1. 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.

    Dismiss Notice

Meze Audio Empyrean Measurements

Discussion in 'Head-Fi Audio Measurement Lab' started by jude, Oct 15, 2018.
2 3 4 5
Next
 
Last
  1. jude Administrator
    Meze Audio Empyrean Measurements

    Here is the frequency response measurement of the Meze Audio Empyrean (with microfiber earpads) versus the Sennheiser HD800 and HD800S (for common references) (Fig.1):

    FR_Meze-Empyrean-(microfiber)_HD800S_HD800_normalize-600-Hz.jpg
    Fig.1 Meze Audio Empyrean frequency response, compared to the Sennheiser HD800 and HD800S

    Below is the total harmonic distortion (THD) measurement of the Meze Audio Empyrean (with microfiber earpads) versus the Sennheiser HD800 and HD800S (for common reference) (Fig.2):

    THD_Meze-Empyrean-(microfiber)_HD800S_HD800.jpg
    Fig.2 Meze Audio Empyrean toal harmonic distortion (THD), compared to the Sennheiser HD800 and HD800S


    The measurements in this post were made using:
     
    slankoe, xxx1313, Currawong and 4 others like this.
  2. Hifiearspeakers
    Amazing frequency response! I can’t wait for these to be released. No crazy treble spikes and beautifully linear planar bass.
     
    Deftone, tenedosian and alphanumerix1 like this.
  3. Skycyclepilot
    $3,000... Oh well...
     
  4. XERO1
    Wow. :astonished::grin:

    Dead flat bass down to 20Hz, -2dB at 10Hz, an order of magnitude (10x) lower distortion from 10-100Hz compared to the HD800 & HD800S.

    Can’t wait to hear the production version!
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  5. Hifiearspeakers
    Will you be giving a percentage of THD later?
     
    alphanumerix1 likes this.
  6. TYATYA
    Wow ideal fr and very low distort
     
    Hifiearspeakers likes this.
  7. Seisei
    Sems good, but i would not say its ideal, based on the frequency response it has an upper mid and treble peak. The graphs also dont say too much about imaging, soundstage and overall coherence, tonal balance.

    Anyway, need to hear how it sounds in reality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    alphanumerix1 likes this.
  8. Hifiearspeakers
    A little upper mid energy (4K) makes vocals more forward. I prefer that. I don’t see any treble peaks. The treble after 4K is well below the 800S, and the 800S is only slightly bright to begin with. That frequency response is gorgeous!!!
     
    ZGLISZCZ likes this.
  9. Seisei
    8db not just a little energy but a peak and that is in the worst place, where human hearing is the most sensitive. Even a flat 3-4K response can sound bright, totally no need any extra energy there.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    alphanumerix1 likes this.
  10. jude Administrator
    These measurements are uncompensated. I'll say more about this later.
     
    Bastianpp and alphanumerix1 like this.
  11. Mark Up
    I don't remember that kind of flat bass extension when I heard them at CanJam NYC 2018. It clearly rolled off quickly under 50 hz. I guess they'd addressed that in revisions. The highs I do remember being that smooth and the mids were excellent. I am surprised there is as much going on between 3.5 - 4.5 khz. It was very smooth in that area despite that.
     
    alphanumerix1 likes this.
  12. Skycyclepilot
    That was going to be my next question - against which standard are these measurements compensated... Harman, Diffuse Field, etc...
     
  13. Cinder
    I've had a long-ish listening session with the Empyrian, twice, and I can say with absolute certainty: the Empyrian is not sharp, sibilant, or in any other way uncomfortable to listen to.

    It's an outstanding headphone, even pre-production.
     
    phase0 and Hifiearspeakers like this.
  14. XERO1
    Right now, compensation curves are still a bit of a moving target, which is why the raw response should always be provided along with the compensated FR.
     
    ToTo Man likes this.
  15. jude Administrator
    Again, the above frequency response measurement is uncompensated, and this is mostly how we'll be presenting frequency response measurements from now on.

    Why? Because the random, willy-nilly use of compensations are a large source of confusion among those who read headphone measurements.

    Many (perhaps even most) of the measurements you see online are made using DIY headphone measurement rigs. And overwhelmingly most of the measurements I've seen posted that were made on these types of setups are compensated. But compensated using which curve(s)? I've seen some apply the diffuse field compensation based on the data from ITU-T P.58. That curve (which I think was made using a Brüel & Kjær HATS) is not applicable to the output from DIY headphone measurement rigs (or to those from our GRAS 45CA). I've seen some apply the Harman target (which was made using a GRAS 45CA). Again, compensation derived directly from the Harman target is not applicable to the output from DIY headphone measurement rigs. I've seen some apply compensations to the output of a specific headphone from DIY measurement rigs that were based on measurements I've done of the same model of headphone. Again, that's not going to work either. Some simply apply a compensation curve to mold the raw output from the measurement fixture to look more reasonable when the raw output of the measurement rig would otherwise look completely wonky. And some who do these measurements are frequently changing and adjusting their compensation curves in a season-to-taste manner.

    So, in consideration of all of the above, when you look at a compensated frequency response measurement, what are you looking at? Most of the time -- when you're looking at a compensated frequency response measurement -- you literally do not know.

    Over the years, there have been times I have posted diffuse-field-compensated measurements. For those, I have used only one compensation curve, which is from diffuse field measurements made by GRAS using their KEMAR measurement manikin (which we also have here). Because there is no specific DF data for the GRAS 45CA (and given the type of fixture it is, there's not likely ever to be), I have also applied that compensation to measurements made on the GRAS 45CA (which are always indicated clearly as being diffuse-field-compensated). That said, the KEMAR DF data doesn't directly apply to measurements made on the GRAS 45CA -- and, not surprisingly, I'm less satisfied with the DF-compensated output from the GRAS 45CA using the KEMAR DF data than I am with measurements made on KEMAR. Still, when it comes to compensation, I've still only used one (again, from GRAS's KEMAR DF measurements).

    And I want to be clear about something else: You can not simply compensate one headphone measurement rig into another.

    From discussions with many engineers in trade -- most of whom you'll also only see uncompensated measurements from -- I believe posting the pre-compensated frequency response (as it came from the measurement fixture) should be the standard, and what we become accustomed to looking at. In every measurement I post, I detail the gear that was used for that measurement. I have also posted a video...


    If you can't see the embedded video above, please click here.

    ...showing the basics of how we perform the measurement (though we have to do a minor update to that, as we've changed the procedure a bit, such that we're no longer switching to a noise stimulus before the sweep in most cases).

    We'll be talking about this topic a lot more going forward.

    Some key questions to ask when looking at a headphone measurement found online:
    • Who did the measurement?
    • What system was used to make the measurement?
    • Was the headphone measurement system that was used based on standards intended to model human perception by modeling the correct impedance (of the human hearing system)?
    • How are the measurements done (how is placement determined over the fixture, etc.)?
    • Is the frequency response measurement shown a product of compensation?
    • If the frequency response measurement was compensated, why was it compensated, and what compensation curve was used?
    As is probably clear from this post, I feel that's a vast understatement.
     
    ToTo Man, batfier, Ripper2860 and 9 others like this.
2 3 4 5
Next
 
Last

Share This Page