Best Headphone ASR Has Reviewed

[Ron Texas]

That is the headphone Amir liked best, but it is not the best headphone ASR has reviewed because all this is quite subjective. The HD650 is too dark for my taste, even the HD600 is.

You want it darker? Ask Leonard Cohen. I like my HD650's. Besides, you can always EQ.

 

[pwjazz]

But HRTF varies significantly from person to person

The other thing that varies significantly is listening level and hence perception of loudness across frequencies. Headphones like the LCD2 series that sound a bit muffled at low volumes tend to sound much clearer to me when I crank up the volume, whereas bright headphones like the DT 1990 or HD800S sound too thin at those volumes and I prefer listening to them at lower levels.

 

[Blank Verse]

You want it darker? Ask Leonard Cohen. I like my HD650's. Besides, you can always EQ.

That's true, EQ is always a choice and some headphones take better to it than others. I usually don't EQ my headphones because I have enough to choose a signature, and none of the headphones I own have blatant faults (except the 7506, which is also the only closed can I have).

I shouldn't be so confrontational when giving my opinion, I am biased against modern headphones following the Harman Curve, but I understand most people nowadays prefer a bass-skewed signature.

 

[Blank Verse]

By checking an available measurement against both targets. The bigger question is how did you determine they were DF tuned?

I didn't have to check, all high end headphones of that time were DF tuned (although sometimes to slightly different curves I think, or at least with specific adjustments). I don't think the Harman Cuve(s) existed until the mid or late 90s, so the HD540 Reference II could have never be tuned to it, and if you listened to how different headphones like that sound to something like an HD650 you would understand and no graph could convince you otherwise.

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

I didn't have to check, all high end headphones of that time were DF tuned (although sometimes to slightly different curves I think, or at least with specific adjustments). I don't think the Harman Cuve(s) existed until the mid or late 90s, so the HD540 Reference II could have never be tuned to it, and if you listened to how different headphones like that sound to something like an HD650 you would understand and no graph could convince you otherwise.

"The Relationship Between Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality", which, IIRC, first established the Harman curve, was published in 2012.

 

[Blank Verse]

"The Relationship Between Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality", which, IIRC, first established the Harman curve, was published in 2012.

No kidding, wow. So it is actually more modern than I thought it was. In that case the HD540 Ref II came about 20 years before it. Interestingly, every Sennheiser flagship I remember claims to be tuned to the Diffuse Field Target, though their signature has changed quite a bit between models. For example, HD540, HD580 / HD600, and HD650 have a progressively darker signature, and even though all of them appeared before the Harman curve was conceived, they seem to be a product of internal research in Sennheiser about consumer preference trends paralleling the Harman Curve claims, so I guess Sennheiser was working with their own data in the same direction at least.

 

[markanini]

I didn't have to check, all high end headphones of that time were DF tuned (although sometimes to slightly different curves I think, or at least with specific adjustments). I don't think the Harman Cuve(s) existed until the mid or late 90s, so the HD540 Reference II could have never be tuned to it, and if you listened to how different headphones like that sound to something like an HD650 you would understand and no graph could convince you otherwise.

I think you need to check. Measurement tech has improved substantially since the 1990s. The Sennheiser HD 600 was released in 1997, 14 years before the Harman target and tracks Harman very well from the mid-bass and up, a model that's compared to flagships to this day.

From the measurments I could find these vintage models are closer to Harman than diffuse field.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I think you need to check. Measurement tech has improved substantially since the 1990s. The Sennheiser HD 600 was released in 1997, 14 years before the Harman target and tracks Harman very well from the mid-bass and up, a model that's compared to flagships to this day.

From the measurments I could find these vintage models are closer to Harman than diffuse field.

DF should be added a room curve. If you add downward slop after 2khz it's much closer.
Actually for the time it's more like just flat on 318 type coupler. And it very well be using the other method which is actual human listeners to test against speakers with tones and average out.

 

[markanini]

DF should be added a room curve. If you add downward slop after 2khz it's much closer.
Actually for the time it's more like just flat on 318 type coupler. And it very well be using the other method which is actual human listeners to test against speakers with tones and average out.

So that's not a diffuse field target. Diffuse field defines a room that is highly reflective from all directions. Adding the characteristics of a different type of room on top of a room that neither matches control rooms or home environments make little sense conceptually.

I could see why it was the best you could do with standards available at the time. As much as I can see the need for Harman to develop a more conceptually coherent definition of a headphone target.

More likely the classic headphones talked about here were actually tuned by using focus groups and the diffuse field compliance was a point of marketing because it's still off given your parameters.

 

[JohnYang1997]

So that's not a diffuse field target. Diffuse field defines a room that is highly reflective from all directions. Adding the characteristics of a different type of room on top of a room that neither matches control rooms or home environments make little sense conceptually.

I could see why it was the best you could do with standards available at the time. As much as I can see the need for Harman to develop a more conceptually coherent definition of a headphone target.

More likely the classic headphones talked about here were actually tuned by using focus groups and the diffuse field compliance was a point of marketing because it's still off given your parameters.

I don't think anyone really use raw DF target as target. Since pretty much the dawn of everything, etymotic has been using such target. There was an article on goldenears.net but the site seems down. THX also refer that to small room x-curve and it matches Etymotics small room curve pretty much perfectly.
And I believe the DF they are talking about is essentially DF + small room compensation.

 

[Blank Verse]

I think you need to check. Measurement tech has improved substantially since the 1990s. The Sennheiser HD 600 was released in 1997, 14 years before the Harman target and tracks Harman very well from the mid-bass and up, a model that's compared to flagships to this day.

From the measurments I could find these vintage models are closer to Harman than diffuse field.

I don't see what you are seeing. The DF curve is relatively flat from the bass up to the upper mids. In the HD540 the bass is a little recessed, so the curve has an ascending trajectory, whereas the opposite is true for the Harman curve. The point being that the bass predominates in the Harman curve, which is the opposite to what the HD540 curve is doing. You either like that or you don't, and I particularly don't, but I agree that it must be true that most people prefer that type of signature.

Aside from the fact that the HD600 (or even the HD650) couldn't have targetted Harman because they predate it, it is true (as I mentioned earlier) that the trend in the Sennheiser flagships has been towards darkness, up to the HD700 I guess. The HD800 and the HD540 are much more alike than the HD800 and the HD600, for example. I have no idea why Sennheiser did that, but they must obviously have done some research based on people's preferences as well, in parallel to the Harman research.

The famous "Sennheiser veil" people refer to when they talk about the HD580 and the HD600 is just a product of that shift to a darker sound, emphasizing the bass compared to how the previous generation that were closer to the DF curve behaved. It gives a warmer, more forgiving sound, but it takes away balance and detail in my opinion, and I also think the soundstage suffers as a consequence, and that's why most people don't use the HD600 as an example of expansive soundstage.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I don't see what you are seeing. The DF curve is relatively flat from the bass up to the upper mids. In the HD540 the bass is a little recessed, so the curve has an ascending trajectory, whereas the opposite is true for the Harman curve. The point being that the bass predominates in the Harman curve, which is the opposite to what the HD540 curve is doing. You either like that or you don't, and I particularly don't, but I agree that it must be true that most people prefer that type of signature.

Aside from the fact that the HD600 (or even the HD650) couldn't have targetted Harman because they predate it, it is true (as I mentioned earlier) that the trend in the Sennheiser flagships has been towards darkness, up to the HD700 I guess. The HD800 and the HD540 are much more alike than the HD800 and the HD600, for example. I have no idea why Sennheiser did that, but they must obviously have done some research based on people's preferences as well, in parallel to the Harman research.

The famous "Sennheiser veil" people refer to when they talk about the HD580 and the HD600 is just a product of that shift to a darker sound, emphasizing the bass compared to how the previous generation that were closer to the DF curve behaved. It gives a warmer, more forgiving sound, but it takes away balance and detail in my opinion, and I also think the soundstage suffers as a consequence.

Hd800 is not accurate at all. Hd600 is not veiled, it even has somewhat too much 3khz.
The sound stage has something to do with frequency response but it also contributed by the distance from the driver to the ears the volume of the cup etc. You can eq an hd800 to similar to hd600 and still have spacious sound.

 

[Bear123]

Bose:

"Conclusions
Amazing what happens when you follow the science and tune a headphone to proper target curve. You get a happy Amir who loves the 35 II with just a bit of EQ. What else is there to say?

The Bose QuietComfort 35 II gets my high recommendation if used with recommended EQ. Without it, it is still recommended but just not as highly."

Under $300, comfortable, excellent noise cancellation, wireless, bluetooth, microphone etc etc etc.

 

[Blank Verse]

Hd800 is not accurate at all. Hd600 is not veiled, it even has somewhat too much 3khz.
The sound stage has something to do with frequency response but it also contributed by the distance from the driver to the ears the volume of the cup etc. You can eq an hd800 to similar to hd600 and still have spacious sound.

I have never heard the HD800, but I own an HD540 (similar frequency response) and also an HD580 (basically the same as the HD600). To me the HD580 sounds veiled in comparison to the HD540, which sounds much more lifelike and accurate. Yes, the distance from the ear to the driver matters, but even when the HD540's driver is closer to my ears (I am using third party earpads) than the HD580, its soundstage is vastly superior, so I am writing that off to the frequency response.

I think part of all this stuff is that everybody's preference and even their ear canal is different, but to me the HD540 is much more accurate tonally than the HD600, and the soundstage is night and day, which makes it even more realistic.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I have never heard the HD800, but I own an HD540 (similar frequency response) and also an HD580 (basically the same as the HD600). To me the HD580 sounds veiled in comparison to the HD540, which sounds much more lifelike and accurate. Yes, the distance from the ear to the driver matters, but even when the HD540's driver is closer to my ears (I am using third party earpads) than the HD580, its soundstage is vastly superior, so I am writing that off to the frequency response.

I think part of all this stuff is that everybody's preference and even their ear canal is different, but to me the HD540 is much more accurate tonally than the HD600, and the soundstage is night and day, which makes it even more realistic.

I don't think hd540's soundstage is anything spectacular.
The highs don't coming back down after 3khz shows it's obviously too bright. I hope you can compare to a good speaker system and see how the highs differ.

 

[Blank Verse]

I don't think hd540's soundstage is anything spectacular.
The highs don't coming back down after 3khz shows it's obviously too bright. I hope you can compare to a good speaker system and see how the highs differ.

What version of the HD540 do you own, and what earpads do you use that allow you to make those statements? As I said in an earlier post, the HD540 is extremely dependent on the earpads that you use. The HD540 can be too bright, kind of bassy, perfectly balanced, it can have amazing soundstage, or mediocre soundstage, it really depends on the earpads that you use with it. Some earpads really destroy its sound, some other earpads make it shine like few headphones. I would be very leery of just looking at a graph and drawing any general conclusions.

 

[Phorize]

I didn't move any goal posts, because the OP didn't ask "Which headphone ASR has reviewed is most faithful to the Harman curve?"

I used to slobber all over my HD580 (which are about 20 years old). They are pleasing headphones, and nothing they do is blatantly bad. It's what they don't do that I don't like, and you can't form an educated opinion until you have compared it to the alternative (a well designed and implemented Diffuse Field target headphone). My HD540 Ref II are not really bright, they are simply more transparent, more faithful to the source. They are unveiled, they are articulate, and the soundstage is true to life. When I hear a cymbal crash with my HD540 I hear the actual thing. And I can't tell you how many times I have had to remove my HD540 from my head because I heard subtle noises (like small clicks, creaks, or the sound of an amp being hooked up, for example) in recordings which I never knew were there, and which are so real that make me think somebody in the room caused them, instead of them being in the recording.

The HD580 and HD600 are superb headphones, but the HD540 is much better for me. BTW, I don't have an HD600, but I listened to one for a while and I could almost not tell it apart from my HD580.

Your question asked about ‘best’ headphone, unqualified except for the fact that it was reviewed on ASR. Given a literal reading it falls short of explicitly saying ‘best as defined by Amir’ but it heavily infers it, especially as you are posting on ASR. If all you wanted do was say ‘I think the HD 540 is the best headphone’ you could have just posted a thread saying that, no one would mind

Personally I find myself picking up my AKG 371s more than my other headphones (I have an HD6xx and some Audio Technica ones). It’s probably just the amazing bass on them out of the box.

 

[Blank Verse]

Your question asked about ‘best’ headphone, unqualified except for the fact that it was reviewed on ASR. Given a literal reading it falls short of explicitly saying ‘best as defined by Amir’ but it heavily infers it, especially as you are posting on ASR. If all you wanted do was say ‘I think the HD 540 is the best headphone’ you could have just posted a thread saying that, no one would mind

Personally I find myself picking up my AKG 371s more than my other headphones (I have an HD6xx and some Audio Technica ones). It’s probably just the amazing bass on them out of the box.

Fair enough . I am not familiar with the 371. Is that a Parabolic model? As I type this I am listening to my K240 Monitor which I modified by removing the dampening foam on the back of the cups. There are few things to fault them, the most noticeable is the treble roll off compared to the HD540 that makes some cymbal hits sound unnatural, otherwise it has a very good timbre and the soundstage after removing the foam is more open.

 

[Jimbob54]

Just finished reading the latest review on the Audeze LCD-24 and I'm not sure what headphone Amir likes best of the ones he's tested.

So Dan Clark's Aeon RT got a swinging panther, as did the LCD-24 (after EQ), as did a few other headphones. However, headphones have the additional requirement of not just measuring well, but being comfortable to wear. Removing price from the equation, is there a way to tell which one Amir thinks is the absolute best?

He has stated on here he does not intend to rank on preference and I'm not sure you can infer solely from the review comments as they and the panthers include a degree of price/value consideration. Also I think technical prowess is factored in which may not be evident in the listening experience. I get the sense that his top selection price no object might be something like :

Utopia
Hd800S
HE6 SE
Aeon RT

Whether he puts the HD650/6XX and k371 on quite the same absolute level or just on a value basis, I know not.

 

[markanini]

I don't see what you are seeing.

That's because you are focusing only on the sub bass. Compare the two graphs, which is closer to a flat line?