Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why there aren't many headphones with W shaped sound signature?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why there aren't many headphones with W shaped sound signature? - Page 2

post #16 of 33

semantics isn't going to help your argument or anybody else's. besides, a lay definition may not be what is applied in audio circles. i always read that enthusiast is considered to be below audiophile, but whatever. you can replace the terms as you like.

post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunks159 View Post

Main Entry: au·dio·phile
Pronunciation: \ˈȯ-dē-ō-ˌfī(-ə)l\
Function: noun
Date: 1951
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

Nuff said.

Note how it says nothing about their preferences in sound signature.

post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev13wt View Post


I never said eq is bad. It can and should be used AS intended. What op is doing is just playing aound with the sliders until it sounds good to him.

The goal should be (for an audiphile at least) a flat response from the headphones. In order to do that correctly you need, at minimum, a measured frequency response chart for your headphone model and a 30 band eq. Or better an eq that has variable frequency and bandwidth per slider, a dummy head and measuring mics + software incl. a white noise generator et cetera.

OPs having fun, and if it sounds good to him that is ok, but its hardly a fit for his headphone. There is a big thread dedicated to "how to eq properly".

 

I disagree with this post, one should EQ to what brings the most satisfaction to THAT person when listening to music. Not every1 gets the most satisfaction of a flat curve and why should it be like that even? What says flat is triggering our sonical bliss senses more than another curve. To me that is the same as saying every1 likes blue color the most. I'm sure the average "ideal" FR for people are close to flat but my point is it varies for person to person highly likely. I know I definitely prefer more than neutral bass for example but otherwise like a balanced mids and highs presence. Shouldn't people adjust so that they get the best listening experience? Or should they adjust for a flat line because the book says so?

So one has to ask, do you want to EQ to get the most satisfaction of your music listening (EQ according to your ears/brain/senses) or do you want to EQ based on theories what we people "should like" even if our senses tells otherwise?

 

For me this hobby is about finding your personal audio nirvana, what appeals to YOU, that is why there exists so many options out there. Before I got interested in headphones I had absolutely no idea what sound REALLY appealed to me so I had to try different headphones, compare FR curves and how I EQ'd them, shockingly I did seem to be able to draw similar conclusions checking frequency responses and my EQ settings, there was obviously a target curve I always tried to EQ the headphones to. Q40 is my FIRST headphone that I DON'T EQ, it sounds so close to my ideal curve out of box. For reference here's a FR measurement of Q40

 

Which is showing a pretty large bump in bass but otherwise fairly balanced mids and highs, this is my preferred signature, not less not more bass, about 8dB bump seems right for me (depends a bit on the quality of the bass output, a resonating bass response maybe would have to be like 6-7dB while a very nicely damped bass response it could be more like 9-10dB perhaps).


Edited by RPGWiZaRD - 7/4/13 at 2:01am
post #19 of 33

Well said, RPG. 

 

There's also a whole lot more to the quality of the sound than just what the FR represents. 

post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parall3l View Post

Note how it says nothing about their preferences in sound signature.

Yes it does. "High fidelity" means as accurate as possible. It doesn't mean "fun".

 

I've been around the audiophile world since childhood, and never met anyone that thought coloured sound was "audiophile". Their goal was always to get the thing to sound as close as possible to a real live performance (acoustic performance, of course, not electronic stuff or rock concerts) -- to be in the concert hall and/or have the singer and/or performers there in front of you.

 

Also keep in mind there is no consensus on what a flat headphone is. All we have is some standard compensation curves, and none of them seem to actually be perceptually flat. Which is why Sean Olive and his team are researching the matter. Stop copy-pasting graphs without knowing what they mean -- being flat on a graph just means they follow the graph author's compensation curve, not that they actually sound flat!


Edited by Wildstar - 7/4/13 at 12:33am
post #21 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildstar View Post

Yes it does. "High fidelity" means as accurate as possible. It doesn't mean "fun".

 

I've been around the audiophile world since childhood, and never met anyone that thought coloured sound was "audiophile". Their goal was always to get the thing to sound as close as possible to a real live performance (acoustic performance, of course, not electronic stuff or rock concerts) -- to be in the concert hall and/or have the singer and/or performers there in front of you.

 

 

 

So if you were asked which aspects of a live acoustic performance were most important to a proper reproduction (via headphones, etc), you'd say it was the relative amplitude of each frequency to the others and that spike at 6khz? Or would you talk about things like the quality and tonality of the performer's voice, the resonance of the guitar, the timbre, the way the instruments and vocals sound in relation to each other in space, etc, etc? 

post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildstar View Post

Yes it does. "High fidelity" means as accurate as possible. It doesn't mean "fun".

 

I've been around the audiophile world since childhood, and never met anyone that thought coloured sound was "audiophile". Their goal was always to get the thing to sound as close as possible to a real live performance

 

Well i do agree with you that the ultimate goal of a headphone in the end is creating the most realistic reproduction of what was originally recorded as in if you recorded a live performance you want the replay to sound almost like it.

 

However I still think that you can throw away neutrality aka colored and still have the headphones be considered "audiophile" grade headphones. HD 650 is slightly warm i think, LCD 2 is slightly dark, W3000ANV is very much so colored, HE-500 is not exactly neutral either. Like you said there is no common consensus on what is considered flat but for the previously listed phones, accurate reproduction is not really the goals in mind when they were originally designed but  i believe many people within this community will consider the listed colored headphones to be "audiophile" grade. (Who knows maybe some people may think that HE-500 and HD650 is neutral)

There are other phones that do a better job at providing accurate reproduction than LCD 2 at the price point but there are still many people that would consider themselves serious "audiophiles" but still prefer the sound of LCD 2 in close to $1 k area (just as a example)

post #23 of 33

I don't think you're hearing a W sound. The EQ is W shaped. That does not mean that what you are hearing is a W shaped sound.

post #24 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadFi Fanatic View Post

 

 

JVC HA-S600 FR graph

 

Did you just give an EQ boost (100hz-200hz) to an already bass-heavy headphone? I'm not an extreme bass-head myself though.

 

 

 

Yes, but it's partially because of it being a slightly brighter HP when using with my MB, the other reason is to compensate slight bass loss because of the EQed mids, and indeed I'am basshead cool.gif 

Thanks for the graph btw, I think I will give it additional boost on 3k based on this. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ev13wt View Post



The goal should be (for an audiphile at least) a flat response from the headphones. In order to do that correctly you need, at minimum, a measured frequency response chart for your headphone model and a 30 band eq.  <bla bla bla>

I can only repeat myself. Noone is trying to archieve a perfectly neutral sound here. Not even a manufacturer of this kind of HP.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedUtopia View Post

I don't think you're hearing a W sound. The EQ is W shaped. That does not mean that what you are hearing is a W shaped sound.

You actually got a point there, I'am using W EQ in reference of  stock HP sound signature.  However in the end of the day it's still something similiar to W shaped response, as I'am not boosting whole recessed midrange to the peak levels to make it totally flat, it would simply kill the bass. I have only a couple of peak points there.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ev13wt View Post


The koss you showed has an inverted v. The bass rolls off at 50 and is down -5 db at 40. Not a bassy headfone. Then, it measures very good until that big dip, then the highs roll off sharply. <...> Its already down -6 dB at 10KHz and falls like a stone after that.
 

Exactly. my point was to show you how big dip/peak in HP signature can be. look at 11khz. It's like your previously mentioned 3hz variation multiplied by 7. Now where do you see 21hz freq difference in my EQ?  No to mention that based on the graph (and assuming that I already boosted 3k) I just made my HP to sound more flat than it was with a few dips to keep it the basshead HP. it's a W, just not as pronounced as it may look in realtek EQ.

 

 


Edited by SmOgER - 7/4/13 at 4:19am
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post

So if you were asked which aspects of a live acoustic performance were most important to a proper reproduction (via headphones, etc), you'd say it was the relative amplitude of each frequency to the others and that spike at 6khz? Or would you talk about things like the quality and tonality of the performer's voice, the resonance of the guitar, the timbre, the way the instruments and vocals sound in relation to each other in space, etc, etc? 

The response curve is the basis for all other things. It actually defines tonality and timbre. Soundstage is not very dependent on it.

Without a coherent response that matches reality trying to reproduce music is pointless. While I agree that "flat" does not equal "fun" for many, why do manufactureres make monitor speakers and headphones?


I quote Tanaka: "Most people aren't interested in only accurate displays of music.
The problem with monitors is that the reality doesn't add any "magic" to the music. Monitors end up sounding less than dynamic and people want to be wowed by music.
But some people ARE mainly concerned about accuracy and so do seek out monitors.
Monitors also will reveal Everything in the recording, good and bad.
I'm in both camps. I have pretty accurate "musical" speakers but I'm seriously wanting to buy some monitors sometime in the near future(probably JBLs). I love the ultra detail of a good monitor and it makes for a more "intimate" music experience. I mean intimate in the way that your hearing the artist exactly the way that they sounded in the studio the day of recording. There's something about that that really appeals to me."

I am also in both camps, but I do prefer accurate reproduction.
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev13wt View Post


The response curve is the basis for all other things. It actually defines tonality and timbre. Soundstage is not very dependent on it.

Without a coherent response that matches reality trying to reproduce music is pointless. While I agree that "flat" does not equal "fun" for many, why do manufactureres make monitor speakers and headphones?


 

 

If that were true, then every headphone with the same FR would sound the same...obviously that's not the case. And I'm not trying to argue that a flat FR is a good thing or a bad thing, but that there are many other aspects of the sound, and pursuit of those aspects would certainly be consistent with the aims of an audiophile, regardless of the FR curve. 

 

And with regard to a "coherent response that matches reality", I may not be understanding your point, but this seems as if you're assuming the FR of your seating position during a live performance would be flat. The measured FR will likely vary from seating position to seating position within the venue. That's why I say, if asked, most people would likely list all sorts of qualities of the sound as it pertains to which aspects would be most important to reproduce properly in order to have an "accurate" headphone. 

post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev13wt View Post

I quote Tanaka: "Most people aren't interested in only accurate displays of music.
The problem with monitors is that the reality doesn't add any "magic" to the music. Monitors end up sounding less than dynamic and people want to be wowed by music.
But some people ARE mainly concerned about accuracy and so do seek out monitors.
Monitors also will reveal Everything in the recording, good and bad.
 

 

This is couldnt be more wrong. If there's magic in the music/recording, you WILL hear a VERY dynamic sound over monitors too.

Even extremly expensive monitors don't reveal as much as average headphones (300-500$).

I've been WOWed by monitors just as much as hifi speakers. But the good ones cost alot (>3000€/$) and aren't nearfields.

Most people not being wowed probably use 5" nearfields in a small stereo triangle between 1-2m. I would prefer the ****tiest headphones over such a setup.

Get some great midfields, have them apart atleast 2.5metres and you'll be in heaven.

post #28 of 33
Main Entry: high fidelity
Function: noun
Date: 1934
: the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original
— high–fidelity adjective

Audiophiles are just trying to get as close to the original recording as possible.
post #29 of 33

boy, it sure reads like Murika-Day in here.wink_face.gif

If you applied a W to any headphone you owned...regardless of its regular FR seems bonkers to me. EQing differently, e.g. not flattening the FR, is like walking on your hands instead of your feet. I won't stop you if it's fun for you... but you'll get farther walking the way God "Evolution" shaped your body... on your feet.

 

Also, most current headphones have a ridiculous FR in the first place, adding a W will mess things up even more.

Also, you might just like Ultrasone headphones, some of the are so very special, they might just be your ideal cans.


Edited by roBernd - 7/4/13 at 7:31am
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizkid View Post

This is couldnt be more wrong. If there's magic in the music/recording, you WILL hear a VERY dynamic sound over monitors too.
Even extremly expensive monitors don't reveal as much as average headphones (300-500$).
I've been WOWed by monitors just as much as hifi speakers. But the good ones cost alot (>3000€/$) and aren't nearfields.
Most people not being wowed probably use 5" nearfields in a small stereo triangle between 1-2m. I would prefer the ****tiest headphones over such a setup.
Get some great midfields, have them apart atleast 2.5metres and you'll be in heaven.

Dynamics has absolutely nothing to do with the frequency response.


I made a thread here where everyone can vote their preference, I think a thread like it is going to be interesting. http://www.head-fi.org/t/670973/what-sound-siganture-do-you-prefer-and-why
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Why there aren't many headphones with W shaped sound signature?