• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Dan Clark Stealth Review (State of the Art Headphone)

OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,765
Likes
140,955
Location
Seattle Area
Why so aggressive? At the end of the day, I think his initial thoughts regarding the DCA Stealth have been positive. Cringe? You could say that you don't agree.
I could. Here is the thing though: science doesn't have its own voice to defend itself when its being trumped upon with dirty shoes. It is up to us, certainly me, to stand up for it.

Here we have a headphone that for the first time has nailed two things: comply with the research into what is the best sound, and do so with superb engineering to produce essentially zero distortion. Heck, there are a ton of amplifiers with more distortion than this headphone!

Andrew takes this and generates these remarks:

"Very EARLY Subjective thoughts:

Detail - good but not like… Abyss or Susvara level. "

First subjective remark is damning it with faint praise. "Good detail but not like Abyss level?" How on earth did he determine that and can prove the correctness of? Nothing. Just an appeal to himself as authority. He thought it, so it must be true, forget that the Abyss has boatload of distortion so can't possibly be faithful on its own let alone against the Stealth.

He goes on:

"Microdynamics - no issues of bluntedness whatsoever. Excellent, ‘resolving’ trailing ends of tones, but once again not quite as clear as the other top tier flagships. "

Bluntedness? What on earth is that? And I am putting aside the garbage adjective of "microdynamics." It is excellent in tailing ends of tones but not as clear as other flagships? You tell me how he arrived at that. Was it an AB test with levels matched and blind? Heck was it any of that? Or did he take that out of his hat based on some old memory of those headphones?

Next he says, "Soundstage - shockingly open sounding for a closed-back. Not the widest but like… damn good again for a closed-back. I was initially quite surprised by this quality. "

So it can't do anything right without qualification. Even if it is "shockingly open sounding" it must be only in the context of closed backs.

And then: "Macrodynamics - Same as Noire and other DCAs typically. "

The heck does this mean? That they are all bad and this is just as bad? Or just as good? Or just as mediocre? Clearly not great, right?

See where I am going? It is like critiquing of a sprinter at the last Olympic who finished first by saying, "he was fast but I don't think he was that fast. I have seen faster runners. Trust me. I have."

To me it appears that he wanted to manufacture faults and he did. There is no indication that he had identified any of these characteristics correctly. I am not going to sit here and just nod in disagreement as you ask. I am here to say hey, in this forum where we go by what we can prove, this type of subjectivism is totally nonsense. If you find that aggressive, my question to you is why are you so laid back about it?
 

JDragon

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
96
Likes
142
And then: "Macrodynamics - Same as Noire and other DCAs typically. "

The heck does this mean? That they are all bad and this is just as bad? Or just as good? Or just as mediocre? Clearly not great, right?

fwiw before an edit it read as this: "Macrodynamics - None unfortunately. Same as Noire and other DCAs typically. "

I am guessing that means bad.
 

Georgrig

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
81
Likes
134
I could. Here is the thing though: science doesn't have its own voice to defend itself when its being trumped upon with dirty shoes. It is up to us, certainly me, to stand up for it.

Here we have a headphone that for the first time has nailed two things: comply with the research into what is the best sound, and do so with superb engineering to produce essentially zero distortion. Heck, there are a ton of amplifiers with more distortion than this headphone!

Andrew takes this and generates these remarks:

"Very EARLY Subjective thoughts:

Detail - good but not like… Abyss or Susvara level. "

First subjective remark is damning it with faint praise. "Good detail but not like Abyss level?" How on earth did he determine that and can prove the correctness of? Nothing. Just an appeal to himself as authority. He thought it, so it must be true, forget that the Abyss has boatload of distortion so can't possibly be faithful on its own let alone against the Stealth.

He goes on:

"Microdynamics - no issues of bluntedness whatsoever. Excellent, ‘resolving’ trailing ends of tones, but once again not quite as clear as the other top tier flagships. "

Bluntedness? What on earth is that? And I am putting aside the garbage adjective of "microdynamics." It is excellent in tailing ends of tones but not as clear as other flagships? You tell me how he arrived at that. Was it an AB test with levels matched and blind? Heck was it any of that? Or did he take that out of his hat based on some old memory of those headphones?

Next he says, "Soundstage - shockingly open sounding for a closed-back. Not the widest but like… damn good again for a closed-back. I was initially quite surprised by this quality. "

So it can't do anything right without qualification. Even if it is "shockingly open sounding" it must be only in the context of closed backs.

And then: "Macrodynamics - Same as Noire and other DCAs typically. "

The heck does this mean? That they are all bad and this is just as bad? Or just as good? Or just as mediocre? Clearly not great, right?

See where I am going? It is like critiquing of a sprinter at the last Olympic who finished first by saying, "he was fast but I don't think he was that fast. I have seen faster runners. Trust me. I have."

To me it appears that he wanted to manufacture faults and he did. There is no indication that he had identified any of these characteristics correctly. I am not going to sit here and just nod in disagreement as you ask. I am here to say hey, in this forum where we go by what we can prove, this type of subjectivism is totally nonsense. If you find that aggressive, my question to you is why are you so laid back about it?
I believe that people in this forum can see through these subjectivisms. I am not going to support Andrew's words. I couldn't even if I wanted. No need for personal attacks though. It just looks bad. After all, this is about headphones that are sold for profit. Not worthy to be fanatic about it.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,765
Likes
140,955
Location
Seattle Area
Thanks! WhatHiFi is ranked #44 in that category so that shall be the goal to pass right? :)
Hadn't thought about who would be next. They four times our size in traffic:

1629865245226.png


Fortunately a lot of it seems to be search related seeing how people read one page and don't spend much time there. They seem to manufacture a "review" for just about anything so show up in a lot of searches I do.

But yes! It is a good next target. :)
 

cetrex

New Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1
Likes
0
Are you open to sharing the reference tracks you listened to? Thanks
 

John B

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
68
Likes
108
I believe that people in this forum can see through these subjectivisms. I am not going to support Andrew's words. I couldn't even if I wanted. No need for personal attacks though. It just looks bad.

Having a strong opinion means you have a point of view. Disagreeing strongly is a natural result of that, not a personal attack.. Also, barrowing somebody else's aggrievement to virtue signal your decorum ideals to the owner of this sandbox in his sandbox... is a bit "cringe"
 

Music1969

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
2,095
Likes
1,133
Every once in a while there is a 'flare up'of very interesting discussion, with 'heavy hitters' involved the thread.

This is one of those moments.

Lots of good info and entertainment :D
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,765
Likes
140,955
Location
Seattle Area
Are you open to sharing the reference tracks you listened to? Thanks
I listened to it for days before the review. The list would be awfully long. :)

Here is how I start every headphone and speaker review:

1629866216618.png


Once I have exhausted this playlist, I then go the dedicated headphone list which emphasizes deep bass, dynamics and spatial qualities in many tracks. Here is the start of that (it is over 100 tracks long):

1629866360397.png
 

Georgrig

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
81
Likes
134
Having a strong opinion means you have a point of view. Disagreeing strongly is a natural result of that, not a personal attack.. Also, barrowing somebody else's aggrievement to virtue signal your decorum ideals to the owner of this sandbox in his sandbox... is a bit "cringe"
I surely cringed when I read this:
I have watched a ton of Andrew's reviews as I research for other reviews before writing mine. In every case I have to stop after the measurement section. Otherwise I would cringe so much during subjective aspects that you wouldn't be able to wipe that expression off my face.
 

smodtactical

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
17
Likes
31
Hey Amir, so I see that you don't like Andrew's subjective components to his reviews. But you yourself have subjective components to your reviews. For example you said "it brought out their beauty like you would not believe" , "it sounded so amazing" , "tonality was so perfect" , "every few seconds I would say WOW, WOW, WOW", "I could not stop drooling over the sound of this headphone".

So I am curious why your subjective comments are not cringe inducing but Andrew's are? Moreover... if this is 'audio science review' and we are here to be as objective as possible... why not get rid of the listening tests or recommendation section all together? Just post your objective analysis and measurements and leave it at that? Why add a subjective component at all? Why not go all the way into the science?
 

Daiyama

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2021
Messages
58
Likes
93
I could. Here is the thing though: science doesn't have its own voice to defend itself when its being trumped upon with dirty shoes. It is up to us, certainly me, to stand up for it.

……..

To me it appears that he wanted to manufacture faults and he did. There is no indication that he had identified any of these characteristics correctly. I am not going to sit here and just nod in disagreement as you ask. I am here to say hey, in this forum where we go by what we can prove, this type of subjectivism is totally nonsense. If you find that aggressive, my question to you is why are you so laid back about it?

First paragraph, I think I have to cringe.

and to answer your question: because it is a hobby to me and I am in this hobby to have fun and not to go to war in the name of science.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,765
Likes
140,955
Location
Seattle Area
and to answer your question: because it is a hobby to me and I am in this hobby to have fun and not to go to war in the name of science.
There is no war. Explanation was demanded of me and I responded in kind:
"Detail - good but not like… Abyss or Susvara level. "
"Macrodynamics - None unfortunately. Same as Noire and other DCAs typically"

Why didn't Amir mention this?
As you, listening to music is a very enjoyable hobby. Writing these reviews and defending them though, is a serious thing. It can be fun but some of you don't let it.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,765
Likes
140,955
Location
Seattle Area

Chester

Member
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
95
Likes
331
This is all getting a bit silly now.

This notion that Audio Science Review is all about objective measurements and nothing else is not my experience at all. There are plenty of good subjective topics and discussions happening here. The difference is most members are not willing to accept that someone’s individual opinion of perceived performance is the same as how it actually performs. It’s that simple.
 

Bow_Wazoo

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
157
Likes
127
...I'm also fairly disappointed to see they use the same pads as the Aeon, which are subject to permanent twisting of the foam under the pad rendering them less comfortable, worse seal, and unpleasant looking. What's funny is that the marketing image appears to show the start of this exact problem:
View attachment 149302

If you're curious, here's what that warping looks like after 1-2 years of normal use:

View attachment 149303

...I hope Dan will consider upgrading the pad design especially for a price point of $4,000.

This is exactly how my pads on the Aeon Flow 2 looked. "Massages" were unsuccessful.
For me the question has arisen to what extent this changes the sound ... when I think back to the pads of the Empyrean ... every manufacturer should take the quality as an example ...
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
10,542
Likes
23,379
Location
The Neitherlands
@Dan Clark perhaps glueing the foam only to the underside of the pad (on the inside) may be an easy way of preventing the foam inside twisting in the pad ?
 

diddley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
300
Likes
504
Location
The Netherlands
Amir is a Basshead, when he writes their is a lack in deep bass i believe him.
It is subjective (partly) but for me this is where the fun starts..his listening sessions and his conclusion.
The science part is fully covered with the measurements and explanations.
I hope nothing will change.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,765
Likes
140,955
Location
Seattle Area
Amir is a Basshead, when he writes their is a lack in deep bass i believe him.
I never said there was a lack of bass. Where do you all get this??? I said this:

Ah, the deep bass is to die for. But it is headphone bass, not speaker bass. You obviously don't feel anything in your belly. But you hear cleaner bass that goes deeper than most stereo speaker systems.
 
Top Bottom