[maverickronin]

Quote:

The thing is, the compensations seem to be quite different when the manufacturer puts them out, more than just removing how the ear hears. I've always wondered how in the world Beyerdynamic came up with things like this. 

Quote:

That my friend...is called marketing.

 
Assuming they didn't just make it up it could be an the response in an IEC baffle or something similar.  Either way it's a lie though since they don't sound like that in the actual headphones...

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

 
Also, I hate to say it, but if anyone's taken apart a T1 and compared to the internals of the DT880... Yes, I'm biased. But I have this image in my mind that bean-counters at Beyer are rolling around in a pile of Euros laughing at us.

 
That's why the latest craze is modding the T1s.  FINALLY!!  
 
Fanboys don't improve products that are 'perfect' already.  

 

[Gwarmi]

 Having spent a lot of time with the DT990 Premium 600ohm (my own) and a few loaner pairs of the DT880 in 250ohm
 and 600ohm coupled with the T1 - the DT990 in particular is more spacious sounding to my ears even if it is a tad sub
 bassy at times - I don't mind the T1 but like others above, it is difficult to justify the leap from $398AUD DT880 to $1198AUD
 for the T1.
 
 In my opinion it is not a leap equivalent to let's say going from an RS1i ($695) to a PS1000 ($1799 down here)

 

[Focker]

Quote:

 Having spent a lot of time with the DT990 Premium 600ohm (my own) and a few loaner pairs of the DT880 in 250ohm
 and 600ohm coupled with the T1 - the DT990 in particular is more spacious sounding to my ears even if it is a tad sub
 bassy at times - I don't mind the T1 but like others above, it is difficult to justify the leap from $398AUD DT880 to $1198AUD
 for the T1.
 
 In my opinion it is not a leap equivalent to let's say going from an RS1i ($695) to a PS1000 ($1799 down here)

 
I agree, I like the T1 quite a bit better than my DT880s, but I don't see any reason to pay full retail for them. It's very easy to find them for $1000, and they can probably be had for even less if someone looked hard enough. I ended up paying around $920 when I combined it with one of Jan Meiers amps in a package...I couldn't be happier with it. 
 
And you already know how you have me drooling over the PS1000s

 

[proton007]

I think Tyll said it well in his discussion with Steve G. 
Measurements can provide a basis for you to have a starting point. Major differences in measurements can categorize headphones into 'general' signatures, and you can go from there, look for subtle differences.

 

[kiteki]

 
In blue, all that proves is that we can't fully trust single measurements, since another model may have less distortion, less noise, and more extended FR, or the adverse, in theory.
 
Looking at Sonove, Goldenears, innerfidelity, and custom IEM manufacturers, the measurements deviate quite a lot too.

No...you're looking at it wrong.

What it proves is the manufacturers low standards in managing quality control.
 
I have seen many a stock T50RP measured and they measure extremely similarly.  The fact that the T1 (beyer) and the DT1350 (Oh...ANOTHER beyer) have such variances simply proves that beyer is an utter failure at putting out a decent standardized headphone model.

 
 

In blue, all that proves is that we can't fully trust single measurements, since another model may have less distortion, less noise, and more extended FR, or the adverse, in theory.

Looking at Sonove, Goldenears, innerfidelity, and custom IEM manufacturers, the measurements deviate quite a lot too.

*sigh* Yes, you can twist and manipulate your interpretation to serve whatever master you like. I think it's kind of in poor form to use measurements and data as a data point for dismissing all measurements and data though (tell me you see the irony) - LFF's argument is more plausible and likely the case. Especially since purrin isn't the only one who's noted the massive discrepancies between Beyer products. Really, what's easier to believe:

- That a hobbyist with no (as far as we know) vested interest in the outcome of any of his non-commerical measurements has screwed up every time he's tried different Beyer headphones, but can consistently measure other products.
 

 
You're looking too deeply into my comment.  If the T50RP has been measured multiple times, very similarly, then it's likely that pattern will continue.
 
I said it proves we can't really trust singlular measurements, for example of a new headphone, since it could very well be 'another Tesla' differing along the product line.  Perhaps it comes down to the driver technology and manufacturing process though, in the case of the T50RP, it could be very uniform, while in other cases the sound may deviate with very small deviations in the driver or diaphragm processing.  If the Tesla series deviates a lot, there is a reason.
 
The second point though, is measurements seem to deviate quite a lot from site to site.  Diffuse field and free field aside. =/
 
 

 
Also, I hate to say it, but if anyone's taken apart a T1 and compared to the internals of the DT880... Yes, I'm biased. But I have this image in my mind that bean-counters at Beyer are rolling around in a pile of Euros laughing at us.
 

 
How about the T5p then, DT770?  I could do one of those surveys like you did if you want, not just pulling opinions from the internet but in real life I mean.

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

Quote:

 
 
 
You're looking too deeply into my comment.  If the T50RP has been measured multiple times, very similarly, then it's likely that pattern will continue.
 
I said it proves we can't really trust singlular measurements, for example of a new headphone, since it could very well be 'another Tesla' differing along the product line.  Perhaps it comes down to the driver technology and manufacturing process though, in the case of the T50RP, it could be very uniform, while in other cases the sound may deviate with very small deviations in the driver or diaphragm processing.  If the Tesla series deviates a lot, there is a reason.
 
The second point though, is measurements seem to deviate quite a lot from site to site.  Diffuse field and free field aside. =/
 
 
 
How about the T5p then, DT770?  I could do one of those surveys like you did if you want, not just pulling opinions from the internet but in real life I mean.

 
You have to compare the measurements within their own context. A waterfall CSD generated from Tyll's data could never really be directly compared against Purrin's waterfall CSD data in terms of raw durations, just as you can't compare Golden Ear's waterfall CSDs directly against Purrin's. If something rings for 2ms at a certain frequency when Purrin measures and it rings for 1ms when Golden Ear's measures, you can't think of it as a direct amount of time -- it's a relative comparison against other headphones measured by the same set up. This explains a lot of the differences from site to site.

 

[DigitalFreak]

After reading this whole thread I can honestly say I thank God almighty Himself that I'm not an audiophile and only a music nut.
 
@ purrin @LFF @RhythmDevils
 
Purrin thanks for putting all the extra effort into your graphs and taking the time to create this thread and exposing some of the lack luster qualities some so called summit-fi gear possess. LFF, RhythmDevils thanks for taking the time to post on this thread and putting up with the probable aggravation of trying to correct certain peoples misconceptions concerning graphs and what purrin is trying to do with the creation of this thread. To me this thread has served  to further demonstrate that just because a headphone costs 1000+ bones it doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a quality manufactured product that's sonically untouchable. It's to bad certain people in the summit-fi threads haven't figured that out yet. It's also a shame the shills always seem to take over a thread when someone tries to post something constructive in hopes of pointing out a certain flaw in a sound signature in hopes of warning others of certain problematic areas that could be bothersome for certain people. It's a shame so many people seem to like to argue about silly things when in the end the point of taking part in a hobby is just to have a little fun.
 
Speaking of fun I think it's time I threw on one of my headphones plug it into my UHA-4 or ALO RX MKII amp and crank some of my most loved music. I think this time around I'll throw on my super cheap incredibly overly bassy and probably atrociously measuring Sony XB700's crank some hardhouse and go nuts running around the block terrifying the neighbors. Next up maybe I'll throw on my TRi-Fi 10's or maybe my K2 sp's IEM's crank some rock and metal and rock out all over the house in my underwear. Believe it or not as ridiculous as it may sound in the past I actually have run all over the house in my underwear rocking out. For me that's the final test of fire I put my gear through. If it can move me enough to make me throw caution to the wind and go full out crazy to my music then it's what I call gear worth keeping. To bad some people just can't or won't let themselves step back from their self created reality distortion zone turn on some good music and just let themselves have some fun.
 
Keep fighting the good fight guys
 
Bless
Arly

 

[kiteki]

 
You have to compare the measurements within their own context. A waterfall CSD generated from Tyll's data could never really be directly compared against Purrin's waterfall CSD data in terms of raw durations, just as you can't compare Golden Ear's waterfall CSDs directly against Purrin's. If something rings for 2ms at a certain frequency when Purrin measures and it rings for 1ms when Golden Ear's measures, you can't think of it as a direct amount of time -- it's a relative comparison against other headphones measured by the same set up. This explains a lot of the differences from site to site.

 
Okay, well that arrives at the point - you can only compare data from the same source.
 
However, there is still an issue here.  If there are four sets of data and they all differ, then which one is accurate?  If the answer is - we can't conclude which one is accurate, then measurements are only useful in comparing one IEM or headphone to the next, within the same system.
 
I still have issues there though, I looked at the FR and CSD of the JVC FX500 and FX700 and there's hardly any difference.  I intially concluded they had the same driver, and that wasn't the case. =/
 
The FX700 uses a different type of wood, sound different, and has a much larger enclosure and soundspace.  It's pretty clear, that soundstage / soundspace are not visible in the measurements.  Neither is frequency overlap / driver integration, or imaging precision.
 
Then come unique voicings.  For example, a maple fretboard electric guitar versus an ebony fretboard.  They sound different, where do you find it in the FR?  It's hidden there somewhere, in a deep forest of chaotic overtones.  I don't expect anyone can actually see if a headphone is ebony or maple either, if that's an aim.  If you only want an open-window Apex sonata whatever, just get speakers, imho.

 

[Magick Man]

In most situations, with most audiophiles, no I don't believe they correlate. After years and years of personal "testing" and listening to the opinions of professional and amateur reviewers, I feel most hardcore audio enthusiasts are almost completely inflexible in their beliefs. Audiophilia is spiritual, almost religious, in nature, and is about the search for audible truth, not fact. Sound, for them, is occult (in the literal sense), and their equipment is chosen and setup to help them try to find illumination.



*the above is not meant to be inflammatory, it's simply my observation.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:
 
You are beginning to straw man this thread.  The topic is not to that we can explain all sonic attributes using CSDs, only that they provide very real and useful information if people choose to use them appropriately.  If you want to have the fight you are looking for you know where to go.  In case you haven't actually read the thread I suggest you do so you actually understand the OPs perspective instead of misrepresenting it and derailing the thread. You're now arguing against something that wasn't even in the post you quoted or the topic of the thread. 

 

[kiteki]

I was linked to this thread from the sound science sub-forum, it was provided as evidence in a conversation there by Maverick, so I continued the nature of that thread here, that's all.
 
If this thread doesn't want sound science type conversations it should indicate so in the first post.  The survey looked like it was accumulating data I didn't even notice which sub-forum this was in.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I was linked to this thread from the sound science sub-forum, it was provided as evidence in a conversation there by Maverick, so I continued the nature of that thread here, that's all.
 
If this thread doesn't want sound science type conversations it should indicate so in the first post.  The survey looked like it was accumulating data I didn't even notice which sub-forum this was in.

 
With all due respect, I don't care if God linked it.  No it shouldn't, because the thread is not in the sound science or the subjectivist/objectivist yank fest forum.  Just imagine every thread not in that forum w/ a disclaimer, uh..no.  
 
You'd be better off making a separate thread on voicing and the timbre of woods vs. measurements over there in Hades.

 

[Magick Man]

Related: http://www.head-fi.org/t/533508/new-beyer-dt1350/1740#post_8467838

Admittedly, I haven't really cared that much to formally track headphone variance and consistency because the super vast majority have been fine (from my subjective experiences and verified via objective measurements.) Formal tracking of this (and precision testing) is probably something I should do.

BTW, Tyll did find consistency issues with the early LCD3s, just as I did. Tyll even wrote an investigative report about it.


P.S. Somehow, I feel that even I had formally tracked the DT1350, performed multiple precision tests on these pairs and of the measurement rig, and found two more "defective" Teslas, some people still wouldn't be satisfied and continue to give the 5th degree rather than asking Beyer WTFIGO?

Also, I hate to say it, but if anyone's taken apart a T1 and compared to the internals of the DT880... Yes, I'm biased. But I have this image in my mind that bean-counters at Beyer are rolling around in a pile of Euros laughing at us.

I said the same two months ago, claiming that the differences between the 880s and T1s are quite small and not worth the added expense. Before then I was fully prepared to buy a new set of T1s, had money in hand and was about to order them. Then I had the rare opportunity to listen to them side by side on the same system and... I wasn't blown away. I mean, I was impressed with the 880s, but the T1s were just a subtle improvement. This wasn't just some run-of-the-mill average rig either, we're talking; McIntosh MCD1100> McIntosh MA6600> `phones. It's an impressive sounding, though short, chain. In a completely blind test I doubt many could point out the differences without knowing exactly what to listen for. Yeah, they're that close.

Anyway, I came back here to mention what I'd heard and I was heavily criticized, even told that my hearing must be defective. :rolleyes: Two days later I ordered the DT880/600s and I've been happy with them.

 

[Anaxilus]

The MA6600 is actually pretty nice.  I was told the MCD1100 HO was specifically designed for headphones but I preferred the MA6600's amp section personally.  The MCD1100 was a little soft and boomy in the low end but as a DAC was quite nice.