[tinyman392]

I actually hear it like Rtings measurements, and I usually found such be the case with many headphones I've heard. The Rtings measurements make better sense to me, and matches my early impressions. I usually don't agree with their written subjective impressions, but I do appreciate their measurements.

Measurements are rarely ever off. They match those of Jude’s and Crinacle’s (look at raw), which is the point of an objective measurement, ability to reproduce. I do disagree with a lot of their subjective stuff, with most of their reviews actually.

 

[SilverEars]

Measurements are rarely ever off. They match those of Jude’s and Crinacle’s (look at raw), which is the point of an objective measurement, ability to reproduce. I do disagree with a lot of their subjective stuff, with most of their reviews actually.

Somebody stated earlier, and it's their formulation of their metric is at issue. It's like an algorithmic process that really do not correlate well to subjective or hearing IMO. The way their point system is formulated. That's the problem with values an weights on things like audio quality. It's like they try to quantify certain things and make conclusions on that point system that doesn't hit the subjective mark. But, that guy that measures, he at least know measurements really well. I go there fore the measurements only.

Measurements depend on the rig and the person making the measurements. The person making the measurement has to have good knowledge/experience in making good measurements, and the quality of the rig itself. There are plenty of DIY rigs out there that are off.

 

[tinyman392]

Somebody stated earlier, and it's their formulation of their metric is at issue. It's like an algorithmic process that really do not correlate well to subjective or hearing IMO. The way their point system is formulated. That's the problem with values an weights on things like audio quality. It's like they try to quantify certain things and make conclusions on that point system that doesn't hit the subjective mark. But, that guy that measures, he at least know measurements really well. I go there fore the measurements only.

Measurements depend on the rig and the person making the measurements. The person making the measurement has to have good knowledge/experience in making good measurements, and the quality of the rig itself. There are plenty of DIY rigs out there that are off.

Rting’s measurements are done on a decent rig to be honest, not something DIY. Even if a rig is DIY, if it’s calibrated to match that of an existing rig with a diverse enough set of headphones, I’d deem it reliable (granted I’m biased since I did a similar rig for IEMs about 5 years back). I don’t trust their scores (or subjective findings a lot of the time), but their measurements are measurements. Actually, there are quite a few sites that I don’t entirely trust the scores since they tend to score based on how well they match some reference curve. In many cases the reviewers preferences kind of play a huge role into said score.

 

[Ilomaenkimi]

If i compare APP and APM responses, i honestly don't know do i even want APM's. Though there's much more in sound than only FR..

APP raw FR:

APM raw FR:

 

[tinyman392]

One thing I’m having trouble wrapping my head around with the Rtings review was how they got the two bars that hold the headband to rest on the head. I can see instances where you can have one of them resting on the head (fixed by moving housings forward or backward on the head), but can’t come up with a scenario where both would contact your head unless you’re moving up and down in a vertical movement pretty quickly and significantly. If you do have a pair and are able to get both to rest on your head, I’d be interested in hearing.

The mesh on the headband kind of acts like a spring, so the only thing that can cause the bars to get closer to the surface the mesh rests on is the weight of the headphones themselves and the shape of the surface in which the headband rests. If the spring bottoms out, then the bar rests on your head. If you have a pair, you can kind of test out the specifics of this. Stick out your finger so it lays under the headband where it runs perpendicular to both the bars and balance the headphones on the back of your finger. If you do it correctly, the metal bars should rest on your finger, this would be the spring itself bottoming out. Now use 2 fingers. Now use 3 fingers... Now rest the headband on the back of your hand. Then make a fist and rest on the back of the hand...

 

[tinyman392]

If i compare APP and APM responses, i honestly don't know do i even want APM's. Though there's much more in sound than only FR..

APP raw FR:

APM raw FR:

Preference will play a roll here. To be honest, it always will play a roll. The APP is kind of a DF neutral tuning (very close to it) as it kind of seems like it’s rarely deviates anymore than 2-3 dB from DF neutral (note that Rtings’ uses a Harman target from 200 Hz down and DF from 200 Hz up). Do note that there are people who don’t like DF neutral as a sound signature.

I will admit that the drop in the 3.5k region in the APM is pretty substantial and it’s audible as it messes with detailing and clarity of the headphones. It also creates the very warm-tilted midrange as well (some love this, others hate it). The treble in general is quite peaky. Also note that their plot ends at 10 Hz and not 20 Hz so the roll off at 30 Hz isn’t to bad, but it is raised about 7 dB starting at 100 Hz. That creates a sound that focuses on heavy thick impacts, some describe as boomy.

If you’re looking for a highly detailed, very clear headphone don’t get the APM, you will be disappointed. If you enjoy the sound of a warmer headphone that’s more laid back in terms of reproduction, the APM may tickle that itch; though be advised it kind of does that to a fault. Some have been able to help this out by using audio gram or EQing that area up.

 

[SilverEars]

If i compare APP and APM responses, i honestly don't know do i even want APM's. Though there's much more in sound than only FR..

APP raw FR:

APM raw FR:

There is more to sound than FR, so you should still hear it to determine if it's right for you. I'm not too sure about the way Rtings represent the lows, but then again, we can't hear under 20. I often see the sub-sub bass roll off like that from Rtings measurements. I had some issue with the treble region, and I'm convince it's a bit jagged like the way it's represented by Rtings. Grain for me is usually due to jagged response in the treble. Like there being several consecutive peaks and valleys. Which was similar reason why I disliked Bose QC treble.

 

[Ilomaenkimi]

There is more to sound than FR, so you should still hear it to determine if it's right for you. I'm not too sure about the way Rtings represent the lows, but then again, we can't hear under 20. I often see the sub-sub bass roll off like that from Rtings measurements. I had some issue with the treble region, and I'm convince it's a bit jagged like the way it's represented by Rtings. Grain for me is usually due to jagged response in the treble. Like there being several consecutive peaks and valleys. Which was similar reason why I disliked Bose QC treble.

As i said in my post.

If i compare APP and APM responses, i honestly don't know do i even want APM's. Though there's much more in sound than only FR..

 

[jude]

If i compare APP and APM responses, i honestly don't know do i even want APM's. Though there's much more in sound than only FR..

APP raw FR:

APM raw FR:

@Ilomaenkimi, I'm not sure whose measurements you included in your post, but I think that measurement (of the AirPods Max) was likely not correlated with listening tests. Let me show you the frequency response measurement I posted earlier in this thread which for now is our "official" AirPods Max frequency response measurement:

---

Fig.1 (above): Apple AirPods Max frequency response, average of three seatings.

---

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the AirPods Max has been an interesting headphone to measure. We took some time (a couple of weeks) -- and a slew of testing during that time as briefly described in this post -- before posting our measurements. This headphone obviously has sensors and signal processing within (which Apple has at least cursorily described in their promotional materials and product descriptions) that can (and do) affect measurements in ways that aren't typical of other headphones (passive or active) that we've so far tested.

For example, we typically will measure a headphone over several seatings in different positions, always trying to keep those positions on the head realistic -- that is, we don't use zany nobody-would-ever-wear-it-that-way seatings just to give us something different to average in. We aim for realistic seatings. We consider subsequent seatings ones in which we completely remove the headphone from the head and then re-position / re-seat it. My point in mentioning this is that we've done this thousands of times in the past five years, and so we have some idea what kinds of differences to expect as we move the headphone around.

This has not been the case with the AirPods Max. With this headphone we have occasionally seen very unexpected large changes in frequency response in certain positions. Here's an example of some positions that seemed like realistic seatings, these alternate seatings positioned a bit behind -- slid a bit rearward on the head -- relative to the three seatings that constitute the measurements shown in Fig.1 above.

---

Fig.2 (above): Apple AirPods Max frequency response, average of three seatings (our "official measurement") compared to four alternate more rearward positioned seatings that we did not use.

---

In case it's of any interest to you, here are some notes from those four seatings:

2021-01-08 0936 EST NOTE: As stated in my first post with AirPods Max measurements, we observed no difference in frequency response with ANC on and ANC off. Still, it's one of the conditions we will note for a given measurement (as seen in the notes above).

You may have noticed, @Ilomaenkimi, that the alternate seatings in Fig.2 (above) have more things in common with the measurement you posted than what is our current "official" AirPods Max frequency response measurement in Fig.1 (and also the solid black line in Fig.2).

Why didn't we use those alternate seatings in Fig.2? Those were actually our first seatings and we simply could not correlate those frequency response measurements with anything we were hearing here when listening to them ourselves. The average of three seatings we went with (in Fig.1 and the solid line in Fig.2) square more with what we hear.

My guess, then, as to what's happening in those measurements you posted is that whoever did those measurements needs to try some different positions, and do a lot of measurements on his fixture to determine where it most looks like what he's hearing when listening to the AirPods Max himself. I'll venture that he'll likely find that it'll be a pretty tight positional zone before it starts swinging into measured strangeness.

Also, something else to keep in mind is that measuring it cold -- hitting it with pure tone measurements after longstanding silence -- may affect measurement outcome. The AirPods Max may be waiting for content if it goes into its off status, and then Adaptive EQ may need time to do its thing and then settle. In their description of measurement procedure for the AirPods Max THD measurement (link), Apple says this (with emphasis by me):

Testing conducted by Apple in December 2020 using preproduction AirPods Max and software paired with iPhone 12 Pro units and prerelease software. AirPods Max placed on B&K Type 5128-C High-frequency Head and Torso Simulator (HATS). Volume was set to 100 percent with Active Noise Cancellation on. After playing pink noise to initialize the system, a 20Hz to 20kHz, -3dBFS peak, 1/12th octave stepped sine tone sweep was played and recorded on HATS. Total harmonic distortion was calculated using industry-standard IEC methods. Distortion is dependent on test signal, fixture type, headphone placement, and other factors.​

​

When the AirPods Max is on the fixture, we keep it fed with pink noise between measurements. It automatically cuts over to the sweep when the measurement is initiated and then immediately returns to pink noise until the next sweep.

NOTE: The frequency response measurement you posted (and our unused alternate seatings shown in Fig.2) is not the first such AirPods Max frequency response measurement we've seen that looks like this.

So do these kinds of wild variations happen on humans with positional changes? Not in our experience here, no. If we're right about that, why can it happen on measurement fixtures? I don't exactly know, but it obviously can. This is a headphone built for humans (of course), and as human-like as our measurement fixtures can be (especially the Brüel & Kjær 5128 that we and Apple use), they're still not human. I'm not sure why yet, but this seems to matter to the AirPods Max.

Again, this can be a tricky headphone to measure, in my opinion. And I think it's important to also do listening tests, especially when you're sure you're seeing something you're not hearing, as was definitely the case with us at the outset with those alternate seatings in Fig.2. It also helps to keep thorough notes.

Oh, and, @Ilomaenkimi, if you're interested in seeing AirPods Max and AirPods Pro measurements compared, I posted comparisons of those two, which you can find by clicking on the following link: Apple AirPods Max and Apple AirPods Pro Measurements Compared (both measured on the Brüel & Kjær 5128)

---

The measurements in this post were made at Head-Fi HQ using the following:

• Brüel & Kjær High-frequency Head and Torso Simulator (HATS) Type 5128
• Audio Precision APx555 Audio Analyzer (with Bluetooth Duo Module)
• Audio Precision APx1701 Transducer Test Interface
• Herzan custom-designed acoustic & vibration isolation enclosure

---

 

[Ilomaenkimi]

If i compare APP and APM responses, i honestly don't know do i even want APM's. Though there's much more in sound than only FR..

@Ilomaenkimi, I'm not sure whose measurements you included in your post, but I think that measurement (of the AirPods Max) was likely not correlated with listening tests. Let me show you the frequency response measurement I posted earlier in this thread which for now is our "official" AirPods Max frequency response measurement:

---

Fig.1 (above): Apple AirPods Max frequency response, average of three seatings.

---

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the AirPods Max has been an interesting headphone to measure. We took some time (a couple of weeks) -- and a slew of testing during that time as briefly described in this post -- before posting our measurements. This headphone obviously has sensors and signal processing within (which Apple has at least cursorily described in their promotional materials and product descriptions) that can (and do) affect measurements in ways that aren't typical of other headphones (passive or active) that we've so far tested.

For example, we typically will measure a headphone over several seatings in different positions, always trying to keep those positions on the head realistic -- that is, we don't use zany nobody-would-ever-wear-it-that-way seatings just to give us something different to average in. We aim for realistic seatings. We consider subsequent seatings ones in which we completely remove the headphone from the head and then re-position / re-seat it. My point in mentioning this is that we've done this thousands of times in the past five years, and so we have some idea what kinds of differences to expect as we move the headphone around.

This has not been the case with the AirPods Max. With this headphone we have occasionally seen very unexpected large changes in frequency response in certain positions. Here's an example of some positions that seemed like realistic seatings, these alternate seatings positioned a bit behind -- slid a bit rearward on the head -- relative to the three seatings that constitute the measurements shown in Fig.1 above.

---

Fig.2 (above): Apple AirPods Max frequency response, average of three seatings (our "official measurement") compared to four alternate more rearward positioned seatings that we did not use.

---

In case it's of any interest to you, here are some notes from those four seatings:



You may have noticed, @Ilomaenkimi, that the alternate seatings in Fig.2 (above) have more things in common with the measurement you posted than what is our current "official" AirPods Max frequency response measurement in Fig.1 (and also the solid black line in Fig.2).

Why didn't we use those alternate seatings in Fig.2? Those were actually our first seatings and we simply could not correlate those frequency response measurements with anything we were hearing here when listening to them ourselves. The average of three seatings we went with (in Fig.1 and the solid line in Fig.2) square more with what we hear.

My guess, then, as to what's happening in those measurements you posted is that whoever did those measurements needs to try some different positions, and do a lot of measurements on his fixture to determine where it most looks like what he's hearing when listening to the AirPods Max himself. I'll venture that he'll likely find that it'll be a pretty tight positional zone before it starts swinging into measured strangeness.

NOTE: His frequency response measurement (and our unused alternate seatings shown in Fig.2) is not the first such AirPods Max frequency response measurement we've seen that looks like this.

So do these kinds of wild variations happen on humans with positional changes? Not in our experience here, no. If we're right about that, why can it happen on measurement fixtures? I don't exactly know, but it obviously can. This is a headphone built for humans (of course), and as human-like as our measurement fixtures can be (especially the Brüel & Kjær 5128 that we and Apple use), they're still not human. I'm not sure why yet, but this seems to matter to the AirPods Max.

Again, this can be a tricky headphone to measure, in my opinion. And I think it's important to also do listening tests, especially when you're sure you're seeing something you're not hearing, as was definitely the case with us at the outset with those alternate seatings in Fig.2. It also helps to keep thorough notes.

Oh, and, @Ilomaenkimi, if you're interested in seeing AirPods Max and AirPods Pro measurements compared, I posted comparisons of those two, which you can find by clicking on the following link: Apple AirPods Max and Apple AirPods Pro Measurements Compared (measured on the Brüel & Kjær 5128)

---

The measurements in this post were made at Head-Fi HQ using the following:

• Brüel & Kjær High-frequency Head and Torso Simulator (HATS) Type 5128
• Audio Precision APx555 Audio Analyzer (with Bluetooth Duo Module)
• Audio Precision APx1701 Transducer Test Interface
• Herzan custom-designed acoustic & vibration isolation enclosure

---

Thanks for the clarification.

Those are Rtings measurements.

 

[MayaTlab]

The only way I can make sense of a lot of the design decisions taken with the AirPods Max is by looking at the patents Apple published over the years, featuring technologies and ideas that didn't make it in the final product, and could very hypothetically explain why there may be quite a bit if variation depending on fixture or position.

It seems that very early on Apple thought that making the headphones left / right agnostic (ie wear them any which way you want, the right channel will be routed to the appropriate ear), and capable of making a rough image of the listener's ear thanks to sensors, was an important user experience quality to feature. This means that the entire headphones had to be designed to be fully symmetrical front to back, in addition to mirrored left vs. right, unlike pretty much any other pair of headphones. This implied :
- no angled of offset drivers (unlike the HD800 or Bose 700 for example)
- fully symmetrical earpads (unlike Audeze's for example)
- a complicated joint mechanism between the headband and cups that can apply reasonably even pressure around the ear whether the cup is on the right or left ear (made even more complicated by Apple's decision to have it join the cup at the top - probably to free up space for touch or side controls - and be easily replaceable).
- a set of sensors that can make a rough image of one's ear to determine whether the left or right ear is in the earcup. It appears that in Apple's most detailed patents this required the earcup's cavity to fully encompass the ear, hence the "basket" design of the earpads and the overall rather deep cavity, so that Apple could position sensors not only facing the ear, but also around, for example :

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...85".PGNR.&OS=DN/20200280785&RS=DN/20200280785
The most detailed patents evoke the use of long-range capacitance sensors or structured light sensors (think Face ID) to create that rough image of the listener's ear.

Now my wild speculation :
Perhaps these design decisions significantly constrained the acoustics and mechanical engineering team and resulted in a cup design that may be a bit more prone to individual to individual or positional variations above 1000hz or so than what they'd ideally come up with without these constraints.
Perhaps they felt that they could have used the sensors inside the cups to roughly locate in real time the user's ear and make rough adjustments to the FR above 1000-2000hz (something nowhere near as precise as what a high-resolution image of the user's ear would enable them to do, but enough to moderately compensate seating variations after extensive testing and modelling of how the APM would behave on a cohort of people). They possibly thought quite far into the development process that they could make it work... until they experienced multiple delays and problems and realised that they wouldn't be able to ship it in 2020 or early 2021. So these sensors were axed, but they kept the basic design principles because they think that they will be able to eventually make it work (let's say for gen 2).

The problem is that this results in a pair of headphones that features a lot of complicated mechanical bits to make this vision work... except we don't get the vision . And that the current cup design may not be quite as optimal as what the acoustics engineering team would have done without having to make that vision work.

 

[SparkOnShore]

Measurements are rarely ever off. They match those of Jude’s and Crinacle’s (look at raw), which is the point of an objective measurement, ability to reproduce. I do disagree with a lot of their subjective stuff, with most of their reviews actually.

how is it subjective when it is based on their measurements with which you say you agree?

 

[angelom]

You may have noticed, @Ilomaenkimi, that the alternate seatings in Fig.2 (above) have more things in common with the measurement you posted than what is our current "official" AirPods Max frequency response measurement in Fig.1 (and also the solid black line in Fig.2).

Why didn't we use those alternate seatings in Fig.2? Those were actually our first seatings and we simply could not correlate those frequency response measurements with anything we were hearing here when listening to them ourselves. The average of three seatings we went with (in Fig.1 and the solid line in Fig.2) square more with what we hear.

What is interesting for me is that even some people that (really) liking the APM describing hearing a veil or dip in the low treble and/or midrange, but in the head-fi graph this is looking like the opposite, a more present and clear sound of the midrange and low treble.

I hearing the APM more like the Rtings graph, except I hearing more decibels elevation in the sub-bass region (showing in head-fi graph and raw graph in Rtings) that often having not very good effect in the complete bass response, and complete tonal balance, depending of the music/track you're listening.

 

[MayaTlab]

Measurements are rarely ever off. They match those of Jude’s and Crinacle’s (look at raw), which is the point of an objective measurement, ability to reproduce. I do disagree with a lot of their subjective stuff, with most of their reviews actually.

Past 1000-2000hz they diverge quite a bit. At least enough in dBs that you'd be able to hear the difference.
Which is no surprise as it's the case for most headphones anyway. Hence why measurements (particularly past 1000-2000hz) shouldn't be over-interpreted. In the case of the APM it's quite clear (ie consistent across measurements) so far that their response in the upper mids / low trebles is comparatively quite conservative, but I wouldn't rely on measurements to give me the exact location and magnitude of these differences - particularly since it won't be the same on your own head as on a test bed.
Presumably Jude's B&K 5128 is a better modelling in general of actual humans. I'm very curious to see an entire database of measurements made on this test rig .

 

[AlwaysForward]

LOL I was just catching up on this thread and was initially thrown off by the RTINGS review and measurements before Jude dropped the deep dive. Glad to see what I’m hearing what I’m hearing and it’s not just fanboy koolaid

One of the unexpected benefits from these is that I can really simplify my wireless and wired cans into basically two buckets and stop chasing the next Panda/Ora/Bose etc

I’ll share an experience I had with these on new year’s that really was a game changer: on NYE with our little quarenteam. I had a few deep conversations with my roomie and mentee. We had been DJing through the countdown and wanted to get air to talk but also keep the vibe going. We grabbed my APM and APP, set up “shared audio,” and had each set on Transparency mode. We were able to listen to the same music and hold a conversation, like the coolest little silent disco party trick ever.

And then I started thinking about shared movies on a plane with surround sound, etc. You can do a lot with these two as a pair.