Get a hearing test
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 101
- Likes
- 29
What about these https://www.thomann.de/gb/ultrasone_pro_900i.htm
Closed back. Down to 6hz. Sounds v shaped.
Closed back. Down to 6hz. Sounds v shaped.
I missed this somehow and just got the alert now.I am using a Marantz PM7005 recorder output line out. I do not know how much volts is that. There is no usable info on the internet.
Ill look into DT770, Custom One Pro, or Pro82 as recommends havent failed me thus far on this glorious forum.
the pro82 is only 50 eur wow the others in 100-150 range. Are they worth 2 and 3x the price respectively?
Found only one quote on aliexpress with 1.6m cable for about 63 eur. The others cost about 42 eur shipping included but come with 2.2m cable. Assume those are the lesser versions. Gonna pull the trigger if this is the one:The Pro82 has variable bass. Make sure to get the 'better' newer black version.
Will update when it gets here in 2 weeks to 3 months.1.6m is for the newer version, the earlier one was 2.2m.
Different drivers.
They can when you compare 2 headphones on the same rig.
I'm going to talk a lot about acoustic impedance, so if you're not really familiar with this term I suggest reading this short article before continuing.
This is a comparison of the same headphone (my HD800S) measured on 3 different setups.
The Orange graph is the industry-standard GRAS 43AG, an artificial ear with an anatomically correct pinna and ear canal, that has the same acoustic impedance as the human ear. This is the measurement that you can rely on, this is the sound pressure that arrives at your ear when you listen to this headphone. This is also the measurement that you can safely compare against the Harman Target, or the Diffuse-Field Target, or any other Target response.
The Blue graph is the same headphone measured on the miniDSP EARS. You can clearly see the effect of an acoustic impedance mismatch - there is a very strong resnance at 4.5 kHz, and the region from 1-3 kHz is lacking the boost it gets from a real human ear.
You can also see a drop-off above 10 kHz, likely because the microphone capsules that were used in the EARS aren't very good and only go up to 10 kHz reliably. Then again, the whole setup is incredibly inexpensive.
You can also see a misrepresented tonality from the bass to the mids - the miniDSP EARS shows a slight downward slope, which would point to a warm sounding, slightly bass-boosted headphone, when in reality the HD800S is almost perfectly linear between 10 Hz and 1 kHz. This too is a result of the acoustic impedance of the EARS not being the same as in a human ear. And the difference will be different for other sets of headphones.
Lastly the Grey graph is the same headphone measured on a Neumann KU100, which is probably the cheapest way to get a dummy head (it's still around 5000 €). But the KU100 is not designed for measurement applications, it is a binaural microphone intended for dummy head recordings of, say, an orchestra. It too does not have the acoustic impedance of a human ear, plus it has a built-in, fixed EQ. The goal was that this binaural microphone would produce a flat, linear response when placed in a diffuse field, so that when you listen to recordings made with this microphone on a diffuse-field equalized headphone (a headphone that conforms to the DF target) you will head it exactly as if your head would stand where the binaural microphone stood during the recording session.
I included the KU100 because some people use it to measure headphones. It's more reliable than the miniDSP EARS, but still has a slight impedance mismatch. All further discussion will only include the EARS and the 43AG coupler.
Now, what is the difference between measurements with the EARS and with the 43AG?
First off: It doesn't have to be the 43AG, it could be a 45CA or a KEMAR or other rigs that are compliant with the relevant IEC-norms, they will all deliver the same results (within margin of error, up to 8 kHz).
Now, I measured an HD800, an AKG K601 and a CX2.00 (insert-earphone) on the 43AG and on the EARS, this is the difference.
These are graphs obtained by subtracting the EARS measurement from the 43AG measurement. If the EARS would be as reliable as the 43AG then the result would be virtually identical for every headphone.
While the various measurements of the HD800 and HD800S produce relatively the same difference, the AKG K601 has a different "difference". It's even worse with the CX2.00 insert earphone, which has a very different acoustic impedance as over-ear headphones, and therefore interacts very differently with the acoustic impedance of the ear (or in this case: of the EARS).
The average looks like this, also shown is the deviation (grey) from the average.
The deviation is very high in the sub-bass (due to non-reliable seal), around 3 kHz (due to the wrong acoustic impedance of the pinna), and in the frequency regions 5 kHz and upwards, where deviations are much to high to obtain reliable measurements from the EARS.
The goal of all of this was to find out whether I could simply add a "compensation curve" to a measurement made with the EARS, and the result would be identical to a measurement made with the 43AG.
The answer is NO, because this compensation curve would have to be different for every headphone (depending on the acoustic impedance of the headphone).
I still tried to calculate an average of just the Over-Ear headphones - This is the compensation curve that you would have to add on average.
When you do a measurement with this compensation curve (called "calibration curve" in REW) and you see a flat linear response, then the headphone would be very close to the Harman Target.
The red graph shows the compensation curve that miniDSP provides along with every EARS rig. It looks similar to the compensation that I calculated, but it actually differs quite a lot.
But the measurements weren't done on a FP but EARS which has a Pinna
I am aware the EARS has an incorrect correction file though and are not correct in an absolute way but when comparing 'similar' built/driver headphones.
I am aware of the downsides of various measurement methods. I also dare to say that even when using a 'reference' that is obtained for other measurements the 'references' are also 'off' from reality. This is why also Oratory specifies the bandwidth of 'correctness'.
I don't really agree and think above 8kHz the measurements are unreliable. Also the Harman bass-boost is something I do not entirely agree for reasons already mentioned here or there.
I don't claim my $ 4.- measurement rig is better, more accurate. My claim is that a manufacturer that sets a standard, by definition doesn't have to be an accurate standard in all conditions and that creating 'exact' EQ will certainly not result in 'accurate' results.
Merely the 'global' EQ is responsible for the sonic improvement.
Yes, but the HE400i and HE4XX are the same geometry. In case of the measurements from Oratory different pads were used. This causes the different measurements not the difference between the EARS pinna geometry and the GRAS one... in THIS particular case.
It is very clear that the pads from Oratory's measurements differ from other measurements that show there are hardly differences between the HE400i and HE4XX. This is not a Pinna thing... small differences ... yes, the reported differences come from the pads. Same headphone, same driver, different pads.
It's a bit like comparing measurements of a DT1990 with A pads measured on rig X and DT1990 with B pads on another rig.
And yes, of course every rig needs its own compensation. And the fact that these compensations are derived with certain standard methods that are definitely NOT the same as the situation with headphones for a number of reasons is why there are such substantial (many dB differences) between different HATS and measurement methods while, very likely, all those HATS will produce correct results in the same calibration chamber.
You measure something through filters and because one has to correct those filters one 'creates' a correction obtained with described methods.
These methods will produce different results on different HATS with different headphones.
This is the part I question. Not the one operating the rig nor his expertise. I question the validity of the calibration/correction methods vs headphones.
The Philips seems sturdier than the HE4XX.
...
I owned the HE400i for a while but did not keep it, even with EQ it sounded too 'mushy/soft' to me. It 'smoothed over' the sound too much for me. I prefer a clearer/more forward/open sound. That is taste however and can see why people like the cheap Hifimans.
Not saying the HE4XX/HE400i aren't alternatives but there certainly are better planars. The HE4XX is entry level on many fronts.
However, to get better SQ from a planar prices go up considerably.
More bass can be had from closed headphones but there are not much headphones sounding as 'correct' as the HD600 in the closed headphones.
Thats actually not impossible the way they are built. My 35X was put together by a drunk guy with Dremel, torch and hot snot.
View attachment 76355View attachment 76356View attachment 76357
It works, but it's not pretty.
Yes ill look into HE4XX once they solve the build quality somewhat. This could take maybe half a year i'd guess. Headphones casually falling apart on stationary listening is funny to say the least. Vibrations must be undoing the construction lmao.
really missing the chest, neck, etc vibration sensations.
yeah yeah I know...
Don't listen to the ignorant, biased, disseminating false information spreading and false assertions making, misleading penguin.
I stepped on some long toes it seems.
That would be me.
So when I listen to headphones at night to avoid disturbing wifey, I leave the subwoofers on.