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 5

Poll Results: If it graphs bad

 
  • 45% (21)
    Then it is bad
  • 41% (19)
    Then it is probably, but not certainly, bad
  • 13% (6)
    We don't need no steenkin' graphs, hombre!
46 Total Votes  
post #61 of 130
2/12/13 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

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

The major testers all publish data with HRF compensation, and they do say so.

 

headphone.com

innerfidelity.com

headphoneinfo.com

 

In fact, their testing methods are quite similar. 

Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #62 of 130
2/12/13 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

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

Beg to differ here.  If you're going for neutrality, the targets are well known.  If not, well, subjectivity is what marketing is all about.

Reply
post #63 of 130
2/12/13 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

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

What would a 50Hz square wave test show you about bass that a waterfall wouldn't?

Reply
post #64 of 130
2/12/13 at 9:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

What would a 50Hz square wave test show you about bass that a waterfall wouldn't?

Have you ever seen a waterfall plot that goes into 50Hz? 

Reply
post #65 of 130
2/12/13 at 10:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

Have you ever seen a waterfall plot that goes into 50Hz? 

Yes, but I admit the time resolution is terrible down there. That's not the point, though. Many people look at the messed up square wave and get confused as to the correlation between the graphs and the sound. I was trying to zero see if that understanding exists here or not.

Here's a 10hz waterfall plot for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.winmls.com/Applications/Wizards/General_Waterfall%20CSD%20(loudspeaker)en%20-%20English.html
Reply
post #66 of 130
2/12/13 at 10:27am

Unless you know that a square wave can look anything but a clean square wave even though each harmonic is reproduced at the proper level you really shouldn't try to read anything into them..

Hint (Click to show)

phase shift

Reply
post #67 of 130
2/12/13 at 11:16am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

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

 

It would be nice if you explain your argument for that belief. Which, to be honest, seems ridiculous to me on two grounds:

 

1. An ideal fr isn't necessarily determined to the last dot, but I think we'd agree that eg any absolute holes in the audible part of the spectrum are a bad idea! After this, everything is about how exactly we can define the  ideal fr, not whether we can or not.

 

2. I'd need a reasoned argument to convince me that anything but neutral is ever best: any desire for eg a v shaped signature can be taken care of with EQ

Reply
post #68 of 130
2/12/13 at 11:19am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

What would a 50Hz square wave test show you about bass that a waterfall wouldn't?

 

The answer to that might depend on the value of "you":

 

- I certainly can't read waterfalls as well

 

- I can't hold of them as easily, whereas eg Headroom has square waves for most of the devices it sells

Reply
post #69 of 130
2/12/13 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

The answer to that might depend on the value of "you":

- I certainly can't read waterfalls as well

- I can't hold of them as easily, whereas eg Headroom has square waves for most of the devices it sells

I'm not saying this is true in your or anyone else's case in particular, but there is a lot of misunderstanding about what a square wave test is actually showing. When I try to explain it to people I find it's harder to come up with explanations than it is to explain a waterfall. Simple concepts often reduce to inaccuracies, like "tilt is bad" or "ringing is bad" etc. Whats even worse is the disconnect between how it looks and how it sounds. Nobody's actually heard a real square wave of course, but how much waveform change results in a change in SQ? Very hard to quantify, other than to cite the extremes.
Reply
post #70 of 130
2/12/13 at 1:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
Many people look at the messed up square wave and get confused as to the correlation between the graphs and the sound. I was trying to zero see if that understanding exists here or not.

 

Very few if headphones will show a true sq wave at 50Hz; you have to understand what you are looking for, which is where that headroom text and looking at graphs of headphones you've heard, with varying clarity to their bass, is useful.

Reply
post #71 of 130
2/12/13 at 1:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post


I'm not saying this is true in your or anyone else's case in particular, but there is a lot of misunderstanding about what a square wave test is actually showing. When I try to explain it to people I find it's harder to come up with explanations than it is to explain a waterfall. Simple concepts often reduce to inaccuracies, like "tilt is bad" or "ringing is bad" etc. 

 

It's easy to understand what a waterfall graph is, but that does not mean it is easier to to use for the purpose I am interested in - that of spotting well formed "punchy" bass. And a waterfall doesn't even try to track what will happen when a headphone gets successive impulses.

 

 

 

Whats even worse is the disconnect between how it looks and how it sounds. Nobody's actually heard a real square wave of course, but how much waveform change results in a change in SQ? Very hard to quantify, other than to cite the extremes.

 

Used intelligently this doesn't matter: you simply learn what to look for in a graph and look for it. This gives you a valuable tool for eliminating some headphones at very little effort, so a couple of minutes learning what an ok sq wave graph looks like is a reasonable investment.

Reply
post #72 of 130
2/12/13 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Unless you know that a square wave can look anything but a clean square wave even though each harmonic is reproduced at the proper level you really shouldn't try to read anything into them..

Hint (Click to show)

phase shift

 

That's pretty much what I'm getting at...+1

 

Even if you did take a perfect square wave and, without any phase shift, removed harmonics above the audio band, it would have what would look like ringing and overshoots and wouldn't look very square anymore.  That's something best done in simulation, of course.  The frequency of the square wave also tends to over or under-emphasize whatever anomaly it's showing.

Reply
post #73 of 130
2/12/13 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuttle View Post

 

Used intelligently this doesn't matter: you simply learn what to look for in a graph and look for it. This gives you a valuable tool for eliminating some headphones at very little effort, so a couple of minutes learning what an ok sq wave graph looks like is a reasonable investment.

I love stuff like this....eek.gif

 

"Used intelligently this (referring to "the disconnect between how it looks and how it sounds") doesn't matter: you simply learn what to look for in a graph and look for it."

 

Ok, on behalf of the readers who don't get where this is going...i'll bite... How?

Reply
post #74 of 130
2/12/13 at 3:22pm

Here are 3 50Hz square waves.  Tell us how they would differ in sound.  

Edit: Also, tell us how they would relate to the overall sound quality of the device that produced them.

 

You can refer to them as Top, Middle and Bottom.

 

 


Edited by jaddie - 2/12/13 at 3:23pm
Reply
post #75 of 130
2/12/13 at 3:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

I love stuff like [used intelligently]

 

 

What's so hard to understand about this? You said that there were stupid ways to a 50Hz square wave (right after you proposed using a CSD instead, forgetting that CSDs that go as low as 50Hz are rare, and that they don't show multiple pulses...) and I'm simply saying, "Yes, there are, but ASIDE from that..."

 

 

 

"Used intelligently this (referring to "the disconnect between how it looks and how it sounds") doesn't matter: you simply learn what to look for in a graph and look for it."

 

Ok, on behalf of the readers who don't get where this is going...i'll bite... How?

 

 

In exactly the manner that what was explained with the quote from Head Room, along with the several illustrative graphs... I'm sorry: I don't get why this is hard to understand or why you can't remember what was on the last page of the thread???

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › If it graphs bad then it is bad; yes or no?