Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint

post #1 of 968
Thread Starter 

Thought we could use a new hang out. Keep close fellas. The night is dark and full of terrors. 

post #2 of 968
Subscribed.
post #3 of 968

Subbed as well

post #4 of 968
Does anyone have the link to the study where they EQed different headphones to sound like each other and asked listeners to grade their sound quality? The result being that when frequency responses were made similar sound quality became similar as well?
post #5 of 968
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Does anyone have the link to the study where they EQed different headphones to sound like each other and asked listeners to grade their sound quality? The result being that when frequency responses were made similar sound quality became similar as well?

I'd be interested in seeing it.

Also I came across an enlightening read on why the piano only goes up to ~4.1kHz. For some reason I thought for sure it would be higher. http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6229/why-is-the-highest-frequency-on-a-piano-4186-hertz

The piano is definitely one of the most interesting instruments regarding FR. I've also read that the notes aren't evenly spaced frequency wise. They were tuned by ear! Crazy.
post #6 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by udauda View Post

Back to the subject: 

How far can EQ really go towards truly equalizing headphones?

 

Take a look at these papers:

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart1.pdf

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart2.pdf

 

Even with a 200-tap FIR filter @ 44.1 kHz, which is of a rather poor quality, the author was able to match the sound quality of a poor quality headphone to that of a high quality headphone subjectively. Thus, in conclusion, as long as the filter is not a linear phase(pre-ringing) & there's no excursion issue, you can freely equalize headphones however you see them fit.

 

and there's also the example of the Smyth Realizer...

post #7 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

I'd be interested in seeing it.

Also I came across an enlightening read on why the piano only goes up to ~4.1kHz. For some reason I thought for sure it would be higher. http://music.stackexchange.com/questions/6229/why-is-the-highest-frequency-on-a-piano-4186-hertz

The piano is definitely one of the most interesting instruments regarding FR. I've also read that the notes aren't evenly spaced frequency wise. They were tuned by ear! Crazy.

 

Extended range pianos were attempted (in the modern day) but never really caught on. For one, the extra keys extending out both directions confuse people who are used to the standard 88. And there's pretty much no music written to take advantage of the extra ones, not like they would have too much sonic contribution. Have you tried playing the top key on the standard set? It doesn't carry that well anyway.

 

Recall that keyboard instruments have evolved quite a bit since say the 1600s though not much (in terms of keys and so on) since the late 19th century. A lot of the earlier music is written for instruments that don't have modern pedals or even the modern range of keys.

 

Piano tuning is a whole topic in of itself. Let's just say that there are tradeoffs involved if you want the tuning to work for being able to play in multiple key signatures.

 

 

I'm pretty sure this isn't the study being referenced (edit: looks like jcx got it), but doesn't the latest paper out of Harmon's labs (Sean Olive and co.) cover different EQ targets using two different headphones? EQ is changed to match different responses like diffuse field, the proposed speakers-response-based one, and others. I don't know if there's a comparison between the different headphones once EQed to be similar.


Edited by mikeaj - 6/28/13 at 11:50am
post #8 of 968

Oh hai there, thanks for re-opening the saloon.

post #9 of 968
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Oh hai there, thanks for re-opening the saloon.

Woah! Welcome back! biggrin.gif
post #10 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Oh hai there, thanks for re-opening the saloon.
Welcome back xnor. smile.gif
post #11 of 968

I was never gone!

 

 

Regarding equalizing headphones, there might also be some useful info in Olive/Welti's latest paper. Not free though.

post #12 of 968
I am on board.
post #13 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by udauda View Post

Back to the subject: 

How far can EQ really go towards truly equalizing headphones?

 

Take a look at these papers:

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart1.pdf

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart2.pdf

 

Even with a 200-tap FIR filter @ 44.1 kHz, which is of a rather poor quality, the author was able to match the sound quality of a poor quality headphone to that of a high quality headphone subjectively. Thus, in conclusion, as long as the filter is not a linear phase(pre-ringing) & there's no excursion issue, you can freely equalize headphones however you see them fit.


 

and there's also the example of the Smyth Realizer...

 

Doesn't read like the paper did quite what he claimed though?  For one FIR filter != EQ.  For another, the original headphone scored higher than its simulation by another headphone (this goes both ways, the Stax simulating the crap phone scored lower than the crap phone itself too? Lol).  I didn't quite get whether this last bit was a significant difference though.

post #14 of 968
cafe, saloon... the next one will have to be a tea room!
post #15 of 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

cafe, saloon... the next one will have to be a tea room!

Well, there is also parlor, halfway house, convention, enclave, coffee shop and doubtless more. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skeptico Saloon: An Objectivist Joint