Headphone CSD waterfall plots - Page 45

Can't say definitively without a direct A/B comparison.  I was reporting from what I remember reading and the biggest point of contention between the two seemed to be the mids.  

And, the ringing I'm not one to hear that.

Haha, kiteki has a vendetta against rhythmdevils.  Chased him here all the way from the T90 thread.

Looking briefly at the graphs, if we're basing things off the right channel then sure, they're similar.  Looking at the left channel there's a 5db gap at a few different locations on the spectrum - I wouldn't call that similar.

Purrin's graphs look a lot nicer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

Purrin has graphs on the JVC IEM's?

 

They are pretty similar apart from the FX700 looking like the weaker IEM overall.

 

So should I just stay with the FX500?

They both have some nasty ringing according to the CSD.  If you're going to upgrade might as well go with something much better .

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

That's probably the brass chamber or birch wood, does ringing always sound bad?

It's less apparent in slow music, but it's never a good thing.  Bad freq. response can be eq'd to some degree, bad decay cannot really be fixed.

So yes, it always sounds bad even though most people couldn't put their finger on why it sounds bad.  With that said, I didn't look too closely so it may be acceptable levels.  In any case, I always look for fast decay and low distortion .

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

That's probably the brass chamber or birch wood, does ringing always sound bad?

Not exactly. It's obviously a bad dose to those who are after reference sound signature, but it can bring about some fun by coloring the sound to some extent if tuned correctly.

Audio Technica's wood series might be a good example, some have their own distinctive ringing in the mid and highs but they don't sound bad at all.

Could someone explain, or link to an explanation, of how to read these? Thanks in advance. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by keanex 

Could someone explain, or link to an explanation, of how to read these? Thanks in advance. 

Midorkas are not supposed to read through these types of graphs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

Fast decay, like which IEM's?  You mean in IR as well right?

A CSD is basically decay vs frequency

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranhieu 

Audio Technica's wood series might be a good example, some have their own distinctive ringing in the mid and highs but they don't sound bad at all.

Their decay is spread over a broader range of frequencies so it sounds more like reverb.  It's not accurate but it can indeed be quite pleasant.

Those JVCs show sharp narrow ridges which sound much worse to most people.  OTOH, their narrowness means that they aren't excited as often and are intermittent.  You might not even hear them at all with certain music.

Even if you do hear them you might not know exactly what to call it.  When I was getting started in headphones I was hearing it before I even knew what to call it.  My second pair of expensive-ish full size headphones was a Denon D2000 and I really liked them for a few days until I listened to something that highlighted what purrin calls the "lower treble razor of death" and then I couldn't un-notice it.  I heard it in everything after that and I couldn't listen to them at all anymore.  I didn't know exactly what it was or what to call it before I saw purrin's graphs and how well they matched what I was hearing.  What I mostly noticed is that it painfully exaggerated sibilance so I usually described it that way even though it wasn't the underlying phenomenon.

Sharper ringing is usually worse than broader ridges and even sharp ringing can be more or less objectionable at different frequencies.  Between about 6 and 12khz tends to be the most objectionable and softer ringing spaced at single octave intervals usually make it sound worse than the level of a single ridge would otherwise indicate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverickronin 

 

Even if you do hear them you might not know exactly what to call it.  When I was getting started in headphones I was hearing it before I even knew what to call it.  My second pair of expensive-ish full size headphones was a Denon D2000 and I really liked them for a few days until I listened to something that highlighted what purrin calls the "lower treble razor of death" and then I couldn't un-notice it.  I heard it in everything after that and I couldn't listen to them at all anymore.  I didn't know exactly what it was or what to call it before I saw purrin's graphs and how well they matched what I was hearing.  What I mostly noticed is that it painfully exaggerated sibilance so I usually described it that way even though it wasn't the underlying phenomenon.

 

Sharper ringing is usually worse than broader ridges and even sharp ringing can be more or less objectionable at different frequencies.  Between about 6 and 12khz tends to be the most objectionable and softer ringing spaced at single octave intervals usually make it sound worse than the level of a single ridge would otherwise indicate.

Funny how this happens. The more I learn and notice little issues with headphones and sound reproduction, the less I'm able to overlook them. Part of me wishes I could rewind time and go back to blissfully and ignorantly enjoying my 128kbps mp3 files out of my iBuds. 

I had a friend just tell me the other day how I ruined most music for him. Once I explained to him what "sibilance" is, he hears it all the time now and can't help but be jarred by it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questhate 

Funny how this happens. The more I learn and notice little issues with headphones and sound reproduction, the less I'm able to overlook them. Part of me wishes I could rewind time and go back to blissfully and ignorantly enjoying my 128kbps mp3 files out of my iBuds. 

 

I had a friend just tell me the other day how I ruined most music for him. Once I explained to him what "sibilance" is, he hears it all the time now and can't help but be jarred by it.

I don't have much of an issue with most mp3s.  Only really low bitrates from older encoders really bother me.  I'll take FLAC and 320 or V0 when I can get it but honestly most headphones have worse problems than most low bitrate lossy encodes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

I meant attack and decay like the in the highs of the ER-4S or the bass of the K2 SP.  You hit a piano note and it lifts upward with /\~~~~~~~~~ or a sharp bass attack decays like /\~~~~~~~~~~~~ instead of /\~~.

 

It would be useful to see a CSD on the K2 SP since that's very audible, I imagine it's not in the CSD though?  At the same time it lacks natural sound either way.

That's what it is.  The signal stops and the sound doesn't.  You probably need an amazingly soundproofed room/testing chamber to get good results in the bass frequencies though.  It's ususally not noticeable but most even slightly urban areas have an amazing amount of LF background noise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

That still doesn't answer the question on the differences in the JVC FX500 and FX700.  I think the idea surrounding them is the wood and brass = more natural sound than aluminium and plastic.

Well for one, the 700 has faster decay in the lower midrange which should amount to more detail in that area and probably less of the "bass-intruding-on-the-mids" sort of thing.

It's not like one graph is going to tell you everything about the sound though.  OTOH, if you know what you don't like then it does give a very high probability of telling you won't like something.