Dan Clark Expanse Headphone Review

[solderdude]

And even then that EQ, even if yours is generated on Oratory's fixture the generated EQ is really only valid for that specific used measurement and may not be valid on your ears.
Of course, such EQ is better than no EQ and at least one does not have to worry about product variances being a possible culprit.

How do you like the Stealth and Expanse's tonal balance (without any EQ) and is that close to that of the other headphones once they are EQ'd to Harman ?

 

[Rthomas]

And even then that EQ, even if yours is generated on Oratory's fixture the generated EQ is really only valid for that specific used measurement and may not be valid on your ears.
Of course, such EQ is better than no EQ and at least one does not have to worry about product variances being a possible culprit.

How do you like the Stealth and Expanse's tonal balance (without any EQ) and is that close to that of the other headphones once they are EQ'd to Harman ?

It's the closest I can come to the target. Sending every headphone I buy to Oratory would be expensive and I'm nervous about things getting lost in shipping

I like the Stealth's tonal balance, nothing wrong with it.

Even with no EQ the LCD-5 and CRBN just sound so much more powerful, much more like the good speakers I've listened to and much more like being at a live performance.

So overall tonal balance is not the problem for me. If you don't compare the Stealth to anything it sounds fine but as soon as you compare the difference is clear.

I just wish other people here would do a direct comparison and back me up so that I can know for sure that I'm not crazy!

 

[GaryH]

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.

Firstly, to be clear it's the slope of the logarithmic regression line through the error response curve (the deviation of the measured frequency response with respect to the Harman target), not the slope of the raw frequency response. This effectively means it's just a very coarse measure of (lowest Q you can get, average spectral-tilt) deviation from the Harman target. Secondly, the slope variable is only half the story, with a weighted contribution of around 50% to the model, the other half being the standard deviation of the error curve, which is a more fine-grained measure of deviation from the target. This all means the model is effectively just a measure of closeness of the headphone's frequency response to the Harman target. There isn't huge room for manoeuvre here, as these two variables are quite collinear (correlate) with each other. This can be seen from the 'Excellent' (defined by Sean Olive as having a predicted rating of 90-100) headphones on AutoEQ's ranking table. The headphones with the best (lowest) standard deviation of the error in this group have the worst (greatest magnitude) slope of the error curve (so the variables negatively correlate), but they are both still very low for each of these headphones. The model's wiggle room for potential frequency responses likely to be preferred afforded by using a coarse and fine-grained variable for deviation from the Harman target is actually an argument for holding the calculated preference rating in higher regard than visual inference from looking at graphs, and the fact is the Expanse scores a 'Good' (65-76 as defined by Sean), bordering on great, but by no means excellent rating of 76, which I would say chimes with yours, DMS's and many others' subjective impressions, and the same will likely be true of the majority of listeners.

So we shouldn't be so quick to assume that by default listeners will necessarily be in the 'target compliance' group.

On the contrary, that a listener lies in the norm (as determined by our best current science) should always be the initial default assumption, until this null hypothesis is proven otherwise.

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.

The problem here is the misinterpretation of 'slight/subtle' deviation. Low-amplitude but low-Q (broadband) deviations are not subtle when it comes to audibility; they will be as audible as the more visually obvious higher-amplitude but higher-Q (narrowband) deviations. (If you don't know what I'm referring to here, this is all explained in Dr Floyd Toole's book, which is highly recommended.) Essentially what matters is the area between the measured frequency response and the target, not the amplitude of the deviation. To go back to the predictive preference rating model, the inclusion of the slope variable actually adds some increased sensitivity to such lower-Q deviations, just as we'd want psychoacoustically, so it's not as 'dumb' of a model as some naysayers might have you believe. Of course we also know from the scientific literature peaks are more audible than dips though, and deviations around the upper-mid to treble frequencies where our ears have the highest sensitivity, as determined by the equal loudness contours, are more noticeable. This all means the Expanse's 2-5 kHz deviation above the Harman target is likely not sonically subtle, even if it may appear so visually from looking at the measurements.

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.

For many this is the only option before buying. As I've made clear in this post, it's all a probabilistic exercise, and I don't claim any more than that.

 

[preload]

It's the closest I can come to the target. Sending every headphone I buy to Oratory would be expensive and I'm nervous about things getting lost in shipping

I like the Stealth's tonal balance, nothing wrong with it.

Even with no EQ the LCD-5 and CRBN just sound so much more powerful, much more like the good speakers I've listened to and much more like being at a live performance.

So overall tonal balance is not the problem for me. If you don't compare the Stealth to anything it sounds fine but as soon as you compare the difference is clear.

I just wish other people here would do a direct comparison and back me up so that I can know for sure that I'm not crazy!

Do you own the Stealth as well?
Now you have me curious about the LCD5 and CRBN.
What makes them sound more powerful and "live?"

 

[GaryH]

That 'peaking above' seems to also depend on what measurement rig is used.

Sounds like you've been wasting your time reading too much of the usual drivel from those Addicted to FUD and Moaning about ear simulators, who massage and cherry-pick the data to push their bogus narrative. So let's actually get the facts straight. Here's Sean Olive's measurements (the 'gold standard' when comparing to the Harman target) of the Stealth:

Notice even this is peaking ~2 dB above target around 3 and 5 kHz. Now let's look at all the available data (as opposed to cherry-picking sources) comparing the Stealth and Expanse. Firstly Head-Fi's measurements on their B&K 5128, which is likely to be most accurate for comparing headphone treble response, shows the Expanse has more energy than the Stealth over a broadband range between around 2.5 and 5 kHz, peaking ~2 dB above the latter's response:

Now Resolve's measurements, which again show a similar difference between 2.5 and 5 kHz:

And finally ASR which, surprise surprise, shows a similar difference yet again:

So, the gold standard measurements for Harman compliance show the Stealth peaks above target around 3-5 kHz. And all three available measurements comparing the Stealth to the Expanse within the same rig show the latter peaks above the former in this region. Therefore, the Expanse likely peaks above the Harman target over a fairly broadband range around the frequencies our ears are most sensitive by potentially up to ~3-4 dB. This is not insignificant, and should be audible to anyone who doesn't have marked age- or noise-related hearing loss (or both).

Spoiler

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 ?

Because it costs a ridiculous $4000.

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.

Good, then you can see why the Expanse's deviation as shown above is significant then.

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

Your anti-digital bias is showing once again. The headphone in question is also a planar magnetic design, does that mean its sound can only be compared to other planars?

I owned (and measured) the Tune and don't think this is a great headphone... Fine for the money but that's it.

The Harman research seems to pay off

smooth sound without harshness

all instruments sound natural

The sound quality using BT is very good

this is an excellent sounding headphone

A very enjoyable headphone

The DCA TOTL headphones are never about value nor are any other TOTL headphones.

Every product should be good value for money. If it's not it's a bad (or at least overpriced) product. Being marketed as 'TOTL' is no excuse for charging exorbitant amounts of money to gullible audiophiles who mistakenly assume price correlates with sound quality.

They usually end up measuring worse than these DCA.

Then the only 'TOTL' thing about them is the price.

I don't know why you were talking about the Tune 710 either.

Because you asked about headphones that follow the Harman target.

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.

I've already tried to explain this to you, maybe @Robbo99999 's rephrasing of the argument has helped you understand. I don't know how to simplify it any further for you.

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.

Never said it should be beyond criticism. I said it should be objectively 'excellent' (as defined by Sean Olive as having a predicted preference rating of 90 or above) considering its ludicrous price.

Too bad about the price point.

Indeed.

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.

Which just goes to show that the price of the Expanse/Stealth is not justified.

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.

Never said it was, they're all guilty of it.

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

Please read what I write more carefully:

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

The marketing does not matter to the sound for the end user. And neither does the technology used to achieve the sound for the end user, which is determined by frequency response, whether that's through DCA's 'metamaterials' (which by the way are just a load of resonators in the front volume to tune the FR, which is nothing new), or DSP etc. is irrelevant, despite your obvious bias against the latter.

Why drag in an IEM target

Because it's the same generalized argument (that you're repeatedly failing to grasp). That IEM even has a similar broadband elevation over the Harman target as the Expanse, so that makes it even more applicable.

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.

Sigh. Still attacking that straw man of yours. Think I'll just leave you two to fight it out between yourselves.

 

[preload]

Sounds like you've been wasting your time reading too much of the usual drivel from those Addicted to FUD and Moaning about ear simulators, who massage and cherry-pick the data to push their bogus narrative. So let's actually get the facts straight. Here's Sean Olive's measurements (the 'gold standard' when comparing to the Harman target) of the Stealth:

Notice even this is peaking ~2 dB above target around 3 and 5 kHz. Now let's look at all the available data (as opposed to cherry-picking one source) comparing the Stealth and Expanse. Firstly Head-Fi's measurements on their B&K 5128, which is likely to be most accurate for comparing headphone treble response, shows the Expanse has more energy than the Stealth over a broadband range between around 2.5 and 5 kHz, peaking ~2 dB above the latter's response:

Sorry, I'm with @solderdude on this one. The only measurement rig I trust to determine a headphone's FR deviation from the Harman target is a Harman measurement rig. I agree with you that this is the gold standard.

However, if you look again at the Harman measurement of the Stealth, you'll see that the measurement was not normalized to 1kHz. If you did normalize to 1khz, you would see that these so-called "peaks" centered around 3Khz and 6kHz, actually dropped down to follow right along the Harman curve.

Also, please cut it out with the references to "addicted to FUD" and "bogus narrative" - not everyone who disagrees with you is pushing a conspiracy theory.

 

[GaryH]

Let me ask you something this way.... IF you had the perfect headphone that would not even change response depending on seating and you would measure it with the fixture on which the Harman curve was created... do you believe/think there would be a measured trace perfectly overlapping the current Harman curve/compensation for that particular fixture or would it have deviations above a few kHz ?

My point is the 'smoothness' of the target curve is NOT accurately representing the actual transfer function of the used HATS.

It's not representing the transfer function from a free-field single source at a fixed 0 degrees no, because that's not how the mixing and mastering engineers hear their music when it's being produced. They listen in a semi-reflective room (neither free- nor diffuse-field) from a stereo pair typically arranged at +/- 30 degrees from their head (which is not fixed in a vice), and so the sound arriving at their ears is effectively 'averaged' by both room reflections and rotations of their head, smoothing the perceived response. This was all replicated by Harman when measuring the basis of their target using their HATS, resulting in a smooth response (black curve below) representing the sound of good speakers in a good room:

Yes of course there will be a difference compared to a single measurement at 0 degrees.. But people move their heads when they listen and the spatial averaging will also smooth out any interference effects from room reflections,etc ..

The Harman Target is based on a stereo pair of anechoically flat loudspeakers measured at the DRP in a semi-reflective room, which is neither free-field nor diffuse field. The DRP was measured in the stereo seat using a +- 30 degree spatial average.

The Harman Target Curve was based on a measurement at the primary listening seat in our listening room using Revel F208 and a JBL M2 calibrated to the Harman Speaker Target. We measured it with our ear simulated mounted in a head/torso. We did a spatial average +- 30 degrees by rotating the head.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1467271124211752963

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491532376261861377

The preference tests later modified the black curve to the blue curve above (and later the 2018 curve after more refining of the blind listening tests), which likely has more bass to perceptually compensate for the minimal tactile bass headphones provide compared to full-body bass felt from a large loudspeaker/subwoofer. So the answer to your question would be yes, a perfect headphone (as in statistically most likely to represent the preferred frequency response of the majority, based on the spatially averaged response heard by mixing / mastering engineers using good speakers in a good room) would exactly trace the Harman target curve.

This is what Oratory does b.t.w. and is handy to have alongside other measurements.

He also EQs as close as he can (within reason and followed by checking by ear) to the Harman target, because he understands the basic scientific principle of not compounding errors.

It looks like for the HD650 graph that the various GRAS KB5000/5001 anthropometric pinnae measurements average out to be around what Sean's measurement is showing

And all that despite unit variation, pre-and post-2020 model revision, seating variation, methodological variation, and most inexplicable of all worn and new pad measurements all being thrown in the mix together on the same graph

But yes, from what you're saying we can't be totally sure just how much Harmans modified pinna varies from the GRAS KB5000/5001 anthropometric pinnae, it doesn't seem disastrous though.

Indeed it isn't, at all. Of course it would be beyond foolish to conclude there are significant differences between rigs from that multiply confounded hodgepodge of HD650 measurements, and even more so from a digitisation of a photoshopped photo, of a computer screen, showing unpublished (not even unofficially as a tweet in its own right) measurements, under unknown conditions, of an active headphone with an always-on adaptive EQ, which obviously adds an unpredictable confounding variable to the measurements and so invalidates a direct like-for-like comparison between the rigs, not to mention its poor frequency response consistency with reseatings. Just as it would be foolish to conclude differences between rigs from measurements of different units of a headphone model, especially one that not only also has poor frequency response consistency with resestings, but is known to have bad QC and unit variance. Not pretty. Controlling for confounding variables before rejecting the null hypothesis really is the most elementary of scientific principles...The lack of basic scientific literacy on here never ceases to amaze me. And yet despite the potential confounding of frequency response consistency and unit variation (and possible methodological differences), Oratory still found this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1195840967774892032

Which goes to show the whole argument that measurements made with the KB5000/5001 pinnae are incompatible with Harman's and cannot be used to judge target adherence is a load of overblown nonsense, and the Expanse's good but by no means amazing predicted preference rating of 76 is likely indeed a pretty accurate representation of what it would be calculated from a Harman measurement.

 

[solderdude]

So, the gold standard measurements for Harman compliance show the Stealth peaks above target around 3-5 kHz. And all three available measurements comparing the Stealth to the Expanse within the same rig show the latter peaks above the former in this region. Therefore, the Expanse likely peaks above the Harman target over a fairly broadband range around the frequencies our ears are most sensitive by potentially up to ~3-4 dB. This is not insignificant, and should be audible to anyone who doesn't have marked age- or noise-related hearing loss (or both).

Of course the Expanse and Stealth measure differently. They are not the same headphone. Open vs closed.
Of course they will show a similar deviation from the target on very similar test fixtures.
Of course the measured response will differ on different fixtures and different copy's of the headphones in question but show a 'similar' response.
Of course Harman research is valid. Of course the curve was revised over the years.
Of course there will be audible differences between Stealth and Expanse as they do not measure the same.

This all has nothing to do with the target being too smoothed and for that reason all measurements, unless smoothed in the exact same way will always show deviations from that 'target' curve.
That does not mean it has to be followed exactly based on a single (or combined) measurement on a particular fixture to not be 'close' to the Harman tuning and to be universally preferred by the most people.

That is the point I am trying to get across. Not that some extra bass and a certain treble amount is not preferred by most people nor that the 'overall Harman tonality' is nonsense.
Merely commenting on the fact that the well known target is just that and the actual transfer function of the used fixture is not following that overly smoothed target.

It's the closest I can come to the target. Sending every headphone I buy to Oratory would be expensive and I'm nervous about things getting lost in shipping

Yep,

I like the Stealth's tonal balance, nothing wrong with it.

Exactly my point, even if some measurements show that there is some deviation from the overall 'target' response.

So overall tonal balance is not the problem for me. If you don't compare the Stealth to anything it sounds fine but as soon as you compare the difference is clear.

Yep, that is to be expected. The brain easily adjusts to changes in tonal balance until you suddenly hear a different presentation. Then you 'get used' to that one.
It is one of the main reasons why people owning a certain headphone for years have trouble finding a to them 'better sounding' headphone and why people think 'burn-in' is real. (sometimes, in rare cases it is)

I just wish other people here would do a direct comparison and back me up so that I can know for sure that I'm not crazy!

The problem is that comparing at a shop or meeting for an hour or so is not the same as comparing them at home for a few days.
One would have to own them for a while (and thus at least temporarily fork out the dough) and swap now and then for an extended period.
Not everyone has the financial buffer to own a few of these at the same time.

I don't think you are crazy, nor do I think most readers will think the same.

That said... there is always preference and when others would be comparing the exact same headphones their 'preference order' rating might be different.
Personal ratings also can differ from some computer generated 'rating' which may not be based on the same things owners may value.
Say... imaging, amount of bass, tactile feel of bass, preference for clearer mids or not or some emphasis in bass or treble or even comfort.

 

[Rthomas]

Do you own the Stealth as well?
Now you have me curious about the LCD5 and CRBN.
What makes them sound more powerful and "live?"

I owned a Stealth for a week . I compared it every night to the lcd5 and CRBN. My plan was to sell one . I ended up returning the stealth due to the relatively “gentle” bass presentation.

I can’t explain this to you. You need to try both headphones in a quiet environment.

To my ears the difference is obvious.

Audeze have a 30 day trial. If you own the Stealth you can compare them at home for free

 

[thewas]

The Harman Target is based on a stereo pair of anechoically flat loudspeakers measured at the DRP in a semi-reflective room, which is neither free-field nor diffuse field. The DRP was measured in the stereo seat using a +- 30 degree spatial average.

The Harman Target Curve was based on a measurement at the primary listening seat in our listening room using Revel F208 and a JBL M2 calibrated to the Harman Speaker Target. We measured it with our ear simulated mounted in a head/torso. We did a spatial average +- 30 degrees by rotating the head.

Those two quotes/posts contradict each other though as either the loudspeakers where left anechoically flat above transition frequency (which is the correct way to do, see the first link in my signature) or they were equalised above transition frequency to that same target which is wrong as they have different directivity and at least one of them won't be anechoically flat after that. Would be interesting to read @Sean Olive clarifying that.

 

[Robbo99999]

Those two quotes/posts contradict each other though as either the loudspeakers where left anechoically flat above transition frequency (which is the correct way to do, see the first link in my signature) or they were equalised above transition frequency to that same target which is wrong as they have different directivity and at least one of them won't be anechoically flat after that. Would be interesting to read @Sean Olive clarifying that.

That's true there's a discrepancy there - he might just be loosely equating that an anechoic flat speaker behaves in the same broad way as their Harman Curve in their own listening room. And probably also that the F208 & JBL M2 being broadly anechoic flat might roughly follow the Harman Curve in their listening room too. I don't know for sure if this is the exact case though for that discrepancy.

 

[thewas]

The problem is that the directivity of the F208 and M2 are so different that their LP responses will be quite deviating so they could only follow the same LP target with quite a tolerance band.

 

[Robbo99999]

The problem is that the directivity of the F208 and M2 are so different that their LP responses will be quite deviating so they could only follow the same LP target with quite a tolerance band.

We'd have to get some clarity from Sean then, you tagged him. It might depend on just how loose he was being with his verbal equations, but it's true they're not exactly the same thing.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I am one of those who are extremely satisifed with the Harman curves. No issue, a great starting and landing point for me.. YMMV.
Any transducer that adheres to these, get my vote.
This said, and following my experience with the TRUTHEAR Crinnacle Zero , experience , I have a very hard time considering spending that cash outlay for headphones. I believe I am reasonably close or, perhaps, even surpassing its performance with a combination of hardware (Raspberry Pi) + Software (Fusion DSP) + HiFiMan HE6SE.
Again mileage may vary or I could be wrong.
...
...
I don't think I am.

Peace

 

[GaryH]

There are people that don't like Ora's EQ and those that swear by it.
There are those that don't like the Harman target and there are those that swear by it.
There are those that swear by Optimum Hifi target, DF target, certain 'room' targets or a target invented by some manufacturer or measurement guy.
There are people that use EQ which was simply 'winged' (turn up the bass and treble) or do some random pad swaps or uncontrolled modifications and find it great.
Also when looking at the 'what headphone do you own thread' and seeing totally opposite preferences between owners of the same headphone ranging from bass-shy ones to bass-head headphones.

This tells me something.

It also tells me something
That you're unable to distinguish between random impressions on the internet and the results of properly controlled blind listening tests from a solid body of scientific literature:

Several studies done by Lorho (2009), Fraunhofer (2012) and Harman (2013-2019) have since shown there are more preferred targets than DF. Instead of measuring the loudspeaker in a DF they are measured in a semi-reflective listening room as a starting point. Why? Because most recordings are not optimized for playback in reverberation chambers because most listeners don't listen in them but rather semi-reflective rooms with an average RT60 of 0. 4 s. There is a strong frontal direct sound component and some strong early reflection contributions from lateral and other directions -- not at all like a DF field where the arrivals at the listener are random and uniformly distributed in direction. The rooms tend to reinforce the bass below 200 Hz so the in-room response is not flat.

Since recordings are optimized through loudspeakers in a semi-reflective room, they sound best over headphones that emulate that response. And there are lots of experimental data support it.

Some people 'swear by' silver cable 'upgrades' sounding so much better than copper. Should we equivocate on whether their impressions are valid too?

This all has nothing to do with the target being too smoothed

Merely commenting on the fact that the well known target is just that and the actual transfer function of the used fixture is not following that overly smoothed target.

It's not overly smoothed. Please read my above post and the quotes and graphs from Sean Olive carefully. Real-life speaker listening naturally smooths the response perceived by the listener via the semi-reflectivity of the room and head movements. We do not listen in free-field with our heads in a vice (unless you're into that kind of thing...), so even the 2013 Harman target before it was modified by listener preference (which accounts for decreased perception of tactile bass from headphones compared to speakers) is smooth, as it represents the real-life smoothing mentioned above (via measuring the speaker response at a HATS in a semi-reflective room and taking a +/- 30 degree average to emulate listener head movement):

This graphic shows the Harman AE/OE Target from 2013 (black) and 2015 (blue) from my presentation. 2013 curve is before we added listener preferred bass and treble adjustments, what you call the "unadulterated curve". It represents the accurate speaker in the room equalized to the in-room target curve.

 

[Robbo99999]

Real-life speaker listening naturally smooths the response perceived by the listener via the semi-reflectivity of the room and head movements. We do not listen in free-field with our heads in a vice (unless you're into that kind of thing...),

lol [thumbs up]

so even the 2013 Harman target before it was modified by listener preference (which accounts for decreased perception of tactile bass from headphones compared to speakers) is smooth, as it represents the real-life smoothing mentioned above (via measuring the speaker response at a HATS in a semi-reflective room and taking a +/- 30 degree average to emulate head movement):

 

[solderdude]

Real-life speaker listening naturally smooths the response perceived by the listener via the semi-reflectivity of the room and head movements.

Real-life speaker listening with speakers at a 30 degree angle in a room is hardly the same as a headphone with drivers close to the ear and parallel to it.
Are you claiming the same 'smoothing' happens with headphones as what happens with speakers in a reflective room and thus the correction curve + target should be 'smooth' ?

 

[Robbo99999]

Real-life speaker listening with speakers at a 30 degree angle in a room is hardly the same as a headphone with drivers close to the ear and parallel to it.
Are you claiming the same 'smoothing' happens with headphones as what happens with speakers in a reflective room and thus the correction curve + target should be 'smooth' ?

The idea is to try to emulate speakers in headphones as best you can. Therefore if constant head position is not maintained with speakers and it thereby creates a smoothed response at DRP, then that is simply the target that headphones would emulate - it's got nothing about "drivers close to the ear" because we're talking about target curve creation. No one said it was gonna be the exact same as speakers in a room - you need Smyth Realiser for that by all accounts, which is highly personalised HRTF DSP combined with headtracking - what more do you want.

 

[solderdude]

I get all that.. what the intention is and what the research about the target for speakers is. How it is obtained and why.
Also that the intend is to get the same 'sound' as speakers in a room would be.
I also completely understand what for instance the Smyth realiser is about.
That's not what I am talking about.
I am talking about the correction curve for OE headphone measurements for specific fixtures and the fact that they cannot possibly be 'smooth'.
The Harman bass boost and treble preference is a totally different subject and fully understand that CAN be smooth.

I am talking about the correction curve and not the Harman used correction curve + their preference curve. Smooth (Harman tonal target) + not smooth at all (correction for headphone on fixture average) cannot possibly be 'smooth'. It would have to follow the correction curve which is known not to be smooth and the same for actual headphones.

Maybe @AdamG247 or @BDWoody can clean up this review thread and move this not Expanse related stuff elsewhere.
I can assist in determining what posts would need to be moved if needed.

 

[PGAMiami]

4 grand for a headphone is laughable regardless of how it measures. there is nothing in materials that justifies this cost!

How much are the materials in a Picasso? This is not that, but I’m looking to make a point. There is such a thing as intellectual property and it has value, especially when it pertains to products that are not manufactured with much scale. Look at it is this way, if these are that easy to replicate, then we will all be able to buy a Chinese knock off in a year or two for a 1/10th the price.