I got to test some Stax (202, L300 & L500) today, spent around 2h30 with them. There was also a HD660.
Started with the HD660 that sounded tight/precise compared to my M1060. In comparison the M1060 sounded dull, soft. They weren't much different for everything else I would say.
Then I put on the Stax from cheapest to most expensive. They are definitely more similar than different.
If we take the 202 as base, the 300 has a bit less low-end but sound more crisp in the highs and is a bit sibilant.
The 500 remove that harsh "s" from the 300 and add deeper and more present low-end.
But that's really minor. That, I'm sure of.
After that, I don't really know. They sounded different because the tonality is and the soundstage seems a bit wider and some other things maybe. Not better or magical but different.
Stax don't just have less bass and that's it. The L500 definitely gives you bass. I think they just have more forward mids and low highs, combined with peaks in the highs. But after some times my ears were too tired and all headphones sounded the same so I couldn't check anything anymore. Music stores aren't exactly quiet (especially this one) so I had to turn the volume up and got tired quickly.
While switching between the 660s, M1060 and l500 sometimes I was using one with the EQ preset of another for a few seconds and it sounded like the headphones I was putting on, weird but still recognizable.
While at home, for weeks now, I tried to EQ my headphones to sound like each other. Or more like trying to get the best of each one to the others to end up with my "perfect sound". My SRH1840 was hopeless, at least I couldn't find a way to get rid of what makes me think this one sound bad. But I could do something for my Sony XM4.
Now they sound really near my EQed M1060. The M1060 are a little more open sounding with a bit wider soundstage and do much better 20-70Hz, for everything else they are pretty damn almost the same. After 30 seconds of listening I forget which one I'm wearing the difference of 'openess' and 'soundstageness' fade away.
But it's nowhere as simple as slapping Oratory1990's preset to match Harman curve on both. And that's where it gets weird. I had to spend hours and hours to find the right EQ manually to match the M1060. With the preset measured I got a bit closer, then I worked on that and applied another heavy EQ on top.
- Do I compensate for other factor than FR with my EQ ? Don't think so
- Oratory measurement are wrong ? They can't be that way off anyway.
- My head/ear shape react differently so I have to compensate for that. Maybe, but they both have to go through the same ear canal, so why would they be different ? My ear can recognize the headphone I'm wearing and change shape accordingly ?
I know that anything above 8k cannot be measured properly to cannot be EQ this way, but my EQ affect the whole spectrum.
My current belief is that you can take any headphones that have low enough distortion (and no weird ringing), can do the deep bass and soundstage as you like, then EQ it to whatever sound you like. But it takes hours and you have to have the desired target at your disposal at home (like the band in you living room for the best result) for comparison the whole process.
But my beliefs are shaken pretty often in light of new data.
So my take on the previous posts is that transparency would just be FR and soundstaging capabilities.
I surely have missed something. I'm considering buying a Stax setup to test my theory.
Should have picked audio engineering instead of informatics.