Dan Clark Stealth Review (State of the Art Headphone)

[usern]

I'd like to know what methodology or playlist does Resolve use to determine headphone macrodynamics (also defined as slam if I understand correctly)?

 

[Resolve]

The question is with macro and microdynamics do audiophools mean the same things as sound engineers.
What I understand some folks mean by micro dynamics is similar to 'plankton' i.e. the ability of a headphone to reproduce the finest and smallest details.
With Macrodynamics they seem to mean large dynamic sounds that aren't sounding muffled or compressed and come out clear and dynamic sounding.

These terms have sort of emerged over time in a number of communities as ways of describing that quality yeah, and there is generally some agreement on what's good and bad for those qualities within those communities. A particularly easy way to differentiate good 'microdynamics' from bad is to look at extreme examples on either side. The Drop Panda is a great example of something that is subjectively received as doing very poorly here, and contrast that with something like a Susvara or an LCD-4... As Crin said, you can EQ the Panda all you want but it'll never improve for that aspect. Moreover, even if you EQ those higher end headphones to the same as the Panda, it'll never sound as bad as the Panda. These are also very obvious differences that even non-audiophiles will notice. I think a lot of the time people simply haven't had the chance to do those types of comparisons, because it's not so easy to get ahold of the higher end items, and then make pronouncements about what can and cannot be heard when these types of claims are made, without having heard either. So my suggestion to anyone skeptical of this is to simply try it. Get yourself a Panda if you can and EQ to your heart's content haha. Also, I don't imagine this is thought of in the same way by sound engineers, although it likely depends how tapped into those communities they are.

 

[Georgrig]

These terms have sort of emerged over time in a number of communities as ways of describing that quality yeah, and there is generally some agreement on what's good and bad for those qualities within those communities. A particularly easy way to differentiate good 'microdynamics' from bad is to look at extreme examples on either side. The Drop Panda is a great example of something that is subjectively received as doing very poorly here, and contrast that with something like a Susvara or an LCD-4... As Crin said, you can EQ the Panda all you want but it'll never improve for that aspect. Moreover, even if you EQ those higher end headphones to the same as the Panda, it'll never sound as bad as the Panda. These are also very obvious differences that even non-audiophiles will notice. I think a lot of the time people simply haven't had the chance to do those types of comparisons, because it's not so easy to get ahold of the higher end items, and then make pronouncements about what can and cannot be heard when these types of claims are made, without having heard either. So my suggestion to anyone skeptical of this is to simply try it. Get yourself a Panda if you can and EQ to your heart's content haha. Also, I don't imagine this is thought of in the same way by sound engineers, although it likely depends how tapped into those communities they are.

Hey, @amirm, does that make you cringe?

 

[MayaTlab]

They're likely to sound very similar if properly EQ

Well, that's the challenge right there. How would you know that the response in situ on your head is the same throughout the spectrum ?
EQ based on dummy heads is enough to bring quite a few HPs to the same ballpark of decency and to make Harman's HP virtualisation good enough to derive valid predictions to a degree but may not be enough to bring the FR differences at one's own eardrum below threshold of audibility.

The difference between Amir's and Resolve's subjective reviews is that Amir's is backed up by how the headphone actually measures and Resolve's is full of BS descriptors that don't correlate with anything.

I think that this is a bit disingenuous. I would argue that Resolve's use of in ear microphones to check the bass response he gets on his own head, and his efforts to provide a good characterisation of a HP's behaviour under various levels of seal (which might be something quite important to talk about in regards to the Stealth) actually is a pretty good start to back up some of his - or others - subjective impressions.
I'm quite happy to see a pair of HPs that measure so well, particularly at the high-end, but if I can't manage to get the same response on my head because they're quite sensitive to seal breach and its design and my anatomy don't agree with each others, I'd definitely welcome a characterisation of that behaviour in a review as it would have a pretty big influence on my subjective impressions of them.

 

[Resolve]

I would argue that Resolve's use of in ear microphones to check the bass response he gets on his own head, and his efforts to provide a good characterisation of a HP's behaviour under various levels of seal (which might be something quite important to talk about in regards to the Stealth) actually is a pretty good start to back up some of his - or others - subjective impressions.

I think certain people here like to criticize or dismiss my reviews as 'subjective nonsense' because they do include a subjective aspect to the review. But what these people miss is the fact that this is just one part - the other part is heavily measurements focused in the 'objective' portion. So if you don't like all the audiophile terms, people can just ignore the section of the review where I report my experiences with a thing. People are welcome to have whatever opinions they like about this stuff and I won't go after folks for thinking FR is all there is as far as the experience is concerned (it truly might be). With that said, I do try to connect the dots as much as I can between the two - or where I'm able to, and then report whatever findings show up.

So by all means... cringe away haha.

 

[solderdude]

Impulse or step response to a certain target SPL would seem like a good test.

I do those, using a scope instead of a soundcard to avoid ringing of the signal generator/ADC.
The problem is the scope plot is linear in amplitude and has to be log type.

I suppose a burst at different frequencies would make more sense alternating between 0dB and -40dB and then looking at actual scope shots.

 

[Paolo]

Ok, I have to ask both, @amirm and @Resolve, a way to better describe the punchiness and possible ways to measure it.

In particular I’m wondering why no one ever talks about how the feeling of pure air displacement affect this aspect of the headphones.
I think it should be a fairly shared experience, not every HP engage your sense of touch in the same way. It is something different from the quality of bass reproduction, more in line with the stomach sensation that deep bass generate with speakers, and it is obviously important for the final experience.
Am I writing nonsense, or there’s a serious base of discussion to better understand dynamics?

 

[Zensō]

I think certain people here like to criticize or dismiss my reviews as 'subjective nonsense' because they do include a subjective aspect to the review. But what these people miss is the fact that this is just one part - the other part is heavily measurements focused in the 'objective' portion. So if you don't like all the audiophile terms, people can just ignore the section of the review where I report my experiences with a thing. People are welcome to have whatever opinions they like about this stuff and I won't go after folks for thinking FR is all there is as far as the experience is concerned (it truly might be). With that said, I do try to connect the dots as much as I can between the two - or where I'm able to, and then report whatever findings show up.

So by all means... cringe away haha.

I enjoy your videos and I appreciate what you’re trying to do (bridge the audiophile gap so to speak), which is a difficult thing to do. I think what people in the objective camp struggle with is your use of audiophile terms, which naturally carry a lot of baggage due to their widespread misuse on other more subjective leaning forums. Speaking to these two opposing camps in a single video is bound to trigger some individuals on both sides of the debate.

 

[dorirod]

These terms have sort of emerged over time in a number of communities as ways of describing that quality yeah, and there is generally some agreement on what's good and bad for those qualities within those communities. A particularly easy way to differentiate good 'microdynamics' from bad is to look at extreme examples on either side. The Drop Panda is a great example of something that is subjectively received as doing very poorly here, and contrast that with something like a Susvara or an LCD-4... As Crin said, you can EQ the Panda all you want but it'll never improve for that aspect. Moreover, even if you EQ those higher end headphones to the same as the Panda, it'll never sound as bad as the Panda. These are also very obvious differences that even non-audiophiles will notice. I think a lot of the time people simply haven't had the chance to do those types of comparisons, because it's not so easy to get ahold of the higher end items, and then make pronouncements about what can and cannot be heard when these types of claims are made, without having heard either. So my suggestion to anyone skeptical of this is to simply try it. Get yourself a Panda if you can and EQ to your heart's content haha. Also, I don't imagine this is thought of in the same way by sound engineers, although it likely depends how tapped into those communities they are.

Rather than going with a bad set of headphones, I think what is needed is a good set of headphones (e.g. wrt to FR, distortion) that can produce good macro/microdynamics (which one?), and another good set of headphones that cannot (e.g. the alleged DCA Stealth), using the same transparent DAC and amplifier. That way you're just comparing this particular aspect under discussion. If it is obvious, also provide a set of songs or even exact segments of a song that showcase this difference. At that point it should be reproducible and more closely defined for others to test.

P.S. If no good set of headphones wrt to FR and distortion can produce good macro/microdynamics, then that might also signify something

 

[Resolve]

Ok, I have to ask both, @amirm and @Resolve, a way to better describe the punchiness and possible ways to measure it.

In particular I’m wondering why no one ever talks about how the feeling of pure air displacement affect this aspect of the headphones.
I think it should be a fairly shared experience, not every HP engage your sense of touch in the same way. It is something different from the quality of bass reproduction, more in line with the stomach sensation that deep bass generate with speakers, and it is obviously important for the final experience.
Am I writing nonsense, or there’s a serious base of discussion to better understand dynamics?

I haven't found a way to measure it yet, or predict it from measurements. I think... also not everyone notices that stuff, and admittedly it took me a while to get a sense of it as well. It's a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation for me - because if I omit this from my evaluation (subjective or otherwise), those who do care about this quality will be upset, and if I include this information, I'll inevitably see commentary like what people have expressed here: "where is it in the FR?". And I honestly think that's a great question! Something I'm trying to uncover, because I think if it can be heard, it can be measured.

 

[usern]

I think what people in the objective camp struggle with is your use of audiophile terms

It's like attending a math class without knowing the definitions. You are unable to learn anything this way. Would help if these audiophile terms are defined and referenced when reviewers use them.

Earlier another poster referenced sound mastering / engineering definitions for micro and macrodynamics, but from this:

Also, I don't imagine this is thought of in the same way by sound engineers

I gather that reviewers don't use these definitions same way.

 

[Resolve]

Rather than going with a bad set of headphones, I think what is needed is a good set of headphones (e.g. wrt to FR, distortion) that can produce good macro/microdynamics (which one?), and another good set of headphones that cannot (e.g. the alleged DCA Stealth), using the same transparent DAC and amplifier. That way you're just comparing this particular aspect under discussion. If it is obvious, also provide a set of songs or even exact segments of a song that showcase this difference. At that point it should be reproducible and more closely defined for others to test.

P.S. If no good set of headphones wrt to FR and distortion can produce good macro/microdynamics, then that might also signify something

To be clear, I think the DCA Stealth is a great sounding headphone haha. It's kind of crazy to me that folks took that stuff to mean something else, but okay. Yeah, I understand what you're getting at here - I think that's a good test. As it happens, the stuff I like the best also typically measures well, so I don't think it's a case of the inverse being an indicator haha.

 

[Paolo]

Something I'm trying to uncover, because I think if it can be heard, it can be measured.

I like your inquisitive approach, but my gut, for what is worth, says that this is not “audible”, but “touchable”.
My English skills are in the way here, sorry, I guess I’m suggesting the need of some kind of different sensor than a microphone for this measurement.

 

[Paolo]

It's like attending a math class without knowing the definitions. You are unable to learn anything this way. Would help if these audiophile terms are defined and referenced when reviewers use them.

Earlier another poster referenced sound mastering / engineering definitions for micro and macrodynamics, but from this:

I gather that reviewers don't use these definitions same way.

Ditto.
We do not necessarily need to agree on definitions, only to make them a know quantity.
Like with philosophy, every book starts with an explanation of “how” that particular book will use it’s specific terms, giving the readers a key to understand the following speculations.
If I recall correctly, @Resolve did something like that in his past articles, but those probably need some update. Also, after the definition work, reviews should always use the same terms, without synonyms and generalisation. This could make a subjective impression as reproducible and verifiable as possible.

 

[Resolve]

I like your inquisitive approach, but my gut, for what is worth, says that this is not “audible”, but “touchable”.
My English skills are in the way here, sorry, I guess I’m suggesting the need of some kind of different sensor than a microphone for this measurement.

This did cross my mind as well - actually when I asked some manufacturers about it they seemed to think it also had some relationship with the pad structure. But... going down that path didn't exactly yield anything predictable either.

 

[Resolve]

Ditto.
We do not necessarily need to agree on definitions, only to make them a know quantity.
Like with philosophy, every book starts with an explanation of “how” that particular book will use it’s specific terms, giving the readers a key to understand the following speculations.
If I recall correctly, @Resolve did something like that in his past articles, but those probably need some update. Also, after the definition work, reviews should always use the same terms, without synonyms and generalisation. This could make a subjective impression as reproducible and verifiable as possible.

Yes, I used to define this stuff better, and it would take time to do - but my views on a lot of this stuff have changed over time, especially as I got to experience a wider range of things. And I highly encourage folks to try as much as they can, even if it's not stuff you're personally interested in, if you have an opportunity to try something definitely take it. Like, I feel extremely fortunate to be able to listen to all this stuff, you learn a lot about perceptual experiences.

 

[AdamG]

Thread notice: This is an Official Product Review thread. Please stay on topic specifically about this Headphone. If you want to further discuss and dissect Macro/Micro Dynamics of Headphones please start a new thread. Any further off topic posts will be deleted.

Please and thank you.

 

[Paolo]

Thread notice: This is an Official Product Review thread. Please stay on topic specifically about this Headphone. If you want to further discuss and dissect Macro/Micro Dynamics of Headphones please start a new thread. Any further off topic posts will be deleted.

Please and thank you.

You’re right.

Thanks to @Resolve the answers, those are definitely interesting topics, I will bother you elsewhere with those.

 

[ExquirentibusVeritatem]

So does this headphone exhibit good or bad micro/macro dynamics? I think that's the main question over the past few pages. Is there an ASR definition that we can use?

 

[Resolve]

Is there an ASR definition that we can use?

Likely not. As mentioned earlier, these will be generally treated here as purely 'nonsense subjective' terms that have emerged in a number of communities to describe sound. Metaphors and whatnot.

Edit, to stay on track:
As far as the Stealth goes, I found it to be both objectively and subjectively excellent for nearly all of its aspects. Moreover, I imagine that certain subjectively desirable traits like the ones mentioned in the discussion could be impossible to achieve in a closed-back planar - especially one of this size and weight (it's very comfortable), and with the tuning DCA were able to achieve.