Sorry, couldn't resist (the exclamation points)!!!!!
Yes, Joe I consider small, high q peaks to be IMMENSELY more destructive to the listening/monitoring experience than "broad swells and dips". As I wrote earlier, broad trends over octaves are easy for the ear to get used to and "tune out". But peaks such as the one I created in my noise examples destroy the timbre and musical integrity of EVERYTHING.
I know, it would seem as if these narrow peaks are harmless except for when a note happens to hit that exact frequency. Were musical notes comprised of pure tones, this would be true! But remember, waveforms produced by music are IMMENSELY complex. In practice this resonance would be excited over, and over, and over while listening to music, and EVERYTHING reproduced with a device with such a peak would take on a particular sonic "color". To prove this, I have included a short musical segment on my web site, first without, and then with the peak.
Also Joe, just because I said that the KSC-35 passes the test with flying colors, you certainly shouldn't assume that all small 'phones/earbuds do. In fact that's a silly assumption, since the KSC-35 IS NOT AN EARBUD! The transducer is not only large enough for headphones, it is used in many of Koss (better) inexpensive 'phones. I have NEVER found an inexpensive earbud that had a combination of smooth response, extended bass, COMFORT, and overall sound quality that I could live with. "The Plug" by Koss DOES have great bass extension (if a tad too much bass!), and is reasonably comfortable. But it has a peak very much like the one I have used for illustration in the upper midrange/treble, which makes it entirely unlistenable to me!
As for my test being better able to reveal peaks than dips in response, it's true. But that's not a limitation of the test. It's a limitation of human hearing. It's a well known psycho-acoustic fact, Joe, that "sins of commission" in audio are far more serious than "sins of ommission". Translation? The ear is far better able to hear peaks than dips. Especially narrow ones. GOOD engineers know that subtractive equalization is nearly always a better choice for balancing a mix than additive equalization. If the overall balance is too bright, better to bring down the highs than bring up the lows!
Think about it...the best small speaker systems are those which simply say "f##k it" when presented with deep bass. They don't try to reach beyond their natural range, and thus defy the laws of physics, because doing so would inevitably result in LOTS of distortion and narrow, high q peaks and dips in response. Rather than muddy the bass, good small designs just let the deep bass gradually rolloff with decreasing frequency. A good thing! Speaker systems (or headphones) with a gradual rolloff (5db per octave or a little more) above 7-10khz don't sound bad. Instead adjectives such as "mellow", "distant", "easy to listen to", or "un-fatiguing" are used to describe such a sound. But a speaker system with the inverse curve, with highs rising at 5db per octave or more from 7-10khz on up could end up sounding "biting", "edgy", "piercing", etc. Our ears/brains are simply much more accepting of "sins of ommission". Which is why a good song on an am radio with everything rolled off (by 20 db per octave or more) above 5khz, can be quite pleasant, but a song reproduced with everything boosted by the same amount above 5khz would be unlistenable!
Also note Joe I didn't say inexpensive 'phones are better than expensive ones. I said SOME inexpensive 'phones are far better than SOME expensive ones! Some of the best 'phones are cheap, some of the worst are expensive! Thank God! There are some great designs which I can actually afford!
Ok, now check out what I mean about how a peak such as the one illustrated can destroy music listening. Take the link below to my website, and compare the music with, and without the peak.
Click here, and scroll down to the music samples
