Abyss Diana V2 Review (headphone)

[vkvedam]

The K1000 is a completely different thing.
Its a headphone DESIGNED and tuned to be run freefield. The Diana is not.....
Additionally the diana is planar and k1000 is dynamic, afaik planar drivers (and estats) change significantly more when there is no front-volume seal than dynamics do

If it is that complicated then you will not get an optimal seal ever with these headphones and I would struggle to shell out so much for such a tricky thing

 

[GoldenOne]

But I remembered on this video the Abyss engineer? said the dianas could even work well as on-ears. I don't think you get much of a seal you when you do that but apparently it works just as well. so what's up with that?

just skip to around 1:35

Given his description of how they would apparently "Break into your ear shape" i'd imagine the intent is they would still seal.
Realistically, someone needs to post some proper measurements taken with a seal so we can put this to rest.

 

[Degru]

If it is that complicated then you will not get an optimal seal ever with these headphones and I would struggle to shell out so much for such a tricky thing

It's not complicated at all, just put the headphones on your head and listen. The issues here have to do with how the headphones interact with the measurement rig, because the measurement rig is not the same as a person's head.

 

[the_brunx]

Given his description of how they would apparently "Break into your ear shape" i'd imagine the intent is they would still seal.
Realistically, someone needs to post some proper measurements taken with a seal so we can put this to rest.

So the ear pads can break in and seal completely when you place them on top of your hard to seal ears but apparently cannot seal on a simple flat surface?
Cmon man

 

[Degru]

So the ear pads can break in and seal completely when you place them on top of your hard to seal ears but apparently cannot seal on a simple flat surface?
Cmon man

A hard, flat surface is quite different from managing to seal on the soft, malleable outer edge of your ear (which would also get squished against the side of your head in this scenario). Besides, I really doubt these headphones would actually be "on ear" for the vast majority of people. You would have to have pretty massive ears for that.

 

[the_brunx]

I will have to have a pretty massive imagination. Never seen such an over ear headphone earpad which will seal even when placed on top of the ears.

 

[all24bits]

Realistically, someone needs to post some proper measurements taken with a seal so we can put this to rest.

I have zero affiliation with Abyss but I do have contact with their team and those measurements are coming, supposedly, with measurements on an IEC-60318-4 with a proper seal.

 

[the_brunx]

Amirm, Just place the pads on top of your measuring rig ears and do a last measurement. Problem solved

 

[the_brunx]

I have zero affiliation with Abyss but I do have contact with their team and those measurements are coming, supposedly, with measurements on an IEC-60318-4 with a proper seal.

How can they be verified?

 

[GoldenOne]

Amirm, Just place them on top of your measuring rig ears and do a last measurement. Problem solved

No one is realistically arguing for on-ear seals.
You were the one that brought that up.....

This forum is supposed to focus on objective evidence. Please stop flooding the thread with rubbish and making fun of people

 

[the_brunx]

No one is realistically arguing for on-ear seals.
You were the one that brought that up.....

This forum is supposed to focus on objective evidence. Please stop flooding the thread with rubbish and making fun of people

So was the abyss guy lying?

 

[GoldenOne]

So was the abyss guy lying?

The statement from the abyss guy could be interpreted in various ways.

One would need to actually test it to come up with any answers. There is little use in speculating

 

[the_brunx]

He’s the engineer. He said it not me. And if he says they work just as good when you place them on your ears I wonder where you got this seal flaw with dianas from?

 

[the_brunx]

And let’s keep it civil. These are all valid points.

 

[Degru]

I will have to have a pretty massive imagination. Never seen such an over ear headphone earpad which will seal even when placed on top of the ears.

Creative Aurvana Live is a good example of an "over ear" pad that is small enough to be almost on ear for many people (me included), yet still seals perfectly fine.

The Diana pads are much larger, and have a bit of a bowl shape to them which will give more room for the ear to fit outside of the fully open interior diameter. This is likely what the guy in the video was referring to. There's no way any not comically large ear would be able to stick out from those pads, so they can safely be considered over-ear pads without any useless nit-picking over an isolated quote from a show floor interview.

As has been stated several times, the measurement seal issue is caused by the pad shape not being flat, and instead being contoured to the shape of a head. This means it will have issues on a flat surface such as that of Amir's rig, but will seal fine on a real head.

 

[GoldenOne]

He’s the engineer. He said it not me. And if he says they work just as good when you place them on your ears I wonder where you got the rubbish of this seal flaw from?

You're calling it "rubbish" despite there being PLENTY of evidence to show exactly the same effects of a broken seal on other headphones. There is plenty of evidence to show that the results in this review are due to a broken seal, and should be re-tested. If this is not the case, then the test should be re-done with a seal, show the same thing and prove the assumption wrong.


As to the engineer's statement;
Soft 'on-ear' pads are unlikely to seal as well against your ear as proper over-ears are, but are still likely to be better than pads on a flatplate with a massive gap on one side.
Air pressure/seal isn't a binary "yes/no" question. Otherwise as someone mentioned previously, using glasses, or having a beard would make a lot of headphones awful. Its a scale. A submarine is waterproof. A submarine with a hole will let a bit of water in but will probably still work. A submarine with the tail chopped off isn't going to do so well.
Regardless again, the on-ear thing is rather besides the point. Most people won't have ears big enough where that will be the case, and if they do, it might be a legitimate concern.

I can't use the HEDD phone because my head is too big. That's not because the product is bad and they should've put more effort into making it work with the pads halfway up my ears, its just cause my head is too big, and I'm unable to use the product in the situation it was designed for.
Should they make it bigger? I'd say so, but I'm not going to equate a bad sound to bad performance/acoustics when its clearly a specific fitting issue.

The simple answer here that would put all questions to rest would be to test the headphones again with a proper seal. Abyss is apparently going to release their own measurements in response to this review, and if people don't trust them then it'd be good to see some others measure and share their results.

The diana's pads are quite clearly designed to fit the user's head better. As is the same on some other headphones. This will obviously create a situation where they will not fit properly on a flatplate. If you think that's a problem and that all headphones should be designed for a flatplate and not actual human ergonomics, then I hope you have some very flat cheeks.

 

[the_brunx]

BTW I only said rubbish to return the favor. And I quickly deleted it. Because I dont want to go in that direction. These are questions which can be asked and valid points. No need to get heated.

 

[nerdoldnerdith]

I've never heard the Diana or the Diana Phi, but the AB-1266 Phi TC is the best pair of headphones money can buy. I own the Utopia and the HE1000SE, two headphones with frequency responses very close to the Harman target, and the AB-1266 sounds better to my ears.

I believe they must have made some compromises with the Diana's. If they are truly as bad as these measurements suggest, though, they shouldn't be selling them.

 

[richard12511]

I understand that the flatplate measurements may be more repeatable, but that doesn't address the issue of a lack of seal. Something can be very repeatable and consistent but with a persistent flaw.

If measuring something such as a Hifiman headphone, which all have flat pads that will seal to a flatplate, same as an HD800, or focal etc, then there shouldn't be a problem and I agree, a flatplate may indeed be more consistent. But when a headphone like this, where the pads clearly are NOT sealing to the flatplate properly is being tested, surely you need to take that into account? Its not a small "slightly worse" change that could be experienced by someone with a slightly different shaped head or fitting position. It can completely change the FR and THD measurements to an enormous degree. The examples I posted earlier showing that, going from 0 subbass to near flat extension, and going from 0.3% THD to >10% THD

I think you're missing his important point about EQ verification. The EQ results show that the non seal, midbass hump, no sub-bass response is the response that he was actually getting at his ear(which is why EQing from that worked). If he was unable to get the sealed, no hump, extended sub-bass response at his ear, then I don't think it makes sense to review them that way. Given that the non sealed response is closer to the actual response a human will hear, I think it's the correct response to review.

 

[GoldenOne]

I think you're missing his important point about EQ verification. The EQ results show that the non seal, midbass hump, no sub-bass response is the response that he was actually getting at his ear(which is why EQing from that worked). If he was unable to get the sealed, no hump, extended sub-bass response at his ear, then I don't think it makes sense to review them that way. Given that the non sealed response is closer to the actual response a human will hear, I think it's the correct response to review.

I don't dispute that, but it also doesn't actually resolve or mean that the issue isn't there.

The fact that the EQ was more accurate only shows that it was more consistent. Which isn't what i'm disputing.

But it was consistently done in a seemingly incorrect fashion. The lack of a seal will CHANGE the behaviour of the driver and resulting sound. It will not necessarily make it less consistent. And so the fact that the EQ 'worked' unfortunately does nothing to show that this set of measurements is representative of the product's actual performance. Something can be consistently bad or wrong in the same manner and have EQ work perfectly.

Again to use a car analogy, you might find that Revving your car to 3000rpm on ice gets you to 5mph, and to 6000mph gets you to 10mph.
But just because the 'eq' or ratio of revs to speed was "correct", it doesn't mean that you can therefore judge the performance of that car on ice. And you'll probably get to 60mph @ 6000rpm on the road.
ESPECIALLY when frequency response and THD are not always proportionally linked. You cannot equate one to the other.

Abyss is supposedly releasing some measurements tomorrow which I imagine will tell quite a different story. Hopefully we get the chance to see Amir correct this and re-do the testing with a seal. Be it on this rig or another one. Honestly even just pushing the headphones onto the rig a bit with hands to ensure a seal would probably be better than testing with no seal at all. In fact I believe that's actually what Tyll ended up doing for a lot of his stax measurements.