Headphone + amp upgrade advice please

[dalethorn]

8 hours ago, hdo said:

I wouldn't go for expensive moving coil type dynamic headphones. You can get much better sound from budget planar magnetic headphones. I use Oppo PM-3 planar magnetic headphones and iFi iDAC2/Headamp. Sound is much better than any dynamic headphones I used or tested before. If you like on-ear type headphones, try Audeze Sine. PM-3 is around-ear type headphones. Plus, you can get PM-3 and iDAC2 well below $1,000.

All of the planars I've tried are treble-deficient.  I prefer a somewhat dark sound, with no treble peaks, yet the planars sound rather dull the higher you go.  Even when you smooth out the HD800 peak(s), the sparkle is still there that's missing from planars -at least the planars under $1500 or so.

[dalethorn]

54 minutes ago, hdo said:

I tested HD600. It was total garbage. Unless HD800 uses revolutionary technology sound won't be greatly improved. It all depends on the type of music you are listening. For the type of music the OP enjoys, planer headphones may be a good fit.

Try David Chesky's Girl From Guatemala, especially about the 3:00 point.  The HD800 aces it, and I doubt your lowball planars will be anywhere in the ballpark.

 

As to the type of music, I've found that good recordings benefit from a good headphone and suitable amp.  A good amp for PM3 (a really suitable amp) might raise the overall cost higher than you'd like.

 

EDIT: BTW, I would expect the HD600 to sound bad if not driven properly, *especially* in the bass where the impedance is much higher than at 1 khz.

[dalethorn]

39 minutes ago, davide256 said:

 

We all hear different things when we listen. To me Sennheiser are like KEF's, rich and boring. The Elear's are intensely detailed but everything has this kind of sandpaper sibilance. The Audeze are glorious for tone color rectitude but a little slow compared to the Elear.  None of them have a high frequency lack, what they have is a sound signature you either like or dislike.

There's a tremendous difference in the treble strength of a Senn HD800 and planars in that range, such as the LCD2 Fazor edition I had.  Particularly above 10 khz.  To think that they sound about the same (treble), doesn't compute.

[dalethorn]

4 hours ago, davide256 said:

Again, your personal preference/bias. You have no monopoly on the human experience.

Logic is not about monopoly, it's about comparing A to B and realizing they are not identical.  You are trying to create a false equivalence, but it doesn't pass logic.

[dalethorn]

3 hours ago, hdo said:

I think I have a good answer for this problem. The problem is not with planar headphones. It's sampling rates of digital contents. Planar headphones are simply too accurate. It produces sound exactly recorded in your digital tracks. For 44.1khz sampling rate, there is only four samples available to encode 10khz sound curve. It's just two above and two below the base line. With this kind of sampling rate, sound encoding of treble sound must be heavily distorted. Planar magnetic headphones are too detailed on this.

 

To avoid this problem, you need to use higher definition such as 24/192 or 24/384, or go analog such as vinyls. I tested this theory this on 24/192 track. I couldn't hear roughness. I tried treble rich CD rips, sound horrible! 

 

 

 

False.  The planar driver is very large, very well suited to accurate bass.  Not so good for treble.

[dalethorn]

2 hours ago, hdo said:

PS:

My test also shows that upsampling to 32/192 from Windows mixer makes treble sound much better. Planar headphones good match for high definition tracks.

 

 

 

Upsampling works no better in audio than it does in photography.  It gets bigger, but not better.

[dalethorn]

4 hours ago, hdo said:

I don't think you are right. Most large headphones also use large driver.

HD800 has 56mm driver.

PM-3 has 55mm.

The planar projects sound from a large flat surface, but the dynamic driver projects sound as a piston.  Very different.  The large flat surface is not good for high frequencies.  You should read up on this before posting.

[dalethorn]

4 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Last I checked we were flesh and blood, not silicon chips. Logic has zero to do  with each unique persons hearing capability, ear training and experience. You and I can listen to 2 different headphones and based on our uniqueness come up with very different appraisals of its enjoy-ability. As an example, while the Beyers  you have may be more technically accurate, I'd gravitate to the Grado PS1000 because I care more about tone color richness  than I do  high frequency crispness and extension.

Your logic is very faulty.  The whole purpose of high fidelity is accurate reproduction.  For example, it does not matter that we hear a live recording differently when we sit there and listen side-by-side.  What matters is that the high fidelity gear plays the recording accurately, so that I hear the same thing in my recording as when I was there live, and you hear in your recording and hi-fi gear the same as when you were there live.

[dalethorn]

5 minutes ago, Summit said:

Some of the best planar headphones; Audeze LCD4, Abyss and Hifiman HE6 does not roll of much or at all, because they have diaphragm with very high tension. High tension is also good for firm bass. The down side is they get insensitive and need a lot of current to get the same SPL non-planer headphones do.  

 

Hold the Focal Elear and get a good look at the driver, then blow *very* slightly on it and see the large amount of excursion.  That's what you need to push the amount of air to create strong deep bass notes like organ pedals.  Planars are getting vastly more expensive, but not as good as electrostatics.

[dalethorn]

5 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Electrostatics are also planar. Which design or headphone one prefer is individual.

 

They are NOT the same.  There are huge measurable differences between planars and electrostatics.  Planars are still in the development stages as far as competing with electrostatics, and maybe in another 10 years or so they'll achieve a good measure of fidelity.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, Summit said:

 

Correct, they are not the same technology, one use electrostatics drivers and another planar magnetic drivers. But then it comes to the diaphragm they are very similar. Both use big flat planar membrane that are very thin. It was the large flat surface you said was not good for high frequencies and that’s the same for electrostatics and planar magnetics.

 

I don’t agree that planar are still in the development stages. Have you ever heard speakers like Apogee Diva and Martin Logan or Hifiman HE6/HE 1000 v2?

 

What I know from personal experince may not agree with the stated specs.  What I know is that ES headphones have always been excellent treble machines, and as recently as 2 years ago using some pricy planars, they're nowhere near as good.  To be informative, someone needs to explain why this is rather than say it isn't.

[dalethorn]

40 minutes ago, hdo said:

Planar magnetic headphones use thin light diaphragm. Driving force is spread over surface area. So it can move very fast, even large ones. Inertia and momentum are functions of mass. PM diaphragm are very light. So the theory that big drivers cannot move fast for high frequency sound is false. I tested sound tones ranging 1khz to 13khz generated using Audacity. PM-3 planner magnetic headphones produce very nice TREBLE sound. Both PM-3 and Audeze Sine claims frequency response of 10hz to 50khz. I am satisfied with their claim.

 

The reason that some people claim that planar magnetic headphones lack treble is because they play songs that are treble deficient. Especially old songs lack treble sound. Note that analog tapes were not good in recording high pitch sound. The high pitch tone sound from dynamic headphones are plastic noise or distorted sound from plastic cones used in dynamic. If your favoured song is treble deficient songs, plastic dynamic headphones may be preferred. Otherwise planar magnetic is much better technology. With high definition digital recording become standards, planar will replace dynamic headphones.

 

No, not even close.  The Senn HD800, for example, has incredible upper harmonic resolution and sparkle, and the best planars I've heard cannot compare.  I think if you read enough commentary and reviews, you'll find the same.

[dalethorn]

7 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

Its quite obvious planar have more driving force so better at low frequencies and electrostats have no big magnet arrays to mess up mid and highs. So no one is perfect. It is what compromise you like better

 

To be honest, I don't find any compromise to be "better".  A good headphone should not be like a politician, where you choose the least evil option. A good electrostatic like the Stax SR009 would probably work.

[dalethorn]

2 minutes ago, hdo said:

That's your preference for sound. Planars produce sound as it is recorded!

 

False.  Planars are poor quality attempts at doing what ES headphones do.

[dalethorn]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

So, who likes the Beats headphones?

 

I had a listen to the newer Beats Studio Wireless.  Somewhat boomy, with a recessed lower treble.

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, Summit said:

 

I have not said that planar cannot play high frequency sound, I have stated the very opposite.

 

@Dalethorn are on the right track in regard to that it’s hard to make a planar without roll of high treble. But I object to his statement that planar can’t be made without roll of treble or that planars are poor quality attempts at doing what ES do.

 

Not exactly what I said.  It's not about rolloff, it's the upper harmonic resolution that's poor compared to ES or Senn HD800 headphones.

 

Here is the best-ever test for resolution - Girl From Guatemala, at 3:00 is a burst of treble instruments that will sound fair to awful on most headphones, but spectacular on the HD800 and a good electrostatic.

http://www.hdtracks.com/area-1237

[dalethorn]

52 minutes ago, hdo said:

I know you didn't say that. I just quoted from your comment! I can hear sparkling sound from planar headphones using Audacity tone generator. If source contains sparkling sound, planars will produce sparkling sound. High pitch tone that can be heard from dynamic headphone is mylar plastic noise. Not from source contents.

 

Do try the Chesky "Girl From Guatemala" - it's an ear-opener.

[dalethorn]

On 12/23/2017 at 1:10 AM, Ralf11 said:

So, who likes the Beats headphones?

 

I replied to this once, a couple days before I bought the new Beats Studio3 Wireless.  Like other new Bluetooth headphones, there is no purely passive wired mode, so the DSP is always active.  The good news is you get the same sound more-or-less with or without  cable, unlike the Bose QC35 first edition.

 

The other news is the sound - a strong emphasis in the upper bass to low mids, a significant recess in the lower treble, and a strong peak in the upper treble.  The combination of the first two makes the sound somewhat muffled.  This is not a one-off - the sound is the same as the demo unit.

 

What worries me about this upper treble peak is what may be happening to Beats and other such headphone users' hearing, and if this peak is an attempt to make the Studio3 Wireless sound a little more alive to those users.

 

 

[dalethorn]

42 minutes ago, Ben2300 said:

have you guys try the new Sony Wireless yet. I tried and purchased one it sounds a lot better than beats.

 

Some of the Sony's are getting great reviews.  Sony has a long history of excellent sound, while Beats has essentially no history of excellent sound.  In my particular case, Sony is a no-no due to their repair policies, but hopefully you'll not have any issues with yours.