Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skullcandy Mix Master Mike versus Audeze LCD-3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skullcandy Mix Master Mike versus Audeze LCD-3 - Page 6

post #76 of 143
Thread Starter 

Speaking of ER-4S, here's what goldenears has to say on it in respect to accurate speakers versus accurate headphones.

 

In summary -> the bass of speakers covers your entire body -> this is impossible in the ER-4 -> solution = extreme bass boost = more realistic.

 

Lol.

 

http://en.goldenears.net/KB_Columns/1884

post #77 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

The reason fewer care with headphones, is because if you're aiming for an apex sonata open-window to the recording with no fluctuation in colour or tones anywhere, you buy speakers.

 

imho.

 

I already did buy speakers.  Now I want headphones that are capable of the same thing.  The reason fewer people care with headphones is that they don't know any better and they get dooped by fancy packaging and price tags. 

post #78 of 143
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

 

I already did buy speakers.  Now I want headphones that are capable of the same thing.  The reason fewer people care with headphones is that they don't know any better and they get dooped by fancy packaging and price tags. 

 

Or it's because low quality sound needs to be enhanced to sound more realistic, it just sounds better with a natural ~10kHz spike, a natural ~sub-bass spike, and a natural ~7kHz spike, that's just how it works.  Not to mention, the "dynamics" of a headphone, are listed here as

 

 

07.png

This area doesn't have too much in relation to the frequency response - it pertains to the efficiency of the product, which is a measure of how intense a sound is produced when input a given signal. Generally, more efficient units are able to express finer sounds, and will benefit even more (in fineness) from a response peak around 7kHz.

_

 

Have you considered this in relation to IR / CSD?  Then like I addressed, there is maple, ebony and Titanium voicing, not just plastic ringing versus open-air flat response TV screens.

 

TV screens are a good example, if you were watching a VHS tape on a horrible washed out TV you'd boost the contrast levels just to see what's going on in the movie lol.

post #79 of 143
Thread Starter 

Also goldenears are a bit vague with what they call "dynamics", I think they pretty much are comparing VHS tape quality to blu-ray, in perceived sound quality, outside of the FR.

 

This is common sense, since two products with identical FR can still sound different.  Such as dynamic versus electrostatic... or MMM versus LCD-3?  I haven't heard them!

post #80 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

Your story there, if you think it's nearly impossible to tell apart the SR-009, 007, 507, HE-500, LCD-2, HD800, HD600 and DT880, once they're all equalized to have the same FR, apart from fit and weight, why haven't you advocated for the MMM to be tailored into the LCD-3 yet?

 

Because I also believe in selecting the right tool for the right job. Just because the MMM could possibly be tailored to sounding more or less like the LCD-3, doesn't mean it makes sense to. And there are other factors, fit, finish, luxury materials, etc... the same reason I would rather drive a BMW than a tuned honda civic that matches it on the track. With that said, there is more than one reason I have capped my headphone purchases with cans well under the $500 mark. 

 

 

I don't have evidence for everything, it's just common sense, you know.  I don't only look at what's (currently) on paper, since then I'd believe the world was flat if satellite imagery wasn't invented yet, clearly that's not right, is it?

 

1. The earth can (and was) proven to be roughly spherical (and accurately measured) by the ancient greeks, mathematically. Sometimes, just numbers can tell you quite a lot. 

 

2. Again that is dealing with pattern matching. E.g. saying X sound matches to X person. All I am saying is a computer could very quickly look at two waveforms and tell you they were different, and in what way, and do so faster and more accurately than a human could. "Identifying" is a different problem. 

 

3. Sometimes "common sense" is wrong. Common sense did tell people the world was flat, for a long time.

 


Edited by liamstrain - 6/19/12 at 1:07pm
post #81 of 143
Thread Starter 

Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post
 

2. Again that is dealing with pattern matching. E.g. saying X sound matches to X person. All I am saying is a computer could very quickly look at two waveforms and tell you they were different, and in what way, and do so faster and more accurately than a human could. "Identifying" is a different problem.

 

Sure, and where is your evidence on that?  Like I said earlier you can't just ask for evidence from the side of the coin you disagree with.

 

"All I am saying is a computer could very quickly look at two waveforms and tell you they were different"

 

You mean like people look at FR, CSD etc. and say it looks different?  Identification is the vital task, not finding differences.

 

In your example a human identifies X and Y waveforms to belong to two seperate people, not the same person, right?  If there was a lot of ambient noise, or it was the same voice pretending to mimic another, I'm sure the human would win.

post #82 of 143
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

3. Sometimes "common sense" is wrong. Common sense did tell people the world was flat, for a long time.

 

I thought that was science, or churches?  I can't remember.

 

Etymotic told us the ER-4S was 92% flat / accurate to reality, now you're supposed to boost the sub-bass in it a lot, or upgrade to the UERM  (Another 'reference' IEM designed via listening input / advice from Capitol Studios according to their info).

post #83 of 143

So... I'm lost... what was the point of this thread? It seems that every page I read, different things were being discussed!!! Is the point basically saying than any headphone can be made to match any upper-tier headphone and they would sound the same just because they measure equally?

 

(sorry if this post feels out of place, I just recently made a "mini review" of the Skullcandys and seeing it in the same sentence as the Audeze's made snot come out of my nose and almost perforate my monitor...)

 

 

Thanks.

post #84 of 143
Quote:
Is the point basically saying than any headphone can be made to match any upper-tier headphone and they would sound the same just because they measure equally?

 

 

Any headphone with sufficient latitude in the FR (e.g. bass or treble extension are good, so you don't induce a lot of distortion) - yes. That's more or less the point. If there is enough latitude in the driver, and the impulse response/resonances are not so far out of whack, you can get very very close to other headphones, if not nearly indistinguishable - even high end phones.  

post #85 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

Sure, and where is your evidence on that?  Like I said earlier you can't just ask for evidence from the side of the coin you disagree with.

 

Fair enough. We're both making assertions. 

 

 

"All I am saying is a computer could very quickly look at two waveforms and tell you they were different"

 

You mean like people look at FR, CSD etc. and say it looks different?  Identification is the vital task, not finding differences.

 

Is it? Why? We are comparing to see why things sound different and looking to find the measurement that correlates to what we hear. Identification is irrelevant. Unless you assert that knowing something is a specific headphone tells you something about it that cannot be measured?

 

 

In your example a human identifies X and Y waveforms to belong to two seperate people, not the same person, right?  If there was a lot of ambient noise, or it was the same voice pretending to mimic another, I'm sure the human would win.

 

Very possibly. I think we are talking across purposes here. I don't think your voice analogy tells the story you think it does, but it may be that i misunderstand what you are intending with it.  


Edited by liamstrain - 6/19/12 at 1:53pm
post #86 of 143
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post

So... I'm lost... what was the point of this thread? It seems that every page I read, different things were being discussed!!! Is the point basically saying than any headphone can be made to match any upper-tier headphone and they would sound the same just because they measure equally?

 

(sorry if this post feels out of place, I just recently made a "mini review" of the Skullcandys and seeing it in the same sentence as the Audeze's made snot come out of my nose and almost perforate my monitor...)

 

Thanks.

 

Download all the software linked a few pages back and make up your own mind I suppose. ;o)

post #87 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

Or it's because low quality sound needs to be enhanced to sound more realistic, it just sounds better with a natural ~10kHz spike, a natural ~sub-bass spike, and a natural ~7kHz spike, that's just how it works.  Not to mention, the "dynamics" of a headphone, are listed here as

 

 

07.png

This area doesn't have too much in relation to the frequency response - it pertains to the efficiency of the product, which is a measure of how intense a sound is produced when input a given signal. Generally, more efficient units are able to express finer sounds, and will benefit even more (in fineness) from a response peak around 7kHz.

_

 

Have you considered this in relation to IR / CSD?  Then like I addressed, there is maple, ebony and Titanium voicing, not just plastic ringing versus open-air flat response TV screens.

 

TV screens are a good example, if you were watching a VHS tape on a horrible washed out TV you'd boost the contrast levels just to see what's going on in the movie lol.

I happen to disagree. Efficiency has nothing to do with dynamics and ability to show fine detail unless your source isn't capable of properly driving the device. What actually sounds linear in an IEM is up for debate and spikes seem almost unavoidable due to the environment but this sort of manipulation doesn't make it better unless you personally like those settings. More isn't better. It's just more. Most people look at dynamics as how loud and quiet it can play, For me it's how well a quite note is represented in a loud passage. That has zero relation to the above Dynamics quote which just patently wrong.

post #88 of 143

I also don't know if a 4s or 4p is actually flat. I know that a 4p has too much at the very top to sound real and the bass is overdamped for same. Maybe the resistor is the fix. Even though a 4s doesn't measure more bass, it seems people perceive more and it may just be the lowered damping factor. Another reason why FR measurements can mislead. That said, I still wonder if the 4s is actually a 4p with added resistor as is often stated here. Adding a resistor to a 4p wouldn't come up with these comparative impedance curves and indicate damping factor isn't the issue.

graphCompare.php?graphType=7&graphID[]=743&graphID[]=733

 

  I haven't heard the 4s but actually prefer a hf5 to the 4p because it's not as peaked on top. Some of this extra top works when an IEM of over weighted with bass and it offsets it a bit. With enough extra bass, the top of a 4p would probably be preferred though it's not my sig. Personally, I think a few db more bottom than an ET sounds more right and the hf5 top end also about the right balance.


Edited by goodvibes - 6/19/12 at 2:59pm
post #89 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

 

 

Any headphone with sufficient latitude in the FR (e.g. bass or treble extension are good, so you don't induce a lot of distortion) - yes. That's more or less the point. If there is enough latitude in the driver, and the impulse response/resonances are not so far out of whack, you can get very very close to other headphones, if not nearly indistinguishable - even high end phones.  

 

Ok...

 

Who carries a computer with all that software around just to "force" x headphones sound like y headphones though? I don't... (which is why I have multiple headphones with different 'flavors'...).

 

So whoever has both the Skulls and the Audeze's, tried those "mods", and got the same results from both headphones? If so, that's impressive... (i.e. I don't get how with two different techs, and different builds (plastic vs wood) you can get them to sound the same but...)

post #90 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post

 

Who carries a computer with all that software around just to "force" x headphones sound like y headphones though? I don't... (which is why I have multiple headphones with different 'flavors'...).

Two points I'd like to make:

a) All you need is an audio player (for example foobar2000) plus a parametric EQ or convolution plugin. These plugins can run in realtime even on very old computers.

b) On portable players, you could simply process the tracks before copying them onto your portable player. For different 'flavors' you could, for example, process different genres with different EQ presets.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skullcandy Mix Master Mike versus Audeze LCD-3