Originally Posted by leeperry
well, yeah, those headroom measurements are meaningless...and yes the 600Ohmers sound much "better" than the 250, their mass is also lower just like BD said. BD are not much of bs tellers IME.
Leeperry, can you verify the mass of the 600ohm drivers and the 250ohm drivers with empircal measurements (i.e. use a weight scale)? And can somebody verify his claims?
FWIW leeperry, headroom graphs are not meaningless. Regardless of what logic you attempt to use to dismiss them, all of the graphs at headroom use a standard mic and dummy head setup which offers a consistent HFTF. While your head and my head may differ, you can still compare 1 headphone to another using this standard.
Another headphone measurement website (japanese) with waterfall / impulse response graphs.
$By your logic, all lighter diaphragms are fast, and all heavy diaphragms are slow. Have you ever seen an impulse response / waterfall plot for an electrostatic (light) driver? By that logic we would expect that all loudspeakers would be orders of magnitude slower than even the heaviest headphone driver. We seem to forget about the force that is applied to the mass.
STAX 4040 ("super light driver")
DENON D5000 ("big fat heavy driver")
Though I know you'll find the achilles heel in these graphs and call them meaningless, I must say your alternatives have been less than underwhelming.
Leeperry, if you spend a few minutes looking at the data, you'll notice startling positive correlations between flat FQ response and impulse response. Both are of the "time" domain.
This is like arguing evolution with a creationist.
Edited by Catharsis - 8/16/10 at 4:38am