Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE WALL OF TEXT" thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to... - Page 3  

Poll Results: White list at the bottom of the first post.

 
  • 75% (9)
    Disagree because I dislike you, that's why!
  • 0% (0)
    Disagree, one of the brands may not be considered trustful, the reason i will live in the commentary section below.
  • 0% (0)
    Disagree, need to add the brand i'll speak about in the commentary section below.
  • 8% (1)
    Agree, full&true list I suppose.
  • 16% (2)
    Disagree, because I think you have the wrong vision regarding the term "Brand" and i'll leave the reason in the commentary section below.
12 Total Votes  
post #31 of 115
Thread Starter 
Transcription/Translate section turned into Translation using the value of google translate biggrin.gif (veritability checked).
Upcoming: Translation of the lower in-image terms
post #32 of 115
Thread Starter 
Update:
THREAD POLISH, GIMME FEEDBACK, PLEASE!!
1. ALL KNOWN MYTHS BY ME ARE BUSTED
2. TASTES BUSTED, IF YOU LET ME SUPPOSE 640-2000 Hz is for Second Octave *do* up to Third Octave *si* (i just suppose we have no genre based on these frequencies ATM AFAIK) [NEIRO-BIOLOGY APPLIED] [a question remains the range of 320(640)-2000 Hz.]
post #33 of 115
Thread Starter 
Proven by:
OCTAVE SYSTEM IN-DEPTH
FREQUENCY CLASSES & TEH MATH - EN SOURCE FOUND
Edited by MygpuK - 11/16/13 at 6:28am
post #34 of 115
Thread Starter 
post #35 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MygpuK View Post

I wonder who would just "dislike" such a thread... morons frown.gif

Personal feedback: I suppose IF you concentrate on the music you can feel desired genre's excitation even on low volume. higher dB matters. [Proven indirectly by personalaudio.ru]

 

I will try not to sound too offensive, but man... calling someone moron just because he doesn't agree with you isn't too mature behavior. Also please, stop with caps and huge font sizes (it's usually considered as shouting)

 

As for topic of this thread, as others said you can't make crap headphones sound like high-end so I don't understand much what is this all about to be honest. I have already some experience with headphones and I did a ton of EQing, it's just impossible to adjust frequency response lets say HD650 to HD700 for example, because even with parametric EQ you can't simply apply HD700 frequency graph to HD650. You have to use "gains" or whatever are those "dots" called and in the end only thing that "works" is slight EQ in some regions, not furious super EQ with 5+ gains "dots" on graph. Lastly there are other aspects like for example tightness of bass which can't be changed by EQ from my experience.

 

ps: I didn't vote because second option is little harsh imo.


Edited by Flisker - 11/16/13 at 12:28pm
post #36 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flisker View Post
 

you can't make crap headphones sound like high-end so I don't understand much what is this all about to be honest.

 

Equalization is the most effective improvement you can make to any sound equipment. It improves low end as well as high end. You can't make cheap ear buds into high end cans, but you can make them sound a lot better. And you certainly can make a lot of midrange headphones sound like high end ones.

post #37 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

Equalization is the most effective improvement you can make to any sound equipment. It improves low end as well as high end. You can't make cheap ear buds into high end cans, but you can make them sound a lot better. And you certainly can make a lot of midrange headphones sound like high end ones.

 

I felt like when I did more complex EQing it just got somehow screwed up, while slight few gains worked well. Of course I agree it helps and exactly as you say works great for low end or boosting whole midrange etc. But I had absolutely no luck trying to compensate for frequency spikes with some headphones, result were usually even worse after EQ than before.

post #38 of 115

What kind of equalizer were you using? Perhaps it had a lot of spill between bands.

post #39 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

What kind of equalizer were you using? Perhaps it had a lot of spill between bands.

 

Electri-Q Parametric one. For example I wasn't able to fix HE-400's crazy treble no matter what I did.

post #40 of 115
I apply this crazy EQ curve to my modded Somic MH463 and they sound mighty fine


Note the scale spans 10dB for each horizontal line so the EQ curve spans 30dB of gain difference (!)

I modded the MH463 as follows:
1. Changed to fully sealing Hifiman leather pads for better low frequency extension and more importantly, better comfort
2. Taped front vents for better low frequency extension
3. Removed foam behind drivers for more open sound (less internal reflection of sound waves)

But each mod seems to skew the frequency response further from flat tongue.gif E.g. while (1) and (2) improve the low frequency distortion (the phones can play a 15Hz note at the same loudness with less distortion) they don't seem to improve the low frequency sensitivity, thus the need for the low frequency boost in the graph. On the other hand, (1) and (3) seem to have tremendously boosted the midbass sensitivity, hence the tremendous dip in the midbass to compensate.

A conventional hardware-only modder would have discarded my current mods as useless since without EQ, these sound worse than stock, but I consider these mods a success combined with EQ smily_headphones1.gif I suppose this is as close as it gets to the OP's preachings biggrin.gif

Perhaps in the future, if high quality parametric EQs become widely available on devices, manufacturers can design headphones by maximizing the performance of the headphone+EQ system, rather than just the physical headphones, much like camera lens design for digital cameras has progressed. Cheaper and better headphones smily_headphones1.gif

Two caveats:
1. This philosophy frees headphones from having to be designed for a flat frequency response sensitivity curve, but high quality physical design is still required to achieve a high sound pressure at all frequencies without high distortion.
2. The stress on amplifiers becomes greater as the OP notes; the amplifier has to be able to drive headphones to adequate loudness at their least sensitive frequency--this can be many, many dBs below the manufacturer stated sensitivity. In fact, having a wonky EQ curve like this for another pair of phones was what drove me to buy the FiiO E17 in the first place (since my PC sound card couldn't drive the phones loud enough with the EQ in place. The E17 has 12dB of selectable gain and in my testing was the one that went the loudest in its class)
post #41 of 115

SOUND MYTHBUSTING OVERHAULED [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE...

It helps to have a really good understanding of what EQ at different frequencies and with different filter slopes sounds like.

A lot of people ignorant about these things are fooled into spending many thousands of dollars on equipment to make changes that an informed tweak of the right knobs (or adjustments in software) will duplicate for free. I remain endlessly amused by this.

You can't buy wisdom, or knowledge; it requires intelligent study and patient application.

Or, you can buy those things, hence the patronage system in classical music for a few hundred years; but, as all the frustrated mad kings invariably found out, paying others to be geniuses is far less interesting than being one yourself.

OTOH if you know your limits, and money is all you have, charity does make you feel good. smily_headphones1.gif. Being fooled and stolen from, does not. You will spend a lot of time, unfortunately, trying to convince yourself the latter is not happening......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
post #42 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flisker View Post

I will try not to sound too offensive, but man... calling someone moron just because he doesn't agree with you isn't too mature behavior. Also please, stop with caps and huge font sizes (it's usually considered as shouting)

As for topic of this thread, as others said you can't make crap headphones sound like high-end so I don't understand much what is this all about to be honest. I have already some experience with headphones and I did a ton of EQing, it's just impossible to adjust frequency response lets say HD650 to HD700 for example, because even with parametric EQ you can't simply apply HD700 frequency graph to HD650. You have to use "gains" or whatever are those "dots" called and in the end only thing that "works" is slight EQ in some regions, not furious super EQ with 5+ gains "dots" on graph. Lastly there are other aspects like for example tightness of bass which can't be changed by EQ from my experience.

ps: I didn't vote because second option is little harsh imo.

It was aggressive to call someone moron, but I did that because people did thumbs down w/o any feedback, I hate such behaviour.
Caps/Huge_font is used when IMPORTANT NEW INFO get's out, sorry smily_headphones1.gif) Sound science big wall of text with be w/o any caps/hugeness.
The point is today's high_end gets mixed with medi-fi products, that's a mistake.
The essence is in understanding what can be considered high_end from an audiophile's perspective and that is the possiblity of MAKING them sound perfect. The possibility is answered in FAC analisys, because the bigger are the spikes, the harder it is to make them sound good. (the better AMP is needed)
I suppose I've answered all the questions of yours.

Regarding "bass tightness" it's another myth, let's say. Just because there MUST BE an answer somewhere to be found. Sound science is what it's all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I apply this crazy EQ curve to my modded Somic MH463 and they sound mighty fine


Note the scale spans 10dB for each horizontal line so the EQ curve spans 30dB of gain difference (!)

I modded the MH463 as follows:
1. Changed to fully sealing Hifiman leather pads for better low frequency extension and more importantly, better comfort
2. Taped front vents for better low frequency extension
3. Removed foam behind drivers for more open sound (less internal reflection of sound waves)

But each mod seems to skew the frequency response further from flat tongue.gif E.g. while (1) and (2) improve the low frequency distortion (the phones can play a 15Hz note at the same loudness with less distortion) they don't seem to improve the low frequency sensitivity, thus the need for the low frequency boost in the graph. On the other hand, (1) and (3) seem to have tremendously boosted the midbass sensitivity, hence the tremendous dip in the midbass to compensate.

A conventional hardware-only modder would have discarded my current mods as useless since without EQ, these sound worse than stock, but I consider these mods a success combined with EQ smily_headphones1.gif I suppose this is as close as it gets to the OP's preachings biggrin.gif

Perhaps in the future, if high quality parametric EQs become widely available on devices, manufacturers can design headphones by maximizing the performance of the headphone+EQ system, rather than just the physical headphones, much like camera lens design for digital cameras has progressed. Cheaper and better headphones smily_headphones1.gif

Two caveats:
1. This philosophy frees headphones from having to be designed for a flat frequency response sensitivity curve, but high quality physical design is still required to achieve a high sound pressure at all frequencies without high distortion.
2. The stress on amplifiers becomes greater as the OP notes; the amplifier has to be able to drive headphones to adequate loudness at their least sensitive frequency--this can be many, many dBs below the manufacturer stated sensitivity. In fact, having a wonky EQ curve like this for another pair of phones was what drove me to buy the FiiO E17 in the first place (since my PC sound card couldn't drive the phones loud enough with the EQ in place. The E17 has 12dB of selectable gain and in my testing was the one that went the loudest in its class)


Oh, very nice! Did you use your E17 for that? Is e07K Andes the same performance?
GUYS, we have an example how to MAKE a product sound perfectly in your vision. The product may have no spikes at all, but the sir Joe Bloggs likes to accent the vocals' frequencies (the 4 kHz range). And he made the high trebles more clearness, because the human ear feels different frequencies in different ways.

The theory got a major proving point thanks to Joe Bloggs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperears View Post

It helps to have a really good understanding of what EQ at different frequencies and with different filter slopes sounds like.

A lot of people ignorant about these things are fooled into spending many thousands of dollars on equipment to make changes that an informed tweak of the right knobs (or adjustments in software) will duplicate for free. I remain endlessly amused by this.

You can't buy wisdom, or knowledge; it requires intelligent study and patient application.

Or, you can buy those things, hence the patronage system in classical music for a few hundred years; but, as all the frustrated mad kings invariably found out, paying others to be geniuses is far less interesting than being one yourself.

OTOH if you know your limits, and money is all you have, charity does make you feel good. smily_headphones1.gif. Being fooled and stolen from, does not. You will spend a lot of time, unfortunately, trying to convince yourself the latter is not happening......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thanks man! I suppose you agree with what all this thread is made about.
Head-Fi mass doesn't think about the wallet when choosing products.


I suppose product "tabling" must be made only of the products with no frequency spikes and we shall have like 4 different tables for genres' sake. Bass/Trance(soundstage)/Vocals(lower treble)/Electro(Rock/Dubstep, may be called Pitch (the upper treble) also).
Of course, we have genres that mix more of the frequency ranges. When you understand what music you like, you have just to apply patience when choosing a product.
The better is your amplifier, the easier it get's to adjust your product as you wish.
Edited by MygpuK - 11/17/13 at 3:19am
post #43 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MygpuK View Post


It was aggressive to call someone moron, but I did that because people did thumbs down w/o any feedback, I hate such behaviour.
Caps/Huge_font is used when IMPORTANT NEW INFO get's out, sorry smily_headphones1.gif) Sound science big wall of text with be w/o any caps/hugeness.
The point is today's high_end gets mixed with medi-fi products, that's a mistake.
The essence is in understanding what can be considered high_end from an audiophile's perspective and that is the possiblity of MAKING them sound perfect. The possibility is answered in FAC analisys, because the bigger are the spikes, the harder it is to make them sound good. (the better AMP is needed)
I suppose I've answered all the questions of yours.

Regarding "bass tightness" it's another myth, let's say. Just because there MUST BE an answer somewhere to be found. Sound science is what it's all about.

 

If bass tightness is myth I will ask this, do you think you can make sound Koss Porta Pro which has enough bass, same as HD700 ? If yes than I would love to get my hands on that eq file.

 

May I ask what's your experience with headphones, amps and other things around this ? Have you heard any high-end headphone on adequate amp ? Or are you coming just from theory and analysis ?

post #44 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MygpuK View Post


Oh, very nice! Did you use your E17 for that? Is e07K Andes the same performance?
GUYS, we have an example how to MAKE a product sound perfectly in your vision. The product may have no spikes at all, but the sir Joe Bloggs likes to accent the vocals' frequencies (the 4 kHz range). And he made the high trebles more clearness, because the human ear feels different frequencies in different ways.

The theory got a major proving point thanks to Joe Bloggs.
.

I don't enjoy spikes in the frequency response, there's just a big null around 4kHz wink.gif Ditto all the peaks and dips in the upper range, they are counteracting dips and peaks caused by resonance of the headphones with my ears / ear canals.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 11/17/13 at 4:50am
post #45 of 115

I like how Joe B sees things. there are some limitations to this, but trying to get rid of some electrical or acoustical dampings and replace them by EQ might actually work for the best in lots of situations(desired reverb excluded). but it's a real effort to get it right and it would probably make most give up.

 

 audiophile hatred of EQ is a mix of ignorance and intellectual ideas of "real sound". acoustic chamber, phase mismatch, electrical damping, pressure dampers, choice of this or that driver, choice of an amp or a source only based on how it sounds, tube rolling, cable "upgrade"...  it all looks perfectly hifi to people for some puzzling reason, but turn a knob yourself and you're galactus the devourer of sounds.

and of course people taking us for fools have actually no idea how much distortion is involved with a good EQ and how ludicrously low it can be compared to almost everything else.

 

 

 

@flisker. the point is to admit that EQ can improve you enjoyment of music and correct some defaults in a given headphone, instead of having to try hundreds of phones in the hope of one day finding the perfect candidate (and by that time you would probably have changed your source anyway).

I agree with you that it would be challenging at best to make one headphone sound exactly like another just with EQ. but that's not what we try to do. if I preferred the hd700 to my relaxing hd650, well I would buy a hd700.

also just trying to reverse engineer the sound of one can into another using both FR graphs is bound to fail.  FR graphs don't take a lot of the sound into account, distortions of all kind, and the way one given frequency will rebound in the headphone and affect the quantity resulting, by cancelling itself or multiplying. none of those are on the FR graph. and it will make some headphones great to EQ, and others almost impossible to tweak.

only by listening can you get really close to what you're looking for(well I'm sure a good measurement system and some acoustic software with the 3D schematics of the headphones could do it better, but I don't happen to have any of those ^_^).

 

for bass tightness, you can't make the coil start and stop moving faster that is does (given that the source already provides what it should at all time). but you can play around with sub bass and bass, and fool your brain a good deal. but then reverb can't be simulated with EQ, and some cans just can't make some frequencies without unbearable distortions. so EQ is not an all in one solution, but it can do a lot more good than it does bad.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE WALL OF TEXT" thread