Or just surrender to the evil empire that Steve built. It's really not that bad over here on the dark side, the breaking rocks bit is down to only 4 hours a day and they feed us now and again.
16 pages in less than 2 weeks, nice. Anyway, here's my thoughts on this subject. I was able to EQ my DT-990s to pretty damn near flat, through trial and error over the course of a few months, resulting in what sounded to me like the most realistic sound I've heard from a headphone. I had both the T1 and the LCD-2 in my possession at some point during this time. Neither even came close to what I was hearing with my 990 setup, and if anything they were not good EQ candidates because shifting both of them on my ears even the smallest amounts caused audible frequency balance shifts. For the T1 I believe due to the angled drivers, for the LCD-2 not sure. Regardless, why spend the money for more trouble when $250ish gets me end-game?
16 pages in less than 2 weeks, nice. Anyway, here's my thoughts on this subject. I was able to EQ my DT-990s to pretty damn near flat, through trial and error over the course of a few months, resulting in what sounded to me like the most realistic sound I've heard from a headphone. I had both the T1 and the LCD-2 in my possession at some point during this time. Neither even came close to what I was hearing with my 990 setup, and if anything they were not good EQ candidates because shifting both of them on my ears even the smallest amounts caused audible frequency balance shifts. For the T1 I believe due to the angled drivers, for the LCD-2 not sure. Regardless, why spend the money for more trouble when $250ish gets me end-game?
Amplifiers are flat. Room speakers are "flatish". And headphones are... well.. "hilly".
In terms of frequency response here is one opinion about the phones you mention:
Each looks pretty good when a 30 dB scale is used. With a 10 dB scale, it starts to look like a Tour de France hill profile. Remember: +3 dB is twice as loud.
None handle the entire frequency spectrum. None are really flat either.
These graphs are misleading because 2 attributes are missing:
How loud do you play music? Change SPL by +/- 1 dB and these charts change. Change by +/- 10 dB and you might as well have a different pairs of phones. People who don't use equalization are very lucky. They get 10 different headphones by playing one at 10 different SPLs .
Distortion at every frequency and every listening level. Distortion in terms of time, amplitude, frequency and rates of change variables versus a measured source is actually the only measurements you need. It's represented as a surface integrating each variable. Get that surfaceflat and your headphones stand a good chance of representing all sounds properly.
Why do members fall in love with second tier headphones? Why not? When you don't have enough useful data, paying less is a really smart.
He is right. I have PM-1s which are planar magnetics... nothing like Sennheiser HD-595s. But with an equalizer just playing around for a few minutes, I got very close to the PM-1s. If I had more time, I probably could have nailed it. When you translate sound into wiggles on a sheet, it's going to get abstract. Those lines all mean something, but you need to know how it all represents sound. When you have two sets of cans in front of you with an equalizer, it isn't abstract at all. It's real world. With halfway decent headphones, you can use an equalizer to make them sound as good as much more expensive headphones.
16 pages in less than 2 weeks, nice. Anyway, here's my thoughts on this subject. I was able to EQ my DT-990s to pretty damn near flat, through trial and error over the course of a few months, resulting in what sounded to me like the most realistic sound I've heard from a headphone. I had both the T1 and the LCD-2 in my possession at some point during this time. Neither even came close to what I was hearing with my 990 setup, and if anything they were not good EQ candidates because shifting both of them on my ears even the smallest amounts caused audible frequency balance shifts. For the T1 I believe due to the angled drivers, for the LCD-2 not sure. Regardless, why spend the money for more trouble when $250ish gets me end-game?
Amplifiers are flat. Room speakers are "flatish". And headphones are... well.. "hilly".
In terms of frequency response here is one opinion about the phones you mention:
Each looks pretty good when a 30 dB scale is used. With a 10 dB scale, it starts to look like a Tour de France hill profile. Remember: +3 dB is twice as loud.
None handle the entire frequency spectrum. None are really flat either.
These graphs are misleading because 2 attributes are missing:
How loud do you play music? Change SPL by +/- 1 dB and these charts change. Change by +/- 10 dB and you might as well have a different pairs of phones. People who don't use equalization are very lucky. They get 10 different headphones by playing one at 10 different SPLs .
Distortion at every frequency and every listening level. Distortion in terms of time, amplitude, frequency and rates of change variables versus a measured source is actually the only measurements you need. It's represented as a surface integrating each variable. Get that surfaceflat and your headphones stand a good chance of representing all sounds properly.
Why do members fall in love with second tier headphones? Why not? When you don't have enough useful data, paying less is a really smart.
twice as loud is more like 10db. 3db is twice the power not twice the perceived loudness. also it depends at what frequency, I personally have a hard time telling 3db apart at 40hz when 0.5db at 2khz isn't so hard.
I got 99EQ and flat ain't one, guess I win \o/.
now your 1. is wrong. at best I can agree with the perceived signature because of our equal loudness contour at different loudness. or if you really go super loud where the headphone distorts because it fails to physically reproduce the amplitude the signal demands. I don't imagine that to sound great. but how a headphone would change its FR at different loudness, that I don't get.
for 2. I also don't get it, the graph is a surface but you mention like 4 variables?
twice as loud is more like 10db. 3db is twice the power not twice the perceived loudness. also it depends at what frequency, I personally have a hard time telling 3db apart at 40hz when 0.5db at 2khz isn't so hard.
I got 99EQ and flat ain't one, guess I win \o/.
now your 1. is wrong. at best I can agree with the perceived signature because of our equal loudness contour at different loudness. or if you really go super loud where the headphone distorts because it fails to physically reproduce the amplitude the signal demands. I don't imagine that to sound great. but how a headphone would change its FR at different loudness, that I don't get.
for 2. I also don't get it, the graph is a surface but you mention like 4 variables?
Integrating measured differences between target and source is a simple process in the digital era.
At one SPL, you measure deference in time and amplitude. If you intend to listen to content beyond continuous tones, you need the measure across a range of loudness levels. If you expect to hear different harmonics, you need a measurement in response to rate of change of frequency.
This type of regression analysis is done just about everywhere except audio. I blame it on tubes.
Amplifiers are flat. Room speakers are "flatish". And headphones are... well.. "hilly".
In terms of frequency response here is [COLOR=A52A2A]one opinion[/COLOR] about the phones you mention:
Each looks pretty good when a 30 dB scale is used. With a 10 dB scale, it starts to look like a Tour de France hill profile. Remember: +3 dB is twice as loud.
None handle the entire frequency spectrum. None are really flat either.
These graphs are misleading because 2 attributes are missing:
How loud do you play music? Change SPL by +/- 1 dB and these charts change. Change by +/- 10 dB and you might as well have a different pairs of phones. [COLOR=006400]People who don't use equalization are very lucky. They get 10 different headphones by playing one at 10 different SPLs[/COLOR] .
Distortion at every frequency and every listening level. Distortion in terms of time, amplitude, frequency and rates of change variables versus a measured source is actually the only measurements you need. It's represented as a surface integrating each variable. Get that surfaceflat and your headphones stand a good chance of representing all sounds properly.
Why do members fall in love with second tier headphones? [COLOR=006400] Why not? When you don't have enough useful data, paying less is a really smart.[/COLOR]
Thank-you for posting these two ideas about what is missing at times in headphone tests. Just by listening this was always my subjective testing outcome. I know very little about sound science but when I made accusations here in the past I was told I was crazy.
Still it would make perfect sense that a headphone would have a slightly different Frequency Chart at low, medium and high volume setting. Some brands would react different and there would be distortion in a specific headphone at different frequencies and at different volumes. That is what I hear, still I may not have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Still if there was truth it disregards our graphing process and asks for a new way or a complete set of graphs, maybe 25, to get the clear view.
Lol, I totally agree lol. Still though your saying they can give us only one graph on say frequency response and the treble spike stays in the same place with the same level of distortions at every volume level. Just our hearing changes?
I still believe at higher volumes we start to get an interaction and resonance from the housing?
Rev-up a car motor and put your hands on the hood?
Thank-you for posting these two ideas about what is missing at times in headphone tests. Just by listening this was always my subjective testing outcome. I know very little about sound science but when I made accusations here in the past I was told I was crazy.
Still it would make perfect sense that a headphone would have a slightly different Frequency Chart at low, medium and high volume setting. Some brands would react different and there would be distortion in a specific headphone at different frequencies and at different volumes. That is what I hear, still I may not have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Still if there was truth it disregards our graphing process and asks for a new way or a complete set of graphs, maybe 25, to get the clear view.
no it doesn't. if the electrical damping is good(so you need to avoid 120ohm amps into 30ohm headphones), and the distortions of the headphone are reasonably low, then it tells us that there will be no weird signature change with loudness.
the fact that one tone is a wave tells us that if the headphone can reproduce it at a given loudness without too much distortions, then said headphone has ok linearity throughout all the values inside the amplitude. meaning that the loudness set by the signal will be closely matched by the headphone(minus distortions).
so unless we're talking about one loudness where the headphone has 0.1% disto and another one where the headphone has 70% disto, I doubt that people will really hear a different signature. well of course they will, but because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour , and not so much because of the headphone ^_^.
Lol, I totally agree lol. Still though your saying they can give us only one graph on say frequency response and the treble spike stays in the same place with the same level of distortions at every volume level. Just our hearing changes?
"Accudio for iOS is already in the market. As for the Android app, it is necessary that the smartphone maker has to take Accudio into one of pre-equipped apps. Because Accudio in the Android version needs root authority, I need the maker’s authorization for access to root. So, naturally, the iOS app targets B2C market, the Android app does the B2B market."
Might see at some point on some Android flavor, such as FireOS or Touchwiz.
That interview seems to be from 2013, root authority might have turned out to the the least of the problems. It seems that Lollipop has made some major progress in os for audio or anything that needs real time. I few people I know that had given up on the platform have restarted development again. Hopefully they are successful and not wasting tons of time and money. A close friend was talked into by Microsoft into porting one of his programs into Windows RT we all know how well that went.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
