[Xander]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle Oh, but they do Jerry. The AKG bass is actually very flat, but since it does not have the bass hump present in most headphones, it deceives the person into thinking there is a bass rolloff. Yet if you play things with low bass information, it's all there, just in proper proportion to the rest of the spectrum. The 501 is truly an amazing headphone, yet I prefer Grado because I like being "filled in" with music, not specs.

hehe. Let it go, Beagle. They roll off.

 

[Wes]

Beagle,

Eytmotic has put research into the absorption by the pinnae and found that high-frequencies are lost in bouncing around our outer ears. The result was a roll-off in the high-frequency output from Ety's that approximates the effect of an outer ear on the signal that reached the microphone.

That's why there is a B series for binaural where that roll-off is undone to preserve more of the positioning information (mainly high-frequency) in the signal received by a microphone alread sitting in a simulated pinna.

A QED about the inferiority in principle of earbuds is unwarranted. Circumaurals also falsify the relationship of the signal from the microphone to the outer ear if only because they are much too close and tightly beamed compared to natural sound, and I trust better designers take that into account. There are also large individual differences in pinna effects so that any headphone can only use some kind of average correction.

When you cup your hands around your ears your hear not proper treble but exaggerated treble, don't you?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle Audio&Me is right, those graphs are meaningless. The only headphone with truly flat response from 5Hz to 25kHz is the AKG K501. Everything else is the sonic equivalent to the Rocky Mountains. The reason for this is the ear fits inside the 501's earpad and nothing touches the ear. The entire outer ear (pinnae) is involved in absorbing the sound naturally. Thus, you hear the sound the way it is meant to be heard. Earbuds like Etys and the things you get at the dollar store are stuck into the ear and miss the outer ear completely. This is a completely artificial way to listen. You are not fooling anyone except yourselves. God made the ears shaped the way they are for a reason. Here's proof: Go to a park and listen to the birds singing, become aware of the frequency response. Now cup your hands to the outsides of your ears and notice how you now hear proper treble. So earbuds are wrong, period. They cannot possibly give you flat frequency response. This is not my opinion, but facts and science, and the way God planned it.

I find it hard to make a polite reply to this, it is so full of nonsense...

*deep breath*

All earphones give you an unnatural listening environment. Suppose you designed the perfect loudspeakers that would replicate the music exactly as it is supposed to be, flat frequency response and all. Now strap those loudspeakers on your ears. What do you get?

1. Exaggerated bass (assuming the loudspeaker had appreciable beaming effects at high frequencies but not at low frequencies, listening to the loudspeakers at close proximity would mean that more LF waves are captures by the ears than they should be.)

2. The frequency response of your ear to the sound will be different simply in virtue of the fact that the speakers are playing next to them instead of just somewhat to the left and right of the front of your head. The biophonic EQ http://headwize.com/articles/sunier1_art.htm (scroll down the page) should give you some idea of the corrections required in that respect.

To be sure, the ears' reception of the sound from earbuds and canalphones will be different from their reception of sound from circumaural headphones, but the ears' reception of the sound from circumaural headphones is already quite different from that from loudspeakers / natural sound sources in front of us already!

The frequency response of circumaural phones need to be tuned to compensate for these differences. In effect, achieving the perfect flat FR phones will not be enough--rather, the target frequency response should be something like the FR depicted on the Biophonic EQ graph.

If earbuds and canalphones require a different FR, so be it. As long as the correct FR is delivered to compensate for the differences in FR between the ears' reception of natural sound sources and their reception of the respective classes of headphones (a different FR for circumaural, earbud and canalphone) all these classes of phones have equal potential to give you the perfect sound!*

As for the frequency response of the K501--would you just go and look the FR graph for the K501 at HeadRoom? In this case I'd much rather trust the graphs than the subjective report from someone who's apparently so fond of them that he would not allow himself to see that they have any faults

* Unless the ear affects sound reception in the time domain, e.g. causing some sound frequencies to reach the ear later than other frequencies. This may well be the case, but you have not made any arguments to that effects. Feel free to grasp onto this and rip my argument apart. But in that case you should be thankful that I gave you this handle in the first place. And even then it is always possible that the front of the head also plays a role in such effects, so that circumaural headphones also cannot reproduce such phase effects, although it may be argued that by involving the pinna they may get to fail less miserably than earbuds and canalphones. Problem is, do you even *know* whether the ear and skull affects sound reception in the time domain, and if so, how? I don't, but I'd be very surprised if you fare better than me!

(and I don't just mean the kind of time delay that crossfeed solves!

)

 

[citroeniste]

Couldn't it also be that the measured bass hump is a nearfield measurement artifact? Look at any of the white papers at www.adireaudio.com for a similar effect working in the nearfield of their drive-unit measurements.

That would lead one to think that the AKG 501's is indeed rolled off, which is what I hear.

As for Grado, not even going to go there. They literally give me headaches, and not from the fit.

NP: Jay-Z, "I Just Want 2 Luv U (Give it to Me)"

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle Oh, but they do Jerry. The AKG bass is actually very flat, but since it does not have the bass hump present in most headphones, it deceives the person into thinking there is a bass rolloff. Yet if you play things with low bass information, it's all there, just in proper proportion to the rest of the spectrum. The 501 is truly an amazing headphone, yet I prefer Grado because I like being "filled in" with music, not specs.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle Audio&Me is right, those graphs are meaningless. The only headphone with truly flat response from 5Hz to 25kHz is the AKG K501. Everything else is the sonic equivalent to the Rocky Mountains.

Them's pretty strong words there, varmint. I'm just going to assume you mean "to your ears". Quote:

The reason for this is the ear fits inside the 501's earpad and nothing touches the ear.

I know other headphones that do this: Senn HD600 (& 580, I assume), Beyer 770 (and others, there, too, I assume). Quote:

The entire outer ear (pinnae) is involved in absorbing the sound naturally. Thus, you hear the sound the way it is meant to be heard. Earbuds...are stuck into the ear and miss the outer ear completely. This is a completely artificial way to listen...

Um...there's only one driver in there, yes? True sound comes from all around you, yes? So unless you have a hemispherical driver that provides sound, and was recorded similarly, that's no better, yes?

And let's leave God out of this. If God had not intended for us to enjoy music, he would not have given us the brains to invent all the delightful things that we have: musical instruments, recording and playback devices, headphones, etc. And we're still not guaranteed to get any of them right, neither.

 

[Xander]

I think Beagle meant 50hz, not five. And the K401 and 501's have peaky treble.

 

[Tim D]

Ety's are a totally artificial way to listen to music? Last I checked, most other headphones and speaker systems and amps were man-made, and hence an artifact. Artificial means made by man.

On the 8th day, God created AKG501's.

It's kinda funny that you complained that so many people bashed the Grado RA-1 for being composed of cheap components without listening to them.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle The only headphone with truly flat response from 5Hz to 25kHz is the AKG K501. Everything else is the sonic equivalent to the Rocky Mountains. [snip] The AKG bass is actually very flat, but since it does not have the bass hump present in most headphones, it deceives the person into thinking there is a bass rolloff. Yet if you play things with low bass information, it's all there, just in proper proportion to the rest of the spectrum.

The more I see Beagle post this (in various places), the more I think he's just trying to get a rise out of people LOL I have too much respect for Beagle's ears to think he actually believes this

 

[fredpb]

Nice thread! Now I will say, the Sennheiser HD600's are vastly overpriced, and vastly overrated. They have nice detail, but can be overdriven to distortion very easily. They do have a drop in highs, and absolutely no true very low end bass, NONE, period. I have tried many amps. For their price, they should reproduce theses lows, other phones do. This makes them a great ripoff today. And I am not paying $100 for Clou cables to see if that improves bass. The touted HD600's should have full range capability and they DON'T. Sorry fans. But I do listen to them.

The ONLY full range phones I have heard are the SONY MDR7506's. These are NOT boomy. THey just can reproduce bass if is there. I can feel them vibrate with the low notes. Not boomy, they will reproduce anything you put into them. That is why many people love them, and many hate them.
THey reproduce everything. And for $100, not the ridiculous $350 Sennheiser wants for their fluffy HD600's.

Yeah! Yeah! Now people are fuming!

I wanted to try the Beyer DT770's, but got sent the DT990's instead, and with my record with Headroom shipments, I will take a breather for a while. Besides, the 990's were too small for my fat head.

The headphones from my JVC minidisc player have better bass than the HD600's. SHAME on Sennheiser!!!

Then, many people really have not experienced GOOD sound, or even live sound, so they think the press or reviews make headphones sound good.

Right now, I am being driven up the wall by trying out DHL Labs Silver Sonic BL1 interconnects. Boy, do these things sound different. Very bright. Less detail than I thought. I prefer my Straightwire Encore II's. BUT, these DHL cables would be very good for lower resolution systems, as the act as "sound improvers".

I even fell for the "Grado" hype. Tried their cartridges. Yech.
Fell for the SR60 "good deal" hype. They are gone now.

The Sony MDR7506's are not perfect, but with a small amp like the Headroom Little, they are very impressive. For portables, they are grea, for $100. For the $350, HD600's are snake oil.

I am sure many will snarl at my post.

If I had to do all overagain, I would NOT have HD600's, just my Sony's.

 

[RMSzero]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion about what sounds good -- but why would you insist on talking about the Sony v7506s, "And for $100" you say.

Um, I can get Sony v7506s from etronics for $55 -- they just have a different sticker on the side.

How could the Sony v7506 be anything but overpriced compared to the cheap identical twin, the v6?

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

Nice thread! Now I will say, the Sennheiser HD600's are vastly overpriced, and vastly overrated. They have nice detail, but can be overdriven to distortion very easily. They do have a drop in highs, and absolutely no true very low end bass, NONE, period. I have tried many amps. For their price, they should reproduce theses lows, other phones do. This makes them a great ripoff today. And I am not paying $100 for Clou cables to see if that improves bass. The touted HD600's should have full range capability and they DON'T. Sorry fans. But I do listen to them.

Yes, the V6/7506s do have an edge over the HD600s in terms of deep bass extention, but personally I feel that the Sennheisers are superior to the Sonys in every other aspect. The midrange on the Senns really make my Sonys sound cold and hollow in comparison. The sound is much more laid back on the Senns, which makes them less fatiguing (to my ears anyway). I find the Sennheiser sound much more enjoyable. I do not feel they are "rip-off", as you put it. Besides, they can be purchased for $220, and the almost-identical-sounding HD580 for even less.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by fredpb Now I will say, the Sennheiser HD600's are vastly overpriced, and vastly overrated. They have nice detail, but can be overdriven to distortion very easily. They do have a drop in highs, and absolutely no true very low end bass, NONE, period. I have tried many amps. For their price, they should reproduce theses lows, other phones do. This makes them a great ripoff today. And I am not paying $100 for Clou cables to see if that improves bass. The touted HD600's should have full range capability and they DON'T. Sorry fans. But I do listen to them.

Wow, I don't know where to start. Is this a troll?

First of all, if you have heard the HD600 "driven to distortion," it is most likely because they were underdriven, not overdriven. I have a HeadRoom Max (2001 model). I don't know what "many amps" you have listened to, but I doubt they had more power than the Max. I'm sitting here right now with the volume on the Max turned up to about 2:30 -- normal listening level is 9:00-9:30. I can hear them in the next room, and even tell what song is playing -- in the next room. Yet there is absolutely NO distortion.

Unfortunately, this is one of the big myths of audio -- that distortion arises from too much power. The VAST majority of times, distortion arises from too LITTLE power. The problems you experienced with distortion were due to the fact that you were trying to play the HD600 too loud with too little power. If I can't even MAKE my HD600 distort with one of the most powerful headphone amps on the market, I simply don't buy your claim that they "can be overdriven to distortion very easily."

Which leads me to the second point -- you claim they have no low bass, yet measurements and other people's ears say otherwise. The fact is that while they don't extend as far as something like the V6 (I don't know of another other headphone except for Etys that does), they have very good bass with very good extension. Given good amplification, they easily reproduce frequencies that "other phones do." The problem, based on your "distortion" comments, looks to be that you haven't used the HD600 with an amp that can drive them properly.



Quote:

The headphones from my JVC minidisc player have better bass than the HD600's.

ROFL! Sure. I'll bet you my Max vs. your JVC minidisc player that it doesn't

This is obviously a troll.


Quote:

Then, many people really have not experienced GOOD sound, or even live sound, so they think the press or reviews make headphones sound good.

Hmm... I seem to recall attending quite a few concerts in my life. Someone doesn't agree with you, so suddenly you know what "good" sound is, and no one else does? C'mon, the V6/7506 are very good cans, but there are *so* many headphones out there that are better. Heck, the KSC-35 are a lot more enjoyable to listen to, and they're only $30.


Quote:

I am sure many will snarl at my post.

More because of the tone and absolutisms than because of your opinions.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Mmm, it's hard to tell whether people here are joking or what?? And I thought Beagle was the one who said

Quote:

Am I correct in assuming that this "issue" will never be resolved? One mans bass is another mans blob.

I thought that was one very sensible comment. Is my thread making everyone go nuts?

Heh, apparently my 'antielectronic psychic field' now extends to messing with other people's minds

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Eytmotic has put research into the absorption by the pinnae and found that high-frequencies are lost in bouncing around our outer ears. The result was a roll-off in the high-frequency output from Ety's that approximates the effect of an outer ear on the signal that reached the microphone

Sounds like a lot of nonsense in a feeble attempt to justify their dumb design. Imagine having to insert something into your ear canal to listen. Imagine having to shove a songbird into your ear to hear it's beautiful song? Quote:

I find it hard to make a polite reply to this, it is so full of nonsense...

Didn't look like you found it that hard...

Quote:

All earphones give you an unnatural listening environment. Suppose you designed the perfect loudspeakers that would replicate the music exactly as it is supposed to be, flat frequency response and all. Now strap those loudspeakers on your ears. What do you get? 1. Exaggerated bass (assuming the loudspeaker had appreciable beaming effects at high frequencies but not at low frequencies, listening to the loudspeakers at close proximity would mean that more LF waves are captures by the ears than they should be.) 2. The frequency response of your ear to the sound will be different simply in virtue of the fact that the speakers are playing next to them instead of just somewhat to the left and right of the front of your head. The biophonic EQ <http://headwize.com/articles/sunier1_art.htm> (scroll down the page) should give you some idea of the corrections required in that respect. To be sure, the ears' reception of the sound from earbuds and canalphones will be different from their reception of sound from circumaural headphones, but the ears' reception of the sound from circumaural headphones is already quite different from that from loudspeakers / natural sound sources in front of us already! The frequency response of circumaural phones need to be tuned to compensate for these differences. In effect, achieving the perfect flat FR phones will not be enough--rather, the target frequency response should be something like the FR depicted on the Biophonic EQ graph. If earbuds and canalphones require a different FR, so be it. As long as the correct FR is delivered to compensate for the differences in FR between the ears' reception of natural sound sources and their reception of the respective classes of headphones (a different FR for circumaural, earbud and canalphone) all these classes of phones have equal potential to give you the perfect sound!* As for the frequency response of the K501--would you just go and look the FR graph for the K501 at HeadRoom? In this case I'd much rather trust the graphs than the subjective report from someone who's apparently so fond of them that he would not allow himself to see that they have any faults * Unless the ear affects sound reception in the time domain, e.g. causing some sound frequencies to reach the ear later than other frequencies. This may well be the case, but you have not made any arguments to that effects. Feel free to grasp onto this and rip my argument apart. But in that case you should be thankful that I gave you this handle in the first place. And even then it is always possible that the front of the head also plays a role in such effects, so that circumaural headphones also cannot reproduce such phase effects, although it may be argued that by involving the pinna they may get to fail less miserably than earbuds and canalphones. Problem is, do you even *know* whether the ear and skull affects sound reception in the time domain, and if so, how? I don't, but I'd be very surprised if you fare better than me! (and I don't just mean the kind of time delay that crossfeed solves! )

Bah! This is just a load of scientific mumbo-jumbo. People spend too much time measuring and not listening.

Quote:

I know other headphones that do this: Senn HD600

No, the velvet pads touch the sides of the ear and they absorb and overdamp the sound. The K501 does not.
Quote:

The more I see Beagle post this (in various places), the more I think he's just trying to get a rise out of people LOL I have too much respect for Beagle's ears to think he actually believes this

a-hAAAA! Glad someone was awake. You are correct sir! This place needed a major livening up in a bad way. Thanks for a being good sport. Yet, it is not really nonsense. It is only nonsense when someone does not agree with you

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

Bah! This is just a load of scientific mumbo-jumbo. People spend too much time measuring and not listening.

Arrrgh!! I spend an hour writing my reply and you ignore it just like that?? You... You.... YOU!!!.... you....

*gag*
*reaches for his throat*
*reaches for his chest*
*fall down on the ground*

*die of heart attack*



*wakes up*

The upshot of all that 'scientific mumbo-jumbo, if you're interested, is that circumaural phones that do not touch the ears are not intrinsically superior to circumaural phones that touch the ears, supraaural phones, earbuds and canalphones in terms of being more 'natural'.

Quote:

a-hAAAA! Glad someone was awake. You are correct sir! This place needed a major livening up in a bad way. Thanks for a being good sport. Yet, it is not really nonsense. It is only nonsense when someone does not agree with you

And were you serious or just 'livening the place up' when you proclaimed the superiority of circumaural phones that do not touch the ear over all other kinds of phones?

(BTW, my HD580s don't touch my ear

Although it is hard to imagine that phones of its type is 'intrinsically superior when it lets in outside noise literally like a sieve and, full-sized phones being out of fashion here in HK, I would probably draw stares like I were a lunatic if I were to wear these phones out on the streets. For these reasons I proclaim the intrinsic superiority of canalphones for the 21st-century audiophile

)