Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG K 1000 WhitePaper/Brochure download now available
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AKG K 1000 WhitePaper/Brochure download now available - Page 3

post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by robm321 View Post
X2

All other headphones have the same issues as speakers with comb filtering and other acoustic problems. The K-1000 is the only one that removes these factors and is probably why they sound so amazingly real and transparent.
Well not to get too heavy into musical reproduction.....but I don't see how having a ruler flat FR on a headphone removes issues in making things sound real. In real life, accoustics don't make frequencies a constant volume. This gets back to what presentation you're looking for in a headphone. Part of making a realistic soundstage is also weighting the frequencies to what they'd be like at a given distance from the musical instrument, in a given room.

@cotdt: since the k701 is your absolute favorite headphone, you can see on its FRG is far from ruler flat either. Neutrality is highly subjective because of our perceptions of real life music in a specific environment.

*edit* this is highly OT from the OP, so I'm not going to dwell on this here!
post #32 of 42
But the AKG K701s do have ruler flat frequency response. AKG claimed +-1 dB from 100Hz to 20kHz, so something funky is going on with the headroom graph, and it doesn't correspond to what I actually hear. Com'on that graph is all over the place! I think the problem are the reflections on the dummy head, and the dummy head is not really needed for headphone measurements. A simple nearfield response measurement would be more accurate, and this is what AKG uses. Not really a problem for me though, since I have a measurement rig and I can measure it for myself tonight.
post #33 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
But the AKG K701s do have ruler flat frequency response. AKG claimed +-1 dB from 100Hz to 20kHz, so something funky is going on with the headroom graph, and it doesn't correspond to what I actually hear. Com'on that graph is all over the place! I think the problem are the reflections on the dummy head, and the dummy head is not really needed for headphone measurements.
They use a dummy head because the helix of your ear influences your perception of tonality. Treble frequencies get more reflection from the pinna of your ear: hence why all the science behind headphone manufacturer's R&D!! That and the accoustics of a room totally influence how we percieve sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna#Pinna_Notch
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post
Well not to get too heavy into musical reproduction.....but I don't see how having a ruler flat FR on a headphone removes issues in making things sound real. In real life, accoustics don't make frequencies a constant volume. This gets back to what presentation you're looking for in a headphone. Part of making a realistic soundstage is also weighting the frequencies to what they'd be like at a given distance from the musical instrument, in a given room.
I wasn't referring to the FR but the design.

There is no chamber for sound to bounce off of or cancel certain frequencies out, etc.
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post
They use a dummy head because the helix of your ear influences your perception of tonality. Treble frequencies get more reflection from the pinna of your ear: hence why all the science behind headphone manufacturer's R&D!! That and the accoustics of a room totally influence how we percieve sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna#Pinna_Notch
Yes I've heard this argument before. But superaural headphones, which make up the majority of headphones, fit around and contain the ears. So the head-related transfer function is already built-in, most of it anyway. Therefore in theory, we would want a flat response just like a speaker. If we use the dummy head, it might be closer to what we actually hear, but no one knows what we actually should be hearing so we have nothing to compare to, whereas for a standard FR measurement (no dummy head) we know we should be aiming for flat. let the ears do its own processing and we are only interested in the preprocessed frequency response. i've been emailing AKG and have been comparing headphones to reference speakers, and am convinced that the K701s are the most reference-accurate headphones ever made (that I have heard).

i don't see how the acoustics of the room effect headphones. room effects are nasty for high output speakers heard from a distance, but if you listen to speakers nearfield with medium output, it's not really an issue even in smaller rooms.
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
i've been emailing AKG and have been comparing headphones to reference speakers, and am convinced that the K701s are the most reference-accurate headphones ever made (that I have heard).
I think k1000, HE90, STAX fans would have to differ with you there Those and the k701 are not supra-aural, so I don't see your arguement there. You really take the cake with your fanboyism when you even tell Tyll he's full of it when he explained why Sennheiser decided to adjust the HRTF the way they did. Let me re-iterate what was said in your Sennheiser flame...from Tyll:

Quote:
HRTF already built in? What are you talking about? Someone earlier on asked why some speaker makers didn't get into the biz, and it was answered that headphones were more like mics. That's true. They basically use the same machines to make mic and headphones diaphagms and coils. But building headphones is harder (in terms of making them accurate) than building mics. Here's why:

The normal pinna and torso reflections and acoustic effects occur in the far field. What that means is normal listening happens farther than 1/2 wavelength away from the sound source. (Not quite true because most rooms aren't big enough to get farther than 25 feet from the speakers at 20 Hz, but at 100 Hz once your 5 feet away you're not in the near field any more.) But with headphones, your ears are only maybe in inch from the driver, so you're in the nead field up to maybe 7 kHz. Worse yet, you're not only very close to the driver, but you're also in a chamber (the ear cup around your ear) which will give the sound a place to resonate in. To recap, with speaker listening, you are in the far field, with headphones you hear the sound through an "acoustic coupler". (If you were in the far field but acoustically coupled it would be called an "acoutic transmission line".) One of the characteristics of acoustic coupling and near field listening is the the directional characteristic of far field listening is largely lost because the sound isn't really travelling from A to B anymore so much as it is adding energy to the coupling chamber around your ear. The result is that pinna reflections mostly don't happen any more. Not only that but now you have this resonant chamber aroung your ear the has resonant characteristics that will amplify some frequencies and damp others. Add to that the fact that every one has a different outer ear shape and volume that will effect the resonant characteristic differently person-to-person. Add to that that things like glasses and long hair will spoil the Q (resonant efficiency) of the chamber at a different rate, and you end up with a might terrible problem getting headphones to sound neutral and the same on everybodies head. It's rather like trying to make a michrophone that will always sound good when you drop it into a tin can of indetermanent size. Bottom line, it is a VERY difficult task to make headphones sound like far field listening and the pinna cues are FAR, FAR from built in.
So if you want to completely believe that AKG did no research into HRTF with the k701, and made it completely dead flat.....well there's no argueing with someone who doesn't reason. It's a complete waste the money that goes into R&D that headphone manufacturers spend
post #37 of 42
The argument for using a dummy head could just as easily be applied to speakers? I guess those designing speakers for the past 50 years have it all wrong.
post #38 of 42
loudspeaker designers don't go for a dead flat FR either: field equalization is a complicated thing....that's why headphone makers and speaker makers have poured millions of dollars in research.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/design_of_loudspeakers.htm
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post
loudspeaker designers don't go for a dead flat FR either: field equalization is a complicated thing....that's why headphone makers and speaker makers have poured millions of dollars in research.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/design_of_loudspeakers.htm
in the pro audio world, loudspeaker designers do indeed go for dead flat response.

all of linkwitz's speakers including the orion is dead flat. he also tries to optimize the off-axis response but that is something else. the idea is that the ideal frequency response to the listener's ear should be dead flat and there is a general concensus on this.

actually, the millions of dollars of research goes into more practical design elements like optimizing the voice coil and magnets, and very little research is being done on theoretical aspects like ideal frequency response, ideal crossfeed, etc. it's far from the coordinated effort you see on stuff like the human genome project.
post #40 of 42
OK, this is taken from Linkwitz's site:
Quote:
Sound reproduction is about creating an auditory illusion. When the recorded sound is of real instruments or voices there is a familiar, live reference in our auditory memory. The illusion of hearing a realistic reproduction is destroyed by distortion that is added anywhere in the signal chain from microphone to loudspeaker, but the speaker is by far the biggest culprit. Every designer focuses on the on-axis frequency response as if it were the all determining distortion parameter. Sometimes great attention is paid to the phase response in an attempt to preserve waveform fidelity, which at best can only be achieved for a single listening point in space. Ignored usually, though of much greater importance, is resonance in drivers and cabinets and the slow release of stored energy that goes with it. Furthermore, the uniformity and flatness of the off-axis frequency response which we hear via room reverberation and reflections is rarely a design goal. You can check the naturalness of the timbre by listening from another room. Does it sound like a loudspeaker is playing? The imbalance in the speaker's power response between low and high frequencies destroys the illusion.
Notice what he says about on-axis frequency response? That if you only focused on that, there would be only one spot in the room that preserves fidelity. Then if you read the rest of his site, you'll notice that frequency response is a lot more complicated then just trying to get everything flat. The only time where you would want dead flat speakers are for studio monitoring. Headphone and speaker makers try to take the accoustics of a room into account, because the original recording was either done in a studio or up close to the performers. They try to soften the treble and add decay because that's an indication of room size. Speakers aren't as suseptable as headphones though, so their FR doesn't have to be as colored. Although there, they have to take into account the accoustics of the size listening room the speakers will be in. Since headphones rest very close to your ears, headphone makers have to adjust the FR way more: to take decay into account. Refer back to Tyll's description of wavelength. Headphones especially can not have a flat FRG. If they did, it would sound very odd. The recording you're listening to was recorded and mixed for speakers: if the source is very close to your ear and has a flat FR, it won't have the decay of the intended source.
post #41 of 42
If you've read my original response, I already mentioned that off-axis frequency response is important. This is not related to headphones, though. The recording engineers use flat-response speakers to master the albums, so in order to play back the music the way the engineers intended, you would ideally want the same response as the speakers that they use: which is flat. Yes I've read Linkwitz entire site and have heard his Orions. They measure flat, and I'm sure he choose a flat response for a reason. He also offers a BBC dip but accuracy is lost if one deviates from a non-flat response, and the decay spectrum is messed up. Look at all those studio monitors and they all measure flat or very close to it.

Relating to headphones... headphones may be close to the ear, but unless they are IEMs or Grados, they are still OUTSIDE of the ear. So the sound must bounce around in the pinna and be processed by the ears the same way that speaker sounds are processed. I still don't see the point that you and Tyll are trying to make. To have perfect decay you would want a flat frequency response from DC to infinity.
post #42 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
So the sound must bounce around in the pinna and be processed by the ears the same way that speaker sounds are processed. I still don't see the point that you and Tyll are trying to make. To have perfect decay you would want a flat frequency response from DC to infinity.

The recording you're listening to was recorded and mixed for speakers: if the source is very close to your ear and has a flat FR, it won't have the decay of the intended source.


With speakers, they have more distance to your ears.....treble has a natural fall off. This is why headphone designers design headphones the way they do. I don't understand your assumption that headphone makers just adjust the FRG just to be random No, audio engineers don't know what they're talking about
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › AKG K 1000 WhitePaper/Brochure download now available