[preproman]

So I guess both of you are saying all neutral amps measure the same, Duh - no..  
 
The HE-400 is not flat.  It has spiky treble and colored mid bass and sub bass.  Far from a Paradox.
 
Most people can't tell what they like based on a chart.  ie..
 

David ??  Did his review.  Now based on his review alone, new head fi'ers are making their purchases.  And just like Chewy4 (maybe) most people purchase headphones on popularity.  If a thread is really active
 
Everybody don't use the O2, some use tube amps, some use colored SS amps and some use very aggressive amps.  So there again.  The measurements on your O2 will not be the same as on any of those amps.   
 
Is purin God or something..DUH??  NO?? Nuff said and my point exactly  I enjoy the T1 and it really doesn't matter what a FR says it peaks at. I like the T1 way more than 880.  But I do like the 880 better than T70 and T90.  
 
I don't go on what Purin say.  I go on what my subjective ears tell me what I enjoy with my choice of music - period.
 
Everything used is a factor.

 

[preproman]

No wonder - this is the sound science forum.
 
Let me get outta here..  

 

[xnor]

Quote:

So I guess both of you are saying all neutral amps measure the same, Duh - no..  

No, you're putting words in other people's mouth.
 
Quote:

Most people can't tell what they like based on a chart.  ie..

Most people also do not care about high fidelity.
 
Quote:

Everybody don't use the O2, some use tube amps, some use colored SS amps and some use very aggressive amps.  So there again.  The measurements on your O2 will not be the same as on any of those amps.   

The O2 was just one example, as I wrote. If you use a broken amp with rolled off FR, high distortion or whatnot then you of course have to factor that in. But then again these people probably don't care about high fidelity and don't look for an accurate headphone.
Again, nobody said something of equal measurements. We can measure far more than what we can hear...
 
Quote:

Is purin God or something..DUH??  NO?? Nuff said and my point exactly  I enjoy the T1 and it really doesn't matter what a FR says it peaks at. I like the T1 way more than 880.  But I do like the 880 better than T70 and T90.  
 
I don't go on what Purin say.  I go on what my subjective ears tell me what I enjoy with my choice of music - period.

No, he's just a random guy but I couldn't have said it better. You're right, it doesn't matter how a headphone measures if you like it for the special way it sounds. That's not high fidelity though.
 
Maybe try to calm down a bit?

 

[Prava]

Quote:

Why such a big fuss over this? I think we can all agree that objective measurements (balanced FR, low distortion, etc) generally correlate to how well someone might subjectively evaluate a certain headphone. And since the vast majority of high-end headphones perform incredibly well on paper, if you were someone who wanted to buy one, you might want a flesh-and-bones human to sit down with all of the models and explain which ones he thought were best. This is the purpose of headphone reviews. It won't be as good as sitting down with them yourself, but most of us don't have that sort of cash to blow.

 
That wouldn't be a good idea, not at all. Whenever I'm reading a headphone review I always try to draw a "base line", and to do that I simply check reviewers who have reviewed cans I already have, in order to establish some base lines.
 
But still, you can't do DBT on headphones (simply because you could feel which is which on your head), which is they only reason I care for opinions of them. Amps? Dac's? Transports? The only logic in those devices is to use DBT, and nothing else, because once all the bias are removed what remains are the pure truth. Of course, that truth is not very friendly for those who are selling devices worth some $$$$ but, for anybody in the market, everything related to cables, dac's, transports and amps should be reviewed ONLY based on DBT tests... but, because nobody does that, all the industry seems to me like a big pile of ****, and one in which "the more expensive, the better".
 
Quote:

Better yet.  Just let the subjective hearing of your own ears be the judge of your personal enjoyment.

 
Sure, but the problem comes when you try to share your opinions into others. Heck, somebody just said some days ago that his Essence One actually sounded a lot better after changing the USB and the power cable. Just like that. Bam! In your face.
 
That is the problem in the world of today. You buy something, and you expect something from it. Its totally impossible to test different devices that have a different cost and, knowing such differences, make an objective unbiased opinion. But not because you don't want to, you simply can't.
 
I have the O2, and the Matrix M-Stage and Fiio E9 (all low and mid range amps) and, guess what? Unless I DBT them, I can tell you that I'd pick the O2 first, the Matrix second and, last, the E9. And I'd swear about those being my feelings and perceptions... but you just can't lie to yourself and deny that If you have preference for something you will pick it among other things if there is any doubt regarding which is the better (and even if the difference is not that big).
 
---
 
So, all in all thats why I only care about comments on cans... and, even then, with a truck load of salt. Its clear that the industry wants to sell expensive gear and that DBT would deffinitely hurt those sales, and thus why reviewers only care about meaningless words and not actual work (in stuff that you can test without being biased, such as everything except headphones because you'd feel them on your head, and could probably make a very good guess about which is which).

 

[proton007]

I think a lot of us forget that a headphone or a speaker is not (entirely) art. 
 
Most headphones and speakers are not made by some artist who designed it by ear with random parts lying around. It was made by setting some design objectives, measuring the performance, and iterating as many times as required. This ensures consistency, in that your equipment doesn't have mood swings.
 
Yes there were days when this used to be the norm, hand making stuff such that no two parts looked exactly alike, but it was also unreliable and nowhere as consistent. Might work for Ferrari when you're making 50 units, but doesn't work for BMW.
 
You can try to push in your art (subjective, trust my ears) as much as you want, but its never going to be a good yardstick for creating or selling stuff in the market.
You can sell a painting by the subjective approach, selling a gadget is a totally different playing field. 

 

[OJNeg]

Quote:

 
That wouldn't be a good idea, not at all. Whenever I'm reading a headphone review I always try to draw a "base line", and to do that I simply check reviewers who have reviewed cans I already have, in order to establish some base lines.
 
But still, you can't do DBT on headphones (simply because you could feel which is which on your head), which is they only reason I care for opinions of them. Amps? Dac's? Transports? The only logic in those devices is to use DBT, and nothing else, because once all the bias are removed what remains are the pure truth. Of course, that truth is not very friendly for those who are selling devices worth some $$$$ but, for anybody in the market, everything related to cables, dac's, transports and amps should be reviewed ONLY based on DBT tests... but, because nobody does that, all the industry seems to me like a big pile of ****, and one in which "the more expensive, the better".
 

 
I was referring specifically to headphone reviews. When it comes to DACs, cables, etc. you have to take audio reviews with a grain of salt. Sometimes the whole shaker.
 
Back to what proton was saying, I totally agree. A good headphone review should include measurements as well as a subjective opinion. Tyll at IF (and JA at Stereophile) do it best. He listens first, then measures to see how close his impression came to what he measured. I'd imagine after a while, you'd get pretty good at telling how a headphone will measure based on its perceived sound. These sorts of reviews are the best because they can qualify their impressions with what was measured and vice versa. Moreover, getting both the measurements and an opinion gives context to the measurements that just looking at a graph doesn't provide.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

 
I was referring specifically to headphone reviews. When it comes to DACs, cables, etc. you have to take audio reviews with a grain of salt. Sometimes the whole shaker.
 
Back to what proton was saying, I totally agree. A good headphone review should include measurements as well as a subjective opinion. Tyll at IF (and JA at Stereophile) do it best. He listens first, then measures to see how close his impression came to what he measured. I'd imagine after a while, you'd get pretty good at telling how a headphone will measure based on its perceived sound. These sorts of reviews are the best because they can qualify their impressions with what was measured and vice versa. Moreover, getting both the measurements and an opinion gives context to the measurements that just looking at a graph doesn't provide.

Exactly.
If not for reviews like this, it would never be possible to understand graphs for most readers, and we would never be interested in learning more about the science of audio. 
Sometimes it takes a little bit of effort to try and learn new things, one should not simply refute measurements without even trying. 
We can keep saying, I trust my ears, but how would we ever know if our ears are worth trusting? Are they even working alright? Always good to have objective measurements to support the claims.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

So, why the hell is this the norm for headphones?

 
It's not the norm, but certainly the prevailing practice given the difficulty of and variety of methods for measuring headphones. There are people out there who will provide you with both subjective and objective measurements in their reviews. One such review is here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/614011/sennheiser-hd700-review
 
The above review was written in conjunction with LFF and took a good amount of effort and re-writes. Even though the review is fairly succinct, it was a rather difficult and time-consuming process to get all the points across which we wanted to. It was also written in a more dry style to avoid judgement based on personal preferences. However, it's impossible to totally avoid this.
 
Still, I do find Dave's guide valuable as a quick resource. It's another set of data points (more data points, even subjective, are valuable) and I found his impressions consistent (with measurements more or less) once you understand his reference points (all things are relative - bright to one person may be neutral to another, painful to one may be bright to another, etc.) In other words, I feel anyone could trust his impressions if they took time to understand where he was coming from or after talking with him in some detail (I'm sure he's flooded with pms.)
 
BTW, most of HF is a "subjective" place since it's difficult for most people to understand measurements and how they translate subjectively, especially those more complex measurements which are not simple FR graphs, i.e. non linear distortion, CSDs, etc. There are other places on the Internet where there are both subjective and objective impressions. Tyll's IF is one such place.
 
In the past, I've tried to steer HF to using more objective evaluation methods (in conjunction with subjective impressions too since measurements are limited in what they convey), but because of lack of interest, people taking what I say out of "context" or not understanding that my goal was "high fidelity", people with mental problems who simply want to argue for the sake for arguing, or just me receiving too much crap (most of it in the form of snide passive-aggressive feelings of contempt), I've pretty much stopped posting objective measurements here (unless someone requests them.)
 
People just get all hell bent all out of shape when their favored headphones don't measure objectively well. This usually arises from those who don't understand that everything is relative, this includes measurements and especially personal preferences.
 
Of course there's always the other side of the coin where some people believe that measurements explain everything and all phenomena headphone related. Which by their nature (in many cases, complex mathematical transforms), they do not.

 

[MrHeuristic]

Quote:

One such review is here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/614011/sennheiser-hd700-review
 
...
 
In the past, I've tried to steer HF to using more objective evaluation methods (in conjunction with subjective impressions too since measurements are limited in what they convey), but because of lack of interest, people taking what I say out of "context" or not understanding that my goal was "high fidelity", people with mental problems who simply want to argue for the sake for arguing, or just me receiving too much crap (most of it in the form of snide passive-aggressive feelings of contempt), I've pretty much stopped posting objective measurements here (unless someone requests them.)
 
People just get all hell bent all out of shape when their favored headphones don't measure objectively well. This usually arises from those who don't understand that everything is relative, this includes measurements and especially personal preferences.

 
 
Thanks for that. Your review seems to be the perfect balance of measurements and your personal experience; very much like the lens reviews I was using as an analogy. No fluff, no ********, no swapping cables.
I wish everyone else reviewed like you, and that there were reviews like this for most of the popular headphones out there.
 
 
Thanks everyone for your replies on this thread. I've read them all, and they've been enlightening. It's interesting to see how vehemently some are opposed to objective measurements as a guide to purchasing headphones. It also seems that the measurements need to be simplified, or maybe more people need to be educated about what a 'perfect' reference frequency response curve would look like, and then understand why most headphones fall short. To me, it seems simple; buy the headphones in your price range that come closest to 'perfect' frequency response. If there are more expensive headphones that don't improve on the frequency response curve (and other factors like build quality and aesthetics are the same/similar), don't waste your money.
 
If that's not what you're interested in — hearing sound as accurate and close to reference as possible — then there's no reason to call yourself an audiophile. Shouldn't hi-fidelity involve, you know, showing fidelity to the original source as it was intended?

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

If that's not what you're interested in — hearing sound as accurate and close to reference as possible — then there's no reason to call yourself an audiophile. Shouldn't hi-fidelity involve, you know, showing fidelity to the original source as it was intended?

 
What on earth makes you think we're all audiophiles?  Personally - I'm simply a music lover.  The gear (to me) is merely a means of delivering the music.  I own relatively flat/neutral cans, and I own very coloured (fun) cans.  And I love and use both equally.

 

[BIG POPPA]

Hey Brooko audiophile/music lover....same thing.. look at the definition....

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

Hey Brooko audiophile/music lover....same thing.. look at the definition....

 
Actually the strict definition of audiophile is sound-lover, not music-lover.  Hence you'll sometimes see people comment that the true audiophile listens to his gear more than his music.  For me it's always been the music.  I guess that's why I commented on it.  I seem to see (often) the references to 'hifidelity' or 'as the artist intended'.  This is fine if it's what you're after.  Personally I'd rather have something that was completely enjoyable.  Hence I'd rather refer to myself as a music lover than an audiophile.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

 
Actually the strict definition of audiophile is sound-lover, not music-lover.  Hence you'll sometimes see people comment that the true audiophile listens to his gear more than his music.  For me it's always been the music.  I guess that's why I commented on it.  I seem to see (often) the references to 'hifidelity' or 'as the artist intended'.  This is fine if it's what you're after.  Personally I'd rather have something that was completely enjoyable.  Hence I'd rather refer to myself as a music lover than an audiophile.

+1 on that! 

 

[preproman]

Quote:

 
Actually the strict definition of audiophile is sound-lover, not music-lover.  Hence you'll sometimes see people comment that the true audiophile listens to his gear more than his music.  For me it's always been the music.  I guess that's why I commented on it.  I seem to see (often) the references to 'hifidelity' or 'as the artist intended'.  This is fine if it's what you're after.  Personally I'd rather have something that was completely enjoyable.  Hence I'd rather refer to myself as a music lover than an audiophile.

 
Good Post Brooko

 

[eucariote]

Quote:

 
Inconsistent methodologies.  That's why scientific publications always contain detailed methods sections, which is often the only part that people care about.  You can't throw out measurement and you can't not buy it.  If you live past the age of 35 you've already bought it.

 

 
Says who?  Yes I'm past 35, well past it.

  
 
If it's inconsistent then it's not objective. Point Blank.  Like I said.  I don't buy it.  I would rather rely on my own subjective ears.  Thank you very much.

 
Because you'd be dead of polio, syphilis or a mouse bite infection that we have since leaned to treat or eradicate thanks to measurement.  Pick up a molecular biology textbook (or engineering, chemistry, etc etc), you'll marvel at what has been learned by measurement.  I'm not knocking subjective experience, I base most of my buying decisions on auditory comparisons, and own good headphones in an effort to achieve aesthetic bliss.  But scientific methods are a means, not an impediment to that goal.