[genck]

see title

 

[ShinAyasaki]

 

[baskingshark]

see title

I think graphs are useful to some extent, to see if you like the amount of bass/mids/treble or rough tuning. I kinda use graphs as my first gatekeeper to decide if the IEM is for me or not, and then read more reviews on the IEM if the graph is up my alley. That's of course assuming the graphing equipment is calibrated properly and the graph is done properly, like Crinacle has a database of graphs that is quite good to compare gear (we should ideally compare graphs done by the same user/equipment, rather than compare graphs using unrelated equipment).

But definitely agree with you that graphs are not the be all and end all of everything. They can't tell subjective stuff like timbre, imaging, instrument separation etc.

I think it would be good to combine info from both the subjective parts (from asking others, reading reviews, auditioning) and objective parts (graphs) before deciding to pull the trigger on an IEM.

 

[RikudouGoku]

Ideally graphs would be something I look at after listening to the iem itself and then I can "see" what I hear. But since I can't I agree with @baskingshark

 

[Infoseeker]

Graphs from the same equipment is good relatively.

From different calibrated sources, they should not be compared to each other.

 

[RikudouGoku]

Graphs from the same equipment is good relatively.

From different calibrated sources, they should not be compared to each other.

Yeah that's like comparing meter to feet, not the same unit so different results

 

[stonesfan129]

I think they can be useful. But yes, ultimately they cannot determine if something sounds good or not.

 

[jant71]

Bit too far to go and say graphs are dumb. Why is the backlash always go too far the other way?? They are overrated and don't really tell that much. Too much about F.R. graphs on the forums these days but I guess people are into the tech and they like measuring the stuff. I like to know most about signature, detail, decay/speed, and soundstage. F.R. graphs only tell you the basic signature so 25% of those. Also can't tell you about synergy and since gear have there own signatures the F.R. isn't gonna be exactly the same. So, maybe 20% of the story at most. A basic sound curve and idea of the extension is what you get. Then outside of sound there is fit, comfort, durability, etc. In the whole scheme of things a graph is probably 10% of what you'd want or need to really get a good picture of an earphone before laying down your $$$.

 

[ErkH]

graphs aren't dumb, dumb people misinterpret them.

 

[redrol]

Sonion said that the physically larger the BA the more exciting it will sound while still measuring the same as a smaller BA. Huh

 

[boneburglar]

Nothing replaces hearing for yourself but graphs are extremely important to me for at least two reasons:

First, it’s good to just see if you might enjoy something before blind buying if you don’t have methods to demo. EDIT: graphs tell you pretty easily if something is warm, bright, rolled off, etc etc

Second, it’s important to gauge a manufacturer’s quality control by being able to check for unit variance.

 

[sup27606]

As far as judging whether an unknown headphone would be suitable for me, so far what works best for me are reviews from reputed reviewers, consensus opinions, and comparison with headphones that I am familiar with. Likewise, it may help to compare the FR graph with that of a known headphone, to determine whether the bass is shy, or if there’s extra sparkle in the treble, but other than that, there’s no alternative to actual listening. Moreover, the science of auditory perception is still developing, so graphs are never the last word, more like guidance.

 

[castleofargh]

Usually when someone calls a tool dumb, he is clueless about that tool and frustrated by his own ignorance.

 

[chickenmoon]

Troll bait.

 

[Rockwell75]

I will never begrudge anyone an element of this hobby that they enjoy-- be it obsessing over graphs or purchasing stupidly expensive cables because they "enhance sound stage". That said imho graphs are a tool and as such can be used and misused. In a sense looking at a graph is a lot like looking at the reflection of a building on the ground-- you can discern lots about the salient features of the building but still be totally ignorant of its true essence (ie., whether it's made of wood, stone or cardboard)-- for this you just need to experience it directly for yourself. Similarly no matter how long you study a graph of an IEM it will never tell you if you actually enjoy the way it sounds-- just as no amount of reading about apples will tell you how they taste if you haven't already tasted one-- you must taste the fruit to know the flavor. Judging gear based just on FR curves before you're heard the gear is something I personally try and avoid. I enjoy looking at and comparing graphs of gear I've listened to and am familiar with as it helps me understand some of their relative differences. Again, my own bias is to avoid looking at graphs before I've demoed a piece of gear so as not to color my expectations and perceptions. So saying that graphs are "dumb" is, well, dumb. They are very useful and serve a purpose-- but need to be kept in their place.