ForceMajeure
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Posts
- 1,216
- Likes
- 471
The closest to neutral/accurate headphones I've heard to date is maybe the HD650, but it needs more deep sub-bass and a bit more highest treble to be truly neutral/accurate. I posted my EQ curve to make it more neutral just a couple of posts back. There are newer headphones that measure even more neutral than the HD650, but I haven't heard or tested them, so I can't vouch for them. The newer ones that are very close to the Harman Target Response Curve are likely even more neutral, and I generally trust Tyll's (of InnerFidelity) opinion, so his Wall of Fame selection is where I often check for the best of the current headphones.
I don't agree with those who say neutral/accurate is subjective. If that's the case, then there would be no professional audio standards, and audio engineers would have nothing to base their assessment on. When a pair of speakers measure perfect flat in an anechoic chamber, that is not subjective--that is hard scientific fact. When you measure the frequency response and time domain data at the listening position in an professional audio studio or a living room, the measurements and the corrections you can apply to it using DSP (such as the IK Multimedia ARC System 2 and similar technologies), is also not subjective--that is all based on science.
And assuming you have no hearing loss problems and can hear all audible frequencies with accuracy, and you are familiar with how to use logarithmic sweep tone, pink noise, sinewave test tones, etc., and know how they are supposed to sound on audio reproduction devices that are neutral, then when you assess a pair of headphones, you can get quite close to objectivity, because you know you're not supposed to hear that obvious spike during the log sweep or pink noise, and when you play sinewave test tones at regularly intervals from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, you're not supposed to hear drastic dips and spikes from one frequency to the next. That is how you can objectively assess audio.
Finally, when you actually have done all the corrections and listen to the neutral/accurate results, it's like a revelation. No frequency range is out of place. You don't hear the equipment anymore--you just hear the music.
you are right I forgot that you actually included overears in the opening thread.
Regarding your view on neutral sound signature I agree with you.
There is one variable which should be taken into consideration that affect vastly upper mids and treble and is overlooked regarding IEMs. It is the ear canal shape.
You wouldn't believe how much upper frequencies are affected by it. Some people have longer or/and larger ear canals more than others there's also various shapes and curves and they add a lot of energy to the upper range not talking about different sensitivity levels that one is born with... Now you have a tricky situation that is not easy to deal with and standardized measure.
Of course for the average person you could get a "neutral sound" with slightly bothering parts of the sound signature for different individuals. But as soon as you are not close to being the average guy, the bothering parts will become unpleasant parts.
You are right by saying that some manufactures should't call some of their products neutral/monitoring devices...but that is also an argument that help sales and with no standard to this day about neutrality, everyone can do pretty much what he wants.
Despite all that you should take a look at the FLC8s thread. This is an IEM that have 36 tuning possibilities and is until now more than well received being one of the best value for money today competing with IEMs well above it's price point.
If I am not mistaken they have been measured by Tyll with 6 random configurations, also Joker reviewed them in the past.
Or maybe consider CIEMs...