Latest Thread Images

Featured Sponsor Listings

Headphone CSD waterfall plots

Nov 2, 2011 at 11:37 PM Post #451 of 937
I've been secretly using them for a quite bit since you sent the box to me. Small, convenient, and with good sound.
 
Nov 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM Post #452 of 937

Audio Technica ATH-AD2000

Pre-measurement impressions:
 
I've heard these a couple of times before and I actually like them for certain special qualities they exhibit. I know people who like them and I know people who hate them. The people who hate them say they have a messed up frequency response and they are right. 
 
These are very open and very fast sounding dynamic headphones. Possibly the fastest dynamics I've heard. Very clean sounding. The AD2000 reminds me of Grado RS1s in that it has a similar midrange. However it does not have that mid-bass bump (nor much bass at all). The treble of the AD2000 is MUCH smoother than the RS1.
 
If you like the Grado RS1 sound, you are better off buying these and EQ'ing up 100Hz.
 
There are not FR plots. The waterfall plots below only go down to 200Hz.
 
 
A peak at 4kHz that looks very similar to the 5kHz peak of the RS1. Did I say they were very fast and open sounding?
 
 
Nov 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM Post #454 of 937


Quote:
purrin said:
 

With my measurements - it's mostly the driver or more precisely, the diaphragm and surround material and construction that causes ringing. Voice coil and enclosure design also contribute to this effect. Speaker / headphone drivers are not too different from drums if you think about it - except that ideally they shouldn't continue to vibrate after the electrical signal stops.
 
 
Click to expand...

I've alway thought that having the voice-coil on the driver as in a orthodynamic could allow for some self-damping of vibrations.
Also, your waterfall plots are great, thanks.
 
 
 
 
Nov 4, 2011 at 7:31 PM Post #457 of 937
Just focused on 3k to 20k, instead of the usual 200Hz to 20kHz.
 
The AD2000 is damn fast and clean with the exception of the resonance near 4kHz.
 
Nov 4, 2011 at 7:41 PM Post #458 of 937


Quote:
purrin said:
Just focused on 3k to 20k, instead of the usual 200Hz to 20kHz.
 
The AD2000 is damn fast and clean with the exception of the resonance near 4kHz.
Click to expand...


Actually from looking at it, it seems the floor has been raised in the newer post.
 
Here's the older one.  Easy to see looking at 5-10khz by comparisoon.
 

 
 
Nov 9, 2011 at 6:19 PM Post #460 of 937
awesome :D but just had a question so due to the anatomy of the ear higher the frequency the more damage it will typically cause, well it will be the first to get damaged seeing that high frequencies are heard at the start of the cochlea, so would that mean that sibilance is louder? Do producers equalize the sound out at that peak? So that being said would a perfectly balanced headphone still be very sibilant? Cause that always confuses me, like what is the deal with that, I always spikes around there, do they put it there on purpose, and why don't the producers fix it? 
 
Nov 9, 2011 at 6:25 PM Post #461 of 937

 
Quote:
wakidabeast said:
awesome :D but just had a question so due to the anatomy of the ear higher the frequency the more damage it will typically cause, well it will be the first to get damaged seeing that high frequencies are heard at the start of the cochlea, so would that mean that sibilance is louder? Do producers equalize the sound out at that peak? So that being said would a perfectly balanced headphone still be very sibilant? Cause that always confuses me, like what is the deal with that, I always spikes around there, do they put it there on purpose, and why don't the producers fix it? 
Click to expand...


Sibilance in recordings is wholly separate from resonances (ringing) in headphones. This is why driver ringing between 6-10kHz is really bad - such behavior tends to exacerbate any sibilance already in the recording.
 
As to why producers (sound engineers) don't fix it? It's because they are lazy or don't care.
 
 
Nov 9, 2011 at 6:34 PM Post #462 of 937
The overhead graphs make it look like the AD2000 driver is faster than the SR009 despite the much faster decay of the 009.  Is that your reading as well?  Kind of hard to believe.
 
Nov 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM Post #463 of 937
 
Quote:
rhythmdevils said:
The overhead graphs make it look like the AD2000 driver is faster than the SR009 despite the much faster decay of the 009.  Is that your reading as well?  Kind of hard to believe.
Click to expand...


Bravo! I was wondering if anyone was going to pick that up. Other than the big ridge, it does seem that way don't it?
 
 
Nov 9, 2011 at 8:48 PM Post #464 of 937
Also, (gasp) the LCD-2 is faster than the SR009.  What a strange bunch of graphs.  I and it seems most everyone else in the world, always thought that driver speed went in the opposite order- the conventional wisdom is that electrodynamics (thanks Arnaud for the fancy new word) are the slowest, orthos are faster and electrosatics are the fastest. 
 
This adds another layer to the misconceptions we have when trying to perceive driver speed.  It seems that not only do most people confuse an FR with elevated treble for speed, but also we confuse fast decay with a fast driver. 
 
Nov 9, 2011 at 9:14 PM Post #465 of 937
The decay is only one aspect of "fast". There is also the attack which isn't seen here but rather in the impulse response and square wave 
eek.gif

 
There are also secondary considerations of "fast" that involve how clean the entire spectrum is after the decay. The 009 is the only one of the above that doesn't have a lot of crap. Also subject to interpretation would be what level would be considered audible? The dark blue? The light blue?
 
I'll pull up the impulse responses of all three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top