I have an EQ preset with 4dB above the Harman target in bass and sub-bass and never heard distortion. I think there should be more possible still. So no complaints there (even when the distortion measurements at low frequencies at 104 SPL by Amir are not so favorable).
Agree with that. But since FR can be EQed reasonably well with several headphones (including the HD 800 besides some dip at 8-10kHz), I prefer the ones with superior spatial qualities, as these are not amendable.
I can confirm Ananda is like this to the point of being a critical flaw(negates all the good things about the headphone) otherwise a good headphone. Arya SE definitely not like this.
This is most likely amp problem.
Very curious about that headphone. It's interesting you said some information is lacking. HD800S is up to TOTL level according to most experienced(with expensive gear) people and better than it's price bracket in terms of technical capability. It's also interesting you said center image is non existent. On my Arya SE for example, everything is at the center. It lacks lateral far left/far right image instead. Although, technical capability of Arya SE is very, very impressive. I can't imagine HD800S having a better technical capability but i must heard it's soundstage/presentation.
What exactly are these "technical capabilities" ? In my understanding this is a rather invented term. Resolution and detail, for example, is the FR in the treble.
This is also why they still glue their earpads. Also not sure if it's intentional but Arya SE have noticeably tighter earpad installation than Ananda and XS.
Yes, end of the day all of it is FR but still lot more going on that we can't really quantify. It's an interaction between subjective human and sound source after all. On Arya SE, there isn't much masking going on, everything is separated and pick'able. Things are clear cut and precise. Have good interaction with my ear in terms of dynamics. There is also a certain realism and texture to the sound. Despite having the same cups, same pads and following the same Hifiman house sound (very, very similar FR) XS, Ananda, Arya SE all sound quite different to me. Despite my suspicion(especially for Hifiman) beforehand, i can confirm after my experience with these headphones that higher you go, more ''technical performance'' you get.
The soundstage on the HD800 is artificial. It almost sounds like the fake surround sound you get with DSP but wider.
Indeed. is it measurable?
Agreed. It seems that the adage that we don't yet have the ability to measure everything is true. and that some of the posts here (I mean the forum not this thread) are based on extreme measurement adherence. This doesn't mean that swapping the direction of the cable makes any difference but it does mean that what we see in these measurements do not always and comprehensively give the full picture.
A competent 2 channel system and to some extend headphones should be able to produce both imaging (when it exists in the mixing/recording) and depth/width. The speakers should disappear and the headphones should allow for sound to come from beyond their physical position. I would be very interested to understand where in the measurements that is explained. and if it isn't then we need to not be so fanatical about them.
Well, we can be fanatical about the measurements if we want to be, but it helps to understand that there is the element of soundstage that is not shown in the measurements.
Maybe it's on a far horizon, to either quantify or categorize headphone characteristics that systematically affect imaging and other spatial cues. I'm kinda new to this, but I recently spent more hours than I'd like to admit doing level-matched, bi-directional (although sighted) A/B comparisons between headphones, partly on spatial characteristics, and it's made me curious to learn more. But I despair a bit about sorting out the variables that must include the various spatial cues in the original recording, the headphone geometry, my HRTF and the psycho-acoustic processing in my own brain, which itself probably includes not only direct perceptual processing but higher-level expectations about the music, the recording and the equipment.
When it comes to soundstage I think we're all on our own to some extent. For me the only thing I've learned is that spacious earcups that don't touch your ear combined with angled pads or angled drivers is what seperates headphones that have good soundstage vs bad soundstage - assuming you've EQ'd each headphone to the Harman Headphone Curve (because measured frequency response on a dummy head does affect the soundstage too). RTings tried to once quantify the potential soundstage of a headphone by characterising it's "pinna activation", which they based on the premise that the HD800 was the King of Soundstage, lol! No, but that's a fair assumption I guess, but I don't know how they actually quantified that variable, and in the exposure I've had to RTings I don't think they characterised that variable that well. It's just still an unknown, but me personally I stand by my observations re spacious earcups / angled pads and/or angled drivers.
(I also have 3 units of HD560s, by the by).
Well with speakers one would still have to explain how the equipment upstream affects that. And it does to obvious effect imo.
I think these guys have tried to explain measurements and how they affect what we hear: https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/imaging
It's a commonly held myth that our ears cannot detect sound below 20 Hz, when in fact it's only tonal/pitch perception that ceases around there. I'd suggest reading this review of the research on infrasound perception. Key quotes from that paper:
Maybe this last point is one of the reasons why Harman found listeners' preferred bass level to be higher in headphones than with speakers in their blind tests.
