Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ 
One has to be aware that the «curve» has very low detail resolution: apparently it's made of ⅓-octave band-limited noise. But I think it's a valid measuring method. With headphone measurements higher resolution means more misleading detail which in the end doesn't necessarily correspond to the individual listening impression.
As to HRTF equalization, I think there's no universally valid method. Each is as good as the others. After all the diffuse-field equalization at hand is one of the most respected equalization methods and likely does the angled-driver design justice. .
|
Personally, I think Sennheiser is out of their minds for giving out these graphs, but they did...

Fortunately for Sennheiser, as transducers go, the curves look fairly consistant. And it appears the DF-interpreted curves fall within pretty tight plus/minus 2db or better tolerance, quite good for a transducer.
Interpreting FR curves (especially for headphones) is fraught with difficulties. But it looks like the dominant feature in these plots is a 3Khz dip and a small peak at 6Khz.
I think that a reasonable way to assess the 6khz peak is to reference it to the dip nextdoor at 3khz. So far, the 6khz peak rises above the 3Khz dip (as near as I could read them) by:
SN#459 2.5 db
SN#349 2.5 db
SN#1230 2.5 db
SN#685 3.2 db
SN#517 3.5 db
vai 2.5 db
So the range is 1 db with SN 517 (kelvinz) being the "hottest". I kind of doubt that this would, by itself, account for the various listeners reported differences. But this is just 6 samples, so we shall see.

I suspect the reported differences are more due to honest differences in expectations and preferences. And remember, these curves look nice and flat, but if you believe that some other curve than the diffuse field correlates better to natural reproduction, all bets are off!

But it is impressive that, given the target response that Sennheiser decided upon, they have been able to achieve it pretty consistantly.