[Jermo K]

Hi Jermo,

Couple of questions for you.

1. In the most recent video you talk about FR not being the entire story with HE90 (something I certainly agree from personal experience) with the diaphragm weight and other mechanical aspects playing a large role in the sound. We have been seeing a fair number of large names in the space going further and further into the idea that FR dictates all due to headphones being largely minimum phase devices (which they do seem to be, and the argument seems to make sense to me at least). What do you think is missing from the conversation here to truly talk about the difference that make HE90 and HD580 (both tuned quite similarly IMO) such wildly different experiences? Is it as simple as our measurements maybe arent viewed with high enough resolution? Or is there something more fundamental that is being missed?

2. I am an HE1 owner and have had the chance to play with HE90 on several amps as well. Frankly, I don't think HE1 holds up to HE90. While the internal dac of HE1 is fairly lacking IMO (about similar to a bricasti M1SE non-mdx IME), HE90 realistically out performs HE1 in a lot of ways even off of much less dacs but with propper amplification. Is there something about the can its self that is limiting this? Or if we were to find/make a way to use a better external amp would HE1 end up scaling similarly to HE90?

3. Any plans to publish at least the pinout/headphone specs for HE1 so a new amplifier could be made? Tangentially related, any idea on what the tube requirements are for HE1? I would love to roll it and from what I can tell the 802s are JJ 12Au7s (a tube I'm quite familiar with the options for) but do you actualy need a matched octal? Two quads? Are there very specific Gms and such that are targeted (given the fact that tube replacements come with specific locations)? Or am i even off base on what the tubes are?

Thank you very much for your time and I love seeing senn back active in the comunity!

Hi, thanks for the kind words and great questions.
1. The minimum phase argument may be attractive for people that really like measurements, but I personally don't care for it because it disagrees so much with experiment/experience. If FR really were so important, you could equalise any artifact free in-ear to sound like any high-end headphone by just measuring both products at the eardrum. This is obviously complete nonsense, because our hearing is not just a FFT measurement device, but for instance is sensitive to acoustic occlusion/openness as well, which influences our perception of headphone sound but is not directly measured in the FR. Other factors that are self evidently important are clarity (THD), driver size & angling, damping factor, linearity of the motor, etc.. My personal belief is that you can not bring back inherent brilliance due to transducer weight for instance, which you would see for instance in the FR, but could also be "sneaked in" with equalisation.
At the end of the day you can make up as many theories as you want, but if they disagree with experiment, they're not worth a lot.

2. I agree, but keep in mind this is just personal opinion. The HE 1 has stiffer stators, which directly correlates with better THD performance, which is to our knowledge the best in the world and practically unmeasurable in the vocal range. The amplification is also up to 4 or 5 times as powerful in the HE 1, so there are arguments why it would be the superior device. The HE 90 on the other hand has more acoustically transparent stators, so the relation between the size of the openings to the "crosspieces" in the honey comb grid is more favourable for acoustic transmission. In effect this means the headphones are more open and have more high frequency amplitude. To me this combination of brilliance and clarity is unique, and I haven't heard it in any other headphones

3. I don't think there is much sense in providing the schematics to let other people build alternative power sources. The amplification is built directly into the headphones, so you really only get a signal, polarisation voltage and power supply out of the marble block. Maybe we can do it down the line, but please keep in mind that you would only be able to exchange the pre-amplification.
I don't know the tube specifications by heart, only that it's 4 802 tubes for voltage amplification of the signal and 4 803 tubes for current amplification. They're a new production run of the old Telefunken equivalents, but I'll try to find the exact specifications and send them to you.

Kind regards,
Jermo

 

[maegnificant]

Thanks sennheiser for making this video! It was really enjoyable to watch. As for another senny estat, if they don't find it feasible at this time, I understand. Maybe someday I'll listen to one of their estats, maybe at a meet or a canjam.

For me I've been enjoying their iems alot recently the ie600 and ie900 and wonder what else they could do with headphones in the years to come. I really love dynamic headphones the most and we really don't have many options in the totl price range when it comes to dynamic headphones. So many new innovations pushing planars these days (which is awesome for fans of planars), be nice to see if sennheiser could push dynamic headphones even further. The only kilobuck dynamic headphone I've tried is a sony qualia 010 (someday I'll hear a utopia) and it really inspires me into believing dynamic headphones have so much untapped potential.

Try out the Neumann NDH-30, it is made with a Sennheiser dynamic driver and equals many kilobuck headphones

 

[MayorSimpleton]

Thanks for taking the time to make video - thoroughly enjoyed it. Really good to see the talent and passion behind the name, as well as insight into the design considerations and technologies. Looking forward to the next episode!

 

[eskamobob1]

Hi, thanks for the kind words and great questions.

I just want to start by saying that I think this is the single coolest response I've ever gotten from someone in the industry. The level of transparency and candidness is simply incredible, so thank you!

1. The minimum phase argument may be attractive for people that really like measurements, but I personally don't care for it because it disagrees so much with experiment/experience. If FR really were so important, you could equalise any artifact free in-ear to sound like any high-end headphone by just measuring both products at the eardrum. This is obviously complete nonsense, because our hearing is not just a FFT measurement device, but for instance is sensitive to acoustic occlusion/openness as well, which influences our perception of headphone sound but is not directly measured in the FR. Other factors that are self evidently important are clarity (THD), driver size & angling, damping factor, linearity of the motor, etc.. My personal belief is that you can not bring back inherent brilliance due to transducer weight for instance, which you would see for instance in the FR, but could also be "sneaked in" with equalisation.
At the end of the day you can make up as many theories as you want, but if they disagree with experiment, they're not worth a lot.

My subjective experiences absolutely agree here. It is simply impossible to get a dynamic to sound like a large diaphragm estat or planar IME. I do think that anything that can be heard can be measured, but obviously figuring out what sets of measurements/traits actually correspond with lots of sonic traits is extremely dificult, so im glad to get your input on what we may be missing there!

2. I agree, but keep in mind this is just personal opinion. The HE 1 has stiffer stators, which directly correlates with better THD performance, which is to our knowledge the best in the world and practically unmeasurable in the vocal range. The amplification is also up to 4 or 5 times as powerful in the HE 1, so there are arguments why it would be the superior device. The HE 90 on the other hand has more acoustically transparent stators, so the relation between the size of the openings to the "crosspieces" in the honey comb grid is more favourable for acoustic transmission. In effect this means the headphones are more open and have more high frequency amplitude. To me this combination of brilliance and clarity is unique, and I haven't heard it in any other headphones

Oh, yes. This is absalutely a personal preference thing. I do think that detail, seperation, and a few other more technical based aspects of HE90 are better than HE1 but I am kind of assuming that's largely just down to electronics tbh (since the owner of the HE90 I tried says that the chains I tried them on far far far surpased HEV90). Subjective enjoyment wise though, honestly, I kinda expect more people to fall on the HE1 side of things simply due to the bit denser and more impactful sound.

3. I don't think there is much sense in providing the schematics to let other people build alternative power sources. The amplification is built directly into the headphones, so you really only get a signal, polarisation voltage and power supply out of the marble block. Maybe we can do it down the line, but please keep in mind that you would only be able to exchange the pre-amplification.

Yah, I realize that the majority of the amplification its self is actually in the cups. I am more of curious if the pre stage could be improved if you went absolutely crazy with something like an airtight/Lamm/name your nuts level pre. Honestly speaking, even just a "here is the pin out and safe voltages for the can if you want to make an adaptor box" would pretty significantly improve the appeal of the system to me.

I don't know the tube specifications by heart, only that it's 4 802 tubes for voltage amplification of the signal and 4 803 tubes for current amplification. They're a new production run of the old Telefunken equivalents, but I'll try to find the exact specifications and send them to you.

Its 802 and 803? I had it in my head that they were 21AU7s just based off of trying to match internals to new tubes. I really appreciate the info. Looks like I'll get to have some fun reading up on those and see whats good out there.

 

[jellyfriends]

Hi, thanks for your confidence in our team. I believe we'll address this topic in a later episode, but I'm happy to give some background why it's unfortunately not so trivial for us:
1. Burden of scale: Sennheiser/sonova consumer hearing is many times larger than practically all our competitors in the audiophile space. This also has the disadvantage that our requirements towards manufacturing are very different. Any product or transducer development needs to be set up in a way that makes it scalable and has a high yield that satisfies the expectation of modern manufacturing experts. Most of our efforts in development usually go into improving manufacturing consistency & yield. This structure is simply not a good fit for headphones that only sells a few thousand times a year.
2. Logistics: During the separation of Sennheiser Pro and Consumer, Pro Sennheiser (obviously) kept the manufacturing lines for condenser microphone capsules, where our electrostatic transducers are also assembled. That means that at the moment we don't have manufacturing capacities for electrostatic transducers available. This includes for instance sputtering devices to coat the diaphragm accurately and a clean room for assembly. From a business perspective, building up an entire manufacturing line for a low quantity product line has a very hard time competing with business cases with less up-front capital expenditure. I know that doesn't sound like a sexy reason, but jobs and peoples livelihoods depend on our growth trajectory, so I take it seriously.
3. Perfect is the enemy of better: My personal ambition for a new Sennheiser electrostatic headphone would be to revive the performance of the old HE 90, which to me are the best headphones ever developed. The cost of the glass stators in the old orpheus have increased significantly from 30 years ago. The cost factor between cheap metal stators and the original ones is over 100, and the headphone cost alone would be in the price region of the HE 1, which obviously defeats the purpose. I wish we find an alternative that offers equal stiffness and acoustic transparency, but it doesn't look like it at the moment.

I can assure you that practically every experienced acoustics engineer at the company wishes dearly for that product to come to life. I can't promise you anything, except that we'll do our best to make it happen somehow.

I'm feeling much better vibes about the Sonova acquisition, now. I'd agree that new products are less important when the manufacturing in Ireland can be perfected (the HD 700 was a true stunner in build and material, already). The rise in quality and reliability would be better than new models. Though, serviceability is an issue: those HD 800 pads are $80 and a terror to replace because the silicone seals are too small! When I have to beat a brand new pad to death to fit a flagship headphone I get nervous about ownership.

 

[jamesjames]

Many thanks for this. I hope this isn't the wrong place to raise this, but as a fan of the HDV820 amp for my HD800S phones (and some others), I have often hoped we might one day see a version of this amp with analogue crossfeed. I would prefer to use it as my main amp but have moved to the Moon 430HA as I no longer listen without crossfeed. To my ear crossfeed brings enormous benefits. l listen to classical music, where imaging is critical. Is a crossfeed version a possibility? Or should I simply reconcile myself to the Moon?

 

[ericpalonen]

Many thanks for this. I hope this isn't the wrong place to raise this, but as a fan of the HDV820 amp for my HD800S phones (and some others), I have often hoped we might one day see a version of this amp with analogue crossfeed. I would prefer to use it as my main amp but have moved to the Moon 430HA as I no longer listen without crossfeed. To my ear crossfeed brings enormous benefits. l listen to classical music, where imaging is critical. Is a crossfeed version a possibility? Or should I simply reconcile myself to the Moon?

As it turns out analog crossfeed is not a future HDV 820 feature, as the internal hardware was not crafted with it in mind as an addition.

 

[jamesjames]

As it turns out analog crossfeed is not a future HDV 820 feature, as the internal hardware was not crafted with it in mind as an addition.

Thanks for this - I appreciate the candour.

 

[headstef]

As it turns out analog crossfeed is not a future HDV 820 feature, as the internal hardware was not crafted with it in mind as an addition.

Admirable answer, quick, direct and to the point. Very worthy of Sennheiser - as we like it to be!
The way that Shennheiser's communication with their costumers evolves during the last year is very satisfying and encouraging and also retains our great expectations! On the other hand it makes me realize how tiring the traditional "marketing language" is, the one that many makers use unsuccessfully and very often ends up rather empty or unreliable. Science, knowledge, honesty and modesty are an unbeatable combination from my point of view. Keep it like this!

 

[ericpalonen]

Admirable answer, quick, direct and to the point. Very worthy of Sennheiser - as we like it to be!
The way that Shennheiser's communication with their costumers evolves during the last year is very satisfying and encouraging and also retains our great expectations! On the other hand it makes me realize how tiring the traditional "marketing language" is, the one that many makers use unsuccessfully and very often ends up rather empty or unreliable. Science, knowledge, honesty and modesty are an unbeatable combination from my point of view. Keep it like this!

Thank you very much! We want to grow our roots even deeper here. More to come

 

[AnalogEuphoria]

Hi, thanks for your confidence in our team. I believe we'll address this topic in a later episode, but I'm happy to give some background why it's unfortunately not so trivial for us:
1. Burden of scale: Sennheiser/sonova consumer hearing is many times larger than practically all our competitors in the audiophile space. This also has the disadvantage that our requirements towards manufacturing are very different. Any product or transducer development needs to be set up in a way that makes it scalable and has a high yield that satisfies the expectation of modern manufacturing experts. Most of our efforts in development usually go into improving manufacturing consistency & yield. This structure is simply not a good fit for headphones that only sells a few thousand times a year.
2. Logistics: During the separation of Sennheiser Pro and Consumer, Pro Sennheiser (obviously) kept the manufacturing lines for condenser microphone capsules, where our electrostatic transducers are also assembled. That means that at the moment we don't have manufacturing capacities for electrostatic transducers available. This includes for instance sputtering devices to coat the diaphragm accurately and a clean room for assembly. From a business perspective, building up an entire manufacturing line for a low quantity product line has a very hard time competing with business cases with less up-front capital expenditure. I know that doesn't sound like a sexy reason, but jobs and peoples livelihoods depend on our growth trajectory, so I take it seriously.
3. Perfect is the enemy of better: My personal ambition for a new Sennheiser electrostatic headphone would be to revive the performance of the old HE 90, which to me are the best headphones ever developed. The cost of the glass stators in the old orpheus have increased significantly from 30 years ago. The cost factor between cheap metal stators and the original ones is over 100, and the headphone cost alone would be in the price region of the HE 1, which obviously defeats the purpose. I wish we find an alternative that offers equal stiffness and acoustic transparency, but it doesn't look like it at the moment.

I can assure you that practically every experienced acoustics engineer at the company wishes dearly for that product to come to life. I can't promise you anything, except that we'll do our best to make it happen somehow.

If im not mistaken you are the man responsible for the excellent 560S?

I have question for you about the ring radiator driver in the 800, can it not be scaled down to a smaller size and be used in a modified HD500 or 600 type enclosure or even new design? There’s a gap where the 700 used to be so I think a high performance driver with a smooth and less mid centric balanced tuning would fit well there.

HD560S has shown me you can have a linear response and accurate sound without sounding cold, harsh and sterile, I would love to see a higher end version of this.

Since the HD700 was discontinued there’s always been space for newer models in the 700 family but seems to be ignored. Is there a reason for no new developments there?

 

[AnalogEuphoria]

Hi Jermo,

Couple of questions for you.

1. In the most recent video you talk about FR not being the entire story with HE90 (something I certainly agree from personal experience) with the diaphragm weight and other mechanical aspects playing a large role in the sound. We have been seeing a fair number of large names in the space going further and further into the idea that FR dictates all due to headphones being largely minimum phase devices (which they do seem to be, and the argument seems to make sense to me at least). What do you think is missing from the conversation here to truly talk about the difference that make HE90 and HD580 (both tuned quite similarly IMO) such wildly different experiences? Is it as simple as our measurements maybe arent viewed with high enough resolution? Or is there something more fundamental that is being missed?

2. I am an HE1 owner and have had the chance to play with HE90 on several amps as well. Frankly, I don't think HE1 holds up to HE90. While the internal dac of HE1 is fairly lacking IMO (about similar to a bricasti M1SE non-mdx IME), HE90 realistically out performs HE1 in a lot of ways even off of much less dacs but with propper amplification. Is there something about the can its self that is limiting this? Or if we were to find/make a way to use a better external amp would HE1 end up scaling similarly to HE90?

3. Any plans to publish at least the pinout/headphone specs for HE1 so a new amplifier could be made? Tangentially related, any idea on what the tube requirements are for HE1? I would love to roll it and from what I can tell the 802s are JJ 12Au7s (a tube I'm quite familiar with the options for) but do you actualy need a matched octal? Two quads? Are there very specific Gms and such that are targeted (given the fact that tube replacements come with specific locations)? Or am i even off base on what the tubes are?

Thank you very much for your time and I love seeing senn back active in the comunity!

You might be interested in reading through this comparison

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sen...-1-impressions-of-a-direct-comparison.860779/

 

[eskamobob1]

You might be interested in reading through this comparison

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sen...-1-impressions-of-a-direct-comparison.860779/

Honestly haven't read this since I've heard both myself. I'll give it another read. Will be interesting to see how kuch I agree with vs not.

 

[Sennheiser]

Episode 2 is here! We'll also slide this into the OP so those just tuning in can get up to speed. We tackled R&D and manufacturing, giving you some insight (and clarification) about what goes on between our walls. Enjoy!

​

 

[Rob80b]

Interesting and valuable insight on the HD800/S at about 35 min. with regards to the baffle and transducer matching. Thanks