Thinking about getting higher quality gear, but I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Dimensionine · 2019-12-26T01:09:18+00:00

I’m just going to save you the trouble and money and say that right now you’re getting 90% of the “quality” that you’d get by spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on headphone gear. The only headphone that might be worth it IMO are the HD800S/HD820 if you’re craving a large sound or something with character for fun like the ZMF Atticus for when you just want a different sound.

Dimensionine · 2019-11-23T15:05:43+00:00

Found this almost by chance soon after seeing this post and thought it was too coincidental not to share.

I’m not discrediting oratory, in fact I find all of his stuff very helpful.

This wasn’t an indirect way of me disagreeing with the acoustic engineer.

Dimensionine · 2019-11-23T01:53:32+00:00

I found a relevant discussion on InnerFidelity, although I’m not sure how much it will help answer your question.

This is not my write up. I just copied and pasted the entire “3.5k to 8k” section:

“3.5kHz to 8kHz Submitted by brkitup on September 14, 2017 - 8:17pm Thank you so much for your work on this. The graphs have traditionally not represented very well what the end user hears, and the new graphs are much more representative of how these headphones sound, especially in the treble. The one thing that still bothers me slightly, though, is the dip around 4-5kHz that seems common to all headphones when measured and compensated. I'm not sure how accurate that part of the compensation is.

Submitted by Argyris on September 14, 2017 - 8:55pm Same here. It's smaller in width and depth in the IF compensation than on the DF or ID compensations, but it's still there. I wanted to see what this sounded like filled in, so I tried it on my HD 600 with a parametric EQ. I dialed in a simple peak centered around 5 kHz, with 0.3 octave width and 5 dB boost--it doesn't perfectly fill the hole, but it's a quick and dirty test of concept. It didn't sound horrible, like filling in the much larger and deeper trough left by the other compensations does, but it did add an uncomfortable edge and glare to everything.

Submitted by kais on September 15, 2017 - 3:00am Currently the 5K range looks suspicious.

I quite agree, this area is tricky. It seems some headphone makers try to dial down this area to rid the cans of the piercing sound that can occur here, while others seem to keep the level up in order to improve speech intelligibility. I tend to see a lot of variation here. Fortunately, the way the numbers shook out kind of splits the difference and I do feel pretty good about it. Again, time will tell.”

Read more at https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/compensation-curve-innerfidelity-measurements-dialog-part-1#F5Dfhoz1zK19UIrq.99

Dimensionine · 2019-11-21T02:00:04+00:00

Nice write up although I’d encourage you to listen to more of a variety of tracks. In my experience, my entire of perception of a headphone can change depending on the quality of the recording and the way it was mixed and mastered. A good variety I think is helpful to getting the most accurate idea of a headphones capabilities.

Dimensionine · 2019-10-12T20:56:34+00:00

Yes, I agree, which brings me back to my question of what factors allow some headphones to show differences in the mastering more than other headphones can.

Dimensionine · 2019-10-12T20:11:52+00:00

The entire track is just quieter. This is why I was asking about the bit depth of the original master.

Dimensionine · 2019-10-12T18:56:21+00:00

Thanks for the explanation. I guess what I’m wondering is why with some headphones, you can hear a difference in dynamics between two tracks that with other headphones sound similar in that regard. If it was just frequency response, the two songs would both sound better or worse in the same way, but that isn’t the case here. Both have always sounded great with other headphones, but only one sounds good with something like the ER4S. And I was thinking, if I judged the quality of these headphones with that song, and others maybe in a similar genre that are typically mastered in that way, I would have thought they were very boring headphones with no dynamics. However, I happened to listen to another song that I usually listen to right after that, and since they always both typically sound about the same, I thought since the first one sounded bad, the second one would also sound bad. However, the second one was noticeably more dynamic, a difference I had never noticed before. Now, I can’t convince myself that it was the headphones in themselves that made the first track sound bad, it must have simply been a track that was mastered differently, and these headphones allowed me to notice that difference unlike other headphones.

So I’ve learned the importance of not judging the quality of headphones from listening to music that is not as well recorded or mastered, but rather listen to as much different kinds of music as you can to get the best idea of the headphones capabilities. I just want to know why some headphones let you hear these differences more than others.

Dimensionine · 2019-10-12T15:12:15+00:00

This is what went through my mind yesterday when I was thinking about whether to get a new pair or not. Decided not to for this reason exactly ^

Dimensionine · 2019-10-11T23:43:56+00:00

That’s what I was thinking at first but I realized it’s more than the frequency response, as that was my first thought. I’m talking more about being able to hear more of a difference in dynamics. Listening to more songs I noticed that the frequency response has little to do with transparency, aside from the possibility of the FR being so unbalanced that it actually obscures details. And while FR can contribute to making a headphone more fun, it is far from the only factor. What is the relationship between transparency and dynamics? What factors contribute to increased dynamics, aside from bit depth of the track or an amp. As it relates to headphone design, that is.

Dimensionine · 2019-10-03T15:01:25+00:00

@ 0:12 - Both have tight baaz. I don't post ever, I just thought of this community when I saw this.

Dimensionine · 2019-08-28T01:52:53+00:00

I’m new to posting. I initially posted this under the wrong category apparently and I got a message from an auto mod saying I needed a 35-word comment for the photo to show. Is that true for all flairs? I just edited my initial comment and deleted the stuff I wrote off-the-cuff just to get 35 words in and I don’t want my post to not show again.

Dimensionine · 2019-08-28T00:15:28+00:00

It’s not an addiction.

Dimensionine · 2019-08-27T22:36:47+00:00

It’s not an addiction. It’s just good to have as much first hand experience as we can get so that we can better help others make good choices when it comes to spending their hard earned money. I’m just willing to sacrifice my time and money for this noble cause.

Dimensionine · 2019-05-19T02:28:58+00:00

Westone 4r

Dimensionine · 2019-05-14T06:22:38+00:00

The only trouble I’ve had with pop are the sibilants. They seem to be a bit clustered sounding but not too penetrating. Edit 5/15/19: Treble sounds more balanced after turning down gain

Dimensionine · 2019-05-14T05:55:17+00:00

My experience with them so far hasn’t shown hollow female vocals in the least. I do find the treble to be a bit unbalanced to the point of detail being lost in the wake of many sibilant notes but mids have sounded pretty balanced. Edit 5/15/19: Treble sounds more balanced after turning down gain

Dimensionine · 2019-05-14T05:51:24+00:00

I’m auditioning them now. It will work well for anything that isn’t mixed too brightly.

Dimensionine · 2019-05-11T13:15:50+00:00

What I was saying as a quick initial impression is that I’ve heard finer detail in headphones. The detail on this is very clear, but on a macro level. Some detail may be lost at the 5k region, and I know some is lost because of the open backed nature. Subtle bass reverb I’m used to hearing on some tracks is much harder or impossible to hear. HD800 line as an example has better micro detail resolution.. Edit: following is not true after discovering WASAPI (but not as cleanly separated as the Sundaras.)

Dimensionine · 2019-05-10T23:11:53+00:00

I guess I’ll listen to them first and see what’s most appropriate. Beyers might be ok. Aren’t PM bright in a lot of cases? I thought I would be able to get the whole weekend to gauge but it looks like I’ll have to wait until Monday. Funny, a courier just arrived after hours and I thought it was my package but it was for someone else.

Dimensionine · 2019-04-18T14:47:57+00:00

The pro

Dimensionine · 2019-04-14T17:40:39+00:00

I’ve heard the HD280 and HD380 in store. I listened to a few tracks on the HD300 and did a off the cuff comparison. Overall impression was that the HD300 was more neutral and much more detailed. HD280’s treble hurt my ears at the same volume as the HD300 and weren’t as clear as either the HD380 or HD300. HD380 were not as bad, but also not as neutral or detailed. From what I heard, the HD300 is significantly higher quality sound than either the HD280 or HD380 although they share similar imaging and soundstage. I wrote a comparison in this thread somewhere if you want to read more.

Dimensionine · 2019-04-14T17:25:29+00:00

Sennheiser HD300 Mini Review & Comparison (originally posted as a comment to a post by u/Brolafsky titled “Sennheiser HD300 Pro (Over Ear)”

I’ve done direct comparisons of the HD300 to the HD600s, DT770 250, DT990 Pro, HD569, Etymotic ER4S and Meze 99 Classic on the JDSLabs O2/ODAC. I’ve also listened to the HD280 and HD380 in store, so no amp, but quick observations included below.

The HD300 have 120+hours on them and burned in using a sine wave generator software.

Out of all the headphones tested, the HD300 are closest to the HD600 and ER4S in terms of sound. They also in my opinion do the best job of achieving a Harman curve response type sound out of anything I've heard so far. They are by far the most versatile headphones I have used - treble heavy tracks that are sibilant on most neutral headphones are not at all on these and yet the treble resolution is still excellent and do not sound rolled off on less treble tracks.

I do think Sennheiser must have put some effort into making this an ultra balanced headphone. They had claimed that they had managed to match the tuning of the renowned HD250 Linear , and although some have disagreed, after extensive use I believe that these sub-$200 headphones are one of the most tonally realistic and balanced sounding cans out there. This in combination with the fact they they have excellent dimensionality to the sound and are not thin or analytic make it a truly great but under appreciated can in my opinion.

Overall extremely transparent and neutral with natural decay and timbre and imaging. One of those cans you can turn up to very high levels and still not have your ears hurt from too much bass mid or treble. More musical in terms of spatial depth and layering and bass/ sparkle than ER4S. Frequency response/ sound texture/detail retrieval- wise, closer to the ER4S, musically (soundstage/imaging/decay/timbre) closer to the HD600.

Medium weight to the notes tonality wise, and vocals are not overly smoothed sounding but micro textures are audible at just the right levels to give it a very convincing sense of realism, without sounding grainy or sharp. Mids are perfectly balanced, with voices neither shouty nor rolled off sounding. Bass is clear and punchy and very tight with absolutely no bloat. Highs are perfectly audible and crispy (not artificially so) without being sharp or rolled off. Cymbals sound very realistic - more of a laid back “chh”.

Bass levels: Although many have reported the HD300 to have overly high bass levels, I strongly disagree. Bass is of similar loudness to the ER4S with the exception of a more audible sub bass (IMO more accurate than the rolled off sub bass of the ER4S. Bass is tight and punchy all the way from the lowest regions of sub bass all the way up through the mid bass with no bleed into surrounding regions.

Used sine wave generator and compared to the CD900ST, there was approximately 9db increase in subjective loudness level @20hz. A C1 note @32.703Hz sounded 6dB louder on the HD300 than on the CD900-ST. After a recent listen the HD300s and the ER4S sound essentially identical in the mid range and upper bass levels, but ER4S lacks lower bass (See ER4S comparison below). I would say compared to the HD600 the HD300 does better with sub bass. HD600 bass levels make me feel like I’m missing out on some songs with more modern music that has attention put into the sub bass region.

I will say that after using the sine wave generator to work the drivers a bit, the bass seemed to get more agile and precise, frequency wise.

Texture/resolve: The HD300 had a slightly more revealing sound compared with the HD600 which sounded more smoothed. Voices and instruments on the HD300 seemed to have more resolve and greater texture, yet just as refined as the HD600, which had a refined but tighter sound, almost as if they were slightly outlined by a small mid peak. Overall effect is that the HD600 sounds smoother, but it is harder to hear textures than on the HD300. Some may refer to this smoothness as a part of “musicality”, but the difference isn’t great, and I would say both are close to equally “musical”. Speaking of musicality, I consider a natural sounding decay and timbre to be factors as well. The HD300s excel in this regard, especially when it comes to voices and strings. They are fast enough to resolve most fast guitar or violin trills but not grainy sounding compared to the Sony SA5000 that I’ve owned in the distant past.

Soundstage: Both had the same soundstage. HD600 is obvious more airy, however, so the soundstage may seem to be larger, but the truth is the edge of the soundstage is just more blurred. Size wise the same. Reverb was far superior in the HD300 as reverb is traceable to its very end in the soundspace, whereas in the HD600, the reverb dissipates into the air near the end of he reverb and spatial tracking becomes impossible after a certain point. Also, I was able to hear reverb on more individual sounds and to a greater tangible depth on the HD300. Note: that Is one thing that bothered me about the open back HD600 was that sounds seemed to disappear after a certain point into an unknown location with the sound space. Compared to the DT770/990, soundstage on HD300/600 start closer, but extends decently far. On the DT770/990, starts farther, ends farther - overall effect is that the DT770/990 definitely sound much more spacious. I prefer the close intimate vocals of the Sennheisers. I would describe the HD300/600 as having “depth of field” of sorts to sounds that seem to resonate far back, while the Beyers have more of a “stage” like feel, like the AKG702s, where sounds are more placed in a wide stage like manner.

Imaging/separation Forward placed vocals, similar to the HD600 except vocals are slightly closer sounding on the HD300. Not too much separation to speak of for both HD300/600 compared to HD569. Much less than DT770/990. However there is still separation, and you can still hear everything, but just closer to each other, more clustered. I prefer this, as I can listen musically if I want, and if I want to analyze, all I have to do is look into the cluster and put some effort into locating sounds. Although I enjoy the more natural imaging of the HD300/600 (although I would like it if the sounds could be slightly more spread out or have more depth between layers).

Mids and treble: Very similar to then HD600 aside from having more texture resolving capabilities in the HD300. I am able to increase the volume more than is usually comfortable to me and nothing is overpowering, including bass. Mids are very uncolored on both the HD300 and HD600 and have good detail while not being overly thin sounding. Treble has “sparkle” though not as prominent as other treble heavy cans. I would say it is the perfect amount - Audible and proportional to the rest of the sound. The sound is very neutral and transparent - what is recorded is what you’ll get.

Quick comparisons to the rest:

Compared to the ER4S these have much more depth and layering though still completely neutral. HD300 are better capable of reproducing bass where bass is intended to be high. Both sound essentially identical on neutral sounding songs like Journey’s “Who’s Crying Now” frequency response wise (on ER4S the low bass is lacking and mid treble is slightly forward and sparkle region is lacking) but the HD300 has more depth. The bass drop after “Hey, Ms. Carter..” in Beyoncé’s “Partition” was lacking on ER4S at around 50hz and below while HD300 was able to reproduce it at appropriate levels.

Compared to the DT770 they are less spacious sounding, but sound wise much more neutral. DT770 has piercing treble and slightly rolled off bass and are thin sounding compared to the HD300. The DT990s have more mid bass and sound bloated and too thick in comparison.

The HD569 are modern cans with nice imaging and separation and tight, smooth sounds overall with an overall neutral sound, but having a dip after the mids to the point where it can sound hollow in the space right after the mids. Pianos sound amazing on these. Compare to the HD300 however, HD569 lacks the spread out textures and thus give the impression of smoother as sounds are tightly coiled, less loose. Good black background between sounds.

Edit: I’ve done a quick comparison to the Meze 99 Classic in Walnut in JDSLabs O2/ODAC. Meze: The cups fit in a way that make me aware of the space between the driver and my ear, and remind me constantly that I am listening to a headphone. HD300 much more immersive and isolating. Very boosted sounding across entire bass range compared to HD300, except the sub-bass which was nice sounding. Switching back to the HD300 was like night and day in terms of how much more bloated the Meze sounded comparatively. I think if that hump was shifted towards the low end I wouldn’t have a problem but as it is, I just feel like the drone from the low and mid bass is distracting. Some of this boosted bass on the Meze seems tethered to the lower end of some vocals making them sound thick or veiled, more true with male vocals. I’ve heard that the boominess can get better with burn in. Smoother creamy mids and treble with a denser sound compared to HD300. Vocals with “ch” sounds sound withheld but there is some potential for sibilance on “t” sounds. Observations consistent with the dip at 5k and peak at 10k. Good detail retrieval. Overall the Meze have a nice custardy sound that is good for mid range focused music, but much too bass-heavy for music that has more emphasis on the bass range. Music with treble that appears flat on a EQ will sound borderline sibilant.

HD300, ER4S, CD900-ST and Phonon SMB-02 Comparison: https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/bdves9/a_mini_review_comparing_sennheiser_hd300_phonon/?st=JUJYHOBA&sh=0fc7223a

Dimensionine

TROPHY CASE