Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › New Headroom graphs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Headroom graphs - Page 3

post #31 of 34
1/4/09 at 2:08pm
IE8 didnt seem to fare to well considering how great people say the treble is against the westone 3 and se530.

look at that HUGE mid bass hump!

the sleeks on the other hand seem to have a very very clean line with enough bass amplification to be according to head room themself realistic.

edit: before every IE8 fan jumps in let me just say that what im saying is i dont seem to rely on the graphs much anymore after a few dodgy results have popped up, the ie8 included, i have not heard them but nobody here has pointed out an overblown mid bass like what head fi's graph illustrates.
Reply
post #32 of 34
1/4/09 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jherbert View Post
I really do not get your point. Using 1kHz as reference is a well established standard procedure for the industry that provides valid and comaparable results, not just for headphones or speakers but for other equipment, too.
Alright, can you point me to a convincing set of arguments why it should be done like the industry does, except for "everyone does it so it has to be right"? I'd really like to know, but I've been unsuccessful finding the info.
I don't see how it makes things comparable in the case I showed you, but maybe that's just me. The volume is lower overall on the Pro700, it's just the same 1 KHz volume. What does that tell you about its sound? I'll admit that my method doesn't say much more about how one headphone sounds in relation to another headphone, but I'd like to know what's the deal behind the 1 Khz standard in the first place. My method seemed more logical to me, being the naive audio engineering amateur that I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jherbert View Post
Also, when it comes to comparing results you should at least know the response of the microphones you are using. They got right the same peaks and dips as headphones do. If you do not compensate for that (i.e. calibrate your equipment) there is not too much left the measurements can tell.
I'm aware of that. I've posted the link to the thread on this topic quite a few times in the past few days, but here you go:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/hea...phones-388711/
The thread has a FR measurement of the mics done by the TU Berlin.
Oh while you're at it, maybe you could post your response in the other thread, this belongs to the discussion about my method, not headroom's.
Reply
post #33 of 34
1/5/09 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by big-ban View Post
Alright, can you point me to a convincing set of arguments why it should be done like the industry does, except for "everyone does it so it has to be right"? I'd really like to know, but I've been unsuccessful finding the info.
Using a fixed point of reference makes things a lot easier, as thereypo is no need for calculations - just make the curves meet at the reference point and you are done.

I am sure you have seen technical specifications that say 20Hz to 20kHz +2 / -3db. Or you have seen a spec that say -12db at 20 Hz. All these need a fixed point of reference.

Now why 1kHz: This is frequency lies within the area the human ear is most sensitive. Which means, everybody can hear it and every device can generate output, which in case makes a good reference. You might argue that woofers and tweeters can't, but than looking at the system (woofer, midrange, tweeter) having a reference point at 1kHz makes perfect sense. You would not want woofer, midrange and tweeter have independent measurements that cannot be related to each other in an easy manner.

1kHz provides a reasonable good base for octave calculations. Plus maybe 1000 is easier to memorize than 1146 or 768.
Reply
post #34 of 34
1/5/09 at 2:40pm
Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I see why the industry does it that way, but I don't see what I would gain doing this. It's easy for me to calculate the average RMS and make it match -15 db exactly, just a few button clicks.
One more advantage: I don't need to adjust the scale on my graphs because basically all headphones I've measured so far operate within ~30 db dynamic range playing white noise. Otherwise I'd probably have to move the scale up or down to catch all of the important maxima and minima. Also, limiting my graphs to 30 db dynamic range in combination with the resolution of the image show all the little dips and bumps in much more detail.

I hope you'll understand that I'm gonna stick with that method nevertheless
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › New Headroom graphs