Dan Clark NOIRE XO Headphone Review

[Tell]

What, openbacks?

No over-ears/on-ears. Not sure exactly why and how, but nowadays I'm a IEM guy because of that, and seeing that I can get better performing stuff for a fraction of the price of this I guess it's just a win-win situation for me

 

[jlx]

Hi,

There is a question I still have to ask in here.
I understand that if you look at the measurements, some really cheap IEM's will outperform the more expensive over-ear headphones.

So my question is : does the FR graph tells it all ?
I understand it reflects a global tonal balance.

But to tell the truth I have several headphones with about the same FR after EQ.
And to my ears they really sound totally different...
Yes, the "tonal balance" is about the same and I like that.

But the level of details, the "clarity" (meaning the way you can differientiate the vocals, instruments), the way they expose the sense of "placement" (of course the Take five album from Dave Brubeck or the live at Alhambra from Loreena McKennitt can serve as reference here) varies A LOT to my ears when I switch headphones.

Is this just my imagination ?

I am asking because I just broke my Moondrop Venus that I liked a lot.
I replaced it with a Sony MDR-Z7 I had.
And to my ears they really sound totally different even though they are EQ'd to achieve the same FR curve :-(

it's not your imagination. My thoughts are that part of the problem is that we would need a few more graphs showing us other aspects of the sound reproduction. Forgive me for referencing speaker drivers as that is what I am more familiar with. It applies here as it is still a driver or drivers with a purpose of accurate sound reproduction. While good tonality is the foundation of good sound, that basic graph won't show us why a Raal ribbon or a Mundorf AMT (or a top Be dome or such) makes you say "wow" when listening to a well recorded cymbal or some other instrument. The added detail that can be heard that is missing or seems blurry and faded on lessor drivers is what high fidelity sound reproduction is all about. Graphs such as the step response, intermodulation distortion and the CSD help us "see" the differences that we can also hear (and things we can't hear as well). The magic is in all of those subtle details. All other design parameters being equal in a headphone or speaker, starting with better drivers should provide a better result.
And add to this the complexities of headphone placement and measurements on different human heads and test rigs etc.
Go take a look at some raw driver reviews and you will see many more measurements taken at many SPLs, each illuminating some aspect of the drivers performance and it's ability to accurately reproduce a source signal. When all these graphs are added together we can understand what that mid, woofer or tweeter driver is capable of. I am constantly in awe of how a great driver can somehow replicate the complex tones of a violin played by a talented musician and bring joy

In summation: superior driver has the potential of superior (accurate) sound reproduction and more data graphs are needed to illuminate us as to why that is

Of course I could be wrong as I am new to headphones

 

[Somafunk]

The headphone has less base loss with leakage as it’s open back, and therefore lower acoustic competence.

I don't think I fully understand this sentence. Less leakage bass loss means less competent?

I generally prefer open back headphones. For one thing I want to hear some background sounds such as the doorbell and my wife calling me. They also tend to be more comfortable and less sweaty. If I'm on a plane or train I like the isolation of a closed back but if I'm at home in the quiet not disturbing anyone with my music I like open back.

Replace “competence” for “impedance” , I figure it’s a typo as it should read “and therefore lower acoustic impedance”

 

[staticV3]

I don't think I fully understand this sentence. Less leakage bass loss means less competent?

No. It means the XO's bass response is less affected by how well the ear pads seal against your head.

Unlike with the Noire X and other closed-back headphones, even people with long hair or glasses will experience good subbass response out of the XO.

 

[Postlan]

This is relatively inexpensive for planar-type headphones, but I’ve read that low-cost planars often have a low diaphragm rejection rate, making it difficult to ensure consistent performance, and resulting in significant unit-to-unit variation.

I don’t want to be too negative, but since this particular unit was apparently sent directly from the company, we can’t rule out the possibility that it was a handpicked sample with the best performance being tested. I’d like to see measurements and comparisons of units purchased randomly from the market as well.

 

[CedarX]

it's not your imagination. My thoughts are that part of the problem…

Indeed… it appears to be your imagination, not his/her.
Just curious: have you considered that your thoughts could be part of the problem?

 

[Dan Clark]

I don't think I fully understand this sentence. Less leakage bass loss means less competent?

I generally prefer open back headphones. For one thing I want to hear some background sounds such as the doorbell and my wife calling me. They also tend to be more comfortable and less sweaty. If I'm on a plane or train I like the isolation of a closed back but if I'm at home in the quiet not disturbing anyone with my music I like open back.

The comment simply refers to the fact that circumaural headphones lose bass if the ear pad isn’t sealed well to the head. How much bass loss occurs is a function of the acoustic impedance of the headphone.

Closed cups increase the acoustic impedance, so when you have a seal issue, such as with glasses, the bass loss may be higher than it is with an open back headphone. For the most part this only comes into play with glasses or very thick hair.

 

[Dan Clark]

Replace “competence” for “impedance” , I figure it’s a typo as it should read “and therefore lower acoustic impedance”

Gosh my error, thanks for the catch! Typing on a phone without my glasses = bad idea.

 

[Robbo99999]

Nice, interesting that it's been finetuned on the B&K 5128, and also interesting to see @amirm preferring slightly more after EQ to Harman albeit we were talking small changes. One thing I'm not sure on is the waviness in the frequency response between 200-1000Hz, I'm not sure what the justification is for that - I'm uncertain if B&K 5128 measures differently in that area vs GRAS & hence that being the reason? I've generally been of the mindset that different rigs measure quite similarly between 200-1000Hz but I could have the wrong impression.

 

[Robbo99999]

Hi,

There is a question I still have to ask in here.
I understand that if you look at the measurements, some really cheap IEM's will outperform the more expensive over-ear headphones.

So my question is : does the FR graph tells it all ?
I understand it reflects a global tonal balance.

But to tell the truth I have several headphones with about the same FR after EQ.
And to my ears they really sound totally different...
Yes, the "tonal balance" is about the same and I like that.

But the level of details, the "clarity" (meaning the way you can differientiate the vocals, instruments), the way they expose the sense of "placement" (of course the Take five album from Dave Brubeck or the live at Alhambra from Loreena McKennitt can serve as reference here) varies A LOT to my ears when I switch headphones.

Is this just my imagination ?

I am asking because I just broke my Moondrop Venus that I liked a lot.
I replaced it with a Sony MDR-Z7 I had.
And to my ears they really sound totally different even though they are EQ'd to achieve the same FR curve :-(

I'll add to some of the points that @Chagall brought up. Unit to unit variation. The headphones you own might have high unit to unit variation which means that your own headphones are not strictly EQ'd to the Harman Curve (because they don't measure the same as the unit that was measured for the EQ that you're using). Some headphones have more unit to unit variation than others.

 

[Dan Clark]

Very nice indeed. Now, will there also be a VSOP?

Maybe a Napoleon...

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

@Dan Clark you really want me to be broke

 

[Robbo99999]

@Dan Clark you really want me to be broke

Didn't you already have some high end headphones? (maybe even from Dan Clark already)

 

[DrZingo]

Maybe a Napoleon...

Hehe. Well, your three-cornered design already slightly resembles his famous bicorne hat. All that is missing for the Napoleon model is a brim of gold. (I suppose the red, blue and white cockade could be optional.)

 

[RogerSmith]

it's not your imagination. My thoughts are that part of the problem is that we would need a few more graphs showing us other aspects of the sound reproduction. Forgive me for referencing speaker drivers as that is what I am more familiar with. It applies here as it is still a driver or drivers with a purpose of accurate sound reproduction. While good tonality is the foundation of good sound, that basic graph won't show us why a Raal ribbon or a Mundorf AMT (or a top Be dome or such) makes you say "wow" when listening to a well recorded cymbal or some other instrument. The added detail that can be heard that is missing or seems blurry and faded on lessor drivers is what high fidelity sound reproduction is all about. Graphs such as the step response, intermodulation distortion and the CSD help us "see" the differences that we can also hear (and things we can't hear as well). The magic is in all of those subtle details. All other design parameters being equal in a headphone or speaker, starting with better drivers should provide a better result.
And add to this the complexities of headphone placement and measurements on different human heads and test rigs etc.
Go take a look at some raw driver reviews and you will see many more measurements taken at many SPLs, each illuminating some aspect of the drivers performance and it's ability to accurately reproduce a source signal. When all these graphs are added together we can understand what that mid, woofer or tweeter driver is capable of. I am constantly in awe of how a great driver can somehow replicate the complex tones of a violin played by a talented musician and bring joy

In summation: superior driver has the potential of superior (accurate) sound reproduction and more data graphs are needed to illuminate us as to why that is

Of course I could be wrong as I am new to headphones

There are many wrong things stated here. The sound of cymbals is completely determined by the frequency response of the headphone (assuming low enough distortion). Also, step response and CSD do not deliver additional information as these are quantities reltated to the frequency response by Fourier transform and THD measurements.

 

[ErinPraline]

it's not your imagination. My thoughts are that part of the problem is that we would need a few more graphs showing us other aspects of the sound reproduction. Forgive me for referencing speaker drivers as that is what I am more familiar with. It applies here as it is still a driver or drivers with a purpose of accurate sound reproduction. While good tonality is the foundation of good sound, that basic graph won't show us why a Raal ribbon or a Mundorf AMT (or a top Be dome or such) makes you say "wow" when listening to a well recorded cymbal or some other instrument. The added detail that can be heard that is missing or seems blurry and faded on lessor drivers is what high fidelity sound reproduction is all about. Graphs such as the step response, intermodulation distortion and the CSD help us "see" the differences that we can also hear (and things we can't hear as well). The magic is in all of those subtle details. All other design parameters being equal in a headphone or speaker, starting with better drivers should provide a better result.
And add to this the complexities of headphone placement and measurements on different human heads and test rigs etc.
Go take a look at some raw driver reviews and you will see many more measurements taken at many SPLs, each illuminating some aspect of the drivers performance and it's ability to accurately reproduce a source signal. When all these graphs are added together we can understand what that mid, woofer or tweeter driver is capable of. I am constantly in awe of how a great driver can somehow replicate the complex tones of a violin played by a talented musician and bring joy

In summation: superior driver has the potential of superior (accurate) sound reproduction and more data graphs are needed to illuminate us as to why that is

Of course I could be wrong as I am new to headphones

There is no secret sauce in driver types or driver material. You mention AMTs, from the measurements of speakers with AMT tweeters that I've seen the "wow factor" is likely from elevated treble

 

[Dan Clark]

Nice, interesting that it's been finetuned on the B&K 5128, and also interesting to see @amirm preferring slightly more after EQ to Harman albeit we were talking small changes. One thing I'm not sure on is the waviness in the frequency response between 200-1000Hz, I'm not sure what the justification is for that - I'm uncertain if B&K 5128 measures differently in that area vs GRAS & hence that being the reason? I've generally been of the mindset that different rigs measure quite similarly between 200-1000Hz but I could have the wrong impression.

Interestingly the 5128 target shows a wave in just this region, as you'll see when my post #2 is updated (it won't let me edit but I've sent Rob the content to insert). In this region NXO measures very flat but the target has a wobble, which results in about the same shallow dip at 600Hz relative to target. So some subtlety is involved in assessing the results.

The reason the wobble exists is that getting an open headphone to comply so closely to the Harman curve is hard, there is a forest for the trees situation. As is pretty clear from both GRAS and 5128 compliance to curve the errors are mostly very low Q features and shallow. To my knowledge nobody has achieved this level of curve compliance with an open headphone (anyone feel free to correct me if I am omitting something, there are a lot of products out there!).

Overall we're incredibly proud of this headphone and think the tonal balance is pretty stellar, but if EQ tweeks from Amir help some enjoy it even more, super!

 

[Dan Clark]

There is no secret sauce in driver types or driver material.

That is really not the case...

Choosing the wrong material for a planar driver can materially elevate distortion, Kapton for example is super strong and incredibly stable but will generate very high levels of distortion relative to Mylar. Mylar has different formulations or production processes, and products vary in stability, elasticity, thermal response, etc. It's quite a job to optimize these materials, and the same is of course true for material choice in dynamic drivers, etc.

Regards to driver types, within any class of products you'll see huge variations between products and vendors. Consider dynamic drivers where the folk at Purifi have turned low distortion dynamic drivers into a real artform with their designs.

 

[ErinPraline]

That is really not the case...

Choosing the wrong material for a planar driver can materially elevate distortion, Kapton for example is super strong and incredibly stable but will generate very high levels of distortion relative to Mylar. Mylar has different formulations or production processes, and products vary in stability, elasticity, thermal response, etc. It's quite a job to optimize these materials, and the same is of course true for material choice in dynamic drivers, etc.

Regards to driver types, within any class of products you'll see huge variations between products and vendors. Consider dynamic drivers where the folk at Purifi have turned low distortion dynamic drivers into a real artform with their designs.

What I meant my secret sauce is unmeasurable characteristics that poster was mentioning, I apologize if I was misunderstood

 

[thewas]

Interestingly the 5128 target shows a wave in just this region, as you'll see when my post #2 is updated (it won't let me edit but I've sent Rob the content to insert). In this region NXO measures very flat but the target has a wobble, which results in about the same shallow dip at 600Hz relative to target. So some subtlety is involved in assessing the results.

The reason the wobble exists is that getting an open headphone to comply so closely to the Harman curve is hard, there is a forest for the trees situation. As is pretty clear from both GRAS and 5128 compliance to curve the errors are mostly very low Q features and shallow. To my knowledge nobody has achieved this level of curve compliance with an open headphone (anyone feel free to correct me if I am omitting something, there are a lot of products out there!).

Overall we're incredibly proud of this headphone and think the tonal balance is pretty stellar, but if EQ tweeks from Amir help some enjoy it even more, super!

I really appreciate the efforts you put into your designs which I haven't seen on such a level on other headphone companies and remind me of a couple of loudspeaker companies where I appreciate similar efforts. Unfortunately I don't often listen via headphones but if that changes in the future I know where I would buy from, keep up the great work.