Latest Thread Images

Is Head-Fi Witnessing The Rise Of Two New Kings
Jun 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM Post #106 of 425


Quote:
skylab said:
Have not seen Tyll's measurement in a while, but I don't recall it showing a roll off at the top octave or beyond - note that he does say "very top". But if the measurements show that, then so be it. The measurements I have seen do not show this. In any case, the point is this is not a subjective thing. Either there is a measured roll off or there is not, and a roll off is a specific thing, which is a declining amplitude as frequency increases. That some, or even many, people feel that the LCD-2 has too little treble energy does not make it rolled off.

Contrast that to the very measurable spike in the low treble that an HD-800 has, followed by a drop off in the top octave, and one might guess while Tyll called the LCD-2 his "desert island" headphone, and why many of the rest of us like them. The treble is inarguably smoother than the top tier dynamics, whether you like the balance or not.

Rasmutte yes the HE-6 is much harder to drive than the HE-500.
 
Click to expand...

 
This looks suspiciously like semantics to me. My point is simply this - the LCD-2's highs sound "rolled-off" or "shelved-down" or "recessed" or "muted" to me. If I have used any of this "terminology" incorrectly, then I will stand corrected. I actually prefer "muted" or "dim" to describe the highs of the LCD-2. Perhaps I will use them from now on.
 
I don't require a frequency response graph to convince or reassure me of what I am hearing when I listen to a headphone. However, I have seen Tyll Hertsen's measurements of the LCD-2, and noted his description that its highs were "rolled-off". I happen to agree with his assessment based on my own listening experience. 
 
I have also noticed that there are Head-Fi'ers who zealously point to Tyll's work when it supports their position, yet appear to disregard it when it does not. His measurements of the LCD-2 are available at his website. There is a link to it in his post that I quoted on the previous page, should you care to refresh your memory.  
 
 
 
Jun 18, 2011 at 12:43 PM Post #107 of 425
Tomato, tomato (ok that doesn't really work on the internet).
No need to get all defensive guys, you all know EXACTLY what each other meant.
 
I prefer describing the treble as 'soft', because it has less of a negative connotation to it, so I won't get raped by the 'shelved down' police =P.
 
Jun 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM Post #108 of 425

 
Quote:
scompton said:
I would think elevated treble and bass would be what you need based on Fletcher Munson curves. 
 
Click to expand...


I don't believe that's how it works - sound should be flat in the farfield, not in the brain (which is what the Fletcher Munson curves try to capture) because we are used to hearing things that way. High frequency and low frequency sounds do indeed sound quieter to us, and we shouldn't be striving to make a system that 'corrects' for that. 
 
Sound reproduced in the farfield 'should' be flat across the spectrum. For speakers, it's easy to compare them to this ideal condition to say how good they are. Headphones are different though. Someone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong here:
 
Tyll measures headphones at the brain, using a dummy head with microphones in the ear canals of that head that behave in the same way as the eardrum / other associated equipment in our ear. He then applies a transfer function (the HRTF) to those measurements to infer what that sound would have been like if it were produced in the far field. Once he's applied the HRTF to his data, we 'should' see a flat line across the spectrum for an ideal pair of headphones, just as we would for ideal speakers.
 
The problem is, not everybody has the same HRTF as Tyll's dummy head - it depends on the size and shape of your head, whether your ears are massive, and probably how pretty you are too. That's why it's so difficult to look at a frequency response for a pair of headphones and say categorically whether it's more correct than another pair
 
 
Jun 18, 2011 at 12:58 PM Post #109 of 425


Quote:
pp312 said:
Could you elaborate on what those issues are? I'm stll unclear.
Click to expand...

 
Quote:
rhythmdevils said:
The new designs are improvements, but they still haven't dealt with or resolved the challenges presented by the technology, most of the improvements are because of new materials and manufacturing like thinner diaphragms and stronger magnets.  I still think there's unresolved backwave and damping issues in all of the new designs.
Click to expand...


Every now and again I hear an odd resonance or reflection w/ certain tracks that I assume to be a result of the above.  I've seen a few others notice this as well.  The fit and ergonomics would still need to be changed for me.  Plus the pads are/were too overstuffed.  I don't care about the weight, I used to wear a kevlar helmet everyday.  I'd like a few changes to the bass presentation as I don't find it as 'perfect' as I was expecting.  SS doesn't bother me nor the treble.  I don't find it dark and was surprised by the clarity and treble balance after reading so many criticisms.  There is obviously a design choice between non-fatiguing treble versus a peak that can actually render a bright cymbal crash and startling brass sections correctly.  I consider that a choice not a flaw.   
 
 
Jun 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM Post #110 of 425


Quote:
bumblingbooby said:
 
This looks suspiciously like semantics to me.
 
Click to expand...

 
 
It's not an argument over semantics.  Rolled off means there is treble information MISSING due to a lack of extension.  The LCD-2 extends to 50khz.  It is not rolled off.  We all use the term wrong -I think because it's unusual for a headphone to be both not bright and not rolled off, as they usually come together.   So it's not a big deal, but there's no discussing or debating or pondering or proving necessary. 
 
 
 
Jun 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM Post #117 of 425
Tyl is a pioneer in headphone measurement technology. He is (was and will be) an important member of the community. I was just surprised you hadn't heard of him. I'm guessing you know of his work with Headroom and headphone performance graphs.
 
Jun 18, 2011 at 4:32 PM Post #119 of 425
That's a lot of coffee. 
mad.gif

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top