Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 13

post #181 of 3125

I've read the same "bright" thing on The Audio Critic website yesterday. Everybody should read the Audio Critic for a while, not just the top 10 lies...
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

As for the horribly bright comment, I'd like to see the article you're referencing.

post #182 of 3125

Quote:

Originally Posted by n3rdling View Post


http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php

 

I believe the following also has mention of it, but I haven't read it in a long time:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/808head/


Headroom's proposition only holds true if you're trying to mimic speakers in an undesirable listening position.  For example, I have a hard time agreeing with going out of ones way to add bass to headphones just to mimic speakers.  

 

Some people listen to speakers in near field for mastering for example - would they want a roll-off to hide potential problems?  I have a hard time taking arguments of what sounds "natural" seriously - most mastered music will be incapable of ever sounding natural.

 

As for Stereophile:

 

Quote:
If you suppose that, as a result of Theile's work, there is now a headphone-industry consensus that the DF response assumption is the correct one, prepare yourself for disappointment. Headphones continue to espouse widely differing response philosophies: some close to FF, some close to DF, and others nearer to flat. Which is "right" remains a bone of contention.

 

Pick your poison, but flat is flat and thus it reproduces the signal as the signal is intended.  Fixing it to ones ear seems counter-productive and silly to me, so I follow the third line of thought.  That's also why I have a pair of K601, which I've yet to find one person say they're "horribly bright" despite being one of the flattest headphones made.  In fact, many go on and on about a lush midrange and recessed bass and treble, even though the whole headphone is balanced all across the board.


@Headdie

 

Went to the audio critic and didn't see anything about headphone proximity defining treble.  Can you give part of the quote so I can search the page for it effectively?

 

@Xnor

 

I agree the impulse response isn't vary good to say the least, but the fact that Stax is even worst shows there's definite issues in terms of transients - that's all I was getting at honestly.  Grado's above SR-60 (comfy pads may impact it) show fairly promising measurements beyond FR, as do AKG K701, etc.

post #183 of 3125

I am one of the few who have heard differences between cable interconnects. I can hear differences between the IC that came with my FiiO amp and a cardas one. The interesting thing is that I much prefer the free IC that came with the FiiO amp. I noticed that the cardas IC is rather dark and does not let the high frequencies thru as much as the free FiiO IC.

post #184 of 3125

The Audio Critic no. 28, p. 32, reviewing the HeadRoom amplifier.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

Went to the audio critic and didn't see anything about headphone proximity defining treble.  Can you give part of the quote so I can search the page for it effectively?

post #185 of 3125

I totally disagree with you when you say that flat is flat, my point is while a pair of speaker with a totally flat FR is ideal, listening to a system with a flat FR is absurd, because a flat FR doe not exist.

To be more precise, I want to listen to a system with a "perceived flat FR", ie. a system equalized according to equal loudness contours 9depending on my usual listening volume) and with some positive or negative gain depending on the distance to the transducer.
In short, an wire with gain system, with a equalization before would be ideal. It's quite a lot of work though, hence why I haven't done it yet, I'm far too busy simply enjoying listening to music.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

Pick your poison, but flat is flat and thus it reproduces the signal as the signal is intended.  Fixing it to ones ear seems counter-productive and silly to me, so I follow the third line of thought.  That's also why I have a pair of K601, which I've yet to find one person say they're "horribly bright" despite being one of the flattest headphones made.  In fact, many go on and on about a lush midrange and recessed bass and treble, even though the whole headphone is balanced all across the board.

post #186 of 3125

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

I totally disagree with you when you say that flat is flat, my point is while a pair of speaker with a totally flat FR is ideal, listening to a system with a flat FR is absurd, because a flat FR doe not exist.

To be more precise, I want to listen to a system with a "perceived flat FR", ie. a system equalized according to equal loudness contours 9depending on my usual listening volume) and with some positive or negative gain depending on the distance to the transducer.
In short, an wire with gain system, with a equalization before would be ideal. It's quite a lot of work though, hence why I haven't done it yet, I'm far too busy simply enjoying listening to music.

 

 

 


 

Are you sure you read what I said?  You missed the context of the flat comment, "and thus it reproduces the signal as the signal is intended.".

 

I don't know what you mean about a "flat FR" not existing unless you're talking about about the loudness curves (which seems you are).  My point is correcting for them, to me, seems like a bad idea.  You have the curves and adjust to them by just using your hearing daily, your brain copes and does the best to correct.  By EQing odds are you will throw your brain's perception for a loop to say the least, having it overcompensate.  Furthermore, if you were listening to a band they too wouldn't adjust for your curves.

 

Also, since you're talking about EQing a flat headphone is EXACTLY what you want regardless, as a flat headphone will be the easiest to EQ regardless.  Trying to EQ an already erratic headphone makes what you're wanting to do all the harder.

 

@Headdie

 

Checked the review, and he didn't mention headphone frequency response in regards to the bright comment.  He's referencing how the xfeed (used to mimic room based sound crossover) made it seem less bright and more diffused - which if you're trying to mimic speakers in an average listening room makes sense.  When you have xfeed usually treble does get diffused and it can take a dive in speaker listening too.  It doesn't mean that's a good thing though, just an affect or consequence of the action depending on your outlook.

post #187 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post

I am one of the few who have heard differences between cable interconnects. I can hear differences between the IC that came with my FiiO amp and a cardas one. The interesting thing is that I much prefer the free IC that came with the FiiO amp. I noticed that the cardas IC is rather dark and does not let the high frequencies thru as much as the free FiiO IC.


But can you hear these differences in a blind ABX test?

 

The problem is auto-suggestion. You can simply set up a difference in perception and then maintain it.

 

Please note that I am not saying there is no difference, I don't know if there is a difference or not. However I do believe that auto-suggestion plays a very large role in our hearing.

 

So, if you have a well controlled blind ABX test then we could ascertain if the differences are audible by you or not.

post #188 of 3125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post

I am one of the few who have heard differences between cable interconnects. I can hear differences between the IC that came with my FiiO amp and a cardas one. The interesting thing is that I much prefer the free IC that came with the FiiO amp. I noticed that the cardas IC is rather dark and does not let the high frequencies thru as much as the free FiiO IC.


You are not one of the few, you are one of the many going by this and other audiophile forums. Crucially, are you experiences sighted or under blind testing conditions?

post #189 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

 

Are you sure you read what I said?  You missed the context of the flat comment, "and thus it reproduces the signal as the signal is intended.".

 

I don't know what you mean about a "flat FR" not existing unless you're talking about about the loudness curves (which seems you are).  My point is correcting for them, to me, seems like a bad idea.  You have the curves and adjust to them by just using your hearing daily, your brain copes and does the best to correct.  By EQing odds are you will throw your brain's perception for a loop to say the least, having it overcompensate.  Furthermore, if you were listening to a band they too wouldn't adjust for your curves.

 

Also, since you're talking about EQing a flat headphone is EXACTLY what you want regardless, as a flat headphone will be the easiest to EQ regardless.  Trying to EQ an already erratic headphone makes what you're wanting to do all the harder.

 

 

I believed that by "as intended", you implied that the whole chain from the source to the auditor should be "wire with gain". That's what I disagreed with, to me the ideal reproduction system would take into account room acoustics and equal loudness contour. Room acoustic correction is a given I think, but equalising for loudness is good IMHO, you don't want the lowest notes froom a piano or a double bass to disappear whan listening at low volumes, would you?

 

By the way, the AKG K601 which is a 'flat' pair of headphones according to you (I don't know, I didn't bother to check), is probably flat once the free field diffusion curve is applied, which means it's does not have a flat response.

post #190 of 3125

Since the object of a cable is to transmit a signal unchanged then if you are right at least one of your two cables is faulty, I suggest you send the Cardas back if it is still under warranty. However, I suggest that before you do this you confirm that the cable is in fact acting as a low pass filter as you suspect.

 

One method for doing this is outlined in http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise

 

Although I am quite busy I can do this for you if you lack the kit required, I will have to charge my hourly consultancy fee and you will have to ship the cables to me and pay for return shipping, it will take me 2 hours to test each cable, the protocol requires a minimum of 10 trials per cable, trimming and alignment to +/- 1 sample (1/44,100s)  plus spectral analysis and averaging of results, I can even supply you with typical samples of recordings from each cable which you can attempt to DBT.

 

PM me for prices.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post

I am one of the few who have heard differences between cable interconnects. I can hear differences between the IC that came with my FiiO amp and a cardas one. The interesting thing is that I much prefer the free IC that came with the FiiO amp. I noticed that the cardas IC is rather dark and does not let the high frequencies thru as much as the free FiiO IC.

post #191 of 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

I totally disagree with you when you say that flat is flat,

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

Quote:


By EQing odds are you will throw your brain's perception for a loop to say the least, having it overcompensate................ 

 

Guys,  everything is EQ'd.  Nothing wrong with EQing.

 

191185642_6bfc025f91_b.jpg


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

You are not one of the few, you are one of the many going by this and other audiophile forums. Crucially, are you experiences sighted or under blind testing conditions?

 


Probably just his impression....  tried one, tried the other, went back and forth a few times, developed a preference.....  not very scientific, but it's all I do now.  I know better, so I don't even bother to test them....  just pick the one I think sounds better and go with it.....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

Since the object of a cable is to transmit a signal unchanged then if you are right at least one of your two cables is faulty, I suggest you send the Cardas back if it is still under warranty. However, I suggest that before you do this you confirm that the cable is in fact acting as a low pass filter as you suspect.


Agreed.  Send the Cardas back.


Edited by upstateguy - 10/13/10 at 10:08am
post #192 of 3125


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

 

 

I believed that by "as intended", you implied that the whole chain from the source to the auditor should be "wire with gain".

 

That's exactly what I'm saying - that is the only way to guarantee accurate reproduction of the signal.

 

That's what I disagreed with, to me the ideal reproduction system would take into account room acoustics and equal loudness contour. Room acoustic correction is a given I think, but equalising for loudness is good IMHO, you don't want the lowest notes froom a piano or a double bass to disappear whan listening at low volumes, would you?

 

The problem with adjusting for loudness curves is they vary based on volume anyway, so calibrating for 80dB isn't the same as say 85dB.  Furthermore, your brain, as I said, is used to these contours day in and day out.  Trying to correct for them may change how your brain adds to the signal. 

 

By the way, the AKG K601 which is a 'flat' pair of headphones according to you (I don't know, I didn't bother to check), is probably flat once the free field diffusion curve is applied, which means it's does not have a flat response.

 

Possibly, would have to check with headroom regarding which equalization methods they use.  I know they try to remove HRTF via equalization on their dummy heads - it was my understanding this would leave transducer response considering average head coupling (which is necessary).

 

Responses in bold.

post #193 of 3125

No in fact, I did not believe that IC made any difference. This took me by surprise. It could be a combination of cable impedance and amplifier compatibility. Now for a cardas cable to sound worse than a free IC, that really took me by surprise. So, this is not autosuggestion.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by p a t r i c k View Post




But can you hear these differences in a blind ABX test?

 

The problem is auto-suggestion. You can simply set up a difference in perception and then maintain it.

 

Please note that I am not saying there is no difference, I don't know if there is a difference or not. However I do believe that auto-suggestion plays a very large role in our hearing.

 

So, if you have a well controlled blind ABX test then we could ascertain if the differences are audible by you or not.

post #194 of 3125
Thread Starter 

But what about your experience of blind testing what you have found DJGeorgeT?

 

Blind testing is what this thread is all about.

post #195 of 3125

yes, I have done a blind test and they sound different. The IC's sound different.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths