Dear Amir, if you got this message, please consider doing measurement for the Phillips SHP9500. To me it's the best p/p headphone but I feel like people are just taking it as something as a starter in this hobby. Having data to back it up would be wonderful. Thank you.
PM Amir about sending yours in. But I doubt it will win any prizes around here with that bass rolling off a cliff.
www.dropbox.com
Mine doesn't even clip and I have always listened to music loud. I have a personally theory that it's almost like CPU's and the silicon lottery, in which different batches have different tolerances. I know this because I went through a bunch to get one like this and saw they all had different tolerances
In this specific case the taste and texture of pizza do not equate to the frequency response of the majority of listeners. To have transducers that meet the target for the majority of listeners also means that the transducer is PEQable and that means it is more suitable for more peeps even if they do not want the Harmon curve.
I'm not a Harmon curve listener. I recently had a Dr examine my ears and he said there is wax due to using headphones and earbuds for maybe 8 to 12 hours per day. So it's olive oil treatment and then go back to the Dr for a checkup. For my entire life I have enjoyed a large amount of high frequency from my transducers. As can be seen here.>
Out of curiosity: what's your ideal frequency response for headphones?
Crinacle reference for over ear is a good start point for me, the hd600 is a good tobal reference, but over the years I noticed that some coloration are welcome. A little less 2khz, 1-1.5 db, al little more air, a luttle less 8 khz. The Clear are a little bit different but I will not eq mine because the deviations are so tastefully done that the sum of them makes a more resolving, exciting and euphonic reproduction than a reference. The bass is more dynamic and solid, the mids stand out in a good way, detailed but not forced and the voices aren't shouted out, and that contributes to a wonderful illusion of a more deep and spacious presentation. Yes, sometimes i miss the perfect vocals of the hd600, but "perfect" sometimes is boring.
You might like the Harman Target tuning, you might not like it, that is up to you of course, but calling these headphones a masterpiece is an insult to the capable designers and engineers who can design and engineer headphones with much better managed distortion and resonances. Buying a semi-capable product and trying to justify its shortcomings as "preference" or "design intent" is what got "audiophiles" where they are now, don't you think it is about the time to change tack?
In your opinion It is not a masterpiece because of clipping at earbleeding levels with a heavy low shelf eq on bassy music? Or because it sounds metallic on metallic sound? Or because it doesn't match the screaming shoutyness of that curve decided by edm listeners on drugs? That shoutyness is intended to balance the insane amount of bass of the harman tuned pairs. Their clarity is world class, their separation is outstanding. Just because the clears is not intended to be sharp it doesn't mean that the details are hidden. Now name a better designed audiophile open dynamic headphones under 900 euro
I would not call a headphone that I can not tune to my taste and listen at higher levels because it starts to distort a masterpiece. I am not disputing It might be a great headphone for you, but it most certainly is not a masterpiece.
Yes, but you have to admit that a pair of headphones meant to be used as it is, can be a masterpiece even if they cannot be eq'ed to match their opposite signature... as a "never eq" guy I could say that the dullness of the audeze headphones is a deal breaker. I'd never buy an unusable pair of headphone If not equalized but I respect sho does it.
That's your own opinion re the Harman Curve, so it's not for you to tell other people that the Harman Curve is not good sound, as it is good sound for a lot of people. Same for your opinion of the Focal Clear, I don't think it measures particularly well. Another point you made about open dynamic cans, you can EQ them up to Harman level bass, but it depends which ones you're talking about, with HD560s it's perfectly fine for example - and I'd say it's a better headphone from the measurements than your $1490 Focal Clear "masterpiece" whilst only costing about $160! Ha, you did deserve it though!
That's your own opinion re the Harman Curve, so it's not for you to tell other people that the Harman Curve is not good sound, as it is good sound for a lot of people. Same for your opinion of the Focal Clear, I don't think it measures particularly well. Another point you made about open dynamic cans, you can EQ them up to Harman level bass, but it depends which ones you're talking about, with HD560s it's perfectly fine for example - and I'd say it's a better headphone from the measurements than your $1490 Focal Clear "masterpiece" whilst only costing about $160! Ha, you did deserve it though!
I disagree. I would argue the exact opposite actually. I think you will agree that the person who is designing the headphone has no idea how his creation will interact with my head and ears and he has no idea what kind of music I intend to listen with them. What sounds nice and clear to him can, and does sound bright and piercing to me - there is no way for him to know that. A subdued bass that sounds great with Ravel can sound horrible with Metallica. A pair of headphones are meant to be flexible to be tuned to needs of its listener in my opinion.
