CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Headphone Measurements => Topic started by: Marvey on March 12, 2012, 07:44:16 PM
-
Beyer DT1350 #2 Frequency Response and CSD Waterfall Plots. s/n #13xxx. STOCK PADS.
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=167.0;attach=727;image)
This "good" pair also has more bass than the "off" sounding pair. The measurements are not totally accurate for the supra-auras as they tend to show a tad more bass on the graph than is is actually heard. Still I would consider these good DT1350's slightly bassy. Now compare the above to badly matched pair from a few days ago:
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=147.0;attach=677;image)
#3
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=167.0;attach=1544;image)
-
Beyer DT1350 #2 CSD Waterfall Plots.
-
The mids are slightly reduced...did the velour pads do anything for them in this area?
-
The mids are slightly reduced...did the velour pads do anything for them in this area?
I don't think the tone changed that much. Maybe some slight differences in bass, but way more comfy though. So it's a good mod. Let me dig up those measurements with the pads. But I need to take a nap for a bit first.
-
you and your naps! :-*
-
I did the pad mod last night... Big win. Easy seal, way more comfy. Too bad it can't fix my other issues with these.
-
the dip after 200hz looks huge. do they sound very warm? i think they would.
-
you and your naps! :-*
if it wasn't for naps we wouldn't have the greatest inventions known to man. that's why they're obviously called power naps you silly goose.
-
the dip after 200hz looks huge. do they sound very warm? i think they would.
Quite the opposite normally without the velour pads. These seem to be to be very articulate and almost "bright" when I have them on. Can't explain the frequency chart at all. Unless those ups and downs don't really meant that much. I think the 2.5k and near 5k peaks must be what gives me the brightness impression. Others have expressed hearing something lacking in the mid-bass and I think this shows this quite well. To me the pads seem to mitigate this and they get warmer and nearer the HD-25s and a bit more balanced.
-
I didn't feel the ups and down were that bad or something that stuck out that much. Although compared to something more flat and neutral like the HP1000 or UERM, you could certainly hear the unevenness in FR. They aren't sharp peaks - so that's good.
Here is a graph comparing pads. Pads (Green + Red). No Pads (Blue + Orange). Looks like the pads push down the bass a bit and bring out 10kHz
-
Except for the wiggles in the frequency curve, I can almost interpolate the new curve with pads as being very near the "Golden Ear" green line that can be seen on the chart I shown for the ESW10JPN in the other thread. A variation from the Golden Ear curve of less than 3 dB over most of the frequency range would suggest a very good response curve I would think for this DT1350 with the pads.
With my eye I am imposing the green curve over an estimated best fit with your latest data.
-
Don't worry too much about the idealized Golden Ear curve. Best to have your own personal one. Besides, measurement results are totally different. Although for some reason, Golden Ear FR curves and my curves have been more or less consistent. Tyll's curves always seem to have a lower treble suckout and mid treble peak no matter the headphone. I don't know why.
But yeah - the overall tone of the DT1350 is quite nice and the CSD results are excellent. At least for one that passed QC.
-
Don't worry too much about the idealized Golden Ear curve. Best to have your own personal one. Besides, measurement results are totally different. Although for some reason, Golden Ear FR curves and my curves have been more or less consistent. Tyll's curves always seem to have a lower treble suckout and mid treble peak no matter the headphone. I don't know why.
But yeah - the overall tone of the DT1350 is quite nice and the CSD results are excellent. At least for one that passed QC.
Golden Ear's CSDs are way different from yours though. Sometimes its a lot more than just the smoothing. Check their HD800 numbers.
http://en.goldenears.net/4326
What kind of coupler and compensation curve are you using for the FR or is it secret like the CSD one?
-
It's all a secret.
The minor 6kHz ringing is evident on both of our CSDs. The largest difference is the ringing at 3kHz on his CSD. I don't hear it though; if anything, the HD800 is laid-back in this region - I use a certain track with voice that tends to highlight problems there.
It's possible his pair is different.
-
Could be different. Considering its Senn and not Beyer or something I'm wondering a little...
Pretty much all of them that you've both done pretty different to me but I went with the HD800 because it should be pretty consistent from sample to sample compared to some other models and thought it would be good to try and minimize sample variation.
The HD650 might be worth a look too.
http://en.goldenears.net/11616
Most of the differences in FR graphs between here or golden ears or innerfidelity or headroom or wherever are just from different compensation functions but the CSDs shouldn't be affected by that.
-
Hmm, we've never seen that on any HD800. We'll have to do CEE TEEs as well.
-
Ok, that HD650 plot. No way is the 650 faster and cleaner than the HD800. :o There is something wrong. That doesn't mesh w/ any other crosschecking of the 800's impulse response.
-
What the hell is a 'Golden Ears amplifier'?
-
I don't get turned on by their CSD's at all. Maybe it's just me though.
-
Could be different. Considering its Senn and not Beyer or something I'm wondering a little...
Pretty much all of them that you've both done pretty different to me but I went with the HD800 because it should be pretty consistent from sample to sample compared to some other models and thought it would be good to try and minimize sample variation.
The HD650 might be worth a look too.
http://en.goldenears.net/11616 (http://en.goldenears.net/11616)
Most of the differences in FR graphs between here or golden ears or innerfidelity or headroom or wherever are just from different compensation functions but the CSDs shouldn't be affected by that.
The one I measured I think was an older HD650 (not the newer one with less veil).
But I got confused. It's this Japanese guy where my measurements are more similar: http://sonove.angry.jp/ATH_W3000ANV.html (http://sonove.angry.jp/ATH_W3000ANV.html)
Not Goldenears. Ooops.
-
I didn't see any CSDs from full size 'phones on there, only IEMs. Too bad. Another comparison would be cool.
-
It is to bad you could not listened to my DT1350s in it's balanced configuration. These are do so much more on the imaging side of things when balanced out of my SR-71B. This is my preferred listening configuration with these.
Since the above comment I have moved on from using the SR-71B to using my ALO Rx Mk3-b amp. This now is preferred over the SR-71B for my use. The SR-71B is much darker sounding than the Mk3.
-
All right, I might be daft, but here's the comparison graph that was posted nine days ago:
http://cdn.head-fi.org/c/cd/cd453274_41fe98e5_x3DT1350.gif (http://cdn.head-fi.org/c/cd/cd453274_41fe98e5_x3DT1350.gif)
Then here's the one posted in this thread and 5 days ago at head-fi:
http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/31/31c36f33_index.jpeg (http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/31/31c36f33_index.jpeg)
Are you sure that the latter is a measurement that includes compensation for the bass-oddity?
edit: nvm, saw the differences, only still flabbergasted. at least the channels match ::)
-
thanks for the lookout. seriously. i depend on the more astute persons to make sure things look right. yeah - the channels do match perfectly on this one. i wondering if someone at Beyer forgot to add damping materials or something.