fjrabon
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Posts
- 3,996
- Likes
- 1,119
I fully agree about those who simply rely of graph measurements. It always reminds me of Mark Twain's famous quote : "There are lies, damned lies & statistics !"
I mean don't get me wrong, I think measurements are useful. But there are a couple of problems: 1) most people don't really understand them. Or they think frequency response is the only thing that matters. 2) even at their best they can only clarify what experienced ears are hearing. Only in extreme cases can you look at a measurement graph and say "this is a poor headphone." And in those cases your ears would tell you how bad the headphone is long before a measurement graph anyway. Measurements should always be subservient to the actual "listening to music critically" test.
That being said, I do like measurement graphs because they can make things that audiophiles put in very vague terms more precise. "Bright" is a great example. You hear about Grados being bright. Some people call the HD600 "bright" but they have very different types of brightness. A cursory glance at a measurement reveals what's going on: HD600 has a 4kHz peak whereas Grados have a 10kHz peak. One is bright in a nasally way, the other in a splashy way. I'm sensitive to 4kHz more than 10 kHz, so the graphs clarify why I vastly prefer Grado brightness to HD600 brightness. Measurement graphs can also tell you if a headphone is "EQ-able" or if EQ will introduce distortion of extreme current drain on the amp. And any number of other useful things as well.
But if it sounds good it is good. I also think you should ALWAYS listen to a headphone before you look at measurements. Otherwise you will inevitably hear what you saw due to confirmation bias. I try to spend at least 8-10 hours with a headphone I am evaluating before I head over to innerfidelity. There's an occasional exception when I'm going to have buy before I can demo, in which case measurement based evaluation is simply a necessary evil.