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 7

post #91 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'...).

 

 

I don't disagree with you. Just restating what the argument is. I'm very much an advocate of getting as close to the sound you want as you can at the headphone end first... before you start making a square peg fit the round hole just because you can. 

post #92 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

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.


Exactly.  The software I listed are required for the hearing testing required to create the parametric EQ settings you use, not to implement them.

post #93 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

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.

 

a) yeah, I have foobar... rarely use it...

b) So you process the files and... then decide you want to take with you another pair of headphones which sound different and do not pair with the files you just processed... meh! LOL ;-)

 

Anyway, my point is, I already tried getting an "end-game" headphone... I was not successful. What is the problem with having both the Audeze and the MMMs? IF the MMMs even come close to the Audeze on your home setup with whatever DSPs you want, EQs, etc. etc. (which I still doubt, and no one seems to have REALLY tried this...) then good! But if someone doesn't want the hassle, has money to spare and just enjoys the Audeze's more, then who cares if other cheaper headphones can be "made" to sound like more expensive ones?

post #94 of 143

I have a question.  what if the mix master mikes are horrible at detail retrieval.  I mean so bad that you really only hear the large peaks of analog coming through.  That would cause the headphone to not have to exert itself as much and possibly making the test results look way better than the headphone is.

Another thing, and i haven't read all of the thread so bear with me.  I have denon d2000's.  I tried the open back mod.  While the cups were off,  the headphone sounded sooo thin that there was no body to anything.  Absolutely hideous and pointless to anyone with common sense. Back on they went. It helped me understand that the headphone actually needed the analog to bounce of the cups to an extent.  While i will say that timbre wise, they weren't that accurate but the resonance brought the headphone back to life.  

post #95 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post

 

a) yeah, I have foobar... rarely use it...

b) So you process the files and... then decide you want to take with you another pair of headphones which sound different and do not pair with the files you just processed... meh! LOL ;-)

 

Anyway, my point is, I already tried getting an "end-game" headphone... I was not successful. What is the problem with having both the Audeze and the MMMs? IF the MMMs even come close to the Audeze on your home setup with whatever DSPs you want, EQs, etc. etc. (which I still doubt, and no one seems to have REALLY tried this...) then good! But if someone doesn't want the hassle, has money to spare and just enjoys the Audeze's more, then who cares if other cheaper headphones can be "made" to sound like more expensive ones?

 

There no point (apart from perverse fun, or if you can't afford the phone you're trying to emulate) trying to emulate one headphone with another.  What I've done instead is craft my own ideal frequency response with a lot of trial and error.  And then I found that, when I put this ideal frequency response on different phones (different phones requiring different EQ to reach the desired FR, of course), all the phones I own sound just about as good, be it the $10 Philips SHE3580 or the $200 Etymotic ER-4P.  Of course I haven't tried any $2000 phones but you know what they say about diminishing returns...

post #96 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctaCosmos View Post

I have a question.  what if the mix master mikes are horrible at detail retrieval.  I mean so bad that you really only hear the large peaks of analog coming through.  That would cause the headphone to not have to exert itself as much and possibly making the test results look way better than the headphone is.

Besides the rolled-off high frequencies, both reviews and the measurements don't indicate horrible detail retrieval.

 

Quote:
Another thing, and i haven't read all of the thread so bear with me.  I have denon d2000's.  I tried the open back mod.  While the cups were off,  the headphone sounded sooo thin that there was no body to anything.  Absolutely hideous and pointless to anyone with common sense. Back on they went. It helped me understand that the headphone actually needed the analog to bounce of the cups to an extent.  While i will say that timbre wise, they weren't that accurate but the resonance brought the headphone back to life.

There are holes around the driver that make it impossible to build up the sound pressure needed to reproduce low frequencies if there is no closed back. Think of it as a bass reflex enclosure.

post #97 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctaCosmos View Post

I have a question.  what if the mix master mikes are horrible at detail retrieval.  I mean so bad that you really only hear the large peaks of analog coming through.  That would cause the headphone to not have to exert itself as much and possibly making the test results look way better than the headphone is.

Another thing, and i haven't read all of the thread so bear with me.  I have denon d2000's.  I tried the open back mod.  While the cups were off,  the headphone sounded sooo thin that there was no body to anything.  Absolutely hideous and pointless to anyone with common sense. Back on they went. It helped me understand that the headphone actually needed the analog to bounce of the cups to an extent.  While i will say that timbre wise, they weren't that accurate but the resonance brought the headphone back to life.  

Pressure changing the Q and fundamental resonance point. No bouncing.

post #98 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

There no point (apart from perverse fun, or if you can't afford the phone you're trying to emulate) trying to emulate one headphone with another.  What I've done instead is craft my own ideal frequency response with a lot of trial and error.  And then I found that, when I put this ideal frequency response on different phones (different phones requiring different EQ to reach the desired FR, of course), all the phones I own sound just about as good, be it the $10 Philips SHE3580 or the $200 Etymotic ER-4P.  Of course I haven't tried any $2000 phones but you know what they say about diminishing returns...

 

This makes way more sense and this I do understand! The thing is though that you really don't care about the 'voicing' or coloring of the headphone/earphone because anyway you change it to what YOU want/like to hear.

post #99 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post

 

This makes way more sense and this I do understand! The thing is though that you really don't care about the 'voicing' or coloring of the headphone/earphone because anyway you change it to what YOU want/like to hear.

 

Precisely. This is 100% how I think too. I'm all for tweaking things to my own ideal sound (modding or EQing) that's based on a long experience with EQing and testing different sounding headphones. I never cared much about the "producer wanted sound" nor "manufacturer wanted sound" like many audiophiles use as argument, I basicly laugh at that idea with my own philosophy, I'm just looking for best possible listening experience which no1 but myself can tell what it is as I'm a strong believer that people all have their own personal ideal sound.


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 6/20/12 at 12:03pm
post #100 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Besides the rolled-off high frequencies, both reviews and the measurements don't indicate horrible detail retrieval.

 

I'd agree with the poor detail retrieval.  I though they sounded like HD650s (which I actually like quite a bit) but in the hospital with both legs broken and doped up on morphine.

post #101 of 143

So kiteki how's the software installation and config coming along?

post #102 of 143

Arguments like this make me want to go to grad school for acoustical physics just so I can come back to this land, riding on a burro with palm branches before me, only to be stricken down by the STAX mafia and to arise a half-gross hours later, having grown in size to rival mountains to straddle the river Analogue like a great colossus, a foot each planted in the vestibules of the Church of the Holy Objectivist and First Orthodox Subjectivist Church. Thereto-for to spill forth my understanding like a cup that overfloweth until the end of days!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Translation: this thread left me with far more questions than answers

post #103 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverickmonk View Post

Translation: this thread left me with far more questions than answers

 

My humble suggestion: ask them.

post #104 of 143

Alright, here goes nothing (just what's on the top of my head) tongue.gif:

 

 

Where can I read more on the physics of how acoustics interact with their environment other than Wikipedia? Everything I've found is either fairly basic, or terrifyingly advanced (and vague). Hit me with math, I like math, it can't lie or trick, as long as you can translate and apply it. Just keep it less than graduate level please. No non-linear differential or multi variable differential equations please.

 

What do Laplace/Fourier transforms have to do with sound? I hear them discussed a lot in audio

 

What variables would effect how pads change the sound? (angle, acoustic velocity, and permeability/absorption, and distance from the ears come to mind, is that all?

 

How does driver extension correlate with control mathematically, and why doesn't larger drivers = more distortion, since larger surfaces are more prone to flexing?

 

How exactly do standing waves effect the movement of the driver?

 

Is "quickness" a function of acceleration, or of jerk? (derivative of acceleration), and what factors other than the strength of the forces effect it?

 

 

But my biggest question is, if everything can be assigned a mathematical value, shouldn't we be able to derive a measurement to wholly depict the sound of a transducer? I mean, if we're talking about a propagation of waves, we can define mathematically the signal we're sending to the transducer, and we can derive the force that signal generates as it flows through the coil, and how it interacts with the tension forces of the diaphragm, the magnet, etc. We can define the movement of sound waves in air and how they interact with surfaces, so, posed to the most subjectivist individuals, where does the math fall out? what part aren't we taking into account? This isn't an attack, it's an honest question, what part needs work?

 

 

More practically: would anyone care to share their EQ methods and techniques?

 

What defines "forwardness" other than a bump in the mid spectrum EQ?

post #105 of 143

what he said^

and is there a way to equate mathematically how a headphone will sound tonally or the imaging or if it is good at the separation of instruments?  Doesn't the type of material in the voice coil and diaphram have a lot to do with the timbre of the hp

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