Torn between the 800s and the Arya stealth

[Eyesluna]

Good morning everyone, I've been mulling over which one of these to add to my growing collection. In terms of hardware I can supply power than enough clean power (magnius/modius) and i'm more than willing to EQ. I already have a pair of LCD 2C, DCA closed X, and 6xx. I'm very interested in getting a new pair of cans to to experience a wider soundstage/better imaging and from a little research it seems like both the 800s and the Arya are good choices, but I have some potential concerns about both of them. With the 800s, I keep hearing that they tend to not be too good for things outside of classical, orchestral, and jazz; I do happen to listen to those genres but I also listen heavily to rock, rap, and post rock. I understand that the Arya are purported to be better all rounders which is appealing but I worry about build quality, QC, and longevity with them. A headphone purchase past 1k is something I want to be confident is going to last for a long time assuming I don't damage it. Cable wise I'd just get hart audio cables either way so i'm not too concerned about the stock cables.

Are the things I've heard about the 800s able to be remedied with EQ? Am I too concerned about the potential issues with the Arya? I'd appreciate any insight into this from owners of either/both pairs.

 

[jae]

Firstly I will say that 95-99%+ of what we interpret as sound quality, soundstage, imaging effects etc. (that aren't from the spectral content of the music itself) is based almost solely on the frequency response of the headphone. That being said, as you can imagine virtually every headphone has a different FR, and the modern research on the topic has shown that price has very little correlation with perceived sound quality in blind tests, and in fact any people found cheaper headphones to be superior to many critically-acclaimed ones when they didn't know what response they were listening to. So, don't feel like you have to spend money to get a "better sound".

The logical thing to do here is to experiment EQing your existing headphones in order to subjectively improve them to your ear, or EQ to a fixed target like Harman and work backwards from there, especially if you already have competent headphones that have good characteristics like low distortion, ease of driving, comfort, price, listenable without EQ, etc. Then you can either be happy with your current EQ'd headphones or if you still feel compelled to you can buy a headphone close to your newfound preferred response after deciding if its other characteristics are worth it.

6XX is a very good headphone out of the box, timeless design, ubiquitous replacement parts, comfortable, cheap, easily resellable, fairly pleasant and smooth response out of the box with fixable flaws like too much energy in the upper bass/low mids (may sound a bit "muddy" in that region to some), and that it lacks subbass due to it being a traditional open headphone. Closed X is planar,lower distortion, that fills in some of the shortcomings of the 6XX, but it is closed which means that there is a possibility of seal variance in the response despite it having better subbass, and the other negatives and positives that come with a closed headphone. Both of these can be "fixed" with simple EQ, but they also come close to the objective target and sounds acceptable even without EQ. I would say the response of the LCD-2C is such that it is not the best listening experience out of the box because of the major problems in the ear gain region, but it is still fixable with EQ. Many people find the heavy Audeze headphones to be uncomfortable to wear for long periods, the DCA and 6XX are much lighter.

Arya and 800 arguably do many things worse overall than the 6XX despite the price difference. In the 800, distortion is not really improved over 6XX and much of the "soundstage" effect is due to a recession in the 1-3 khz region that tends to give a sensation of distance and separation of upper harmonics, likely at the expense of some detail in those octaves. Not a problem if that's what you enjoy, but just be aware of that. Arya has a similar response with even more deemphasis of the early ear gain region as well, while also overemphasizing some frequencies, and the result is both are a bit upper treble hot and sibilant to some degree while also still having the major flaw of the 6XX which is little subbass and a bit of encroachment on the upperbass/low mids that would still require EQ to remedy. I would never consider buying any of these as a main headphone, and if I was it would definitely not brand new/full price.

IMO, unless you want to spend ~$4000 for a Stealth, Expanse, or something like an LCD-5, I would say your best options and probably the best you can do are the DCA headphones that are in the $500-800 range. To me, there is really no 'justified' upgrade in between the $500-800 range and the vanity/flagship $4000 price point, more so if you are going to EQ to achieve the sound you want. Having a good default response, comfort, good build quality, adequate subbass, low seal leakage, and low distortion are the main things to look for essentially. Personally, I wear glasses and don't like the heat of wearing closed headphones for a long time on my ears, so I prefer to give up some subbass extension to gain bass response consistency and overall comfort from an open headphone, and then I EQ the bass roll off back in to get the best of both worlds. Aeon Noire is probably one of the best ones of the bunch, but since you have the Aeon Closed X already it is similar enough that it probably does not warrant an upgrade if you are willing to EQ (would be a "side-grade"). If you wanted a DCA open variant headphone, you'd have to EQ those as well.

index/list_of_presets - oratory1990

r/oratory1990: Mostly covering topics like headphones, in-ear headphones, acoustics, electroacoustics, acoustic tuning, headphone design …

www.reddit.com

 

[fpitas]

Firstly I will say that 95-99%+ of what we interpret as sound quality, soundstage, imaging effects etc. (that aren't from the spectral content of the music itself) is based almost solely on the frequency response of the headphone. That being said, as you can imagine virtually every headphone has a different FR, and the modern research on the topic has shown that price has very little correlation with perceived sound quality in blind tests, and in fact any people found cheaper headphones to be superior to many critically-acclaimed ones when they didn't know what response they were listening to. So, don't feel like you have to spend money to get a "better sound".

The logical thing to do here is to experiment EQing your existing headphones in order to subjectively improve them to your ear, or EQ to a fixed target like Harman and work backwards from there, especially if you already have competent headphones that have good characteristics like low distortion, ease of driving, comfort, price, listenable without EQ, etc. Then you can either be happy with your current EQ'd headphones or if you still feel compelled to you can buy a headphone close to your newfound preferred response after deciding if its other characteristics are worth it.

6XX is a very good headphone out of the box, timeless design, ubiquitous replacement parts, comfortable, cheap, easily resellable, fairly pleasant and smooth response out of the box with fixable flaws like too much energy in the upper bass/low mids (may sound a bit "muddy" in that region to some), and that it lacks subbass due to it being a traditional open headphone. Closed X is planar,lower distortion, that fills in some of the shortcomings of the 6XX, but it is closed which means that there is a possibility of seal variance in the response despite it having better subbass, and the other negatives and positives that come with a closed headphone. Both of these can be "fixed" with simple EQ, but they also come close to the objective target and sounds acceptable even without EQ. I would say the response of the LCD-2C is such that it is not the best listening experience out of the box because of the major problems in the ear gain region, but it is still fixable with EQ. Many people find the heavy Audeze headphones to be uncomfortable to wear for long periods, the DCA and 6XX are much lighter.

Arya and 800 arguably do many things worse overall than the 6XX despite the price difference. In the 800, distortion is not really improved over 6XX and much of the "soundstage" effect is due to a recession in the 1-3 khz region that tends to give a sensation of distance and separation of upper harmonics, likely at the expense of some detail in those octaves. Not a problem if that's what you enjoy, but just be aware of that. Arya has a similar response with even more deemphasis of the early ear gain region as well, while also overemphasizing some frequencies, and the result is both are a bit upper treble hot and sibilant to some degree while also still having the major flaw of the 6XX which is little subbass and a bit of encroachment on the upperbass/low mids that would still require EQ to remedy. I would never consider buying any of these as a main headphone, and if I was it would definitely not brand new/full price.

IMO, unless you want to spend ~$4000 for a Stealth, Expanse, or something like an LCD-5, I would say your best options and probably the best you can do are the DCA headphones that are in the $500-800 range. To me, there is really no 'justified' upgrade in between the $500-800 range and the vanity/flagship $4000 price point, more so if you are going to EQ to achieve the sound you want. Having a good default response, comfort, good build quality, adequate subbass, low seal leakage, and low distortion are the main things to look for essentially. Personally, I wear glasses and don't like the heat of wearing closed headphones for a long time on my ears, so I prefer to give up some subbass extension to gain bass response consistency and overall comfort from an open headphone, and then I EQ the bass roll off back in to get the best of both worlds. Aeon Noire is probably the best one, but since you have the Aeon Closed X already it is similar enough that it probably does not warrant an upgrade if you are willing to EQ. If you wanted a DCA open variant headphone, you'd have to EQ those as well.

index/list_of_presets - oratory1990

r/oratory1990: Mostly covering topics like headphones, in-ear headphones, acoustics, electroacoustics, acoustic tuning, headphone design …

www.reddit.com

View attachment 257718

That's a nice presentation, and I grabbed a copy for my files. But I have my doubts about the notes above 10kHz. Most headphones are headed down there, and an awful lot of people don't hear much past 14kHz, if that.

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

Get HE1000v2 (V2 not SE!) and forget about Arya and HD800.
You will get same open big sound but with less accentuated highs and more bass/subbass.
Cheers

ps. the price of he1000v2 dropped lately making it very good option:

HE1000-HIFIMAN Flagship Over Ear Planar Magnetic Headphone with World's First Diaphragm in Nanometer Thickness

Boasting the World's First Diaphragm in Nanometer Thickness, HIFIMAN HE1000 is the best Hi Fi planar magnetic headphone with cool look and high quality

store.hifiman.com

 

[jae]

That's a nice presentation, and I grabbed a copy for my files. But I have my doubts about the notes above 10kHz. Most headphones are headed down there, and an awful lot of people don't hear much past 14kHz, if that.

I don't take credit for it, it is from solderdude's site I believe and perhaps his creation. Good quick reference that is a bit more detailed than some quick reference charts I've seen used in music education or a production "cheat sheet". And I agree, there is not much content above 10k generally speaking, the most important thing is to have whatever response one prefers dialed in to about 8k because that will be a majority of what we perceive. 80hz-4k is absolutely crucial and also 80 to ~1.5k probably has the least anatomical and preference variance in humans (and also where we are most sensitive to differences), so mostly everyone will perceive these regions virtually the same and they should have a similar contour in that region for faithful reproduction. The most obvious sounds I think where the timbral balance is identifiable beyond 10k is stuff like cymbals, upper registers of woodwinds or bowed strings, especially in ensemble.

 

[fpitas]

I don't take credit for it, it is from solderdude's site I believe and perhaps his creation. Good quick reference that is a bit more detailed than some quick reference charts I've seen used in music education or a production "cheat sheet". And I agree, there is not much content above 10k generally speaking, the most important thing is to have whatever response one prefers dialed in to about 8k because that will be a majority of what we perceive. 80hz-4k is absolutely crucial and also 80 to ~1.5k probably has the least anatomical and preference variance in humans (and also where we are most sensitive to differences), so mostly everyone will perceive these regions virtually the same and they should have a similar contour in that region for faithful reproduction. The most obvious sounds I think where the timbral balance is identifiable beyond 10k is stuff like cymbals, upper registers of woodwinds or bowed strings, especially in ensemble.

Agreed. It is for the most part a handy reference.

 

[Eyesluna]

Firstly I will say that 95-99%+ of what we interpret as sound quality, soundstage, imaging effects etc. (that aren't from the spectral content of the music itself) is based almost solely on the frequency response of the headphone. That being said, as you can imagine virtually every headphone has a different FR, and the modern research on the topic has shown that price has very little correlation with perceived sound quality in blind tests, and in fact any people found cheaper headphones to be superior to many critically-acclaimed ones when they didn't know what response they were listening to. So, don't feel like you have to spend money to get a "better sound".

The logical thing to do here is to experiment EQing your existing headphones in order to subjectively improve them to your ear, or EQ to a fixed target like Harman and work backwards from there, especially if you already have competent headphones that have good characteristics like low distortion, ease of driving, comfort, price, listenable without EQ, etc. Then you can either be happy with your current EQ'd headphones or if you still feel compelled to you can buy a headphone close to your newfound preferred response after deciding if its other characteristics are worth it.

6XX is a very good headphone out of the box, timeless design, ubiquitous replacement parts, comfortable, cheap, easily resellable, fairly pleasant and smooth response out of the box with fixable flaws like too much energy in the upper bass/low mids (may sound a bit "muddy" in that region to some), and that it lacks subbass due to it being a traditional open headphone. Closed X is planar,lower distortion, that fills in some of the shortcomings of the 6XX, but it is closed which means that there is a possibility of seal variance in the response despite it having better subbass, and the other negatives and positives that come with a closed headphone. Both of these can be "fixed" with simple EQ, but they also come close to the objective target and sounds acceptable even without EQ. I would say the response of the LCD-2C is such that it is not the best listening experience out of the box because of the major problems in the ear gain region, but it is still fixable with EQ. Many people find the heavy Audeze headphones to be uncomfortable to wear for long periods, the DCA and 6XX are much lighter.

Arya and 800 arguably do many things worse overall than the 6XX despite the price difference. In the 800, distortion is not really improved over 6XX and much of the "soundstage" effect is due to a recession in the 1-3 khz region that tends to give a sensation of distance and separation of upper harmonics, likely at the expense of some detail in those octaves. Not a problem if that's what you enjoy, but just be aware of that. Arya has a similar response with even more deemphasis of the early ear gain region as well, while also overemphasizing some frequencies, and the result is both are a bit upper treble hot and sibilant to some degree while also still having the major flaw of the 6XX which is little subbass and a bit of encroachment on the upperbass/low mids that would still require EQ to remedy. I would never consider buying any of these as a main headphone, and if I was it would definitely not brand new/full price.

IMO, unless you want to spend ~$4000 for a Stealth, Expanse, or something like an LCD-5, I would say your best options and probably the best you can do are the DCA headphones that are in the $500-800 range. To me, there is really no 'justified' upgrade in between the $500-800 range and the vanity/flagship $4000 price point, more so if you are going to EQ to achieve the sound you want. Having a good default response, comfort, good build quality, adequate subbass, low seal leakage, and low distortion are the main things to look for essentially. Personally, I wear glasses and don't like the heat of wearing closed headphones for a long time on my ears, so I prefer to give up some subbass extension to gain bass response consistency and overall comfort from an open headphone, and then I EQ the bass roll off back in to get the best of both worlds. Aeon Noire is probably one of the best ones of the bunch, but since you have the Aeon Closed X already it is similar enough that it probably does not warrant an upgrade if you are willing to EQ (would be a "side-grade"). If you wanted a DCA open variant headphone, you'd have to EQ those as well.

index/list_of_presets - oratory1990

r/oratory1990: Mostly covering topics like headphones, in-ear headphones, acoustics, electroacoustics, acoustic tuning, headphone design …

www.reddit.com

View attachment 257718

Wow this was an amazing write up! I had gotten into EQ once I got the LCD 2C and I found that I enjoyed the harman 2018 target mostly. I'm still in the process of learning more though. In regards to the 800s and Arya I would buy them used, the 800s ideally under 1k (rare I know but i'm more than willing to wait it out). I have had the LCD-5 on my mind but that price tag even used is too much for me, my plan with that was to just wait it out, let the technology mature and trickle down to less expensive cans. Is there anymore advice you can give me?

 

[Cb22]

@jae
Nice write-up! I've been burning through headphones recently in search of the "perfect" pair of open & closed backs. I owned the 6HDXX's for 3/4 four years and just sold them. I thought they had a great soundstage but I decided to part with them, in exchange for a pair of DCA Aeon Noire's. I wanted a pair of closed-backs to wear at the office for sound isolation.

At my house, I currently have a pair of Arya V2 that I purchased used. I find them very comfortable and overall a good pair of headphones with the exception of the soundstage/ imaging. They do everything good but not great. Except for the comfort.

I also purchased a pair of Ollo S5X that was recommended by a member of the forum here. They have fantastic imaging. A better sound soundstage than the Arya's but they're not comfortable for more than an hour.

Lastly, I just purchased a pair of HD800s on sale at Adorama. We'll see how they are. What will stay and what will go TBD. I love the Noire's for work as a closed back and I'm hoping the HD800 will be the "perfect" open back. TBD

Firstly I will say that 95-99%+ of what we interpret as sound quality, soundstage, imaging effects etc. (that aren't from the spectral content of the music itself) is based almost solely on the frequency response of the headphone.

I would disagree with this. I had all the headphones EQ'd to the IEF curve and can still tell differences, particularly in imaging and soundstage. The cheaper of the bunch, the 6XX had the best soundstage and the S5x had the best imaging.

I would say your best options and probably the best you can do are the DCA headphones that are in the $500-800 range. To me, there is really no 'justified' upgrade in between the $500-800 range and the vanity/flagship $4000 price point, more so if you are going to EQ to achieve the sound you want.

So far the cheaper headphones outperformed the more expensive headphones in certain areas. lol

 

[markanini]

So far the cheaper headphones outperformed the more expensive headphones in certain areas. lol

Becuase of this being a common experience it stands to reason that anyone pursuing a headphone collection should keep a performant but budget set as a sanity check. I don't mind western brands like DCA still operating in this space though.

Anyway I'm curious how you will find the HD800 now after using the planar based Arya for a while.

 

[Jochen]

Firstly I will say that 95-99%+ of what we interpret as sound quality, soundstage, imaging effects etc. (that aren't from the spectral content of the music itself) is based almost solely on the frequency response of the headphone. That being said, as you can imagine virtually every headphone has a different FR, and the modern research on the topic has shown that price has very little correlation with perceived sound quality in blind tests, and in fact any people found cheaper headphones to be superior to many critically-acclaimed ones when they didn't know what response they were listening to. So, don't feel like you have to spend money to get a "better sound".

The logical thing to do here is to experiment EQing your existing headphones in order to subjectively improve them to your ear, or EQ to a fixed target like Harman and work backwards from there, especially if you already have competent headphones that have good characteristics like low distortion, ease of driving, comfort, price, listenable without EQ, etc. Then you can either be happy with your current EQ'd headphones or if you still feel compelled to you can buy a headphone close to your newfound preferred response after deciding if its other characteristics are worth it.

6XX is a very good headphone out of the box, timeless design, ubiquitous replacement parts, comfortable, cheap, easily resellable, fairly pleasant and smooth response out of the box with fixable flaws like too much energy in the upper bass/low mids (may sound a bit "muddy" in that region to some), and that it lacks subbass due to it being a traditional open headphone. Closed X is planar,lower distortion, that fills in some of the shortcomings of the 6XX, but it is closed which means that there is a possibility of seal variance in the response despite it having better subbass, and the other negatives and positives that come with a closed headphone. Both of these can be "fixed" with simple EQ, but they also come close to the objective target and sounds acceptable even without EQ. I would say the response of the LCD-2C is such that it is not the best listening experience out of the box because of the major problems in the ear gain region, but it is still fixable with EQ. Many people find the heavy Audeze headphones to be uncomfortable to wear for long periods, the DCA and 6XX are much lighter.

Arya and 800 arguably do many things worse overall than the 6XX despite the price difference. In the 800, distortion is not really improved over 6XX and much of the "soundstage" effect is due to a recession in the 1-3 khz region that tends to give a sensation of distance and separation of upper harmonics, likely at the expense of some detail in those octaves. Not a problem if that's what you enjoy, but just be aware of that. Arya has a similar response with even more deemphasis of the early ear gain region as well, while also overemphasizing some frequencies, and the result is both are a bit upper treble hot and sibilant to some degree while also still having the major flaw of the 6XX which is little subbass and a bit of encroachment on the upperbass/low mids that would still require EQ to remedy. I would never consider buying any of these as a main headphone, and if I was it would definitely not brand new/full price.

IMO, unless you want to spend ~$4000 for a Stealth, Expanse, or something like an LCD-5, I would say your best options and probably the best you can do are the DCA headphones that are in the $500-800 range. To me, there is really no 'justified' upgrade in between the $500-800 range and the vanity/flagship $4000 price point, more so if you are going to EQ to achieve the sound you want. Having a good default response, comfort, good build quality, adequate subbass, low seal leakage, and low distortion are the main things to look for essentially. Personally, I wear glasses and don't like the heat of wearing closed headphones for a long time on my ears, so I prefer to give up some subbass extension to gain bass response consistency and overall comfort from an open headphone, and then I EQ the bass roll off back in to get the best of both worlds. Aeon Noire is probably one of the best ones of the bunch, but since you have the Aeon Closed X already it is similar enough that it probably does not warrant an upgrade if you are willing to EQ (would be a "side-grade"). If you wanted a DCA open variant headphone, you'd have to EQ those as well.

index/list_of_presets - oratory1990

r/oratory1990: Mostly covering topics like headphones, in-ear headphones, acoustics, electroacoustics, acoustic tuning, headphone design …

www.reddit.com

I beg to differ and agree on part. True, frequency response (FR) is the most important part of the perceived sound of a headphone. But assuming low enough distortion and the use of EQ, most competent headphones can be brought at least close to the desired FR, being it Harman or something else. What cannot be modified is soundstage/imaging and the like. Here the HD 800(S) excels so much more than any other headphone I tried or know of, that I think it is a safe bet to opt for it. And no, soundstage is, if at all, only very mildy related to FR and does not change drastically with the use of EQ.

 

[jae]

I would disagree with this. I had all the headphones EQ'd to the IEF curve and can still tell differences, particularly in imaging and soundstage. The cheaper of the bunch, the 6XX had the best soundstage and the S5x had the best imaging.

The original statement I made is not without its caveats. EQing multiple headphones to the same target and noticing differences does not necessarily mean the resultant FR at your ear drum is the same, or that general FR figures as a whole are any less important.

One thing to consider is that if you are using 3rd party measurements found online such as on ASR, Crinacle etc., these measurements are usually based on a single unit sample in most cases. The generated PEQ for correction of your headphones to a particular target thus assumes your unit has a more or less identical response to a reviewer's sample, but we know that factors like product revisions, batch variance/QC, channel imbalance and so on all have the potential to result in audible differences between units. So we have to consider that corrected responses based on an n=1 sample is just assumed to be a good approximation of all existing units at best. So, the assumption that the units are identical and that the ideal eq compensation was applied are already two sources of potential error that can manifest in a direct head-to-head eq'd comparison.

We must also consider listening volume. Due to how humans psychoacoustically perceive sound, timbre/tonality of sound throughout the audible bandwidth may exhibit very audible changes at different volumes (see Equal-loudness contour/Fletcher Munson curve for more information on this). Even SPL that is only 1-3 dB (or even less) in difference between different headphones accurately EQ'd to the same target can produce differences, that for some, are obvious enough to reliably identify in a blind test. While not a direct difference in FR, the psychoacoustic effect of loudness essentially functions as a change in perceived FR if the volumes are not equal. So that is a third source of error added. Most people typically compare headphones by putting them at a similar volume and playing but the only way to avoid this phenomenon is to not volume match by ear and only compare headphones at identical volumes (+/- 0.1dB or so or less). They'd have to be accurately EQ'd to the same target which requires the use of something like a measurement microphone or good digital multimeter to do it with the required precision (...and would mean also avoiding the first two sources of error I already described). This is a troublesome process and there's lots of discussion on the forums about this and it is a major hurdle in proper blind testing or even regular sighted/subjective testing.

Fourthly, you have seal/positioning which is mostly a factor for closed headphones but still plays a role to some degree in open ones. As a personal anecdote I have a particular pair of headphones that lose seal entirely (which results in a 12+ dB bass loss) if I bite or grind on my teeth even slightly because my jaw muscles flexing even just a few millimeters is enough to compromise that seal. This is entirely due to my musculature there and this may very well not affect everyone the same, or represent what is typically found in users or on measurement rigs, but head shape or facial features can easy cause issues like this in many. Other factors like stems on eyeglasses and even different hair styles can also compromise the seal on a headphone. This all ties in with the other points and you can see how all these sources of error could be all compound with each other. We can only reliably compare headphones if these factors are accounted for and eliminated/controlled in the first place but the fact of that matter is that most direct comparisons of headphones do nothing of the sort. Many speculate if things such as chamber volume, driver size, angle, distance from the ear and so on create audible differences even when measured FR is similar or identical, but these same curious hobbyists do nothing eliminate all those other things I mentioned in order to know more reliably what is going on.

 

[markanini]

The original statement I made is not without its caveats. EQing multiple headphones to the same target and noticing differences does not necessarily mean the resultant FR at your ear drum is the same, or that general FR figures as a whole are any less important.

One thing to consider is that if you are using 3rd party measurements found online such as on ASR, Crinacle etc., these measurements are usually based on a single unit sample in most cases. The generated PEQ for correction of your headphones to a particular target thus assumes your unit has a more or less identical response to a reviewer's sample, but we know that factors like product revisions, batch variance/QC, channel imbalance and so on all have the potential to result in audible differences between units. So we have to consider that corrected responses based on an n=1 sample is just assumed to be a good approximation of all existing units at best. So, the assumption that the units are identical and that the ideal eq compensation was applied are already two sources of potential error that can manifest in a direct head-to-head eq'd comparison.

We must also consider listening volume. Due to how humans psychoacoustically perceive sound, timbre/tonality of sound throughout the audible bandwidth may exhibit very audible changes at different volumes (see Equal-loudness contour/Fletcher Munson curve for more information on this). Even SPL that is only 1-3 dB (or even less) in difference between different headphones accurately EQ'd to the same target can produce differences, that for some, are obvious enough to reliably identify in a blind test. While not a direct difference in FR, the psychoacoustic effect of loudness essentially functions as a change in perceived FR if the volumes are not equal. So that is a third source of error added. Most people typically compare headphones by putting them at a similar volume and playing but the only way to avoid this phenomenon is to not volume match by ear and only compare headphones at identical volumes (+/- 0.1dB or so or less). They'd have to be accurately EQ'd to the same target which requires the use of something like a measurement microphone or good digital multimeter to do it with the required precision (...and would mean also avoiding the first two sources of error I already described). This is a troublesome process and there's lots of discussion on the forums about this and it is a major hurdle in proper blind testing or even regular sighted/subjective testing.

Fourthly, you have seal/positioning which is mostly a factor for closed headphones but still plays a role to some degree in open ones. As a personal anecdote I have a particular pair of headphones that lose seal entirely (which results in a 12+ dB bass loss) if I bite or grind on my teeth even slightly because my jaw muscles flexing even just a few millimeters is enough to compromise that seal. This is entirely due to my musculature there and this may very well not affect everyone the same, or represent what is typically found in users or on measurement rigs, but head shape or facial features can easy cause issues like this in many. Other factors like stems on eyeglasses and even different hair styles can also compromise the seal on a headphone. This all ties in with the other points and you can see how all these sources of error could be all compound with each other. We can only reliably compare headphones if these factors are accounted for and eliminated/controlled in the first place but the fact of that matter is that most direct comparisons of headphones do nothing of the sort. Many speculate if things such as chamber volume, driver size, angle, distance from the ear and so on create audible differences even when measured FR is similar or identical, but these same curious hobbyists do nothing eliminate all those other things I mentioned in order to know more reliably what is going on.

Such a quality reply that clears up common misconceptions and conflations

 

[jae]

I beg to differ and agree on part. True, frequency response (FR) is the most important part of the perceived sound of a headphone. But assuming low enough distortion and the use of EQ, most competent headphones can be brought at least close to the desired FR, being it Harman or something else. What cannot be modified is soundstage/imaging and the like. Here the HD 800(S) excels so much more than any other headphone I tried or know of, that I think it is a safe bet to opt for it. And no, soundstage is, if at all, only very mildy related to FR and does not change drastically with the use of EQ.

Well, I think at one point I probably thought similarly. This is an area of audio where there is probably a lot of confusion or misunderstanding but I believe the true nature of it all is probably deceptively simple compared to what most people think.

The way I believe most savvy individuals would classify soundstage is simply as a descriptor for how deep and wide the illusion of a virtual stereo image is and is usually associated with a range of space. Imaging on the other hand is more along the lines of how defined of an identifiable space within said soundstage each acoustic component of a tune is with respect to other components and the soundstage itself, and is usually associated with precision or clarity, and particularly the use of said space.

I think it is key to understand that, before even getting to reproducing music on headphones let alone speakers, soundstage and imaging first and foremost originate from the spectral content of the music itself. These acoustic features in the music are a product of the recording-mixing-mastering production process where producers deliberately contrive the nature and placement of these elements and determine exactly how they want them to sound through the manipulation of phase relationships, levels, equalisation, compression, delays, echo, reverb other effects and so on. So really, "soundstage" and "imaging" are simply terms that were appropriated by audiophiles to describe something that is perfectly well-understood and a standard concept in the professional music industry, but conversely some sort of strange phenomenon no one can perfect in the audiophile world? If you have time, here's a rather lengthy video illustrating how a producer might record and manipulate the virtual placement of instruments in the mixing process which is a massive part of understanding how those concepts originate- definitely worth at least a skim-through for being such a cool video:

As an example (and I simplify), the final mastering process is more-or-less a manipulation of frequency response via equalisation of the whole track as one unit to iron out the tonal balance of the final product. You can ask any producer or easily prove this to yourself with an equalizer, but manipulating certain frequencies with just standard EQ alone can absolutely affect how a particular tune stages and images. If there are vocals, for example, EQing the vocal range can absolutely make a lead singer feel closer or farther away relative to other parts that have high energy in other frequency bands, perhaps maybe at the cost of imaging qualities. Let me even give you a personal example: I have partial hearing loss which is worse on one side, so every time I hear a sound directly in front of me it sounds like the origin is slightly to the side of the better ear and further backwards because of the lower level of perceived SPL getting to my ears: the attenuated "FR" due the hearing loss gives me a psychoacoustic illusion that the origin of the sound is elsewhere of its true origin, and it is also harder to pinpoint (for example prior to my hearing loss maybe I could point to the direction of the sound with my eyes closed with an accuracy of 3-5 degrees but now I can only do 15-20 degrees). Both soundstage and imaging are affected due to my irregular attenuations and sensitivities at certain frequencies. If I wear a hearing aid or EQ the regions of hearing loss, the result of what I hear is much more consistent with the true origin of the sound and it is easier to pinpoint.

When we reproduce music with headphones, the sound is also transduced with a particular frequency response of the device so we can say in this case that the act of simply reproducing music is in essence analogous to remastering or re-equalising a track since we are not outputting a perfectly flat response. If you can understand and accept that the FR changes in mastering or production in general can absolutely affect soundstage and imaging, there is really no logical reason you should not be able to accept that the FR change from reproducing music on various headphones/speakers or even just from equalizing a sound system as an end user can absolutely affect the soundstage/imaging qualities as well.

Obviously when reproducing music, we aren't recording, mixing, or applying all sorts of crazy effects and manipulations in real time that can affect soundstage/imaging (unless you're a DJ...). So the only way we can affect soundstage and imaging via reproduction are frequency-domain and time-domain characteristics of the reproduction system itself. We know from a wealth of measurements that virtually all headphones are functioning as minimum-phase systems throughout the audible range, so headphones do not generally suffer from the implications of time-domain factors in the localisation of sound/soundstage/imaging produced by speakers in a room reflecting off surfaces, reverberation time, phase cancellations/irregularities and so on. If time-domain factors are not a concern, then the only remaining thing that can affect the sound reproduction as far as a large majority of headphones go is simply: frequency-domain characteristics. This is why FR (well technically, FR @ your ear drum, see my previous post for understanding what that means compared to a regular FR graph) is the only thing that matters, and is the only significant variable responsible for soundstage and imaging qualities in headphones. And as most people already know it's also the only major thing that matters for timbre/tonality as well! I did mention at the beginning of my post that it was deceptively simple. How convenient that this one easily measurable characteristic almost entirely characterises a headphone! Of course, even if a headphone's FR measured on a fixure and it's FR at your ear drum are different, another headphone that measures differently on a fixture will similarly also measure differently at your ear drum and FR graphs are still immensely useful for comparing headphones to each other and understanding how differences in key frequency bands affect certain soundstage/imaging characteristics of not only music in general but specific genres or artists or pieces of music.

Simply put, if you find a certain headphone has a wider soundstage or images more precisely, it is simply because you prefer the frequency response of that headphone (in general or for that content) or perhaps the headphone's frequency response might be more in line of your own physiological transfer function for what you perceive as an appropriate virtual origin of the source material. A preferred headphone may consistently give you soundstage or imaging qualities you like but if you refer to earlier in this post I explained how the origin of all these qualities come from the source material itself, so even headphones that perform consistently to your liking may eventually struggle with certain media, genres, artists, content that is unconventionally or perhaps poorly produced. Maybe you prefer watching movies at a certain volume and listening to music at a different volume, one response for you might sound good with one and not the other. This is part of the reason strong targets like Harman and similar are good targets for purchasing a headphone or starting as a basis for EQ, since these targets offer a consistent experience across a breadth of material and large percentages of the population.

This is why the true "endgame" for headphones is simply finding something that is comfortable to the user, has low distortion, and applying EQ according to your target choice(s) if you are able to. Bonus if one is able to achieve their desired target from a stock headphone.

 

[Cb22]

I've have been listing to the HD800s them for three days now. Hands down the lightest of all the headphones I currently own. Also super comfortable. They sound more to my taste with the EQ settings recommended in ASR.

Anyway I'm curious how you will find the HD800 now after using the planar based Arya for a while.

1. 800S is way lighter then the Arya- I could wear this all day
2. Arya - has more space for my big ears. My left slightly touches the cloth on the HD800s
3. Sound stage is very similar. I can't tell a difference.
4. Imaging on the 800s is maybe more defined. slightly better maybe (Ollo S5X is still the best in this regard - although maybe "psychoacoustic illusion" as jae states but that's what I hear)
5. Bass is generally more defined and present. Bass plays lower and stronger on the Aryas (when each is EQ's to their respective profile)

Agreed, with what Jae says about the cavoites of ABC testing, due to SPL, seal factor, EQ based on sample measurements, etc... I also don't have the resources to recreate a prefect A/B/C testing environment with headphones so take what I'm saying above with a grain of salt. I wonder who does? Would be interested to learn more about this.
However, I like most can still tell the differences between headphones out of the box and with EQ profiles. In reference to the soundstage/ imaging no pair of headphones that I own come close to reproducing the soundstage and imaging of that of a pair of loudspeakers. For example, I own a pair of BMR towers and would feel like I'm always getting a better re-production and presentation of music via these speakers that measure extremely well. The RAAL tweeters have a very wide dispersion and that is what helps to recreate such a wide and large soundstage. The big draw back here is that I don't have a perfectly acoustically treated listening room and thus the speakers point out the acoustically flaws in my room. This is audible and also measure on REW. So I got the measurements to back up what I hear.

the final mastering process is more-or-less a manipulation of frequency response via equalisation of the whole track as one unit to iron out the tonal balance of the final product. You can ask any producer or easily prove this to yourself with an equalizer, but manipulating certain frequencies with just standard EQ alone can absolutely affect how a particular tune stages and images. If there are vocals, for example, EQing the vocal range can absolutely make a lead singer feel closer or farther away relative to other parts that have high energy in other frequency bands, perhaps maybe at the cost of imaging qualities.

Yes, this is 100% correct. I've worked with sound designers and mixers in the past. An oversimplify yet big part of what they do for mixing for tv/ and movies is carving out room with EQ to get vocals have more of a presence through. eg'ing, vocals, music, SFX. The goal here is to get the dialog track center stage when the scene permits and have the SFX/ music help build and recreate the word in the scene.

This is why the true "endgame" for headphones is simply finding something that is comfortable to the user, has low distortion, and applying EQ according to your target choice(s) if you are able to. Bonus if one is able to achieve their desired target from a stock headphone.

And great news, I think I finally found the open backs I like with the 800S and the Arya V2's. And the DCA Niour as a closed back. I like all a lot for different reasons.

I think I'll stop chasing "better" headphones for now and be happy with what I have. All are solid headphones. As for what the OP stated about QC issues I hope the Arya's will live on for a long time as their warranty has expired. While I do like the Ollo S5X for a lot of things comfort is not one; and that's why I don't think I'll be using them very much in the future. They will probably gather dust more than anything else so I should probably sell them.?