or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › am i interpreting this freq response graph right.. (im noob..) or are these 10$ in ear headphones better than m50s..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

am i interpreting this freq response graph right.. (im noob..) or are these 10$ in ear headphones better than m50s..

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 

http://puu.sh/8LRSC.png

 

 

im trying to learn how to interpret graphs audio related and can someone explain why those earbuds are worse than my m50s because according to that graph and my noob brains it looks better... what am i doing wrong?

post #2 of 5

M50s always had a uneven response filled with spikes 

post #3 of 5
Measurements in the treble range will always look uneven. Headroom suggests when reading their graphs to concentrate on peaks and dips more than a couple kHz in width. Also, an ideal-looking compensated frequency response graph should show a gradual downward slope from 2khz until the line is about -10 dB at 20khz. The M50 definitely has an up-and-down treble response but the Skullcandys show a similar treble peak at 8-9k and above 10k they are significantly more rolled off. The Skullcandys and M50 both have a dip in the lower treble, the difference being that the Skullcandy's dip is a little lower in the treble. Frequency response graphs will always look smoother from bass to midrange, with a mild bass boost transitioning into a flat-line midrange being the ideal response. The M50 covers this area very well, although I think the bass boost is a little too extended into the lower midrange. The Skullcandys extend the boost into the middle of the midrange which results in a muddy bass that masks midrange clarity and detail.
post #4 of 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCzar View Post
 

http://puu.sh/8LRSC.png

 

 

im trying to learn how to interpret graphs audio related and can someone explain why those earbuds are worse than my m50s because according to that graph and my noob brains it looks better... what am i doing wrong?

 

If you look at the midrange of the M-50 (about 200 hz to 2 kHz), you will see they are actually flatter through this range than the Skullcandies. Generally, this is considered the most critical range for natural sound.

post #5 of 5
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythm is life View Post

Measurements in the treble range will always look uneven. Headroom suggests when reading their graphs to concentrate on peaks and dips more than a couple kHz in width. Also, an ideal-looking compensated frequency response graph should show a gradual downward slope from 2khz until the line is about -10 dB at 20khz. The M50 definitely has an up-and-down treble response but the Skullcandys show a similar treble peak at 8-9k and above 10k they are significantly more rolled off. The Skullcandys and M50 both have a dip in the lower treble, the difference being that the Skullcandy's dip is a little lower in the treble. Frequency response graphs will always look smoother from bass to midrange, with a mild bass boost transitioning into a flat-line midrange being the ideal response. The M50 covers this area very well, although I think the bass boost is a little too extended into the lower midrange. The Skullcandys extend the boost into the middle of the midrange which results in a muddy bass that masks midrange clarity and detail.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by k3oxkjo View Post
 

 

If you look at the midrange of the M-50 (about 200 hz to 2 kHz), you will see they are actually flatter through this range than the Skullcandies. Generally, this is considered the most critical range for natural sound.

Ok guys thanks alot, i understand it now! :DDD

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › am i interpreting this freq response graph right.. (im noob..) or are these 10$ in ear headphones better than m50s..