Wmcmanus Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Uh oh, taken from HF and connects to what Birgir said about the MK2.5 as well (it was in the thread about the HE90 and BH that was put on for sale): "I am not very happy with the SR009 that I bought so I am looking for another. The SR009 to me as well as Wiktor is the better version of the Omega 2 mkII but with better detail, soundstage, clarity and transparent but the brighter tone is still the same. The mid is more forwarding comparing to the O2mkI, O2mkII and even SR Omega, so I don't think it can be compared with HE90. I listened to it for few months and now I changed back to SR Omega, some with HE90 (I am still waiting for my aristaeus) and the R10 and LCD2 rev1 and rev2 with my new 300B Balancing act. I will do more research on this HE90 , however John seems to be an honest and straight shooting guy and easy to communicate with." The amplification source etc. might change a fair bit though (at least that is how I see with the Qualia it can sound totally different with one source to another) and some might simply just fancy the sound as it is. Honestly, I think some people get all wrapped up in their own underwear over things like this. At some point it becomes a case of analysis to paralysis. Thing is, there will never be one perfect recipe for lasagna that will be universally loved by all. It's a matter of taste. Same with headphones, sources, amps, etc. My favorite headphones are always the ones I'm listening to at the moment. All of the comparison stuff becomes rather exhausting after a while... at least for those of us who now measure our time in the hobby in dog years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpelg Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 ^ Awesome post Wayne! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphsci Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Honestly, I think some people get all wrapped up in their own underwear over things like this. At some point it becomes a case of analysis to paralysis. Thing is, there will never be one perfect recipe for lasagna that will be universally loved by all. It's a matter of taste. Same with headphones, sources, amps, etc. My favorite headphones are always the ones I'm listening to at the moment. All of the comparison stuff becomes rather exhausting after a while... at least for those of us who now measure our time in the hobby in dog years. Excellent post Wayne. I was thinking the same thing but was too exhausted to post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spritzer Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 I for one can't ever turn off the analytical side of my brain so I'm always comparing against something, even now when I'm just winding down after work. This also means I can get rather frustrated with what ever headphone I'm currently using if it isn't up to snuff. With the HE90 I just couldn't bring myself to use them and with the HE Jade I couldn't even look at them. That said, things are often blown way out of proportions, just look at the whole cable mess or people using the pricetag as some benchmark. Claims that one needs a 5K$ source to hear what these transducers really can do is just utter, fucking nonsense. It did come from somebody who thinks Esoteric isn't the overpriced crap it really is so go figure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaud Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 ... so if the 009 has about 5dB of higher response at 4KHz than the 007, that should be something we could hear. I for one can stand better a peak there than in the 5.5-9KHz range, but still not sure I want a pair of phones with 5 extra dB of response at 4KHz compared to the 007. We'll see. I seem to also handle a peak in this region better than if occuring higher up. But I also agree with you that some may have difficult time adjusting to the 009 if they feel all is good in their current Omega 2 system. For instance, I assume you got a BHSE with O2mkI or something similar? I did not get exposed to this as my O2 (007A) may already be flawed compared to the previous gen. and I was driving it with what is considered a terrible amp in stock form (727A). So, I guess, there was significant room for improvement (although that was already better than any dynamic gear I had every owned) and the 009 took my system to a whole new level, a different league. Of course, this extra resolution (I really don't believe this all is just due to a change in the voicing) came at the cost of providing proper recordings, but it's really worth it in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torpedo Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 I'm a bit like Birgir, while I can enjoy some flawed phones (like the PS-1 for instance) I can't stand a few precise flaws, one of them being noticeable peaks of response on certain treble areas. Unfortunately there are a few more Knowing if the 009 are going to have those flaws or not before spending their price is something useful IMHO. Arnaud, I got the 007 mk1, but I have no top notch amp for them (some day eventually), just a decent one, the 717. I think this combo can be improved in a few areas with a better amp, but I believe they are more related to sound dynamics than to sound timbre. Each one of us has his own set of needs and preferences. Some people can tolerate a lot of different "flavors" and being happy with most of them. Others have a more limited capability of abstraction into the music and need their set of "minimum well done things" properly resolved. "Extra resolution" at the expense of treble peaks isn't one of the things I think the 007 need to improve. However it's possible the 009 offer so many other good things that the-yet-to-be-assessed peak won't spoil the joy. We'll see, I still have to see measurements which are really to trust, and a pair of "approved ears" which have listened to them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purrin Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Sorry purrin, but the O2 (007, second graph) don't have that peak. Again, the difference between both phones in that area is about 5dB. I guess what I was trying to say is that none these measurements were done correctly. It's obvious with the peaks and sharp troughs that enclosure reflections weren't being compensated for. The measurements I've taken myself with my own equipment are very consistent with Tyll's. Unfortunately I don't have my 507s anymore (nor do I have any of the other headphones from those graphs), to show how wrong and useless those graphs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spritzer Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 The 507's are way too bright to these ears so that is something. While I did sell mine they aren't that far away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Purrin as long as the measurements were made in the same setup a comparison between the graphs is perfectly valid regardless of the flaws you mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purrin Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) Purrin as long as the measurements were made in the same setup a comparison between the graphs is perfectly valid regardless of the flaws you mention. This would be true if the effects of the enclosures did not differ from each other. What make me suspect that they do? The deep valleys (which are wave cancellations likely from the enclosures) are all over the place. If you guys want to see properly done shit to find resonances and ringing, check out my HD800 CSD thread on HF. Edited August 13, 2011 by purrin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaud Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 This would be true if the effects of the enclosures did not differ from each other. What make me suspect that they do? The deep valleys (which are wave cancellations likely from the enclosures) are all over the place. If you guys want to see properly done shit to find resonances and ringing, check out my HD800 CSD thread on HF. Absolutely brilliant! I replied there and won't double post here as I got flamed before for that but I really wanted to see such test data at the time I was tinkling with the mod! Would really like to hear how you are doing the measurements! cheers, arnaud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkmc2 Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 Honestly, I think some people get all wrapped up in their own underwear over things like this. At some point it becomes a case of analysis to paralysis. Thing is, there will never be one perfect recipe for lasagna that will be universally loved by all. It's a matter of taste. Same with headphones, sources, amps, etc. My favorite headphones are always the ones I'm listening to at the moment. All of the comparison stuff becomes rather exhausting after a while... at least for those of us who now measure our time in the hobby in dog years. I may be new here, but I have also been at this for a while and then some. I could not agree more. There is a place, of course, for audio equipment hobbyists. But I wish they had a separate section on audio websites so folks who just want to hear music and movies could compare notes without wading through high end lust (misplaced, usually IMHO), ignorant posts about wire/burn in/tubes vs sand/speakers vs headphones... You know, beating dead horses or science fiction audio or both. I am afraid to post on the other sites now, but I have a high comfort level here. I loved the reply a while back where someone inquired about a multi-thousand dollar interconnect or cable; it was suggested he try Head-Fi. Now that was good advice. His post there probably has 40K views and 189 followups, most off topic of course! Threads like this one do get tiresome after a while because there comes a point where the only way to make a contribution is to wait and hear them for yourself. I will take advice about something I have not heard, but just shoot me if I give commentary or opinions about it. Maybe I should rename myself LowPostCount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 I'm well aware that room effects exist. That's why I used to do my measurements in several attitudes and positions. That does not mean that one can not gain lots of valid comparison information from those plots. A picture of a bear with a smudge is still different from a picture of a horse with different smudges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purrin Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 Unless the picture of a bear is smudged so much that it looks like a horse. I agree some information can be gathered, but it would be too soon to assume or even be the slightest bit alarmed that the SR009 has a peak at 5k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepak Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 There are already reports of people saying they are bright, the graph sort of just confirms it... bright isn't a bad thing btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currawong Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 Mucking around with the iTunes EQ, 4k seems to be more upper-mids/lower-treble. It seems to be a point that, boosted, contributes to the impression of being both bright and forward. Listening at around 85dB it pushes trumpets and sax's forward in jazz and brings out any harshness aggressively. I suppose one could say it does for bad jazz recordings what the HD-800s did for sibilant ones - piss you off. I have no issues with the bass out of the 007t, but I didn't with the HD-800s either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaud Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 I'm well aware that room effects exist. That's why I used to do my measurements in several attitudes and positions. That does not mean that one can not gain lots of valid comparison information from those plots. A picture of a bear with a smudge is still different from a picture of a horse with different smudges. Humm, it's hard to believe the room effects can be so significant unless you're doing the measurements in a room the size of a shoebox or in a reverberant chamber. At low frequency, you're just measuring evanescent waves (bass sounds are only heard in the near acoustic field but don't propagate in the room). And for higher frequencies, the direct field from the transducers is likely several over orders of magnitude higher than waves bouncing off your walls. On the other hand, acoustic reflections from the test apparatus are very real as mentioned by purrin. In your case, didn't you get better result simply because of the averaging? i.e. the response of the transducers at a single mic position get very sensitive to slight variations in how the headphone is positioned as frequency goes up so every time you moved the headphone around, you were simply slightly perturbing the test setup and your average response is smoother as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaud Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 Arnaud, I got the 007 mk1, but I have no top notch amp for them (some day eventually), just a decent one, the 717. I think this combo can be improved in a few areas with a better amp, but I believe they are more related to sound dynamics than to sound timbre. Each one of us has his own set of needs and preferences. Some people can tolerate a lot of different "flavors" and being happy with most of them. Others have a more limited capability of abstraction into the music and need their set of "minimum well done things" properly resolved. "Extra resolution" at the expense of treble peaks isn't one of the things I think the 007 need to improve. However it's possible the 009 offer so many other good things that the-yet-to-be-assessed peak won't spoil the joy. We'll see, I still have to see measurements which are really to trust, and a pair of "approved ears" which have listened to them I shouldn't have just stated the increase in resolution, it is so much more than that, in particular impact, imaging, and bass extension + control. But anyhow, as for waiting for people impressions whom you trust, I would do the same if I was in your shoes given the very very steep price of the 009... For all we know, I might be going death, hence insensitive to 4kHz peak so you're better off waiting ;o). If that's any reassurance though, I am really not a fan of artificial brightness usually (hated most of Focal's speakers in the past and to a lower extent some higher end B&W speakers until the most recent diamond series). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 The SR-009 ear cups are silvery, so of course they're more detailed and less warm than the copper-colored Mk1s. Duh. You guys need to hang out in more cable forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmcmanus Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 The SR-009 ear cups are silvery, so of course they're more detailed and less warm than the copper-colored Mk1s. Duh. You guys need to hang out in more cable forums. That's odd. My SR-009's don't sound detailed at all. They sound very distant, almost as though the music is coming all the way from Japan. Man, this has been a long delay! I sure hope they're as good as everyone claims they will be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaud Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 I sure hope they're as good as everyone claims they will be... Well, actually they sound like an ultrasone on a bad day. But in my case, I had to justify the expense and praise it to the moon... Sorry about that... I thought i read someone on HF from the US who received it though? The end of the tunnel must be near! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaud Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) I'm well aware that room effects exist. That's why I used to do my measurements in several attitudes and positions. That does not mean that one can not gain lots of valid comparison information from those plots. A picture of a bear with a smudge is still different from a picture of a horse with different smudges. Humm, it's hard to believe the room effects can be so significant unless you're doing the measurements in a room the size of a shoebox or in a reverberant chamber. At low frequency, you're just measuring evanescent waves (bass sounds are only heard in the near acoustic field but don't propagate in the room). And for higher frequencies, the direct field from the transducers is likely several over orders of magnitude higher than waves bouncing off your walls. On the other hand, acoustic reflections from the test apparatus are very real as mentioned by purrin. In your case, didn't you get better result simply because of the averaging? i.e. the response of the transducers at a single mic position get very sensitive to slight variations in how the headphone is positioned as frequency goes up so every time you moved the headphone around, you were simply slightly perturbing the test setup and your average response is smoother as a result. Since Purrin was kind enough to send me his raw impulse response data, I investigated this further but reprocessing the data using Matlab... It's confirmed for Purrin's data: the reflection from the room (at 7 to 9ms) is pretty much in the noise floor (50dB down or so from the peak response) and has very little impact on the response: Impulse response: Energy time curve: Frequency response, including or not the first room reflections: Then, just for kicks, here is a comparison of the HD800 and SR-80 which is, how to say, enlightening . The Grado headphone sure is lively in the upper midrange! Some manufacturers are lucky no-one in the industry is publishing comparative CSD graphs ... yet ... Impulse response: Frequency response: Spectral Decay - waterfall (30dB range): Spectral decay - contour plot (30dB range): Additional results to be posted in the original thread... Edited August 15, 2011 by arnaud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) Humm, it's hard to believe the room effects can be so significant unless you're doing the measurements in a room the size of a shoebox or in a reverberant chamber. At low frequency, you're just measuring evanescent waves (bass sounds are only heard in the near acoustic field but don't propagate in the room). And for higher frequencies, the direct field from the transducers is likely several over orders of magnitude higher than waves bouncing off your walls. On the other hand, acoustic reflections from the test apparatus are very real as mentioned by purrin. In your case, didn't you get better result simply because of the averaging? i.e. the response of the transducers at a single mic position get very sensitive to slight variations in how the headphone is positioned as frequency goes up so every time you moved the headphone around, you were simply slightly perturbing the test setup and your average response is smoother as a result. It depends how you're doing the measurement. I was doing a sinusoidal sweep measurement to get the frequency response curve vs a waterfall plot from an impulse which by definition gets a lot of non-linearity of the driver. Hence the room (or more likely the table the setup is sitting on) has plenty of time to get back and slightly modify the response. No belief involved. Edited August 15, 2011 by Dreadhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 ok, wait. You're seriously criticizing the $80 grados because they don't compare well to HD800s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaud Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 ok, wait. You're seriously criticizing the $80 grados because they don't compare well to HD800s? Indeed, it makes no sense price wise but higher end Grados often don't fare much better as far as these nasty peaks are concerned. The thing is, these resonances are likely acoustic ones from the chamber. Be it nasty plastic of the SR80 or previous wood from the RS-1, they'll still be there for a given shape of enclosure considering that Grado uses the same pads (same acoustic absorption) across the range. I'd be happy to compare if one sends me the impulse response data. 80USD is not much in today's world of 1000+USD headphones. But still, it's a pretty darn awful response (and sounds the same to my ears). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.