[cpang100]

There are quite a few YouTube videos on stains. Good luck

Thanks. I might return these for a Blue or Black set. Or get the silicone covers for them.

 

[Heyyoudvd]

One thing I haven’t seen anyone comment on is that with first party Apple headphones like the AirPods Max, they track the volume, so you can see your current listening level in decibels as well as your past exposure.

In Control Center, there’s a ‘Hearing’ button (The ear. If you don’t see it, go into Settings -> Control Center and turn it in). And then you can also go into the Health app and check the Headphone Audio Levels section.

 

[rgr555]

Wondering if I should just get the APM and use my Spotify since I almost never use my Sony setup ZX300+1A2m2 because it's less convenient and takes time to just load new flac files.....

 

[tinyman392]

Wondering if I should just get the APM and use my Spotify since I almost never use my Sony setup ZX300+1A2m2 because it's less convenient and takes time to just load new flac files.....

If you don't need ANC, there are going to be better options out there. Though the convenience of the APM really can't be beat. You put the headphones on your ears, wait for the connection tone, and press play most of the time and you're good to go. No need to attach wires and no need to even turn it on since it turns itself on when you remove it from its case.

 

[SparkOnShore]

Historically I've generally been against EQ. It makes swapping headphones a bit more tedious as I have to shut off the EQ on the device when comparing headphones and stuff. So generally I've always avoided EQing my headphones. However, if the EQ saves to the headphone, I'm less against it since that tediousness goes away. So with something like the Panda and its app, I have no issues EQing it through those means since it'll apply to that headphone and that headphone only.

With the AirPods, the accommodations apply to all AirPods which is unfortunate. But it does improve the sound of the APM quite a bit and really only affects AirPods, so I'm living with it, though I do wish the Apple could set it up to do accommodations per AirPod.

My theory against eq is different; I believe that if a consumer uses eq, he may change the manufacturer’s interpretation of original artist’s intention, which may result to a different sound. I mean there is the original artist’s will and then a professional audio company which creates a product to present that original will. Others can be closer to the source while others may interpret the material with a bass friendly or a brighter flare. This is where a consumer can choose according to his preferences and reliability of each manufacturer. But change of the sound according to consumer’s will, while perfectly possible, may result to a far different sound from the one created by the artist, something I just don’t want to do. Apple’s continuous eq, by its computational audio approach, is a whole different story, because it adjusts the FR according to positional or environmental deficiencies, in order to maintain the desired curve on consumer’s ears, as that has been tuned by Apple’s technicians in order to represent each artist’s original will. So, I seem to be quite against the possibility of altering artist’s concept of his own sound. What’s your opinion on this?

 

[MayaTlab]

My theory against eq is different; I believe that if a consumer uses eq, he may change the manufacturer’s interpretation of original artist’s intention, which may result to a different sound. I mean there is the original artist’s will and then a professional audio company which creates a product to present that original will. Others can be closer to the source while others may interpret the material with a bass friendly or a brighter flare. This is where a consumer can choose according to his preferences and reliability of each manufacturer. But change of the sound according to consumer’s will, while perfectly possible, may result to a far different sound from the one created by the artist, something I just don’t want to do. Apple’s continuous eq, by its computational audio approach, is a whole different story, because it adjusts the FR according to positional or environmental deficiencies, in order to maintain the desired curve on consumer’s ears, as that has been tuned by Apple’s technicians in order to represent each artist’s original will. So, I seem to be quite against the possibility of altering artist’s concept of his own sound. What’s your opinion on this?

That it's wrong, sorry .

But it's a long, long explanation.

I too share the idea that we should be hearing what the recording / mixing / mastering engineers intended us to hear. Even if we're talking about Brokencyde for which I'd rather listen to with an all spectrum -100dB filter.

But that seems quite a bit difficult to achieve.

So for a start, Adaptive EQ (which is something that has already existed in various form with ANC headphones for a while, albeit perhaps not quite as sophisticated as Apple's implementation) doesn't work above 1khz :
https://twitter.com/oratory1990/status/1343323936801644544?s=20
See the faint grey traces ? That's the multiple measurements with slight positional variations on the dummy head that are then averaged. They coalesce into one trace where Adaptive EQ can work its magic. Above, it's a mess, and beyond the audibility threshold.
The same sort of variation will happen on your own head.
So take away n°1 : headphones' FR curve vary with position over your head, not just seal quality. Adaptive EQ is a great solution to sealing issues, but not to positional variation.

Also, since we all have different ears, heck since even our left from right ears aren't the same, frequency response above 1khz will vary between us, again above the threshold for audibility :

From that study I believe : https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
See the thick grey trace behind the solid black curve ? That's how FR curve near the eardrum of the test subjects vary (measured by probe microphones). You can notice that it can become quite thick (ie high variation) at lower frequencies with some headphones (that's a sealing issue), and above 1khz with all of them, and even more so above 5khz (that's variations related to the shape of your ears / canal).
Now it's possible that some variation in that range is desirable, as we all hear differently the same sound source in a natural environment (that article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function).
But the problem is that headphones seem to interact with our ears in a way that is quite a bit different than natural sound sources or a pair of speakers. As a result we see high variation between listeners, and a variation that is undesirable.
There aren't a lot of good solutions to that problem at the moment. EQing this range by ear is a PITA.
But theoretically the headphones of the future will be able to gather enough anatomical data in real time of your ear shape that they'll be able to
a) tailor the FR curve to your own anatomy so that the FR curve delivered at your eardrum is similar to what a natural sound source would have produced,
b) modulate it in real time to compensate for positional variation.
So take away n°2 : headphones' FR curve increasingly varies above 1Khz across several listeners because of anatomical variations, in a way that could be at least partly unnatural, and remains quite difficult to EQ well, particularly, IMO, above 5khz.
But we'll still need to EQ it at some point .

Also, Harman's own research fully acknowledges that personal preferences variation come into play, particularly in terms of bass response below a certain frequency - independent of seal, positional, or anatomical variation :
https://www.headphonesty.com/2020/04/harman-target-curves-part-3/
So take away n°3 : People's preferences, particularly in the bass, may differ quite a bit.

And finally hearing damage or age can modulate what you hear and perhaps require some form of compensation over time.

So in regards to the AirPods Max FR curve and its capacity to deliver recordings as intended by the engineers / artists :
- Below 1khz it measures very rationally (ie corresponds fairly well to Harman's research, that is to say to a "decent pair of speakers in a decent listening room", with a sub bass bump according to the majority of preferences, and is very smooth with no weird bumps or wiggles,), and theoretically Adaptive EQ can ensure that it's quite constant across listeners and immune to sealing variation. But it doesn't feature a bass shelf EQ adjustment which we know should be there according to Harman's research.
- Between 1khz and 4khz the general shape of it corresponds very well to an average of how humans' anatomy naturally modulate the FR curve, with the ear canal gain peak at around 3000hz for example. Top marks for that. But the whole region is quite depressed compared to what Harman's research would suggest corresponds better to "decent speakers in a decent listening room". Difficult to know exactly by how much and as it's in the range where we start to see anatomical variation across humans it's difficult to say "2.7khz is 4.75dB below where it should be". But given how many people have commented on how they prefer it with the "balanced" setting in headphones accommodation it's quite likely that this region is perceived as depressed by quite a few people.
- Above 4khz measurements show a very high degree of variability, in fact even more so than quite a few headphones, even on the same type of rig (GRAS). Difficult to extract any information from them.
- The capacity to apply an audiogram to change its FR curve might be an interesting solution to the latter point.

BTW I just had a bit of fun using in ear mics to measure some of my headphones to see whether third party measurements can be relied on to EQ headphones to below audibility differences. Don't take it too seriously, I don't have the means or the knowledge to do it to a particularly rigorous degree, but the answer is most likely not : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the...-at-a-breakthrough-value.943107/post-16300055

 

[SparkOnShore]

That it's wrong, sorry .

But it's a long, long explanation.

I too share the idea that we should be hearing what the recording / mixing / mastering engineers intended us to hear. Even if we're talking about Brokencyde for which I'd rather listen to with an all spectrum -100dB filter.

But that seems quite a bit difficult to achieve.

So for a start, Adaptive EQ (which is something that has already existed in various form with ANC headphones for a while, albeit perhaps not quite as sophisticated as Apple's implementation) doesn't work above 1khz :
https://twitter.com/oratory1990/status/1343323936801644544?s=20
See the faint grey traces ? That's the multiple measurements with slight positional variations on the dummy head that are then averaged. They coalesce into one trace where Adaptive EQ can work its magic. Above, it's a mess, and beyond the audibility threshold.
The same sort of variation will happen on your own head.
So take away n°1 : headphones' FR curve vary with position over your head, not just seal quality. Adaptive EQ is a great solution to sealing issues, but not to positional variation.

Also, since we all have different ears, heck since even our left from right ears aren't the same, frequency response above 1khz will vary between us, again above the threshold for audibility :

From that study I believe : https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
See the thick grey trace behind the solid black curve ? That's how FR curve near the eardrum of the test subjects vary (measured by probe microphones). You can notice that it can become quite thick (ie high variation) at lower frequencies with some headphones (that's a sealing issue), and above 1khz with all of them, and even more so above 5khz (that's variations related to the shape of your ears / canal).
Now it's possible that some variation in that range is desirable, as we all hear differently the same sound source in a natural environment (that article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function).
But the problem is that headphones seem to interact with our ears in a way that is quite a bit different than natural sound sources or a pair of speakers. As a result we see high variation between listeners, and a variation that is undesirable.
There aren't a lot of good solutions to that problem at the moment. EQing this range by ear is a PITA.
But theoretically the headphones of the future will be able to gather enough anatomical data in real time of your ear shape that they'll be able to
a) tailor the FR curve to your own anatomy so that the FR curve delivered at your eardrum is similar to what a natural sound source would have produced,
b) modulate it in real time to compensate for positional variation.
So take away n°2 : headphones' FR curve increasingly varies above 1Khz across several listeners because of anatomical variations, in a way that could be at least partly unnatural, and remains quite difficult to EQ well, particularly, IMO, above 5khz.
But we'll still need to EQ it at some point .

Also, Harman's own research fully acknowledges that personal preferences variation come into play, particularly in terms of bass response below a certain frequency - independent of seal, positional, or anatomical variation :
https://www.headphonesty.com/2020/04/harman-target-curves-part-3/
So take away n°3 : People's preferences, particularly in the bass, may differ quite a bit.

And finally hearing damage or age can modulate what you hear and perhaps require some form of compensation over time.

So in regards to the AirPods Max FR curve and its capacity to deliver recordings as intended by the engineers / artists :
- Below 1khz it measures very rationally (ie corresponds fairly well to Harman's research, that is to say to a "decent pair of speakers in a decent listening room", with a sub bass bump according to the majority of preferences, and is very smooth with no weird bumps or wiggles,), and theoretically Adaptive EQ can ensure that it's quite constant across listeners and immune to sealing variation. But it doesn't feature a bass shelf EQ adjustment which we know should be there according to Harman's research.
- Between 1khz and 4khz the general shape of it corresponds very well to an average of how humans' anatomy naturally modulate the FR curve, with the ear canal gain peak at around 3000hz for example. Top marks for that. But the whole region is quite depressed compared to what Harman's research would suggest corresponds better to "decent speakers in a decent listening room". Difficult to know exactly by how much and as it's in the range where we start to see anatomical variation across humans it's difficult to say "2.7khz is 4.75dB below where it should be". But given how many people have commented on how they prefer it with the "balanced" setting in headphones accommodation it's quite likely that this region is perceived as depressed by quite a few people.
- Above 4khz measurements show a very high degree of variability, in fact even more so than quite a few headphones, even on the same type of rig (GRAS). Difficult to extract any information from them.
- The capacity to apply an audiogram to change its FR curve might be an interesting solution to the latter point.

BTW I just had a bit of fun using in ear mics to measure some of my headphones to see whether third party measurements can be relied on to EQ headphones to below audibility differences. Don't take it too seriously, I don't have the means or the knowledge to do it to a particularly rigorous degree, but the answer is most likely not : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the...-at-a-breakthrough-value.943107/post-16300055

Thanks a lot for this!

 

[SparkOnShore]

That it's wrong, sorry .

But it's a long, long explanation.

I too share the idea that we should be hearing what the recording / mixing / mastering engineers intended us to hear. Even if we're talking about Brokencyde for which I'd rather listen to with an all spectrum -100dB filter.

But that seems quite a bit difficult to achieve.

So for a start, Adaptive EQ (which is something that has already existed in various form with ANC headphones for a while, albeit perhaps not quite as sophisticated as Apple's implementation) doesn't work above 1khz :
https://twitter.com/oratory1990/status/1343323936801644544?s=20
See the faint grey traces ? That's the multiple measurements with slight positional variations on the dummy head that are then averaged. They coalesce into one trace where Adaptive EQ can work its magic. Above, it's a mess, and beyond the audibility threshold.
The same sort of variation will happen on your own head.
So take away n°1 : headphones' FR curve vary with position over your head, not just seal quality. Adaptive EQ is a great solution to sealing issues, but not to positional variation.

Also, since we all have different ears, heck since even our left from right ears aren't the same, frequency response above 1khz will vary between us, again above the threshold for audibility :

From that study I believe : https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
See the thick grey trace behind the solid black curve ? That's how FR curve near the eardrum of the test subjects vary (measured by probe microphones). You can notice that it can become quite thick (ie high variation) at lower frequencies with some headphones (that's a sealing issue), and above 1khz with all of them, and even more so above 5khz (that's variations related to the shape of your ears / canal).
Now it's possible that some variation in that range is desirable, as we all hear differently the same sound source in a natural environment (that article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function).
But the problem is that headphones seem to interact with our ears in a way that is quite a bit different than natural sound sources or a pair of speakers. As a result we see high variation between listeners, and a variation that is undesirable.
There aren't a lot of good solutions to that problem at the moment. EQing this range by ear is a PITA.
But theoretically the headphones of the future will be able to gather enough anatomical data in real time of your ear shape that they'll be able to
a) tailor the FR curve to your own anatomy so that the FR curve delivered at your eardrum is similar to what a natural sound source would have produced,
b) modulate it in real time to compensate for positional variation.
So take away n°2 : headphones' FR curve increasingly varies above 1Khz across several listeners because of anatomical variations, in a way that could be at least partly unnatural, and remains quite difficult to EQ well, particularly, IMO, above 5khz.
But we'll still need to EQ it at some point .

Also, Harman's own research fully acknowledges that personal preferences variation come into play, particularly in terms of bass response below a certain frequency - independent of seal, positional, or anatomical variation :
https://www.headphonesty.com/2020/04/harman-target-curves-part-3/
So take away n°3 : People's preferences, particularly in the bass, may differ quite a bit.

And finally hearing damage or age can modulate what you hear and perhaps require some form of compensation over time.

So in regards to the AirPods Max FR curve and its capacity to deliver recordings as intended by the engineers / artists :
- Below 1khz it measures very rationally (ie corresponds fairly well to Harman's research, that is to say to a "decent pair of speakers in a decent listening room", with a sub bass bump according to the majority of preferences, and is very smooth with no weird bumps or wiggles,), and theoretically Adaptive EQ can ensure that it's quite constant across listeners and immune to sealing variation. But it doesn't feature a bass shelf EQ adjustment which we know should be there according to Harman's research.
- Between 1khz and 4khz the general shape of it corresponds very well to an average of how humans' anatomy naturally modulate the FR curve, with the ear canal gain peak at around 3000hz for example. Top marks for that. But the whole region is quite depressed compared to what Harman's research would suggest corresponds better to "decent speakers in a decent listening room". Difficult to know exactly by how much and as it's in the range where we start to see anatomical variation across humans it's difficult to say "2.7khz is 4.75dB below where it should be". But given how many people have commented on how they prefer it with the "balanced" setting in headphones accommodation it's quite likely that this region is perceived as depressed by quite a few people.
- Above 4khz measurements show a very high degree of variability, in fact even more so than quite a few headphones, even on the same type of rig (GRAS). Difficult to extract any information from them.
- The capacity to apply an audiogram to change its FR curve might be an interesting solution to the latter point.

BTW I just had a bit of fun using in ear mics to measure some of my headphones to see whether third party measurements can be relied on to EQ headphones to below audibility differences. Don't take it too seriously, I don't have the means or the knowledge to do it to a particularly rigorous degree, but the answer is most likely not : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the...-at-a-breakthrough-value.943107/post-16300055

Are these sound perception variations, which you analyze here so thoroughly, more intense on over ears headphones, or iems, or the same?

 

[MayaTlab]

Are these sound perception variations, [...] more intense on over ears headphones, or iems, or the same?

No idea for IEMs, I don't really care for them so don't read much about it. But while they bypass the outer ear, they may have additional issues related to insertion depth (see points 6, "measuring systems" and 7, "coupler resonance") :
https://crinacle.com/2020/04/08/graphs-101-how-to-read-headphone-measurements/
The introduction of a newer test rig, the B&K 5128, presumably a better representation of the average human ear, also introduced some debate in regard to the FR curve of IEMs :
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/headphone-measurements-the-new-standard-part-1.937301/

 

[SparkOnShore]

No idea for IEMs, I don't really care for them so don't read much about it. But while they bypass the outer ear, they may have additional issues related to insertion depth (see points 6, "measuring systems" and 7, "coupler resonance") :
https://crinacle.com/2020/04/08/graphs-101-how-to-read-headphone-measurements/
The introduction of a newer test rig, the B&K 5128, presumably a better representation of the average human ear, also introduced some debate in regard to the FR curve of IEMs :
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/headphone-measurements-the-new-standard-part-1.937301/

Do you believe that iems by design, they tend to have a relatively inferior sound outcome, due to the lack of space around the ear and its subsequent lack of the outer ear’s contribution to the sound perception? The outer ear may indeed contribute to the mentioned unwanted variations but also to a more natural perception, I guess.

 

[MayaTlab]

Do you believe that iems by design, they tend to have a relatively inferior sound outcome, due to the lack of space around the ear and its subsequent lack of the outer ear’s contribution to the sound perception? The outer ear may indeed contribute to the mentioned unwanted variations but also to a more natural perception, I guess.

No. Or at least not until we know how to reliably design over-ears in a way that they naturally (and not unnaturally) excite our ears - something I'm not even certain could realistically be done for most headphones types without a smart, active component (IMO passive headphones should be going the way of the dodo sooner rather than later).
The idea of exciting the outer ear in a way that corresponds to our natural HRTF is I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong - behind Rtings's PRTF evaluation. But I'm not quite sure at all that the results are conclusive.
For what it's worth I largely prefer the sound of my AirPods Pro in the upper mids and trebles than a lot of over-ears BT headphones I've tried in 2020 and 2021.

 

[SparkOnShore]

No. Or at least not until we know how to reliably design over-ears in a way that they naturally (and not unnaturally) excite our ears - something I'm not even certain could realistically be done for most headphones types without a smart, active component (IMO passive headphones should be going the way of the dodo sooner rather than later).
The idea of exciting the outer ear in a way that corresponds to our natural HRTF is I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong - behind Rtings's PRTF evaluation. But I'm not quite sure at all that the results are conclusive.
For what it's worth I largely prefer the sound of my AirPods Pro in the upper mids and trebles than a lot of over-ears BT headphones I've tried in 2020 and 2021.

Yes but i assume you don’t prefer the AirPods Pro over the Max, do you? Since I got the Max i much prefer using them than the APP. The smart / active component you mention is there, on the APM, so I mean their sound seems to be much more natural to my ears than even the one of the APP, more over other older passive iems.

 

[tinyman392]

My theory against eq is different; I believe that if a consumer uses eq, he may change the manufacturer’s interpretation of original artist’s intention, which may result to a different sound. I mean there is the original artist’s will and then a professional audio company which creates a product to present that original will. Others can be closer to the source while others may interpret the material with a bass friendly or a brighter flare. This is where a consumer can choose according to his preferences and reliability of each manufacturer. But change of the sound according to consumer’s will, while perfectly possible, may result to a far different sound from the one created by the artist, something I just don’t want to do. Apple’s continuous eq, by its computational audio approach, is a whole different story, because it adjusts the FR according to positional or environmental deficiencies, in order to maintain the desired curve on consumer’s ears, as that has been tuned by Apple’s technicians in order to represent each artist’s original will. So, I seem to be quite against the possibility of altering artist’s concept of his own sound. What’s your opinion on this?

If you EQ per song, then yes to an extent still. Though EQs have historically be designed to fix an audio system rather than to "fix" a song itself. Think about a normal speaker system. Depending on the room it may amplify and absorb different sound frequencies and at different locations. So if you change the location of the speaker system (IE install it elsewhere) you'll likely want to EQ said speaker system for the room that its in. This really doesn't change the recording of the song as it does change the sound of the speaker system. Normally one would EQ the speaker system to be flat, hence the entire equalizing name of it. Lately, this may not be true as people fix the speakers, or in this case, the headphones to their preference rather than EQing to individual songs or even genres.

If you want to look at EQing from the song's perspective, if you choose one EQ to rule them all (for that pair of headphones), then you're EQing all songs vs individual songs. You could argue that by EQing all songs you're changing all songs from their original "intent." However, each headphone on its own already colors the music hence you change the song's original "intent" by choosing a pair of headphones (or even a DAC/amp for that matter). Normally when we talk about deficiencies of music on Head-Fi using our descriptive words, each word will link to a certain instrument/set of instruments that aren't being reproduced properly. Hence the coloration or loss of information; loss of the original "intent" of the artist.

When I do headphone comparisons I will generally avoid EQing altogether though since 1) not everyone has access to an EQ and 2) that just adds a whole other slew of variables (what EQ do we choose, why do we choose that one, what happens if a headphone objective sounds better when it's not flattened to your preference?). If you begin choosing multiple EQs you run into combinatorial issues which just isn't worth it. The other thing that comes up is that EQing them could bring them further from the engineer's original intent and time spent; their intent if you may. All the time and effort they put into getting the headphones to sound the way they want it to and hearing that has gone away.

Yes but i assume you don’t prefer the AirPods Pro over the Max, do you? Since I got the Max i much prefer using them than the APP. The smart / active component you mention is there, on the APM, so I mean their sound seems to be much more natural to my ears than even the one of the APP, more over other older passive iems.

Tonality-wise, I actually still prefer the APP; it's a lot more linear to my ears. In terms of technical ability the APM is better.

 

[MayaTlab]

Yes but i assume you don’t prefer the AirPods Pro over the Max, do you? Since I got the Max i much prefer using them than the APP. The smart / active component you mention is there, on the APM, so I mean their sound seems to be much more natural to my ears than even the one of the APP, more over other older passive iems.

As I already wrote, it isn't past 1khz. The only headphones I know of that attempted to break past the 1khz barrier and try to provide a customised FR in that range on their own with their own sensors and DSP is the N90Q by AKG. Never tried them and I'm not sure that their solution was sophisticated enough to move past the uncanny valley.
I prefer the APP over the APM in general above 1khz. And the APM below it.
My ideal headphones right now without EQ would combine the APM below 1khz with the HD650 above .

 

[SparkOnShore]

As I already wrote, it isn't past 1khz. The only headphones I know of that attempted to break past the 1khz barrier and try to provide a customised FR in that range on their own with their own sensors and DSP is the N90Q by AKG. Never tried them and I'm not sure that their solution was sophisticated enough to move past the uncanny valley.
I prefer the APP over the APM in general above 1khz. And the APM below it.
My ideal headphones right now without EQ would combine the APM below 1khz with the HD650 above .

To my ears, APP are too bright above 1khz, that’s why I really loved and appreciated the depressed high mids of the APM. I don’t know why but bright headphones have always been disturbing me, even though I was getting the extra clarity perception, still i could never appreciate them enough. Most probably it has to do with my ears. For me the FR of the APM is just really good. Also to my ears, even though the high mids are depressed on the APM, they do not sound covered or “hidden” by other frequencies, so even though they are not emphasized, they still retain their relevant clarity which sounds brilliant to me.