Hifiman HE400i Review (planar headphone)

[MZKM]

I did indeed smooth that to 1/12 octave I think to make it easier to figure out what to EQ and what to not. I don't do any averaging of the two channels. I am not happy with averaging as a filtering tool. If you average two channels, it is not representative of either! There is a primary channel I use to calibrate so that is what I use there.

If Left is above target at frequency X but Right is below target by the same degree, what to do with EQ?

In terms of the preference rating, you will get different results based on what channel to use. Then I guess one could either average the response before hand, or average the scores.

 

[amirm]

Perhaps so, but I also dont like pronouncements like ... "if there are big deviations from the Headphone Harman Curve that it won't sound right". Seems a bit personal, to me, to make such blanket statements.

You are asking me to throw out a decade of research into headphone preference. I can't do that. All I can do is soften the stance some which I have done by emphasizing that bass and treble adjustments should be to taste.

Unless you have your own curve and research to put forward, we need to rally around the good part of the research or we have no compass to guide us here.

If you are uncomfortable with the entire research, then post your concerns in the dedicated thread and make a case for it: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nt-thread-about-headphone-measurements.18451/

I am not going to entertain it in review threads.

 

[Robbo99999]

I think you just kind of proved my point. Several times over. I never once mentioned a specific target curve, yet you say.. "if there are big deviations from the Headphone Harman Curve that it won't sound right". There are many posters on here who dont think the Harman curve sounds "right" So, as a "positive responder" I think you mean "right to me"?

"but that's not our benchmark is it" - "our" being who? Also, which headphones hit "our" benchmark as stock? Please, limit to your personal experience.

"rather than randomly trying headphones that have random frequency responses"- who suggested this ? You said , quite clearly , "HE5XX looks like quite a messed up frequency response at stock though, so probably wouldn't sound good without EQ." I am cautioning you from making such pronouncements. I would limit to "HE5XX looks like quite a messed up frequency response at stock though". You surely understand the difference between objective assessment and subjective preferences. Ever listened to a pair of headphones that have the same FR as the 5xx? If yes, then you have a valid point, for you and you only.

Sorry man, not gonna go down a rabbit hole with you, I can tell from your previous post that you were nitpicking on pedantic points. Point of the fact is that the majority of people prefer the Headphone Harman Curve because it simulates flat speakers in a room with a little bass boost mixed in, which again is a preference in speakers. Not everyone's HRTF fits that of the mannequin used in the research so therefore for a smaller portion of people find the Harman Headphone Curve is not an improvement over the very many random frequency responses of headphones out there. Those are the general facts. So it's generally applicable to make generalisations on how a headphone will sound from it's frequency response & whether it will sound good to most people or not. In fact, if it deviates from the Harman Curve greatly then the proportion of people that would like the sound of that headphone would be way less than the proportion of people who don't like the Harman Curve, because the Harman Curve is a type of average (deviations above & below).....this is possible to visualise quite easily if you've got an understanding of the topic.......so by extension it's really quite valid to say that if a headphone deviates greatly from the Harman Curve that the vast vast vast majority are not gonna get anything like accurate sound out of that headphone. That's the nature of beast, I'm not interested in your pulling apart & nitpicking of my quotes.

 

[amirm]

If Left is above target at frequency X but Right is below target by the same degree, what to do with EQ?

Ignore it. Really, there are more variations in these measurements and headphones to worry about that. There is some inherent inaccuracy here that we need to keep in mind. For this reason, I am not happy with once again high accuracy of Harman scoring. 81 vs 84 makes no sense to me. It should be rounded to 1 to 10 score instead.

In terms of the preference rating, you will get different results based on what channel to use. Then I guess one could either average the response before hand, or average the scores.

See above.

 

[maverickronin]

As I have explained a number of times, yes, right now it is hard. The audio Precision software that is used for measurements does not have any kind of parametric EQ. The signal is generated by its own hardware so it is not subject to any EQ in software/Windows.

Can you run digital output from the AP into your ADI-2 DAC and use its PEQ?

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

Sorry man, not gonna go down a rabbit hole with you, I can tell from your previous post that you were nitpicking on pedantic points. Point of the fact is that the majority of people prefer the Headphone Harman Curve because it simulates flat speakers in a room with a little bass boost mixed in, which again is a preference in speakers. Not everyone's HRTF fits that of the mannequin used in the research so therefore for a smaller portion of people find the Harman Headphone Curve is not an improvement over the very many random frequency responses of headphones out there. Those are the general facts. So it's generally applicable to make generalisations on how a headphone will sound from it's frequency response & whether it will sound good to most people or not. In fact, if it deviates from the Harman Curve greatly then the proportion of people that would like the sound of that headphone would be way less than the proportion of people who don't like the Harman Curve, because the Harman Curve is a type of average.....this is possible to visualise quite easily if you've got an understanding of the topic.......so by extension it's really quite valid to say that if a headphone deviates greatly from the Harman Curve that the vast vast vast majority are not gonna get anything like accurate sound out of that headphone. That's the nature of beast, I'm not interested in your pulling apart & nitpicking of my quotes.

I feared this would be the way this would go. @amirm, good luck with the headphone reviews but this is becoming a little too orthodox for my tastes. We have people judging headphones based solely on a FR chart and determining whether it sounds "right" on that. Seasons greetings and good cheer but I am out.

 

[amirm]

Can you run digital output from the AP into your ADI-2 DAC and use its PEQ?

I haven't done the EQ in RME so won't help.

 

[sam_adams]

You are asking me to throw a decade of research into headphone preference. I can't do that. All I can do is soften the stance some which I have done by emphasizing that bass and treble adjustments should be to taste.

Unless you have your own curve and research to put forward, we need to rally around the good part of the research or we have no compass to guide us here.

If you are uncomfortable with the entire research, then post your concerns in the dedicated thread and make a case for it: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nt-thread-about-headphone-measurements.18451/

I am not going to entertain it in review threads.

This is spot on. Headphones are—if any of the reviews here are used as an example—a very subjective, personal choice. Kind of like the boxers or briefs type of preference. I'm not a headphone guy, per se—I have a pair of PowerBeats3 at home and a pair of 1More quad drivers at work to block out the noise from nattering coworkers. I really do find the 'openness' of the sound of speakers in a room more satisifying. For me, the 'in the head' illusion that is created by headphones is just not the same. Anyway, @amirm, the reviews that you do of these devices are very enlightening and I do appreciate the work.

 

[MZKM]

Ignore it. Really, there are more variations in these measurements and headphones to worry about that. There is some inherent inaccuracy here that we need to keep in mind. For this reason, I am not happy with once again high accuracy of Harman scoring. 81 vs 84 makes no sense to me. It should be rounded to 1 to 10 score instead.


See above.

No argument here.

Additionally, with a quick glance, I can't see a mention of what resolution they used for the formula.

Also, with 30+ measurements here (vs 13 for the speakers, and only bookshelves), I'll also try my hand at my own formula, probably separating bass and maybe some simple discrimination of peaks vs dips (e.g., count peak deviations as 2x the value of dip deviations). As the current formula ain't super great:

A headphone ranked ~40/100 and one ranked ~90/100 both got a score of ~70.

 

[amirm]

Additionally, with a quick glance, I can't see a mention of what resolution they used for the formula.

The preference curve is massively filters as it has none of the comb filtering in high frequencies or room modes in low. I suspect it is 1/3 octave or something like that.

 

[DuxServit]

Kind of like the boxers or briefs type of preference.

Best quote of the day

 

[BogdanR]

Pick up a pair of planar , wear them for 20 minutes then tell me you'd like to wear them on/off/on/off for a 10-30 hour day. Compared to a pair of these https://www.amazon.co.uk/AKG-Profes...dphones&qid=1608425202&sr=8-6&tag=googhydr-21

I would. All AKGs I tried, some for quite some time, had more sibilance. For me the comfort is more or less equivalent. And I told my boss I won’t do any more 30 hour days.

 

[BogdanR]

It is worse than that in that there are no standards in audio production. That is, we don't know the frequency response of the monitors used to produce/master the music. So some amount of tone control is necessary. Indeed many times I get the EQ done and it sounds good on a number of tracks then all of a sudden it sounds a bit bright. Or bass is a bit much. We need real-time tone controls or better yet, per track/album equalization in our players.

I tend to like the triple tone controls on my ancient Sansui which sometimes pulls duty as a headphone amplifier. I can adjust them quickly to my liking with a minimum of futzing. Being really familiar on how they affect the sound is a huge plus.

I also have a tendency of listening to whole albums so... Some recordings, especially some of the so called “remastered“ stuff in the ‘90s is pretty bad regardless what EQ I tried. Some Led Zepp for instance. The masters were not particularly great to begin with, then they got remastered which mostly meant compressing them dynamically so they would work in car systems and such. No EQ can help that.

 

[Guerilla]

Have anyone seen or tried easy modifikations that lowers distortion of this device?
Cheers!

 

[amirm]

OK, managed to get the first draft set of measurements of pre-/post-EQ. See the Focal Clear review: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/focal-clear-review-headphone.18585/

 

[solderdude]

..but to be honest during my own listening I find bass boosted HD600 flabby (less resolution

That's because Harman boosts too much. HD650 with boosted bass sounds tight and clean in my case. Clearly your EQ is too much and incorrect so is flabby. I can make my HD650 sound flabby too if I use Harman amount of bass.

I am of the opinion that higher harmonics are much more problematic, additionally higher harmonics are not masked by the program material.

If we are focused on 2nd and 3rd harmonics we may be focused on innocent bystanders and not the real offenders.

If we see increased levels of 2nd and 3rd harmonics we should be diligent to keep at it and measure 4Th, 5th and on up as well.

Let me show you the higher harmonics of (in this case) the HD800 and how loud these are (in percent).
Do you think these are problematic levels... remember... $ 0.60 microphone with DIY pre-amp cheap ADC measured an open headphone at merely 90dB SPL in a bedroom during the day.

higher harmonics don't seem to exist that much in transducers. It is more of a problem for poor electronics.

 

[solderdude]

Ah, because we know it is there and it can be measured. Ergo, it is important. No?

We know its there but 2nd harmonics are so low in level that they are masked.
Besides my measurements are only intended to look for unusually high amounts of distortion. In reality distortion is lower than I can measure.
Jude's distortion measurements are closer to reality as he measures in a special chamber.
It's all about audibilty. A 120 SINAD DAC and 100 SINAD DAC will both have no audible distortion at normal listening levels listening to music.

Besides... Harman research already told us distortion is not a sound quality determining factor.
I would add unless it reaches >1% in the mids.
With this driver distortion was audible... had to fix the driver (planar so easy to fix)

and this one also did not sound that great, the owner liked it a lot for piano

 

[Robbo99999]

That's because Harman boosts too much. HD650 with boosted bass sounds tight and clean in my case. Clearly your EQ is too much and incorrect so is flabby. I can make my HD650 sound flabby too if I use Harman amount of bass.

Sure, ok, you do that....I prefer the Harman bass boost and headphones that deal with that aspect, although that's not the main aspect for me, I'm fairly certain soundstage is the most important factor for me.

 

[solderdude]

Then HD650 and HD600 are one of the worst.
You need something with considerable angled drivers.

 

[Robbo99999]

Then HD650 and HD600 are one of the worst.
You need something with considerable angled drivers.

Yeah, I've found that from the headphones listed in my sig. As it stands AKG K702 is my final headphone, as I'm that pleased with it, but I've got HiFiman HE4XX on order due to the "previous" promises of low distortion, EQ'ability to the Harman Curve, and most significantly for me higher soundstage rating (at RTings) of the HE400i (to which the HE4XX is based on) over the K702.

At least 800S gets highest soundstage rating at RTings so there's at least some correlation there with Amir's note on the impressive soundstage of 800S...along with the many anecdotal reports of excellent soundstage of the 800S from many reviewers/users.....so I hope there is some good truth to the RTings soundstage rating. Although Amir's ok or good impression of soundstage of HE400i is a bit worrying, as I would have expected that to have been better based on the RTings soundstage rating. I'll just have to see what I think to the HE4XX when it arrives......I'm kind of mostly expecting to like my K702 better now I've seen this HE400i review, but I'll stay open minded.