[shamu144]

Well, they should. In fact, the HRTF variations and mean value from the first graphs are caclulated for a headphone response, even though measurements were done with speakers, because according to them. you can translate the acoustical presure at the open ear canal either into speaker FR or headphone FR. Both are inter-related and the headphone FR can be calculated deriving from the speaker FR. Complex formulas are described for that purpose in the paper.
 
Quote:

 
Thanks for the answer. To be more specific, the issue is that these graphs don't say how differently speakers and headphones are perceived by the human ear.

 

[shamu144]

I think you are right (yes, I know, that was a few months ago

 )
 
As far as I can tell, interindividual differences in HRTF should not affect relative differences when comparing headphones or speakers. But yes, it can change significantly the perception 2 people have of the same headphones.
 
Quote:

Can differences in HRTF significantly change how relative differences are perceived?

 

[shamu144]

I think I have misunderstood you. I certainly agree we are "locked into our own hearing", and we grow with such references (those references can change with the time by the way). But this is only true for sound perceived in the real life. Those sound do project a specific SPL at the entrance of the ear canal, and define our very own HRTF in the context of a specific sound field. If a headphone frequency response do not match this specific HRTF, I understand the headphone will then not sound natural and deviate from our own personal reality. 
 
Now, you are certainly right to raise the question of how much of that HRTF deviations account in the final results when listening with headphones, compared to our own personal preferences for tonal balance (tastes). I sure don't have the answer.
 
Quote:

As a record producer (of jazz and world music) and a listener who also particularly enjoys classical music I'm very interested in how people hear. These graphs seem to show a +/- 2-3dB standard deviation in perceived loudness in the critical presence range of 2-6K. That would certainly make an obvious difference in how we hear, but I don't think it can account for how we differently judge transducers or other playback equipment in terms of frequency response/tonal balance. Since we're all locked into our own hearing, whatever it is, when we say something sounds bright or dark to us we're comparing it with other situations and experiences - concert hall acoustics, house sound amplification, home playback chains - that we're familiar with. There is no external standard, only differences between different experiences of music. If I hear a certain hp as dark in the 2-6K range it's in relation to other phones, speakers, or live music. Someone else should hear that hp as (relatively) dark too, no matter that one of us may be hearing everything in that range as significantly louder or quieter in relation to mids or lows than the other person.
 
I think disagreements about tonal balance have more to do with the fact that each of us has our own concept of what sounds natural and right in the musics we enjoy. For example when I go to the symphony I like to sit in the first or second row - I love the blast of mostly direct sound and being able to hear a long way into complex music. If I sit in the 6th or 10th row, unamplified music already sounds way too dull and generalized to me. On the other hand when I go to jazz concerts that are amplified I'm very sensitive to over-bright EQ, it ruins the beauty of instruments for me. So there's a range of situations that I enjoy, and outside that range my enjoyment is diminished. Someone else, perhaps because their hearing is more sensitive in the presence range and/or because they like a more blended sound, prefers the dress circle at the symphony; another person who enjoys rock or dance music with pumped-up frequency extremes might like jazz EQd that way too. Whatever, the point is that a hp like the Audeze is going to sound darkish to some people (like me) and not to others because of their listening preferences, which are a matter of taste as much as or more than hearing.

 

 

[shamu144]

The more I read, the more I believe there is no such thing as a true flat sounding headphone.
 
First, flat alone means very little if it is not related to a specific sound field. The averaged HRTF corresponding to a Free Field design goal (design goal = curve) is clearly very different from the averaged HRTF corresponding to a Diffuse Field design goal, or again different from the HRTF for the independant of direction design goal (the HRTF used by Tyll at InnerFidelity for adjusting all raw measurments). You need to understand for what sound field were your headphone calibrated.
 
And secondly, you need to adjust for your very own individual HRTF which does not necessarly correspond to the averged design goal of the specific sound field used. We have seen here deviations between individuals of +/-15dB from 5khz for the Free Field design goal. Same goes for a Diffuse Field design goal or other design goals.
 
In theory, for a single individual, there is almost an infinity of frequency response curves that will respond each of them to different sound field conditions and hence, as many correct frequency response for the headphone to sound apparently flat. And I don't believe there is one sound field environment preferable over the others, but that is another discussion.
 
Finally, rather than looking for an utopical absolutely "flat" sounding headphone, I think it make more sense looking for a headphone with a subjectively "balanced" frequency response over the spectrum. Something that doesn't sound too dark or bright for your hearing/tastes, without emphasize in specific frequencies.
 
After all, the frequency response is only one aspect of the music reproduction (relative intensity of different frequencies), and maybe not even the most important.
 
Quote:

But how does a flat sounding headphone measure to the human ear?

 

[ib1dance]

Do we hear all alike or different ?

 
 
The simple answer is both .
 
Two pictures, One of a monkey in a tree the other of a fairy on a magic toadstool .
 
Some people will believe that the  pictures are very different because they look different .
 
But these 2 image's had been produced using exactly the same materials .
 
The difference is only of form/shape ,usually the main human "difference's" are an illusion , imaginary difference's that exists only in the imagination  . The two pictures having different shapes just as any two snow flakes will have different shapes even though they are both simply snow flakes .
 
You could also take some water .Divide the water into 2 parts and make 1 part a different shape than the other part . Although we'd now say the 2 water parts are different shapes and look different we'd also say they are both essential simply water .
 
The same can be applied to all physical matter . There are 118 known chemical elements  .These are the building blocks of everything.
 
Including our ears Individually shaped Anatomy and brains Individual biological psychological makeup that is our personality .
 
So yes, we do all hear alike

.And yes we do all hear that sound uniquely as we are all shaped differently 

.
 
One of those pictures has been painted by studying the True nature of the paint whilst the other is simply our imagination .
 
One picture is named Evolution  the Other is named creation .
 
 

 

[SARodrigues]

Excellent post and thread, it most certainly captured my attention (I've read the original post multiple times!).
 
 
 
Quote: hamu144

So, does true neutrality really exist and is it universal ? I believe the answer is yes, but unfortunaltely not for everyone. You can design a headphone to be as neutral as posible (note that the frequency response is far from a flat line), but it will only sound so to people with average HRTF response. For those persons who present significant deviations from the average HRTF, neutrality will be much more difficult to simulate.

 
You are right, and in my opinion this should be common sense. Does true neutrality exist? Yes and no, since not everyone has the same HRTF response. Being HRTF the brain's very complicated algorithm (so to speak) very adapted and customized to every individual, anything that messes with an individual's HRTF will indeed change the soundwaves arriving at the eardrum. And the headphones do mess with HRTF. 
 
That being said, the only way someone could truly explain the characteristics of said headphones model, would be comparing it to another model both people have listened. There is no way one can make an absolute description of what a pair of headphones will sound like, only relative descriptions.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote: tonereef

I think disagreements about tonal balance have more to do with the fact that each of us has our own concept of what sounds natural and right in the musics we enjoy.

 
Agreed. There is an enormous difference between what sounds real and what someone thinks is real. That being said, there is a big difference when someone says "the violin sounds real in this recording" and "the violin sounds real to me in this recording". We should always assume the second quote since the the listener may not know what real is - only what he thinks is real.
 
 
 
Quote: tonereef

That would certainly make an obvious difference in how we hear, but I don't think it can account for how we differently judge transducers or other playback equipment in terms of frequency response/tonal balance. Since we're all locked into our own hearing, whatever it is, when we say something sounds bright or dark to us we're comparing it with other situations and experiences - concert hall acoustics, house sound amplification, home playback chains - that we're familiar with. There is no external standard, only differences between different experiences of music.

 
Couldn't agree more.

 

[Argo Duck]

subscribed

 

[lawlbear]

Dope post.