weird but still recognizable.
While at home, for weeks now, I tried to EQ my headphones to sound like each other. Or more like trying to get the best of each one to the others to end up with my "perfect sound". My SRH1840 was hopeless, at least I couldn't find a way to get rid of what makes me think this one sound bad. But I could do something for my Sony XM4.
Now they sound really near my EQed M1060. The M1060 are a little more open sounding with a bit wider soundstage and do much better 20-70Hz, for everything else they are pretty damn almost the same. After 30 seconds of listening I forget which one I'm wearing the difference of 'openess' and 'soundstageness' fade away.

But it's nowhere as simple as slapping Oratory1990's preset to match Harman curve on both. And that's where it gets weird. I had to spend hours and hours to find the right EQ manually to match the M1060. With the preset measured I got a bit closer, then I worked on that and applied another heavy EQ on top.
- Do I compensate for other factor than FR with my EQ ? Don't think so
- Oratory measurement are wrong ? They can't be that way off anyway.
- My head/ear shape react differently so I have to compensate for that. Maybe, but they both have to go through the same ear canal, so why would they be different ? My ear can recognize the headphone I'm wearing and change shape accordingly ?
I know that anything above 8k cannot be measured properly to cannot be EQ this way, but my EQ affect the whole spectrum.

My current belief is that you can take any headphones that have low enough distortion (and no weird ringing), can do the deep bass and soundstage as you like, then EQ it to whatever sound you like. But it takes hours and you have to have the desired target at your disposal at home (like the band in you living room for the best result) for comparison the whole process.
But my beliefs are shaken pretty often in light of new data.
So my take on the previous posts is that transparency would just be FR and soundstaging capabilities.


I surely have missed something. I'm considering buying a Stax setup to test my theory.
Should have picked audio engineering instead of informatics. :)
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
I got to test some Stax (202, L300 & L500)
- Oratory measurement are wrong ? They can't be that way off anyway.
- My head/ear shape react differently so I have to compensate for that. Maybe, but they both have to go through the same ear canal, so why would they be different ? My ear can recognize the headphone I'm wearing and change shape accordingly ?

Test rigs measurements have a degree of imprecision that isn't high enough to make Harman's research predictive value invalid but high enough to make predictions difficult once you get two headphones close to each others. The simple fact that even when adhering to the same standards two different measurements can differ in a way that exceeds threshold of audibility illustrates that.

Headphones can measure very significantly differently on your head than what they do on a test rig, for various reasons (pads wear or compression, clamp force, seal breach, the way they interact with your anatomy, positional variation, etc.).
Examples :
- Rtings measure headphones' bass response on five real humans. An example of a pair of headphones with a high variance at low frequencies because of inconsistent seal across users : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-3-1/graph#669/3185
- Earpads' influence on FR : https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/earpads/
- A paper where six headphones were measured on six different subjects with an Etymotic ER7C probe located near the subjects' eardrum : https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
- A piece from Oratory1990 about it : https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/gbdi7v/_/fpb63ht - A short, anecdotal personal experience of a surprising variance at lower frequencies between two fully open headphones : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the...-at-a-breakthrough-value.943107/post-16300055

So, basically, dummy head measurements are largely precise enough that Harman's research predictive value is very good between, let's say, a pair of HD650 and the XM3, but drops between, let's say, a pair of HD650 and HD560S, both of which are fairly close to each others to start with - even though their remaining differences are still audible.
And they're good enough that you can make two widely different headphones sound a lot closer to each others, but once they get close, it starts to become really difficult to get them to produce the exact same FR at your own eardrum.

Out of curiosity I've actually started to make my own DIY probe tube microphones BTW :D.
 
Last edited:

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
There is no scientific definition simply in virtue of transparency not being a metric other than some culmination of metrics some sites have. The closest relation to that word would be fidelity (which would be signal preservation throughout the entire chain, where what came in through the mic, is what's coming out through eventual speakers). Naturally there's no such thing as true fidelity (would be literally impossible in my view from a physics standpoint) because every part of the chain imparts some level of stuff that wasn't there originally. For a system to be fully transparent, most people take that word to simply mean fidelity is at such a high standard, you wouldn't be able to blind test between a live sound versus played back sound. Ideal fidelity as you might gather now is impossible (because you would need to produce devices with literal zero distortion in order for true fidelity, which isn't possible in electric systems), while ideal transparency simply needs to be good enough to fool the brain into thinking what is being played, is the real deal in front of you perhaps.

Now I feel both speakers and headphones/IEMs both pull away ahead of one another in different respects while trending toward transparency. IEM's/Headphones for instance (with binural recordings for example), is a pretty magical experience, and you don't need to account for things like room reflections, while also having far lower THD metrics compared to speakers (and honestly power amps which Benchmark has been holding the crown to for half a decade completely unchallenged overall). While speakers will have a more bodily impact (something that can never be emulated with headphones for example) if you were playing some bass heavy instrument in real life (like beating some big drum). So while speakers may distort more (and many of them have annoying AF tweeter hiss that I can't understand why is still present in products in 2021), the transparency is good enough, that given a good room, and a proper setup (perhaps with multiple subs in a well treated room), could perhaps fool someone that the real deal was playing in your home.

But I don't know of anyone who has the pleasure of having a live band, a recording studio, and a playback system all in their own home and perfectly set up for equalized evaluation (thus the music recorded will never sound like the area you live in). And because of that, chasing fidelity to that level seems like a lost cause unless you can pony up the cash for such leisure. But at that point, why even bother if you can just call a band to play in your own home whenever you wanted?

This is why there's not really anyone that can provide an all encompassing word such as transparency a definition to where you can put it down under a single plot-able metric that isn't dependent on other factors for example like FR (and the others we use for evaluation). If it were that simple, what would be the point of actual test measurements. Like if we could test for transparency with our ears every single time, and plot it on a scale of 1 to 10 reliably as we reliably can label the color blue in a deck of colored cards - there would be no real reason for these other metrics, and we would just tell makers "do more transparency" (which rightly, they would laugh at).

One easy way to demonstrate how pointless this word is without blind testing accuracy and just overall idealistic machination... Is to ask the person to show you what "top tier transparency" looks like on a device that has it's bass and treble -30dB down, and something like 30-40% THD is injected. If they can provide a way to make such an audio output equal "high transparency" without touching those two factors, that would be something one would be interested in hearing about. But if you need an ideal FR target, and you require sub 1% THD for example. Then this word already is largely based on already existing concepts, thus serves zero technical/scientific merit.

Thanks for the detailed response, I agree there is a limit to what we know and what can be measured... Any objective test system will not be enough, and there will always be a subjective viewpoint. Amir also presents both objective and subjective review of equipment, I am personally in favour of that.

My question regarding headphone and IEM transparency was looking for a simple answer, that is, is there something similar to the speaker preference ratings (an objective if arguably fuzzy metric), but devised for headphone/IEM measurements?
 

John_M

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
62
Likes
51
My current belief is that you can take any headphones that have low enough distortion (and no weird ringing), can do the deep bass and soundstage as you like, then EQ it to whatever sound you like.

Is this the 'received wisdom' of the forum?

It goes to the question of whether it's worth buying Stax. There are cheaper headphones than (say) the 009 which have similarly low distortion levels.

Or, to take a more extreme example, the HE-1. If this were right then the HE-1 would look like a colossal waste of money.
 
Top Bottom