Dan Clark E3 Headphone Review

[Mr Swing King]

Reminds me of the conversation I had with a buddy of mine not that long ago specifically talking about detail.
‘What exactly can you hear over your HD800 that I can’t over the 600? Your (my old) Susvara vs my Sundara?’
Up until that point it was more of an esoteric discussion but as soon as I started getting a little specific…I got crickets or an angry huff.

Looking at say an Audeze LCD-4 vs the Koss PortaPro, it’s obvious to me that the LCD will sound more detailed in the low lows..that’s pretty much a given…but it will be easier to hear what is happening with regards to vocals and instruments over the Koss simply because of the tuning.
Money doesn’t dictate detail retrieval - money dictates placebo more than anything else imho.

 

[Robbo99999]

I’ll accept that I misconstrued my point. My post was an overly floral and metaphorical attempt to point out the limitations of basing a rave review and a recommendation solely on tuning. I bought the E3 based on Amir’s raves about DCA—I don’t believe that he’s made these headphones his benchmark solely because they don’t require EQ. I’ve made that point several times since. If you like I’ll delete the original post so we can stick to that debate. I’m not moving the goalposts here, I promise.

Plus I don’t regret my purchase—I just reject the number of reviews of fantastic headphones that have not been recommended simply because they miss the Harman mark. Please stop denying that that’s the a priori benchmark to beat on here.

Probably best to keep your original post "as is" because that's what we've been talking about. But anyway, I've made my points already re your original post so I don't need to remake them.

Forgetting about all that, and just answering what you mention right now in your second paragraph re you "[object to] the number of reviews of fantastic headphones that have not been recommended simply because they miss the Harman mark". Well, we all know that the Harman Headphones 2018 Target is the one that Amir is using here on ASR, as it's the one that's backed up by all the research, and it's the best research that is out there currently, so therefore it's the best target we can have currently. It's got a solid foundation in how it intends to mimic good anechoic speakers in a good listening room - achieved through measurements and also preference studies with pretty large groups of people. A lot of people really do like the "Harman Curve Sound", both on here at ASR & elsewhere (including myself) - you've got Oratory basing his EQ's on the same target & research too, and of course various reviewers. So it's quite sensible that a headphone measured here on ASR that misses the Harman Target significantly will get a bad review, especially in Amir's appraisal of the stock sound without EQ. Of course with EQ then a headphone can be completely saved if it has other good qualities such as good universal fitment to people's heads (incl comfort) and not to forget good distortion measurements - then a headphone can be saved if it has a smooth EQ'able frequency response. Headphones like the Susvara (which you object to the review), it had a jagged difficult to EQ frequency response combined with distinct resonances, high distortion, and misbehaving at high volume levels, and all whilst being obscenely expensive too! Yep, so that headphone didn't get a good review, and people were extra harsh on it in the polling vote because of it's very high price, which in my mind is justified (and indeed useful for newbies that can't read measurements just yet but want to understand what the community think to the headphone after all things considered). I think Amir gets his reviews right in terms of approach & style, the target is the right one to use currently, and from my own point of view it's rare that I disagree with headphones that get a panning here.

 

[usern]

I would love to have DCA Stealth headphones and apply my usual maximum high frequencies to them. Like this. >>>
View attachment 374047

Is it something you just test or you actually like to run with this EQ daily?

Can you hear the 25 Hz note in here?

Spoiler

 

[Soria Moria]

It seems hard to confidently state that what you are hearing is some intrinsic level of 'detail retrieval' to a driver or whatever beyond the FR since you can't actually get two headphones to have an identical FR. It seems hard to actually do an objective test of this when getting rid of the variables seems... not very possible? Comparing headphones with different FR (which means all of them) is still comparing sound heavily through differences in the FR.

 

[majingotan]

That’s about it. How fast a diaphragm can move to reproduce the sound of instruments authentically, how much space an instrument is given in the mix, plus there’s other factors such as soundstage, imaging, timbre, etc. These are not apocryphal terms. Surely any audiophile can appreciate a headphone that can achieve these qualities and appreciate the difference between a planar vs a dynamic driver or a closed back vs an open back. It seems odd to have to answer this question to be honest—I didn’t make up these terms.

I think IMHO, you're missing the connection/correlation of those subjective terms (soundstage, imaging, timbre, detail retrieval) to objective terms which is FR, distortion and auditory masking on FR dips and peaks or coloration on FR (as an effect of your unique HRTF). You can hear every "detail" on a $20 SOTA IEM just as much as the Focal Utopia if you narrow your focus on the upper mids range to highest frequencies you can hear due to auditory masking from FR peaks and dips in the treble region. However, as a whole (20-20 KHz) because of how different the treble (specifically) FR is from one headphone to another, you will perceive less auditory masking on some parts of the song with lots of trailing note edges or upper harmonics of a musical instrument as perceiving it as better detail purely of treble FR alone

 

[Doodski]

Is it something you just test or you actually like to run with this EQ daily?

Can you hear the 25 Hz note in here?

Spoiler

Yes, that is my daily use PEQ setting and for classical music I use another setting that is the same but with a little more bass added to really get the kettle drums active. I have always cranked the treble to 11 from a early age. I can hear it fine when the tone settings are flat but I really don't get the feeling of a live drums set, live horns, live cymbals etc so I crank the PEQ stuff to make it sound more realistic. Yes, I can hear the 25 Hz that starts at about 50 seconds into the track.

 

[usern]

Heh, I'm polar opposite. I like +10 dB sub bass EQ on top of Harman. Also a bit boost over 10 kHz.

A headphone tuned to Harman target is great starting point. But E3 does not just have Harman tuning, it also has very low distortion at high SPL which gives lots of room to EQ. Which is why I've been interested in E3 even though default tuning is not my taste, no headphone really is. And supposedly E3 has great sound stage also:

these don’t sound even remotely closed back—they blow the soundstage of my open-backed Utopias off the map.

 

[Robbo99999]

I would love to have DCA Stealth headphones and apply my usual maximum high frequencies to them. Like this. >>>
View attachment 374047

I'm not a doctor, but I'd be concerned that boosting 8kHz/16kHz by over 20dB might further damage your hearing if you're not supposed to be hearing those frequencies - which is my only assumption for why you're boosting it so much. Having said that this is what hearing aids do, albeit I don't know how much they're "allowed" to boost specific frequencies. If you do need a hearing aid then applying the hearing aid EQ into the headphone (& then not wearing the hearing aid) seems like a sensible thing to do.
Recently I did an equal loudness hearing test using headphones both before & after I got my ears microsuctioned, and before I got them suctioned I had to boost 16kHz by a ridiculous amount to hear it (see following pic), and I tell you that was extremely unpleasant hearing that 16kHz tone, it felt wrong and it felt damaging......in fact when I tested my ears after microsuction I decided to omit the 16kHz test because it was so unpleasant and I knew I shouldn't really be hearing that high in the frequency range (due to such a massive boost needed), so yes this was the result before getting my ears microsucked (done with stock New Version HD560s):

If I was you I'd get your ears checked out by a professional, because I'm just concerned you could be damaging your ears with the massive treble boosts you're putting into your EQ. (I've said something similar before, but I don't want you or other people to damage themselves with massive boosts to various parts of the frequency range).

 

[Doodski]

If I was you I'd get your ears checked out by a professional, because I'm just concerned you could be damaging your ears with the massive treble boosts you're putting into your EQ. (I've said something similar before, but I don't want you or other people to damage themselves with massive boosts to various parts of the frequency range).

I went to the doctor and he said other than a little wax buildup everything seems operational and functional.

 

[Robbo99999]

I went to the doctor and he said other than a little wax buildup everything seems operational and functional.

Ok & good, but your EQ makes even less sense then, something is not adding up, this is quite bizarre.....but ok this is a DCA thread not hearing test thread, so I shouldn't add more to the tangent. (I'll forever be baffled by your EQ)

 

[Blake]

The controversy around Harman always baffles me. It's a baseline, nothing more. Some people like it. Some don't. Amir clearly does, and there's nothing wrong with liking Harman any more than there is disliking it. I personally like it, although I do prefer it with some custom tweaks via EQ... and that's what I love about it. I have a reference point to work with.

When I read a review here, I'm less interested in whether the headphone is recommended based on its adherence to Harman than I am its frequency response measured relative to Harman because I know what my own general tastes are like in comparison. I can therefore get a very rough idea of whether a headphone is likely to be in my taste range by looking at that graph. I also like knowing the distortion measurements so I can get an idea of how it'll respond to EQ. These things are easy to contextualize in Amir's reviews, so I don't worry about whether his tastes are exactly like mine. I already know they're not. And that's fine because I know how to "translate" for my own purposes.

Case in point: The Aeon RT Closed, which I bought after hearing it at CanJam and looking at the review here. It's surprisingly flat in the treble below 5 KHz or so. Turns out I'm okay with that. (It's interesting to note that Amir recommended that one even without EQ, although I think he's more of a basshead than I am.)

I also like a lot of Audeze's "house sound", which tends to be flat in that region (with some exceptions depending on model). I'm fine with the Harman curve as is, but my preference tends toward dialing down its treble around 3 dB... roughly toward the stock responses of those headphones. It helps to know I'll probably enjoy a headphone without EQ if the need arises. And if a headphone has peaks above Harman in the treble? I'm likely to steer away from it unless it has other advantages along with low distortion for EQing.

And why am I able to make all those initial purchase evaluations? Because of the Harman curve. Not because it's the Holy Grail of sound, but because it's a universally understandable reference. The closest thing I'm aware of to a reference point we had before Harman was, "How does it sound compared to an HD600?"

I think I've used this analogy before on here, but to me life without Harman was a bit like the old days of adjusting color on your TV. "Well, we finally got the sky to look blue, but now everyone's skin looks green." Harman is like having a color target to use as a reference, which can then be tweaked to taste. "Everything looks good, but I prefer a warmer tone to the picture." That's a much better way to do things!

As for the E3 (to get back on topic), I'm very interested to hear it. I suspect I'll like it as is, that I would prefer to dial down the treble just a bit, that it'll respond to EQ very well, and that I won't be able to justify spending that much money... all based on the review. Really, I'm pretty blown away by the engineering feat Dan Clark seems to have pulled off here.

 

[Robbo99999]

The controversy around Harman always baffles me. It's a baseline, nothing more. Some people like it. Some don't. Amir clearly does, and there's nothing wrong with liking Harman any more than there is disliking it. I personally like it, although I do prefer it with some custom tweaks via EQ... and that's what I love about it. I have a reference point to work with.

When I read a review here, I'm less interested in whether the headphone is recommended based on its adherence to Harman than I am its frequency response measured relative to Harman because I know what my own general tastes are like in comparison. I can therefore get a very rough idea of whether a headphone is likely to be in my taste range by looking at that graph. I also like knowing the distortion measurements so I can get an idea of how it'll respond to EQ. These things are easy to contextualize in Amir's reviews, so I don't worry about whether his tastes are exactly like mine. I already know they're not. And that's fine because I know how to "translate" for my own purposes.

Case in point: The Aeon RT Closed, which I bought after hearing it at CanJam and looking at the review here. It's surprisingly flat in the treble below 5 KHz or so. Turns out I'm okay with that. (It's interesting to note that Amir recommended that one even without EQ, although I think he's more of a basshead than I am.)

I also like a lot of Audeze's "house sound", which tends to be flat in that region (with some exceptions depending on model). I'm fine with the Harman curve as is, but my preference tends toward dialing down its treble around 3 dB... roughly toward the stock responses of those headphones. It helps to know I'll probably enjoy a headphone without EQ if the need arises. And if a headphone has peaks above Harman in the treble? I'm likely to steer away from it unless it has other advantages along with low distortion for EQing.

And why am I able to make all those initial purchase evaluations? Because of the Harman curve. Not because it's the Holy Grail of sound, but because it's a universally understandable reference. The closest thing I'm aware of to a reference point we had before Harman was, "How does it sound compared to an HD600?"

I think I've used this analogy before on here, but to me life without Harman was a bit like the old days of adjusting color on your TV. "Well, we finally got the sky to look blue, but now everyone's skin looks green." Harman is like having a color target to use as a reference, which can then be tweaked to taste. "Everything looks good, but I prefer a warmer tone to the picture." That's a much better way to do things!

As for the E3 (to get back on topic), I'm very interested to hear it. I suspect I'll like it as is, that I would prefer to dial down the treble just a bit, that it'll respond to EQ very well, and that I won't be able to justify spending that much money... all based on the review. Really, I'm pretty blown away by the engineering feat Dan Clark seems to have pulled off here.

It's totally useful to have a reference, even if your ideal is not the reference, like you rightly say. Most people will like Harman "as is", and then lots of others may like it with just some more bass or just less bass - all of which is an easy fix with a 105Hz Low Shelf Q0.71 Filter (of the kind Oratory uses). But yes, some people also like manipulating other areas of the frequency response.....but it's probably worth saying again that most people are likely to prefer Harman "as is" or with just some bass tweaks. This is the sort of info that is useful for people reading who want to experiment with tuning their headphone.

 

[Blake]

It's totally useful to have a reference, even if your ideal is not the reference, like you rightly say. Most people will like Harman "as is", and then lots of others may like it with just some more bass or just less bass - all of which is an easy fix with a 105Hz Low Shelf Q0.71 Filter (of the kind Oratory uses). But yes, some people also like manipulating other areas of the frequency response.....but it's probably worth saying again that most people are likely to prefer Harman "as is" or with just some bass tweaks. This is the sort of info that is useful for people reading who want to experiment with tuning their headphone.

Absolutely, and the fact that Harman is liked by such a large percentage of listeners justifies the existence of headphones like the E3. It already has a built-in audience. I would expect a good headphone manufacturer to want at least one model that hits close to Harman just from a sheer sales numbers perspective.

I wonder if we'll get to a point where some manufacturers market headphones based on variations like you mention. "Don't like Harman? Here's a headphone that's Harman +4 dB bass. Here's one that's Harman with +2 dB treble and -2 dB bass (upward tilt)". Etc. Certainly there are common preferences somewhat outside of the Harman target (as their own research shows), so that gives additional targets for manufacturers to hit in order to cover most preferences in the market, probably even allowing them to estimate sales figures by model based on population preference percentages, presumably with the largest number targeting Harman itself. They could even market specific models to specific demographics known for those preferences. They still wouldn't please everybody, but that's what EQ is for.

Before anybody rips me to shreds, the above is not any kind of wish or recommendation on my part, just something I'm curious about in terms of what such research will mean in the long term. I'm sure market forces relative to Harman won't be ignored.

 

[holdingpants01]

Absolutely, and the fact that Harman is liked by such a large percentage of listeners justifies the existence of headphones like the E3. It already has a built-in audience. I would expect a good headphone manufacturer to want at least one model that hits close to Harman just from a sheer sales numbers perspective.

I wonder if we'll get to a point where some manufacturers market headphones based on variations like you mention. "Don't like Harman? Here's a headphone that's Harman +4 dB bass. Here's one that's Harman with +2 dB treble and -2 dB bass (upward tilt)". Etc. Certainly there are common preferences somewhat outside of the Harman target (as their own research shows), so that gives additional targets for manufacturers to hit in order to cover most preferences in the market, probably even allowing them to estimate sales figures by model based on population preference percentages, presumably with the largest number targeting Harman itself. They could even market specific models to specific demographics known for those preferences. They still wouldn't please everybody, but that's what EQ is for.

Before anybody rips me to shreds, the above is not any kind of wish or recommendation on my part, just something I'm curious about in terms of what such research will mean in the long term. I'm sure market forces relative to Harman won't be ignored.

Check out this paper based on research by Sonarworks: https://www.sonarworks.com/blog/research/white-paper
Seems like the most popular group, which still covered a pretty wide range of curves, was only 40% of all listeners. The deviation from flat they choose (-3dB -> -6dB, +3dB -> +6dB) falls into the Harman curve and still majority of listeners preferred different EQ curve. They had way different methodology, but IMO better. Sticking to Harman curve as a starting point is good idea, but everyone should at least try to EQ their headphones and there's no shame in liking different response. I don't mind the Harman curve in general, but for example in Sennheisers HD560S I felt the midrange was too hot, even if they follow the curve pretty well, but DCA Stealth are perfect to me there, and they have shaved off midrange bump by 2-3dBs below the target. The DCAs also have this nice bump around 100Hz and I miss it when it's not there. Maybe I just have the same ears and head shape as Dan Clark

 

[Robbo99999]

Absolutely, and the fact that Harman is liked by such a large percentage of listeners justifies the existence of headphones like the E3. It already has a built-in audience. I would expect a good headphone manufacturer to want at least one model that hits close to Harman just from a sheer sales numbers perspective.

I wonder if we'll get to a point where some manufacturers market headphones based on variations like you mention. "Don't like Harman? Here's a headphone that's Harman +4 dB bass. Here's one that's Harman with +2 dB treble and -2 dB bass (upward tilt)". Etc. Certainly there are common preferences somewhat outside of the Harman target (as their own research shows), so that gives additional targets for manufacturers to hit in order to cover most preferences in the market, probably even allowing them to estimate sales figures by model based on population preference percentages, presumably with the largest number targeting Harman itself. They could even market specific models to specific demographics known for those preferences. They still wouldn't please everybody, but that's what EQ is for.

Before anybody rips me to shreds, the above is not any kind of wish or recommendation on my part, just something I'm curious about in terms of what such research will mean in the long term. I'm sure market forces relative to Harman won't be ignored.

I'm sure that headphone manufacturers are already taking into account the Harman Research and probably have an eye on ASR and other review sites. I'm sure they are somewhat influenced by what they learn from what they see here. They may well do little variations on the Harman Curve like you mentioned, but I imagine they'd not admit it up front, for most of them, albeit of course Dan Clark openly admits (& rightly so) that they've been targeting Harman or very subtle variations thereof for the E3/Stealth/Expanse. I see personalised HRTF (& obviously including the necessary DSP) as being the future target that manufacturers will go after - to more realistically & more personally/sucessfully emulate good speakers in a room....I hope this is the direction they will go in, but these will need to be very good & really quite simple to implement solutions which is probably the biggest challenge....and until that point I stand by the Harman Research as the next best thing.

 

[Salt]

Hmm,
Harman is one target, mainly derived from random impressions of listeners of headphone.
Ruler flat is another target, a constant desire since more than a century.
?

 

[holdingpants01]

Hmm,
Harman is one target, mainly derived from random impressions of listeners of headphone.
Ruler flat is another target, a constant desire since more than a century.
?

Check out the link I posted above, ruler flat in headphones is possible, but preferred by only around 11%, opposite in speakers

 

[Salt]

11 % at least.
For those to use HP to work with it would have to be 100%.
Consumers excluded, that may do whatever is desired, also Harman.

 

[holdingpants01]

11 % at least.
For those to use HP to work with it would have to be 100%.
Consumers excluded, that may do whatever is desired, also Harman.

completely not true, headphones interact differently with our ears than speakers, when they measure flat they don't sound that way and all research shows that

 

[MacClintock]

Oh that’s silly. Evidence?

Every headphone that can reproduce 20kHz has a driver that is cabale of presenting every detail. Where should it be hidden?

There’s no differences in quality amongst headphones other than tuning?

Please stick to what I said and don't force claims on me I never made.

Crinacle is full of it?

Yes he is, inventing "technicalities" and basing his arbitrary ranking lists mostly on price, without any argument or evidence at all.

The speed and accuracy of a headphone and the quality of materials and design have no bearing on the end result?

Speed does not exist, as mentioned above, all headphones I am aware of manage to reproduce 20 kHz. What are you missing?

Then why does anyone including yourself spend more than $50 on a headphone?

Because they have other qualities, maybe? Like better soundstage and imaging, low distortion, no peaks in the FR, built quality, design, comfort, seal,....

Why does Amir claim a $4,000 headphone his favorite? Knock off the gaslighting, that’s an absurd claim.

calm down.

Of course some headphones are capable of reproducing detail more accurately than others

No.

—I’m a huge skeptic when it comes to those who claim they can hear differences among DACs and am fully on board with cognitive bias, but your claim is taking this principle too far.

No.

I PEQ all my headphones fo suit my tastes but I am not about to accept that there’s no quality differences between my Koss Porta Pros and my Utopias other than treble, give me a break.

Who said there isn't?