Headphone with these characteristics under $1,500

[raistlin65]

Yeah, for sure, Harman Headphone Curve is for sure not a one size fits all, but it's a good place to start & to recommend unless that person knows categorically that a Harman Headphone Curve doesn't suit them.....but there's not too many folks that really know that it doesn't because you'd have to EQ whatever headphone you got accurately to the curve to start with, although the number of people that would have tried that is probably relatively large here in this ASR community right here.....but if you're recommending to newbies (new posters) here then most of the time I suppose you could assume they haven't done that before and haven't tested the Harman Headphone Curve on themselves yet, so Harman Heaphones would be a good starting recommendation in that case.

I strongly disagree.

If someone says, "What headphone should I buy?" and the goal is just to reply, "Buy the AKG K371." Then sure.

The better place to start is to find out what the listener likes/doesn't like about the quality and quantity of treble, mids, bass, and soundstage of the headphones they currently have. And of course their budget.

The Focal Utopia actually scores very highly on the Harman preference rating (a score of 86); for reference, the AKG K371 which is touted for its closeness to the curve scores an 89. The HEDD scores a 66, which is in the realm of "good" if we were to go by Harman categorized scores in its whitepaper.

Poor: 0 - 39
Fair: 42 - 54
Good: 65 - 76
Excellent: 90-100

Source: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/RANKING.md

I understand that the preference rating can, for some people, predict headphone preference. But what does that mean in terms of aesthetic experience if comparing a headphone with "excellent" vs. "very good."

In other words, the Harman Target Response research doesn't tell us how much differing from the response curve affects enjoyment. Particularly if we account for how people can, apparently, psychoacoustically adjust somewhat to the sound of a headphone.

If I give someone who is in the 2 out of 3 group Headphone A which scores a 92, and Headphone B which scores an 80, do we know that the listener will experience significant difference in sound experience in terms of pleasure if one uses B exclusively vs. A exclusively for a few days? Particularly if Headphone B has other desirable attributes, like a better soundstage and better resolution?

Quite interesting, isn't it? Through the publishing of their research and marketing of this concept, Harman has created a market for their headphones which have a high user preference rating, a rating that they created, even though we don't really know how that translates into the aesthetic experience of listening to music with headphones.

 

[ZolaIII]

I think the Fostex TH-500RP would be a good option now when price is again down for some 300$. I personally don't favour bess over anything especially not lower mids, for some strange reason Foster follows the line (FR) similar to their dynamic driver's with Planars including slight roll off in lows below 70 Hz. Anyhow it's up to your preferences as always.

 

[majingotan]

I strongly disagree.

If someone says, "What headphone should I buy?" and the goal is just to reply, "Buy the AKG K371." Then sure.

The better place to start is to find out what the listener likes/doesn't like about the quality and quantity of treble, mids, bass, and soundstage of the headphones they currently have. And of course their budget.




I understand that the preference rating can, for some people, predict headphone preference. But what does that mean in terms of aesthetic experience if comparing a headphone with "excellent" vs. "very good."

In other words, the Harman Target Response research doesn't tell us how much differing from the response curve affects enjoyment. Particularly if we account for how people can, apparently, psychoacoustically adjust somewhat to the sound of a headphone.

If I give someone who is in the 2 out of 3 group Headphone A which scores a 92, and Headphone B which scores an 80, do we know that the listener will experience significant difference in sound experience in terms of pleasure if one uses B exclusively vs. A exclusively for a few days? Particularly if Headphone B has other desirable attributes, like a better soundstage and better resolution?

Quite interesting, isn't it? Through the publishing of their research and marketing of this concept, Harman has created a market for their headphones which have a high user preference rating, a rating that they created, even though we don't really know how that translates into the aesthetic experience of listening to music with headphones.

The common thing about those two headphones that I prefer despite having a wildly different set of tonality is their attack and decay envelopes. The notes have that snap in attack and decay that makes you perceive the sound as “fast” and it’s not a surprise that those two headphones provide a similar attack and decay property (by hearing it and not from a cycle burst tone graphs as these info are hard to find) similar to what I perceive with CA Andromeda IEM that I like a lot. Imaging is also another factor that also makes one lean to headphone that have similar traits.

 

[KeithPhantom]

The common thing about those two headphones that I prefer despite having a wildly different set of tonality is their attack and decay envelopes. The notes have that snap in attack and decay that makes you perceive the sound as “fast” and it’s not a surprise that those two headphones provide a similar attack and decay property (by hearing it and not from a cycle burst tone graphs as these info are hard to find) similar to what I perceive with CA Andromeda IEM that I like a lot. Imaging is also another factor that also makes one lean to headphone that have similar traits.

I find many of the sonic characteristics of a transducer (but not all of them) can be emulated by just changing the frequency response of that transducer. There are things that are more nonlinear in nature such as the "planar wall sound" you get from planar magnetic headphones which mostly have slow decaying CSDs or many small resonances. Thus, a target can be partially influenced in how the driver is set up and the target response desired.

 

[majingotan]

I find many of the sonic characteristics of a transducer (but not all of them) can be emulated by just changing the frequency response of that transducer. There are things that are more nonlinear in nature such as the "planar wall sound" you get from planar magnetic headphones which mostly have slow decaying CSDs or many small resonances. Thus, a target can be partially influenced in how the driver is set up and the target response desired.

To an extent. However, changing FR won’t simply remove the innate (nonlinear) characteristics of a driver and how much you value those innate qualities can lead you to prefer one over the other despite both being EQ to Harman Target as close as possible for instance. The Air Motion driver will still sound different in the transient regions despite having a < 1 dB difference in 20-20000Hz FR curve from another headphone with a dynamic driver volume matched. In IEMs, it’s even more apparent that BA drivers have a distinct sound than DD drivers even if EQed to Harman IEM Target due to the innate characteristics of a BA driver

 

[robertozappala]

Bonus:

1. Il closed-back è preferito, ma non necessario.
2. È necessaria un'amplificazione bassa o nulla, sarebbe un enorme +.
3. Non molti cali e picchi in FR sarebbero utili.

Have you seen Ollo S4X?

https://olloaudio.com/it/pages/s4x-reference-headphones

 

[KeithPhantom]

To an extent. However, changing FR won’t simply remove the innate (nonlinear) characteristics of a driver and how much you value those innate qualities can lead you to prefer one over the other despite both being EQ to Harman Target as close as possible for instance. The Air Motion driver will still sound different in the transient regions despite having a < 1 dB difference in 20-20000Hz FR curve from another headphone with a dynamic driver volume matched. In IEMs, it’s even more apparent that BA drivers have a distinct sound than DD drivers even if EQed to Harman IEM Target due to the innate characteristics of a BA driver

Umm, but nonlinearities affect sound perception? Also, the physics of each technology will affect what each one is good at.

 

[bobbooo]

The common thing about those two headphones that I prefer despite having a wildly different set of tonality is their attack and decay envelopes. The notes have that snap in attack and decay that makes you perceive the sound as “fast” and it’s not a surprise that those two headphones provide a similar attack and decay property (by hearing it and not from a cycle burst tone graphs as these info are hard to find) similar to what I perceive with CA Andromeda IEM that I like a lot. Imaging is also another factor that also makes one lean to headphone that have similar traits.

I wouldn't call the Utopia's attack and decay especially 'fast':

Just compare that impulse response to say, the HifiMan HE400i's (which costs $3,800 less):

 

[goldark]

I understand that the preference rating can, for some people, predict headphone preference. But what does that mean in terms of aesthetic experience if comparing a headphone with "excellent" vs. "very good."

In other words, the Harman Target Response research doesn't tell us how much differing from the response curve affects enjoyment. Particularly if we account for how people can, apparently, psychoacoustically adjust somewhat to the sound of a headphone.

If I give someone who is in the 2 out of 3 group Headphone A which scores a 92, and Headphone B which scores an 80, do we know that the listener will experience significant difference in sound experience in terms of pleasure if one uses B exclusively vs. A exclusively for a few days? Particularly if Headphone B has other desirable attributes, like a better soundstage and better resolution?

Quite interesting, isn't it? Through the publishing of their research and marketing of this concept, Harman has created a market for their headphones which have a high user preference rating, a rating that they created, even though we don't really know how that translates into the aesthetic experience of listening to music with headphones.

You're mostly preaching to the choir. The Harman preference rating for headphones, akin to its speaker rating, doesn't take into account everything that encompasses sound quality - just tonality. My HifiMan Anandas have a lower score than my AKG K371's but are the sonically superior headphone for many reasons (soundstage, spaciousness, bass texture, detail/resolution, dynamics). Looking through that database of headphones, the Harman brands aren't necessarily all at the top. Yes, a couple of AKG's score well, but there are plenty of mediocre scoring AKG's and JBL's scattered throughout. Sennheiser, Focal, HiFiMan, and Beyerdynamic it seems generally score better.

 

[majingotan]

I wouldn't call the Utopia's attack and decay especially 'fast':

View attachment 82266

Just compare that impulse response to say, the HifiMan HE400i's (which costs $3,800 less):

View attachment 82267

Do you know what frequency of the tone? Planars have better impulse responses at the bass region than DD due to physics. What I'm referring to "fast" are the impulses (attack/decays/transients) at midrange to lower treble frequencies (900Hz - 6KHz)

 

[Robbo99999]

I wouldn't call the Utopia's attack and decay especially 'fast':

View attachment 82266

Just compare that impulse response to say, the HifiMan HE400i's (which costs $3,800 less):

View attachment 82267

Lol, I think some people are attracted to Giffen Goods! (Actually I googled it now to check - Veblen Goods I should say, I think I forgot some of my Economics I learned at school!)

I strongly disagree.

Well there's different ways to crack an egg, and I don't crack 'em like that.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Lol, I think some people are attracted to Giffen Goods!

You just made me remember my intermediate macroeconomics class.

 

[raistlin65]

Well there's different ways to crack an egg, and I don't crack 'em like that.

Sure. But some methods don't end up with pieces of shell in your eggs

 

[bobbooo]

Do you know what frequency of the tone? Planars have better impulse responses at the bass region than DD due to physics. What I'm referring to "fast" are the impulses (attack/decays/transients) at midrange to lower treble frequencies (900Hz - 6KHz)

It's not a tone, it's an...impulse, so doesn't have a frequency (or you could say it contains all frequencies). As for midrange to treble transient response, this delta-CSD plot (CSD normalized to 0 dB at t=0 to disregard frequency response) doesn't show an especially fast response either, and also reveals resonance peaks in the treble:

Compare to the HE400i, which shows a faster response and no resonances:

 

[Robbo99999]

You just made me remember my intermediate macroeconomics class.

It was my favourite class, but a long time ago!

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

I'd go with another planar magnetic headphone if you want very low distortion in the bass, something like the HifiMan HE4XX.

Or if you want lightweight headphones with good solid flat bass, Dan Clark Audio Aeon RT for $500.

 

[bobbooo]

Or if you want lightweight headphones with good solid flat bass, Dan Clark Audio Aeon RT for $500.

I wouldn't call a significant dip between 100 and 200 Hz 'good solid flat bass':

Then there's the severe lack of pinna gain in the treble between 1 and 5 kHz where our hearing is most sensitive. Not a neutral headphone by any means. The HifiMan HE4XX is however, and approaching a third of the cost.

 

[KeithPhantom]

The HE 4XX seem like a good option. I’ll investigate more about these.