Dan Clark Stealth Review (State of the Art Headphone)

[Jimbob54]

No idea.
This is a screenshot of the changes I met...

Most of those visible on both stay the same- the Onkyo, PSB and Senn PC38X seem to have had drastic changes and dropped considerably on the current list. I can only surmise the underlying measurement / measurement source changed , resulting in a change in scores.

Edit- yup taking the PSB as an example-clicking through the link on the Autoeq site shows this:

So no conspiracy, just a constantly updated database of measurements with teh scores recalculated accordingly

 

[Robbo99999]

I’m not sure how the score for Harman target compliance is calculated on that site, but just looking at the charts it’s pretty obvious it’s flawed. The chart for the Stealth has the only error of note being a couple of dB more low and sub bass than the target, everything else is +-1dB. The one exception is the deep notch around 10kHz, which is unlikely to be audible given the very narrow range of the dip, and may well simply be a measurement artefact.

The Sundara has larger errors over a broader frequency range through the midrange and low treble yet somehow manages to score substantially better.

Subjectively speaking, it is my feeling that the majority of people will find errors in the midrange and treble way more impactful than a couple of dB of extra sub bass or a sharp drop over a very narrow frequency range, especially at 10kHz.

There's supposed to be a notch/drop at 10kHz, it's seen in almost every headphone measured, and the same notch exists when you wear the headphone yourself. It doesn't mean that there is no output from the headphone at 10kHz, it just means that is the interaction that headphones have with ears when measuring the frequency response at the eardrum. In fact if you have a headphone without the 10kHz notch, then it can often mean that they sound overly piercing in that area. So the 10kHz notch is totally fine and "desirable".

Explained by Oratory here in his FAQ's: https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory199..._at_around_9-10_khz_on_over-ear_headphones.3F

 

[Arnas]

Hey guys, how you change its headband? Does it hold in place by a screw?
Was holding out for Sennheiser flagship, but it seems that they rest on their laureals too much.
Stealth caught my attention based on frequeny response.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Hey guys, how you change its headband? Does it hold in place by a screw?
Was holding out for Sennheiser flagship, but it seems that they rest on their laureals too much.
Stealth caught my attention based on frequeny response.

Yes, there is one screw on each side to replace the headband.

 

[kchap]

The recent review of the Dan Clark Expanse made me look at the Stealth again. I wanted closed back for a change. I've ordered the Stealth and another ADI-2. It's what you do when you are old and have too much money, but not enough money to buy those speakers you want.

 

[Nonya]

Because you already own Qudelix, xCan could work but not a great value compared to Topping NX7. I think Gryphon's very overpriced but I'm also down on iFi in general. They, like Chord, cater to the religiosity of audiophilia to earn a living.

I use CENtrance Ampersand, it's a big price jump but also a lot of power. I believe DCA recommends 500mW @32ohm, but I'm not sure if they're assuming power increases at 16 ohm which is uncommon among DC devices. Believe me, I've checked. The end of the line for "portable" devices is Cayin C9. I use " because C9 size being what it is, you could literally get a L30 and AC battery pack for 75% less $ and end up in same spot.

What ac battery pack for l30 2?

 

[ibenjamin]

@amirm thank you so much for this review. As you know, many of us are eagerly awaiting your comparison of the DCA Stealth and Expanse. I want to get one. Leaning toward Expanse, but want to learn from your comparison first. Also, are they the same weight? I know I could look on the DCA website myself, but I'm lazy. If you know the relative weight I'm curious. Thanks!

 

[solderdude]

When you need a closed headphone buy the Stealth, when you can use an open headphone buy the Expanse. That is if you want a DCA headphone in the 4k+ price range.

Amir said this about it.

 

[DJBonoBobo]

When you need a closed headphone buy the Stealth, when you can use an open headphone buy the Expanse. That is if you want a DCA headphone in the 4k+ price range.

Amir said this about it.

I think the point is that @amirm was extremely positive about the tonality of the Stealth and that it sounded just right. For example, he has recommended that manufacturers purchase one to have a reference for how it should sound "right".
This all sounds very attractive as a selling point (to me).
Regarding the Expanse, Amir has stated these things in a much more restrained manner (from what i took from it). For example, the review says that he found the sound better without EQ only 70% of the time, but 30% of the time it was better with EQ. This "undermines" the argument that he strongly emphasized for the Stealth: Just put it on, and you know how it's "right". The review of the Expanse reads more like a typical headphone review, with strengths and weaknesses depending on the track (not a good selling point to me, if i want to buy a headphonme for 4K).
At the same time, Amir seems to prefer the Expanse. That's hard to understand. Therefore, I would also like to see more explanations from Amir, if possible. I'm actually considering buying the Expanse. But only if it has all the advantages of the Stealth (except isolation) plus the advantages of an open headphone. If the tonality/neutrality is less "correct" and I still can't be sure, my HD800S with EQ will probably suffice(?).

Just to clarify, in case this gets lost in translation: I'm not criticizing, I'm just explaining why the questions about it are interesting (also to me).

 

[solderdude]

Consider that when Amir heard the Stealth he was so excited about it.
He bought one for himself and got used to it.
The Expanse is more of the same really (in SQ) and will be only slightly different from the Stealth he already owns.
So I reckon its a matter of needing closed or open that would determine which to buy.
That's the whole point of the Expanse anyway. To have a choice between open and closed.
I would expect the open version to be 'slightly' better overall.
Tonality seems to be good for both but then again, a $50,- IEM also seems to be O.K.
Can't imagine it having all the goodness from the Expanse nor the Stealth though.

 

[Robbo99999]

I think the point is that @amirm was extremely positive about the tonality of the Stealth and that it sounded just right. For example, he has recommended that manufacturers purchase one to have a reference for how it should sound "right".
This all sounds very attractive as a selling point (to me).
Regarding the Expanse, Amir has stated these things in a much more restrained manner (from what i took from it). For example, the review says that he found the sound better without EQ only 70% of the time, but 30% of the time it was better with EQ. This "undermines" the argument that he strongly emphasized for the Stealth: Just put it on, and you know how it's "right". The review of the Expanse reads more like a typical headphone review, with strengths and weaknesses depending on the track (not a good selling point to me, if i want to buy a headphonme for 4K).
At the same time, Amir seems to prefer the Expanse. That's hard to understand. Therefore, I would also like to see more explanations from Amir, if possible. I'm actually considering buying the Expanse. But only if it has all the advantages of the Stealth (except isolation) plus the advantages of an open headphone. If the tonality/neutrality is less "correct" and I still can't be sure, my HD800S with EQ will probably suffice(?).

Just to clarify, in case this gets lost in translation: I'm not criticizing, I'm just explaining why the questions about it are interesting (also to me).

New bar set with the Stealth (as it was 1st), less enthusing about another headphone that matches it?? Also the Expanse has that pretty significant hump at 150Hz which is right in the zone of "I may make your music sound a bit more muddy", and the Stealth instead has a less wide hump that's more centred on 100Hz which instead might add "slam" whilst avoiding muddiness. Ideally you'd demo both and see which one you like the best, but their usage case definitely trumps all these points - if you need sound isolation then you will get the Stealth.

 

[DJBonoBobo]

I just read this post by @Dan Clark on head-fi: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/dan...measurements-impressions.964852/post-17164156
I found this very helpful for the questions I asked about the stealth/expanse difference.
The EQ-filter he suggested there (175Hz, Q=2.6, -2.5dB to make the Expanse more stealthy and 175Hz, Q=2.6, +2.5dB to expand the Stealth a bit) is surely worth a try.

 

[Zenairis]

I think the point is that @amirm was extremely positive about the tonality of the Stealth and that it sounded just right. For example, he has recommended that manufacturers purchase one to have a reference for how it should sound "right".
This all sounds very attractive as a selling point (to me).
Regarding the Expanse, Amir has stated these things in a much more restrained manner (from what i took from it). For example, the review says that he found the sound better without EQ only 70% of the time, but 30% of the time it was better with EQ. This "undermines" the argument that he strongly emphasized for the Stealth: Just put it on, and you know how it's "right". The review of the Expanse reads more like a typical headphone review, with strengths and weaknesses depending on the track (not a good selling point to me, if i want to buy a headphonme for 4K).
At the same time, Amir seems to prefer the Expanse. That's hard to understand. Therefore, I would also like to see more explanations from Amir, if possible. I'm actually considering buying the Expanse. But only if it has all the advantages of the Stealth (except isolation) plus the advantages of an open headphone. If the tonality/neutrality is less "correct" and I still can't be sure, my HD800S with EQ will probably suffice(?).

Just to clarify, in case this gets lost in translation: I'm not criticizing, I'm just explaining why the questions about it are interesting (also to me).

As a owner of both the Stealth and the Expanse I believe I can answer this.

The Expanse sounds more natural as a open back the sound feels more wider but feels like it flows together ever so slightly, with the Stealth it is tighter, the sounds feel more isolated/separated (the background sounds darker) and I'm not talking about the outside noise isolation I'm talking about the separation between the sounds the headphone produces ALBEIT SMALL it's noticeable.

Their presentation is very similar but at the same time has its differences.

Just that subtle difference can be a choice between the Stealth and the Expanse.

Asking for the bass the bass is feels tighter but more controlled on the Stealth, Although on the Expanse it feels as though it hits harder (probably that bump in the bass region) and slightly more spread out.

 

[Yannick Willox]

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 know this is an old post, but I am currently going through this entire thread, and this is my first post on this forum, so please bear with me…

I would like to thank you for your post above, it is in much agreement with my take on the complete nonsense I have found this industry to be in. There simply are too little honest and down to earth people in the audio world. Professional or consumer.

i have ordered a DCA aeon 2 noire, based on your review of the Stealth.
i am a pro location engineer, classical music, and I have been looking for a good headphone for years now. The state of the business is that we have four hd650, which all sound different, because they tend to fall apart after a while. None of them are as good as our monitoring in our mastering room, even at 3m from the speakers.

i will report back when i get the headphones, maybe they will surprise me and I will have to order the Stealth.

all this nonsense about slam and macrodynamics is just bullocks. In general, if someone uses the terms, they are not into correct sounding gear anyway, and if gear has some of both, it must be distorting, be very nonlinear or have a really hyped FR.

in my 25 year professional opinion, great new technology sounds amazingly boring and unimpressive, generally. Often, boring is the tell tale for something really good.

 

[Rthomas]

Stealth vs LCD-5 subjective impressions (volume matching by ear)

DAC/AMP = RME ADI 2, Stealth no EQ, LCD-5 Eqed to Harman Target

What can I say that hasn't been mentioned? Stealth is an incredible product. The hand feel is amazing, the tuning is great and it is very comfortable.

The major difference between the 2 is that to my ears the LCD-5 has more authoritative and harder hitting bass.

I know that many people here will dismiss that as subjective nonsense but my guess is that the Audeze planar design allows for better bass even with slight leakage.

Also the clamp force of the Audeze is much more than the Stealth.

Stealth therefore is a more polite laid back listen whereas the Audeze is the one to rock out with.

I hope Amirm gets an LCD-5 in for review from Audeze and it would be very interesting to see if he can hear this difference in presentation.

I don't believe in magic cables or dacs and amps changing the sound by much but I truly believe that this difference in presentation between the two headphones will be obvious to most listeners when listening back to back.

FYI I have very short hair and don't wear glass. The Stealth have a very gentle clamp on my head kind of like the HD800. Even when pushing the headphones slightly against my head the presentation did not change all that much.

If I had to choose one the LCD-5 wins by a very very narrow margin after EQ is applied. Thanks to Dan for continuing to innovate and advance the headphone listening experience.

 

[Robbo99999]

Stealth vs LCD-5 subjective impressions (volume matching by ear)

DAC/AMP = RME ADI 2, Stealth no EQ, LCD-5 Eqed to Harman Target

What can I say that hasn't been mentioned? Stealth is an incredible product. The hand feel is amazing, the tuning is great and it is very comfortable.

The major difference between the 2 is that to my ears the LCD-5 has more authoritative and harder hitting bass.

I know that many people here will dismiss that as subjective nonsense but my guess is that the Audeze planar design allows for better bass even with slight leakage.

Also the clamp force of the Audeze is much more than the Stealth.

Stealth therefore is a more polite laid back listen whereas the Audeze is the one to rock out with.

I hope Amirm gets an LCD-5 in for review from Audeze and it would be very interesting to see if he can hear this difference in presentation.

I don't believe in magic cables or dacs and amps changing the sound by much but I truly believe that this difference in presentation between the two headphones will be obvious to most listeners when listening back to back.

FYI I have very short hair and don't wear glass. The Stealth have a very gentle clamp on my head kind of like the HD800. Even when pushing the headphones slightly against my head the presentation did not change all that much.

If I had to choose one the LCD-5 wins by a very very narrow margin after EQ is applied. Thanks to Dan for continuing to innovate and advance the headphone listening experience.

So it seems that the Stealth is sealing ok to your head, seeing as pushing the headphone cups closer to your head when listening to music didn't change the bass. Well, it's interesting to see your comparison.

 

[Yannick Willox]

Stealth vs LCD-5 subjective impressions (volume matching by ear)

The major difference between the 2 is that to my ears the LCD-5 has more authoritative and harder hitting bass.


If I had to choose one the LCD-5 wins by a very very narrow margin after EQ is applied. Thanks to Dan for continuing to innovate and advance the headphone listening experience.

ok, but isn’t your comparison flawed ?
if you do EQ the Stealth, is the lcd-5 still better ?

to compare, you should either EQ them both, or not at all. Which is your favourite then ?

 

[Rthomas]

So it seems that the Stealth is sealing ok to your head, seeing as pushing the headphone cups closer to your head when listening to music didn't change the bass. Well, it's interesting to see your comparison.

I'll give you another example. I owned the Stax SR009S for 18 months. I used it with the KGSSHV Carbon amplifier which is extremely powerful and highly regarded.

Even with EQing the Stax to the Harman Target the bass never sounded as impactful as the bass from the flagship Audezes like the LCD4 and LCD5. Again I think it it had something to do with the very open nature of the SR009S cup design and that it has a very gentle clamp with relatively thin leather pads.

So what I'm trying to say is the FR we see in the measurements with or without EQ may not translate to how the headphone performs on our head.

@Yannick Willox

The Stealth already closely matches the Harman Target.

To make it a ''fair fight'' and not just a test of which headphone's tonality I prefer I EQed the LCD-5 to the Harman Target.

So both headphones were as close to the Harman Target as I could make them without access to any measuring equipment or the skills to use them.

If Audeze sends Amirm an LCD-5 or CRBN to review I hope he has the time to do this kind of a test against his Stealth.

I strongly feel that it is easy to hear a clear difference in presentation, especially bass presentation.

 

[Robbo99999]

I'll give you another example. I owned the Stax SR009S for 18 months. I used it with the KGSSHV Carbon amplifier which is extremely powerful and highly regarded.

Even with EQing the Stax to the Harman Target the bass never sounded as impactful as the bass from the flagship Audezes like the LCD4 and LCD5. Again I think it it had something to do with the very open nature of the SR009S cup design and that it has a very gentle clamp with relatively thin leather pads.

So what I'm trying to say is the FR we see in the measurements with or without EQ may not translate to how the headphone performs on our head.

@Yannick Willox

The Stealth already closely matches the Harman Target.

To make it a ''fair fight'' and not just a test of which headphone's tonality I prefer I EQed the LCD-5 to the Harman Target.

So both headphones were as close to the Harman Target as I could make them without access to any measuring equipment or the skills to use them.

If Audeze sends Amirm an LCD-5 or CRBN to review I hope he has the time to do this kind of a test against his Stealth.

I strongly feel that it is easy to hear a clear difference in presentation, especially bass presentation.

From what I've read, I have the impression that Audeze headphones can really nail the bass well when they're EQ'd, making the bass a very impactful experience - I think a few people linked that experience to the fact that Audeze headphones have a very well sealed front volume (IIRC) that is aided by the fairly high clamping force along with the pads that seal fully. Most of the people though that have complained about the bass on the Stealth were likely not getting a good seal though, that seems like it might be a bit different to your situation though because you're confident you have a good seal based on you pressing on the earcups and the bass not changing. I think it's fair enough that you're experiencing a difference. As you know there is still unit to unit variation that can happen, so when you EQ your Audeze to the Harman Curve you can't really be 100% sure that you're EQ'ing it to exactly the same frequency response that the Stealth is sitting at......but I appreciate that you've done your best to align the two. So there still could be an element of frequency response differences that could explain your observational differences. But it's interesting to have read your experience.

 

[Rthomas]

From what I've read, I have the impression that Audeze headphones can really nail the bass well when they're EQ'd, making the bass a very impactful experience - I think a few people linked that experience to the fact that Audeze headphones have a very well sealed front volume (IIRC) that is aided by the fairly high clamping force along with the pads that seal fully. Most of the people though that have complained about the bass on the Stealth were likely not getting a good seal though, that seems like it might be a bit different to your situation though because you're confident you have a good seal based on you pressing on the earcups and the bass not changing. I think it's fair enough that you're experiencing a difference. As you know there is still unit to unit variation that can happen, so when you EQ your Audeze to the Harman Curve you can't really be 100% sure that you're EQ'ing it to exactly the same frequency response that the Stealth is sitting at......but I appreciate that you've done your best to align the two. So there still could be an element of frequency response differences that could explain your observational differences. But it's interesting to have read your experience.

very well sealed front volume (IIRC) that is aided by the fairly high clamping force along with the pads that seal fully.

This is exactly what Oratory1990 said about Audeze's design.

pressing on the earcups and the bass not changing.

There is a very small change I would say. Even using the bass boost on the ADI-2 DAC on the Stealth does not change my perception of the bass.

Yes, unless I send both headphones to be individually measured and EQed to Harman by someone like Oratory I cannot expect the FR to be exactly the same however the magnitude of the difference that I'm hearing convinces me that it would not change the result.

As I type this I have the LCD-5, CRBN and Stealth on my desk. The Stealth will be returned due to this issue. In every other way they are amazing.

I hope someone with a Stealth or Expanse will try an EQed LCD5 or LCD4 and report back.

I think @Resolve isn't imagining things. Headphones.com sell DCA and pretty much every other flagship so he has no reason to be biased one way or the other.

I don't have a Youtube channel, affiliate links, blog etc etc. I don't have a loyalty to any brand. If I preferred the Stealth I'd gladly sell the LCD-5 and CRBN and put the money in my pocket.

The Harman Target was meant to emulate speakers in an ideal room right? Well if that's the case out of all the flagships I've owned the result is as follows:

With EQ the LCD-5/LCD-4 and Audeze CRBN sound the closest to bringing the power and authority of full range speakers in a room to the headphone world.

All the other flagships (regardless of EQ) that I've owned fall short including the SR009S, Stealth, HD800S, SR007, Utopia)