Ok, I will play along - what do you drive them with?
what is your source material's format and how do you get that into your thingie that drives the AKGs?
I don't use a dedicated headphone amp. They work very well from the built-in headphone output of various devices. My short rotation is the headphone outputs of Sony NWZ A17, Sony HAP S1, Bryston BP6.
Source material mainly CDs or the equivalent FLAC files.
If you want a one word description of the K550 - I'd pick "effortless". By your description this is what I understood you were also looking for.
Ok, I don't think you will like what is coming very much.
The only things coming are pretty direct and without the intention of doing anything but being direct, nothing else.
The things you cited for driving the headphones, class AB output stages?
Or you don't know?
Have you run a Class A output stage ever with ur phones?
How come you haven't bothered to build something Class A, for example from the many designs available here, elsewhere, or out of ur own engineering?
How much do you think what ur using represents by % of what is possible from electronics + headphones, assuming fantastically great source material?
-------------
Next the headphones themselves.
Attached are the actual measurements that I went and looked at.
I think they speak for themselves and speak volumes as to what is going on with them. Now I am not saying that one could not find them good to listen to.
I am saying that IF I showed you a speaker system with this response, you or others would likely got completely bonkers nutz about it.
And, fyi, if you ask are there speakers with dead flat frequency response over essentially the same range? Yes.
Is flat frequency response the main criterion for speakers?
It's perhaps important, but not sufficient alone.
And, fwiw, that ~10dB dip falls approximately where it is easiest to hear sibilence and other nasties, some of which seemingly are produced by opamps and other types of circuits. So, that's a good place for the dip, a built in "de-esser" in effect.
Btw during the search, I notice this seems to be a design goal to some extent, or design artifact of many brands and models, since a whole lot seem to have a dip in this range too.
Bottom line, based on the "measurements" - which you like to cite so often, eh? - I rather doubt that this set up is good enough to be able for anyone to discern all manner of things of the sort that are being discussed and asserted here.
But I do appreciate you saying what ur running - many here are afraid to do so, since the "measurements" might reveal that their experience/system simply isn't "up to it".
_-_-
The only things coming are pretty direct and without the intention of doing anything but being direct, nothing else.
The things you cited for driving the headphones, class AB output stages?
Or you don't know?
Have you run a Class A output stage ever with ur phones?
How come you haven't bothered to build something Class A, for example from the many designs available here, elsewhere, or out of ur own engineering?
How much do you think what ur using represents by % of what is possible from electronics + headphones, assuming fantastically great source material?
-------------
Next the headphones themselves.
Attached are the actual measurements that I went and looked at.
I think they speak for themselves and speak volumes as to what is going on with them. Now I am not saying that one could not find them good to listen to.
I am saying that IF I showed you a speaker system with this response, you or others would likely got completely bonkers nutz about it.
And, fyi, if you ask are there speakers with dead flat frequency response over essentially the same range? Yes.
Is flat frequency response the main criterion for speakers?
It's perhaps important, but not sufficient alone.
And, fwiw, that ~10dB dip falls approximately where it is easiest to hear sibilence and other nasties, some of which seemingly are produced by opamps and other types of circuits. So, that's a good place for the dip, a built in "de-esser" in effect.
Btw during the search, I notice this seems to be a design goal to some extent, or design artifact of many brands and models, since a whole lot seem to have a dip in this range too.
Bottom line, based on the "measurements" - which you like to cite so often, eh? - I rather doubt that this set up is good enough to be able for anyone to discern all manner of things of the sort that are being discussed and asserted here.
But I do appreciate you saying what ur running - many here are afraid to do so, since the "measurements" might reveal that their experience/system simply isn't "up to it".
_-_-
Attachments
Bear, I don't have to defend my choice. I went to many "auditions" and this is what I came up with, within my preferences and my budget.
As for the measurements, I'm not one of the numerologists. I don't look at them numbers other than to confirm that there isn't any glaring issue with the equipment I'm looking at.
You won't get anywhere with scrutinizing headphones frequency response charts. It has been decided long time ago that flat <> pleasant. Plus there isn't any standardized, largely agreed upon measurement method. Just go an try them, there ain't any better alternative.
P.S. btw that dip doesn't have any de-essing effect. the k550 is actually slightly sibilant and sparkling when compared with the approved by golden ears sennheisers. And that just adds to my enjoyment, since I don't have to make efforts to understand the lyrics or to aurally "squint" in order to distinguish the instruments.
As for the measurements, I'm not one of the numerologists. I don't look at them numbers other than to confirm that there isn't any glaring issue with the equipment I'm looking at.
You won't get anywhere with scrutinizing headphones frequency response charts. It has been decided long time ago that flat <> pleasant. Plus there isn't any standardized, largely agreed upon measurement method. Just go an try them, there ain't any better alternative.
P.S. btw that dip doesn't have any de-essing effect. the k550 is actually slightly sibilant and sparkling when compared with the approved by golden ears sennheisers. And that just adds to my enjoyment, since I don't have to make efforts to understand the lyrics or to aurally "squint" in order to distinguish the instruments.
Last edited:
Sure... glad you enjoy them.
Why not answer the rest of the questions too?
I'd likely build a pair of electrostatics and direct drive, but that's me.
Why haven't you?
This is a DIY forum and the idea is try things and experiment.
The best headphones I have ever heard were a pair brought in by (oh gee, can't remember the label) Todd Garfinkle, who has a label out of Japan... very large diaphragm Stax. Not sold in the USA I am told, but one could get them.
But you could just build a copy too, eh?
So, as you say, "within my preferences and my budget".
Which as I have been saying is the crux of the matter because until you DRIVE an IROC car, or a NASCAR in a race and all you have ever done is to watch it on TV, it's impossible to know one way or another about anything that has to do with it.
If you have not experienced it, you can not know.
Regardless of what Toole et al have "tested" - I can assure you and everyone else here that those tests were not dispositive for a number of reasons that revolve around this very issue. I don't recall at the moment if the information that made it clear about this was in a private conversation or out in the forum, so I'll assume it was private and not say exactly what and how I know this.
Regardless of "flat" not being pleasant?
Perhaps that depends on what "flat" is WRT your ears with a small transducer sitting on the ear?
The issue with those phones isn't "flatness" it's (among other things) the 10dB dip, and the peak thereafter, and the ringing shown on the waterfall...
So, as far as what opamps do to sound or don't do, you'd have to be in a position to hear a situation without their doing something to know IF they are or not.
I seriously wonder how many readers and participants really have had that experience, ever. I wonder how many can't hear any "differences" because their gear is fraught with the very thing that one is trying to see if it is there or not there??
Not saying that is everyone, just wondering how many that claim this is all mirage are in which position...
_-_-
Why not answer the rest of the questions too?
I'd likely build a pair of electrostatics and direct drive, but that's me.
Why haven't you?
This is a DIY forum and the idea is try things and experiment.
The best headphones I have ever heard were a pair brought in by (oh gee, can't remember the label) Todd Garfinkle, who has a label out of Japan... very large diaphragm Stax. Not sold in the USA I am told, but one could get them.
But you could just build a copy too, eh?
So, as you say, "within my preferences and my budget".
Which as I have been saying is the crux of the matter because until you DRIVE an IROC car, or a NASCAR in a race and all you have ever done is to watch it on TV, it's impossible to know one way or another about anything that has to do with it.
If you have not experienced it, you can not know.
Regardless of what Toole et al have "tested" - I can assure you and everyone else here that those tests were not dispositive for a number of reasons that revolve around this very issue. I don't recall at the moment if the information that made it clear about this was in a private conversation or out in the forum, so I'll assume it was private and not say exactly what and how I know this.
Regardless of "flat" not being pleasant?
Perhaps that depends on what "flat" is WRT your ears with a small transducer sitting on the ear?
The issue with those phones isn't "flatness" it's (among other things) the 10dB dip, and the peak thereafter, and the ringing shown on the waterfall...
So, as far as what opamps do to sound or don't do, you'd have to be in a position to hear a situation without their doing something to know IF they are or not.
I seriously wonder how many readers and participants really have had that experience, ever. I wonder how many can't hear any "differences" because their gear is fraught with the very thing that one is trying to see if it is there or not there??
Not saying that is everyone, just wondering how many that claim this is all mirage are in which position...
_-_-
I don't see much wrong with these headphones, nor do they look too nasty a load. Not sure what sort of buffers the listed equipment have, but it's probably fine.
The Wonderfully Competent AKG K550 Sealed Headphone | InnerFidelity
He's probably our best/most reliable reference point.
Just from reading what's been quoted, there's a massive rift in understanding.
So let's help that out, since I've become persona non grata here. 🙂
1.) Do whatever the heck you like.
2.) If you want to claim that X or Y change affects the sound, be prepared to defend it with data. Good data.
3.) If your X or Y change flies contrary to conventional wisdom, expect that the quality of data expected to prove your point to rise. Meteorically.
The Wonderfully Competent AKG K550 Sealed Headphone | InnerFidelity
He's probably our best/most reliable reference point.
Just from reading what's been quoted, there's a massive rift in understanding.
So let's help that out, since I've become persona non grata here. 🙂
1.) Do whatever the heck you like.
2.) If you want to claim that X or Y change affects the sound, be prepared to defend it with data. Good data.
3.) If your X or Y change flies contrary to conventional wisdom, expect that the quality of data expected to prove your point to rise. Meteorically.
Don't give me the "if you haven't experienced then you're not qualified to comment" argument. There are plenty of high-end shops here that are striving to impress you with their setups and I did my due diligence with "auditioning". On short, the setups that I really felt to be noticeable "upgrades" were unpractical either from a budget or room setup pov. As much as I would love to have speakers with real woofers (i.e. larger than 12"), I don't have the room for them. And large electrostats are completely out of the question.
Coming back to headphones measurements. It has been noticed long time ago that the very exact position of the cans in respect to the head/ears/measuring microphone has a large effect on the resulting measurements. It's a completely different proposition to measure them as compared to speakers.
Coming back to headphones measurements. It has been noticed long time ago that the very exact position of the cans in respect to the head/ears/measuring microphone has a large effect on the resulting measurements. It's a completely different proposition to measure them as compared to speakers.
There are entire fields of research dedicated to how science is done, Abrax. So what is good data (and good data is both a quality AND quantity) very much depends on the tests being done.
Here's a good start to understand the problem: PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Without going into that much rigor, for something as mundane as swapping components within a circuit, I'd find something like a low + high power two-tone IMD test (18 kHz + 19 kHz is a good'un) a good starting place.
I haven't dug into Fastl or others on psychoacoustics to a level I'm entirely confident in saying XYZ; then again I'd love for someone to come along and correct my post #1596. I'm very confident that someone in this field would have much to say about the simplicity of my assessment. 😀
To paraphrase, I said that effects -60 dB from the primary signal are, by and large, very difficult moving towards impossible to hear. Especially in complex signals. To be far more flexible and push us towards type 1 errors over type 2, I also suggested that another factor-of-ten margin be thrown on there for safe measure.
So showing differences greater than -80 dB gets you in the stadium that whatever effect one is claiming has a chance of being audible. Not a hard challenge!
Here's a good start to understand the problem: PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Without going into that much rigor, for something as mundane as swapping components within a circuit, I'd find something like a low + high power two-tone IMD test (18 kHz + 19 kHz is a good'un) a good starting place.
I haven't dug into Fastl or others on psychoacoustics to a level I'm entirely confident in saying XYZ; then again I'd love for someone to come along and correct my post #1596. I'm very confident that someone in this field would have much to say about the simplicity of my assessment. 😀
To paraphrase, I said that effects -60 dB from the primary signal are, by and large, very difficult moving towards impossible to hear. Especially in complex signals. To be far more flexible and push us towards type 1 errors over type 2, I also suggested that another factor-of-ten margin be thrown on there for safe measure.
So showing differences greater than -80 dB gets you in the stadium that whatever effect one is claiming has a chance of being audible. Not a hard challenge!
Deflection from the question. I wasn't asking about how science is done, I'm pretty well up to speed on that.
How can a number or an array of numbers have a quality please? Any links for how that may be so, I'm interested in learning?
Again, why? No deflections this time pretty please..
Abraxalito--if you're up to speed on how science is done as you claim, then your question is already nonsensical. Also, you responded way too quickly for there to be any chance for you to read the article provided. Thanks for the disrespect.
I gave you a defensible answer for an example relevant to the thread. Good night.
I gave you a defensible answer for an example relevant to the thread. Good night.
I would tell you, but I suspect you already know the answer and you are simply trolling again. So I'll pass this round.
BTW, not all meta questions have corresponding meta answers.
How so? Do please explain.
The claimed 'disrespect' (just like the 'flawed logic') is all in your mind - I'd tripped over it before (after all its well over 10 years old) and found it uninteresting. I just went back and scrolled through again, its definitely not relevant to the question I'd asked.
I read that paper. Not sure what the value is of this.
They fudged the circuits such that the opamps produced 100x more distortion as in normal operation, to make it audible / measureable.....
Then they say:
"The assumption is made that these distortions still have some effect on listener perception of character and quality even when they are below the detection threshold"
Well, if this is the assumption, why go through the whole testing stuff? They could have just put the assumption under the title line and be done.
Jan
How does 'competent' relate to audio design though? As has already been pointed out by marce, they're competent for instrumentation but don't satisfy plenty of end customers of audio. If (just to pick one possible definition of competent engineering) competent engineering has the definition of 'satisfying the customer' then opamps do fall short for some end customers.
So Bill, how are you defining competent engineering here?
Its clear to me that your statement is false in the examples of engineering I've read about told by Barrie Gilbert, his stories are riveting reads. Not directly related to audio though.
So Bill, how are you defining competent engineering here?
Its clear to me that your statement is false in the examples of engineering I've read about told by Barrie Gilbert, his stories are riveting reads. Not directly related to audio though.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.