Dan Clark Stealth Review (State of the Art Headphone)

[mshenay]

I agree. The Harman curve is too much bass for me. And a bit too much treble too. It's a population weighted average, with a lot of individual variation. We all hear differently.
That said, the Harman curve is a respectable engineering target for frequency response. It's not the only one, but it's a decent one.

I agree, CX is still my go to closed back with exactly the right amount of bass for my tastes. I'm a bit frustrated to see the slight mid bass ehh bump but non the less I am excited to hear it. I did enjoy a2C for a time as well, hopefully they in 6-7months they'll launch some pads to help de-emphasis the lows a bit for those who are looking for that

 

[beeface]

I still don't know how to feel about this. I can't just be happy about this as I should. It's certainly great to see such a good performer being measured.

So, when can we expect to see Topping headphones?

 

[PeteL]

I still don't know how to feel about this. I can't just be happy about this as I should. It's certainly great to see such a good performer being measured.

There are some models around the transition period from Mr speakers to DCA, the tuning had too little 3khz. Not an issue here.

I'm also glad to see a no EQ recommendation here. I hope in the future, this is used as a reference that all other EQ is compared to not just boosting bass over the target.

What I want to see is at least more headphones accurate in frequency response. Not necessarily the distortion but frequency response. EQ can fix most issues but it's eventually not a good message to the manufacturers that they can get away with half complete designs. FR is the single most important specification in any audio component.

This is expensive. No doubt. At a lower price range Sundara 2020 does pretty close minus the bass boost and it's open back. For many people I do think Sundara will do just fine. So there's definitely hope for this level of performance at much affordable price.

A issue we will see is that when manufacturers trying to hug the target curve, they may not sound like that on our heads. It is not like electronics, the condition the headphones are used will not be the same as the dummy head. Someone has to acknowledge and weigh the deviation on certain frequencies and how to make sure for most people the differences don't become overly negative. Eg it's better to have a bit less 3-5khz than too much. It's better to have a dip at 7k for some people rather than bump at 9k for others.

In the end after Tyll retirement, I had not seen much improvement in tonality for headphones. But I hope this will change in the future.

I’m not sure by your explanation I understand what you mean that you can’t feel happy about this. How is it a bad thing?

 

[JohnYang1997]

So, when can we expect to see Topping headphones?

My friends at Moondrop are going to enter the headphone market. And we don't have any plan so far.

 

[Dan Clark]

I agree. The Harman curve is too much bass for me. And a bit too much treble too. It's a population weighted average, with a lot of individual variation. We all hear differently.
That said, the Harman curve is a respectable engineering target for frequency response. It's not the only one, but it's a decent one.

The Harman curve has been a bit of a journey for me. I didn't much like it when I first heard it, using PEQ, but my view has evolved on this one.

As we edged closer to the target and used less DSP the tone grew on me and what I discovered is that it yields a perceptually pretty smooth response with. With Stealth the treble has a rather unique delivery and the tonal balance actually sounds really smooth and linear yet fun.

But I think there's a difference between getting to the target with DSP and getting there analog, especially achieving the less peaky highs. It just sounds so easy. That doesn't mean some people won't find there's too much bass, the curve has a range of acceptable deviations, and 25% liked more bass while 25% wanted more highs, if memory served.

Very interesting that their best headphones are closed headphones. Did they give a reason for it?

You may laugh but I started the business making closed headphones after I bought one of the early LCD2s. My wife and I shared a home office and she advised me that if I wished to stay married she didn't want to ever hear David Byrne again. So I checked out closed headphones and didn't like what I heard, then I discovered the modding threads on head-fi and thought I'd see what happened when I applied my loudspeaker design skills to headphones.

We wanted to make Stealth a unicorn; a closed headphone that truly sounds open. A lot of people want isolation and privacy, so making a closed headphone do this was a fun challenge and I think there'll be a lot of demand for, especially for people who only want to invest in one headphone at this class.

@Dan Clark how much time did it require for you to tune this headphone.

The project took 4 years and multiple restarts, and hundreds and hundreds of experiments and voicing tests.

Think they can be driven off a good (S9, say) phone dongle?

The THX Onyx is a solid choice for a dongle. Good power, solid bass, very clean. Most dongles will pair very poorly.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I’m not sure by your explanation I understand what you mean that you can’t feel happy about this. How is it a bad thing?

The post was not an explanation. And it's not a bad thing. I just analysis the situation and point out some concerns.
And explanation for that would be, I wished to see performance like this way earlier? And at a much lower price? I didn't intend to say this but this would be an explanation for you.

 

[tential]

I saw the graph before I saw "sit back and he prepared to be amazed."

Damn.... That's nice.

I can't wait to see the rest of the line up reviewed.

 

[tential]

Man, it was very disheartening to see so many headphones have terrible measurements, it's nice to see that someone just decided to hit it out of the park.

 

[Doodski]

Man, it was very disheartening to see so many headphones have terrible measurements, it's nice to see that someone just decided to hit it out of the park.

I was waiting eagerly for the PEQ settings and voila none.

 

[PeteL]

The post was not an explanation. And it's not a bad thing. I just analysis the situation and point out some concerns.
And explanation for that would be, I wished to see performance like this way earlier? And at a much lower price? I didn't intend to say this but this would be an explanation for you.

Personally, I believe that elite performance should come at a price. That’s what makes it possible for talented smaller players to keep the state of the art evolve. The danger to try to be priced for the masses, and compete with manufacturing giant at all cost,would discourage just anybody to enter this business. It is just not sane to sell stuff at zero margin just to be competitive. It’s a race to he bottom. It takes huges ressource to make something very good affordable, it takes volume, it takes just too much. In the end, the race to low cost does a disservice, because down the line, just giants can do this, then we end up with just samsung-harman and apple making headphones. and when there is no competition anymore, it refrains innovation. I encourage Mr. Clark and others to stick to viable pricing, that’s the only way to be there for the long run and as customers, on the long run we benefit from this because it pushes everybody else to be better.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

These may very well be going on my shopping list, even if it means my bank account has to wear a ball gag for a while to silence its screaming.

 

[Zim]

How do you figure the math? If you sell the RT, you're simply getting the money back for the right to by the Stealth @ $3400

Right. Minor error there in my math.

 

[617]

Nobody is more ready to crap on an expensive boutique headphone, but I would say this performance actually justifies the price tag.

Absolutely beautiful performance. Linearity compared to target is competitive with good passive speakers, which is remarkable.

Big congrats to Dan Clark Audio.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Personally, I believe that elite performance should come at a price. That’s what makes it possible for talented smaller players to keep the state of the art evolve. The danger to try to be priced for the masses, and compete with manufacturing giant at all cost,would discourage just anybody to enter this business. It is just not sane to sell stuff at zero margin just to be competitive. It’s a race to he bottom. It takes huges ressource to make something very good affordable, it takes volume, it takes just too much. In the end, the race to low cost does a disservice, because down the line, just giants can do this, then we end up with just samsung-harman and apple making headphones. and when there is no competition anymore, it refrains innovation. I encourage Mr. Clark and others to stick to viable pricing, that’s the only way to be there for the long run and as customers, on the long run we benefit from this because it pushes everybody else to be better.

I never said Dan Clark should price this lower. But the performance like this came out too late and too expensive. The latest AKG/Harman offerings are not close to be good in my book. Big players could have done better.
There would be no race at the bottom. It only happens when the players don't have anything new to offer and start to cut corners. There should be excellent engineering at any price bracket. Etymotic ER4S was released in 1991. And for all these years no one surpasses it.
Well this is getting slowly off topic. So hope everyone who read this can get my point.

 

[Zim]

Personally, I believe that elite performance should come at a price. That’s what makes it possible for talented smaller players to keep the state of the art evolve. The danger to try to be priced for the masses, and compete with manufacturing giant at all cost,would discourage just anybody to enter this business. It is just not sane to sell stuff at zero margin just to be competitive. It’s a race to he bottom. It takes huges ressource to make something very good affordable, it takes volume, it takes just too much. In the end, the race to low cost does a disservice, because down the line, just giants can do this, then we end up with just samsung-harman and apple making headphones. and when there is no competition anymore, it refrains innovation. I encourage Mr. Clark and others to stick to viable pricing, that’s the only way to be there for the long run and as customers, on the long run we benefit from this because it pushes everybody else to be better.

I think what @JohnYang1997 is trying to say is that headphones that perform like the Stealth should have begun existing some time ago, and that the price point today for such a performer would be significantly lower than what the Stealth is priced at if that did actually happen.

But alas, that didn't happen for whatever reasons other major manufacturers had (e.g. profit margins, cost cutting, lack of desire to innovate).

 

[Doodski]

I think what @JohnYang1997 is trying to say is that headphones that perform like the Stealth should have begun existing some time ago, and that the price point today for such a performer would be significantly lower than what the Stealth is priced at if that did actually happen.

But alas, that didn't happen for whatever reasons other major manufacturers had (e.g. profit margins, cost cutting, lack of desire to innovate).

All business administration, engineering capability, trial and error time consuming voicing and stuff aside this Stealth is something to be celebrated.

 

[gypsygib]

Sooo, any chance of a Drop version lol

 

[Music1969]

Completely different measurement rig used by @amirm's best friend but very similar FR curve

Key bumps and dips are in similar ranges.

 

[Zim]

"profit margins, cost cutting, lack of desire to innovate" off argument to me. I developed mobile media technologies (i.e: the IP that launched Samsung smartphones) and these points never are part of the equation. We spent shitloads of money, never considered cost because we had money, and we had massive desire to innovate. The problem wasn't the timing, the problem was capabilities of the point in time that the innovations were being developed. 20/20 is hindsight. Johns argument is chock full of hindsight IMHO.

Capabilities is indeed a factor that comes into play. I don't work in the industry. I wouldn't know the speed of innovation.

I'm just personally happy that we've finally reached this point, despite the cost to the consumer. I'm looking forward to the technology trickling down to more accessible products.

 

[JohnYang1997]

"profit margins, cost cutting, lack of desire to innovate" off argument to me. I developed mobile media technologies (i.e: the IP that launched Samsung smartphones) and these points never are part of the equation. We spent shitloads of money, never considered cost because we had money, and we had massive desire to innovate. The problem wasn't the timing, the problem was capabilities of the point in time that the innovations were being developed. 20/20 is hindsight. Johns argument is chock full of hindsight IMHO.

You basically missed every sentence I said. Well done.