[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm really into classical guitar actually: highly "detailed" headphones seem to miss the nice overtones that I get when I play or listen to a performance. With a detailed headphone, it's more like you're on top of the instrument instead of sitting back a bit. What is more "real"? Depends on the music, the way it was mixed, what system you use, and what headphone you like.

Very good observations Dave.

I would add "they way it was recorded" before "the way it was mixed", since that also plays a huge part (e.g. the distance between mic and guitar, or how many mics, type of mics, their placement etc.) Unless your mixing included the recording part, that is.

 

[Gurra1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's the ranges of typical singers: Soprano (240 - 1170 Hz) Mezzo-soprano (220 - 900 Hz) Contralto (130 - 700 Hz) Tenor (130 - 440 Hz) Baritone (110 - 350 Hz) Bass (80 - 330 Hz) Well I think it's a matter of preference and hearing when it comes to headphones. Everyone's ear canals are different, so HRTF is different. Some feel that the HD650s have enough detail, while others don't. No point getting an ideal system or cable for the HD650 if you're looking for another sound signature.

Oh, I ment the texture of the voices, I guess that is way up.

It's so true what you are writing about preferences and hearing.

 

[Gurra1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif According to the experts the dips are on purpose. To mimic the way we listen to speakers/speaker sound.

Yes it is, it's the diffuse field eq, but to my ears it doesn't really work.

 

[Gurra1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AS1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's puzzling to me that people think the HD650 is colored. I suspect people who have heard bright headphones start to call the HD650 colored. I don't think that's fair...

Who would compare to other headphones? compare to reality is the only way as I see it.

 

[Gurra1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by heretical /img/forum/go_quote.gif It does! (at the very least, the endless forum discussions are the evidence that something special is going on here)

What do you mean?

 

[mercbuggy]

Well here we are? A high end headphone, no doubt well driven by carefully selected, high specification, neutral Solid State amplification (to avoid the amp colouring the presentation). The can gives excellent performance data when measured by the currently established but (maybe) not perfect testing methods (referring to readily accessible data such as Headroom's) and where do we find ourselves, 'smeared' all over our toast like honey. I for one love honey on my toast, a natural, sweet, healthy form of sugary delight to tickle my taste buds. Not too sharp, not too processed (as long as those Sennheiser bees were happy when they made it) and as close to the perfect open design as I have heard (certainly better than my HD590's). Wow, the price on Amazon.co.uk is looking great by the way!!

.

I would submit that any smearing be a function of three considerations. Firstly, a single drive unit reproducing the whole frequency and dynamic spectrum and so there would be a final limitation with any headphone or speaker using a single drive unit per channel (making a huge assumption that cross-over's do a perfect job in splitting the frequencies and that amp 'packs' are used, ie a dedicated amp per driver).
Secondly, a lot of the music we are listening to these days is overly compressed and so as the mix gets more complicated it loses resolution, however much money and effort we expend in trying to resolve that last drop of detail.
Thirdly, our ears....I for one will be much more careful in making comments about how things sound now I have started looking into the audiology of my own precious ears. Maybe we should all start here:

http://www.siemens-hearing.co.uk/uk/...aring-test.jsp

Furthermore it would be very interesting to overlay an individuals hearing frequency response & equal loudness contours over some of the data curves for phones like the HD650.

Just my two-pennith worth.

 

[Gurra1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by heretical /img/forum/go_quote.gif Reality = unamplified acoustic instruments...exact?

Exactly.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercbuggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://www.siemens-hearing.co.uk/uk/...aring-test.jsp

Well, that test is quite limited. My laptop's sound was just one notch above absolute minimum, and I could hear the calibration tone. Then I could hear all the samples right at the first step:

Quote:

Furthermore it would be very interesting to overlay an individuals hearing frequency response & equal loudness contours over some of the data curves for phones like the HD650.

Insteresting suggestion. I do have a professional hearing test done by an audiologist. These tests are much more accurate, and yet, they are still limited. The "sound-proof" cubicle where I took this test was far from sound-proof. I could hear people talking nearby, and a low frequency fan burrrring and covering some of the low frequencies in the test.

In any case, it does show some upward tendency, more sensitivity to higher frequencies. Not sure whether that might be related to that fan in the cubicle covering the faint low freqs., or somehow related to my finding the HD650's response very natural sounding

These tests have a rather limited frequency range coverage though, but much better than that test online:

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurra1980 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who would compare to other headphones? compare to reality is the only way as I see it.

I agree, for me, the standard of comparison is reality. Live performance.
With electronica, all bets are off.

 

[Gurra1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by heretical /img/forum/go_quote.gif How could the dips take away from vocals, when they're placed at 5 and 16 KHz? And btw, what you don't hear in natural sounds around you is that hardness that makes headphones sound like headphones. The HD650 gives you the illusion of the (proper) distance of the sounds you hear; maybe you only like to listen to things 50 cm apart from them

The texture, as I stated before, the little raspiness the little tsss and ksss in the end of the vords, sounds that all voices has more or less.

The 650 doesn't give a proper illusion to me.


.

 

[mercbuggy]

Perfect response and as I said, the link I provided was of course a limited test. An example for where to go next would be:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html

I am just starting to explore these ideas and these include the previous thread where the OP transfered from, which also tried to explore perception and detection of distortion levels.

As for your audiology test what was the frequency range tested? It would seem from equal loudness contours that the extremes of frequency need more db to be heard and at the HF end even more so as we lose our HF resolution with age and 'punishment'.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercbuggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for your audiology test what was the frequency range tested?

Frequencies associated to each column (X's) are the following, left to right:
125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000.


Quote:

It would seem from equal loudness contours that the extremes of frequency need more db to be heard and at the HF end even more so as we lose our HF resolution with age and 'punishment'.

Well, not to confuse loudness contours with the graph in the audiometry test.

With respect to the audiometry test, the higher the X, the better hearing sensitivity at the corresponding frequency. The less sensitivity (or the more hearing loss you have), the lower the X's appear on that graph. Check this other graph online to see how to interpret the tonal audiometry charts:

http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v56...l#figure-title


PS. I was tested as having 0% hearing loss despite the lower X's on the low freqs, so I'm not worried. Also, using headphones and my laptop I can hear up to 16KHz.

PS II. Just realizing (from the date on the photo) that I took that audiometry test two years ago. Another one is due in the following days/weeks I think. Was planning to take one every year.

 

[rsaavedra]

Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to check whether people with rising curves in their tonal audiometries tests (like me) tend to prefer Sennheisers and avoid brighter headphones, while people who prefer Grado's and some of the bright Beyers might have audiometry test curves that have downward curves, so that the highs don't bother them that much.

This would be an interesting study. If a strong correlation was found, then it would be probably easy to anticipate what headphone some people might prefer: just by looking at their tonal audiometry charts.

That goes just for overall balance though, wouldn't take into account other features in the sound that might matter a lot to some ears.

 

[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Frequencies associated to each column (X's) are the following, left to right: 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000. Nope, the higher the X, the better hearing sensitivity at those frequencies. The less sensitivity (or the more hearing loss you have), the lower the X's appear on that graph. Check this other graph online to see how to interpret the tonal audiometry charts: http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v56...l#figure-title PS. I was tested as having 0% hearing loss despite the lower X's on the low freqs, so I'm not worried. Also, using headphones and my laptop I can hear up to 16KHz. PS II. Just realizing (from the date on the photo) that I took that audiometry test two years ago. Another one is due in the following days/weeks I think. Was planning to take one every year.

Your audiology graph is inverted regarding db compared to the equal loudness contour graphs I was looking at hence my reading seeming incorrect (and your unusually sensitive HF acuity, any trouble with bats

). I would wonder what happens if you continue up to 16khz, perhaps your sensitivity would drop back down a little (you would then fit the profile I described).

Most encouraging to see someone post data about their own hearing. If I read the linked graph correctly it indicated hearing loss in the 1000-8000 hz range. The db level required to get an affirmative goes up as the frequency increases into the range where hearing loss has been established. In your case the opposite seems to be true in the range tested, with a good match between left and right. I would predict that perhaps you would find the HD650 neutrality more appealing than a phone a little more biased in the HF region, Grados for instance? Your comments here really would be interesting and dare I say 'revealing'

.

Although I cannot present my own audiology as yet I can comment that my right ear gives up at 15400 hz and the left 16000 hz. When I modeled myself on the equal loudness contour test I found a gentle db increase was required at 16 khz to match the perceived loudness in the 1khz region. The LF range seemed more strongly affected by what headphone I used for the test.

PS note that equal loudness contour results are not threshold but perceived loudness comparisons between frequencies, + headphones will affect the results.

 

[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now that I think about it, it would be interesting to check whether people with rising curves in their tonal audiometries tests (like me) then to prefer Sennheisers and avoid brighter headphones, while people who prefer Grado's and some of the bright Beyers might have audiometry test curves that have downward curves, so that the highs don't bother them that much. This would be an interesting study. If a strong correlation was found, then it would be probably easy to anticipate what headphone some people might prefer: just by looking at their tonal audiometry charts. That goes just for overall balance though, wouldn't take into account other features in the sound that might matter a lot to some ears.

OK, we are finding synergy, rejoice, rejoice and you posted before I could finish so now my post looks a little bizarre, but oh well

.