Is the Objective 2 AMP and DAC good for the HD800?

[ShearMe]

Well, from what I've tried, from T50RP (basic, not modded), HE400, to all LCD series, they all got similarity, which is warm, not very spacious/wide, got distinct high (but not in the very high notes, maybe just around 10kHz or something), and, I don't know the correct term, but I can hear the sound source being bigger. With dynamic drivers, it's kinda centered in 1 small spot, even when compared to something like HD800.

 

I wouldn't call that spaciousness you're describing as a "sound signature" which usually refers to FR. However, just because the planar headphones currently on the market stride towards a similar FR, doesn't mean that the sound sig. comes from the planarness of them. The V3 I had form Mayflower had a similar sound signature to my HD650, plus that spaciousness feeling to the soundstage almost like they were open-back (they are merely semi-open despite SSL not believing in the existence of semi-open ). I wouldn't say the Audeze cans I tried at a store had a similar sound signature to the V3's.

 

Planar headphone manufacturers merely know their target audience.

 

Not all planars got very linear bass extension though, [url=http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2871&scale=30,]http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=2871&scale=30,

 

That is linear. It's not completely flat in regard to dB/Hz, but it is in a straight line until the drop-off. Spikes in the graph are what make a FR "non linear"

[creatip123]

 

I wouldn't call that spaciousness you're describing as a "sound signature" which usually refers to FR. However, just because the planar headphones currently on the market stride towards a similar FR, doesn't mean that the sound sig. comes from the planarness of them. The V3 I had form Mayflower had a similar sound signature to my HD650, plus that spaciousness feeling to the soundstage almost like they were open-back (they are merely semi-open despite SSL not believing in the existence of semi-open ). I wouldn't say the Audeze cans I tried at a store had a similar sound signature to the V3's.

 

Planar headphone manufacturers merely know their target audience.

 

 

That is linear. It's not completely flat in regard to dB/Hz, but it is in a straight line until the drop-off. Spikes in the graph are what make a FR "non linear"

 

Hmmm, assuming that's the case, then that linear FR across the low-mid to low frequencies can be considered as a distinct and unique frequency response of the planars, can it not?

 

And I did say they're not very spacious. Even hi-end open cans like the LCD-3 is still not very spacious. Wider than most closed back, but not as wide as many other dynamic drivered open backs. V3 might sound a bit different because it's modded? I remember the T50RP sounds very closed. 

[ShearMe]

Hmmm, assuming that's the case, then that linear FR across the low-mid to low frequencies can be considered as a distinct and unique frequency response of the planars, can it not?

 

And it is, but one piece of the puzzle doesn't make a full picture.

 

 

And I did say they're not very spacious. Even hi-end open cans like the LCD-3 is still not very spacious. Wider than most closed back, but not as wide as many other dynamic drivered open backs. V3 might sound a bit different because it's modded? I remember the T50RP sounds very closed. 

 

We'll be talking in semantics at this point... how does one define a closed sounding headphone?  I've heard everything from cramped M50's to spacious SRH1540's, but both sound like a closed headphone to me. Whereas you view "closed" as a sliding scale, I view it as a binary concept. Which one of us is right? Are we both right in different ways? Are we both dumb asses?

[creatip123]

And it is, but one piece of the puzzle doesn't make a full picture.

 

 

 

We'll be talking in semantics at this point... how does one define a closed sounding headphone?  I've heard everything from cramped M50's to spacious SRH1540's, but both sound like a closed headphone to me. Whereas you view "closed" as a sliding scale, I view it as a binary concept. Which one of us is right? Are we both right in different ways? Are we both dumb asses?

 

Hmmm, I think of them as different thing, spacious/wideness, and closed feeling, eventhough they're in conjunction with each other, naturally. MDR-1R still sounds closed, but got relatively spacious sound. 

 

With planars I've tried, they sound open, but not very spacious/wide, even the open back versions. 

[SSL]

Hmmm, I think of them as different thing, spacious/wideness, and closed feeling, eventhough they're in conjunction with each other, naturally. MDR-1R still sounds closed, but got relatively spacious sound. 

 

With planars I've tried, they sound open, but not very spacious/wide, even the open back versions. 

 

 I wouldn't call that spaciousness you're describing as a "sound signature" which usually refers to FR. However, just because the planar headphones currently on the market stride towards a similar FR, doesn't mean that the sound sig. comes from the planarness of them. The V3 I had form Mayflower had a similar sound signature to my HD650, plus that spaciousness feeling to the soundstage almost like they were open-back (they are merely semi-open despite SSL not believing in the existence of semi-open ). I wouldn't say the Audeze cans I tried at a store had a similar sound signature to the V3's.

 

Planar headphone manufacturers merely know their target audience.

 

That is linear. It's not completely flat in regard to dB/Hz, but it is in a straight line until the drop-off. Spikes in the graph are what make a FR "non linear"

 

I still want someone to explain to me why open back headphones are supposed to have a wider more "open" soundstage.

 

Re, semi-open vs open it is a matter of acoustic impedance, anything "semi" open will have a much lower amount than a closed headphone. Given that no one can definitively define what a "closed" vs "open" headphone sounds like, much less why that would be the case, I further reject the notion of a clear category in between.

 

 

[ShearMe]

I still want someone to explain to me why open back headphones are supposed to have a wider more "open" soundstage.

 

Re, semi-open vs open it is a matter of acoustic impedance, anything "semi" open will have a much lower amount than a closed headphone. Given that no one can definitively define what a "closed" vs "open" headphone sounds like, much less why that would be the case, I further reject the notion of a clear category in between.

 

 

I don't know why, I just know what is. Good to see you're accepting the existence of semi-openness now.

 

If I were to guess at the closed vs open sounding, I'd probably look towards the bass roll off on open, and the reflected "roomy" sound on closed. Good closed headphones wont sound roomy and wont have the severe roll off of open cans.

[SSL]

I don't know why, I just know what is. Good to see you're accepting the existence of semi-openness now.

 

If I were to guess at the closed vs open sounding, I'd probably look towards the bass roll off on open, and the reflected "roomy" sound on closed. Good closed headphones wont sound roomy and wont have the severe roll off of open cans.

 

"roomy"? :huh:

[ShearMe]

"roomy"?

 

Yes.

[SSL]

Yes.

 

Am I supposed to know what that means?

 

[ShearMe]

Am I supposed to know what that means?

 

 

 

I did say "reflected 'roomy'" sound. Tuning of the enclosure makes a big impact on closed headphones. Put your head in a speaker cabinet and tell me it doesn't sound roomy.

[SSL]

 

I did say "reflected 'roomy'" sound. Tuning of the enclosure makes a big impact on closed headphones. Put your head in a speaker cabinet and tell me it doesn't sound roomy.

 

I don't speak "audiophile". If you mean up around 1-2kHz, say so. Also, I doubt it is a result of reflections, as that would be obvious in the FR graphs.

 

[ShearMe]

I don't speak "audiophile". If you mean up around 1-2kHz, say so. Also, I doubt it is a result of reflections, as that would be obvious in the FR graphs.

 

 

I'm not a headphone engineer, so sorry I don't speak maths. I don't even know what sounds fall into 1-2kHz, let alone any arbitrary range of frequencies.

[Whit3Rav3n]

You can not go exclusively on FR measurements, the decay time in certain frequency ranges are equally important. If you check waterfall measurements of open and closed headphones you will notice that the decay time in bass and lower mids is quite a lot longer in closed headphones. This makes sence since the compression chamber effect is pretty much non present in open headphones. Examples:

 

ATH W 1000x

http://en.goldenears.net/5351

 

Beyer DT 770

http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Headphones&page=4&document_srl=26441

 

Beyer T70p

http://en.goldenears.net/9989

 

HD 800

http://en.goldenears.net/4326

 

Audeze LCD 3

http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Headphones&page=3&document_srl=30635

 

Shure 1840

http://en.goldenears.net/22693

[SSL]

I'm not a headphone engineer, so sorry I don't speak maths. I don't even know what sounds fall into 1-2kHz, let alone any arbitrary range of frequencies.

 

mfw knowing numbers is "math".

 

[SSL]

You can not go exclusively on FR measurements, the decay time in certain frequency ranges are equally important. If you check waterfall measurements of open and closed headphones you will notice that the decay time in bass and lower mids is quite a lot longer in closed headphones. This makes sence since the compression chamber effect is pretty much non present in open headphones.

 

 

I don't see a clear correlation. Certainly not in the bass as those graphs only go down to 200Hz. An open headphone could easily be expected to have longer decay due to less damping.