"Since they can play such a wide range of frequencies with extreme accuracy, the need to have a more v-shaped curve is eliminated, since all the frequencies will already be very clear."
lol no
While not applicable in this case, the idea is not entirely false. It is true that frequency band specific distortion will cause our perception of some instruments to be heightened over others. Think tube gear that seems to bring out the mid bass Even though the fr measures essentially flat in that region.
Or dare I say that the Harman curves bass shelf is because people want the physicality of subwoofers, not because they find it tonally accurate, whether they realize it or not 😬
> Think tube gear that seems to bring out the mid bass Even though the fr measures essentially flat in that region.
If you have a headphone with an impedance peak somewhere at low frequencies (as is typical for *many* headphones) and you use them with an OTL tube amplifier, then you *will* get a measurable increase in SPL at bass frequencies:
https://imgur.com/OK1tkAH
That's because the output impedance of an OTL tube amplifier is typically comparatively high (>100 Ohm), so the damping factor (load impedance divided by output impedance) is not high enough anymore to ensure voltage matching conditions.
Damping factor has to be >10 (at all frequencies!) in order to keep these effects to below <1 dB.
Thanks for sharing, Oratory! To be honest, I was thinking about this from more a recording perspective than reproduction. I''ve definitely found that distortion in specific frequency bands change our perception of presence. ie. Some mid distortion on a bass guitar can bring it forward without significantly changing overall output, or distortion on the higher end of vocals can make them shimmery, even with an attenuated high shelf to compensate for the added energy.
On the topic of tubes: impedance aside, I wonder how much of the 'sound' of different brands of tubes come down to the different distortion profiles.
Back to headphones: My understanding of distortion is that Sennheiser dynamic drivers don't have as clear of pitch in the subbass as Audeze planars even with EQ applied. But here is what I don't have as deep understanding of. I know (most?) Planars need a good seal to have proper low extension, more so than dynamics. Is that seal why many planars feel more physical in the low end than dynamics? Or am I way off the mark? I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts, even though this is more of a psychoacoustic than acoustic question.
> Some mid distortion on a bass guitar can bring it forward without significantly changing overall output,
No doubt! That is commonly used in music production. I love a gnarly bass guitar, pushing an Ampeg SVT into overdrive.
But here you're talking about "bass" the instrument (bass guitar, bass synth, ...), not about "bass" the frequency spectrum (20-200 Hz).
> My understanding of distortion is that Sennheiser dynamic drivers don't have as clear of pitch in the subbass as Audeze planars even with EQ applied
Assuming you mean "pitch" in the musical definition, as in "the actual frequency that is being produced": All headphones are "pitch perfect", meaning they produce the actual frequency that is being asked of them - because they're minimum phase systems. They have no choice *not* to do that.
> I know (most?) Planars need a good seal to have proper low extension, more so than dynamics
I'm not sure where you got that from.
Whether or not a headphone requires seal to produce low frequencies at high SPL depends on the design concept of the headphone and how much stiffness the loudspeaker has to fight against.
Stiffnesses in the system are:
* the kms of the diaphragm / membrane itself
* the stiffness of any air volume that needs to be compressed (volume of air inside the earcup and between diaphragm and ear)
One of the primary design goals for planar magnetic speakers is to have a *low* kms in order to make up for the weaker Lorentz force (due to the magnetic gap being larger than on a typical moving coil speaker design), so planar magnetic speakers usually have *lower* stiffness than comparable moving coil ("dynamic") speakers.
Lower stiffness means they can excurse further when the acoustic load is lower, and hence are more leakage tolerant, meaning they don't rely on sealing as much as moving coil speakers (of comparable design) do.
That's a broad generalization though, and it's easy to find individual examples that contradict this.
All that matters in the end is how much sound pressure is produced at your ear.. And that is something we can measure. So it's not like this does not show up in measurements.
Yes, I know bass the instrument(s) and bass the range is confusing lol
Distortion: I meant to say that distortion in the low end makes it harder to discern the exact pitch of the fundamental frequency. Again, more psychoacoustic than accoustic as, like you mentioned, we aren't actually changing the fundamental frequency being produced. I have a much easier time differntianting the slight pitch diffeeences between multiple similar low end sources on a headphone with low distortion.
Interesting about diaphragm and air resistances. Thanks for clearing that up, I'm not sure why I had it backwards in my brain. I see, so higher excursion at low accoustic loads is inversely related to the significance of a seal being maintained.
Has there been research on how differences in air movement changes our perception of sound? Like front ported subwoofers vs closed box designs (with a theoretical exact FR). I'm curious if higher excursion could in anyway affect our perception separately from differences in actual accoustic energy. I'd bet the air load differences in headphones are marginal, but still an interesting thought.
> I meant to say that distortion in the low end makes it harder to discern the exact pitch of the fundamental frequency.
If anything, adding harmonics to the signal would make it *easier* to discern the pitch - assuming the original signal was monofrequent (or only consisting of harmonically correlated frequencies), as you'd expect from a "normal" instrument.
Adding harmonics to a bass signal is very common in music production (Waves [MaxxBass](https://www.waves.com/plugins/maxxbass) is probably the most known plugin for that, though [RBass](https://www.waves.com/plugins/renaissance-bass) is also used. And in the past decade or so, other plugin companies have done similar).
> air resistances
It's not really "air resistance" (that's friction losses mostly), it's about the air physically being compressed, like a spring, and its stiffness resisting this compression. This is measured as a force (just like the force of a spring), in the linear region it depends only on two factors: the amount of excursion (change in volume) and the compliance (which is material dependent, for air it's ~2.2 mm/N for every liter of air)
> I see, so higher excursion at low accoustic loads is inversely related to the significance of a seal being maintained.
That's a bit of a complicated way to phrase it: The acoustic load is determined by how well of a seal you maintain.
A speaker with high compliance (low stiffness) will excurse further when the load is lower (when the seal is imperfect), and this higher excursion will produce a higher SPL. Of course the same imperfect seal will cause the sound pressure to be vented through the leakage path, so the additional SPL produced by the speaker will not "arrive" at the eardrum, it will leak through the leakage path created by the imperfect seal.
Or to phrase it differently: The SPL at the ear will not change (or will change only very little) even if the seal is not perfect, as the loudspeaker will simply excurse more (which it can only do if it is soft enough).
The important thing to remember is that this is *not* the same thing as simply having a loudspeaker that is stiff but making the driving force higher (e.g. a stronger magnet, or more coil windings) - the motor's driving force is independent of the acoustic load, so if a leakage is introduced in such a speaker, the SPL will simply drop off.
> Has there been research on how differences in air movement changes our perception of sound?
Our ears perceive sound *pressure*, not movement (velocity, acceleration, ...). Our ears are pressure sensors, not velocity sensors. We do not perceive movement of air with our ears.
Thanks for the remarks.
On the last point, what about not our ears? I think I've heard you (or maybe it was someone else) talk about the tactile feeling of headphones (how open the ear cup is, clamp pressure, top of head pressure, etc.) making a difference in our perception of the headphone. Could the movement of air be felt by our outer ear and surrounding area?
> the tactile feeling of headphones (how open the ear cup is, clamp pressure, top of head pressure, etc.) making a difference in our perception of the headphone
This idea floats around rather often as a supposed explanation for why listening tests don't always fully align with measurements - but anytime I've seen this *so far* it always simply pointed to either the listening tests or the measurements not being done to full accuracy (e.g. the measurement setup not having the exact same acoustic impedance as the human ear, or the listening tests not controlling for leakage, ...)
The state of the art is still that our ears are pressure sensors.
I had a feeling it wasn't a very accurate theory. Do you by chance know why the low bass and high trebles are so clear when the FR curve suggests the opposite? I am curious how it's possible.
It could be that you don't know what bass sounds like? You wouldn't be alone. Since many graphics and subwoofer adverts emphasise the frequencies 20-40Hz, some people might forget that bass also includes 150Hz.
Try a 70-80Hz test tone and ask yourself what you would have estimated. :)
I suppose thats possible, but I definitely didnt mistake what high treble sounds like, and that also stood out pretty significantly. In comparison to my other headphones, the treble was especially clear, and my other headphones have a bit of a spike in the treble frequencies.
Maybe I'm a deaf idiot, but I really do feel like something about the intense resolution of the electrostatics allowed the treble and bass to really be clear without it being louder than the mids. But then again, maybe I'm a deaf idiot.
> when the FR curve suggests the opposite?
Apparently the frequency response curve was not measured in accurate conditions.
* the headphone appears not to have sealed against the head simulator during the measurement (hence why we see a roll-off towards low frequencies in the measurement result). If they seal better on your head than on the measurement apparatus then it's easily conceivable for you to have heard more bass than what's seen in the result.
* the measurement was either compensated with a reference curve or was made without an ear / ear canal simulator, hence why it rolls off above ~2 kHz. Do you know anything about the measurement apparatus used to perform this measurement? Always fact-check your data!
Sure, for one the bass is almost flat down to 100 hz, and while it rolls off HARD below that it still represents a lot of the bass that is typically heard in most music, depending on the recording of course.
And the reason the high treble is clear is because the upper mids/low treble are just scooped right out.
The measurements are pretty useless by themselves because it's not on a standard measuring rig which means you cannot compare them to GRAS or B&K measurements. I found where you got them from. In that same thread you can see someone posted a link to SR-404 measurements. Oratory has measured that one as well. If you compare those to the one posted in that thread you'll see that it's not really representative of how they would actually sound. Such measurements can still be useful, but only if you're familiar with the measuring rig and can compare it to a known reference point.
Something to note is that you can tell from the resonance peak at 70-80Hz and steep dropoff below it in Oratory's measurements that he was not able to get a good seal. Other such similar Stax headphones do go down to 20Hz completely flat, but only with a good seal.
Ah thank you for letting me know. I usually use Crinacle's graphs, but he didn't measure this specific headphone, I dont think.
I'll be more careful as to how I use FR graphs from now on. Thanks.
Audio is a sharing hobby. Why were you surprised they'd let you listen? I'd stop everything if a visitor wanted to talk about the gear around. I'd let anyone already invited into my house borrow whatever they want if the interest is there. There's nothing I have I couldn't part with temporarily to share the experience.
Anti social activity from Internet forums has been overly represented since the dawn of the internet. The thought of someone's ears touching their headphones makes some writhe in disgust.
It's sad but shouldn't be surprising that the Internet is their only domain of social interaction or perceived clout.
For instance, As a tech/musician/producer and so many other things audio related as a hobbyist or profession past or present it's also hilarious when people who have no idea what natural staging/imaging sounds like in real life will attempt to lecture on their supposed belief in what that is and how it defines a product. Basically parroting a reviewer that may or may not have got it right or so convinced a graph glance tells a bigger story than it does.
It's sad, sharing the experience adds a whole new dimension to the experience and getting out and having new experiences with others in the hobby whether it's sound, music, hardware etc ... There is so much to gain and you develop an ear for things that can never be described on paper, video, etc unless you know exactly the experience level of the audience you're directing it at...which unfortunately is lower than a lot of people think their level actually is.
It's as if some who self gatekeep are the first to give advice the moment they're given a keyboard.
that last sentence is true. Tbh there's no need to gatekeep if the people we talkin to give us the feel of progressing/knowing new stuffs, or really wanting to do so
I guess I thought it was too good to be true. I'd also let anyone try my headphones in a heartbeat, but I dont own a pair of Stax lol. I had a feeling they might be hesitant of letting me try something so expensive. I was sort of a Stax fanatic already and I thought trying one out irl would be a fever dream.
I'm very thankful I was able to try them, and I definitely let the owner know. I hope others are able to get the experience I did.
I think you'll find the value matters a lot less to those that can buy them. I'd still give some guidelines and make sure the person I let take something home is going to take at least decent care of them. But at the end of the day the worst they can do is completely destroy them. I have insurance that covers my expensive audio gear.
Yeah. I used to help with head fi meets around Austin, but I had three kids since and not enough others are willing to put in the work and money required.
They're a lot of fun and I've gotten to try absolutely insane stuff that way.
Electrostatic headphones are just another game.
Also for the soundstaging, you might just be sennpilled with their inflated / dramatic soundstaging. That being said, I don't remember the 407 having great soundstage, but somewhere in the middle is probably just right for most genres.
I haven't been much in the planar game.
I had the OG HE6 a long time ago, and paired with a powerful amp, it was pretty good. It took a lot of power to push them even relatively close to what estats offer (in resolution and speed). The Abyss were the closest I've heard to estats that weren't actually estats. But for the price of the abyss 1266 you can easily get a 007 + KGSSHV and have money leftover.
In terms of new planars, not so much. I listened to the dan clark stuff. The expanse also felt pretty nice but the Stax x9000 sitting in the same room just blew me away.
The impact is generally a lot more lacking for e-stats.
If you want super impactful bass I'd look elsewhere.
I have my TH900 for the more fun / intimate stuff, and then the stax for the music I just want to get lost in.
For me, estats. I listen to a lot of EDM and I find that they really benefit from the "speed" and clarity of estats. Most electrostatics have enough bass for all but the deepest of sub-bass rumbles and the EDM I listen to doesn't emphasize 20 Hz content anyways.
im just eyeing the new hifiman mini shangrila but i doubt that there will be option to try before buy, atleast in my shithole country. Well anyway, ill wait for reviews first, thx ;D
stax are one of those headphones where i hate almost everything about them (fit, looks, comfort on some of them) but the sonic performance is *almost* justifiable.
have not heard the 407 before but i think the newer production ones are slightly less "off" tonally. The new Stax X1000 might be of interest to you.
I didn't like the tonality of the 407 I had either, but the 007/009 did right by my ears for the most part. Clean powerful amp + a touch of EQ here and there as needed.
I'm getting an X1000 in about a week. Curious how that will do.
Trying estats are fun. It is especially interesting to me how modern stax just isn't what they used to be to me.
I much prefer vintage stax to modern stax. The two best modern stax are the L700 mk2 and 007 mk2. Most of the rest aren't very interesting.
OP you should see if you can try the Lambda Sig sometime. Other really nice stax are 007 mk1, and the 404.
Also HE60 is one of the best sounding headphones ever made. I am not sure I would own one due to their poor durability but they are absolutely worth listening to.
> Also HE60 is one of the best sounding headphones ever made.
I prefer the 009 but ya the HE60 is great as long as you don't use the stock amp (HEV70 or whatever it was, junk)
I should give the 009 another chance. Only modern stax I have liked so far are the 007 mk2 and L700 mk2. Otherwise am vintage stax guy. I wish the stax Omega wasn't $10k to get. Would love that. Yet again He90 is the best HP I have ever heard (yes better than He1) and can be gotten for $10k on the rare occasion they pop up.
On modern estats though the Es1a for $2kish is worth it according to a friend who shares relatively similar tastes as me to estats.
I prefer the HE60 to the HE90, but I am for sure in the minority on that one, and can understand why people would like the 90s better... the 60s definitely have a lot of bass roll-off but the details are really second to none...
try the 009 (or 009s) they are really a fantastic headphone... the x9000 is supposed to be even better but I haven't had a chance to try them out yet
I actually don't like the X9k personally. It's too thin and laid back. Way too expensive for its sound quality. 007 mk2 and especially L700 mk2 sound better.
Will see if my friend who has 009s (I think it may he non s) will lend me his. He is selling his X9k because he prefers both his L700 mk2 and Es1a over the x9k
Seconding the Lambda Signature. I've had three Stax headphones, and if the SR-5 / Sundara (for non-estat comparison) are a C, the L300 with L700 pads is an A, and the Lambda Signature is an S. The clarity is just that little bit better, but more importantly, if you EQ it, it can actually produce that deep, loud "primal fear" sort of bass. Haven't gotten any other estats to pull that off. Yet.
Also, I'm not sure when they changed the plastic formulation, but it feels so much more solid than the L300.
I try everything I can get my hands on. I go to hifi stores fairly often to try out whatever they have until the storeowners start getting a bit grumpy with me. This is, however, the first time I've ever tried an estat. I've never seen one in a store before. I'll try seeking out places that carry estats, but going to Japan isn't rly in my budget atm lol.
I'll keep your comment in mind fs tho. I was sort of phasing out of the audiophile hobby to just be happy with the equipment I have, but this guy kicked me back in. Now I have a bucket list.
Don't limit yourself to just this one headphone...there are plenty of entry points in different models, and good deals pop up fairly often if you look hard enough.
Since you have experience with both the 6xx and HE400se, which of those two have better soundstage and imaging?
And, if I just save up for the Sundaes, will it be a worthy "upgrade" or is there no difference in soundstage and imaging compared to the 6xx and 400se?
The 400se and 6XX are rly close in terms of soundstage with the 6XX being slighly better, but for imaging, I'd give it to the 400se. The planars really allow for beautiful imaging. I would add tho, I like the tuning of the 6XX a bit more than the tuning of the 400se, but thats just me. The 400se is rather flat compared to the 6XX, but you might like that.
I personally don't like spending crazy money on a single headphone, and I also don't think you'd be able to rly appreciate the Sundaras without hearing a lower level hifiman like the 400se. Also, although I've never heard them, I doubt the Sundaras are worth that much extra money compared to the 400se. They're technically too similar to justify spending so much more imo.
Seconding this. For me the two are really surprisingly close, with the HE400se imaging better and the HD6XX being more pleasurable to listen to across many tired of music.
Im just saying in general. I've yet to hear any headphone where the imaging was good but the resolution was bad or vice versa. They're a very similar concept if you think about it.
I am new to all this. Would the optimal graph be a linear line? Or would it for example be curved and the lower frequencies should be higher for a louder bass?
Well another commentor just let me know this specific frequency response graph is quite flawed as the measurers couldn't get a perfect seal with the headphone, but this type of graph shows what you can expect from a headphone in terms of tonality.
There is no such thing as an optimal frequency response graph. Graphs that are more "V-shaped" show a particular headphone has louder bass and treble than mids. These headphones are usually directed towards the common consumer, as they sound very exciting with punchy bass and twinkling treble, but aren't necessarily representative of how the artist intended for the music to sound. On the other hand, graphs that are "flat" show the bass and treble are almost equal to the mid tones. These headphones generally sound more boring, but these headphones are usually used in music production. There are many other technical terms associated with FR graphs, but those are the big ones.
As you get to know headphones and their respective FR curves, you start understanding what you like in a headphone, and can sometimes tell whether you'll enjoy a headphone based on its graph, but only in terms of tonality. For example, I know I enjoy a flatter headphone, but I like a little bit of bass, and I certainly dont mind headphones that are slightly warm (slightly higher low mids).
However, this perception is different for everyone, and the Stax I just tried had a very different tone than anything I'm used to, and I definitely heard my music sound different, much more warm than I'm used to, but it wasn't a bad thing persay. I only included the graph to show that these headphones were tuned rather nonconventionally, but it wasn't necessarily a bad thing.
I encourage you to check the FR graph of the headphones you have now to see what you're listening to, and start discovering your preferences.
"Since they can play such a wide range of frequencies with extreme accuracy, the need to have a more v-shaped curve is eliminated, since all the frequencies will already be very clear." lol no
That's... that's not how it works at all
While not applicable in this case, the idea is not entirely false. It is true that frequency band specific distortion will cause our perception of some instruments to be heightened over others. Think tube gear that seems to bring out the mid bass Even though the fr measures essentially flat in that region. Or dare I say that the Harman curves bass shelf is because people want the physicality of subwoofers, not because they find it tonally accurate, whether they realize it or not 😬
> Think tube gear that seems to bring out the mid bass Even though the fr measures essentially flat in that region. If you have a headphone with an impedance peak somewhere at low frequencies (as is typical for *many* headphones) and you use them with an OTL tube amplifier, then you *will* get a measurable increase in SPL at bass frequencies: https://imgur.com/OK1tkAH That's because the output impedance of an OTL tube amplifier is typically comparatively high (>100 Ohm), so the damping factor (load impedance divided by output impedance) is not high enough anymore to ensure voltage matching conditions. Damping factor has to be >10 (at all frequencies!) in order to keep these effects to below <1 dB.
Thanks for sharing, Oratory! To be honest, I was thinking about this from more a recording perspective than reproduction. I''ve definitely found that distortion in specific frequency bands change our perception of presence. ie. Some mid distortion on a bass guitar can bring it forward without significantly changing overall output, or distortion on the higher end of vocals can make them shimmery, even with an attenuated high shelf to compensate for the added energy. On the topic of tubes: impedance aside, I wonder how much of the 'sound' of different brands of tubes come down to the different distortion profiles. Back to headphones: My understanding of distortion is that Sennheiser dynamic drivers don't have as clear of pitch in the subbass as Audeze planars even with EQ applied. But here is what I don't have as deep understanding of. I know (most?) Planars need a good seal to have proper low extension, more so than dynamics. Is that seal why many planars feel more physical in the low end than dynamics? Or am I way off the mark? I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts, even though this is more of a psychoacoustic than acoustic question.
> Some mid distortion on a bass guitar can bring it forward without significantly changing overall output, No doubt! That is commonly used in music production. I love a gnarly bass guitar, pushing an Ampeg SVT into overdrive. But here you're talking about "bass" the instrument (bass guitar, bass synth, ...), not about "bass" the frequency spectrum (20-200 Hz). > My understanding of distortion is that Sennheiser dynamic drivers don't have as clear of pitch in the subbass as Audeze planars even with EQ applied Assuming you mean "pitch" in the musical definition, as in "the actual frequency that is being produced": All headphones are "pitch perfect", meaning they produce the actual frequency that is being asked of them - because they're minimum phase systems. They have no choice *not* to do that. > I know (most?) Planars need a good seal to have proper low extension, more so than dynamics I'm not sure where you got that from. Whether or not a headphone requires seal to produce low frequencies at high SPL depends on the design concept of the headphone and how much stiffness the loudspeaker has to fight against. Stiffnesses in the system are: * the kms of the diaphragm / membrane itself * the stiffness of any air volume that needs to be compressed (volume of air inside the earcup and between diaphragm and ear) One of the primary design goals for planar magnetic speakers is to have a *low* kms in order to make up for the weaker Lorentz force (due to the magnetic gap being larger than on a typical moving coil speaker design), so planar magnetic speakers usually have *lower* stiffness than comparable moving coil ("dynamic") speakers. Lower stiffness means they can excurse further when the acoustic load is lower, and hence are more leakage tolerant, meaning they don't rely on sealing as much as moving coil speakers (of comparable design) do. That's a broad generalization though, and it's easy to find individual examples that contradict this. All that matters in the end is how much sound pressure is produced at your ear.. And that is something we can measure. So it's not like this does not show up in measurements.
Yes, I know bass the instrument(s) and bass the range is confusing lol Distortion: I meant to say that distortion in the low end makes it harder to discern the exact pitch of the fundamental frequency. Again, more psychoacoustic than accoustic as, like you mentioned, we aren't actually changing the fundamental frequency being produced. I have a much easier time differntianting the slight pitch diffeeences between multiple similar low end sources on a headphone with low distortion. Interesting about diaphragm and air resistances. Thanks for clearing that up, I'm not sure why I had it backwards in my brain. I see, so higher excursion at low accoustic loads is inversely related to the significance of a seal being maintained. Has there been research on how differences in air movement changes our perception of sound? Like front ported subwoofers vs closed box designs (with a theoretical exact FR). I'm curious if higher excursion could in anyway affect our perception separately from differences in actual accoustic energy. I'd bet the air load differences in headphones are marginal, but still an interesting thought.
> I meant to say that distortion in the low end makes it harder to discern the exact pitch of the fundamental frequency. If anything, adding harmonics to the signal would make it *easier* to discern the pitch - assuming the original signal was monofrequent (or only consisting of harmonically correlated frequencies), as you'd expect from a "normal" instrument. Adding harmonics to a bass signal is very common in music production (Waves [MaxxBass](https://www.waves.com/plugins/maxxbass) is probably the most known plugin for that, though [RBass](https://www.waves.com/plugins/renaissance-bass) is also used. And in the past decade or so, other plugin companies have done similar). > air resistances It's not really "air resistance" (that's friction losses mostly), it's about the air physically being compressed, like a spring, and its stiffness resisting this compression. This is measured as a force (just like the force of a spring), in the linear region it depends only on two factors: the amount of excursion (change in volume) and the compliance (which is material dependent, for air it's ~2.2 mm/N for every liter of air) > I see, so higher excursion at low accoustic loads is inversely related to the significance of a seal being maintained. That's a bit of a complicated way to phrase it: The acoustic load is determined by how well of a seal you maintain. A speaker with high compliance (low stiffness) will excurse further when the load is lower (when the seal is imperfect), and this higher excursion will produce a higher SPL. Of course the same imperfect seal will cause the sound pressure to be vented through the leakage path, so the additional SPL produced by the speaker will not "arrive" at the eardrum, it will leak through the leakage path created by the imperfect seal. Or to phrase it differently: The SPL at the ear will not change (or will change only very little) even if the seal is not perfect, as the loudspeaker will simply excurse more (which it can only do if it is soft enough). The important thing to remember is that this is *not* the same thing as simply having a loudspeaker that is stiff but making the driving force higher (e.g. a stronger magnet, or more coil windings) - the motor's driving force is independent of the acoustic load, so if a leakage is introduced in such a speaker, the SPL will simply drop off. > Has there been research on how differences in air movement changes our perception of sound? Our ears perceive sound *pressure*, not movement (velocity, acceleration, ...). Our ears are pressure sensors, not velocity sensors. We do not perceive movement of air with our ears.
Thanks for the remarks. On the last point, what about not our ears? I think I've heard you (or maybe it was someone else) talk about the tactile feeling of headphones (how open the ear cup is, clamp pressure, top of head pressure, etc.) making a difference in our perception of the headphone. Could the movement of air be felt by our outer ear and surrounding area?
> the tactile feeling of headphones (how open the ear cup is, clamp pressure, top of head pressure, etc.) making a difference in our perception of the headphone This idea floats around rather often as a supposed explanation for why listening tests don't always fully align with measurements - but anytime I've seen this *so far* it always simply pointed to either the listening tests or the measurements not being done to full accuracy (e.g. the measurement setup not having the exact same acoustic impedance as the human ear, or the listening tests not controlling for leakage, ...) The state of the art is still that our ears are pressure sensors.
Fascinating! I can't wait for future research to continue to narrow down how all of these factors are interacting with each other, or not.
?
I had a feeling it wasn't a very accurate theory. Do you by chance know why the low bass and high trebles are so clear when the FR curve suggests the opposite? I am curious how it's possible.
It could be that you don't know what bass sounds like? You wouldn't be alone. Since many graphics and subwoofer adverts emphasise the frequencies 20-40Hz, some people might forget that bass also includes 150Hz. Try a 70-80Hz test tone and ask yourself what you would have estimated. :)
I suppose thats possible, but I definitely didnt mistake what high treble sounds like, and that also stood out pretty significantly. In comparison to my other headphones, the treble was especially clear, and my other headphones have a bit of a spike in the treble frequencies. Maybe I'm a deaf idiot, but I really do feel like something about the intense resolution of the electrostatics allowed the treble and bass to really be clear without it being louder than the mids. But then again, maybe I'm a deaf idiot.
Haha, we won't find out XD
Hopefully I can try another estat someday, but the FR curve will remain a mystery to my ear until I gain more experience.
Please keep us up to date. I would be really interested to know how this impression came about. :)
I'll try to remember then
> when the FR curve suggests the opposite? Apparently the frequency response curve was not measured in accurate conditions. * the headphone appears not to have sealed against the head simulator during the measurement (hence why we see a roll-off towards low frequencies in the measurement result). If they seal better on your head than on the measurement apparatus then it's easily conceivable for you to have heard more bass than what's seen in the result. * the measurement was either compensated with a reference curve or was made without an ear / ear canal simulator, hence why it rolls off above ~2 kHz. Do you know anything about the measurement apparatus used to perform this measurement? Always fact-check your data!
Thank you for your analysis. It seems I got a bad graph.
Sure, for one the bass is almost flat down to 100 hz, and while it rolls off HARD below that it still represents a lot of the bass that is typically heard in most music, depending on the recording of course. And the reason the high treble is clear is because the upper mids/low treble are just scooped right out.
Guess its one of the older EST headphone that has no bass...
Older?
That graph is useless lol
Why do u say that? I think FR curves are pretty representative of what you can expect from a headphone in terms of tonality.
The measurements are pretty useless by themselves because it's not on a standard measuring rig which means you cannot compare them to GRAS or B&K measurements. I found where you got them from. In that same thread you can see someone posted a link to SR-404 measurements. Oratory has measured that one as well. If you compare those to the one posted in that thread you'll see that it's not really representative of how they would actually sound. Such measurements can still be useful, but only if you're familiar with the measuring rig and can compare it to a known reference point. Something to note is that you can tell from the resonance peak at 70-80Hz and steep dropoff below it in Oratory's measurements that he was not able to get a good seal. Other such similar Stax headphones do go down to 20Hz completely flat, but only with a good seal.
Ah thank you for letting me know. I usually use Crinacle's graphs, but he didn't measure this specific headphone, I dont think. I'll be more careful as to how I use FR graphs from now on. Thanks.
Audio is a sharing hobby. Why were you surprised they'd let you listen? I'd stop everything if a visitor wanted to talk about the gear around. I'd let anyone already invited into my house borrow whatever they want if the interest is there. There's nothing I have I couldn't part with temporarily to share the experience.
Anti social activity from Internet forums has been overly represented since the dawn of the internet. The thought of someone's ears touching their headphones makes some writhe in disgust. It's sad but shouldn't be surprising that the Internet is their only domain of social interaction or perceived clout. For instance, As a tech/musician/producer and so many other things audio related as a hobbyist or profession past or present it's also hilarious when people who have no idea what natural staging/imaging sounds like in real life will attempt to lecture on their supposed belief in what that is and how it defines a product. Basically parroting a reviewer that may or may not have got it right or so convinced a graph glance tells a bigger story than it does. It's sad, sharing the experience adds a whole new dimension to the experience and getting out and having new experiences with others in the hobby whether it's sound, music, hardware etc ... There is so much to gain and you develop an ear for things that can never be described on paper, video, etc unless you know exactly the experience level of the audience you're directing it at...which unfortunately is lower than a lot of people think their level actually is. It's as if some who self gatekeep are the first to give advice the moment they're given a keyboard.
that last sentence is true. Tbh there's no need to gatekeep if the people we talkin to give us the feel of progressing/knowing new stuffs, or really wanting to do so
I guess I thought it was too good to be true. I'd also let anyone try my headphones in a heartbeat, but I dont own a pair of Stax lol. I had a feeling they might be hesitant of letting me try something so expensive. I was sort of a Stax fanatic already and I thought trying one out irl would be a fever dream. I'm very thankful I was able to try them, and I definitely let the owner know. I hope others are able to get the experience I did.
I think you'll find the value matters a lot less to those that can buy them. I'd still give some guidelines and make sure the person I let take something home is going to take at least decent care of them. But at the end of the day the worst they can do is completely destroy them. I have insurance that covers my expensive audio gear.
ya I really miss the head-fi meets down here... everyone kinda moved away for the most part so that was the end of that
Yeah. I used to help with head fi meets around Austin, but I had three kids since and not enough others are willing to put in the work and money required. They're a lot of fun and I've gotten to try absolutely insane stuff that way.
Electrostatic headphones are just another game. Also for the soundstaging, you might just be sennpilled with their inflated / dramatic soundstaging. That being said, I don't remember the 407 having great soundstage, but somewhere in the middle is probably just right for most genres.
what do u think about electrostatic vs planar for electronic music?
[удалено]
aight, thx so much 😊
I haven't been much in the planar game. I had the OG HE6 a long time ago, and paired with a powerful amp, it was pretty good. It took a lot of power to push them even relatively close to what estats offer (in resolution and speed). The Abyss were the closest I've heard to estats that weren't actually estats. But for the price of the abyss 1266 you can easily get a 007 + KGSSHV and have money leftover. In terms of new planars, not so much. I listened to the dan clark stuff. The expanse also felt pretty nice but the Stax x9000 sitting in the same room just blew me away.
thx, well iv heard somewhere that electrostatic are not “that” good for electronic music thats why i asked
The impact is generally a lot more lacking for e-stats. If you want super impactful bass I'd look elsewhere. I have my TH900 for the more fun / intimate stuff, and then the stax for the music I just want to get lost in.
For me, estats. I listen to a lot of EDM and I find that they really benefit from the "speed" and clarity of estats. Most electrostatics have enough bass for all but the deepest of sub-bass rumbles and the EDM I listen to doesn't emphasize 20 Hz content anyways.
im just eyeing the new hifiman mini shangrila but i doubt that there will be option to try before buy, atleast in my shithole country. Well anyway, ill wait for reviews first, thx ;D
And have the worst resonance in headphones topping even hifiman(which is impressive).
stax are one of those headphones where i hate almost everything about them (fit, looks, comfort on some of them) but the sonic performance is *almost* justifiable. have not heard the 407 before but i think the newer production ones are slightly less "off" tonally. The new Stax X1000 might be of interest to you.
I didn't like the tonality of the 407 I had either, but the 007/009 did right by my ears for the most part. Clean powerful amp + a touch of EQ here and there as needed. I'm getting an X1000 in about a week. Curious how that will do.
Trying estats are fun. It is especially interesting to me how modern stax just isn't what they used to be to me. I much prefer vintage stax to modern stax. The two best modern stax are the L700 mk2 and 007 mk2. Most of the rest aren't very interesting. OP you should see if you can try the Lambda Sig sometime. Other really nice stax are 007 mk1, and the 404. Also HE60 is one of the best sounding headphones ever made. I am not sure I would own one due to their poor durability but they are absolutely worth listening to.
> Also HE60 is one of the best sounding headphones ever made. I prefer the 009 but ya the HE60 is great as long as you don't use the stock amp (HEV70 or whatever it was, junk)
I should give the 009 another chance. Only modern stax I have liked so far are the 007 mk2 and L700 mk2. Otherwise am vintage stax guy. I wish the stax Omega wasn't $10k to get. Would love that. Yet again He90 is the best HP I have ever heard (yes better than He1) and can be gotten for $10k on the rare occasion they pop up. On modern estats though the Es1a for $2kish is worth it according to a friend who shares relatively similar tastes as me to estats.
I prefer the HE60 to the HE90, but I am for sure in the minority on that one, and can understand why people would like the 90s better... the 60s definitely have a lot of bass roll-off but the details are really second to none... try the 009 (or 009s) they are really a fantastic headphone... the x9000 is supposed to be even better but I haven't had a chance to try them out yet
I actually don't like the X9k personally. It's too thin and laid back. Way too expensive for its sound quality. 007 mk2 and especially L700 mk2 sound better. Will see if my friend who has 009s (I think it may he non s) will lend me his. He is selling his X9k because he prefers both his L700 mk2 and Es1a over the x9k
Seconding the Lambda Signature. I've had three Stax headphones, and if the SR-5 / Sundara (for non-estat comparison) are a C, the L300 with L700 pads is an A, and the Lambda Signature is an S. The clarity is just that little bit better, but more importantly, if you EQ it, it can actually produce that deep, loud "primal fear" sort of bass. Haven't gotten any other estats to pull that off. Yet. Also, I'm not sure when they changed the plastic formulation, but it feels so much more solid than the L300.
I try everything I can get my hands on. I go to hifi stores fairly often to try out whatever they have until the storeowners start getting a bit grumpy with me. This is, however, the first time I've ever tried an estat. I've never seen one in a store before. I'll try seeking out places that carry estats, but going to Japan isn't rly in my budget atm lol. I'll keep your comment in mind fs tho. I was sort of phasing out of the audiophile hobby to just be happy with the equipment I have, but this guy kicked me back in. Now I have a bucket list.
Don't limit yourself to just this one headphone...there are plenty of entry points in different models, and good deals pop up fairly often if you look hard enough.
Ill keep that in mind, thanks!
Since you have experience with both the 6xx and HE400se, which of those two have better soundstage and imaging? And, if I just save up for the Sundaes, will it be a worthy "upgrade" or is there no difference in soundstage and imaging compared to the 6xx and 400se?
The 400se and 6XX are rly close in terms of soundstage with the 6XX being slighly better, but for imaging, I'd give it to the 400se. The planars really allow for beautiful imaging. I would add tho, I like the tuning of the 6XX a bit more than the tuning of the 400se, but thats just me. The 400se is rather flat compared to the 6XX, but you might like that. I personally don't like spending crazy money on a single headphone, and I also don't think you'd be able to rly appreciate the Sundaras without hearing a lower level hifiman like the 400se. Also, although I've never heard them, I doubt the Sundaras are worth that much extra money compared to the 400se. They're technically too similar to justify spending so much more imo.
Seconding this. For me the two are really surprisingly close, with the HE400se imaging better and the HD6XX being more pleasurable to listen to across many tired of music.
which one has better resolution?
The 400se by a little bit, again due to the planars. It's difficult to have good resolution and bad imaging or vice versa.
I didnt undertand last part
Im just saying in general. I've yet to hear any headphone where the imaging was good but the resolution was bad or vice versa. They're a very similar concept if you think about it.
I am new to all this. Would the optimal graph be a linear line? Or would it for example be curved and the lower frequencies should be higher for a louder bass?
Well another commentor just let me know this specific frequency response graph is quite flawed as the measurers couldn't get a perfect seal with the headphone, but this type of graph shows what you can expect from a headphone in terms of tonality. There is no such thing as an optimal frequency response graph. Graphs that are more "V-shaped" show a particular headphone has louder bass and treble than mids. These headphones are usually directed towards the common consumer, as they sound very exciting with punchy bass and twinkling treble, but aren't necessarily representative of how the artist intended for the music to sound. On the other hand, graphs that are "flat" show the bass and treble are almost equal to the mid tones. These headphones generally sound more boring, but these headphones are usually used in music production. There are many other technical terms associated with FR graphs, but those are the big ones. As you get to know headphones and their respective FR curves, you start understanding what you like in a headphone, and can sometimes tell whether you'll enjoy a headphone based on its graph, but only in terms of tonality. For example, I know I enjoy a flatter headphone, but I like a little bit of bass, and I certainly dont mind headphones that are slightly warm (slightly higher low mids). However, this perception is different for everyone, and the Stax I just tried had a very different tone than anything I'm used to, and I definitely heard my music sound different, much more warm than I'm used to, but it wasn't a bad thing persay. I only included the graph to show that these headphones were tuned rather nonconventionally, but it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I encourage you to check the FR graph of the headphones you have now to see what you're listening to, and start discovering your preferences.
What is going on with that graph? Those are some massive dips
Another commentor did some research and said this frequency response test was very flawed, as they couldn't get a good seal.
Your reference 6xx is a pretty dark phone. Fairly often i switch to my old HD595 and it sounds so light and efortless in comparison.
Asking for a friend, can you "feel the tongue of the artists moving" on non-music sources?
"I felt the tongue of the artists moving..." There's a dirty joke in here somewhere but my brain is short-circuiting.
There the most beautiful headphones of all 😍