[edstrelow]

I would be careful about using Headrooms' frequency responses to determine anything. Some months back when I checked their site, they indicated that they first took an average response from several phones which their people liked and then plotted responses of tested headphones as deviations from this average.

I don't know what they are doing now since their website is under construction, but their prior approach was just cockamamie. The plots they show now do not specify who did them or under what conditions they were run.

 

[sumone]

Saint.Panda, I'm gonna have to keep rereading your post, good stuff in there for me to learn. So the head transfer function...does this affect the full hearing spectrum or just midrange & up?

I know for a fact that the probably 6-8khz needs to be left alone since if you go by the headroom graph (for the hd-280s), there's a 15dB drop.

I also find it hard for me to pinpoint characteristics such as transient response, soundstage, imaging, etc. My whole world of "headphone audio" thus far has just been how good the frequency response is. Either my ears aren't quick enough or I just don't know how to discern these properties.

Still, which line of the headroom graph do you read? Is blue left channel & red the right channel?

 

[saint.panda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumone Saint.Panda, I'm gonna have to keep rereading your post, good stuff in there for me to learn. So the head transfer function...does this affect the full hearing spectrum or just midrange & up?

The HRTF is a rather complex thing and includes issues like sound resonance and diffraction, interaural time and intensity differences and other funny things. Also, even though it is called head related transfer function, the torso and shoulders also add their spectral influences.

Regarding spectral influences, which contributes the non-flat graph, the basics is that whatever body part affects the sound has to have dimensions as to stand in a relation to the wavelength. Longer wavelength are lower frequencies. Therefore bigger body parts like torso, shoulders and the head itself affect lower frequencies whereas the parts of the ear affect the higher frequencies. And since in headphone listening the torso, shoulders, head don't play a role, the really relevant parts of the HRTF for headphone listening are only the frequency above 1-2 KHz. That's why headphone listening is fairly un-subjective under 1-2 Khz (assuming you get a good seal if we're talking about closed headphones).

Quote:

I know for a fact that the probably 6-8khz needs to be left alone since if you go by the headroom graph (for the hd-280s), there's a 15dB drop.

If you want to work with the Headroom graphs, also look at other graphs and see whether one headphone at one point in the graph makes a big jump. If that's the case, then it's most likely something undesirable.

One interesting thing to know about grahps is that shallow bump or dip is more audible than sharp spikes in the frequency response, because a irregularity small in deviation but large in frequency band crosses several critical bands in hearing. Note that this is completely opposite to what most people believe.

Quote:

I also find it hard for me to pinpoint characteristics such as transient response, soundstage, imaging, etc. My whole world of "headphone audio" thus far has just been how good the frequency response is. Either my ears aren't quick enough or I just don't know how to discern these properties.

Your ears are definitely quick enough. Soundstage is probably rather easy to detect and the rest comes with time and more reading and experience for sure.

Quote:

Still, which line of the headroom graph do you read? Is blue left channel & red the right channel?

Not sure what you mean but left and right should be rather similar if its a pink/white noise. Left and right ears are never 100% identical which is why there are small differences in the graph.



For a bit more info on this (and in better English

), you can read a bit more in this: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=130998. Open the pdf and go to chapters 4.1 and a bit of 4.2 and the 'further reading' links at the end of the pdf file.

 

[fewtch]

Sumone: IMO you will have much better luck attending a lot of live music concerts, and basing your impressions of "neutral" on what real instruments sound like. If you listen primarily to electronic/studio music, neutrality may not matter much at all. The key here is maximizing listening pleasure, not neutrality for its own sake. What's the point if it doesn't sound as good to you "neutral" as it does with other EQ balances?

I've taken to a lot more acoustic music lately, and coincidentally have become more interested in neutrality. Beyer DT880 gave me my first experience of "damn close to live" with some recordings, and it was a dramatic experience that has altered my outlook on audio.

 

[TheSloth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch I've taken to a lot more acoustic music lately, and coincidentally have become more interested in neutrality. Beyer DT880 gave me my first experience of "damn close to live" with some recordings, and it was a dramatic experience that has altered my outlook on audio.

Amen...

I suspect there are many people claiming neutrality in their equipment who have never heard a piano or suchlike played by a great pianist (or suchlike) in a nice concert hall in their lives. Or anything else real, and unadulteratedly 'acoustic' (OK, all recordings are processed somewhat, but I think the point still stands...) for that matter. Electronic music, or music that has been electronically processed to remove any remnants of the acoustic and uncontrollable, has no point of reference in reality, and therefore allows us to select equipment that makes it sound good, without us ever really knowing if that equipment is even remotely accurate to the source. Every 'audiophile' should have some frame of reference outside what is reproduced by their own equipment - I suppose by not having any reference to something absolute in their own heads, we end up with the wild differences of opinion here that can only partially be attributed to 'different ears' and never fully explained, at least to me - you may note that despite the massive differences, people listening to acoustic/classical/jazz tend to gravitate to the same very small an rather similar (various takes on neutral, if you believe the combination of personal impressions and measurements) sounding group of headphones. I hope no-one tries to argue that all our ears by accident just happen to be the same shape...

Not that all headphones should have to pass an 'accuracy to source' test to be enjoyed here, but I kind of like the idea that there should at least be some universal principles involved in the pursuit of even better hi-fi. Someone said the other day that the K701 just isn't in the same league as the SA-5000 (and it wasn't drarthurwells), which I must say rather upset my principles. Can't they just say that they enjoy listening to their music more with the SA-5000. In absolute terms, surely the 701 is a 'more accurate' listening device? If so, calling it inferior to something that is less accurate but 'more fun' seems a little foolish.

 

[halcyon]

As a public service, this summary is offered to those who are too lazy to read and understand the whole thread:

1. Headphones should not measure flat at the entrance to the ear canal (or at the ear drum).

2. Don't try to equalize headphones to be flat if you are looking for naturality (unless you really understand headphone measurements and acoustics like a professional).

3. Properly done loudspeakers are always more natural than properly done headphones. Why? Hint: turn your head while listening

4. An acoustic, unamplified non-electronic musical event (like speech, singing, other acoustical instruments) is the reference for naturality. There is no "natural" in electronically produced music as there is no baseline reference to compare to.

5. If you like it, who cares if it's flat or not. Just enjoy!

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon 4. An acoustic, unamplified non-electronic musical event (like speech, singing, other acoustical instruments) is the reference for naturality. There is no "natural" in electronically produced music as there is no baseline reference to compare to.

Speech and singing have a very limited range, so not a great reference for anything but midrange. Otherwise, everything you say is true.

 

[AdamWill]

fewtch: if I were to take live concerts as the reference for "neutral" for most of the music I listen to, I suspect I'd consider DT770s or super.fi 5eb's the most "neutral" phones

. IOW, the presentation of most "rock" music live leaves, well, a hell of a lot to be desired.

(I remember I went to see Tori Amos live a few years back, on the Scarlet's Walk tour. Scarlet's Walk is a delicately recorded album which emphasises piano and guitar (some acoustic, some electric, some rhythm, all played pretty soft). The live show was Tori on a piano with a drummer and a bassist. The bass was mixed about fifteen times louder than the other instruments. Inexplicable.)

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill fewtch: if I were to take live concerts as the reference for "neutral" for most of the music I listen to, I suspect I'd consider DT770s or super.fi 5eb's the most "neutral" phones . IOW, the presentation of most "rock" music live leaves, well, a hell of a lot to be desired.

It does indeed... one reason why I think owning two headphones (one for guitar rock, one for all the rest) is a good idea. I've never really bought the "good headphones should be able to do everything well" concept. So many rock recordings are thin, bright, overcompressed and over/underproduced.