Well, you've got me going now ... had a look over at HeadRoom: Headphones: Full-Size, In-Ear, Wireless, Noise Cancelling, Headsets at what they show, AKG 272HD vs. HD800 - same methodology in testing always gives one a head start (is there a pun there?) ! Everything there points to the Sennheiser being superior: flatness of FR, distortion, square wave handling, impedance load is an absolute doddle ... so what's going on?
The clue is the FR: the AKG's fall off a cliff at about 2kHz ... all the nasty high frequency stuff is nicely pushed into the background - apart from the massive 15dB spike at 10kHz, I wonder how a speaker with that sort of performance would go down ...
Frank
Whatever Frank, your full assessment without any first hand knowledge, or it would seem going by your take on a weekend with the HD650, without a proper headphone amp; doesnt hold much water as to your opinion on what myself and others are hearing. Continued theorizing by google does not strengthen your case.
The spike at 10K is an artifact of the test rig, its there in just about everything at headroom. i'm not pro AKG242 MkII either really, but I would take them over the HD800. The HD800 is part way to a nice and very comfortable headphone (if you can get past what you look like with them on), it does many things very well.
The first time I heard them I thought they were quite impressive, but over time with more experience with them, the overtly large stage along with the mind exploring mid/treble became apparent to me and now its all I hear. They are very picky as far as amplifier, most seem to enjoy them with tubes, probably due to having more damping in the electronics to offset some resonance in the driver, construction or impedance. Several mods have come about to battle the resonance I speak of, as well as a quite ridiculous one where a set of HD600 are worn at the same time as a set of HD800 over the top (both are open back) you should read Tyll's review of this hehe! hilarious!
aside from soundstage size, my JH13 (custom in ears with passive 3 way 6 driver WW-MM-TT crossover) are better at everything they do for my taste. They are much more nimble, with STAX-like transient speed, more detail, nice tight and well extended bass, very good imaging, excellent and fairly neutral midrange, yet without the fatigue. they have a small bump at ~40-50hz (with extension down to 15-20Hz), but are otherwise quite neutral as are built to be Custom in ear stage monitors.
Each set of JH13 is equalized (to a target curve) due to every set and every ear cavity/'room' response being different. they use the ear impression used to create them, along with computer modelling and measured response to meet the curve for each set of headphones crossover. This is termed 'ear flat'
there are now a couple versions of stage monitors with digital crossover/correction and are paired with a multichannel DSP->DAC->AMP with 6 wire headphone cables (actually from memory they were disappointingly a 4 wire a side with a shared ground)
for the money needed for a decent HD800 rig i'd rather just go the extra mile, get some STAX and build a DIY T2, KGSS or BHSE. But I became distracted with speakers....
I do not believe you can get a great idea of how headphones will sound by plots just yet, you can get some idea of how headphones may compare to one another, so i'm glad the search for a proper measurement technique is ongoing.
Last edited:
There are lots of different ferrites for lots of different purposes. Also iron dust cores which some may confuse with ferrites. Use the right core and it helps keep RF out of your equipment. Use the wrong one and it could help inject RF into your equipment by tuning your cables to make them better antennas!
actually here Frank, Tyll has documented and collected all of the mods to address the problem I speak of. the most well known of which is the 'Anaxilus mod' after the head-fi member. waterfall plots seem to reveal it best.
and I do...(underline mine)
thats it on headphones from me, sorry chaps.
and I do...(underline mine)
thats it on headphones from me, sorry chaps.
Last edited:
I had not made any comparizons. Bought ferrits and mounted them. Nothing changed in the 200K Hz range, little rounding of square waves, reduction of HF noise, not a big change in tonal presentation, just the signal is cleaner: i can live with, or without.
I doubt any big changes due to the Q of various ferrites, considering the involved inductances. Am-i wrong ?
True, you have to match the ferrite to the problem (the noise that is of concern) though the clip on ones are quite often broadband (25MHz - 100/300MHz) and I would suspect that these are the most frequently used as they are the 'standard' or basic clip on most of us are likely to buy. Operating at frequencies though of a magnitude of 1250X the hihest audio frequencies are they (rf aside) going to affect the audio waveform, and if so by how much?
Three possible effects of ferrites on cables:
1. modify (hopefully downwards) the amount of RF entering the equipment
2. affect stability (but only on equipment which was almost unstable anyway)
3. add distortion (but only when used wrongly e.g. separate ferrites on signal and return wires so saturation possible)
Less RF ought to improve things, but some people may prefer extra noise and distortion so injecting RF via badly designed cables etc. may please them.
1. modify (hopefully downwards) the amount of RF entering the equipment
2. affect stability (but only on equipment which was almost unstable anyway)
3. add distortion (but only when used wrongly e.g. separate ferrites on signal and return wires so saturation possible)
Less RF ought to improve things, but some people may prefer extra noise and distortion so injecting RF via badly designed cables etc. may please them.
May-be we can start a business of special audiophile ferrites, with rare earth, precious metal plated, with some nice wood cover to dump resonances (of course) witch will add purity to our music ?
With the advantage we could produce real impressive curves (in the Ghz range) to justify the amazing improvement, ( a little obscure technique help ), and nice poetic words to share comparative listening impressions, in the spatial area, separation, fluidity, easiness of transients and natural of the reproduction.
Of course, they will be VERY expensive, and w'll have to pretend their improvements only reach the top on HI-FI (not MID-FI) equipments around. While they will help any system, no way to lose a market.
With the advantage we could produce real impressive curves (in the Ghz range) to justify the amazing improvement, ( a little obscure technique help ), and nice poetic words to share comparative listening impressions, in the spatial area, separation, fluidity, easiness of transients and natural of the reproduction.
Of course, they will be VERY expensive, and w'll have to pretend their improvements only reach the top on HI-FI (not MID-FI) equipments around. While they will help any system, no way to lose a market.
Last edited:
Christophe,
I have assumed perhaps incorrectly up to now that some of the very expensive interconnects and speaker cables have a ferrite included in their construction? Little round plastic coated traps as part of the assembly. Now I for one am not going to pay $1,000 per meter foot for a speaker cable or interconnect, exaggerating perhaps here, but not by much, but it appears that the boutique manufacturers are already doing this. To any effect I won't conjecture, I do not know anything in the RF field to understand what is supposed to be happening between a speaker and an amplifier where I am worrying about any RF injection unless they are in the audio band.
I have assumed perhaps incorrectly up to now that some of the very expensive interconnects and speaker cables have a ferrite included in their construction? Little round plastic coated traps as part of the assembly. Now I for one am not going to pay $1,000 per meter foot for a speaker cable or interconnect, exaggerating perhaps here, but not by much, but it appears that the boutique manufacturers are already doing this. To any effect I won't conjecture, I do not know anything in the RF field to understand what is supposed to be happening between a speaker and an amplifier where I am worrying about any RF injection unless they are in the audio band.
Blocking some RF to go back in the feedback loop of the amp, reason why it is better to set the ferrite near the outputs.
Anything witch can bring happiness in the life of an audiophile satisfies the altruism of the snake oil merchant.
Joke apart, as asserted Bonsai, we do not think often enough to use little ferrite in our electronics boards, like in the gates of power FETS, when we chase instability.
Joke apart, as asserted Bonsai, we do not think often enough to use little ferrite in our electronics boards, like in the gates of power FETS, when we chase instability.
Last edited:
true, interesting you mention them really, i'm playing with some of the newer compound common and differential mode SMD filters in some regulators at the moment to isolate and filter noise. its pretty mad science though... particularly common mode.
Kindhornman: thats correct, I think the crystals add too much upper treble energy though... or was that the pipe crystal?
Kindhornman: thats correct, I think the crystals add too much upper treble energy though... or was that the pipe crystal?
Last edited:
Christophe, that might be because, for people like me at least, who are inexperienced with them, they are somewhat mysterious and there is what seems like such a bewildering array of available ferrite beads, and different ways to use them (e.g. wire or pin through once, wire wrapped around and through more than once).
How often is it critical to use exactly the ferrite with certain characteristics? And how would we predict which ones would be suitable?
Can we model them as a series component with some impedance versus frequency curve? How would we calculate or simulate with them, and how would we design such that we arrived at the requirements for the bead? Or are they simpler to think of as just low-pass filters with a relatively-high cutoff frequencies? Or as tiny inductors?
How often is it critical to use exactly the ferrite with certain characteristics? And how would we predict which ones would be suitable?
Can we model them as a series component with some impedance versus frequency curve? How would we calculate or simulate with them, and how would we design such that we arrived at the requirements for the bead? Or are they simpler to think of as just low-pass filters with a relatively-high cutoff frequencies? Or as tiny inductors?
We will tell our customers that if they can't hear any improvement then either their equipment or their ears are not sufficiently discriminating. That guarantees no complaints.Esperado said:
The sort of ferrites used for RF suppression essentially add a lossy inductor to the cable. In some cases it can be so lossy that it is more resistive than inductive.
Last edited:
gootee, i've found the reading materials, application and selection guide at the murata website to be very helpful in sifting through the myriad choices. this article noise counter-measures has been very useful. luckily it relates to some excellent parts too.
common mode choke coils would seem the better choice on cables as well
common mode choke coils would seem the better choice on cables as well
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.