Headphone CSD waterfall plots - Page 23

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrin 
I fully acknowledge that my plots do not necessarily represent absolute reality and I appreciate what you are trying to do from a theoretical and scientific level. But as you said, it was never my intention to find a "Grand Unifying Theory" of headphone measurements. I'm a pragmatic, and just wanted to find something that works without the complexity of compensating functions (for each headphone enclosure) and HRTF (for each person.) I've the stated the premise of my methods numerous times in this thread and have never attempted to hide this. I've expressed caution and asked readers to take these measurements with a "grain of salt" (in post #1 of this thread.)

 

P.S. I'm tending to not like the solid plate tests, especially below 2-3kHz, because they either amplify and extend existing driver ringing, create their own enclosure based ringing (in which IMO is mostly filtered out by our ears/brains.), or exacerbate the differences between the peaks and the nulls. The effects of this are so severe that they mask and even dominate significant areas of the spectrum. What's really needed is an compensating impulse response for each headphone enclosure. I'll leave you to this. 

Hi Marv, I certainly like the intelligibility of these "sort of free field" CSDs and trust that you must be doing something right if the objective results are meshing with subjective opinions of several people (whom you've brainwashed to your measurement technique before hand ;) just kidding! ;) ). I tend to view everything a bit more rigorously simply because I am in the field but can be pragmatic as well, so give me some more time to get to the idea that these tests really are better ;). The truth is, it is almost like saying "you guys have been using the wrong microphones for years, here's the kind of stuff you should be using". Dummy heads are expensive for a reason (well beyond the fact that the market is virtually non-existent hence the high cost of entry): the better ones have surface impedance which is close or aiming to mimic that of human head. It's probably closer to 2mm thick foam than purely anechoic.

Anyhow, please explain me in more detail what you mean by impulse response compensation for each enclosure. Do you mean using notch filter to compensate for the acoustic resonances? Again, I don't see the value vs. say a free field measurement with the unbaffled headphone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnaud 

Dummy heads are expensive for a reason (well beyond the fact that the market is virtually non-existent hence the high cost of entry): the better ones have surface impedance which is close or aiming to mimic that of human head. It's probably closer to 2mm thick foam than purely anechoic.

Arnaud, as an engineer you should know that is marketing BS.

The reason those heads are so expensive is because the market is virtually non-existent, the associated software development cost and the microphones. Try buying those exact same microphones and you'll see they make up around HALF the cost. Using your engineering background, read up on the various studies that have been done on dummy head recordings and you will see that that the dummy's surface impedance has absolutely nothing to do with it properly recording.
 

The most accurate dummy heads aren't accurate because of the surface of the dummy head. It's the microphones, the software and the design/replication of the auditory meatus.

Fair enough Luis (Right name? I sort of remember this name from when we met at one of those socal meets 10 years ago or so ;) ), considering the more important bit is the diffraction effect for a binaural recording. 

However, it does not change the fact that your head is not acoustically transparent like Marv's setup is aiming to achieve. Well, I have no beef in convincing anyone about anything so Marv please keep up with the great work ! ;)
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF 

Arnaud, as an engineer you should know that is marketing BS.

 

The reason those heads are so expensive is because the market is virtually non-existent, the associated software development cost and the microphones. Try buying those exact same microphones and you'll see they make up around HALF the cost. Using your engineering background, read up on the various studies that have been done on dummy head recordings and you will see that that the dummy's surface impedance has absolutely nothing to do with it properly recording. 

The most accurate dummy heads aren't accurate because of the surface of the dummy head. It's the microphones, the software and the design/replication of the auditory meatus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnaud 

Fair enough Luis (Right name? I sort of remember this name from when we met at one of those socal meets 10 years ago or so ;) ), considering the more important bit is the diffraction effect for a binaural recording. 

 

However, it does not change the fact that your head is not acoustically transparent like Marv's setup is aiming to achieve. Well, I have no beef in convincing anyone about anything so Marv please keep up with the great work ! ;) 

 

Correct Arnaud! Wow...it has been a long time hasn't it...

I still remember you listening to my Paris Combo CD on Ray Samuel's rig and smiling away....
 

You're completely correct that your head isn't acoustically transparent but neither is Purrins set-up. I know the kind of materials he is using and they are not fully anechoic/transparent. As far as the most important bit in binaural recording...yes, diffraction is key but that works in conjunction with the pinnae design and the overall replication of the auditory meatus. It has long been known by scientists and audio engineers that people perceive sound distance and direction only through cues present in the sound pressures at the two eardrums. This means that there is no magic bone conduction or skin conduction or body conduction effects despite what moronic frauds like Hugo Zuccarelli have been saying for years...it simply isn't true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF 
This means that there is no magic bone conduction or skin conduction or body conduction effects despite what moronic frauds like Hugo Zuccarelli have been saying for years...it simply isn't true.

Would you mind being a little more sensitive about dashing all my hopes and dreams?  Geeeeeeze man...

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils 

Would you mind being a little more sensitive about dashing all my hopes and dreams?  Geeeeeeze man...

LOL! Sorry.

How can I help?

Purrin, great job so far man.  HD650s are looking really good in the top down graphs.  I just skimmed through half this thread trying to find the LCD-2 top down but I guess I missed it.  

Couple things.  You mentioned you don't mind warm or treble-tiled HPs so long as the FR in linear & smooth and the decay fast and that so far only 2 HPs fall into this category for you.  Are they the 009 and modded HD800?  Or did you mean the ESP950?

Second thing.  I think you're the only person I've ever heard describe the HE-6 treble as "etched".  Maybe I'm not interpreting that right but the HE-6 by all reports, and my own trials with them, have sounded pretty buttery smooth in the treble.  We need to get the HE-6 to your lab.

I'd love to see a graph for the SR-003s but I'm not sure how practical/possible CSD'ing the baby omegas would be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrin 

magic bone conduction

 

 

<giggles> ROFL. You crack me up man!

Hey...it's actually been claimed before. Zuccarelli has claimed everything including magic tones that the ears emit yet science can't measure.

http://www.taket.jp/bpp/bpp_e.html

I think they were thinking of you w/ this comment Luis.

"Not few person said that the effect is not understood well. The reason may be that it is not a gay change that changes

the frequency response."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus 

 

http://www.taket.jp/bpp/bpp_e.html

 

I think they were thinking of you w/ this comment Luis.

 

"Not few person said that the effect is not understood well. The reason may be that it is not a gay change that changes

the frequency response."

Link doesn't work. I'm reading through some of Hugo's priceless BS and I don't know whether to laugh or cry. People actually believe his BS rationale!

Directly from Zuccarelli:

"Una ves que escucharon estos parlantes no quieren volver a los convensionales.
Cual es el problema dirais.
El problema es que no encuentro alguien que los quiera fabricar y poner a todos los otros fabricantes en la calle.
Suena similar a la historia de la holofonia? "

(source:http://www.buenosaliens.com/foros/mensajes.cfm/id.3423.t.holofonia.p.3.htm)

Translated by me...

"Once you hear these speakers you will not want to return to conventional ones.
What is the problem you say.
The problem is that I can't find someone to fabricate them and who wants to put all other fabricators on the street.
Sounds similar to the history of holophonics?"

So this guy creates revolutionary technology and he can't find someone to build his inventions because they don't want to put the entire industry out of business....hmmmm

Did the SR-007 get measured?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrin 

 

 

Nope. Only the 009.

 

Oh, OK, so maybe THAT'S why I couldn't find it.... ya think?