Topic: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference? (Read 4556 times)

Marvey · « **Reply #30 on:** December 28, 2014, 06:02:47 PM »

STAX 007 + 009 impart a smoothed-over high-plastic-like sheen over stuff. This is obvious coming from transducers which are more resolving of low level information. 007 and 009 remove grain. STAX tend to be more at fault with this aspect than other stats.
009 gives illusion of plankton, but this is mainly the result of super articulation. I would say moderate-low level detail is presented in a much more clear, taut, articulate, separated manner; however 009 seems to drop low to lowest level information.
HD800 digs deeper, is able to reproduce low level information; however it's method of doing so is less articulate. it's more unfocused, more grey, but still digs deeper. Highly resolving delta-sigma DACs or stacked PCM63 recommended. PCM1704/1702, Metrum, TDA DACs, mid-fi sigma-delta DACs need not apply. Not even the stacked Ultra Analog DACs are good enough.
High tension of stat diaphragms tend to fight against or absorb lower level signals. This is compounded by relative larger surface area which results is less excursion. Low level signal and small excursion and high tension = dropped low level signal. Same principle applies to dynamic drivers. This is heavy rubber surrounds or inflexible spiders on cone drivers, I do not like.
Rough FR results in grain like effect. Both HD800 and 007/009 have smooth FRs.
Hot top end of HD800 may accentuate existing grain.
A good TT setup is awesome with HD800. No grain, unless its noise grain on recording.
The reduction or glossing over of grain to such small or non-existent quantities on 007/009, I find troubling.
YMMV, FWIW, IMHO, etc.

Sorrodje · « **Reply #31 on:** December 28, 2014, 06:11:32 PM »

What do you guys call "low level information" ?

Marvey · « **Reply #32 on:** December 28, 2014, 06:17:08 PM »

Quote from: Sorrodje on December 28, 2014, 06:11:32 PM

What do you guys call "low level information" ?

The stuff you can hear on a HD800 but can't on a SR-009 from Yggy, PWD2, Vega, Alpha 2, Bricasti M1, etc. DAC and suitable amplification.

Sorrodje · « **Reply #33 on:** December 28, 2014, 06:22:37 PM »

I understood but what do you talk about precisely in the Music ? I would just want if we all agree on the definition of "low level information"

. I've my personal point of view , mostly built on what I read here or there combined with my own experience and listenings but I would like to be sure we talk about same things.

For me "low level" informations" are not details but I would like to have other people opinions.

Marvey · « **Reply #34 on:** December 28, 2014, 06:26:11 PM »

Difficult to transmit this kind of understanding or meaning through words.

Sorrodje · « **Reply #35 on:** December 28, 2014, 06:53:36 PM »

Difficult but Maybe not impossible.

IMO, what HD800 does better than all headphones I experienced seriously is the reproduction of "close-to-silence" informations. ambience, feeling of the recording space all informations betweens notes. all information behind the music itself. That's why this headphone is the king of acoustic (recorded with ambient mics ... dunno how to say it better in english... sorry) recordings. Dunno if the best Stax are competitive in this Area . I Only tried the SR009 during an hour and didn't own it. I didn"t hear any HE-6 neither. The Abyss seems to be a serious contender but I onlu listened to it a few minutes. But no other headphone I owned or heard more than an hour can really compete for making things as real as what can do the HD800. it's nothing even close.

Another points are the ability of the HD800 to let us perceive differences between recordings and imaging capabilities. IMO , all those qualities are relative to the HD800's ability to reproduce dynamics and all improve drastically with better gear. That's why better gear reduces "HD800 grain" . best amps improve micro dynamics so they seem (imo) to "fill holes" in the sound and make things more fluid with less grain.

All these points are relative to "low level informations" . Maybe i'm wrong .

Sorry for the bad english

JoelT · « **Reply #36 on:** December 28, 2014, 07:06:21 PM »

Quote from: Sorrodje on December 28, 2014, 06:53:36 PM

I didn"t hear any HE-6 neither.

IMO the HE-6 doesn't compete with the HD800 in terms of low level retrieval, though I find it a bit better than the Audeze's I've heard in this regard (it doesn't subtly roll off the edges of sounds like the LCD-2/3). Still, I can hear low-level details & transients it's comparatively missing even with my lowly Gungnir/Wyrd source. I really like what the HE-6 brings to the table for some of what I listen to, but it's not going to take the "Captain Plankton" award from the HD800.

dreamwhisper · « **Reply #37 on:** December 28, 2014, 11:04:52 PM »

I'd be curious to know if using the description 'plankton' arose out of describing the HD800's technical capabilities.

OJneg · « **Reply #38 on:** December 29, 2014, 01:44:52 AM »

Quote from: marvey on December 28, 2014, 06:02:47 PM

STAX 007 + 009 impart a smoothed-over high-plastic-like sheen over stuff. This is obvious coming from transducers which are more resolving of low level information. 007 and 009 remove grain. STAX tend to be more at fault with this aspect than other stats.
009 gives illusion of plankton, but this is mainly the result of super articulation. I would say moderate-low level detail is presented in a much more clear, taut, articulate, separated manner; however 009 seems to drop low to lowest level information.
HD800 digs deeper, is able to reproduce low level information; however it's method of doing so is less articulate. it's more unfocused, more grey, but still digs deeper. Highly resolving delta-sigma DACs or stacked PCM63 recommended. PCM1704/1702, Metrum, TDA DACs, mid-fi sigma-delta DACs need not apply. Not even the stacked Ultra Analog DACs are good enough.
High tension of stat diaphragms tend to fight against or absorb lower level signals. This is compounded by relative larger surface area which results is less excursion. Low level signal and small excursion and high tension = dropped low level signal. Same principle applies to dynamic drivers. This is heavy rubber surrounds or inflexible spiders on cone drivers, I do not like.
Rough FR results in grain like effect. Both HD800 and 007/009 have smooth FRs.
Hot top end of HD800 may accentuate existing grain.
A good TT setup is awesome with HD800. No grain, unless its noise grain on recording.
The reduction or glossing over of grain to such small or non-existent quantities on 007/009, I find troubling.
YMMV, FWIW, IMHO, etc.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ This

I think there's two ways to talk about "grain" here. Yes there's the lo-fi grain that you get with crappy headphones. And I still think the HD800 might have a slight amount of this. It's not perfect. But when we're talking about a headphone's ability to render texture the HD800 is superior in that regard. The Stax apply that same-sies texture that make things sound artificially clean. The HD800 is more honest in that regard. As in, it'll render the grain on the recording more readily

Quote from: Sorrodje on December 28, 2014, 06:53:36 PM

IMO, what HD800 does better than all headphones I experienced seriously is the reproduction of "close-to-silence" informations. ambience, feeling of the recording space all informations betweens notes. all information behind the music itself.

You're on the same page as us mate.

Anaxilus · « **Reply #39 on:** December 29, 2014, 01:50:11 AM »

Quote from: OJneg on December 29, 2014, 01:44:52 AM

You're on the same page as us mate.

Yup, he's got it.

It's like ridiculous contrast ratio plus extended color gamut. Who wants to go full retard with me and start the plasma versus LCD analogies???

Author Topic: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference? (Read 4556 times)

Marvey

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

Sorrodje

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

Marvey

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

Sorrodje

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

Marvey

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

Sorrodje

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

JoelT

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

dreamwhisper

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

OJneg

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

Anaxilus

Re: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference?

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Author Topic: Resolved: Driver grain v. smoothness - Empirical fact or subj. preference? (Read 4556 times)