Slashdot Mirror
How $1,500 Headphones Are Made
CNETNate writes "A tour of Sennheiser's Hanover factory reveals for the first time how its audiophile headphones are assembled by hand. The company recently announced its most expensive and innovative headphones to date, the HD 800, which discarded the conventional method of headphone driver design for a new 'donut-shaped' ring driver idea. Only 5,000 of these headphones can be made in a year, and this gallery offers a behind-the-scenes look at the construction process."
From TFA:
Honest to god, I can't tell real audiophile reviews from the parodies anymore :-(
My pics.
it's just that Sennheiser includes those quality control steps that the Chinese factories skimp on. They also take more than 0.85 seconds to solder the wires, and they use solder of reasonable quality.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
Only 5,000 of these headphones can be made in a year... OR ELSE
A few days ago, I bought the cheapest pair of computer speakers with subwoofers I could find in the neighborhood, $USD 15.
They were Chinese made. With a sticker - "QC PASS" [i.e. Quality Control pass]
LOL, the damn connectors right next to it didn't work properly and I had "bend" the connector ever so little to make it work again.
Yes, these were probably assembled by hand too. But, not in a factory originally named with coolest name I have heard in years "Laboratium Wennebostel".
I wonder if that was hand made too, the name.
Nope, this is an honest review, but its just not very professional.
In my opinion there isn't a person on earth that would need reproduction that accurate. Seriously 6Hz?
"Curiouser and Curiouser" - Alice
These headphones are not Sennheiser's most expensive headphones to date (not even close, in fact).
Enter the HE90 - also called the Orpheus. It is most likely the most expensive headphone ever produced. It had a very limited product run, and it sells these days for around $15, 000.
Just to give you an idea of what they're like, if I recall correctly the amp has it's own -ignition key- ;-)
While I could never justify paying $1500 for headphones, I have to say that I've been consistently impressed with the sound quality from Sennheiser 280-HD headphones. I'm sure there are better headphones to be had, but probably not for anywhere near $80.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
If accuracy across the audio range is of primary importance, headphones will always severely pale compared with a set of reference monitors (a.k.a. speakers) due to their physical limitations. The most I've spent on headphones thus far has been around $300 - I've spent around $600-$700 for four different sets of cans - and I've yet to find headphones that aren't severely flawed. Headphones are a second-choice option, albeit one that comes up a lot in every day life.
Most people, though, don't want accuracy and just want something that sound pretty. You can get reasonably pretty sounding headphones for cheap, though the limited range will still show up in some fashion or another. I recently bought a copy of Closer by Plastikman, and even playing it at modest volumes results in the bass mangling the speakers.
Is there any reason in particular that headphones cannot accurately reproduce sound?
The only thing I can think of that a headphone would have trouble reproducing, is a deep, loud bass. That's only because it doesn't have the displacement to highly compress low frequency. Monitor speakers suffer the same problem though.
Still, because headphones sit right next to the ear, they're _much_ more efficient at delivering sound waves to the ear. This allows them to deliver sound at a comparable volume, with much less effort. As far as I can tell, there's no theoretical reason why a set of headphones can't match monitor speakers for accuracy.
If accuracy across the audio range is of primary importance, headphones will always severely pale compared with a set of reference monitors (a.k.a. speakers) due to their physical limitations.
Loudspeakers have to be placed somewhere.. Usually in a room. The acoustics of the room (echo / reverberation / cancellations) will severely impact the sound of speakers, and there's no way around it without spending thousands on deadening and soundproofing the room. Yes, you can RTA and EQ, and get speakers sounding almost as accurate as cans, but it will never be as tight, unless you have a sonically dead room.
A pair of reference cans, on the other hand, interface with your ears much more accurately, and are not at all affected by room acoustics. If they have flat frequency response on one pair of ears, chances are they will have flat frequency response on most other pairs of ears too.
My work requires me to critically listen to music almost constantly (I write audio algorithms / processors for broadcasting). I normally listen to music on calibrated speakers, but when it's time for extra critical listening, my I put my HD650s on. Speakers are no substitute -- they hide too much, smooth over problems. Reference cans give you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (whether you want to hear it or not!).
I currently own a pair of HD650s and they were worth every penny at around $500. Electrostatic cans (STAX brand) would be another step up in accuracy, but comes at a hefty price (cost, fragility, special high-voltage amplifier etc). Until I can audition a pair of HD800s for free, I'll stick with what I have. :)
I was fortunate enough to purchase a good set of HD600s and a headphone amp to go with it. I've used them as my primary computer sound system for over a decade now.
I'd describe the Sennheisers as very detailed and precise. I can hear things with them that I have a hard time picking out with my stereo and other cheaper headphones. In addition the soft donut pads make the headphones a joy to wear. I can wear them all day without my ears feeling sore or my head feeling fatigued.
Shameless plug for HeadRoom at www.headphone.com where I purchased my gear. These guys make headphone amps and also spend lots of time testing all sorts of headphones to go with them. They're a wealth of information for anything headphones.
All I want is a 1/8" stereo plug that doesn't start failing after 6 months. There's nothing more annoying that having to diddle the wire near the plug so the sound stops cutting out.
I tried buying an end plug from Radio Shack and getting it to work but I couldn't. It's only 4 wires... yeah I suck.
Tip/Ring/Sleeve.
Tip is left signal. Ring is right signal. Sleeve is common ground.
Expensive headphones use thick, proper cables that don't fail just because you stumble. It might yank the socket right out of your laptop, but at least you'll still have headphones :)
Ah, the ultimate irony of audiophiles! They get so distracted by picking out which gear meets their exacting and nuanced specifications that they forget they're listening to shitty music.
...someone who listens to the stereo, not the music.
// Been said before. Will be said many times after this.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
There are many different standards for "accuracy", including "repeatability" and "flat", which are not the same. Headphones are superior to speakers for repeatability, when measured at the ear canal entrance. But they are not "flat" because they include a built-in simulated "free field response" HRTF that modifies the signal (at least, all consumer-market 'phones include this filter), plus some other geometric design issues.
With some work it is possible to get loudspeakers to give a flat response at a fixed reference listening position, but given two individuals it is impossible to guarantee that they will hear the "same" thing at that spot since there is no control over the HRTF--so, the repeatability isn't really there.
Also there is a difference between listening for artifacts (e.g. compression artifacts) and listening for mastering. Usually headphones are preferred for the former, but for mastering people usually prefer loudspeakers.
BTW I use the HD650 also, they are awesome.
The idea of a flat frequency response on a set of cans is laughable. Even a $27,600 pair of ADAM mastering monitors can't provide a flat frequency response, so don't mislead casual readers into thinking that your HD650s are flat -- here is their "flat" frequency response.
One of the completely ignored problems with headphones (other than ones I'm sure you've heard before) is that physical positioning (distance and angle) of the speakers relative to the user's ear canal makes a big difference in the sound heard by the user, but the standard for putting on cans is generally just put them on how they're comfortable. It's been a little while since I went shopping for cans, but I haven't heard of any headphones employing a way of making sure the speakers will sit precisely right for every user.
Rooms do provide problems with frequency response using monitors, but people like Ethan Winer help you to figure out how to measure, reduce, or compensate for them. How do you compensate for that frequency response curve of your HD650s?
Headphones can provide a better transient response time compared with single speaker monitors because cans are smaller, but that's a very limited notion of accuracy - and one that goes away when you get a monitor with more than one speaker. Heck, I bet some small-coned cheap-ass computer speakers could match the transient response of headphones but I doubt you'd recommend them for accuracy.
Headphones may well be better for your usage, but their abilities are very limited compared with monitors when the ultimate goal is accuracy. Not to mention, broadcasting is not exactly a forum where accuracy reigns supreme - e.g., high compression and scooping are usually the end goal, not an aberrant occurrence.
In audio equipment, reproduction accuracy is all there is.
You personally might be willing to accept distortions of various kinds (we all make our own tradeoffs), but the point in audio design is that the equipment attempts to recreate as faithfully as possible the original sound. The fact that people are willing to accept less than outstanding audio fidelity is analogous to people being willing to eat fast food. Most people being willing to eat fast food doesn't mean that a world-class chef using the finest ingredients doesn't create a fundamentally different gustatory and nutritional experience, or that there aren't people who can discern and appreciate the difference.
In this case, pushing transducer response farther and farther beyond the audible range of hearing improves the linearity of the response within the audible range. The same way that a 192k sampling rate doesn't mean people can hear up to 96kHz, it means that the filter response in the audio band is better, driver response down to 6Hz or up to 50k doesn't mean Sennheiser is suggesting people can hear down or up to those points, but that the response from 20-20k is better.
In the audio work I've done (music recording and film sound), we've worked very hard to achieve the most accurate reproduction possible...because we can hear it.
The best analogy for how that could even be possible is the way one's hearing adapts to quiet. At first, compared to normal environments, a 20dB room seems very quiet, even silent. But spend time in that 20dB room and then move to a 0dB anechoic chamber and that previously quiet 20dB can seem surprisingly noisy. Another visual analogy is the way that some people don't notice compression artifacts in images at first, but see them easily once they know what to look for.
I'm reminded of the early days of HDTV equipment manufacturers trying to convince us (where I was at the time) it was finally possible to use HD for feature film principal photography. Some manufacturer or other had brought in their latest and greatest camera demo reel, where they had shot footage on film and then at some secret point cut over to footage shot on HD. One of the people in the screening room wasn't really a technical person, and quietly asked us (quite reasonably) that if the quality of the images was really so hard to distinguish what they could look for to tell when the images switched from film to HD. Our (only half-joking) answer was "just look for when the film guys start vomiting." :-D
No, it's "Hangover." As in the sick feeling you'll have the morning after you realize you just blew $1,500 on a pair of goddamn headphones.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Algorithms for compressing audio and/or encoding it for transmission? You have to test them for quality before you can even think about using them for broadcast...
Ah, I'm not trying to offend you directly here, but I AM curious as to who's really thinking about it and what their standards are?
Radio certainly doesn't give a shit about the compression or "exciter" limits they may add to ensure maximum volume/output for their 150,000 watts of broadcast. As long as they're louder than the next station on the dial, who cares.
The music industry as a whole (90% of recordings) doesn't give a shit about quality, as their levels of mastering and "exciting" are all turned up to 11 to make sure THEIR sound is the "biggest"...on the radio.
And talk radio? Please. Most of them still live on the AM dial, like it's really going to matter on "surround-sound" XM? Audiobook recordings are still done on LOW quality MP3 mono.
It's all just a matter of priorities. Some folks think spending over $10,000 on a car is dumb, others see spending more than $500 on a computer, or more than $50 on a video card is stupid. For anyone who thinks that spending $1,500 on a pair of headphones is crazy, the simple fact is that you're not the intended audience.
I don't necessarily trust what I read from so-called 'audiophiles'. Being an 'audiophile' is a little bit like being a 'photographer'. Just because you took one good picture of your dog doesn't mean you're now an expert on all things photographic. The audiophile world is, IMHO, similar. The only way to *know* what "good" stuff sounds like is to listen to the "good" stuff for yourself. You can read hundreds of reviews that describe 'veiled soundstage', or 'low-oxygen connectors', or 'velvet midrange', etc. But it doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't put it into context. The only way to do it is to listen and decide for yourself!
About a year ago, I decided that I wanted a *good* pair of headphones for my office. I exchanged several emails with the folks at headphone.com about this, and with their blessing I ordered about $1,500 worth of headphones and amps from them, knowing that $1,000+ of it would be returned.
I spent several weeks comparing and contrasting a half-dozen of their 'best' headphones. The result? There is a big difference between $100 cans and $500 cans. Try it for yourself. Some people might not be able to tell the difference. And that's cool, buy the $100 pair and be happy. But just as some people enjoy wine, cars, cigars, cheeses, types of underwear, video cards, {whatever!} more than others is why the market supports so many varieties of, well, everything. And at different price points.
FWIW, I ended up keeping a pair of Sennheiser HD-650's because their sound was simply incredible and they were comfortable for long periods of time.