[Redcarmoose]

Have you ever heard these innate sound characteristics, or are you speculating that they may exist?

Well, I'm no professional if that is what your asking. My only experience was doing home recording with a self built studio. So I read a bunch of books had mixing boards and rack effects processors and the rest.

 

[vid]

What I was going for is that by the act of listening, you eliminate the sound characteristics of the headphone - ie. that the idea of an innate sound somehow tarnished by eq is meaningless in the context of listening. A simple experiment will confirm this: measure the response of a pair of headphones using an artificial ear of shape 1, then measure the response using a different artificial ear of shape 2, and see that the responses aren't the same. (Or, if you have the funds and ability, measure using real ears and microphones at the eardrum - though you'll not be the first to do this, and your results will repeat the literature.)
 
Of course, a headphone whose response at this or that part of the spectrum is -50 dB will in general have a different characteristic compared to a headphone whose response at that range is +50 dB, yet any reasonable changes you make using eq will only result in sound as heard by someone else 'naturally' - and in this way the dichotomy of eq and innate is unfounded.

 

[Gr8Desire]

Many problem solving methodologies have a notion of "root cause analysis" or "factors that don't rely on any others".  Mathematicians would call them independent variables.  Independent variables are essential elements of modern regression analysis that seeks to describe complex systems consisting of millions and billions of data points.  Ask Nate Silver if you have any doubts.    

My experience: Audiophiles are unusually bad at identifying independent variables. Their resulting arguments are plagued by assertions and conclusions that are woefully inconsistent thanks to root cause analysis that is anything but complete.  

What are the root causes for people aspiring to second tier products?  

1. Price
2. Utility
3. Personal preference (like art appreciation).
 
And...  4. ?

 

[bigshot]

The main problem with audiophiles and independent variables lies in loosey goosey terminology to describe sound. If you can't describe what you hear precisely and accurately, you can't break it down into independent variables.

 

[shockdoc]

A lot of this thread (and threads like it) remind me of a little experiment done many years ago at a local stereo shop . NHT (Now Hear This) came to showcase their latest speakers and offered anyone ten thousand dollars if they could correctly identify their flagship speakers heard balanced,side by side, one set with ultra high end speaker cables and the other with common lamp cord. Lots of "audiophiles" showed up. Some with these nifty little cardboard "ear extenders" (for lack of a better term). Suffice it to say nobody could consistently pick the speakers wired with extremely expensive speaker wire. I maintain the only way to truly select one headphone over another (especially if we're going to talk "tiers") is to have all sources equally set up at the same SPL and have a blindfold placed over your eyes and maybe even have another person place the headphones so that no tactile clues allow you to possibly determine if you are listening to a 500 dollar headphone or a 1500 dollar pair (or maybe even a 50 dollar pair!).

 

[sonitus mirus]

   I maintain the only way to truly select one headphone over another (especially if we're going to talk "tiers") is to have all sources equally set up at the same SPL and have a blindfold placed over your eyes and maybe even have another person place the headphones so that no tactile clues allow you to possibly determine if you are listening to a 500 dollar headphone or a 1500 dollar pair (or maybe even a 50 dollar pair!).

 
  Maybe someone is rating headphones by comfort level, and thus none of your test parameters are applicable.  If this is about sound quality, what metric(s) is/are being used to determine which parameter is better than another?

 

[Gr8Desire]

  A lot of this thread (and threads like it) remind me of a little experiment done many years ago at a local stereo shop . NHT (Now Hear This) came to showcase their latest speakers and offered anyone ten thousand dollars if they could correctly identify their flagship speakers heard balanced,side by side, one set with ultra high end speaker cables and the other with common lamp cord. Lots of "audiophiles" showed up. Some with these nifty little cardboard "ear extenders" (for lack of a better term). Suffice it to say nobody could consistently pick the speakers wired with extremely expensive speaker wire. I maintain the only way to truly select one headphone over another (especially if we're going to talk "tiers") is to have all sources equally set up at the same SPL and have a blindfold placed over your eyes and maybe even have another person place the headphones so that no tactile clues allow you to possibly determine if you are listening to a 500 dollar headphone or a 1500 dollar pair (or maybe even a 50 dollar pair!).

 
Any credible researcher knows that the double blind testing you describe (hiding the source and hiding if any changes are actually made) is a bare minimum standard. Audiophiles avoid double blind for a variety reasons. One of their most popular assertions: "I am not biased and can make impartial assessments". 

That brings us to an interesting tangent: Why do so many members have top tier headphones?
 

 

[shockdoc]

   
  Maybe someone is rating headphones by comfort level, and thus none of your test parameters are applicable.  If this is about sound quality, what metric(s) is/are being used to determine which parameter is better than another?

Exactly my point. How DO we determine (what criteria) what constitutes "better" sound? I would hope most in this forum and those at the stereo shop base it on the sound of the headphones, or more succinctly their perception of the sound). Perhaps, in the end, it still boils down to individual taste more than dollars spent and the prestige of owning a flagship headphone.
 
 
 
And to Gr8Desire, yes research that doesn't use double blind parameters rarely achieves peer reviewed status. Interesting that much of what is put forth in the science sections of HeadFi violate that paradigm.

 

[Redcarmoose]

What I was going for is that by the act of listening, you eliminate the sound characteristics of the headphone - ie. that the idea of an innate sound somehow tarnished by eq is meaningless in the context of listening. A simple experiment will confirm this: measure the response of a pair of headphones using an artificial ear of shape 1, then measure the response using a different artificial ear of shape 2, and see that the responses aren't the same. (Or, if you have the funds and ability, measure using real ears and microphones at the eardrum - though you'll not be the first to do this, and your results will repeat the literature.)

Of course, a headphone whose response at this or that part of the spectrum is -50 dB will in general have a different characteristic compared to a headphone whose response at that range is +50 dB, yet any reasonable changes you make using eq will only result in sound as heard by someone else 'naturally' - and in this way the dichotomy of eq and innate is unfounded.

I understand what your saying here, though I had to read it a couple times. I may still need to read it a couple more times.


I like what your saying and it makes complete sense. Still due to the basic personality and performace, we will never EQ a set of drug store JVC $9 IEMs and bring them to the sonic detail of HD800s. EQ can not make a sonic silk-purse out of a sow's ear.


Still I like what your saying. I think your saying we can EQ ears like a listening room?

 

[Redcarmoose]

I was always hoping this thread would take the turn it has just taken.

We already know that everyone hears different, we know there are bass heads and flat line people. ( at least they think they are?)


We also can speculate here that at times the flagships that these companies pride themselves on can come in imperfect. Still the point I would hope this makes is that no headphone measures exactly right and even if they are close there are other factors involved. If we were to rate a giant selection of headphones though out the years I would hope we are enjoying the fruits of the scientific progress in terms of over all sound. We all kind of know what many of those old EBay headphones sound like.

Still it always fascinates me when I hear of a member here selling off a pair of HD 700 headphones in trade for the Sony V6 they had forever and are in love with.



We can measure all day, we can try and lower the massive variables in this project. In the end we can conclude that it may be color and folks just love color. I am also to speculate that comfort is a subliminal factor.

 

[Redcarmoose]

A lot of this thread (and threads like it) remind me of a little experiment done many years ago at a local stereo shop . NHT (Now Hear This) came to showcase their latest speakers and offered anyone ten thousand dollars if they could correctly identify their flagship speakers heard balanced,side by side, one set with ultra high end speaker cables and the other with common lamp cord. Lots of "audiophiles" showed up. Some with these nifty little cardboard "ear extenders" (for lack of a better term). Suffice it to say nobody could consistently pick the speakers wired with extremely expensive speaker wire. I maintain the only way to truly select one headphone over another (especially if we're going to talk "tiers") is to have all sources equally set up at the same SPL and have a blindfold placed over your eyes and maybe even have another person place the headphones so that no tactile clues allow you to possibly determine if you are listening to a 500 dollar headphone or a 1500 dollar pair (or maybe even a 50 dollar pair!).

The sound science threads always end up at the placebo question concluding that when we take that super flagship out of the box and plug it in we are already half way there in uphonic joy to make a direct comparison. We never fail to note what chrome faceplates due to people in listening rooms.


Once we had a HI/FI magazine build up three systems of the same price limit. Each system was placed behind drapes. No one could see anything. (We can guess that the drapes are a bad variable here?)

Still we had home theaters two of which were solid state and one tube system. The tube system won. So in blind group listening everyone chose the tube on pure sound performance alone.

Are tubes more colored? Compared to what more colored solid state? Solid state that measures well?


In the end it is all a listeners personal sound signature preference. The other question is if they can live with that color year in a year out. Some of us guess that at times color can give us a thrill just to be let down due to lack of reality two months later.

 

[vid]

I understand what your saying here, though I had to read it a couple times. I may still need to read it a couple more times.
I like what your saying and it makes complete sense. Still due to the basic personality and performace, we will never EQ a set of drug store JVC $9 IEMs and bring them to the sonic detail of HD800s. EQ can not make a sonic silk-purse out of a sow's ear.
Still I like what your saying. I think your saying we can EQ ears like a listening room?

 
To sum up what I said: within reason, there's no innate quality of sound. I'd love a counterargument.
 
It follows from what I said that we can eq a set of $10 headphones to the sonic detail of the hd 800. (But I wouldn't say any $10 headphone - price being a poor indication of fidelity.)

 

[Redcarmoose]

To sum up what I said: within reason, there's no innate quality of sound. I'd love a counterargument.

It follows from what I said that we can eq a set of $10 headphones to the sonic detail of the hd 800. (But I wouldn't say any $10 headphone - price being a poor indication of fidelity.)

I have these really old headphones from purchased in1998. Sony at the time made the R-10, the MDR 1st series MDR CD 950 and CD3000 the second series MDR CD1700 and the MDR CD 870s and below. That is the order of quality with the R-10 being the most costly and complicated model. We all know that Sony changes their house sound and a just recently changed again. At the time I could only afford the MDR CD 870s. Still after all these years they seem to have the most realistic representation of the recordings out of all my headphones. Listening to the R-10 can be a little of a let down. First they are rare, they cost 5K and when you finally get to listen to them they have this perfectly flat, polite response that just sounds almost bass light and treble light by today's standards.
I know that some headphones I like have both boosted treble and bass. Somehow a V boost seems to make music both emotional and more dramatic at times. IMO

So in a nut shell I'm saying that uncolored (Sony R-10) would be the innate quality of sound and that we buy headphones because they jazz up qualities. Still those qualities take us farther from a transparent response graph.

What I'm getting at is I feel the Sony R-10 is maybe the headphone with the least added color? The HD800 too. So just in my views the quality of sound would be a transparent quality.

Though I do agree like many of the posts that it IS highly subjective. Imagine if musicians that were drummers or musicians that were guitarists would become attracted to headphone which replicated the instruments they loved with detail and clarity. They may like a set of headphones and not know why.

http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2013/08/sony-mdr-cd1700-heir-of-throne.html

 

[Gr8Desire]

  The main problem with audiophiles and independent variables lies in loosey goosey terminology to describe sound. If you can't describe what you hear precisely and accurately, you can't break it down into independent variables.

 
That's what regression analysis and machine learning is for: associating millions of data points with the terminology used to describe related features and behaviors.

I have no idea if audiophiles have the desire to enter the 21st century. The analytics exist to pull audio assessments out the dark ages. 

 

[vid]

I have these really old headphones from purchased in1998. Sony at the time made the R-10, the MDR 1st series MDR CD 950 and CD3000 the second series MDR CD1700 and the MDR CD 870s and below. That is the order of quality with the R-10 being the most costly and complicated model. We all know that Sony changes their house sound and a just recently changed again. At the time I could only afford the MDR CD 870s. Still after all these years they seem to have the most realistic representation of the recordings out of all my headphones. Listening to the R-10 can be a little of a let down. First they are rare, they cost 5K and when you finally get to listen to them they have this perfectly flat, polite response that just sounds almost bass light and treble light by today's standards.
I know that some headphones I like have both boosted treble and bass. Somehow a V boost seems to make music both emotional and more dramatic at times. IMO

So in a nut shell I'm saying that uncolored (Sony R-10) would be the innate quality of sound and that we buy headphones because they jazz up qualities. Still those qualities take us farther from a transparent response graph.

What I'm getting at is I feel the Sony R-10 is maybe the headphone with the least added color? The HD800 too. So just in my views the quality of sound would be a transparent quality.

Though I do agree like many of the posts that it IS highly subjective. Imagine if musicians that were drummers or musicians that were guitarists would become attracted to headphone which replicated the instruments they loved with detail and clarity. They may like a set of headphones and not know why.

http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2013/08/sony-mdr-cd1700-heir-of-throne.html

 
Apart from it being unlikely that the r10 have a neutral response in the bass and treble, I'd say that looking for colored headphones as a way to eq boring recordings is going at it backwards - unless you really don't have a good, free eq available for your platform.