ZMF Caldera Headphone Review

[isostasy]

Ah well, we can't all be super geniuses like you @MacClintock , the rest of us strive for "audiophile" sound, but we only get "audiophool", such a wretched word, it pierces my soul.

The fact you think there is any element of having to "strive" for good sound by spending so much time and money is what we disagree with. You can "strive" for many things, but what you describe is just consumerism.

 

[Resolve]

I don't think it necessarily follows. I think the manufacturer doesn't care because it makes lots of money, which is not the same as charging lots for an individual product. I'm sorry this was implicit in my post. I was responding to Zach who said "I'm happy with however owners want to use the Caldera" so thought it was clear I was responding to this stance of being happy or not with how buyers use the headphones, and admittedly assuming that it's not a bad venture. (Maybe I'm wrong and he can't afford to eat in which case I will apologise).

Longer answer, I don't know the correct symbols for logical statements but I'd break down what I said as:

My products cost a lot (makes me lots of money) --> I don't care what people do with them

Which leads you to ask: Would you care more about what people did with your product if it costs less and made me less money?

Payoff is high and care is low. But this also relies on "what people do with my product" being reasonable and/or even better, feeding into making me more money.

In extreme cases your question is easy to answer. For example if payoff is nothing, $0, or just kudos, I think care increases massively because then you're doing something charitably and want it to be for a specific purpose. Alternatively, if what people are doing with my products breaks one of my values (becomes synonymous with some kind of behavior I disagree with) then care has increased massively as well to the point I either speak out against it, pull my products, or scrap my values and increase the price so that increased payoff makes it worth it.

This is without considering that expensive add-ons and the belief that buying different products is necessary to get a different "flavor".

But you've asked specifically whether I'd care more if it cost $100. I don't know because I don't know whether payoff is high or not, which is based on margins and turnover, not just the price of one product. If it was one product, then yes I'd care more what someone did with something I made if they only gave me $100 for it. If they gave me $3.5k I couldn't care less.


An analogous example: This chocolate tastes heavenly (makes me happy) --> I don't care how unhealthy it is

Would this lead you to ask: Would you care more if it tasted good (but not heavenly)?

Well, again I don't know. If it tasted gross obviously I'd care more because what's the point eating something unhealthy I don't like? If "unhealthy" meant "gives me cancer" as opposed to just "extra calories" then obviously I'd care more. But some measure ("good") below "heavenly" but not all the way down to 0? I don't know.

etc. as above

Fair enough, I suppose my question should've been phrased more appropriately the way you worded it here, which is to say: would a manufacturer care more if it cost less.

I'm not quite sure your conclusion here is true though, because as soon as we're talking about products that are available for purchase, that's a difference of kind not degree when compared with charity.


Ultimately though I don't think that stuff is particularly related to price point and more just the whim of the manufacturer. Some care and some don't. I remember asking a manufacturer to try an EQ that got their product closer to Harman OE, and the response I got was something along the lines of "if people buy a car and want to drive it with deflated tires they're free to do so".

Naturally they didn't agree with me, but they also didn't care at all what people did with them.

Edit: this was for something closer to the $500 range.

 

[amirm]

I remember being bothered by what looked like a pattern in Caldera's frequency dips in lower treble. So did a bit of analysis and this came out:

Notice how there is a clear pattern to the peaks and valleys. The peaks are about 2.5 kHz apart. And dips, about 1.4 kHz. The two coincide at 7.5 khz or so resulting in that peak being depressed. Wonder what the dimensions of the drivers are and whether these are longitudinal modes of the driver, or modal response of the cavity. Hard to imagine this being a planned response given its correlation.

Would have loved to measure the driver on Klippel to see if this is an issue of that component. Planar drivers in line array speakers frequently suffer from such modes and requires care to avoid them (see the stiffening knurling that Dan Clark deploys).

 

[isostasy]

Fair enough, I suppose my question should've been phrased more appropriately the way you worded it here, which is to say: would a manufacturer care more if it cost less.

I'm not quite sure your conclusion here is true though, because as soon as we're talking about products that are available for purchase, that's a difference of kind not degree when compared with charity.


Ultimately though I don't think that stuff is particularly related to price point and more just the whim of the manufacturer. Some care and some don't. I remember asking a manufacturer to try an EQ that got their product closer to Harman OE, and the response I got was something along the lines of "if people buy a car and want to drive it with deflated tires they should be free to do so".

Naturally they didn't agree with me, but they also didn't care at all what people did with them.

Edit: this was for something closer to the $500 range.

Sure, but to take that car metaphor, if I make cars I can be nonchalant about people driving with deflated tyres until the point comes where objectively my car comes up top of the yearly stats for accidents. Then I might not be able to sell as many but I can't really complain that it's nothing wrong with my cars, it's just the way my customers drove them despite me not saying anything otherwise.

(this obviously assumes a weird world where having inflated tyres isn't already considered standard and people decide to based on the manufacturer they bought from for some reason... ok maybe I shouldn't have tried to take it this far)

Point being (and this is probably where we might just disagree because there's no hard evidence) I do think that supporting the whole different headphones for different moods/times/songs and tuning using expensive pads thing probably does work quite well in such a high price segment. If you admit there's potentially an objective standard that you could target with a single product and any deviation in preference could be met with a free tool (EQ), you're simultaneously discrediting your current product line and limiting your potential to release many different products in future.

 

[Resolve]

Point being (and this is probably where we might just disagree because there's no hard evidence) I do think that supporting the whole different headphones for different moods/times/songs and tuning using expensive pads thing probably does work quite well in such a high price segment. If you admit there's potentially an objective standard that you could target with a single product and any deviation in preference could be met with a free tool (EQ), you're simultaneously discrediting your current product line and limiting your potential to release many different products in future.

I actually think we're more in agreement than not on much of this. IMO in a perfect world manufacturers would aim for the largest segment, and then supply EQ profiles (or some other method of adjustment) to satisfy the other segments. It gets more challenging with IEMs because there's more variation in preference there, but... similar idea. I also think you're right about a higher price tag inviting less scrutiny given the higher barrier to entry (if this is part of your point), although I'm not entirely sure that's applicable in all cases. Confirmation bias does a lot of work when people spend that kind of money on headphones as it does for other kinds of purchase confidence as well.

But sadly most listeners or audio enthusiasts don't EQ, and so with that reality in mind I don't think there's anything wrong with targeting different segments with different products. It should be more clear to people what they're buying across the board, and spec sheets are mostly useless for that, but that's a slightly different axe to grind.

 

[L0rdGwyn]

The fact you think there is any element of having to "strive" for good sound by spending so much time and money is what we disagree with. You can "strive" for many things, but what you describe is just consumerism.

Another dagger to the heart, I am felled.

yes, if you prove you like your set up better, meeting scientific standards is something that weights way more than any comments we can do here. Same thing for Zach, if he just proves that many people like the caldera default tunning better than EQ to Harman, scientifically done, will advance the discussion further. Seriously, I do not know why if you think your hard-work creation is appealing to many, you do not do the little extra work getting data to support it.

I have been a member of this forum longer than you, or @MacClintock , or @isostasy . I am very familiar with the ethos, the belief in blind testing, the Harman target. In fact, there was a time when I would have been spouting the same talking points as you all, specifically as it relates to DAC linearity, distortion, etc. I've even done blind testing of fuses for the sake of showing members of Head-Fi that they do not, in fact, make any difference in sound quality. The ideology of ASR does not need to be explained to me, I was once as bought into it as you are.

What changed, however, was when I starting building my own audio equipment. You see, I do believe in science, but more specifically I believe in it in fields that have signficant ramifications on human life beyond answering the question "wHaT sPeAkErS dO i BuY?" Science in this area is, again, small potatoes. And why is there a dearth of research as it relates to say, headphone measurements? Because it is a field of study concerned with one thing - selling products, capitalism. And as such, I don't take it all that seriously, because it is a hobby, not a crusade for absolute truth as you treat it.

Now, I do measure everything I design (one would be stupid not to) and my experiences showed me that even if a piece of gear measures well, it does not always translate to good sound. I have made single ended circuits with tube stages with voltage gains >1000 (think CCS loaded pentode, if you know what that means) with huge amounts of distortion crushing / linearizing negative feedback. And the results? Most often, sounded worse. I have built circuits with adjustable feedback, via potentiomer so it could be tweaked on the fly and the best sound optimized for. Guess what? The best sound was NOT when feedback was at its maximum / when measurements were at their best. "But shouldn't my bias after seeing the best measurement tell me that the amplifier sounded better with more feedback?" Well, it didn't, it sounded more dull and less dynamic (in my experience, there is a "goldilocks" point in terms of negative feedback, but I digress).

So, because of my experiences building gear, while using measurements, and finding that there is not always a strong correlation between measured and subjective performance, I maintain a healthy skepticism of the hardcore, completely indoctrinated objectivists, like you guys. Some day, you may have an experience yourselves that makes you question your audio beliefs, like I did.

Ultimately what makes me happy in audio is designing and building my own equipment. It is a creative outlet and you only need to be concerned with pleasing yourself. It just so happens other people expressed interest in the things I was making, and after sampling them, requested I make a design of mine public, which I did. Since I released that project in May, some thirty or so people have built the amplifier and not one of them has regretted it. In fact, several of them sold off their old gear.

Have I blind tested it against a cheaper, well-measuring solid state amplifier? No, I haven't, maybe I will, but to be frank I don't really care to because it's not what I'm interested in. I like to make things, not dissect them. I am a producer, not a consumer @isostasy

But feel free to do as you wish toward your audio happiness, that is mine. If that means blind testing into infinity and arguing with people on the internet, you are in the right place. Just stay away from diyAudio.com.

 

[amirm]

And why is there a dearth of research as it relates to say, headphone measurements? Because it is a field of study concerned with one thing - selling products, capitalism. And as such, I don't take it all that seriously, because it is a hobby, not a crusade for absolute truth as you treat it.

There is no such "dearth." 5 years of research combined with other papers is nothing to sneeze at. It is actually more than we deserve and highly critical findings. While you may not take it seriously in the context of defending a headphone you own, it is highly useful and important for us. Just take a look at the parallel thread on review of 7Hz Zero IEM. People have started to buy them and are very pleased with it. This is power of research.

 

[amirm]

Now, I do measure everything I design (one would be stupid not to) and my experiences showed me that even if a piece of gear measures well, it does not always translate to good sound. I have made single ended circuits with tube stages with voltage gains >1000 (think CCS loaded pentode, if you know what that means) with huge amounts of distortion crushing / linearizing negative feedback. And the results? Most often, sounded worse.

Yada, yada, yada. We don't deal with anecdotes here. Run a blind test with levels matched and then report back. Until there, I have tested plenty of amps with higher distortion and found them to be muddy, and poor sounding, exactly as measurements predict. In other cases, they sound the same. At no time have I found a low feedback/high distortion device superior. None.

 

[L0rdGwyn]

There is no such "dearth." 5 years of research combined with other papers is nothing to sneeze at. It is actually more than we deserve and highly critical findings. While you may not take it seriously in the context of defending a headphone you own, it is highly useful and important for us. Just take a look at the parallel thread on review of 7Hz Zero IEM. People have started to buy them and are very pleased with it. This is power of research.

Sorry I should have been more specific - a dearth relative to other fields of scientific study. It's great people are pleased with that product and it makes them happy, I hope it makes their lives more fulfilling. But again, the end result of that research is selling a product, hardly changing the world. The importance the science of audio is given here is overinflated relative to other fields of study.

Yada, yada, yada. We don't deal with anecdotes here. Run a blind test with levels matched and then report back. Until there, I have tested plenty of amps with higher distortion and found them to be muddy, and poor sounding, exactly as measurements predict. In other cases, they sound the same. At no time have I found a low feedback/high distortion device superior. None.

Perhaps I will, I may rebuild one of those circuits. How would you respond to a legitimate blind test that showed a higher distortion, lower NFB circuit held preference, beyond trying to poke holes in the methodology?

 

[oleg87]

I have built circuits with adjustable feedback, via potentiomer so it could be tweaked on the fly and the best sound optimized for. Guess what? The best sound was NOT when feedback was at its maximum / when measurements were at their best.

I'm not analog circuits guy so sorry if I'm missing something, but wouldn't that involve changing the gain? Seems like a bit of a major confound, if so.

 

[L0rdGwyn]

I'm not analog circuits guy so sorry if I'm missing something, but wouldn't that involve changing the gain? Seems like a bit of a major confound, if so.

Yes, if the feedback level is changed, the output needs to be re-adjusted to match the previous levels.

 

[amirm]

Perhaps I will, I may rebuild one of those circuits. How would you respond to a legitimate blind test that showed a higher distortion, lower NFB circuit held preference, beyond trying to poke holes in the methodology?

I would look to replicate it if there is nothing that caused it to generate wrong results.

 

[L0rdGwyn]

I would look to replicate it if there is nothing that caused it to generate wrong results.

Okay, if I pursue it I will report it here. At the very least I will be prototyping that circuit again, if I do not build it out into a fleshed out amplifier in entirety, so the opportunity will be available.

 

[amirm]

Hopefully my statements about my reasoning for tuning are clear (regardless of your personal beliefs) but if not, hit us up through our website we're happy to answer questions at any time.

Before you go, I want to make sure you walk away with the right conclusions. And that is, we are very easy to please. Unlike subjectivists sites, or people doing random measurements and mixing it with subjectivists talk, you know our criteria. Get close to Harman target. Keep distortion low and you will be golden. We will send our readers to you for business.

Our goal remains simple: to drive the industry to build better products. Contrary to what was claimed, it is painful to us when products don't perform. Just see the Marantz Cinema 70s review I just did. We want companies to do better.

 

[L0rdGwyn]

Okay, if I pursue it I will report it here. At the very least I will be prototyping that circuit again, if I do not build it out into a fleshed out amplifier in entirety, so the opportunity will be available.

I've had a thought - and this appeals to my DIY sensibilities - to build this amplifier into a blind testing box. I can use a 4PDT switch that simultaneously corrects the feedback and the level match, and I can send it on a tour with each user telling me which position they prefer, and it will be blinded since they will not know which position is which the user would need to adjust for their preferred listening level at the source, however.

 

[DenverW]

Quite simple... you obviously belong to the minority that does not prefer Harman tuning.
Most likely the 1 out of 5 listeners that preferred less bass boost.

I wish it was that simple, although I think you're right that Harmon tuning, while good, isn't my favorite. I thought the expanse was the best DCA headphone since the early Alpha Prime, but in general I find his tuning...lifeless. I do enjoy some good bass, and oddly enough found the Caldera's bass to be more impactful and full than the Expanse. Funny side story, at his office Dan Clark told me in no uncertain terms that the topping stack I had at the time was not good enough for the (then) MrSpeakers headphones. I was quite offended, as I had picked out the stack based on this website's recommendations!

Just other examples of having to find my own way. I try not to judge and tell others that what they hear and enjoy is wrong; unfortunately that's one of the reasons I've stayed away from this website, and this thread has several examples of this, the most recent being the tube/zmf bashing comment via MacClintok. Bummer.

 

[DenverW]

Before you go, I want to make sure you walk away with the right conclusions. And that is, we are very easy to please. Unlike subjectivists sites, or people doing random measurements and mixing it with subjectivists talk, you know our criteria. Get close to Harman target. Keep distortion low and you will be golden. We will send our readers to you for business.

Our goal remains simple: to drive the industry to build better products. Contrary to what was claimed, it is painful to us when products don't perform. Just see the Marantz Cinema 70s review I just did. We want companies to do better.

This is what confuses me a bit. Who is "we?" Does everyone on the site have the same sonic preferences via harmon? Is there a place here for someone like myself that does not prefer the harmon signature?

 

[Resolve]

This is what confuses me a bit. Who is "we?" Does everyone on the site have the same sonic preferences via harmon? Is there a place here for someone like myself that does not prefer the harmon signature?

Well, there's more to the research than just the target you see. You may not fall into the largest group, for example. It's just that the common way of representing headphone FR is relative to a singular target and that's almost always an indication of the largest group (understandably so). So please don't think this is the extent of it, read the papers!

 

[MacClintock]

Another dagger to the heart, I am felled.



I have been a member of this forum longer than you, or @MacClintock , or @isostasy . I am very familiar with the ethos, the belief in blind testing, the Harman target. In fact, there was a time when I would have been spouting the same talking points as you all, specifically as it relates to DAC linearity, distortion, etc. I've even done blind testing of fuses for the sake of showing members of Head-Fi that they do not, in fact, make any difference in sound quality. The ideology of ASR does not need to be explained to me, I was once as bought into it as you are.

What changed, however, was when I starting building my own audio equipment. You see, I do believe in science, but more specifically I believe in it in fields that have signficant ramifications on human life beyond answering the question "wHaT sPeAkErS dO i BuY?" Science in this area is, again, small potatoes. And why is there a dearth of research as it relates to say, headphone measurements? Because it is a field of study concerned with one thing - selling products, capitalism. And as such, I don't take it all that seriously, because it is a hobby, not a crusade for absolute truth as you treat it.

Now, I do measure everything I design (one would be stupid not to) and my experiences showed me that even if a piece of gear measures well, it does not always translate to good sound. I have made single ended circuits with tube stages with voltage gains >1000 (think CCS loaded pentode, if you know what that means) with huge amounts of distortion crushing / linearizing negative feedback. And the results? Most often, sounded worse. I have built circuits with adjustable feedback, via potentiomer so it could be tweaked on the fly and the best sound optimized for. Guess what? The best sound was NOT when feedback was at its maximum / when measurements were at their best. "But shouldn't my bias after seeing the best measurement tell me that the amplifier sounded better with more feedback?" Well, it didn't, it sounded more dull and less dynamic (in my experience, there is a "goldilocks" point in terms of negative feedback, but I digress).

So, because of my experiences building gear, while using measurements, and finding that there is not always a strong correlation between measured and subjective performance, I maintain a healthy skepticism of the hardcore, completely indoctrinated objectivists, like you guys. Some day, you may have an experience yourselves that makes you question your audio beliefs, like I did.

Ultimately what makes me happy in audio is designing and building my own equipment. It is a creative outlet and you only need to be concerned with pleasing yourself. It just so happens other people expressed interest in the things I was making, and after sampling them, requested I make a design of mine public, which I did. Since I released that project in May, some thirty or so people have built the amplifier and not one of them has regretted it. In fact, several of them sold off their old gear.

Have I blind tested it against a cheaper, well-measuring solid state amplifier? No, I haven't, maybe I will, but to be frank I don't really care to because it's not what I'm interested in. I like to make things, not dissect them. I am a producer, not a consumer @isostasy

But feel free to do as you wish toward your audio happiness, that is mine. If that means blind testing into infinity and arguing with people on the internet, you are in the right place. Just stay away from diyAudio.com.

Long and boring story short, you like distortion. Well known and old.

 

[L0rdGwyn]

Long and boring story short, you like distortion. Well known and old.

You always know the right thing to say @MacClintock .