• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Mark Levinson No 5909 Headphone Review

Rate this headphone:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 22 11.6%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 55 28.9%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther

    Votes: 88 46.3%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 25 13.2%

  • Total voters
    190

Toni Mas

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2022
Messages
454
Likes
303
I am not talking about soundstage or I would have called it that. I talk about a unique experience with headphones: instrument separation and layering just outside of my ears. This can range from non-existent to incredible. It is as if the music is shrunk to the size of a dollhouse and you are sticking your head in it. :). Needless to say, this never happens with speakers. They provide imaging which I do not get with headphones of any kind.
Agree ... Some prefer listening extremely close to their speakers (mainly desktop listeners) because direct sound provides a similar unique experience diving deep into the recording... But I find this kind of experience too sharply analytical and prefer to use my speakers to mess with my room s reverberated soundfield to try and use it to enhance the hazy illusion of being there, something that no recording is able to embed, and is bound to be reinvented at the listener's room and listening position.
 
Last edited:

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
659
Likes
816
FIh1K4wVgAML6VA
Isn’t it kind of ironic and also sad that after so much research the goal is achieved and a headphone without EQ obeys the desired frequency response curve that was stipulated to provide good sound and the sound isn’t so good after all, rather average?
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,875
Likes
6,673
Location
UK
Ok, frequency response, or tonality, whether it's at the eardrum or not, can be had by eq, or physical construction and tuning . And sure it should be partly responsible. But my point is, what if there are drivers that are simply better than others? Any frequency response can pretty much be obtained by almost anything, but all don't sound the same. Your theory is not invalid, but it's just a theory, not demonstrated. it's ok to take a shot at trying to understand, nothing wrong with that. But most agree that there is limits to headphone measurements, In my experience, yes two headphone can have close to the same frequency response, with one giving you much more fidelity to hear very subtle things and others will give a much more blurry, top level experience, pleasing tonality but not fully resolving. And this high fidelity can be had with angled, straight, over ears Iems, all kind of headphones.
(Again, you're not really saying anything....but I can move on)

But yes, my theory is a theory, it's not proven by any stretch, it's a correlation of my experience vs headphone construction similarities and soundstage.
 

Toni Mas

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2022
Messages
454
Likes
303
Isn’t it kind of ironic and also sad that after so much research the goal is achieved and a headphone without EQ obeys the desired frequency response curve that was stipulated to provide good sound and the sound isn’t so good after all, rather average?
Well, maybe science and R&D are not exactly the same thing, nor have the same goals...
 

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
659
Likes
816
Well, maybe science and R&D are not exactly the same thing, nor have the same goals...
Well, as far as I unterstand it, since the research of Toole/Olive was founded for quite some time by Harman, was aimed at basic understanding of heaphone acoustics and preferences, covering fundamental aspects and practical ones. And it seems very plausible that ML had built a better sounding headphone if they would have been capable to do so. Thus I don´t see here a major divide between science and R&D (R stands by the way for research, i.e. science).
 
Last edited:

Toni Mas

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2022
Messages
454
Likes
303
Well, as far as I unterstand it, since the research of Toole/Olive was founded for quite some time by Harman, was aimed at basic understanding of heaphone acoustics and preferences, covering fundamental aspects and practical ones. And it seems very plausible thatML had built a better sounding headphone if they would have been capable to do so. Thus I don´t see here a major divide between science and R&D (R stands by the way for research, i.e. science).
Science tries to understand things, just for understanding sake. R&D is simply the backstage of any business...

For example Olive's truth is not absolute truth (Who needs that?), just statistical assessment of average consumer preferences... Marketing dpt being probably mostly interested in non trained or casual listener's preferences... Target size generally rules as far as mass market is concerned...
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,511
Location
Seattle Area
Isn’t it kind of ironic and also sad that after so much research the goal is achieved and a headphone without EQ obeys the desired frequency response curve that was stipulated to provide good sound and the sound isn’t so good after all, rather average?
I think they were chasing a mass market with noise cancelling. Given that, I think it was a mistake to call it Mark Levinson. That brand should have been kept for something with large drivers and more than just correct sound. Also, mass market isn't going to spend $1,000 on a headphone. So the product planning seems to be confused.
 

PeteL

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
3,303
Likes
3,838
I think they were chasing a mass market with noise cancelling. Given that, I think it was a mistake to call it Mark Levinson. That brand should have been kept for something with large drivers and more than just correct sound. Also, mass market isn't going to spend $1,000 on a headphone. So the product planning seems to be confused.
1000$ don’t scream « mass market ».. I think that rich peoples like the convenience of wireless too. And they are actually the ones that need ANC. They are the ones that fly every month, and perhaps mow rheir lawn. The « mass » actually don’t need this. There is definitely a place for very expensive Wireless ANC headphones. M L may not be the right vector for that crowd,its possible, but then someone should be, we may wonder who. I think the problem is not the target they go for, they are definitely out there and would love to show off their status with uber expensive Lifestyle products like that, the problem may be the execution, If it can’t manage to perfform on a superior level, and have an elevated experience against the Sony and Bose, at least it have to look and feel luxurious. From what I see and read they appear to succeed in neither.
 
Last edited:

Zim

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
107
Likes
212
Location
Kangarooland
Isn’t it kind of ironic and also sad that after so much research the goal is achieved and a headphone without EQ obeys the desired frequency response curve that was stipulated to provide good sound and the sound isn’t so good after all, rather average?

I don't get this. Are you implying that "the sound isn't so good after all" due to its spatial qualities or some other factor? And if so, then how does said factor relate to the frequency response? Because I'm pretty sure having a desired frequency response curve is just one of numerous aspects of enjoying the sound produced.
 

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
659
Likes
816
I don't get this. Are you implying that "the sound isn't so good after all" due to its spatial qualities or some other factor? And if so, then how does said factor relate to the frequency response? Because I'm pretty sure having a desired frequency response curve is just one of numerous aspects of enjoying the sound produced.
I am repeating the judgement of the sound from Amir and several other people I have read of in the internet. There were and maybe still are many people, also here at ASR, who claimed the the correct FR is the only or at least single most important criterion for the sound of a headphone. Now this one hits the nail spot on and apparently still does not sound very good. Also Sean Olive did not get tired of stressing the utmost importance of the FR. Lists were made who judged the sound qualities of headphones purely by closeness to the Harman curve. So while it clearly remains one relevant factors, several others seem to have been overlooked and this trail of research turned out to be a bit simple minded.
 
Last edited:

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
659
Likes
816
Science tries to understand things, just for understanding sake. R&D is simply the backstage of any business...
Well there are very many different branches of science. There is pure, fundamental science and applied one. Often it is mixed. The physicists who were creating the first atomic bomb did pure and applied science at the same time and not just for understanding. I am a scientist by education, with a PhD in physcis, so better pay attention if you want to teach me about science.

For example Olive's truth is not absolute truth (Who needs that?), just statistical assessment of average consumer preferences... Marketing dpt being probably mostly interested in non trained or casual listener's preferences... Target size generally rules as far as mass market is concerned...
Correct, how little (or at least limited) validity his reasearch has shows this headphone. But to defend him a bit, he did not only judge costumers preferences but performed also measurements and the like.
 
Last edited:

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
Isn’t it kind of ironic and also sad that after so much research the goal is achieved and a headphone without EQ obeys the desired frequency response curve that was stipulated to provide good sound and the sound isn’t so good after all, rather average?
With just correct FR alone that is, perhaps, not so surprising. My experience is the spatial effects have a massive impact on how you perceive things. If one can arrange for a direct comparison, the spatial effects just add so much more impact to the recording. Without them the sound becomes somewhat bland and uninteresting. When one of my headphones went south, it was one of the first things I noticed. It just become really boring. Its entirely possible that Harman willingly gave that up for one reason or another to accommodate the ANC and active electronics, but I for one would still like to know why it fails the way it does. When things don't work can be just as, if not more, instructive then when they do. I guess if nothing else it vindicates the need for subjective listening in conjunction with objective testing.
 

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
659
Likes
816
With just correct FR alone that is, perhaps, not so surprising. My experience is the spatial effects have a massive impact on how you perceive things. If one can arrange for a direct comparison, the spatial effects just add so much more impact to the recording. Without them the sound becomes somewhat bland and uninteresting. When one of my headphones went south, it was one of the first things I noticed. It just become really boring. Its entirely possible that Harman willingly gave that up for one reason or another to accommodate the ANC and active electronics, but I for one would still like to know why it fails the way it does. When things don't work can be just as, if not more, instructive then when they do. I guess if nothing else it vindicates the need for subjective listening in conjunction with objective testing.
I totally agree. This headphone should serve as a study what is missing and why it fails the way it does. It also demonstrates in my view that the research was to much focussed on FR, neglegting other important things. Sean Olive wrote on Twitter: ' The only other dimension besides #1 frequency response and #2 distortion/dynamics are #3 spatial. If you don't get #1 right then #3 won't happen. It's a pre-requisite for accurate localization/externalization along with head-tracking.' He is implying either a causal relationship or at least that spatial effects are based on FR, denying that this might be two totally independet properties. We see that for example the Sennheiser HD800S has a FR way more off from Harman than the ML, yet much better spatial effects. So?
 
Last edited:

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
I totally agree. This headphone should serve as a study what is missing and why it fails the way it does. It also demonstrates in my view that the research was to much focussed on FR, neglegting other important things. Sean Olive wrote on Twitter: ' The only other dimension besides #1 frequency response and #2 distortion/dynamics are #3 spatial. If you don't get #1 right then #3 won't happen. It's a pre-requisite for accurate localization/externalization along with head-tracking.' He is implying either a causal relationship or at least that spatial effects are based on FR, denying that this might be two totally independet properties. We see that for example the Sennheiser HD800S has a FR way more off from Harman than the ML, yet much better spatial effects. So?
At a top level I would hazard to say there are probably two aspects to the spatial characteristics and imaging of a headphone. One is how well does the device convey the interaural timing and intensity differences (FR related), and secondly how does it interact with the pinnae (driver and cup design). An interesting demo I found on YT actually demonstrates the differences between different headphones and speakers nicely. Its a binaural panning demo in dearVR found here: dearVR Pro 3 Dimensional Mixing Demo and at one point he moves the image of a recorded guitar soloist, in his words, "a little to the left." Repeating an earlier experiment of how it sounds on my various devices is interesting, to say the least. On my 2020 Sundara's, which have the best spatial effects of all my headphones with EQ, the image is slightly behind me as with most headphones. On those, it moves a little to the left like he says. On my FiiO FD5's, the image is narrower, so it appears to move a little to the left a bit less. On my 560S's, uh... It moves to the left, but appears to do so by rotating over the top of my head. A very unusual and somewhat off-putting result. Only on my nearfield speaker system does it actually appear to move with the dot, which is quite a bit to the left, by about 40-45 degrees or so (42 degrees in the mixing software, to be exact). Closing my eyes and moving my arm with the image shows a similar angle to the little dot on the "radar" screen when I open my eyes and look afterwards.

Every device gives a completely different result, and also a completely different soundstage. The speakers are, by far, the most accurate with respect to imaging since they are close, in a fairly dead space acoustically, and can interact with my ears as sound would normally. But by far the most open sounding device is the 2020 Sundaras on the Harman curve. The caveat is the increased bass, which they need to sound balanced, causes excessive excursion and a temporary loss of tension in the membranes (and consequently them doing really unpleasant things), but fortunately they do recover after a while. And one thing I can say is, that for me at least, its like they aren't even there they are so incredibly open listening to them again. Its really quite remarkable compared to the others which sound more closed in. But the bottom line is each device, despite being more or less compliant with the most current FR curves from research, have completely different imaging. Clearly its an aspect of headphones that is, perhaps, not getting the true attention it deserves. And it has a big impact on how they are perceived. As I would suspect, a lot of this probably derives from how they interact with my head and ears, and how that relates the ITDs and IIDs in the source recordings and my own HRTFs (if any at all with things like IEMs), which will obviously vary by individual.

Edit: Replaced video with simpler link instead.
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
It is a quandary what it is done. But I definitely ran both analog pass-through and digital. These were the two sets of test. I think there is some kind of solid state switch (FET) that is normally closed for analog pass-through. It wouldn't make sense for it to use power as you say.

I have seen this 'construction' in more than one BT headphone though. Only when power is depleted the driver is connected to the 3.5mm socket.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
I totally agree. This headphone should serve as a study what is missing and why it fails the way it does. It also demonstrates in my view that the research was to much focussed on FR, neglegting other important things. Sean Olive wrote on Twitter: ' The only other dimension besides #1 frequency response and #2 distortion/dynamics are #3 spatial. If you don't get #1 right then #3 won't happen. It's a pre-requisite for accurate localization/externalization along with head-tracking.' He is implying either a causal relationship or at least that spatial effects are based on FR, denying that this might be two totally independet properties. We see that for example the Sennheiser HD800S has a FR way more off from Harman than the ML, yet much better spatial effects. So?

But when you EQ the HD800 to Harman the spatial qualities remain so it can't be FR only.
Different pinna activation (driver-ear position/distance/angle/space around the ear and pads)
 

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
659
Likes
816
But when you EQ the HD800 to Harman the spatial qualities remain so it can't be FR only.
Different pinna activation (driver-ear position/distance/angle/space around the ear and pads)
Yes, this is what I am trying to say, a lot of territory to explore, the focus on FR is much to narrow.
 

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
659
Likes
816
At a top level I would hazard to say there are probably two aspects to the spatial characteristics and imaging of a headphone. One is how well does the device convey the interaural timing and intensity differences (FR related), and secondly how does it interact with the pinnae (driver and cup design). An interesting demo I found on YT actually demonstrates the differences between different headphones and speakers nicely. Its a binaural panning demo in dearVR found here: dearVR Pro 3 Dimensional Mixing Demo and at one point he moves the image of a recorded guitar soloist, in his words, "a little to the left." Repeating an earlier experiment of how it sounds on my various devices is interesting, to say the least. On my 2020 Sundara's, which have the best spatial effects of all my headphones with EQ, the image is slightly behind me as with most headphones. On those, it moves a little to the left like he says. On my FiiO FD5's, the image is narrower, so it appears to move a little to the left a bit less. On my 560S's, uh... It moves to the left, but appears to do so by rotating over the top of my head. A very unusual and somewhat off-putting result. Only on my nearfield speaker system does it actually appear to move with the dot, which is quite a bit to the left, by about 40-45 degrees or so (42 degrees in the mixing software, to be exact). Closing my eyes and moving my arm with the image shows a similar angle to the little dot on the "radar" screen when I open my eyes and look afterwards.

Every device gives a completely different result, and also a completely different soundstage. The speakers are, by far, the most accurate with respect to imaging since they are close, in a fairly dead space acoustically, and can interact with my ears as sound would normally. But by far the most open sounding device is the 2020 Sundaras on the Harman curve. The caveat is the increased bass, which they need to sound balanced, causes excessive excursion and a temporary loss of tension in the membranes (and consequently them doing really unpleasant things), but fortunately they do recover after a while. And one thing I can say is, that for me at least, its like they aren't even there they are so incredibly open listening to them again. Its really quite remarkable compared to the others which sound more closed in. But the bottom line is each device, despite being more or less compliant with the most current FR curves from research, have completely different imaging. Clearly its an aspect of headphones that is, perhaps, not getting the true attention it deserves. And it has a big impact on how they are perceived. As I would suspect, a lot of this probably derives from how they interact with my head and ears, and how that relates the ITDs and IIDs in the source recordings and my own HRTFs (if any at all with things like IEMs), which will obviously vary by individual.

Edit: Replaced video with simpler link instead.
This is a really great demonstration and also a nice plugin for mixing (also great song "manhã de carnaval" from Orfeu negro). I must say the cheap chinese IME I am right now listening with ($25 Tripowin Leá) demonstrated the effects quite nicely. Tomorrow I will check with my headphones if it beomes more pronounced still. I wonder why the manufacturer apparently are not using tools like this more to improve their gear.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
I wonder why the manufacturer apparently are not using tools like this more to improve their gear.

1: it is trickery (changing of the original signal and thus merely an added effect) Some may like it, others may not so would have to be defeatable.
2: headphone manufacturers would have to pay for it and build it into a headphone, not just an external app. May require different chips and OS increasing costs.
3: 'soundstage' or for headphones 'headstage' is also a very personal thing so effect may result in the same desired effect.
 
Top Bottom