By the end of the review he said he was keeping it ("will make it my everyday DAC+amp at my workstation").The V2 RME is still in house? I thought you didn't like RME's menu's so much, I'd have never imagined you would've gotten one yourself.
To me the big question is whether they are superior or comparable to Stax headphones.
I have HD800 headphones, LCD-2 Fazors, and the only category I haven't tried yet is the really exotic stuff like this or the Stax.
My suspicion is that there are too many tradeoffs, and that the "openness" of the sound people get from those are unusual frequency balance plus actual in-room reflections from the speakers themselves.
Quote from the review:How do these headphones frequency response graph is measured?
I thought most measurements up to this point are lost a lot of their validity, until someone tests in those anechoic chambers and has such very very expensive new device from Brüel & Kjær https://www.head-fi.org/threads/headphone-measurements-the-new-standard-part-1.937301/#post-15735920
This "somewhat spacious with high notes grabbing your attention. Mind you, there was something pleasing about this. But proper reproduction it was not." is in my opinion the most notable aspect in this review, as the depiction of sound from these cans is not like with the usual headphones.
Music sounds kinda artificial, "stretched into the room". It sound good for movies, but after a short while not so much.
Well, it isn't a headphone, a earphone.
Nice seeing some headphone reviews, thanks!
I personally will not use those reviews as much as the other hardware tests for a buying decision, since the topic is way to subjective.
What headphone I deem likeable, another does not like. But is a good starting point.
An EQed pair of Drop 6XXs is comparable to the Stax earspeakers. I lived with a set of the Signatures with a Stax tube energizer/amp for 20 years. The Sennheisers are more low-slung, more forceful on the bottom. The Stax are "airier", FWIW, but the issues are those of emphasis, not of absence. In any case, Drop 6XXs, eq-ed, are similar to Stax Earspeakers.To me the big question is whether they are superior or comparable to Stax headphones.
I have HD800 headphones, LCD-2 Fazors, and the only category I haven't tried yet is the really exotic stuff like this or the Stax.
My suspicion is that there are too many tradeoffs, and that the "openness" of the sound people get from those are unusual frequency balance plus actual in-room reflections from the speakers themselves.
The same pitch an octave higher is a doubling in frequency so to our ears 20Hz to 40Hz is the same pitch shift as 2000Hz to 4000Hz, that is why audio measurements are shown on a log scale.20hz to 1k takes more than half the graph i think it could be tweaked a bit?
The SR1a definitely imparts a sense of "panel speakers" to everything you play. And I mean everything. You get more ambiance with every track -- whether it is part of the recording or not. This is was a very pleasant effect with my audiophile demo tracks. You could take this setup to an audio show and be right at home. Part of this is due to the distance of the drivers from your ears.
To be fair, many people in this thread are going after the bass response. The issue may actually be the converter. I wonder how would it measure with direct drive.The same pitch an octave higher is a doubling in frequency so to our ears 20Hz to 40Hz is the same pitch shift as 2000Hz to 4000Hz, that is why audio measurements are shown on a log scale.
Care to explain please?Quote from the review:
Also Amir has tested the B&K 5128c which is suboptimal for the expectations.
See here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ng-and-bk-5128-hats-measurement-system.15147/
In conclusion, the current test equipment is more suitable than the expensive 5128c.
Crinacle posted some supplementary measurements here. So.
For crinacle's new measurement rig:
https://crinacle.com/2020/09/03/in-ear-fidelity-acquires-gras-setup-for-headphone-measurements/
His rig and Amir's are compatible and are the SOTA measurement equipment for headphones.
So the measurement is better, in terms of how human really hear it, but it deviates from the standard up this this point in time.The 5128 extends the simulation limit of the older "711" standard substantially. But with it, it also makes the measurements non-standard so existing research may be difficult to apply to it.
comment #4The high frequency range 6-10k+ gets really tricky. All new hires head reduces natural ear canal resonances which lead to false measurement results.
Pls glance through the whole thread. There were artifacts and incompatibilities that made it unacceptable in the end. The measurement for Samsung akg s8/9 iem became utterly incomprehensible. Gras also made the hires pinna and coupler and it's done before b&k.Care to explain please?
This from Amirm I see as no negative point
So the measurement is better, in terms of how human really hear it, but it deviates from the standard up this this point in time.
What was expected?
comment #4
So you say the developers made a device which measures in a specific area more wrong than the old device and they haven't noticed it?
When your statement is true - you contacted them about this?
How the 711 and GRAS can be state of the art if the employee of the bk5128 made a new device too achieve more accuracy and true depiction?
Not trying to downplay all the measurements up to this point, but if the new device is proven more accurate in depiction of human hearing - from the developers who make such device - it should be said so.
(I think I followed that whole thread, and also posted a good deal in it as it was developing and I certainly don't remember that being concluded, so it's not particularly reasonable to ask him to read that whole thread to support your point.)Pls glance through the whole thread. There were artifacts and incompatibilities that made it unacceptable in the end. The measurement for Samsung akg s8/9 iem became utterly incomprehensible. Gras also made the hires pinna and coupler and it's done before b&k.
In the end, there was no "proven" to be more accurate. It has more severe artifacts and more non predicable behaviours than GRAS.