Featured Sponsor Listings

Demystifying the "flat curve"?

Aug 13, 2004 at 1:03 AM Post #46 of 67
Quote:

Originally Posted by aphex944
You can go after the most accurate reproduction possible, but in my opinion, it's better to go after what sounds best to you. Since we all perceive things differently, it's the only thing we have.


I don't disagree with anything you said. I just think the statement of, 'it's 100% subjective, therefore discussion is pointless' is directly of counter to the reason we're all on here. Would render this site useless.

I come to head-fi to get well-educated, subjective opinions, along with reliable, empirical information which add depth and perspectives to peoples' opinions.

etysmile.gif
 
Aug 13, 2004 at 10:19 AM Post #47 of 67
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Scarpitti
I have been more than fair to the V6's, having owned them twice. What more do you want?


It would just be nice if you could accept that, as shocking as it might be, other people may have opinions different from yours, and that owning Lambdas doesn't make you necessarily the holder of ultimate truth (and if you looked at some profiles of those who like the V6s, you might discover that some of them do so not just because they've been exposed only to 60$ cans...).
 
Aug 13, 2004 at 10:06 PM Post #50 of 67
Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterR
It would just be nice if you could accept that, as shocking as it might be, other people may have opinions different from yours, and that owning Lambdas doesn't make you necessarily the holder of ultimate truth (and if you looked at some profiles of those who like the V6s, you might discover that some of them do so not just because they've been exposed only to 60$ cans...).



Yeah, and some people think Cabernet S. is a good food wine...

Some people think Velvia is good film...

There's a sucker born every minute....
 
Aug 13, 2004 at 11:14 PM Post #51 of 67
Listening to headphones (for most people) is all about enjoying the music.

I know that I've been to plenty of live concerts with microphones and acoustics that distorted the music excessively (in a non-pleasing way). Trying to pursue an authentic representation that is not enjoyable is ultimately a pointless exercise.

Why would you want that in a headphone?

If the music produced by the headphone sounds better than the authentic thing, doesn't that make the headphone better than a headphone that produces music "authentically?"

As for Mort's comment:

Quote:

Don't hide behind such existentialism - it gives philosophy a bad name.


What philosophy has given "philosophy" a good name, might I ask? Sophism? Socratic method? Cartesian principles? Existentialism is much more rational than most existing philosophies. Just because it seems to contradict a few tenets of slave morality (religions like Christianity) doesn't mean it's such a bad thing.

As for Mike:

Quote:

Yeah, and some people think Cabernet S. is a good food wine...

Some people think Velvia is good film...

There's a sucker born every minute....


Correction:

For some people, Cabernet S. is a good food wine.

For some people, Velvia is a good film.

And for you, a sucker is born every minute.

You can't escape the fact that your reality is defined by your own unique perception of it...
 
Aug 27, 2004 at 12:45 PM Post #52 of 67
I think when they do their tests they use a base point, the curve from the base point. The equipment one company uses isnt going to be the same as another company so they can only compare what they sell. If you have say the middle set of cans they sell you can hear the curve of that set then look at the difference of the rest of their line. If the middle set of cans you have needs more in the bottom then you can judge what other models that company has with a little higher curve in the bottm. If this makes any sence.

I think all companys should do this and show the curve of all the models they sell. All we would need to do is test one set then judge from there what we want.
 
Aug 27, 2004 at 4:42 PM Post #56 of 67
taymat said:

Quote:

To summarise I guess you could say that just like thd, frequency response means little, the only thing that matters is good sound.


Yep, frequency respnse means little.

Yep, THD means little.

Yep, that's what I might think if I was not paying attention.....

Go re-read the thread. I'm not sure why you make your statement under those links. Were the links 'supposed' to support your assertion?

-Chris
 
Aug 27, 2004 at 5:13 PM Post #57 of 67
Quote:

Originally Posted by BowerR64
Check out my results for that EQ test.


Fascinating! It'd be all for creating a thread where everyone puts up their findings. Could be telling about both equipment and ears, as well.
 
Aug 27, 2004 at 5:41 PM Post #58 of 67
Keep in mind that testing curves on playback equipments, speakers, headphones... is very, very subjective, as opposed to testing on source & amps. You can easily measure the signal output of source & amps, however, with speakers & headphones, there's a lot of other environmental variables.

I don't think there's a single industry standardized way to test speakers and headphones, their curves will vary wildly depending on where you place the pick-up, how far away the pick-up is from the drivers, even individual ear shape changes the sound somewhat. So even though places like Headroom publish charts for some of their headphones, it's only their measurement, in their assumed "technically acceptible" way. Yet there's really no one that can say for sure that any of the testing method in such form isn't flawed in one way or another.

Of course, without some sort of measurement, it would even be harder to purchase any equipment based on no specs at all. However, it's important to keep in mind that frequency response charts is not definitive, not even close, to the way that a certain speaker/headphone sounds. If you're basing your purchasing decision strictly on those type of technical charts and measurements, you'll be making an uninformed decision. You need to audition them to really know what they sound like.

Furthermore, frequency response charts alone doesn't measure a lot of other characteristics of sound... such as detail, instrument separation, soundstage... There are probably other types of measurements that can mimick some type of benchmark for that type of data. In reality though, if we can't even agree on a standardized method to measure frequency response, I don't think you'll see those type of measurements being standardized anytime soon either.

Just remember, benchmarking sound equipment isn't like benchmarking computers... it's not that straight-forward, even though there's very little that's straight forward with computer benchmark either. Even computer benchmark, with a lot more absolute numbers, are often challenged in their method of testing and measuring system performances.
 
Aug 27, 2004 at 6:22 PM Post #59 of 67
Lindrone - Your post should become standard reading for all new Head-Fi members.

What I do think would be interesting about having people run these tests would be the psychology of it. To see how people perceive the response of their systems.

But I agree entirely that measurements only carry us so far toward understanding how capable a setup really is - and a lot less far than most would assume.
 
Aug 27, 2004 at 6:48 PM Post #60 of 67
Just to make this long thread simple:

Every thing that we sense and feel is SUBJECTIVE. That's why we have so many versions of speakers, headphones, cars, televisions and so on. So if something "sound good" to you it doesn't metter if it has falt response or not.

For me the HD590 sounds better then HD650 so I choosed them eventough the HD650 supose to be "better"... and I don't care about the frequency response of the HD590.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top