Well, I certainly thought this was a universal understanding
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Dan Clark Expanse Headphone Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
DJBonoBobo
Major Contributor
Here is an overlay - and that´s pretty much how my experience of the differences was
oscar_dziki
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2021
- Messages
- 206
- Likes
- 339
DJBonoBobo
Major Contributor
Here is the overlay of Amir´s measurements (Stealth = red/green)
I really don´t know anything about it, maybe it is just a slightly different measurement method or it is normal variation.
The only thing i can say is that my subjective experience of the differences was closer to the difference that is visible between Reponse´s graphs than what i expected based on Amir´s graphs.
Grobbelboy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2022
- Messages
- 96
- Likes
- 243
DJBonoBobo
Major Contributor
And finally an overlay of Amir´s (green/red) and Response´s (turquoise) measurements of the Expanse (Amir uses a target with more bass):
Edit: Oh, somehow i missed that post - @MayaTlab already made this much clearer than me:
Edit: Oh, somehow i missed that post - @MayaTlab already made this much clearer than me:
Last edited:
oscar_dziki
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2021
- Messages
- 206
- Likes
- 339
Thanks. His response calmed me down. I feel safe as judging by how much I like Harman target and bass I will surely prefer Expanse. Also its always better to be in a situation where you need to eq bass down then up
Nice one for doing that! Hmm, I was a bit wrong to say that Resolve's was more V-shaped, it's more accurate to say that Resolve's is showing a brighter headphone overall. I mean they both use a bonafide GRAS rig for measuring, but I appreciate test methodologies can result in some differences as well as unit to unit variation.
The Stealth upper bass bump is much like the Noire bump (60-160 Hz), but Expanse takes it higher. I experimented a lot with level matched A/B comparisons on the Noire (which is overall voiced much like the Stealth) and I liked having the bump. I then tried extending it higher into the upper bass (like the Expanse) and it did pick up some muddiness. I think the bump is a good idea, as long as you keep its upper end down toward 160 Hz.
Except it doesn't. As well as the upper bass hump ~2.5 dB above the target, it also has a low-Q elevation between around 2 and 5 kHz where our hearing is most sensitive peaking ~2-3 dB above target, and a distinct lack of energy above 6 kHz. It follows the Harman target, but it certainly doesn't hug it, further evidenced by its predicted preference rating of 76, falling at the upper end of the 'Good' category as defined by Sean Olive (65-76). So objectively the measurements say it's good, bordering on great, but by no means excellent. And at an exorbitant price of $4000, it should be the latter.
See above.
Should being the operative word, as in, that was their intention. Manufacturers say a lot of things, but it's best to look at the actual measurements, and they show significant differences between the Expanse and Stealth not just in the bass bump, as shown from @Resolve 's measurements linked above, but also those taken by Jude of Head-Fi, particularly around 2-5 kHz where the Expanse has more energy than the Stealth (and the Harman target), and above ~6 kHz where it has too little (compared to both Stealth and Harman).
Last edited:
Honestly they're pretty similar for their tuning. I think for folks who liked the Stealth, they'll probably also like the Expanse, and vice versa. For any other differences it's a minor EQ adjustment for those who are interested.
You didn't
Those impressions of the Expanse contrast with your glowing review of the Stealth. And the answer why is right there in your comments on the Expanse's frequency response:Smallish amplitude but broadband (lower-Q) differences (as is the case between the Stealth and Expanse around 2-5 kHz and above ~6 kHz) can be deceptive, having a bigger perceived effect on sound than you might think from the visual difference in frequency response, as evidenced by Floyd Toole's work. Combine that with the fact that the Expanse's 2-5 kHz elevation is right around where our hearing is most sensitive as shown by the equal loudness contours, and the perceived difference becomes even more significant. So the explanation for why you prefer the Stealth to the Expanse is really quite simple: the former generally comes closer to the Harman target, especially around the frequencies the ear is most sensitive to.
You didn't
Smallish amplitude but broadband (lower-Q) differences (as is the case between the Stealth and Expanse around 2-5 kHz and above ~6 kHz) can be deceptive, having a bigger perceived effect on sound than you might think from the visual difference in frequency response, as evidenced by Floyd Toole's work. Combine that with the fact that the Expanse's 2-5 kHz elevation is right around where our hearing is most sensitive as shown by the equal loudness contours, and the perceived difference becomes even more significant. So the explanation for why you prefer the Stealth to the Expanse is really quite simple: the former generally comes closer to the Harman target, especially around the frequencies the ear is most sensitive to.
Well, maybe except for me hahah. Although I did find the Stealth to have a generally similar tonality with similar strengths/weaknesses - it's just the odd soundstage presentation I couldn't figure out with the Expanse even after EQ. At the same time I have to go with what the graph indicates when imagining what other people might prefer. I'm just one guy after all and subjective stuff do be subjective.
oscar_dziki
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2021
- Messages
- 206
- Likes
- 339
Geez, now I'll need to compare them to Stealths myself...
solderdude
Grand Contributor
It was mentioned that the Expanse would sound 'better' on (expensive ?) tube amps (used for the demonstration).
A: It is highly unlikely the used amp has a high output resistance otherwise, due to its low impedance, not much voltage would be there and it is quite insensitive.
B: The impedance peak would make it even more 'bassy/muddy' and not improve the sound quality.
Have you seen any (expensive or not) fully passive comfortable over-ear headphones that 'follow' the Harman target (which is not my preferred target) this close ?
You seem to object to the word 'hugging' which to me means 'following closely'.
And yes there are deviations, you expect there to be none at $ 4k and higher ?
All HP measurements I have seen of over € 4k headphones are worse offenders (in hugging the target) than the Stealth.
We don't really know what HATS/fixture is closest to reality (some 'average people ears'). Nerds would say 5128 is it.. untill the next improved model comes out that is.
Should we only trust Jude ?
Some hate a bit of extra energy here and there others don't.
Besides... the Harman target is just an indicator for a preferred tonal balance for the majority of people and thus should have a tolerance band around it.
It would be very weird if one could not even deviate 1dB from a very smoothed/averaged line.
I think you are being overly 'strict' in your demands for FR from a passive headphone. I get that. That's why EQ is not a bad word... for ANY headphone.
There will never be a passive headphone that will exactly follow that highly averaged 'target' nor will it ever do so even on the best HATS in the future and you know very well it can't.
Can you build/market a better over-ear headphone yourself or post some 'even better' EQ instead of nitpicking on every measurement claiming it (must) sound poor ?
Last edited:
Acoustics by @GaryH always seems to find surprisingly simplistic explanations for everything indeed.
In terms of the bump at 100-200Hz indeed. Otherwise unclear.
The problem being that said bump might actually be closer to effectively deliver the Harman target to most real humans than the Stealth.
While this only applies to the DCA Noire, and while taken in isolation the following graphs aren't particularly meaningful, I nonetheless have very little doubt on how the transfer curve between the 45CA and real humans will look like for the type of headphones that actually were used to test the Harman target and how it will compare to the Noire (more importantly how inconsistent it will be, a constant transfer curve per fixture across headphones would make this a non-problem), once it's published (hopefully) :
(of note is that the human subjects didn't wear glasses in these tests unless I'm mistaken).
And of course if you're Sean Olive himself you'll definitely enjoy a stronger bump in that area given the lack of effective seal for the Stealth, if the Expanse behaves in a similar way on his head :
This should also illustrate why assessing their relative response above 6-7kHz isn't quite as straightforward as "Stealth closer to target duh".
Basically, it's entirely possible that either the Stealth or the Expanse will be closer to deliver the Harman target to an individual depending on coupling - and possibly sample variation as well.
Last edited:
I agree that both the Expanse & Stealth are impressive for following the Harman Curve so closely at stock tuning, but the Expanse does seem to differ further from it and if you were to EQ it to the Harman Curve then that would be an audible difference. For me the most impressive thing about the Expanse was the ability for an open backed headphone to produce that much bass (and at low distortion), as well as following the Harman Curve closely in most of the frequency range, and whilst not exhibiting the jaggedness in frequency response that can often come with planar driver headphones.
I may be missing something, but the Sean Ollive comments and graphs first indicate that the Noire bump is greater when measured n listeners' ear canals than on a test dummy as shown in Oratory's profile. In his next comment/graphic, doesn't he suggest the opposite: that the bump is less acute for live listeners vs. test dummy? I suppose that if your point in showing this is that the transfer function will always be murkily inconsistent in real world application, then that is shown here.
If you mean the two October 13th tweets, I probably shouldn't have included the first one referring to Oratory's measurements as these aren't comparable (eardrum vs blocked ear canal entrance) - it's just that this was the initial tweet.
In all cases though I don't think any of these tweets could be interpreted as showing that real humans experience a higher bump than the fixtures ?
I am not expecting it to systematically be murkily inconsistent with all kinds of headphones models, but what's interesting here is that the DCA Noire is reasonably consistent across listeners (without glasses) - unlike some other closed backs -, and yet inconsistent with a 45CA. The real meat of these tests will appear when we can compare different fixtures and headphone models, but there's a pretty good chance given the already available data that fully open dynamic headphones like the K701/2 or HD800 would be more consistent with 45CA measurements up to several kHz.
The Stealth and Expanse aren't the Noire, but this is possibly a good illustration in my opinion of the potential pitfalls of being excessively obsessed about target adherence, when it isn't impossible that not only headphones vary across individuals - or not - but also that the average on real humans may not systematically be accurately represented by test fixtures for all headphones models.
Similar threads
