[ADUHF]

To me, response is the bulk of the difference between headphones. (Obviously comfort and usability matters too.) I doubt if I could hear differences in distortion, speed, decay, etc. In all the cans I've heard, that stuff is way too small to really matter.

Frequency response is also high on my list. But it's less high than it used to be, due to the availability of high quality digital EQ, as you mention.

If you felt it was a meaningful use of your time, I think you could definitely be trained to hear more of the differences in some of those other things as well. My ears are pretty old and worn out. But I can definitely discern some of the differences in driver symmetry, distortion, etc. when doing side-by-side comparisons of different HPs. And will also attempt to compensate for perceived weaknesses in those other areas where it's possible, in addition to the FR.

Bass extension is an issue though. There are cheap headphones with limited low bass, and that is clearly audible. They address that in the study. More expensive cans tend to have lower bass. That seems to be the one aspect where money does buy quality.

That wasn't quite my takeaway from it. What they seemed to be saying is that there's less variance in the bass response of the more expensive headphones. Which is evident from looking at the first three graphs in this figure from the article...

https://asa.scitation.org/na101/hom...images/large/1.4984044.figures.online.f1.jpeg

The gray area in the bass covers a wider range of amplitudes in the lower cost HPs (lower 25% quantile) than the higher cost ones (upper 25% quantile). I'm not sure you can generalize that higher cost headphones have better bass extension from that. They may be a little more consistent in their FR though in the bass.

Most open-back dynamic headphones will be pretty rolled off in that area though, regardless of their price.

But I'm guessing that there are mid range cans with good low bass that could be EQed to do anything one might want. No reason to spend a whole lot. Just shop wisely and figure out the response curve you are looking for.

I tend to agree with this. But that may be because I'm a person of very limited means. If I had more $$ to spend, then I might be more flexible on the idea of spending more for a good pair of headphones.

 

[ADUHF]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere (possible in one of Tyll's excellent Inner Fidelity articles) that most headphones, including even relatively inexpensive ones, have measurably lower distortion than even the best in-room transducers. Which might be viewed either as a strength by some (ie the ones who like alot of clarity and detail), or as a weakness by some others, who prefer or more fuzzy speaker-like sound.

I may be confusing distortion with impulse/transient response on this btw. Though they may be somewhat inter-related.

When I have some more free time, I'll try to dig around a bit and see if I can find the article where this was mentioned.

 

[bigshot]

I'm really not interested in training my ears. They hear perfectly fine without education. I'd rather listen to music than listen to equipment. Once I'm satisfied that the equipment is presenting the music with a high degree of fidelity, I'm done. I move on to listening to music then. My rabbit holes don't get much running down.

Personally, I think the whole "trained ears" concept is just an ego trip. The people I've spoken with who claim to have them have attempted to use them as a way of lording it over people with "uneducated ears" so they can assume the mantle of authority. I don't need anyone else to tell me what I can hear and what I can't. I'm perfectly capable of determining that for myself. And I have no desire to be an "audiophile authority". That's an elite group that I'd prefer to not be a part of.

By the way, good speaker systems generally have distortion levels of between 1% and 5%. I don't think there are many headphones that rate in that range. It's easier to make a tiny transducer with low levels of distortion then it is a big 15 inch woofer. The trick with a good speaker system is response. That is much more difficult to achieve with speakers than it is with headphones because you have room acoustics and various seating locations to deal with. But when you get speakers in the ballpark when it comes to response, they sound much better than headphones, even though the distortion levels are significantly higher.

Response consists of frequencies and amplitude. That is what sound waves are made of. It's no wonder why it's the most important aspect we measure.

 

[ADUHF]

I'm really not interested in training my ears. They hear perfectly fine without education. I'd rather listen to music than listen to equipment. Once I'm satisfied that the equipment is presenting the music with a high degree of fidelity, I'm done. I move on to listening to music then. My rabbit holes don't get much running down.

Personally, I think the whole "trained ears" concept is just an ego trip. The people I've spoken with who claim to have them have attempted to use them as a way of lording it over people with "uneducated ears" so they can assume the mantle of authority. I don't need anyone else to tell me what I can hear and what I can't. I'm perfectly capable of determining that for myself. And I have no desire to be an "audiophile authority". That's an elite group that I'd prefer to not be a part of.

That sounds pretty bad. I'll have to try to avoid those folks.

By the way, good speaker systems generally have distortion levels of between 1% and 5%. I don't think there are many headphones that rate in that range. It's easier to make a tiny transducer with low levels of distortion then it is a big 15 inch woofer. The trick with a good speaker system is response. That is much more difficult to achieve with speakers than it is with headphones because you have room acoustics and various seating locations to deal with. But when you get speakers in the ballpark when it comes to response, they sound much better than headphones, even though the distortion levels are significantly higher.

Tyll's THD+Noise headphone measurements were generally in the 0.1% to 1.0% range. While the Rtings WHD measurements tend to be more in the .01% to 0.1% range. Not sure exactly how those would correlate to the loudspeaker figures.

Response consists of frequencies and amplitude. That is what sound waves are made of. It's no wonder why it's the most important aspect we measure.

Good point!

 

[bigshot]

Tyll's THD+Noise headphone measurements were generally in the 0.1% to 1.0% range. While the Rtings WHD measurements tend to be more in the .01% to 0.1% range. Not sure exactly how those would correlate to the loudspeaker figures.

That's an order of magnitude better than the best speakers, and several orders of magnitude better than good speakers. Distortion really isn't an issue in headphones.

 

[luizffgarcia]

So, i read the entire thread but i am still confused about something.

When it comes to frequency response for IEMs, that 8khz peak we always see is caused by the measurement equipment and is not really present?

 

[ADUHF]

So, i read the entire thread but i am still confused about something.

When it comes to frequency response for IEMs, that 8khz peak we always see is caused by the measurement equipment and is not really present?

I haven't looked at the issue as closely with IEMs. However, if the resonance appears to be occurring at the same frequency with a variety of different IEMs, then there's a good bet that it's at least partially a function of the rig's simulated ear canal.

The simulated ear canals in headphone measurement rigs behave similarly to a tube or pipe in terms of their harmonic frequencies. The resonances will differ though depending on whether the tube is blocked at one end (over-ear headphone), both ends (IEM), or neither end (not applicable here). The length of the tube also determines the resonant frequencies. So a longer ear canal will have different harmonics than a shorter one. Or one which has been shortened somewhat by the insertion of an IEM.

The physics behind this is somewhat complicated. But there has been alot of study of the harmonics of tubes, since basically all wind instruments and pipe organs follow these same basic principles.

A resonance in the rig at a particular frequency does not necessarily rule out the possibility of a resonance in the headphone at that same or a similar frequency as well btw. A larger peak at the ear canal's resonant frequency might, for example, be an indicator that there's also a bright spot in that same general frequency range in the headphones as well. Whereas a very small peak (or no peak) at the ear canal frequency might indicate the reverse... That there is a depression in the headphone's volume in that range.

 

[castleofargh]

So, i read the entire thread but i am still confused about something.

When it comes to frequency response for IEMs, that 8khz peak we always see is caused by the measurement equipment and is not really present?

It can really depend on who's doing the measurement and on the coupler used. The couplers following the old standard, or just plastic tubes used as couplers, did tend to show their own big resonance. But then people notice this and start to align their measurement on that 8kHz resonance, or wherever they happen to usually get it. They do that by changing the insertion of the IEM until the peak is where they want it.
That can be good and bad at the same time. Not all IEMs are designed for the same insertion depth. Not all tips have the same shape and occupy the same volume. In our search for consistant reference, sometimes we cause one.

What's important to note for users, is that we will probably insert the IEM however feels best and seals best. Also our ears are probably not exactly like an average human model. That will lead to a different response in the upper frequencies. Existing peaks might not even end up at the same frequency for both ears, and of course the resonances created by the measurement coupler might not show up at all.
You can try some sine sweeps we find on youtub where the video gives the frequency as it changes, and find out if you notice some significant peaks or attenuations somewhere, and if they happen at the same frequency for both ears. But before starting to EQ everything, consider that from one use to the next, or even from initial insertion to 20mn later, the IEMs might move and so might the treble peaks.
The higher the frequency, the shorter the period of the wave and the more likely the change in insertion of the IEM will be able to impact it. Some stuff about 1/4 wavelength in a tube like suggested in the post above. Just remember it affects treble more than lower freqs, making anything at high frequency less consistant and less reliable in term of measurements.
New standards claim to improve on that, @jude posted about the subject, and he has all the cool toys, so it will be interesting to check IEM measurements when he makes some more.

 

[bigshot]

great answer

 

[luizffgarcia]

It can really depend on who's doing the measurement and on the coupler used. The couplers following the old standard, or just plastic tubes used as couplers, did tend to show their own big resonance. But then people notice this and start to align their measurement on that 8kHz resonance, or wherever they happen to usually get it. They do that by changing the insertion of the IEM until the peak is where they want it.
That can be good and bad at the same time. Not all IEMs are designed for the same insertion depth. Not all tips have the same shape and occupy the same volume. In our search for consistant reference, sometimes we cause one.

What's important to note for users, is that we will probably insert the IEM however feels best and seals best. Also our ears are probably not exactly like an average human model. That will lead to a different response in the upper frequencies. Existing peaks might not even end up at the same frequency for both ears, and of course the resonances created by the measurement coupler might not show up at all.
You can try some sine sweeps we find on youtub where the video gives the frequency as it changes, and find out if you notice some significant peaks or attenuations somewhere, and if they happen at the same frequency for both ears. But before starting to EQ everything, consider that from one use to the next, or even from initial insertion to 20mn later, the IEMs might move and so might the treble peaks.
The higher the frequency, the shorter the period of the wave and the more likely the change in insertion of the IEM will be able to impact it. Some stuff about 1/4 wavelength in a tube like suggested in the post above. Just remember it affects treble more than lower freqs, making anything at high frequency less consistant and less reliable in term of measurements.
New standards claim to improve on that, @jude posted about the subject, and he has all the cool toys, so it will be interesting to check IEM measurements when he makes some more.

Great answer indeed, thanks for the explanation!