Best sounding closed-back headphone $500-$1,000 for a non-audiophile?

[oleg87]

I'm not sure how representative Amir's measurement is of the APMs is (at least as of the firmware version that was current for the short time I owned a pair). Oratory1990 and Crinacle both measured a bit more pinna gain in their units (or in Crinacle's case, one channel of his unit), which also corresponded more to what I heard. Amir's EQ tweaks sounded absolutely horrendous on the unit I had.

 

[ZolaIII]

They look 100 time's better and will last 5 times longer.
Regarding price;

Denon AH-D5200

Buy the Denon AH-D5200 at Wifimedia.eu | Free shipping to Benelux and Germany | Official Denon Dealer

www.wifimedia.eu

Denon AH-D5200 Over the Ear Headphones - Zebrawood for sale online | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Denon AH-D5200 Over the Ear Headphones - Zebrawood at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

or if you don't mind B stock

Denon AH-D5200 Reference Over Ear Headphones AHD5200 | Hyperfi

The new Denon AH-D5200 Reference Over Ear Headphones feature FreeEdge 50mm drivers that will cancel out unwanted resonances, and feature an ergonomic design that incorporates memory foam into the ear cup covers in order to provide you with a fatigue free listening experience.

www.hyperfi.co.uk

Didn't really answer my question about horrific highs.
Edit: and their rating is based upon deviation towards their flat bass curve not Harman or something in between.

 

[Axo1989]

Regarding the difference between Mirriam-Webster and @solderdude on timbre, the former uses aggregate "quality" in the definition which is always problematic without getting specific about the qualities in question.

Otoh the latter definition of timbre as the time-related harmonic structure within the amplitude envelope is normal, not idiosyncratic.
While @solderdude simply mentioned decay, a normal term for that envelope in sound synthesis is ADSR (attack-decay-sustain-release) ideally with a fifth factor for tremolo on the sustain. We usually have harmonics (most instruments) but sometimes enharmonics (some percussion like bells) and sometimes we need some noise (mechanics of a kettle-drum for example) and jitter/shimmer (likely covered by the tremolo above but can be complex). People who create synthetic analogs for natural sounds can go down a fascinating fractal rabbit-hole.

Generally I think @solderdude is saying that all this is well within the performance parameters of a reasonably well-damped speaker system (assuming also good FR) so it's not significant as a reproduction issue. I agree in principle, but also speculate that speakers (and possibly headphones) may in fact contribute audible timbre (based on microsecond group-delay initial attack variations, wavelet spectral decay characteristics and/or complex driver diaphragm and cabinet/headphone body resonance behaviours, for example).

This may account for oddities like ASR reacting favourably to the sound of those TuneTots (despite some strange FR) or less favourably to some Buchardts (despite good FR) but keep in mind that I have way less experience in these matters (especially with headphones) so my speculations may be rubbish.

 

[DRNNOO]

They look 100 time's better and will last 5 times longer.

I can go along with the idea of something being built better, to which I don't know which one is built "better" I haven't had any build quality issues with my Apples. But Looks? Thats not an aspect I entertain, thats like adding a spoiler to a Ford Escort, it will not go any faster lol. The Apples are not pretty lol, but they sound really good and the noise cancellations might put the SQ above anything comparable in FR without noise cancellation.

Didn't really answer my question about horrific highs.

The highs are no better or worse than the Denons, I thought the graphs would of answered that question.

 

[DRNNOO]

Generally I think @solderdude is saying that all this is well within the performance parameters of a reasonably well-damped speaker system (assuming also good FR) so it's not significant as a reproduction issue. I agree in principle, but also speculate that speakers may in fact contribute audible timbre (based on microsecond group-delay initial attack variations, wavelet spectral decay characteristics and/or complex driver diaphragm and cabinet resonance behaviours, for example).

I agree. I don't think, in the tier of headphones we are discussing the Timbre is a downfall, but it is possible that preference will lead one, one way or the other. The small size of the Diaphragm and lightness of, definitely give the headphone an advantage or at least pushes the modes higher. Yet the closeness of the ear, does not help hide any faults. The cavity size is almost like this portable room, the headphone carries around, leaving its, Timbre, on the signal as well.

 

[ZolaIII]

I can go along with the idea of something being built better, to which I don't know which one is built "better" I haven't had any build quality issues with my Apples. But Looks? Thats not an aspect I entertain, thats like adding a spoiler to a Ford Escort, it will not go any faster lol. The Apples are not pretty lol, but they sound really good and the noise cancellations might put the SQ above anything comparable in FR without noise cancellation.

The highs are no better or worse than the Denons, I thought the graphs would of answered that question.

What a joke! They will simply last much longer because they don't have a battery.
Highs are much worse then Denon's and uper overtones are bricked but suddenly you don't have problems with that which by the way can not be EQ-ed. The deep at 9 KHz of Denon's are not something you will hear (ear chanel blocking) and they push it good over 12.5 KHz which is important regarding recorded materials.
Good night from me.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

how do you guys can confidently say a headphones "has the best FR" and say it like it's an objective, universal fact without rethinking that statement?
no wonder why people poke at ASR sometimes

 

[isostasy]

how do you guys can confidently say a headphones "has the best FR" and say it like it's an objective, universal fact without rethinking that statement?
no wonder why people poke at ASR sometimes

@DRNNOO is the only person who has used that phrase in the entire thread

I agree. I don't think, in the tier of headphones we are discussing the Timbre is a downfall, but it is possible that preference will lead one, one way or the other. The small size of the Diaphragm and lightness of, definitely give the headphone an advantage or at least pushes the modes higher. Yet the closeness of the ear, does not help hide any faults. The cavity size is almost like this portable room, the headphone carries around, leaving its, Timbre, on the signal as well.

Time for me to check out, this is nonsense. Everything you've described can be represented in the frequency response, you need to read through @solderdude 's posts again. 'The cavity is almost like this portable room, the headphone carries around, leaving its, Timbre, on the signal as well' thanks for the laughs at least.

Closed back headphones I'd rather try than the Airpods: K371, Audeze Sine, DCA Aeon X Closed, hell I think I'd even rather give these a go

 

[DRNNOO]

"has the best FR"

Thats the part to be speculated??? Lets review

The apple air pod pro max had the best closed back FR last time I checked???

Do you see the accumulation of question marks behind it?(lol) We've talked much more about other interesting things, and since that comment, my self nor any has really entertained that the Apple literally has "the best" FR. If anything, at the time it might of been the best FR of a closed back that I could find or maybe afford.... BTW.

I haven't seen a FR that is better, shared since I commented. The Denon aint it. Do you have something to show?

 

[DRNNOO]

What a joke! They will simply last much longer because they don't have a battery.
Highs are much worse then Denon's and uper overtones are bricked but suddenly you don't have problems with that which by the way can not be EQ-ed. The deep at 9 KHz of Denon's are not something you will hear (ear chanel blocking) and they push it good over 12.5 KHz which is important regarding recorded materials.
Good night from me.

vs

Neither one of these are exactly better. But the Apple is smoother above 10khz. Take out the dip on one of the channels and they would be as smooth.
This is the second time you said good bye???
There rest of your comments are ??? ear channel blocking? Pushed over 12.5khz? huh? Oh you mean the levels, as in the voicing...you can change that with a low Q filter but the channel blocking what is this? Oh wait, you are gone now.....

 

[oleg87]

Aren't FR measurements essentially noise beyond 10khz anyway?

 

[Axo1989]

What a joke! They will simply last much longer because they don't have a battery.

AppleCare covers battery replacement within the warranty, and after that the last price I saw quoted was USD$79 so that's orthogonal to build quality/durability otherwise.

I've certainly had wired headphones wear out after sufficient commuting use. But if potentially replacing a battery at some stage is a deal-breaker, don't buy a wireless headphone, obviously.

The highest attrition factor in my headphone experience was feline, so wireless have an advantage there.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

Thats the part to be speculated??? Lets review

Do you see the accumulation of question marks behind it?(lol) We've talked much more about other interesting things, and since that comment, my self nor any has really entertained that the Apple literally has "the best" FR. If anything, at the time it might of been the best FR of a closed back that I could find or maybe afford.... BTW.

I haven't seen a FR that is better, shared since I commented. The Denon aint it. Do you have something to show?

I'm just amazed at how you can conclude that FR is 'best' or 'better' like it's an universal, obvious fact and discard other points other brought up. You say you have no dog in the whole 'Harman target' or 'preference' stuff yet this how you conclude things.

Can you remind me again just exactly how do you define whether a FR is the best? not the best for you, but the best.

 

[markanini]

Timbre is related to properties of sounds generated by instruments of synthesizers. If your headphone has timbre something has gone terribly wrong.

@DRNNOO is the only person who has used that phrase in the entire thread

XD

 

[DRNNOO]

Can you remind me again just exactly how do you define whether a FR is the best? not the best for you, but the best.

Thank you for asking. I just want one that is very smooth. Voicing is an after thought for me, because I can change it. Bass efficiency is also important. The superb thd results of the apple product is the result. The Apple follows the harman curve till about 7khz right? In my experience most headphones start breakup towards the HF.

To recap, regarding FR. Smoothness is our friend. In loudspeakers a neutral style voicing is not desired in applications considered critical listening. The harman type bass tilt is used there also. These headphones have that characteristic.

We all keep going back and forth but lets try and post some "better" FR baring headphones!

I Dont literally believe this is the Best FR of any available headphone on earth but for the money it just might be. The longer it takes for us to point to this better FR headphone the more my comment rings true



I think I may still be talking the best for me??? You do know that prefference rules. I tend be confident in opinion of best because I always aim for accuracy or potential accuracy. Which is not subjective.

 

[DRNNOO]

I think people really just hate the idea that Apple has a headphone that performs so well. The noise cancellation should be considered as a performance upgrade, it truly increases sound quality.

The diamond in the rough, as good, if not better FR...less features but only 200bucks for a pair!

Very smooth below 1khz, hump at 1.5khz, but fixable. Less features and still more expensive.

Not better than the Apple. and is 900 dollars....less features.

. 'The cavity is almost like this portable room, the headphone carries around, leaving its, Timbre, on the signal as well' thanks for the laughs at least.

If you are not familiar with room acoustics just say that The cavity between the driver and ear is not of identical character from headphone to headphone and it does leave its sonic signature
the fact that would rather listen to this........over the apple shows your Bias. You are just an apple hater. And thats OK

 

[markanini]

You are just an apple hater.

Where's the impetus? I don't think anyone would be complain about a product with good audio performance regardless of brand. Probably less so with Apple as many people are invested in the Apple ecosystem.

 

[MayaTlab]

Thank you for asking. I just want one that is very smooth. Voicing is an after thought for me, because I can change it. Bass efficiency is also important. The superb thd results of the apple product is the result. The Apple follows the harman curve till about 7khz right? In my experience most headphones start breakup towards the HF.

I don't really understand how you conclude from Crinacle's graph that the AirPods Max follow the Harman target up to 7kHz.

But I'd cast doubt that the K371, Audeze Sine, DCA closed X will reliably deliver it (or any target anyway) either, regardless of their measurements on a fixture. They're quite likely to have an inconsistent response across individuals at lower frequencies for a start, something the AirPods Max's feedback mechanism will be able to compensate for to some degree (and would do so even more effectively if it weren't for their non-sensical headband to cup attachment design).

In 2023 I'm tempted to think that most passive closed back headphones are sufficiently poorly designed and engineered that their inconsistencies (at low frequencies at the very least) are akin to blindly throwing stuff at the wall (the wall being here a cohort of listeners) and see what sticks (what sticks here being the few individuals for which the delivered response will just happen to match what they prefer). And it might not be that much better for active headphones with a feedback mechanism past the range where it operates either, if the variance is too important, or if the manufacturer failed to make a statistical analysis of where the range of responses effectively land on such a cohort of listeners vs an ear simulator. As a result I find it difficult to recommend anything of the kind to someone else.

To recap, regarding FR. Smoothness is our friend.

Smooth is not how I'd describe the AirPods Max past 5kHz. Actually, I'd describe it in that range as very un-smooth and unEQable, other than with broad filters to adjust the overall level.
But on the other hand they probably are one of the smoothest closed backs below 5kHz and ones of the easiest to EQ in that range... provided you actually know what the on-head response is for you in the 800-5kHz range (above where the feedback mechanism operates).
Below 800Hz the combination of smooth FR + feedback mechanism ensures that they'll somewhat reliably deliver the same FR across individuals, and one that's easy to EQ to boot (and might not need it anyway). In that range, unless you get a really poor seal, you can EQ them with confidence based on ear simulator measurements.

 

[bodhi]

I was just about to suggest the guy to steer the discussion a bit because people are going to catch up any minute and see what he's doing, but then there was the "apple hater" point of view. Crude maybe, but it might work.

 

[ZolaIII]

View attachment 271076 vs View attachment 271077

Neither one of these are exactly better. But the Apple is smoother above 10khz. Take out the dip on one of the channels and they would be as smooth.
This is the second time you said good bye???
There rest of your comments are ??? ear channel blocking? Pushed over 12.5khz? huh? Oh you mean the levels, as in the voicing...you can change that with a low Q filter but the channel blocking what is this? Oh wait, you are gone now.....

Reference whose to the HRTF free field measurements which do vary from subject and method to method but most show that you won't be able to hear it there.

@oleg87 no not really with a good HATS.

This one is particularly good regarding highs measurements tho head model and fit can be problematic but that's three measurements and observe raw. That of course is with ANC DSP on and we can disregard adaptive EQ that's up to 800 Hz.
Needless to say this confirms Amir's measurements. And when you see raw ANC off measurements you get a wish to trow them in garbage. Over 12~12.5 KHz there is too much variations individually and from the gear and to little defining regarding recorded material to be taken seriously.
@DRNNOO I don't know why I bother at all you obviously have problems even reading what whose written. If I whose you I would smoke my diploma.