ZMF Caldera Headphone Review

[kemmler3D]

Do you find it strange, given the photo's and knowing Foster is an OEM manfacturer for drivers and that he used Foster built drivers before, that I jumped to this 'conclusion' ?

It is not strange that Zach does not want his audience to know which manufacturers he uses and if he does not want to say anything about this.
For the competition (in his price segment ?) headphone manufacturers all know where they can buy their drivers and which manufacturers are willing to change the design a little on request.

Here is the Audioquest NightHawk driver b.t.w. ... it could look familiar but, of course, we cannot say it is the same driver as small changes under the hood could be there such as the voicecoil being 300ohm (not so for the below AQ driver)

Edit: besides I am not the only one who jumped to the conclusion:

A Bio-Dynamic Adventure: AudioQuest NightOwl, Fostex TH610, ZMF Eikon - Twittering Machines

Michael Lavorgna's Twittering Machines: HiFi with a twist

twitteringmachines.com

Headphone drivers can be hard to tell apart. My old firm used a driver that looks A LOT like that, same cone material, similar surround and housing, but it wasn't the same driver, in fact I don't think it was even from the same factory. IIRC the B&W P? cans used the same cone material and the driver would look quite similar also.

It's worth mentioning in this context that injection molds are expensive and often shared between manufacturers even if the coils / cones aren't the same. This is after you consider that the housings of drivers can be hard to tell apart.

IME (~5 years ago) sourcing a really good headphone driver is actually not easy and the good factories are not universally known. I probably wouldn't share that info in his situation either.

 

[amirm]

How this review has unfolded would seem to suggest that is not the case here. @amirm can confirm or deny that.

It is not my policy to ask manufacturers for feedback prior to reviews when members send in products. Many times they don't answer as their support lines are managed by intermediaries. And at any rate, this adds significant delay to the review cycle. When I am ready to test something, it is a one or two day affair. I am not like a magazine that reviews a dozen products a year. I review twice as much in a month! I do make exceptions when I personally know key people in those companies and know them to be straight with me. I am talking about Genelec, Neumann, KEF, etc. Otherwise, I provide a service to members to measure their gear. I do so objectively using the same protocol every time. Across nearly 2,000 reviews with probably half coming from members or stuff I have bought, the process is working quite well. I can't remember the last time a manufacturer objective to the data, provided their own differing measurements. It has happened a couple of times but that is it. So I suggest not looking to fix something that is not broken because your favorite product is getting less than stellar review.

 

[L0rdGwyn]

It is not my policy to ask manufacturers for feedback prior to reviews when members send in products. Many times they don't answer as their support lines are managed by intermediaries. And at any rate, this adds significant delay to the review cycle. When I am ready to test something, it is a one or two day affair. I am not like a magazine that reviews a dozen products a year. I review twice as much in a month! I do make exceptions when I personally know key people in those companies and know them to be straight with me. I am talking about Genelec, Neumann, KEF, etc. Otherwise, I provide a service to members to measure their gear. I do so objectively using the same protocol every time. Across nearly 2,000 reviews with probably half coming from members or stuff I have bought, the process is working quite well. I can't remember the last time a manufacturer objective to the data, provided their own differing measurements. It has happened a couple of times but that is it. So I suggest not looking to fix something that is not broken because your favorite product is getting less than stellar review.

Well given you seem to have had a direct line of communication to Zach prior to the review, that is not a courtesy you afforded him. The result of your review is irrelevant to me, what is concerning is the culture of controversy you engage with and seem to endorse on this forum. But, as we know, controversy does result in clicks, and you are fond of flaunting your forum traffic as of late, so perhaps it is by design.

 

[amirm]

Well given you seem to have had a direct line of communication to Zach prior to the review, that is not a courtesy you afforded him.

Really? He reached out to me saying what a great site we are and that another company designer had said good things about me. And that he would send me headphones. I said that was wonderful and gave him my address, telling him that I had a member that was offering the Verite. He said he would send that to me so I told that member to hold off. Months go by and nothing from Zach. Meanwhile the other member is annoyed that I turned him down only to see no review. So I ping Zach again. He answers that he is busy testing a new HATS but that he will send me headphones. And that was that. This is how you show you don't care or respect about the work we do here.

And what was I going to ask him anyway? Measurements I made are consistent with others. He has not provided any alternate measurements indicating my testing was wrong. So consulting with him would have provided nothing of value. And indeed, I had no questions for him. And I certainly was not going to ask permission to post the review.

The result of your review is irrelevant to me, what is concerning is the culture of controversy you engage with and seem to endorse on this forum.

As is your efforts to defend companies at the expense of consumers.

But, as we know, controversy does result in clicks, and you are fond of flaunting your forum traffic as of late, so perhaps it is by design.

Come again? I gave this headphone golfing panther with some EQ. It is the highest award I can give any headphone. And I did this despite the above interactions. I praised its looks, etc. The one negative was backed by our standards and research: frequency response. That was his doing, not mine. You choose to make up your own curve, then it gets critiqued here. Not by choice. Once the graphs shows that, the story is told. I am not some subjectivist reviewer who can make stuff up.

You are really, really out of line here.

 

[amirm]

Zach is one of the most well-liked guys in the headphone community.

Now we know otherwise. So best to not walk around and repeat that.

 

[Godataloss]

Just wanted to chime in to this sociologically-interesting thread. It nearly melts my head that the objective ideal here at ASR is a subjective 'preference' curve.

No, no. The starting target were Revel speakers in a reference room. They compared that to other targets like Diffused Field and found listeners preferred Harman's. Later on when this was established, they experimented with people having dials for bass and treble and adjusted the target. Idea being that without tactile feedback that speakers bring, headphones need more bass.

I imagine they await the Nobel for the startling conclusion people prefer elevated bass. I'll let myself out...

 

[amirm]

Just wanted to chime in to this sociologically-interesting thread. It nearly melts my head that the objective ideal here at ASR is a subjective 'preference' curve.

The subjective listening tests were correlated to objective measurements. This is what Dr. Toole and Olive have done for nearly 40 years. My frequency response measurements are 100% objective. So nothing should melt your head. This is research that is of incredible value to us as consumers and we are putting it to work.

 

[amirm]

I imagine they await the Nobel for the startling conclusion people prefer elevated bass. I'll let myself out...

Well, you have Zack saying his customers don't.

 

[NDRQ]

Zach is one of the most well-liked guys in the headphone community.

So you love him too or want to protect him? Why does that matter in a review?
You really sound like an SBAF member, that is the place where everything heavily biased by "emotions" because the manufacturer always a "friend" khmm...

Btw. let me tell you a secret, manufacturers only interested in the profit, they are not your friend, they only nice to you because they want to sell their product.

 

[Thomas_A]

A strange metadiscussion. For starters, it is quite clear that this headphone with these pads have less than ideal response 1-5 kHz. That is regardless of the amount of bass that is preferred (which can be dependent of a number of things, e.g. type of recording).

 

[zach915m]

The subjective listening tests were correlated to objective measurements.

Measurements and the nature of this specific discussion of Caldera aside. The reason I ended up not sending in headphones was because after I went through many of your reviews, I found that the nature of your writings and presentation of information was very biased towards a personal view that you seem to have. Many of the graphs have your writings and musings on them, and many times similar data is filtered in your speech in very different ways. This can be seen in this thread regarding the response of the Caldera above 8khz. Even though we know the 711 coupler not to be ideal you made direct comments numerous times on the first page about this area, this is why I suggested a 5128 may be of use if you want to comment on this area.

I found this to contain bias in some ways towards certain MFR's, and instead of trying to parse it out I decided I didn't want to complicate my life by trying to figure it out and work with you.

If I had, I would have sent you the new BOKEH and Atrium Closed as they are closer to Harman in some configurations.

I think if you do want to make everything more easily understandable for the end user, your readers, which I would like to think is the end goal here, doing a baseline of research on each product and the typical customer use case would be helpful to everyone and help thwart reactions from any side that bring pitch-forks out. ZMF is certainly well documented, and email to me asking if there's extra tuning options beyond stock configuration wouldn't have taken more than one email to get.


If you looks at the LCD-x 2021 you wrote:

"I am happy to strongly recommend the Audeze LCD-X 2021 revision with equalization. Without it, it is a pass for me."

For Caldera you wrote:

"I can't recommend the ZMF Caldera without equalization. With EQ, it sounds excellent but whether it is worth $3,500, you have to decide."

Notice the bolded statements, the order they come in, and then go look at the review and measurements of each. The subjective nature in all of this is too strong for me to want to work with you @amirm I wish this site really was about science, keeping an open mind, and moving the hobby forward, but it seems to be about you.

My main focus in life it to work on making headphones, and not deal with sources of bias. It's well documented that I cut these out of my life, like headphones.com, bloom audio, and other reviewers and such that I have trouble navigating the bias of. So yes that's why I chose not to send headphones in, as it makes my life easier. Ofcourse if people continue to send headphones in to you you can review them, and I do appreciate the parts of what you do that help headphone enthusiasts understand the hobby and that carry the hobby forward. I wish your subjective bias was made more clear to readers so that the data could come first.

 

[solderdude]

A strange metadiscussion. For starters, it is quite clear that this headphone with these pads have less than ideal response 1-5 kHz. That is regardless of the amount of bass that is preferred (which can be dependent of a number of things, e.g. type of recording).

The response on average between 1 and 5kHz is lower than Harman which could be right for some people (it appears to apply to me too).
Not all people have the same ear gain in that part of the frequency range as that of a standard measurement fixture.
A lot of people have more ear gain and thus prefer a bit of a dip there.

In case of the Caldera it isn't a 'smooth' dip but a bit lumpy and thus may sound a little 'off' compared to a headphone that just has a bit of a dip or no dip.
In any case a dip is not audibly as detrimental as a peak in that part of the FR.

Different pads and the insert could well improve measured performance. For that we have to look at other measurements that are out there.
A bit similar to testing/measuring a DT1990 with the stock pads only (the Balanced pads which aren't balanced at all).

It would have been a good idea if various pads and the insert were sent along with it and the request was made to measure combinations. This is a tedious job with lots of plots and reporting though.

 

[L0rdGwyn]

Come again? I gave this headphone golfing panther with some EQ. It is the highest award I can give any headphone. And I did this despite the above interactions. I praised its looks, etc. The one negative was backed by our standards and research: frequency response. That was his doing, not mine. You choose to make up your own curve, then it gets critiqued here. Not by choice. Once the graphs shows that, the story is told. I am not some subjectivist reviewer who can make stuff up.

You are really, really out of line here.

Now we know otherwise. So best to not walk around and repeat that.

Again, the result of your review is irrelevant, I don't care if it measures poorly. But your reviews are used as fodder for character attacks on manufacturers, e.g., they are conmen, lack the mental faculties to design a good product, etc., even if they intentionally do not follow your preferred FR target. And you allow this behavior. Too frequently these discussions devolve into character attacks. Then follows into unbecoming behavior of hawking other forums and quoting statements here to continue the argument when it has ended on ASR. It's childish, and it has happened countless times. You seem to relish in these arguments, even now you are making it personal. Your typical response to these critiques is "well, they did it first." Can't the forum be above this behavior? Obviously that would mean moderating behavior to some extent, including your own.

 

[amirm]

But your reviews are used as fodder for character attacks on manufacturers, e.g., they are conmen, lack the mental faculties to design a good product, etc., even if they intentionally do not follow your preferred FR target.

This is not "my" preferred target. This site follows the science. It is in our name. And that science has created the target. I follow that which just happens to be what I like personally as well. If you or zack disagree, then you should provide research to back your target. Neither one of you have any research to back up an alternative. Just words and complaints.

 

[amirm]

Too frequently these discussions devolve into character attacks.

I have made no character attacks. Reverse is true in the case of you and Zack. But I have not gone there. I suggest you focus your next post on bringing data to the thread instead of continuing to complain about me, the forum, etc. We have a master complaint thread for such things.

 

[amirm]

The reason I ended up not sending in headphones was because after I went through many of your reviews, I found that the nature of your writings and presentation of information was very biased towards a personal view that you seem to have.

Is that right? So you just made a story about being busy about playing with your new HATS instead of telling me this?

Regardless, you don't need to send me anything. As you see, I get gear from members. The advantage in sending me gear is that I give you a preview of any issues I see. If you don't value that, that is cool. We will continue to work as consumers to generate the data we need to make purchase decisions.

 

[zach915m]

The advantage in sending me gear is that I give you a preview of any issues I see. If you don't value that, that is cool.

Which was my point, that it seems some reviews have a bias towards communication that happens between you and a MFR, and some don't and it's reflected in how the data is presented and shown. The tone of language and word choice contributes greatly to how things are framed, and then the following discussion.

 

[amirm]

I think if you do want to make everything more easily understandable for the end user, your readers, which I would like to think is the end goal here, doing a baseline of research on each product and the typical customer use case would be helpful to everyone and help thwart reactions from any side that bring pitch-forks out.

No pitchforks were taken out in my review. Not remotely so. Once again, your headphone was measured and compared to extensively researched target. That measurement, created by an instrument and not me, showed your response deviates from that. You have been posting here and not once have been able to show efficacy of your response with any reliable, controlled testing. None. You keep saying you know what you are doing and know your customers. That has no value. Data and research speak, not claims of knowledge and being right by definition.

I hold no bias against any manufacturer or people. I have had companies who hate me but then produced performant products and with it, have gotten huge praise from me. Your accusations simply hold no water. I can't control what the measurements do. Period.

 

[amirm]

Which was my point, that it seems some reviews have a bias towards communication that happens between you and a MFR, and some don't and it's reflected in how the data is presented and shown. The tone of language and word choice contributes greatly to how things are framed, and then the following discussion.

That's because you still don't know how we work. Members put huge value on measurements. That is the cornerstone of the review. If I say something wrong on the graph, they will go after me with said pitchforks. My personal subjective remarks are taken with a grain of salt by the membership. I provide them because some value it but not at the expensive of measurements.

 

[NDRQ]

Which was my point, that it seems some reviews have a bias towards communication that happens between you and a MFR, and some don't and it's reflected in how the data is presented and shown. The tone of language and word choice contributes greatly to how things are framed, and then the following discussion.

This is not a "safe space" for friends manufacturers like SBAF, i think you are too used to the bad practice there.