Best Headphone ASR Has Reviewed

[Blank Verse]

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

I am looking at the relation between the mids and the bass mostly, because the bass is what can affect the mids the most. Bass bleeds into the mids easily and overpowers the sound signature of a headphone blurring detail and destroying the balance. Bass carries much more power than treble also, that is why it is easier to manage treble by using foam discs and earpads, but if you have a headphone with an overpowering bass there is little you can do. This is also why bass causes more hearing damage than treble at the same volume and why AM stations signals travel longer than FM signals.

If you look at the signature for the HD540, the bass doesn't overpower the mids. The Harman curve has a recessed mid section wheras the bass is a little higher. The curves are going in opposite directions.

 

[ReaderZ]

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.

Note of your top 4, two are some of the most comfortable and light weight, one is fairly good in both, but one of them is heavy and not all that comfortable, which IMO put it at least a tier done as comfort and weight are soooo important to headphones.

 

[Jimbob54]

Note of your top 4, two are some of the most comfortable and light weight, one is fairly good in both, but one of them is heavy and not all that comfortable, which IMO put it at least a tier done as comfort and weight are soooo important to headphones.

I dont disagree, - but the OP question was which do we think @amirm favourite are from all reviewed. We likely will never know as he is against publicly ranking. So thats my stab based on his reviews and any subsequent comments (price notwithstanding). You might be right anyway and he finds the HE6 too heavy to love long term. Its all a mystery!

(Which is a roundabout way of saying, its not my top 4!)

 

[markanini]

I am looking at the relation between the mids and the bass mostly, because the bass is what can affect the mids the most. Bass bleeds into the mids easily and overpowers the sound signature of a headphone blurring detail and destroying the balance. Bass carries much more power than treble also, that is why it is easier to manage treble by using foam discs and earpads, but if you have a headphone with an overpowering bass there is little you can do. This is also why bass causes more hearing damage than treble at the same volume and why AM stations signals travel longer than FM signals.

If you look at the signature for the HD540, the bass doesn't overpower the mids. The Harman curve has a recessed mid section wheras the bass is a little higher. The curves are going in opposite directions.

Looks like the HD540 should have an issue in that case, since the bass rise starts well into the mids.

 

[KeithPhantom]

First of all, diffuse field is based on the assumption of averaging sound energy by using a room that is fully reverberant (or the closest possible), thing that is not realistic representation of how music is produced or even listened. It has the same issue as free-field, where it is assumed that sound is reproduced in anechoic conditions. Real rooms have both a component of direct (anechoic) and reflection components, and those components are not taken in consideration in both extremes. Harman actually solves the issue by including a feasible “treated” room (cited with a reverberation time of 0.4s) which is neither fully anechoic nor reverberant.

Second, in my opinion, old and even most of the new “audiophile” headphones are fatally flawed in the design department. I am not talking about FR, but about the other characteristics such as distortion, driver excursion, and ringing. I have found more accomplished drivers in other less niche applications where sound quality is not the main focus, but in a community of sound quality chasers, I find that many of the recommended products are flawed but are still referred as “high quality”. This has made me skeptical of believing in these circles without empirical information and peer review.

 

[Blank Verse]

Looks like the HD540 should have an issue in that case, since the bass rise starts well into the mids.

I am sorry, I don't understand your point. If there is a rise in the mids it is a rise in the mids, not a rise in the bass. the HD540 doesn't have a bass rise.

You understand I actually own the HD540 and have listened to them extensively, as well as the HD580 and other cans, right? It seems you are trying to convince me by all means that the HD540 sounds in a certain way I know doesn't, based on some graph you found in the internet taken with who knows what earpads.

 

[Blank Verse]

First of all, diffuse field is based on the assumption of averaging sound energy by using a room that is fully reverberant (or the closest possible), thing that is not realistic representation of how music is produced or even listened. It has the same issue as free-field, where it is assumed that sound is reproduced in anechoic conditions. Real rooms have both a component of direct (anechoic) and reflection components, and those components are not taken in consideration in both extremes. Harman actually solves the issue by including a feasible “treated” room (cited with a reverberation time of 0.4s) which is neither fully anechoic nor reverberant.

Second, in my opinion, old and even most of the new “audiophile” headphones are fatally flawed in the design department. I am not talking about FR, but about the other characteristics such as distortion, driver excursion, and ringing. I have found more accomplished drivers in other less niche applications where sound quality is not the main focus, but in a community of sound quality chasers, I find that many of the recommended products are flawed but are still referred as “high quality”. This has made me skeptical of believing in these circles without empirical information and peer review.

Yes, I know Harman is supposed to be more faithful to the frequency response of monitors in theory. The question is which monitors and which room, and under which conditions the actual source was mixed and mastered in. And theory is all fine, except that in my experience the HD540 with its DF tuning sounds much more realistic than something like the HD580/HD600, or even more so the HD650 which I have never heard nor do I intend to. It is my experience and the experience of many other people who agree with me.

The fact the soundstage on the HD540 (with the right earpads) is much better than its darker siblings should also make anybody think that maybe there is a flaw in that theory. All my open DF tuned cans have a better soundstage than my HD580 (on paper DF tuned, but with some obvious modifications to move the frequency response closer to Harman territory). Nobody in their sane mind will tell you an AKG K240 mk ii is superior to the old K240 Monitor or to the K240 DF, which is the poster boy for Diffuse Field tuned headphones (it says so in the earcup badge, in German). In theory it should, since it uses newer technology and it is tuned to the Harman curve (vs the Diffuse Field). Yet, they suck in comparison. Like you, I am skeptical of everything and I only trust my ears.

 

[KeithPhantom]

supposed to be more faithful to the frequency response of monitors in theory. The question is which monitors and which room, and under which conditions the actual source was mixed and mastered in.

At least music was not produced in a fully reverberant and with omnidirectional speakers. So in that aspect, it is more realistic than diffuse-field. I have an EQ for DF, and compared to Harman, it is so bright and lacking bass.

 

[solderdude]

DF merely is a measurement method where a HATS is used and the final (compensated) result is created from multiple speakers in an anechoic room.

By lack of other measurements (FF is even more wrong) headphone manufacturers chose the DF to be closest to a headphone.
It isn't but it is better than FF.

Harman took their ref speakers in their 'optimal listening room' and their HATS with their pinna. Measured the FR in that room and the familiar Harman curve we see so often thus is an 'averaged' (weird dips and peaks 'smoothed') is the result.
When you get headphones to follow that 'average' (you would have to smooth it to the curve which no one does) then you are close to speakers measuring flat in a room. For headphones some extra lows is added to make up for the lack of tactile feel.

Seems like a better standard than something designed for 'measuring' omni directional SPL using a HATS.

 

[Blank Verse]

At least music was not produced in a fully reverberant and with omnidirectional speakers. So in that aspect, it is more realistic than diffuse-field. I have an EQ for DF, and compared to Harman, it is so bright and lacking bass.

I don't care much about the science behind it. If I listen to a song over headphones and it sounds much more like the real thing, to me that is the realistic headphone. I can concede that some people might not care about realism and/or have different perception of the sound due to anatomical differences or ability to perceive different frequencies. But to me, headphones close to the Diffuse Field target are so much more realistic than Harman Curve(s) tuned headphones. It's not even close.

BTW, you said this a few months ago in other thread:

"I own the HD 600, but I hate any headphone equalized to Harman, and I have given it more than enough testing and acclimatization time with multiple headphones (and I own the Samsung Galaxy Buds+, which are based on Harman, but I do not consider them to sound close to real) and I cannot bring myself to like it. But in contrast, I love the modified diffuse field curve Sennheiser used with the HD 6X0 line (I hate whatever they used for the stock HD 800/S). I have my own recordings of an instrument I play done by friends that have a professional studio, following multiple international standards, and anything EQ'd to Harman just doesn't sound real, let alone good to my ears. But I see the science they used to derive the curve and appreciate that others are able to enjoy it."

I'm just curious, what changed your mind? Have you had a chance to compare an HD540 with proper cups or a K240DF against the HD600 or other Harman tuned headphone?

 

[Blank Verse]

DF merely is a measurement method where a HATS is used and the final (compensated) result is created from multiple speakers in an anechoic room.

By lack of other measurements (FF is even more wrong) headphone manufacturers chose the DF to be closest to a headphone.
It isn't but it is better than FF.

Harman took their ref speakers in their 'optimal listening room' and their HATS with their pinna. Measured the FR in that room and the familiar Harman curve we see so often thus is an 'averaged' (weird dips and peaks 'smoothed') is the result.
When you get headphones to follow that 'average' (you would have to smooth it to the curve which no one does) then you are close to speakers measuring flat in a room. For headphones some extra lows is added to make up for the lack of tactile feel.

Seems like a better standard than something designed for 'measuring' omni directional SPL using a HATS.

Yes, in theory the Harman target makes more sense, and it is difficult to argue with the science. However, I have a few problems with it:

1. It is based on people's preferences, and in that sense is a poor indicator of realism. I am sure the vast amount of folk who listen to crap music that has been poorly mastered probably prefer the Harman curve, because it is more forgiving of bad material, it masks imperfections, and it results in a more pleasing/dramatic sound in those cases.

2. I have empirical evidence that DF tuned headphones sound much more realistic than Harman tuned headphones. The detail, transients, soundstage, everything is superior. Percusive instruments, including cymbals, are fully represented, all the harmonics in stringed instruments are there (as far as my hearing allows me to distinguish).

I can't bring myself to argue against point #2, and I don't care much about the science behind it, to be honest. I only care about the result. I understand why for a company like Harman, and most other manufacturers, using Harman makes sense, since that appears to be what the majority likes. But I am not the majority, and I don't care what the majority likes. I am not contesting the science and the throught behind this, but the result is all that matters to me.

 

[solderdude]

1: Only the bass level is and as discussed this is open for discussion.
As someone Sean Olive said:

2: That's your personal taste. Maybe even because you have gotten used to the presentation

That said... my preference is between Harman and DF

 

[Blank Verse]

1: Only the bass level is and as discussed this is open for discussion.
As someone Sean Olive said:
View attachment 137368

2: That's your personal taste. Maybe even because you have gotten used to the presentation

That said... my preference is between Harman and DF

No headphone is exactly Harman or DF, the HD540 is somewhere in between, but closer to DF. The HD600 is a little closer to Harman, and the HD650 even closer.

As far as me getting used to the presentation, I can hear more detail and realism (including soundstage and air) on my HD540 than on my HD580, that has nothing to do with getting acclimated to the presentation.

I really don't want to be contentious, I understand why the Harman curve exists. I'm just saying that for me it sucks, as I actually prefer something closer to a DF tuning.

 

[solderdude]

It depends on what you mean by closer to Harman. The HD600 is nothing close to Harman at all. I see Harman as extra bass. The HD600 isn't anywhere near it. It gets higher Harman ratings because in the rating they also look at 'linearity' and deviations (dips/peaks).

HD600 and HD650 are nearly the same. HD650 has a bit more upper/bass lower mids emphasis but not bass extension.

Preference is perfectly fine. Still trying to measure a HD540. I expect it to have a treble peak (explaining why you hear more detail and air)

 

[KeithPhantom]

I don't care much about the science behind it. If I listen to a song over headphones and it sounds much more like the real thing, to me that is the realistic headphone.

A valid opinion, but it doesn’t help in defining what is a “true frequency response target” for a headphone. We need science to define this and also to recognize the limited ability our own perception has to do with what is objectively right.

I'm just curious, what changed your mind?

Investigating more about target curves and their limitations.

I have empirical evidence that DF tuned headphones sound much more realistic than Harman tuned headphones.

We would love to know your methodology and the data compiled. We would like to peer review your findings and repeat the experiments on our side in order to establish possible causation if any multiple correlation is found. We need your hypothesis, methodology, experiment design, data analysis methodology, observations, conclusions, scope and limitations as well.

poor indicator of realism.

So enlighten us about what is realism. Please use repeatable and empirical evidence.

I love the modified diffuse field curve Sennheiser used with the HD 6X0 line (I hate whatever they used for the stock HD 800/S). I have my own recordings of an instrument I play done by friends that have a professional studio, following multiple international standards

That happened and still true. The problem with the HD 600 is the lack of bass (the <100 Hz area was always something I complained with this family of transducers) and the distortion. Frequency-response-wise, over 100 Hz they are really good.

 

[KeithPhantom]

It depends on what you mean by closer to Harman. The HD600 is nothing close to Harman at all. I see Harman as extra bass. The HD600 isn't anywhere near it. It gets higher Harman ratings because in the rating they also look at 'linearity' and deviations (dips/peaks).

HD600 and HD650 are nearly the same. HD650 has a bit more upper/bass lower mids emphasis but not bass extension.

Preference is perfectly fine. Still trying to measure a HD540. I expect it to have a treble peak (explaining why you hear more detail and air)

Well, other than the deviation in the bass, the black line (measurement) follows the blue one (equalized) pretty well for a passive transducer:

 

[THW]

That happened and still true. The problem with the HD 600 is the lack of bass (the <100 Hz area was always something I complained with this family of transducers) and the distortion. Frequency-response-wise, over 100 Hz they are really good.

tbf distortion for the HD 600 is mostly limited to sub-bass frequencies where we are basically tone deaf anyway. otherwise distortion performance for the 6x0 family is actually quite good IIRC.

 

[KeithPhantom]

tbf distortion for the HD 600 is mostly limited to sub-bass frequencies where we are basically tone deaf anyway. otherwise distortion performance for the 6x0 family is actually quite good IIRC.

These frequencies are needed for faithful reproduction anyways, and it is over 1% even at 94 dBSPL. Also, you are forgetting to add the bass compensation to reach Harman, and you will be listening to over 100 dB SPL average in the range of 20-60Hz in order to compensate for Fletcher-Munson (somewhat compensated by the recording though) and the Harman compensation. Also, in my books, open-back is just a nuisance, but that is personal:

 

[Blank Verse]

It depends on what you mean by closer to Harman. The HD600 is nothing close to Harman at all. I see Harman as extra bass. The HD600 isn't anywhere near it. It gets higher Harman ratings because in the rating they also look at 'linearity' and deviations (dips/peaks).

HD600 and HD650 are nearly the same. HD650 has a bit more upper/bass lower mids emphasis but not bass extension.

Preference is perfectly fine. Still trying to measure a HD540. I expect it to have a treble peak (explaining why you hear more detail and air)

I didn't say that the HD600 matches the Harman curve, just that it is closer to it in the bass region than the HD540, and that the HD650 is even closer. I haven't even listened to the HD650, because I don't believe I would like them. I am just comparing the HD540 to the HD580 which I own.

As far as the treble peak of the HD540, I know the treble is well defined, but to me it never sounds sibilant or grating (unlike, for example, the 7506 which I can't tolerate anymore). A good test for treble is percusive instruments like cymbals and string sections, and even woodwinds since there is a lot of high frequency information in closely miced woodwinds due to the blowing sound of the performer. The HD540 to me has a perfect treble, but I do see why many people think of it as overly bright, since it is bright compared to most modern headphones.

 

[Blank Verse]

A valid opinion, but it doesn’t help in defining what is a “true frequency response target” for a headphone. We need science to define this and also to recognize the limited ability our own perception has to do with what is objectively right.

There is no such thing as "objectively right" because everybody is different anatomically and neurologically, and are able to perceive sound a little differently. Also, the source recording matters also. There are recordings which have ambience already built in, including frequency dampening, specially orchestral and acoustic recordings in real spaces. If you play these recordings through a studio monitor in a dampened room you introduce additional signature into the sound. There is a delicate balance and complex interplay of a lot of factors, there is nothing "objectively right" about headphone production, it is as much an art as it is a science, and that is why my 30 year old HD540 is superior to most headphones produced today, because it was finely tuned by talented engineers and sound experts by ear.

Investigating more about target curves and their limitations.

This statement is illogical. I don't understand how looking at a curve or reading a paper can make a headphone sound better. I was asking you what made you change your mind regarding Harman, since you said that no headphone using Harman sounded correct to you.

We would love to know your methodology and the data compiled. We would like to peer review your findings and repeat the experiments on our side in order to establish possible causation if any multiple correlation is found. We need your hypothesis, methodology, experiment design, data analysis methodology, observations, conclusions, scope and limitations as well.

I am a Mathematician by trade, and I couldn't care less about methodology and data in this case (beyond a reasonable point). I only care about how well a headphone sounds. A machine or a robot can't create a headphone, it takes dedicated and talented people and a lot of time. The only empirical evidence that matters is your own experience. By your own admission, a few months ago no Harman headphone sounded right to you. What you should have done is maybe buy some vintage DF tuned headphones, and try for yourself if they sounded better, that is what I did. Looking at frequency response curves all day long is a futile effort, when in fact the only thing that matters is whether a pair of headphones give you (and only you) an optimal listening experience.

So enlighten us about what is realism. Please use repeatable and empirical evidence.

Your ears listen for you, and you should listen to your ears. Whichever headphone reproduces sound giving the best illusion of reality is the most realistic headphone for you. The headphone is just a part of the audio processing chain, somewhere in between the microphone which recorded the original performance and the auditory cortex in your brain. You really have to listen to the soundwaves and experiment with different headphones. Frequency curves are a dull tool to give you a rough idea of how a headphone might sound, and only useful to discard potential candidates. For example, I would never listen to a deep V signature headphone. Beyond that you really need to listen to your ears and experiment.