firev1
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Posts
- 758
- Likes
- 41
Quote:
My teachers used to always tell, making music is math and to make out anything out of data is require's some analysis. It is true that many got creative to achieve ground breaking headphones, but it is almost usually verified by measurements TOGETHER with listening test. Square wave or the other test looks at fidelity to the source in a electrical method, our brains ain't AP analysers and can't decipher the data the way a scope does. Don't believe in HAT models? Binaural would not exist without it(together with that superb imaging). I think the current HATs models and AP analysers are necessary and able to somewhat(not totally) correlate with listening data, or else why sound engineers choose them if its pseudo-science as you said? There may have been new perceptual models used my audio engineers to test products that I may not be aware of though it is possible that they are a lot more accurate in THD and IMD in relating results to subjective evaluation. Never hurt to have accurate gear though.
Have you read the story of the Yamaha NS-1? It's a great example of how a speaker that was unpopular with the consumer market back in the day managed to make its way to top studios, as it measured well in terms of group delay(phase). It was measured after quite some time since its inception into the speaker market. If you don't accept IR and SWR theories(since both are interrelated*), I guess stuff like NOS/SACD/192khz has no real case either, all seem like pseudo science after all.
Also for the 44.1khz and 88.2khz paper, if you read the paper, DAC performance maybe playing a part(lack of preference for 44.1khz native vs 44.1khz downsampled and the troubling statistics analysis)
As for titanium vs plastic, I think metals sound better too, plastics just don't have the stiffness of titanium. Keep in mind the natural frequency of metals are vastly different from plastic. I do like nice old paper cone drivers though.
For speakers vs headphones vs IEMs, they all interact with the ear differently. Headphones are more head size and position dependent, a slight shift could really upset that nice tonal balance unlike IEMs, I don't really like something sticking in my ear though(I has no customs) I think though, given a good budget of 10k(or even just 5k or less) for either SR-009 system(or other flagship system) or a good pair of monitors, I will always head for the latter. Even with my low-mid fi system(the R2000Ts), they give serious detail when setup with proper EQ and good soundstage. Even something like my NAD system will give serious detail with proper acoustic treatment (I once pissed my family of clearing the living room to setup them up properly, since then I used them sparingly in my room lol)
Edit: Looking forward to anyone peer reviewing the paper though, since one other paper seems to have contradicting results in terms of high-res formats is concerned.
My teachers used to always tell, making music is math and to make out anything out of data is require's some analysis. It is true that many got creative to achieve ground breaking headphones, but it is almost usually verified by measurements TOGETHER with listening test. Square wave or the other test looks at fidelity to the source in a electrical method, our brains ain't AP analysers and can't decipher the data the way a scope does. Don't believe in HAT models? Binaural would not exist without it(together with that superb imaging). I think the current HATs models and AP analysers are necessary and able to somewhat(not totally) correlate with listening data, or else why sound engineers choose them if its pseudo-science as you said? There may have been new perceptual models used my audio engineers to test products that I may not be aware of though it is possible that they are a lot more accurate in THD and IMD in relating results to subjective evaluation. Never hurt to have accurate gear though.
Have you read the story of the Yamaha NS-1? It's a great example of how a speaker that was unpopular with the consumer market back in the day managed to make its way to top studios, as it measured well in terms of group delay(phase). It was measured after quite some time since its inception into the speaker market. If you don't accept IR and SWR theories(since both are interrelated*), I guess stuff like NOS/SACD/192khz has no real case either, all seem like pseudo science after all.
Also for the 44.1khz and 88.2khz paper, if you read the paper, DAC performance maybe playing a part(lack of preference for 44.1khz native vs 44.1khz downsampled and the troubling statistics analysis)
As for titanium vs plastic, I think metals sound better too, plastics just don't have the stiffness of titanium. Keep in mind the natural frequency of metals are vastly different from plastic. I do like nice old paper cone drivers though.
For speakers vs headphones vs IEMs, they all interact with the ear differently. Headphones are more head size and position dependent, a slight shift could really upset that nice tonal balance unlike IEMs, I don't really like something sticking in my ear though(I has no customs) I think though, given a good budget of 10k(or even just 5k or less) for either SR-009 system(or other flagship system) or a good pair of monitors, I will always head for the latter. Even with my low-mid fi system(the R2000Ts), they give serious detail when setup with proper EQ and good soundstage. Even something like my NAD system will give serious detail with proper acoustic treatment (I once pissed my family of clearing the living room to setup them up properly, since then I used them sparingly in my room lol)
Edit: Looking forward to anyone peer reviewing the paper though, since one other paper seems to have contradicting results in terms of high-res formats is concerned.
