Dan Clark Expanse Headphone Review

[preload]

I had the Stealth and the Expanse over the weekend. I was disappointed by the Expanse, but I learned to appreciate the Stealth once again. I don't want to say much about the Expanse. But the graph of Resolve "fits" well with my experience (bass too much, treble not as "right" as i expected).

Thanks for sharing this! I'm sure a lot of Stealth owners were curious about this.

How much of a difference did you think there was between the Stealth and the Expanse in terms of SQ? Was the Stealth just slightly preferable after doing a lot of serial listening on a lot of different tracks? Or was it pretty obvious after a quick listen or two?

 

[DJBonoBobo]

Thanks for sharing this! I'm sure a lot of Stealth owners were curious about this.

How much of a difference did you think there was between the Stealth and the Expanse in terms of SQ? Was the Stealth just slightly preferable after doing a lot of serial listening on a lot of different tracks? Or was it pretty obvious after a quick listen or two?

That is difficult to answer. I only decided after a few days and several hours of listening. There were different phases, sometimes I found the Expanse (very) good, sometimes significantly worse than the Stealth. What I mean by that is that a lot depends on the mood of the day. Therefore, it is certainly better if you spend more time with it and if you make up your own mind.

For me, two things were ultimately decisive. First, with too many of my albums, I had too much bass with the Expanse, so it sounded a bit more muddy than with the Stealth. It was better with the EQ (-2.5, 175Hz, Q2.6), but not for every music, and i really did not want to buy another headphone that needs EQ (for me). I wanted a headphone that sounded correct to me no matter what.

Second, It was also more difficult to separate the different details. I like to listen to metal, for example Devin Townsend. Some of his recordings are not technically perfect, highly compressed, but still full of details. @Zenairis wrote me in this thread that the different details "flow together" a bit more with the Expanse, but the space is wider, while the Stealth is more "tight" and the sounds feel more separated. I think that description is on point. And with the music i like the most it was a clear disadvantage for the Expanse, here the razor sharp separation of the Stealth fits better.

And then there was the fact that I found the treble on the Stealth to be more correct, or at least more pleasant. An example of this is the piece "Nobody´s perfect" by Sheryl Crow and Emmylou Harris from the Album "Threads". I found it through this thread in a recommendation by Karl-Heinz Fink. He writes (translated by DeepL):

Two difficult voices that immediately reveal how well the upper midrange is mastered. Plays pretty much on the edge. If the two singers sound too "nice", it is lacking in the range around 3kHz, but woe is there too much - then the ladies also like to scream.

With the Stealth i found this music almost tolerable, but not so much with the Expanse.

So, after all, it was pretty clear the Expanse to me was not what i hoped for. Still the differences very much depend on the music and what you personally find important.

 

[preload]

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.

Totally agree.
1) Different measurement rigs will produce different FR curves from the same headphones
2) Even on the same measurement apparatus, the same headphones can produce different FR curves depending on the position and seal each time.
3) There is human variation, for instance, differences in external ear shape.
4) A lot of people wear glasses, which yields a substantially different bass/midbass curve.
5) Humans have different preferences for bass and treble quantities that vary based on age, gender, and country of residence (Harman research).
6) There is manufacturer variation (even L/R variation).
7) Curves don't measure "soundstage," which is important to many people.
All of this means that strict adherence to a target curve will not guarantee the highest perceived sound quality.

 

[MayaTlab]

Totally agree.
1) Different measurement rigs will produce different FR curves from the same headphones
2) Even on the same measurement apparatus, the same headphones can produce different FR curves depending on the position and seal each time.
3) There is human variation, for instance, differences in external ear shape.
4) A lot of people wear glasses, which yields a substantially different bass/midbass curve.
5) Humans have different preferences for bass and treble quantities that vary based on age, gender, and country of residence (Harman research).
6) There is manufacturer variation (even L/R variation).

That said : not anything goes either. What I'm hoping to get (I mean, if it ever is published...) out of Harman's current tests is, to some degree, quantifiable data, particularly above 1kHz, and a breakdown between different types of headphones (and hopefully they've included some ANC headphones in the mix).
Even better if they also measured the HRTF of each participant and compare if the headphones vary more according to each listener's HRTF or more on a completely random basis...

 

[JanesJr1]

I missed the "blocked" ear canal descriptor more than once. Good think I don't need my eyes to hear music.

Still, all the profiles of the bump seem so show a fatter bump than the 2-3 dB on the Noire/Oratory curve. Whatever. Your larger points are well taken and I look forward to seeing the results.

Meanwhile, I'm going to stick with my Noire for a while; I'm happy with it, no doubt. I use a little EQ, which is a lot easier to do with a HP that is all at once low distortion, bass-rich, and at least close to the Harman curve (which sounds close to perfectly all right to me every time I EQ something, despite my aging ears ... just a tad too rich in bass for acoustic sources). I agree with you, perfect adherence to Harman seems unnecessary in a world of probability distributions.

On the other hand, Dan Clark has focused a lot on how to make it easier for non-EQ-savvy buyers to appreciate his cans ... first with the earpad-inserts, then with close-to-Harman FR, and lately with AMTS. It must be a business problem if you want to attract buyers who aren't all EQ tinkerers.

 

[GaryH]

Well, maybe except for me hahah.

There's no reason to think you're an exception to the norm. The fact that you prefer a headphone that's closer to the Harman target says you do lie in the norm that prefer Harman, just like the majority of people.

At the same time I have to go with what the graph indicates when imagining what other people might prefer.

And my point in my previous post was that visually 'small' (in amplitude, but large in bandwidth and at sensitive frequencies) differences can be misinterpreted as producing insignificant differences in perceived sound, and it looks like that's what you've done with the Stealth and Expanse.

Occam's razor comes to mind here. The Harman Science Deniers, Major, Master and Grand Equivocators can kick up FUD all they like, but the simplest explanation is until proven otherwise to assume your hearing and preferences lie in the norm i.e. that you prefer the Harman target, and therefore you prefer the headphone that comes closer to that target, as will the majority of others, just as our current best science predicts.

 

[Resolve]

There's no reason to think you're an exception to the norm. The fact that you prefer a headphone that's closer to the Harman target says you do lie in the norm that prefer Harman, just like the majority of people.

And my point in my previous post was that visually 'small' (in amplitude, but large in bandwidth and at sensitive frequencies) differences can be misinterpreted as producing insignificant differences in perceived sound, and it looks like that's what you've done with the Stealth and Expanse.

Occam's razor comes to mind here. The Harman Science Deniers, Major and Master Equivocators can kick up FUD all they like, but the simplest explanation is until proven otherwise to assume your hearing and preferences lie in the norm i.e. that you prefer the Harman target, and therefore you prefer the headphone that comes closer to that target, as will the majority of others, just as our current best science predicts.

... they do. I am a Harman enjoyer. Always have been - at least for over-ear.

 

[solderdude]

One does not have to be a 'science denier' to prefer a different target than that of the tonal balance the majority of people likes. After all it is a preferred tuning not an 'only correct' tuning'.

Suggesting that the overly smoothed and averaged 'target' is holy and has to be followed 'exact' otherwise it is a poor headphone is closer to denying measurement science than not preferring a specific bass boost with all recordings and allowing for tolerances (especially above 6kHz).

 

[Resolve]

Suggesting that the overly smoothed and averaged 'target' is holy and has to be followed 'exact' otherwise it is a poor headphone is closer to denying measurement science than not preferring a specific bass boost with all recordings and allowing for tolerances (especially above 6kHz).

Moreover, the specific target is only one way of achieving the bass to treble delta preferred by most people. As far as falling within the bounds of 'most people' in that regard, we needn't also assume that this preference equates to strict target compliance. And yeah, things get weird above 5-6khz.

 

[GaryH]

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.

Nautilus

The Nautilus is one of our flagship Personal Audio Tubed Integrated Amplifier. The Nautilus Rev 2 includes 2023 tube cage. This change to the metal work allows us to delineate inclusion of the Gen 5 power supply and culmination of 2 years successive efforts to improve this amazing amplifier...

ampsandsound.com

The likely most bothersome deviation of the Expanse's response from Harman is the broadband elevation between around 2 and 5 kHz where our hearing is most sensitive peaking ~2-3 dB above target. That could well be perceptually balanced out / (partially) masked by an increased bass to lower-mid level caused by its impedance curve and being used with an amp with high output impedance.

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 ?

Why limit to passive? The technology that gets you to the frequency response is irrelevant to the end user (and no, neither I nor Sean are saying the JBL Tune 710 are perfect):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580628176639643649

And yes there are deviations, you expect there to be none at $ 4k and higher ?

No, I expect it to not have broadband deviations above the target right around where our ears are most sensitive, and to fall into the 'Excellent' category as defined by Sean (pedicted preference rating of 90-100). Better than 76 at least. Otherwise you might as well just buy a Tune 710 for a 50th of the price.

All HP measurements I have seen of over € 4k headphones are worse offenders (in hugging the target) than the Stealth.

So what? Just because all the other extortionately priced headphones are worse doesn't necessarily make the best of that bunch incredible. And I don't know why you're talking about the Stealth here, I've already said it follows the target better than the Expanse and so is objectively likely the better headphone for the majority.

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 ?

No, because there's no publicly available Harman target for the 5128. It is however fine for comparing several headphones measured on it to each other, and probably more accurate in the treble (which increases the likelihood that the Expanse's generally lower measured energy then the Stealth above ~6 kHz is accurate).

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 ?

You don't have to know how to build a product to validly critique its objective performance. If that were the case all reviewers would be silenced (as well as nearly everyone on this forum). And I never claimed it sounded poor, that's a straw man:

objectively the measurements say it's good, bordering on great

What I object to is the hyperbolic praise heaped on a $4000 headphone due to misinterpretation of the measurements combined with what seems like cognitive bias for Dan Clark headphones from some and being taken in by all the metamaterial marketing. None of that matters to the sound for the end user, overwhelmingly determined by frequency response, a correct interpretation of deviation from the Harman target of which will predict likely preference for the majority.

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.

One does not have to be a 'science denier' to prefer a different target than that of the tonal balance the majority of people likes. After all it is a preferred tuning not an 'only correct' tuning'.

Suggesting that the overly smoothed and averaged 'target' is holy and has to be followed 'exact' otherwise it is a poor headphone is closer to denying measurement science than not preferring a specific bass boost with all recordings and allowing for tolerances (especially above 6kHz).

More straw men, you'll have constructed a whole army of them for you to attack soon. Please read this post carefully to understand my actual argument is not what you repeatedly misrepresent it as.

 

[preload]

Why limit to passive? The technology that gets you to the frequency response is irrelevant to the end user (and no, neither I nor Sean are saying the JBL Tune 710 are perfect):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580628176639643649

No, I expect it to not have broadband deviations above the target right around where our ears are most sensitive, and to fall into the 'Excellent' category as defined by Sean (pedicted preference rating of 90-100). Better than 76 at least. Otherwise you might as well just buy a Tune 710 for a 50th of the price.

Interesting. I did purchase a JBL Tune 710BT a while back based solely on its purported compliance with the Harman curve. I thought it sounded "good," but nothing to write home about. I vastly prefer the sound of the DCA Stealth, by a very large margin.

 

[GaryH]

Moreover, the specific target is only one way of achieving the bass to treble delta preferred by most people. As far as falling within the bounds of 'most people' in that regard, we needn't also assume that this preference equates to strict target compliance.

If the delta was all that mattered, you'd get people equally preferring to the Harman target, flat bass with just a 4-5 dB treble hump above that in blind tests. But you don't. Proper ear gain and bass level representative of what you'd hear and perceive from a neutral speaker in a good room are important.

And yeah, things get weird above 5-6khz.

But general energy level above here is still informative, and that's all I was talking about concerning the difference between the Stealth and Expense in this region. Unlike some people who universally recommend EQing a particular headphone by a huge 6 dB at a very specific high frequency of 10 kHz, concluded from a flat plate measurement, and all despite them not even using digital EQ themselves

 

[Robbo99999]

What I object to is the hyperbolic praise heaped on a $4000 headphone due to misinterpretation of the measurements combined with what seems like cognitive bias for Dan Clark headphones from some and being taken in by all the metamaterial marketing. None of that matters to the sound for the end user, overwhelmingly determined by frequency response, a correct interpretation of deviation from the Harman target of which will predict likely preference for the majority.

Just quoting a part of your post GaryH, as the rest is your discussion with solderdude and I just wanted to comment on this bit you said. I mean, I know, we're not gonna know how good these headphones really are vs our more "standard" & good EQ'd headphones that we both own, we're just not gonna know until we listen to them.......if there was an easy way for me to listen to them, have them for a while and compare them against the best of my EQ'd headphones then I'd be super interested in being able to do that! Those two Dan Clark headphones (Stealth & Expanse) do measure very well though, even if the Expanse is adhering less.......so it would be such an acid test to be able to have a pair of both or either of them with me at home for a week or two to compare against my other headphones.....not gonna happen I guess, but that would be the proper way to find out just how good they are vs our more standard but good EQ'd headphones.

 

[Robbo99999]

Interesting. I did purchase a JBL Tune 710BT a while back based solely on its purported compliance with the Harman curve. I thought it sounded "good," but nothing to write home about. I vastly prefer the sound of the DCA Stealth, by a very large margin.

Apparently it's very difficult to wear them properly, the earcups are tiny if I recall correctly from some bits I've read. Did you find that so? So that can definitely make the received frequency response very unpredictable.

 

[Resolve]

If the delta was all that mattered, you'd get people equally preferring to the Harman target, flat bass with just a 4-5 dB treble hump above that in blind tests. But you don't. Proper ear gain and bass level representative of what you'd hear and perceive from a neutral speaker in a good room are important.

You still need ear gain but the point is that the specific bass shelf is just one way of achieving a suitable result for the preference elements of the research. Even the statistical model scoring (which I take issue with for different reasons) uses the slope to predict listener preference, and even if strict target compliance gets you a positive result, it's not the only way for a result to predict positively for listener preference. So we shouldn't be so quick to assume that by default listeners will necessarily be in the 'target compliance' group. I also get the feeling that some folks consider a slight or subtle deviation to be equally bad in that such a result also satisfies target 'noncompliance', and to me that's not right at all.

I'm reminded regularly by a friend of mine that the downside of using raw graphs is that we're quick to judge the results/deviation based on the effects of looking at parallel lines. I'm certainly not immune from making that mistake, but it's worth being mindful of that.

 

[solderdude]

The likely most bothersome deviation of the Expanse's response from Harman is the broadband elevation between around 2 and 5 kHz where our hearing is most sensitive peaking ~2-3 dB above target. That could well be perceptually balanced out / (partially) masked by an increased bass to lower-mid level caused by its impedance curve and being used with an amp with high output impedance.

That 'peaking above' seems to also depend on what measurement rig is used.
All headphones deviate, some far more than this one and the price does not seem to have any relation to FR deviation.
Why so strict when one can use EQ ?

I agree that FR is the largest contributor of the sound quality. That I do not question. That deviations of several dB make a an audible difference and that the BW also makes a difference is well established and not even questioned.

Why limit to passive? The technology that gets you to the frequency response is irrelevant to the end user (and no, neither I nor Sean are saying the JBL Tune 710 are perfect):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580628176639643649

Because the headphone in question is passive. With DSP you can make any turd measure admirably.

No, I expect it to not have broadband deviations above the target right around where our ears are most sensitive, and to fall into the 'Excellent' category as defined by Sean (pedicted preference rating of 90-100). Better than 76 at least. Otherwise you might as well just buy a Tune 710 for a 50th of the price.

Are your expectations ever met on any headphone. I owned (and measured) the Tune and don't think this is a great headphone... Fine for the money but that's it.
The DCA TOTL headphones are never about value nor are any other TOTL headphones. They usually end up measuring worse than these DCA.

So what? Just because all the other extortionately priced headphones are worse doesn't necessarily make the best of that bunch incredible. And I don't know why you're talking about the Stealth here, I've already said it follows the target better than the Expanse and so is objectively likely the better headphone for the majority.

I don't know why you were talking about the Tune 710 either. It has no relation whatsoever. The Expanse and Stealth are most certainly related.

No, because there's no publicly available Harman target for the 5128. It is however fine for comparing several headphones measured on it to each other, and probably more accurate in the treble (which increases the likelihood that the Expanse's generally lower measured energy then the Stealth above ~6 kHz is accurate).

Yes, probably the 5128 is a bit 'closer' to reality. I am pretty sure if a Harman target would become available it will be equally 'smoothed' and 'averaged' as the others.
We all (including you and me) know how much 'tolerance/variation' there is above a few kHz between seatings, headphones etc. so why would an averaged and overly smoothed target be desirable. It is more than likely reality will deviate from the 'target'.
The exceptional part is you, maybe more than others, knows this very well yet you seem to insist that the target must be followed closely otherwise you can't ask an exuberant amount for it.

You don't have to know how to build a product to validly critique its objective performance. If that were the case all reviewers would be silenced (as well as nearly everyone on this forum). And I never claimed it sounded poor, that's a straw man:

Well that's true... I am sure you know what I meant though. It is easy to criticize something. It is a lot harder to actually build something that is beyond criticism.
IMO Dan is doing an innovating and not all too bad job here, certainly compared to some other (established) manufacturers.
Too bad about the price point. I do appreciate that he also makes some more affordable, yet still substantial in price, headphones for the less wealthy that do not appear to be that much worse than the flagships.


Objections noted. I have the same objections about Focal, hifiman, Audeze etc. but.... a manufacturer can ask whatever they want. Evidence enough of this in the entire 'high-end' audio market. It's not just Dan.
The good thing is 'mortals' (like me) can choose NOT to buy it.

being taken in by all the metamaterial marketing. None of that matters to the sound for the end user,

That's a bold claim. I suppose you have measured (and listened to) a Stealth or Expanse with and without that plastic 'diffusor' in front of it and have tangible evidence of your claim

overwhelmingly determined by frequency response, a correct interpretation of deviation from the Harman target of which will predict likely preference for the majority.

That 'smoothed and highly averaged' target combined with actual measurements and how much and where deviation is allowed (and why/the consequences) is exactly what I am talking about.
It is utterly silly to expect any headphone to ever follow (I do not dare to use the word 'hug') such a 'drawn target line'. Still amazed you (of all people) takes that 'target' so seriously as being an absolute 'must' to be followed closely.

More straw men, you'll have constructed a whole army of them for you to attack soon. Please read this post carefully to understand my actual argument is not what you repeatedly misrepresent it as.

Why drag in an IEM target that has similar 'issues' as the OE target and then some more (fit, insertion depth etc) what is the relation to Expanse other than you insisting all headphones sound wrong if they don't 'exacty' follow a specific line.
Some like that $ 50 IEM, others don't. Some prefer EQ A others EQ B. Some prefer other IEMs.
The same goes for the Harman target and the DCA headphones, some like it some don't.
At least you can't complain about the price of that IEM.
I don't like IEM's so have no opinion about them nor have I heard the DCA TOTL b.t.w.

 

[Robbo99999]

@solderdude , to just interject slightly into the conversation you're having with GaryH. I know the argument for following the Harman Curve closely boils down to "why build any more inaccuracies into the process". We know that measurements can deviate depending on methodology (on same measuring rig), or they can deviate due to unit to unit variation, or through specific interactions the headphone can have with your own head vs the measurement rig, and even deviate during pad wear as the pads get older.........but the argument against that is "why build any more inaccuracies into the process" by not following the Harman Curve closely - both in terms of when EQ'ing to the target and also in headphone assessment/reviews.......I mean that's assuming the listener or reviewer has a Harman Curve preference. Hell, even if you don't EQ to the Harman Curve and you EQ instead to another target of your choice, then it would be silly not to EQ from measurements accurately to the target of your choice (obviously while still trying to obey EQ best practice in terms of not using sharp filters too far up the frequency range and not boosting areas too much, etc). As long as the EQ filter(s) in question for a portion of the frequency response you're scrutinising add up to an audible difference then you may as well EQ accurately to the Target Curve of choice as a starting point at least.

 

[MayaTlab]

the argument against that is "why build any more inaccuracies into the process"

Because, for example, as it's already been occasionally proven (and Harman is in the process of gathering a lot more data on the subject, and hopefully it will be published), the measurement itself builds an inaccuracy in the process if there isn't a constant transfer function between all headphones and the average listener.
Ie, EQing headphones A to the target might indeed bring them closer to deliver the target to most listeners, but doing so for headphones B might brings them less close to the target - or at least merely shuffle the error curve around.

 

[MayaTlab]

Nautilus

The Nautilus is one of our flagship Personal Audio Tubed Integrated Amplifier. The Nautilus Rev 2 includes 2023 tube cage. This change to the metal work allows us to delineate inclusion of the Gen 5 power supply and culmination of 2 years successive efforts to improve this amazing amplifier...

ampsandsound.com

The likely most bothersome deviation of the Expanse's response from Harman is the broadband elevation between around 2 and 5 kHz where our hearing is most sensitive peaking ~2-3 dB above target.

Let's get your facts straight before wasting time with the usual drivel :

Amir's measurements show the expanse tracking the target better than the Stealth in that range. Resolve's less. Which one is closer to how you'll experience them ? We don't know.

 

[preload]

Apparently it's very difficult to wear them properly, the earcups are tiny if I recall correctly from some bits I've read. Did you find that so? So that can definitely make the received frequency response very unpredictable.

Agree, and I think that also speaks to the degree of imprecision in measuring headphones, let alone trying to compared their measured FR to a target curve. For instance, due to the amount of imprecision introduced through small/subtle differences in earcup positioning, it would make more sense to represent the FR measurement with error bars, or perhaps a thick line showing +/- 1SD across multiple measurement trials with slight earcup repositioning.