Most good phones have very similar response in the midrange for the most part...they start to differ a lot in the low-end and high-end. Funny thing...that is also probably where you'll find the most variance as well in human hearing. The human ear is best at midrange...likewise you'll see most good headphones are pretty flat in this area...the human ears ability to hear diminishes at both frequency extremes, and likewise it seems headphones seem to vary most at the extremes.
No one listens to phones and judges by graphs...they use the graphs to validate what they are hearing. That is why graphs are pointless if you haven't first heard it. For the most part I think the headroom graphs are decent and do validate what I personally hear in the phones(besides the defunct Ety graph). But there is much more than frequency response. For example frequency response is how the headphone performs with single tones...you'll never hear music with single tones, so it is very easily possible that headphones will perform differently to complex multiple tones and behave differently in terms of lower frequencies masking higher ones, etc.
I think the Senns are pretty laid back...which isn't ideal to me. As far as confirmation from graphs...well I'd have to agree that its treble response is pretty laid back, and the bass although more extended than Grado still isn't ideal to me. And a look at how it handles square waves and how it practically turns them into sine waves seems show their nature of being utterly smooth. Which is fine if you want it utterly smooth. But this is nitpicking since the "ideal" headphone does not really exist. Course the whole point of being an audiphile is to nitpick isn't it?
No one picks out phones according to accuracy...most people pick out equipment to how they feel the music should sound. This is how people could compare phones and pick out strengths and weaknesses. I think a lot of the graphs and what people percieve as flat is just a statistical average anyhow. The graphs are weighted somehow or other to some statistical averaging of human hearing I would assume.
Most people who care too much about specs or frequency response stats end up buying cheap sony or panasonic earbuds anyhow.
No one listens to phones and judges by graphs...they use the graphs to validate what they are hearing. That is why graphs are pointless if you haven't first heard it. For the most part I think the headroom graphs are decent and do validate what I personally hear in the phones(besides the defunct Ety graph). But there is much more than frequency response. For example frequency response is how the headphone performs with single tones...you'll never hear music with single tones, so it is very easily possible that headphones will perform differently to complex multiple tones and behave differently in terms of lower frequencies masking higher ones, etc.
I think the Senns are pretty laid back...which isn't ideal to me. As far as confirmation from graphs...well I'd have to agree that its treble response is pretty laid back, and the bass although more extended than Grado still isn't ideal to me. And a look at how it handles square waves and how it practically turns them into sine waves seems show their nature of being utterly smooth. Which is fine if you want it utterly smooth. But this is nitpicking since the "ideal" headphone does not really exist. Course the whole point of being an audiphile is to nitpick isn't it?
No one picks out phones according to accuracy...most people pick out equipment to how they feel the music should sound. This is how people could compare phones and pick out strengths and weaknesses. I think a lot of the graphs and what people percieve as flat is just a statistical average anyhow. The graphs are weighted somehow or other to some statistical averaging of human hearing I would assume.
Most people who care too much about specs or frequency response stats end up buying cheap sony or panasonic earbuds anyhow.
