Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to ASR. 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!
I love my HD600 but there's some generally acknowled downsides to its design. I've made peace with the fact that the mythical "HD600 with bass and soundstage" does not exist. So I'm looking for a companion that does everything the HD600 does not do well. Variety is the spice of life and all that. See this initial post in the "what headphones do you own?" thread:
I have since taken possession of the K702 and the Edition XS. Both are still not quite what I want.
The K702 has a nasty peak in the ear gain and some wonky treble going on. Once you EQ that out, the soundstage shrinks considerably. Plus, there's still some things that poke out in the mid-treble every once in a while that I haven't quite gotten to sit nicely. I think the K612 is a far superior headphone tonally, but I don't want to spend the time and effort to add a removable cable. Maybe one day I'll buy a defective pair and get to work if I feel crafty. Both AKGs have similar bass quantity and roll-off to the HD600, so maybe they won't be different enough from it either way. I'll sell this one on.
The Edition XS was a huge disappointment. Not because it sucks, it actually sounds great. The tonality is everything I wanted from the HE400se. Nicely extended bass, sparkly treble. It responds well to EQ and the soundstage is excellent, even after filling in the notorious HiFiMAN dip in the upper mids. The imaging is also leagues ahead of the HE400se, which leads me to believe my HE400se unit might have a particularly egregious driver mismatch. That would certainly explain my problems with it. Comfort is generally fine with the Capra strap installed, but there's a glaring problem. The egg-shaped ear cups constantly press against my lower jaw in a way I find absolutely unbearable. I get a maximum of half an hour of wear time before it feels like I've been doing some sort of looksmaxxing exercise. This is also a sell and it has completely killed my curiosity for the Edition XV.
So, where does this leave me? First off, I need to sell off this balooning collection before buying any more stuff. I'll keep the HD600 (duh) and the Audio-Technica ATH-R50x. And truth be told, I could be very happy with this pairing. Still have alerts set up for used Sony MDR-MV1s, which I liked a lot the few times I've heard one. I also haven't given up on HiFiMAN, against my better judgment. I'll futz around with channel-independent EQ to see if a driver mismatch is indeed the problem with my HE400se and maybe try to find a better matched pair. There's also still the Sundara. Egg-shaped models are definitely off the table.
Any other headphones I'm missing as a prospective companion to the HD600?
soundstage means the stage in which sounds are set in. When playing things from headphones it's an artificial stage, all baked into the song file. When boosting FR you change the soundstage of the song, not your headphones if that makes sense.
a 60 degree dispersion speaker is going to have a wider soundstage than a 40 degree one. Play the same track with lowered mids on the 40 degree one and the sound will seem distant.
I did not contradict anything, soundstage on headphones is a myth, people just dont know what they're talking about.
FR and resonance variations are all there is, sound quality is just FR you can just eq it all there's no other special sauce, openness MIGHT make a difference but it's not gonna be as massive as a simple 1-2 db boost or dip in FR.
If you have a proper point go ahead and tell me, if you want to pull stuff out of your rear i dont want to waste more time. I've explained myself enough.
Soundstage being its own isolated property of a headphone could be considered a myth. In my experiments I can choose between a "speaker in a living room-like soundstage" or "accurate representation of the signal" by way of DSP. Both are fun, but I prefer the latter (but I mostly prefer good speakers when "experiencing music"). What you are looking for is your preference, so don't take it personally if people try to push back and give you more information to think about. I don't think people are trying to be mean or anything like that. I most surely am not
Even though I am a big fan of open headphones, I tend not to use them myself because I usually have headphones on not to bother other people. But in my books the 600 (at least the older models, haven't tried the new ones) are one of the best you can get if you want to experiment with altering the sound with DSP or EQ, as they can handle a lot.
But to answer your original question: Take a look at Dan Clarke. I have the closed Aeon 2 Noire and I haven't yet tried anything that I would consider better for my preferences. Their open back headphones are excellent as well, as seen in Amir's and other people's measurements. Good luck!
Soundstage being its own isolated property of a headphone could be considered a myth. In my experiments I can choose between a "speaker in a living room-like soundstage" or "accurate representation of the signal" by way of DSP. Both are fun, but I prefer the latter (but I mostly prefer good speakers when "experiencing music"). What you are looking for is your preference, so don't take it personally if people try to push back and give you more information to think about. I don't think people are trying to be mean or anything like that. I most surely am not
Even though I am a big fan of open headphones, I tend not to use them myself because I usually have headphones on not to bother other people. But in my books the 600 (at least the older models, haven't tried the new ones) are one of the best you can get if you want to experiment with altering the sound with DSP or EQ, as they can handle a lot.
But to answer your original question: Take a look at Dan Clarke. I have the closed Aeon 2 Noire and I haven't yet tried anything that I would consider better for my preferences. Their open back headphones are excellent as well, as seen in Amir's and other people's measurements. Good luck!
It's nice to see there's sort of a consensus on here regarding the "soundstage vs. tonal accuracy" debate. At the risk of repeating myself endlessly: For listening to music, accuracy is absolutely paramount for me and the HD600 does it phenomenally. Just trying to find the right balance for myself between accuracy and soundstage for the other things I use headphones for.
When you're talking about "DSP", I take it you mean things other than EQ like surround virtualisation? Never had much success with things like Dolby Atmos myself. Those enhancements end up sounding too wide and articial for me most of the time. Any recommendations on the software side?
I've been looking at Dan Clarke, but it's a pretty big leap in terms of cost. There was an affordable Noire X on Kleinanzeigen (basically German craigslist) a few weeks ago, but I was too slow. I'd be tempted to snag it whenever the next Dan Clarke steal rolls around.
Thanks for the support, by the way. I'm chill with everyone in this thread and every single post is much appreciated. I just wish some people on here were more understanding of differing viewpoints. I know this is a science-based forum, but trying to be capital R RIGHT in matters of taste and perception is a fool's errand.
I think I'm pretty good at knowing what I want and at communicating my preferences, so being told that I'm wrong for having those preferences grinds my gears a little. Especially when the person in question can't be bothered to cite any scientific evidence and just presents their strong opinions as some sort of nebulous common sense.
Talking about you @Jiraya369. Stop telling people they don't know what they are talking about in my thread. I think everybody here has a pretty clear understanding that the impression of soundstage mainly comes from FR variations. That doesn't make it a myth, that makes it clearly audible and potentially something to select for when buying a pair of headphones.
Sounds are mixed in terms of frequencies and amplitude (volume), the higher the volume and the more mid forward it is the closer it feels and vice versa. Sounds are then panned left and right. The manner in which a headphone presents these sounds is called imaging, the images that the headphone reproduces.
Despite the reproduction in a headphone, there is a virtual soundstage created FROM the imaging as things SEEM far and close, it's just the recording playing tricks. If you change the FR, such as a dip in the mids, you push back sounds, the images seem more distant thus it feels like the headphone has a better soundstage but it's just you changing the recording.
Actual soundstage means a sphere of sound that is radiated from a speaker. Sound doesnt travel in just a straight line to you, it bounces around and comes to you, the reflections play a part and there seems to be a stage in which the sound is set in.
Look at the red spots, those are what you hear the most in a speaker, whereas in headphones it's just a straight line at 0 degrees because sound comes at your ears directly.
Openness plays a role in PERCEIVED soundstage because the more cramped and isolated a headphone is, the more claustrophobic the soundstage FEELS, and with an open feeling headphone the soundstage SEEMS bigger but it's just what your brain cooks up. Nothing real is happening, probably with some light breeze even an iem can feel open.
When people talk about soundstage, they talk about the massive soundstage that speakers present compared to headphones which just present the sound in a field around your head, and all that is just an illusion created from the mix.
Soundstage is still down to FR in speakers as the sounds that bounce around the room can still be measured in terms of FR
Openness isn't something that is set, unlike speakers where you can easily measure it all. Therefore using openness as a deciding factor is just foolish when FR, comfort and distortion metrics are going to be the most noticeable aspects. If you get an Open back headphone that is poorly tuned then a closed back will feel wider/better due to the better FR. And if you make tweaks in the FR to deviate from neutral that's just it, just a tweak in the FR, thus a change in the track's FR. It's not actually making a better soundstage it's just changing the song.
just because you either dont know/cant understand/refuse to believe something doesnt mean it's false. Soundstaging in headphones is a myth created by people who dont know better. I'm not going to waste further time on this, even a toddler should understand clearly from what I said.
I'm not sure you are the one wasting your time here. You are hellbent on arguing things no one in this thread is even arguing with.
As far as I can tell, everyone here seems to be fully aware that headphones don't stage in the way speakers in a room do. We all know headphone sound is missing spatial clues because the sound doesn't reflect off of walls and obstacles on the way to the ear. This is not what people on here are talking about when they talk about the staging capabilities of certain headphones.
You even use terms such as "perceived soundstage" and "virtual soundstage" yourself and you agree that different FR variations seem to make sounds more distant or closer. If I'm successfully tricking my brain into perceiving depth and width, is that invalid because it isn't coming from early reflections? It seems to me that this is a semantic discussion much more than it is a scientific one. Would you be happier if we used the term "virtual soundstage" from now on?
I'm not sure you are the one wasting your time here. You are hellbent on arguing things no one in this thread is even arguing with.
As far as I can tell, everyone here seems to be fully aware that headphones don't stage in the way speakers in a room do. We all know headphone sound is missing spatial clues because the sound doesn't reflect off of walls and obstacles on the way to the ear. This is not what people on here are talking about when they talk about the staging capabilities of certain headphones.
You even use terms such as "perceived soundstage" and "virtual soundstage" yourself and you agree that different FR variations seem to make sounds more distant or closer. If I'm successfully tricking my brain into perceiving depth and width, is that invalid because it isn't coming from early reflections? It seems to me that this is a semantic discussion much more than it is a scientific one. Would you be happier if we used the term "virtual soundstage" from now on?
I just talked to a friend about headphone soundstage, after reading this thread. Neither of us knew anyone had anything other than a 3d effect from open back headphones. Personally I get the effect with open back headphones the most, and IEM almost not at all. I'll give my subjective experience...
I just talked to a friend about headphone soundstage, after reading this thread. Neither of us knew anyone had anything other than a 3d effect from open back headphones. Personally I get the effect with open back headphones the most, and IEM almost not at all. I'll give my subjective experience...
I used the Sennheiser HD 600 for a little over ten years; I recently replaced it with the 7Hz Zero:2 IEM.
The biggest problem with the HD 600 was the occasional complete loss of SPL capabilities with downmixed 5.1 - 7.1 channel video sound with bass EQ, in the loudest parts of the soundtrack there could be ugly-sounding clicks of the elements. This was already evident with the basic shelf straightening of the bass (shelf lift +6 dB @ 25 Hz, Q 0.7), there would have been no possibility with the video material to raise the bass to Harman levels. With basic stereo music, the sound pressure levels were sufficient for Harman uplift, however. Without my hobby of movies, the HD 600 would probably continue as a system headphone, and I wouldn't know/care about anything better.
The sound image of the headphone, what little can be done, is done with crossfeed in my opinion. As has already been well-deservedly pointed out, the "sound image" of a headphone seems to be quite dependent on its frequency response.
For this reason, focusing on different types of sound images of headphones is, in my opinion, on the level of studying mosquito arse hairs under an electron microscope. It's about very, very similar things and quite insignificant differences and details.
You have to be a decadent audiophile / dedicated mosquito arse hair researcher who has been diving into the deep end of the pool for a really (too) long time to care about the differences in sound images of purely reproducing headphones or be very enthusiastic about explaining them.
So my recipe suggestion for retiring the HD 600 is:
7Hz Zero:2 IEM + a hefty dose of crossfeed
The Zero:2 is an absolutely incomprehensibly good headphone. In terms of general neutrality, it's on the level of the HD 600, and in terms of other features it's better or clearly better. At a price that seems absurd, here it is after listening to it for over a month.
Openness plays a role in PERCEIVED soundstage because the more cramped and isolated a headphone is, the more claustrophobic the soundstage FEELS, and with an open feeling headphone the soundstage SEEMS bigger but it's just what your brain cooks up. Nothing real is happening, probably with some light breeze even an iem can feel open.
Openness isn't something that is set, unlike speakers where you can easily measure it all. Therefore using openness as a deciding factor is just foolish when FR, comfort and distortion metrics are going to be the most noticeable aspects. If you get an Open back headphone that is poorly tuned then a closed back will feel wider/better due to the better FR.
So, let me get this straight. There are aspects to the perception of headstage that come from factors outside of FR, like the physical feeling of openness. You think this occurs but it isn't "real" for some reason.
So headstage is all about FR and FR is one of the main factors to look at when choosing a pair of headphones. But I shouldn't choose a headphone with a FR that lends itself to my perception of headstage because I can "just use EQ".
Why shouldn't openness be a factor if we both agree that it makes a perceptual difference?
Why shouldn't I use a pair of headphones that already stages well on my head due to its FR? A big part of the reviews on here is about the reviewers matching the measured FR of a pair of headphones to some sort of target curve. Amir recommends headphones based on whether they are close to the curve. If they are not, they should be easy to get close to that curve with a few filters. Do you go into his review threads and tell him to "just use more filters" if he doesn't recommend a product? Or are we in agreement that choosing a headphone that's already close to what you want makes it much easier to get it just right with EQ?
I don't think that and never said so. I have (in this very thread!) made several statements about the other perceptual factors that seem to create headstage for me. Openness, weight and weight distribution, general comfort, earcup size and depth and driver angle all contribute. I know that that perception is just in my head, but so are the emotions I feel when listening to music. Doesn't make it any less real or relevant for me.
I was restricting my post above to FR because we have common ground there. My bad for thinking we could have a mature discussion at all.
All of your tail-chasing aside, we seem to be in fundamental disagreement about the value of headstage/perceived soundstage/virtual soundstage as a factor to select for when deciding on a pair of headphones. Disagreements are fine, but I'm done being belittled and insulted by someone who's so high on their own supply that they can't string two coherent thoughts together without tripping over themselves. I'll stop engaging now.
It's always fun to compare that sort of stuff. Every track I've listened to with your EQ preset sounded like it was mixed by the bassist or bass synth player - and they're not a team player. Like there was too much of a spotlight on the lower register instruments. To my ears, it actually registered much bassier than my profile, which I perceive as quite balanced. With my preset, I tried to extend the bass as much as possible without throwing off that balance.
Maybe the music I listen to has too many such instruments, so I like to hear them more? It feels more balanced with it to be honest, I guess I could've raised the bass a bit less..., but some increase is definitely needed to appreciate all the different instruments in my music
It's not that necessary for my headphones, but for my earphones it's definitely needed, as those low frequency sounds are annoying, not very musical, and may have been tiring out my ears / making them hurt (at least the sound feels more comfortable when I decrease it).
Soundstage wasn't actually any consideration with this profile. That's why I use two different headphones. My HD600 profile is all about timbre and natural reproduction of sound.
Interesting, I used to have a HD 558 which had amazing head-stage/openness. But I broke them. I think the HD 600 makes a good balance though between head-stage and timbre, which the HD 558 lacked (things sounded higher-pitched/airy, in particular instrumental sounds at around 2kHz where not noticable).
The impression of openness might stem from the slight tuck at 110 Hz combined with the bass shelf below that, which is kind of Harman-ish (though not nearly as extreme as that dip is with OE 2018) and the cut at 1.3 kHz.
Yeah it's probably the 1.3 kHz, reducing around that region is what makes me feel "soundstage" (perhaps because it causes a greater seperation between the bass heavy instruments and the female vocals I listen to).
Everything above the bass region more or less conforms to the KEMAR curve for GRAS measurement rigs, which lead to better results to my ears than trying various DF curves for B&K 5128 measurements. I futzed around with the bands a little, but the stock HD600 FR is incredibly close to these sorts of curves anyway.
Just for fun, I made an EQ that modifies the highs (roughly >3kHz) to match the KB501X DF (with - 1dB/Oct tilt):
Code:
# Based on oratory1990's HD 600, GRAS 45BC-10 measurements
Preamp: -3.6
# Add any bass filters you want
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 4200 Hz Gain 2.5 dB Q 6.0
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 5200 Hz Gain -1.8 dB Q 3.9
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 6300 Hz Gain 1.2 dB Q 7.7
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 7600 Hz Gain -4.0 dB Q 7.7
It makes the instruments stand out even more, in particular the 4.2kHz bump makes the instruments and vocals blend together a bit? (you can still hear the vocals clearly, it's just that it's like there are instruments right next to them...)
I don't know! I base my EQ decisions on what I enjoy more (I want all my music / videos / games to sound good, so sometimes this isn't that easy to determine, because making one track sound better can make another sound worse). I'm not trying to aim for any kind of "correct" or "neutral" sound, but I've experimented with matching to different targets, and the Harman curve definitely improves things on the High's, but I disagree with it for <3kHz (the bass is too much for example, and it lacks head/soundstage).
I think all these tiny corrections make sense the way I hear them. The 660 Hz boost lends warmth where the HD600 is just the slightest bit cold in the midrange. You can hear that effect on the timbre of instruments like cellos or with electric guitars played in the first positions.
Hm, I added just this filter to my profile, and I think I like it? It seems to add some extra sound to instruments I didn't here before, but also makes female vocals a bit deeper? I'm not sure if the later is good or not.
Are you basing your EQ on a specific set of measurements? Because adding it to the ones I use just adds a bump (as the FR is already flat in that region):
(ignore what the label says, the oratory1990 measurements I'm using are actually left+right averages, not left-channel only)
The cut at 1,3 kHz isn't there for soundstage reasons, it's to slightly recess vocals, which I feel are a little too brash and in your face in that range, while the boost at 2.2 kHz pushes them forward again in a spot where the effect is less "dryness" and more "clarity".
Yeah I think this is going to heavily depend on what singers you are listening too... I used to have a cut at around 1.5kHz, and it didn't alter most of the singers I listened to (but instead changed the instruments)... but one singer got too quiet and hard to hear.
I just tested that 1.3kHz + my profile and it definitely increased soundstage, and decreases a bit of the instruments.
As for female vocals: 3 were more flat, 1 was deeper, 1 was slightly higher, and 2 where basically the same. So I don't think I like this filter.
These two filters make the ear gain rise feel more smooth, which means you don't have to cut as much in the region where many people find the HD600 a little shouty. I just do a pretty surgical (q5) 1.3 dB cut at 3.3 kHz, which I feel is enough to take the edge off without messing with the sound too much.
Then there's the slight peak at 5,2 kHz. I feel that this is the only real misstep in the HD600's midrange and treble presentation. A peak in that regions registers as "grainy" to me and the HD600 is ever-so-slightly grainy here. You can hear it best with hi-hats and certain percussion instruments. A 2.4 dB cut with a high Q takes care of that easily.
All in all, our EQ presets aren't really that different. You also cut around 3.3 kHz and I bet that 5.3 kHz cut is similarly correcting for the slight grainyness I hear in the stock presentation. I'd wager the boosts at 4.3 kHz and 6.7 kHz are needed for you because there are dips in your HRTF that I don't share.
As you can see in the image I posted above, those filters are just me aligning to the Harman OE curve.
But I've tested each one (by comparing my full profile vs the filter gains adjusted so the frequency isn't changed).
This wasn't easy: simply setting the filters to 0 doesn't work as it alters the effective gain of the nearby peaks, and said filters can cause the effective gain at the now 0-gain frequency to not be zero.
Anyway this is roughly what those filters seem to do for me:
The 3.3kHz filter removes some bad grayness that is sometimes pressent, but it also adds some good guitar vibrations?
The 4.3kHz filter makes the background behind the vocals a little less quiet?
The 5.3kHz makes things less flat by adding some more colour to the instruments as well.
The 6.7kHz makes female vocals less shouty and adds a little extra guiter buzz. I'm not certain the buzz is a good thing though.
I really have no idea how to describe anything, so this was probably a waste of time to anyone reading it. However I definitely think each filter is doing good.
Just out of curiosity, heres a modified version of the profile I shared before, but with two extra filters so it's harman compliant from 2.5–10kHz instead of 2.5–8kHz; can you here the difference with the previous EQ I suared? (I think my ears are too old to notice anything except maybe some extra barely audible or imaginary buzz):
Code:
# Note significantly lower preamp
# (this is just wat squig.link gave me, I haven't actually measured it to see if it's correct)
Preamp: -7.4 dB
# These filters are the same as before
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 20 Hz Gain -7.6 dB Q 0.30
Filter 2: ON LSC Fc 250 Hz Gain 4.3 dB Q 0.60
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 3300 Hz Gain -1.6 dB Q 3.2
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 4300 Hz Gain 2.2 dB Q 5.0
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5300 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 4.0
# The 6.7 kHz filter is slightly modified to counteract the effect of the next two filters
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 6700 Hz Gain 3.5 dB Q 3.9
# These 2 are new
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8000 Hz Gain -1.2 dB Q 6.0
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9500 Hz Gain 7.3 dB Q 4.5
If you're up for it, try integrating the 1.3 kHz and 2.2 kHz filters into your own profile. Maybe also try the slight boost at 660 Hz, though that might already be happening with that broad 250 Hz boost you're doing.
That 250Hz boost only really affects stuff <400Hz.
As I explained above, I think I like your 660 Hz boost, but I definitely don't like the 1.3 kHz and 2.2 kHz filters.
Bonus: I also use a second EQ profile that's peak filters only, which, although boosted at 21 Hz, rumbles a bit less. Some days, it sounds better and clearer to me, some days, I miss the increased lower mid bass of the bass shelf preset. Here's that one with your treble boosts included. How's that?
Preamp: -4.5 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 21 Hz Gain 4 dB Q 0.8
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 110 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 1.2
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 660 Hz Gain 1.1 dB Q 2
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1300 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 2
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2200 Hz Gain 2.3 dB Q 3
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3300 Hz Gain -1.3 dB Q 5
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4300 Hz Gain 2.2 dB Q 5.0
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5200 Hz Gain -2.4 dB Q 4.9
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 6700 Hz Gain 3.8 dB Q 3.9
This one makes female vocals sound a little sharper? (it's like they're singing somewhere with very flat acoustics...).
(I really have no idea how to describe sounds!)
Sorry, I've yet to prefer anyone else's EQ profiles over mine. (maybe I'm biased to liking the sound I'm most familiar with?)
But thanks for sharing! I'll take any excuse to try something new and find a better EQ profile (or even just inspiration for adjustments to make to my own)
So, let me get this straight. There are aspects to the perception of headstage that come from factors outside of FR, like the physical feeling of openness. You think this occurs but it isn't "real" for some reason.
So headstage is all about FR and FR is one of the main factors to look at when choosing a pair of headphones. But I shouldn't choose a headphone with a FR that lends itself to my perception of headstage because I can "just use EQ".
Why shouldn't openness be a factor if we both agree that it makes a perceptual difference?
Why shouldn't I use a pair of headphones that already stages well on my head due to its FR? A big part of the reviews on here is about the reviewers matching the measured FR of a pair of headphones to some sort of target curve. Amir recommends headphones based on whether they are close to the curve. If they are not, they should be easy to get close to that curve with a few filters. Do you go into his review threads and tell him to "just use more filters" if he doesn't recommend a product? Or are we in agreement that choosing a headphone that's already close to what you want makes it much easier to get it just right with EQ?
I don't think that and never said so. I have (in this very thread!) made several statements about the other perceptual factors that seem to create headstage for me. Openness, weight and weight distribution, general comfort, earcup size and depth and driver angle all contribute. I know that that perception is just in my head, but so are the emotions I feel when listening to music. Doesn't make it any less real or relevant for me.
I was restricting my post above to FR because we have common ground there. My bad for thinking we could have a mature discussion at all.
All of your tail-chasing aside, we seem to be in fundamental disagreement about the value of headstage/perceived soundstage/virtual soundstage as a factor to select for when deciding on a pair of headphones. Disagreements are fine, but I'm done being belittled and insulted by someone who's so high on their own supply that they can't string two coherent thoughts together without tripping over themselves. I'll stop engaging now.
as pekka put it, you're just chasing a minute thing that prolly would not matter more than a 1-2 db deviation in an FR sample. You want to chase after something like that with loads of emphasis? sure.
Dont act like others are misinformed or anything when it's you who're like that. I'm not saying openness or soundstage does not matter, but what people say as soundstage is a myth and the illusion MAY be helped by openness, i never said it WILL play a massive role.
96-98% of the task is done by FR, the rest is upto whatever random factor may be which you can not measure and varies from person to person even, some dont EVER feel the head stage.
You want to act like that 4% matters a lot? sure. But the FR deviations from sample to sample/positional variations will make more of a change in soundstage than this. Assuming all headphones are comfortable.
Driver angle, earcup size, depth, all of it just alludes to either FR changes at the ear drum OR openness. That's it. You can put out 1000 different terms for something and make it complex but the answer is simple. Occam's razor mate.
Alright, I'll bite and keep engaging, but only because you have brought some actual points and have gone a whole post without calling me or anyone else in this thread stupid. If you want to keep this discourse going, please cool it with the insults.
as pekka put it, you're just chasing a minute thing that prolly would not matter more than a 1-2 db deviation in an FR sample. You want to chase after something like that with loads of emphasis? sure.
I have stated multiple times that I'm very satisfied with the ATH-R50x as a companion headphone to my HD600. This has rapidly devolved into a soundstage/headstage discussion, but I was also looking for a bassier, more exciting presentation than the HD600 offered and I've found it. I am just curious how much better this experience can be for reasonable money. Is that so wrong? I am fully aware that I'm chasing something just a little better. The law of diminishing returns is very real. No debate about that at all. But that's an interest I have at the moment. It's just curiousity, man.
And what do you mean by "loads of emphasis"? The HD600 is a pretty popular headphone and my quest seems to be a common one so I wanted to start this thread so I could share my experience, maybe get some helpful suggestions and start a friendly discussion. You make it seem like writing about headphones on an audio forum is an unfathomable idea. Where else would I share these thoughts?
Dont act like others are misinformed or anything when it's you who're like that. I'm not saying openness or soundstage does not matter, but what people say as soundstage is a myth and the illusion MAY be helped by openness, i never said it WILL play a massive role.
I never called you misinformed. I just pointed out your muddled logic. You can have all the knowledge in the world while not being all that good at structuring an argument. That's totally fine, but getting angry when people point out the flaws won't solve anything.
Soundstage in headphones can't be "a combination of FR quirks plus an open mechanical design" AND "a myth" at the same time. It either exists or it doesn't. Pick one.
If both things are true at the same time, then we're back to a semantic argument. That's also fair and good. You've conceded in a prior post that "headstage" would be okay with you, is that no longer the case? If we understand "soundstage" as a purely speaker-based phenomenon and "headstage" as its perceptually related, much more psychoacoustic headphone cousin, would you be fine with that? I'm really trying to keep up here but you seem to be moving the goalposts.
96-98% of the task is done by FR, the rest is upto whatever random factor may be which you can not measure and varies from person to person even, some dont EVER feel the head stage.
I'm aware. I have stated many times, even in posts directed specifically at you, that FR is by far most responsible for the perception of headstage. Why do you keep bringing that up like I don't understand or agree?
Also, this thread is about (or devolved into) my own experience regarding headstage. Doesn't matter even a tiny bit that some people don't feel headstage. I do. I experience it to a degree that is much less apparent than soundstage is with speakers - and certainly not in the hyperbolic way some people on Head-Fi claim to - but it's there for me. And I know what to do EQ-wise to bring it forward. And I'm in the process of figuring out which sorts of mechanical designs feel most "open" to me and therefore stage better in my perception. I think I'm being eminently reasonable here. How is any of that objectionable? How does any of that go against the scientific consensus?
You still haven't explained why I shouldn't be choosing headphones that have the FR colorations that are generally associated with a big headstage in the first place if headstage is what I'm looking for. What benefit would taking any old headphone and EQ'ing it to have these colorations have if I can justify keeping two headphones for different use cases around?
You want to act like that 4% matters a lot? sure. But the FR deviations from sample to sample/positional variations will make more of a change in soundstage than this. Assuming all headphones are comfortable.
You act like the FR part of the equation is completely immutable and will be the same for any model of headphone when using EQ. That just isn't true. I am very confident in my EQ skills, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend that you can easily make one headphone sound exactly like another if their general tuning differs significantly.
Have you successfully matched one (different) pair of headphones to another one? I know I haven't. That may be possible with my HD600 and something like a 650, but you could give me a week to match my HD600 to my ATH-R50x and I wouldn't be able to do it in a way that passed an ABX test. Is that down to lack of skill or is it because you can't get the kind of bass extension out of the HD600 that you get from the ATH-R50x? Who knows, but even if it's my lack of skill, I'm still the one who has to EQ the thing to my own ears. So moot point for me. FR matters, even with EQ.
Driver angle, earcup size, depth, all of it just alludes to either FR changes at the ear drum OR openness. That's it. You can put out 1000 different terms for something and make it complex but the answer is simple. Occam's razor mate.
Genuinely baffled why you would phrase this like it's some sort of gotcha. Yes, mechanical aspects like earcup size, depth etc. all contribute to a feeling of openness, which contributes to headspace the way I perceive it. That completely aligns with what I said earlier. Driver angle might change FR, but see above. How is that Occam's razor?
AND you argue about the way i structure my arguments/how i say things instead of WHAT I say. I dont respect that
It seems you just want some validation for your decision to get a new headphone for soundstage or whatever, instead of trying to look at the truth and making a better judgement. At this point you either intentionally dont want to get things or somehow dont get things at all. I don't care anymore. Believe in whatever voodoo magic you want to believe in, just wanted to help a fella out from going down a rabbit hole they already seem to be in. My bad
The thing is: The way you present your ideas makes them hard for me to understand. Maybe it's my fault. It may be down to us not vibing, to me not being a native speaker or whatever.
But I'm really trying to engage here. I'm not looking to win an internet argument, I'm not looking for validation from you. I'm genuinely just trying to understand where you're coming from.
All I get from you, though, are these muddled, angry responses. And as soon as I ask you to clarify your points, you shut down and start insulting me.
As far as I can tell, you believe I'm on a fool's errand, which is fine. When you write something like:
You say openness makes a perceptual difference, but I shouldn't select for it because FR is way more important. But I shouldn't select for FR either because there's EQ.
So keep the HD600, maybe EQ it for a more open feel, sell everything else? That would actually be sensible advice and I would take no offense if you phrased it that way.
I would counter that I own two relatively inexpensive headphones at the moment that are better at tricking my brain into a perception of headstage. And I would also counter that I enjoy the HD600's sound way less when I try to go for "wide" instead of "accurate" with EQ. And that the HD600 doesn't do sub-bass rumble as well as those other two headphones.
And in a world where we could just have a chat about our differences in perception and priorities, I'd be genuinely curious what your answer to that would be. Seriously.
I appreciate that! But I thought we'd gotten in the weeds enough to establish that I've kept my expectations in check so far regarding headstage.
This rabbit hole is fun right now and it doesn't cost me much. I buy used, I sell for the same price or even make a little extra on a resale. I'm not gonna miss rent to buy an HD800s and then be baffled that it doesn't stage like a pair of speakers in a room. Give me a little credit at least.
Do you have the essential basic thing related to this in place, i.e. crossfeed firmly on? Dreaming of a headphone sound image without crossfeed is like dreaming of accurate vision by comparing guide dogs of different breeds.
Crossfeed is absolutely mandatory for headphone listening in my opinion. If you listen without it, in ping-pong headphone stereo mode with the skull soundproofed in the middle, you don't even have the basic physiological conditions to properly perceive sounds with headphones in the sense of sound imaging that with two ears and two playback channels you can perceive them with both ears open. A massive penalty shot in terms of sound image is a sure thing.
I think the Zero:2 gives a really great headphone soundstage, IF THE RECORDING has anything to offer in that regard. There is a really big variation in recordings here, and a clean-sounding IEM will tell the listener exactly that, just like an In-Ear MONITOR should. If you listen to TOP10 crap with it, you will also get similar crappy results.
The top end is clean and flat as can be, and not the kind of sawtooth-zigzag mess that many respected over-ears have, even the HD 600 itself. Which has long been considered (and I have considered myself) the Jesus of neutrality in the headphone world.
Thus, the Zero:2 has, in addition to everything else, all the elements of transmitting a top-class headphone sound image. As a final touch, just put LOTS of crossfeed, and the earplugs in the deaf opposite ear will be gone. This way, you can get rid of the worst inherent basic disability of headphone listening, such as the possibility of hearing bass only in one ear, due to the mutual sound insulation of the ears.
This way, a pure-sounding IEM really gets its acoustic override turned on to the maximum, and nothing can hold it back after that.
That Sound Image you crave, bass that reaches all the way to the basement floor level, and all other possible sonic beauty can be found, if such has been canned in the recording.
The only medals left for big over-ears to compete with are the dimmer ones. And who can sell their colored sound, for the most outrageous price, to those willing to part their money.
