[Max_Settings]

Hello. I see a few people here speaking about me and I thought I would just give a little bit of a breakdown of my review philosophy.

The reason I really started reviewing is that I saw a hole in the Youtube review space. You see, most review are done for people looking for purchase confirmation; they bought something and want someone to tell them that it is good. That is not me. I am not going to lie to you and tell you that what you bought is good, when I don't feel that it is. This is not being overly negative, I just give my 100% honest impressions on the item. Other reviewers come at a review from the idea that the item starts off with 100 points and every thing that it does wrong is points off. I do my reviews from the other perspective. With me you start off with 0 points and everything you do well earns you points.

In my opinion I see the community way to accepting of obvious flaws with many headphones. I am not scared to be the person that points out these flaws. Even headphones that I love I will always point out something that do poorly and something that I dislike about them, this is only fair. As I mentioned above, I believe being forgiving on products is harmful to the market as it does not pressure manufacturers to fix the flaws in their products. Being constrictive and offering real feedback shows them where they have areas to improve. I am not worried about companies not wanting to send me something for fear of a negative review. I will not allow a company to censor me from me true thoughts. As I think someone mentioned in a deleted post I do get more dislikes that other reviewers. This is not because of my "negative attitude" as he implied. As I stated, I am not here to give you confirmation bias, which is what most people are looking for. When someone is willing to stand up and be truthful, often they will be hated for that. I fully expect to get people that disagree with me, but as I said you have to be willing to admit the flaws in a piece of gear.

I also do not and will not ever use affiliate links, nor will I ever accept money for reviews. I am not here to be a salesman. Using affiliate links in my opinion means you cannot have an unbiased review. Having a monetary gain for saying a product is good gives you a reason to be more forgiving or push it. This is why I will never use affiliate links. I have no incentive to push something and nothing to loose for reviewing something negatively. No monetary gain or loss means no inherent bias in any of my reviews.

No as for comments of me being aggressive and unprofessional. I don't know what world you are living in where you would consider "ouch" "sadly" "wasteful" etc... overly aggressive terms. But I digress. Also when I said it fakes its' soundstage, this is a very common tactic used where you dip out your mid range to try and create a sense of space. I explained in the video exactly how this works.

Now as for me being more unprofessional than Zeos, I will just say I have never in any of my reviews opened by saying "This headphone is a steaming pile of horse crap" I have never flipped off a company in my videos. I don't have figurines of underage girls all around. I have never started cursing out a company and starting banging headphones on the table in rage. So I digress take that as you will.

 

[boneburglar]

People are so desensitized to negativity that they're pretty much allergic to it.

 

[Mark Up]

I respect your opinion. What matters most is what you hear, not the graph. A great example was at a Can Jam NYC, two years ago. I brought some headphones with amazing low sub bass, and I tested a pair a manufacturer had there against them. Their headphones clearly had a big roll off below 40 hz. Based on what I heard mine would have been flat or even elevated as you went below 40 hz. In reviewing the analysis done on a dummy head, theirs was supposedly 'flat' into the sub bass, mine had a huge roll off below, get this, seriously 80 hz. What a joke. They were on it properly and properly sealed. The graph results were literally backwards from what any person would conclude with listening. A low sub bass note in a reference track I play was barely there on theirs, and explosive on the headphones I brought. A completely separate manufacturer from the one I mentioned up there, and my headphones, Audeze, puts a measurement out for its LCD headphones. Based on that you'd think the pre Fazor LCD-2 was the king of extended sub bass and its recent LCD-X would be the most rolled off there. I hear the opposite. Serious roll off below 30 hz on any model LCD-2, as the LCD-X seems to have the best sub bass extension of any open back LCD. I'd heard this testing a half dozen pre Fazor LCD-2's, and LCD-X models. It's not just one set of drivers, it's not the room I was listening in, it's not position, or hairstyle. Graphs cannot be fully trusted. Ultimately, yes, they matter and are USUALLY correct. 90% of the time I'd say you hear what you see. This just isn't always the case.

 

[heavyharmonies]

People are so desensitized to negativity that they're pretty much allergic to it.

I think it's more hypersensitized than desensitized. In today's culture any disagreement or difference of opinion is now portrayed as "an attack".

 

[metal571]

I respect your opinion. What matters most is what you hear, not the graph. A great example was at a Can Jam NYC, two years ago. I brought some headphones with amazing low sub bass, and I tested a pair a manufacturer had there against them. Their headphones clearly had a big roll off below 40 hz. Based on what I heard mine would have been flat or even elevated as you went below 40 hz. In reviewing the analysis done on a dummy head, theirs was supposedly 'flat' into the sub bass, mine had a huge roll off below, get this, seriously 80 hz. What a joke. They were on it properly and properly sealed. The graph results were literally backwards from what any person would conclude with listening. A low sub bass note in a reference track I play was barely there on theirs, and explosive on the headphones I brought. A completely separate manufacturer from the one I mentioned up there, and my headphones, Audeze, puts a measurement out for its LCD headphones. Based on that you'd think the pre Fazor LCD-2 was the king of extended sub bass and its recent LCD-X would be the most rolled off there. I hear the opposite. Serious roll off below 30 hz on any model LCD-2, as the LCD-X seems to have the best sub bass extension of any open back LCD. I'd heard this testing a half dozen pre Fazor LCD-2's, and LCD-X models. It's not just one set of drivers, it's not the room I was listening in, it's not position, or hairstyle. Graphs cannot be fully trusted. Ultimately, yes, they matter and are USUALLY correct. 90% of the time I'd say you hear what you see. This just isn't always the case.

This is why you should always use a sine generator as part of testing a pair of headphones. You never really know where the peaks and dips and rolloff points are until it's right there sitting on your head, and you're sweeping a sine through different frequencies to hear relative loudness. I don't think measurements will ever be everything either - I've never been able to see detail or stage or dynamics properly inferred from hard numbers yet. But no manufacturer should ever hide behind huge 100 dB ranges with way too large 10 dB divisions and heavy smoothing on their FR graphs. There is no other explanation for this except to be intentionally misleading. Customers who are not used to reading graphs are looking for flat lines, and zooming way out is nothing but a marketing tactic.

 

[GREQ]

I respect your opinion. What matters most is what you hear, not the graph. A great example was at a Can Jam NYC, two years ago. I brought some headphones with amazing low sub bass, and I tested a pair a manufacturer had there against them. Their headphones clearly had a big roll off below 40 hz. Based on what I heard mine would have been flat or even elevated as you went below 40 hz. In reviewing the analysis done on a dummy head, theirs was supposedly 'flat' into the sub bass, mine had a huge roll off below, get this, seriously 80 hz. What a joke. They were on it properly and properly sealed. The graph results were literally backwards from what any person would conclude with listening. A low sub bass note in a reference track I play was barely there on theirs, and explosive on the headphones I brought. A completely separate manufacturer from the one I mentioned up there, and my headphones, Audeze, puts a measurement out for its LCD headphones. Based on that you'd think the pre Fazor LCD-2 was the king of extended sub bass and its recent LCD-X would be the most rolled off there. I hear the opposite. Serious roll off below 30 hz on any model LCD-2, as the LCD-X seems to have the best sub bass extension of any open back LCD. I'd heard this testing a half dozen pre Fazor LCD-2's, and LCD-X models. It's not just one set of drivers, it's not the room I was listening in, it's not position, or hairstyle. Graphs cannot be fully trusted. Ultimately, yes, they matter and are USUALLY correct. 90% of the time I'd say you hear what you see. This just isn't always the case.

I don't disagree with you, but it's also important to carefully read the graphs, particularly the scaling of the dB and the frequency cut-off points.
I've seen graphs that looked perfectly linear because they were vertically crushed into a flat line.

Also Tyll's measurements/graphs all go down to 10hz, which is something every manufacturer should be doing.
So much about the headphone's character and presentation happens between 10-20hz but it goes almost completely ignored because "people can only hear down to 20hz" which has been proven many times to be false.
There are people who can audibly distinguish notes down to 8hz, and regardless of that, most people can feel these frequencies which the brain interprets as part of the music and the presentation of the audio.

 

[jude]

...For starters to defend a few of my basis, I make it very clear in my description that the graph from the MiniDSP EARS is not 100% infallible...

We have an EARS here. It is not suited for absolute measurements. It offers no hearing simulation (which is just one of its limitations for absolute measurements). Keep in mind that this headphone is semi-closed -- the more closed the headphone, the more important simulating a proper load becomes.

...Now I have to say I must call you out for your measurements as well. For starters the scale you are using is very deceptive. Using a graph with a 10dB scale on the Y axis is a tactic used by people to try and make something look flatter than it really is. Also you are using a 100dB delta for your Y axis which further smooth things down. I use a scale very similar to the graphs done by Tyll at Innerfidelity. He used a 70dB delta for his Y axis and a 5dB scale. I am using 60dB delta with a 5dB scale. Posting your graphs on a wildly different scale that smooths them out and trying to say that it is much different than what I am showing is deceptive. Post your graphs on the same scale I do. 60dB delta on the Y axis on a 5db scale and then compare to mine. If you want to do 70dB to match Tyll that is also fine and I will happily repost my measurements on a 70dB scale...

I know what these guys are using for measurements (Audio Precision AECM206 Headphone Test Fixture and Audio Precision APx515 Audio Analyzer), and, with all due respect, their measurements would be far less "deceptive" (not the ideal choice of words since I don't think anyone's intent here is to deceive -- but since you brought that word into the mix...). I find it unfortunate that your first accusation is deception, rather than assuming that perhaps those are the scales they use internally. And their measurement techniques and systems are far more in line with industry standards than what you're offering from the EARS.

....Furthermore, saying that using RAW measurements to show FR because it is free of bias is laughable. RAW measurements are worthless for representing something to how it will sound to a person...

I disagree completely. I strongly recommend (and I'm far from alone) that raw measurements become the standard. I'd rather we all get used to looking at the measured response as-is than compensating with the myriad compensation curves that are being used out there. With so many compensation curves out there -- many being applied to sculpt the output of nonstandard measurement setups to look more like industry standard ones -- it's hard to know what one's actually looking at when looking at a measurement using compensation.

What DF compensation are you using? Is that diffuse field compensation the result of a capture made on the EARS in a diffuse field environment? I'm guessing not -- and, even then, that fixture has too many limitations that make it a poor choice for absolute measurements.

When I've posted DF-compensated measurements -- which I no longer do -- I've only used GRAS's diffuse field compensation from their measurements using their KEMAR fixture. The compensated measurements looked better on measurements made on the KEMAR (which we also have here) than when applied to those made on our 45CA (that we also have here and have been using more than the KEMAR). Given the type of fixture the 45CA is, I don't expect to see 45CA-specific DF measurements (and compensation).

As for what DF compensation Vokyl used, I'm guessing it probably came from ITU-5 P.58 (which I think was from the Brüel & Kjær 4128 HATS), which seems to be commonly used.

Raw measurements. That's what we should be using, and what we should get used to looking at. Once we start introducing compensations without careful standardization, all bets are off, and we have no real grasp of what we're looking at. We've had measurement seminars and panel discussions over the years with Paul Barton (PSB), Sean Olive (Harman International), Axel Grell (formerly of Sennheiser), Naotaka Tsunoda (formerly of Sony, now with Huawei), Dan Clark (MrSpeakers) and others... And when I've brought this up, these gentlemen all agreed.

I can see the fun (and some utility, assuming the fixtures are consistent enough from one EARS to the next) in comparing one EARS measurement to another EARS measurement. I can also see it being used as an inexpensive production test fixture for startups (even then, used with care and consideration to accommodate for any mic and/or fixture inconsistencies). But to be used to post measurements intended to suggest it's some kind of hearing simulator is a nigh-impossible stretch.

...It is used to get a rough idea of the FR of the headphone and I don't give my impressions based upon the graph. I give my impressions based upon what I hear...

I believe you think that. But I just watched your video, and you seem to respond subjectively to what you've measured on the EARS. That and the fact that I've heard this headphone and your impressions of it are so different from mine (and it seems from others in this thread) that I do think that perhaps your EARS measurement outcomes were more influential on your opinions than you realize.

Perhaps try going with your ears without the EARS next time.

 

[jude]

We're slammed right now working on the CanJam Shanghai Preview Video and show preparation, but I'll measure the Vokyl Erupt and post it here when I can find the time.

 

[TylersEclectic]

Well said! I was going to respond....but I think @jude pretty much nailed it and said it way more eloquently than I would have... so... "EARS drop"

 

[metal571]

EARS is indeed not a very accurate system at all. But considering not only does every HATS but also every ear simulator have its own compensation to reach an industry standard DF comp, there's no way to know what something sounds like looking at raws either. Tyll's HMS commonly peaks at 3.5k on raws, and Jude's system is closer to 3k iirc. If raws become the standard, they have to be posted alongside what the comps look like. Otherwise, I'm not following that logic since not all comps are the same curve for different systems. Liking different curves like Harman vs DF vs IEM Harman is fine... providing a raw without context... not as useful IMO.

Edit: if I remember right for example, the Harman curve was developed on a 45CA. There's no guarantee that'll be applicable at all to a KEMAR or 5128C, and especially not an HMS3.

 

[Zachik]

@jude I am VERY happy to read your very informative and detailed answers above. Especially since you guys are so busy planning and preparing for CanJam Shanghai. THANKS!

@Max_Settings - being part of this community for several years now, and having met in person both Head-Fi folks as well as Vokyl guys, I KNOW that there is no attempt to deceive anyone!
I can totally see how some people may not like something, but I agree with @Darthpool that the same message can be delivered in various ways. Unless you're looking for sensational headlines - there is a better way to be constructive as opposed to what @Darthpool referred to as "bitter Betty"

Bottom line, for future Erupt potential buyers:
There is a small minority who does not like these, while the vast majority think those are great for their price range! Nothing wrong with that

 

[lichie]

We have an EARS here. It is not suited for absolute measurements. It offers no hearing simulation (which is just one of its limitations for absolute measurements). Keep in mind that this headphone is semi-closed -- the more closed the headphone, the more important simulating a proper load becomes.



I know what these guys are using for measurements (Audio Precision AECM206 Headphone Test Fixture and Audio Precision APx515 Audio Analyzer), and, with all due respect, their measurements would be far less "deceptive" (not the ideal choice of words since I don't think anyone's intent here is to deceive -- but since you brought that word into the mix...). I find it unfortunate that your first accusation is deception, rather than assuming that perhaps those are the scales they use internally. And their measurement techniques and systems are far more in line with industry standards than what you're offering from the EARS.



I disagree completely. I strongly recommend (and I'm far from alone) that raw measurements become the standard. I'd rather we all get used to looking at the measured response as-is than compensating with the myriad compensation curves that are being used out there. With so many compensation curves out there -- many being applied to sculpt the output of nonstandard measurement setups to look more like industry standard ones -- it's hard to know what one's actually looking at when looking at a measurement using compensation.

What DF compensation are you using? Is that diffuse field compensation the result of a capture made on the EARS in a diffuse field environment? I'm guessing not -- and, even then, that fixture has too many limitations that make it a poor choice for absolute measurements.

When I've posted DF-compensated measurements -- which I no longer do -- I've only used GRAS's diffuse field compensation from their measurements using their KEMAR fixture. The compensated measurements looked better on measurements made on the KEMAR (which we also have here) than when applied to those made on our 45CA (that we also have here and have been using more than the KEMAR). Given the type of fixture the 45CA is, I don't expect to see 45CA-specific DF measurements (and compensation).

As for what DF compensation Vokyl used, I'm guessing it probably came from ITU-5 P.58 (which I think was from the Brüel & Kjær 4128 HATS), which seems to be commonly used.

Raw measurements. That's what we should be using, and what we should get used to looking at. Once we start introducing compensations without careful standardization, all bets are off, and we have no real grasp of what we're looking at. We've had measurement seminars and panel discussions over the years with Paul Barton (PSB), Sean Olive (Harman International), Axel Grell (formerly of Sennheiser), Naotaka Tsunoda (formerly of Sony, now with Huawei), Dan Clark (MrSpeakers) and others... And when I've brought this up, these gentlemen all agreed.

I can see the fun (and some utility, assuming the fixtures are consistent enough from one EARS to the next) in comparing one EARS measurement to another EARS measurement. I can also see it being used as an inexpensive production test fixture for startups (even then, used with care and consideration to accommodate for any mic and/or fixture inconsistencies). But to be used to post measurements intended to suggest it's some kind of hearing simulator is a nigh-impossible stretch.



I believe you think that. But I just watched your video, and you seem to respond subjectively to what you've measured on the EARS. That and the fact that I've heard this headphone and your impressions of it are so different from mine (and it seems from others in this thread) that I do think that perhaps your EARS measurement outcomes were more influential on your opinions than you realize.

Perhaps try going with your ears without the EARS next time.

Compensation curves almost always are tailored to a specific rig and not intended to be applied to measurements taken from another rig. This is why RAW measurements should never be and cannot be the standard. RAW measurements from different measurement rigs are not comparable. This is why standard curves like DF and Harman were created in the first place.

For what its worth, I heard the Erupt at a small meet long before I ever saw measurements for it and my impressions of the headphone were pretty much the same as Max's.

 

[jude]

EARS is indeed not a very accurate system at all. But considering not only does every HATS but also every ear simulator have its own compensation to reach an industry standard DF comp, there's no way to know what something sounds like looking at raws either. Tyll's HMS commonly peaks at 3.5k on raws, and Jude's system is closer to 3k iirc. If raws become the standard, they have to be posted alongside what the comps look like. Otherwise, I'm not following that logic since not all comps are the same curve for different systems. Liking different curves like Harman vs DF vs IEM Harman is fine... providing a raw without context... not as useful IMO.

Edit: if I remember right for example, the Harman curve was developed on a 45CA. There's no guarantee that'll be applicable at all to a KEMAR or 5128C, and especially not an HMS3.

Compensation curves almost always are tailored to a specific rig and not intended to be applied to measurements taken from another rig. This is why RAW measurements should never be and cannot be the standard. RAW measurements from different measurement rigs are not comparable. This is why standard curves like DF and Harman were created in the first place...

I'm seeing DF being discussed here. I'm seeing the Harman Target being discussed here. And I still think we have some disconnect on compensations and why -- as they're currently and widely used by enthusiasts like us -- they're not very helpful.

If someone posts an EARS measurement with a DF compensation, how is that helpful? How was the diffuse field compensation curve for that fixture arrived at? I'm still not clear on why we're so fixated on diffuse field compensation with headphone measurements. If it's going to be done, though, at least use the diffuse field data for the fixture being used, if that data exists. For example, I don't think we'll see GRAS 45CA specific diffuse field data, given the kind of fixture it is.

I've seen some enthusiasts take my measurements of one model of headphone (made on one of our fixtures here), measure with the EARS and then create a compensation curve from that, the idea being that the difference between EARS and whatever we used to do the measurement here is captured. They then apply that difference to future EARS measurements to achieve similar results across other headphones. The problem is, though, that it doesn't work that way. If you swap to a different set of headphones and measure on both again, the results aren't going to look the same.

So many of the compensated measurements out on the web were made with DIY rigs like these, invariably with a wide variety of compensation curves applied to the raw measurements from those fixtures to sculpt the result into something that looks more familiar or understandable. Rarely (if ever) were the compensations values applied ever published -- and often they were changed, adjusted, and tweaked to, again, try to have results that look more familiar or understandable.

So without far more standardization on compensations and how they're arrived-at and applied, and what they're applied to, I think the wild west nature of freely adjustable, goodness-knows-where-this-came-from-and-goodness-knows-what-I'm-applying-it-to compensation curves is not helpful. Again, I'm not alone in this. This is a discussion I've had many times with Sean, Paul, Nao, Axel, Dan, various measurement engineers, and they agree that the way the enthusiasts have been applying compensations -- and what they've been applying them to -- can introduce more questions and confusion than answers.

I also think it's not generally understood that we try to simulate the load on the headphone in such a way that it's being used on a human because when a person puts a headphone on, he puts an air load (an acoustic load) in front of the driver that affects the way the driver and the headphone or earphone behaves. The EARS does not attempt to model this. Again, its utility for absolute measurements is simply not there, in my firm opinion.

The raw measurements from fixture to fixture can look different, yes. However, I'd rather see the measurement system and methods shown, and then look at the raw measurements with the knowledge of what was used to measure. Again, without clear standards on compensation, including the why's and how's, I'd rather know what was used to measure, and then look at the raw measurements.

When we compare the Harman Target to a measurement, we compare it to an uncompensated measurement from an industry standard system (ideally similar to or just like the system used in the associated research). If you calculate the difference between the headphone measurement and the Harman Target, the difference is calculated against the uncompensated measurement -- although that introduces minor (but still interesting) additional questions if (for example) you're comparing a 1/12-octave-smoothed measurement with the 1/2-octave-smoothed Harman Target. I had an interesting discussion with a couple of engineers about this at the AES Headphone Technology Conference in San Francisco a couple of months ago. I still have questions.

As things go now -- especially in the enthusiast-generated measurement space -- I'd rather see uncompensated measurements with knowledge of what was used in making those measurements. And if it's an EARS measurement, whether raw or compensated, it's with a gigantic grain of salt that I consider it, if at all.

 

[lichie]

I'm seeing DF being discussed here. I'm seeing the Harman Target being discussed here. And I still think we have some disconnect on compensations and why -- as they're currently and widely used by enthusiasts like us -- they're not very helpful.

If someone posts an EARS measurement with a DF compensation, how is that helpful? How was the diffuse field compensation curve for that fixture arrived at? I'm still not clear on why we're so fixated on diffuse field compensation with headphone measurements. If it's going to be done, though, at least use the diffuse field data for the fixture being used, if that data exists. For example, I don't think we'll see GRAS 45CA specific diffuse field data, given the kind of fixture it is.

I've seen some enthusiasts take my measurements of one model of headphone (made on one of our fixtures here), measure with the EARS and then create a compensation curve from that, the idea being that the difference between EARS and whatever we used to do the measurement here is captured. They then apply that difference to future EARS measurements to achieve similar results across other headphones. The problem is, though, that it doesn't work that way. If you swap to a different set of headphones and measure on both again, the results aren't going to look the same.

So many of the compensated measurements out on the web were made with DIY rigs like these, invariably with a wide variety of compensation curves applied to the raw measurements from those fixtures to sculpt the result into something that looks more familiar or understandable. Rarely (if ever) were the compensations values applied ever published -- and often they were changed, adjusted, and tweaked to, again, try to have results that look more familiar or understandable.

So without far more standardization on compensations and how they're arrived-at and applied, and what they're applied to, I think the wild west nature of freely adjustable, goodness-knows-where-this-came-from-and-goodness-knows-what-I'm-applying-it-to compensation curves is not helpful. Again, I'm not alone in this. This is a discussion I've had many times with Sean, Paul, Nao, Axel, Dan, various measurement engineers, and they agree that the way the enthusiasts have been applying compensations -- and what they've been applying them to -- can introduce more questions and confusion than answers.

I also think it's not generally understood that we try to simulate the load on the headphone in such a way that it's being used on a human because when a person puts a headphone on, he puts an air load (an acoustic load) in front of the driver that affects the way the driver and the headphone or earphone behaves. The EARS does not attempt to model this. Again, its utility for absolute measurements is simply not there, in my firm opinion.

The raw measurements from fixture to fixture can look different, yes. However, I'd rather see the measurement system and methods shown, and then look at the raw measurements with the knowledge of what was used to measure. Again, without clear standards on compensation, including the why's and how's, I'd rather know what was used to measure, and then look at the raw measurements.

When we compare the Harman Target to a measurement, we compare it to an uncompensated measurement from an industry standard system (ideally similar to or just like the system used in the associated research). If you calculate the difference between the headphone measurement and the Harman Target, the difference is calculated against the uncompensated measurement -- although that introduces minor (but still interesting) additional questions if (for example) you're comparing a 1/12-octave-smoothed measurement with the 1/2-octave-smoothed Harman Target. I had an interesting discussion with a couple of engineers about this at the AES Headphone Technology Conference in San Francisco a couple of months ago. I still have questions.

As things go now -- especially in the enthusiast-generated measurement space -- I'd rather see uncompensated measurements with knowledge of what was used in making those measurements. And if it's an EARS measurement, whether raw or compensated, it's with a gigantic grain of salt that I consider it, if at all.

I do agree with most of what you say here. EARs measurements with any DF compensation applied are highly suspect. However, they can still be used as long as they are *only* compared with other EARs measurements with the exact same compensation applied to them. I do think people should stick to using the compensation curves that minidsp provides for the EARs (the HPN comp is my preferred curve for the EARs). Still, regardless of what curve you use, any measurement from EARs should only be compared with other measurements from EARs. It is a decent rig for a hobbyist and I think it is fairly accurate up to around 2-3khz, but it has a pretty bad resonance between 3-4k and treble measurements from EARs are not representative at all.

 

[TylersEclectic]

Compensation curves almost always are tailored to a specific rig and not intended to be applied to measurements taken from another rig. This is why RAW measurements should never be and cannot be the standard. RAW measurements from different measurement rigs are not comparable. This is why standard curves like DF and Harman were created in the first place.

For what its worth, I heard the Erupt at a small meet long before I ever saw measurements for it and my impressions of the headphone were pretty much the same as Max's.

I'm not a measure-bator, I go by what I enjoy listening to and don't listen to things I don't like, plain and simple. Now, by my nature and training I'm a researcher/analyst amongst other things, and when I dug into all this FR and measurements my assessment of the matter was that all of it was hokey and unreliable, either due to bias, mechanical, software, misalignment, the fact that majority of the people measuring things aren't actually trained/qualified to do so...etc. But, like that is just like, my assessment/thoughts on the matter.

I don't trust FR graphs, they are cool to look at and get a basic understanding, and unless I can verify that it came from a validated rig with multiple peer review tests on other rigs for the FR, by "trained" "professionals" then it is just a line on a paper trying to sell me on whoever created it....

but when all is said and done.... if I like something and it measures poorly according to "youtube #23451235135613456" what do I care.

What gets my goat is bullies/trolls/absolutists that think they are above others and feel they are experts due to ... what exactly? because you have a camera, started a channel on youtube? bought a known to be inaccurate measuring rig? ok...show me some credentials! Or start making statements that reflect that this is "your" opinion and a subjective one at that, but once again, that is "my" opinion on it.

Those were my Erupts by 'n' by... interesting... always good to put a face to who we are talking with... and the varying levels of what each individual hears things... does not excuse people being unkindly towards others, or what others have worked very hard to create, constructive and negative critiques are fine, and as I said above you if you want to be volatile that is your right as well, but don't expect people to not see through it for what it is, a bias, in one way or another. Everyone has opinions and the right to voice those, but no one is absolute, so everything said should be taken, and understood, from that perspective/aspect.

We are all the protagonists to our own stories after all... but sometimes you have to take a pause in the moments you're in, look around and ask your self "wait, am I the villain right now?!?"