Nectar Hive Review (Electrostatic Headphones)

[sound_matter]

Interesting discussion. I do agree that having a voting system in the review is odd. The method is not scientific, but public critique which can be a subjective view. At the same time, I can see that votes from ASR audience can be a valuable criticism to a manufacturer.

If a manufacturer disagree with the criticism in this forum, that should be fine. Because FR response is not the only factor to measuring HPs. For me, data in ASR reviews are good reference to understand characteristics of gears and compare with others. But they are not a final closer for my decision making since there are other aspects that cannot be measured scientifically yet.

 

[amirm]

That's good and all, but what does it even mean to 'rate' a headphone based on seeing someone's review?

In case of my reviews, readers see the same data I do. There is no difference. So they can react to it as well as I can. Before this voting system, there was a lot of effort to get me to change my vote. Once we put this in place, now membership can voice their agreement/disagreement with my assessment.

The only exception is that I also have subjective experience but that is not the cornerstone of the review.

Given this, the scheme only works for us and not the typical subjectivist reviewer.

 

[Doodski]

But they are not a final closer for my decision making since there are other aspects that cannot be measured scientifically yet.

What can't be measured yet?

 

[Garrincha]

What I don't get after all the discussion is the fact that there were many headphones measured, which (at least after EQ) got recommendation of Amir, even when there was before and after EQ an equally large deviation from the Harman target curve, or in many cases even larger one. The quantitative EQs member @Maiky76 regularly provides result in a value of 103 for the Hive. Just to give some examples, the Focal Stellia got 90.2 and a recommendation after EQ, the Verum Audio as low as 39.3 and after EQ still only 72.2 with a gigantic gap of about 25 dB(!!) below the target curve at approx. 9.5 kHz and was "recommend[ed| ... without EQ and strongly so with EQ". The list of headphones with worse compliance that got still a recommendation can be extended, a short search yields also the Audeze LCD-24, the Hifimann Arya, HE6se, the Meze 99 etc. So where is the objectivity? Few other headphones have distortion as low. And usually these two principal criteria are used to judge a headphone here. If it were truly based only on measurements and scientific reasoning, this could not be justified, so there seems to be quite a lot of subjectivity being involved. And I would strongly suspect the Hive sounds quite a lot better than the Stellia or the Verum and many others that received recommendations.

 

[amirm]

So where is the objectivity?

Right here:

Those resonance peaks start at around 1.6 kHz and go to 20 kHz. This should have been caught in development and fixed. You need no less than 7 corrections for the peak, and another 7 for the dips. No way to assure that you can develop such filters and have them work reliably.

 

[amirm]

And I would strongly suspect the Hive sounds quite a lot better than the Stellia or the Verum and many others that received recommendations.

Huh? You just asked for objectivity and then go and make projections like this? How did you simulate such preference?

 

[amirm]

Let's say we give thumbs up to this headphone. What would we give then to one that doesn't have the ups and downs? What if there is another like that but also hits the target?

 

[sound_matter]

What can't be measured yet?

For example, FR response is just loudness at different frequencies. It cannot tell quality of sound at given frequency. I think THD also does not represent it fully.

Let's say that different instruments play at the similar range of frequencies. I think that it's still hard to tell about instrument separation and how a gear replay music with multiple instruments in a complex scenario.

Also everyone's body is different, so everybody potentially hear differently due to a fit. This is a subjective matter. Obviously standardization cannot solve for all, but for the most.

 

[Garrincha]

Huh? You just asked for objectivity and then go and make projections like this? How did you simulate such preference?

My general experience with other electrostatic headphones from Stax. But I phrased it as "suspect", not stating a fact.

 

[Garrincha]

Let's say we give thumbs up to this headphone. What would we give then to one that doesn't have the ups and downs? What if there is another like that but also hits the target?

But why did you give a thumps up to the other headphones with even more ups and downs in the FR in the first place? The list is long.

 

[Garrincha]

Right here:

Those resonance peaks start at around 1.6 kHz and go to 20 kHz. This should have been caught in development and fixed. You need no less than 7 corrections for the peak, and another 7 for the dips. No way to assure that you can develop such filters and have them work reliably.

What about this EQ from @Maiky76 ?

This received a recommendation:

 

[amirm]

My general experience with other electrostatic headphones from Stax. But I phrased is as "suspect", not stating a fact.

You get to suspect things in your assessment but I can't?

 

[amirm]

This received a recommendation:

As it should. It doesn't have the problem/dynamics that this headphone has, nor does it have any clear, identifiable problem in its frequency response.

 

[Garrincha]

You get to suspect things in your assessment but I can't?

Sure you can, but either your judgment is based on the measurements and I don't see the argument this is the case here, or they are really "subjecivist" and then I would like to know what is the story behind it.

 

[Robbo99999]

What I don't get after all the discussion is the fact that there were many headphones measured, which (at least after EQ) got recommendation of Amir, even when there was before and after EQ an equally large deviation from the Harman target curve, or in many cases even larger one. The quantitative EQs member @Maiky76 regularly provides result in a value of 103 for the Hive. Just to give some examples, the Focal Stellia got 90.2 and a recommendation after EQ, the Verum Audio as low as 39.3 and after EQ still only 72.2 with a gigantic gap of about 25 dB(!!) below the target curve at approx. 9.5 kHz and was "recommend[ed| ... without EQ and strongly so with EQ". The list of headphones with worth compliance that got still a recommendation can be extended, a short search yields also the Audeze LCD-24, the Hifimann Arya, HE6se, the Meze 99 etc. So where is the objectivity? Few other headphones have distortion as low. And usually these two principal criteria are used to judge a headphone here. If it were truly based only on measurements and scientific reasoning, this could not be justified, so there seems to be quite a lot of subjectivity being involved. And I would strongly suspect the Hive sounds quite a lot better than the Stellia or the Verum and many others that received recommendations.

If you uses sharp enough EQ filters (high Q) then it's possible to EQ out those peaks - however you can't guarantee those peaks will be in exactly the same place for each person that uses the headphone, so it's possible that narrow EQ filters could miss the peaks in the headphone when worn on someone else's head, in which case such sharp EQ would actually have a negative influence - which is a good argument for a headphone having a smooth frequency response as one of it's design targets. Also I noticed that Amir is not using the stock pads, but that apparently the pads will be changing on the manufactured versions of this product anyway (see following quote in small text), so that is highly likely to alter the frequency response in some way thereby making this review and it's associated EQ less accurate:
"The headphone as tested came with the upgraded sheepskin pads. I am told the company has moved away from the stock pad that is supplied with these anyway."
So regarding the sharp peaks it makes it harder/less likely to be able to properly/accurately correct for those peaks when you wear the headphone - therefore in such situations where headphones have similar difficult to correct peaks & troughs then in my book they can be marked down for that. To be honest though, I think I have seen Amir recommend some headphones in the past that have had quite large and narrow peaks & dips in the treble, so there could be some inconsistency going on there - but I would have to go back through some of the headphone reviews to see if Amir recommended any headphones that displayed similar frequency response peaks/dips, but don't have time for that before work. (The impact of the frequency response graph will be influenced by Amir's listening test though, otherwise they'd be no point in him listening to them).

 

[Garrincha]

As it should. It doesn't have the problem/dynamics that this headphone has, nor does it have any clear, identifiable problem in its frequency response.

Honestly, the Verum has two huge gaps of about 25dB at 6.5 and 9.5 kHz and quantitativly altogether clearly a greater deviation from the Harman target (as shown by the SCORE), before and after EQ. So where is the argument ?

 

[Garrincha]

To be honest though, I think I have seen Amir recommend some headphones in the past that have had quite large and narrow peaks & dips in the treble, so there could be some inconsistency going on there - but I would have to go back through some of the headphone reviews to see if Amir recommended any headphones that displayed similar frequency response peaks/dips, but don't have time for that before work. (The impact of the frequency response graph will be influenced by Amir's listening test though, otherwise they'd be no point in him listening to them).

I made a quick search and found the Focus Stellia, the Verum, the Audeze LCD-24, the Hifimann Arya, HE6se, the Meze 99. There are probably many more. It seems very inconsistent to me, which is not scientific.

 

[amirm]

Honestly, the Verum has two huge gaps of abour 25dB at 6.5 and 9.5 kHz and quantitativly altogether clearly a greater deviation from the Harman target (as shown by the SCORE), before and after EQ. So where is the argument ?

Once more, it is the nature of deviation which is important. And lack of dynamic range/bass. If you are not understanding this, then I have nothing else to tell you.

 

[Garrincha]

Once more, it is the nature of deviation which is important. And lack of dynamic range/bass. If you are not understanding this, then I have nothing else to tell you.

I am a physicist. I can look at graphs and interpret them. The Verum deviates from the Harman target at about 200 Hz more or less flat at 92.5dB. The behaviour of the Hive is very similar, with less distortion and thus more room to correct it. Please.

How is the nature of the deviation audible, serious question?

 

[Ambient384]

Could be trying move back an forth quite a bit touching the stators?, Not moving the whole thin diaphragm as one mass like in other planar/Estat headphones.