Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › If it graphs bad then it is bad; yes or no?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If it graphs bad then it is bad; yes or no? - Page 4

Poll Results: If it graphs bad

 
  • 43% (21)
    Then it is bad
  • 43% (21)
    Then it is probably, but not certainly, bad
  • 12% (6)
    We don't need no steenkin' graphs, hombre!
48 Total Votes  
post #46 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post


Sure, and I do use them. But I don't think I can reproduce the mind blowing bass of my Sony MDR-XB700 headphones with an EQ.

 

Then the property of the bass you enjoy is not part of the FR. Which is why square wave graphs and CSDs are useful. But CSDs and square waves *are* better or worse, rather than preference.

post #47 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

 

Actually, from the datasheet it looks like the PCM1704 is not oversampling itself, it simply accepts oversampled digital input (i.e. it supports a maximum bit clock of 25 MHz). There is no digital filter in the DAC chip. The oversampling and digital filtering needs to be implemented externally, and it may or may not be present in the Hifiman player (but from the measurements I suspect it is not used, so it is indeed non-oversampling if that is the case).

 

It's rather telling that none of the information available can easily settle such a simple question, isn't it?

post #48 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

 

When you add its FR quirks to its high output impedance, its really not a device I would recommend. For balance, I would however recommend Hifiman headphones in an instant, don't want to come across as bashing the company as a whole.

 

The headphones are widely reported as having very good sq. Unfortunately, they are also often described as having appalling build quality - quality control seems to be poor. Also, most of the headphones using ortho drivers are reported to have excellent sound quality.. including the Fostex T50rp that you buy for $100-$150, at least once you have have changed the earpads and added some plasticine to the shells.

post #49 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

The headphones are widely reported as having very good sq. Unfortunately, they are also often described as having appalling build quality - quality control seems to be poor. Also, most of the headphones using ortho drivers are reported to have excellent sound quality.. including the Fostex T50rp that you buy for $100-$150, at least once you have have changed the earpads and added some plasticine to the shells.

 

I've owned a few different orthos over the years, an HP50S (I still have the drivers somewhere), an HP-1 (modded by Nickchen to a Yamalux) and a Fostex T50RP, on which I tried many of the publicly available mods (although not the newer commercial ones like the Paradox Mod that I am currently weighing up purchasing) and I have to say that while a competent headphones with mods, none compare to the HE-500, or even come close. It's not as simple as "if its an ortho its good" and Hifiman deserve no plaudits for the competence of their models.

post #50 of 130

I think the 1704 does oversample itself. It doesn't upsample incoming data though it's effectively the same thing. If configured properly it can actually work above 384khz accurately. 8 times oversampling at 96 becomes 2 times at 384.

 

 

Digital data

words are read into the PCM1704 at eight times the standard

DVD audio sampling frequency of 96kHz (e.g., 8 x 96kHz =

768kHz)


Edited by goodvibes - 2/11/13 at 8:48am
post #51 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

The headphones are widely reported as having very good sq. Unfortunately, they are also often described as having appalling build quality - quality control seems to be poor. Also, most of the headphones using ortho drivers are reported to have excellent sound quality.. including the Fostex T50rp that you buy for $100-$150, at least once you have have changed the earpads and added some plasticine to the shells.

Nah. Sound is bad. The T50RP and the HiFiMAN headphones have a lot of distortion compared to actual high end headphones which you can see in none other than *graphs*. Also I tried modding the T50RP's and they were mediocre according to my ears.

post #52 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

Nah. Sound is bad. The T50RP and the HiFiMAN headphones have a lot of distortion compared to actual high end headphones which you can see in none other than *graphs*. 

 

There is no commonly graphed measurement of "distortion" per se - there's the distortion product, but's one of the things that matters least. Maybe you are trying to say that the frequency response isn't flat? But I don't care because it can be modded flat. (Also: ahem - eq!) The measurements that really concern me on headphones are the square wave graphs and maybe the CSD.

 


 

Also I tried modding the T50RP's and they were mediocre according to my ears.

 

Maybe you  messed up the mod; maybe your ears are no good; maybe you're right. 

 

If you can work out which graph you think is distorted, let me know though.

post #53 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 I've been wondering about that - what is the ideal fr for headphones?

 

Yes, flat is not ideal. Here's what headphone.com says: http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php

 

I've asked the guys at Audyssey about this too, in relation to their headphone equalizer app, which IMHO, is just fantastic and solves all my headphone EQ issues.  Of course, they wouldn't tell me what they are, only that there are different target curves for the different types, IEM, On-ear, and full.  None of them are flat. And, of course, custom EQ for each model, resulting in the appropriate target curve for those headphones.  You can also tweak by hand if you must.

post #54 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

Nah. Sound is bad. The T50RP and the HiFiMAN headphones have a lot of distortion compared to actual high end headphones which you can see in none other than *graphs*. Also I tried modding the T50RP's and they were mediocre according to my ears.

Hey, do us all a favor and point to the distortion graphs of the headphones you're referring to.  Can't seem to find them myself.  

post #55 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

There is no commonly graphed measurement of "distortion" per se - there's the distortion product, but's one of the things that matters least. Maybe you are trying to say that the frequency response isn't flat? But I don't care because it can be modded flat. (Also: ahem - eq!) The measurements that really concern me on headphones are the square wave graphs and maybe the CSD.

 

 

Maybe you  messed up the mod; maybe your ears are no good; maybe you're right. 

 

If you can work out which graph you think is distorted, let me know though.

The distortion graph shows frequency distribution of the harmonics, which is actually fairly important.  They don't usually plot THD vs frequency for headphones, that's true, but distortion plots over about 7 or 8 KHz are fairly meaningless anyway.  

 

Why the concern over the square wave graphs?  What do you think they are telling you?  

 

Sorry, CSD?

post #56 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

 

Yes, flat is not ideal. Here's what headphone.com says: http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php

 

I've asked the guys at Audyssey about this too, in relation to their headphone equalizer app, which IMHO, is just fantastic and solves all my headphone EQ issues.  Of course, they wouldn't tell me what they are, only that there are different target curves for the different types, IEM, On-ear, and full.  None of them are flat. And, of course, custom EQ for each model, resulting in the appropriate target curve for those headphones.  You can also tweak by hand if you must.

 

This also gets confusing because people often don't say  if their graph is corrected for head shape or not..

post #57 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

The distortion graph shows frequency distribution of the harmonics, which is actually fairly important.  They don't usually plot THD vs frequency for headphones, that's true, but distortion plots over about 7 or 8 KHz are fairly meaningless anyway.  

 

We're are talking about the distortion product graph now, yes?


Why the concern over the square wave graphs?  What do you think they are telling you?  

 

The 50 Hz sq wave seem to be a reasonable tell for whether or not a headphone will be able to produce punchy as opposed to boomy bass:


http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headphone-measurements.php

 

The headphone's ability to maintain a constant pressure for the length of the flat top and bottom is a measure of how well it can reproduce low frequency notes. This is very difficult as the driver is small with a limited excursion and the earcup is fairly leaky and lets pressure out easily. 

In no case we've observed has a headphone been able to keep a truly flat line; ear canal headphones can come the closest as they only have a small, sealed volume of air in the ear canal to compress. But the ability for the headphones to create a straight line at the top and bottom, even if it's tilted will indicate coherent performance in the lows. 

 

 

 

 

From the headphones I have, the Superlux668B, which is ok in every way except its ability to do high attack bass (making it pretty unsatisfying for rock, because the drums lose it):

 

 

And the HD25-1-ii, which is much better:

 

 

 

Otoh, a good 50Hz sq wave doesn't seem to guarantee punchy bass, otherwise my Ety HF5s would sound much better to me:

 

 

 

 

..So my ***extremely***  tentative hypothesis is that a good 50Hz sq wave result is necessary but not sufficient for well defined bass.

 

 

Sorry, CSD?

 

Maybe I have the initials wrong? The waterfall graph for frequency response over time?


Edited by scuttle - 2/12/13 at 1:46am
post #58 of 130

There is no "ideal frequency response" to headphones. This is where obsession with measurements just gets silly.

post #59 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post


Maybe I have the initials wrong? The waterfall graph for frequency response over time?

 

No, you got it right. CSD = Cumulative Spectral Decay = Waterfall plot.

 

se

post #60 of 130
Ah, waterfall, would know that of course.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › If it graphs bad then it is bad; yes or no?