Dan Clark E3 Headphone Review

[BAK]

The recent DCA closed models measure very close to neutral in independent tests, so the tuning itself probably is not the issue. The HD600 just fits very differently. The HD600 pads are softer and do not rely on a strong seal, while the DCA pads are deeper and need a more exact fit. Small changes in seal and angle can shift the upper mids and make things sound a bit strange or unnatural. So if the HD600 sounds right to you and the DCA does not, it is most likely the way the DCA interacts with your head and ears, as you suggested, rather than the tuning being off.

I love my Stealth, and they replaced my long-favored Denon AH-D5000 that were modified by Mark Lawton of Lawton Audio. I enjoyed my modded D5000 over the D7000, and I did end up adding a touch of bass to my Stealth with EQ to get the sound I prefer, just a small 2 to 3 dB adjustment in a narrow range. Gotta have my bass!

Well, then it must be one of two things: either my head and ears are defective, or the headphones are.

 

[solderdude]

It's all very simple.
All headphones sound different. What's good for the goose may not be good for the gander.
Even the very similar measuring and looking HD600 and HD650 sound different.
Below the HD600 (worn pads so midbass emphasis) vs E3.

As can be seen they will sound nothing alike as there is a whopping broadband 5dB difference between 1kHz and 5kHz alone.
Interestingly the HD600 is much 'brighter' than the E3 where it was reported the other way around.

It was a disappointment at first listen (without any EQ) — the upper mids (2–5 kHz) are too bright, and there’s a lack of density in the lower part of the spectrum (weak bass and lower mids).

It just takes a few dB (broadband) tops to get a very different sound.
It just takes different coupling in the treble (ears vs test fixture) to get as many as 10dB differences here and there IRL (but narrow band).
Add to that seal, pad wear, getting used to a sound signature, personal taste and you have a recipe for disaster.
That's what makes headphones/earphones the most personal 'thing' in music reproduction and is what I find the most interesting.
Even with all of today's test fixtures, decades of research, production methods and materials, driver types etc headphones can still be a hit and miss for individuals.

So.. when someone does not like a headphone as much as another does it is just personal preference and does not mean the other is wrong or right in an absolute sense.
Headphones could be 'right' opposite a test fixture + smoothed target but may not be 'right' to an individual in their use conditions.

 

[Chagall]

After a long search for the right EQ settings for my E3, I decided to rely on my own ears for the measurements. I used binaural microphones and pink noise. I inserted the microphones into my ears, put on my HD600 (with the correction I normally use for mixing), and played pink noise while recording the frequency response in FabFilter Q3 using the Match EQ mode as a reference.

Then I carefully took off the HD600, put on the E3, and while playing the same pink noise, I adjusted the EQ in FabFilter Q3 to match the reference curve as closely as possible — the plugin clearly shows the difference in response. I repeated this entire process three times from the beginning to avoid errors, since even a small shift of the microphones when removing or putting the headphones back on can change the response.

I positioned the E3 slightly lower, so that the tops of my ears touched the ear pads — this removes a small narrow peak around 4200 Hz.

The result satisfied me. Now the E3 sounds balanced, very similar to the HD600 but with a fuller low end. Here’s what I came up with (perhaps it might be useful to someone):

Preamp: -3.5 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 40 Hz Gain 2.6 dB Q 2.563
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 190 Hz Gain 3.5 dB Q 0.903
Filter 3: ON HS Fc 12000 Hz Gain 3.1 dB Q 0.900
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2500 Hz Gain -2.1 dB Q 1.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1200 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 2.273
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 4000 Hz Gain -3.3 dB Q 4.440
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5850 Hz Gain -5.0 dB Q 5.551
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7722 Hz Gain 2.5 dB Q 2.563
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8330 Hz Gain -8.0 dB Q 6.072
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 10000 Hz Gain -6.2 dB Q 4.986

Of course, all this EQ tweaking and “jumping through hoops” is exactly what I was trying to avoid when buying the E3 (I had no chance to audition them beforehand in the country where I live). I’m disappointed that headphones this expensive don’t sound the way they appear to measure on test rigs — even if the HD600 frequency response was measured on the same rigs… Or do I just have a defective pair?

I would be very interested to read about your in ear mesurement process in more detail.

On my head E3 sound ok without EQ, but placement is tricky and they do lack mid-bass relative to ear gain area. 2-3dB bass shelf @ 200Hz improved it for me quite a bit.

 

[MayaTlab]

I would be very interested to read about your in ear mesurement process in more detail.

I don't know what @BAK is doing exactly, but I'd recommend being quite careful about the FR range over which in situ measurements can reliably tell you something depending on the in-ear mics design. Generally speaking I'd recommend being careful about anything past 1kHz if the microphones aren't inserted at least at the ear canal entrance, and I'd recommend experimenting with both blocked and open ear canal microphones (the latter being preferred but coming with their own sets of problems, in my view it's a good idea to start with blocked in ear mics before moving on to open ones).

 

[MayaTlab]

Well, then it must be one of two things: either my head and ears are defective, or the headphones are.

I think it could be said that asking particularly high prices for a type of headphones design that's inherently unlikely to deliver consistent results on people's heads, and yet are marketed for sound quality mainly, is where the problem is, as it's akin to throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks. This is not really a criticism of Dan Clark Audio at all, but rather audiophile companies in general routinely charging north of $200 for passive closed backs (HD820 is a prime example).

Other than large, very open, low acoustic impedance over ears, active systems are the best way to solve these issues, but for over-ears while the best ones nearly completely solve the issue below 800Hz or so (the upper limit where most traditional feedback systems stop operating), a lot of active closed backs with a feedback path also seem to exhibit a stupid lot of undesirable inter-individual variation in the 1-5kHz band (whether used actively or passively), and I don't think that this issue has been solved yet. Some IEMs (Bose, Apple), seem to be able to predict (and therefore control) the response at the eardrum up to around 4-5kHz, but they also come with their own set of challenges (especially since you don't want the in situ response to be the same between individuals at the eardrum past 800Hz, so you need to design active systems that can eliminate undesirable variations, and express the desirable ones).

 

[Robbo99999]

You’re certainly right in your own way, but the fact is that my professional experience as a sound engineer working with the HD600 has proven in practice that they are accurate enough to be used as a reference and serve as my personal benchmark for natural sound. The mixes of hundreds of songs and dozens of feature films have confirmed this. I was hoping that the E3 could replace my HD600, but I didn’t expect them to sound so unnaturally on my head and ears, and to deviate so drastically from the published frequency response graphs available online.

Well there are loads of people in the music industry that think they can mix well on some truly wonky headphones, and indeed maybe they can, but it doesn't make the headphone neutral, so I think your endorsement doesn't necessarily reflect it's neutrality. Ok ok, but I will say that the HD600 is a good neutral headphone that mainly just lacks bass, so I do agree with you the HD600 is a pretty good choice. I'm less certain that your pink noise in ear mic measurement process is a good way to ascertain whether or not the E3 is neutral or not, which I described in my prior post.

 

[BAK]

Well there are loads of people in the music industry that think they can mix well on some truly wonky headphones, and indeed maybe they can, but it doesn't make the headphone neutral, so I think your endorsement doesn't necessarily reflect it's neutrality. Ok ok, but I will say that the HD600 is a good neutral headphone that mainly just lacks bass, so I do agree with you the HD600 is a pretty good choice. I'm less certain that your pink noise in ear mic measurement process is a good way to ascertain whether or not the E3 is neutral or not, which I described in my prior post.

I can consider the HD600 my personal reference because my mixes translate well across various playback systems — speakers, cars, TVs, and even large cinema auditoriums — not to mention film re-recording and music studios. The music and films originally mixed on the HD600 have reached top positions in charts and box offices, which means the sound works well for the general audience.

Everything I described applies only to my personal case, my head and ears when using the E3. For other people, with different heads and ears, they may sound completely different. I simply described what I hear with the E3 — my own experience and my attempt to find corrective EQ settings for them based on my head and ears, using my reference headphones as a guide. I just didn’t expect that the EQ would need to be so heavily corrective in my case — that’s the reason for my disappointment with the E3 purchase.

 

[Robbo99999]

I can consider the HD600 my personal reference because my mixes translate well across various playback systems — speakers, cars, TVs, and even large cinema auditoriums — not to mention film re-recording and music studios. The music and films originally mixed on the HD600 have reached top positions in charts and box offices, which means the sound works well for the general audience.

Everything I described applies only to my personal case, my head and ears when using the E3. For other people, with different heads and ears, they may sound completely different. I simply described what I hear with the E3 — my own experience and my attempt to find corrective EQ settings for them based on my head and ears, using my reference headphones as a guide. I just didn’t expect that the EQ would need to be so heavily corrective in my case — that’s the reason for my disappointment with the E3 purchase.

I'm still not convinced you can say E3 is not neutral based on your personal EQ method using your pink noise & in ear mics, etc, so that point remains of mine. You're tempering it by saying for your own personal case, which I suppose is ok or more accurate, but I suppose I'm not confident in your method so I think perhaps it's possible you could be even deceiving yourself with your own method, stranger things have happened! I can certainly understand major bass deviations if not sealing.

 

[solderdude]

The E3 is not 'neutral'.
It conforms to a highly averaged Harman target on test fixtures.
It has a sound signature that is preferred by a majority of listeners.

It is perfectly possible to create good mixes on HD600, certainly when you know how it 'should' sound for the expected outcome.
This is indeed personal.

The E3 is a great headphone ... so is the HD600 but they differ a lot in many ways.

 

[sonitus mirus]

"Neutral" was a poor choice of word that I used. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Robbo99999]

The E3 is not 'neutral'.
It conforms to a highly averaged Harman target on test fixtures.
It has a sound signature that is preferred by a majority of listeners.

It is perfectly possible to create good mixes on HD600, certainly when you know how it 'should' sound for the expected outcome.
This is indeed personal.

The E3 is a great headphone ... so is the HD600 but they differ a lot in many ways.

Maybe it depends on what a person means by neutral, the way I look at it I would also use the term "balanced". I find Harman Curve neutral or balanced whichever word a person may choose to use, but I also find the New Version HD560s balanced & neutral which has a different frequency response to the Harman Curve but the opposing changes (of a bit less bass and bit less treble) are balanced which helps preserve it's neutrality. So for me it's possible that headphones with different frequency responses can still sound balanced & neutral (within reason), including the Harman Curve.

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

Once you realize there is nothing that could be called neutral or natural or flat...
Life becomes easier

 

[w1nzt0n]

Has anyone compared them directly to the Noire X? I am interested to know which one has better vocals and slam, mostly for rock/metal.

 

[stevenswall]

How does this score "101%" compliance with the harman target here: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/RANKING.md

Is this with EQ?

 

[staticV3]

How does this score "101%" compliance with the harman target here: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/RANKING.md

Is this with EQ?

View attachment 493828

The ranking is without EQ

 

[stevenswall]

The ranking is without EQ

Oratory and Crinacle provide the data for this, but I've never seen a graph that is 100% compliant, do you know why it would show 101% or where the graphs are they refer to? Doesn't seem 100% compliant in any frequency range with the measurements on the first page here.

 

[staticV3]

Oratory and Crinacle provide the data for this, but I've never seen a graph that is 100% compliant, do you know why it would show 101% or where the graphs are they refer to? Doesn't seem 100% compliant in any frequency range with the measurements on the first page here.

The preference score doesn't mean what I think you think it means.

It's an algorithm that takes a few different metrics calculated from the Harman deviation and spits out a number which is not at all clamped to 100%.

Scores above that are quite frequent on EQed headphones, just take a look at oratory's PDFs.

I'd suggest reading the paper by Olive and Toole on this algorithm if you want to know more.

I'd also suggest not paying too much attention to the preference score numbers: they don't mean nearly as much as you may think.