[dstarr3]

Except for the fact that objective measurement is the best way to go about finding good headphones, and it backs up what everybody has been saying in this thread, that these headphones are very similar to the LCD X, which has a very close frequency response

Maybe if frequency response was the only measurable component of audio quality. But it's not.

 

[SUSSUS AMOGUS]

Maybe if frequency response was the only measurable component of audio quality. But it's not.

It's the main measurement that matters. Sure, you can have tests to see transient response and impedance at different frequencies, but the frequency response gives us the best idea of how anything should sound. It's not even worth considering headphones with a wonky FR.

 

[dstarr3]

It's the main measurement that matters. Sure, you can have tests to see transient response and impedance at different frequencies, but the frequency response gives us the best idea of how anything should sound. It's not even worth considering headphones with a wonky FR.

If you only listen to constant sine waves, sure

 

[Chastity]

It's the main measurement that matters. Sure, you can have tests to see transient response and impedance at different frequencies, but the frequency response gives us the best idea of how anything should sound. It's not even worth considering headphones with a wonky FR.

FR graphs are fine, with the understanding that it is a snapshot of a moment of how the sine wave sweep sounds individually, instead of multiple tones being generated simultaneously, over time. FR graphs do not show layering, or instrument smear, or other qualities.

 

[SUSSUS AMOGUS]

If you only listen to constant sine waves, sure

A good understanding of how frequency response works should tell the viewer a lot of important info of that headphone, and how it sounds compared to other headphones. It's not going to tell you everything like the timbre or bass texture, but it will tell you if the bass is bloated, highs are shrill, or any resonances etc, all of which are critical information.
In the specific case of this headphone, the FR is in fact the most useful measurement because it shows Audeze like tuning. THAT'S why it's important, and now that we know it should sound like LCDs, this is where things that can't be measured come in for subjective reviews, such as the aforementioned timbre and bass texture.

FR graphs are fine, with the understanding that it is a snapshot of a moment of how the sine wave sweep sounds individually, instead of multiple tones being generated simultaneously, over time. FR graphs do not show layering, or instrument smear, or other qualities.

I agree, FR doesn't account the effects of reverb, reflections, absorption which may change the sound depending on the head/ear. My argument was simply for using the FR as a tool to quickly help somebody navigate a vast amount of headphones and dial it in to only a certain few headphones with a sound signature they will find enjoyable. For that purpose, frequency response is king.

 

[dstarr3]

A good understanding of how frequency response works should tell the viewer a lot of important info of that headphone, and how it sounds compared to other headphones. It's not going to tell you everything like the timbre or bass texture, but it will tell you if the bass is bloated, highs are shrill, or any resonances etc, all of which are critical information.
In the specific case of this headphone, the FR is in fact the most useful measurement because it shows Audeze like tuning. THAT'S why it's important, and now that we know it should sound like LCDs, this is where things that can't be measured come in for subjective reviews, such as the aforementioned timbre and bass texture.


I agree, FR doesn't account the effects of reverb, reflections, absorption which may change the sound depending on the head/ear. My argument was simply for using the FR as a tool to quickly help somebody navigate a vast amount of headphones and dial it in to only a certain few headphones with a sound signature they will find enjoyable. For that purpose, frequency response is king.

Or you could just talk to people who like headphones you like and see what else they like. Finding other folk with similar tastes and hitting them up for recommendations has always been MUCH more effective for me than any graph or chart.

 

[hottyson]

FR is in fact the most useful measurement

To some, such as me, with most headphones, frequency response is far from the most useful measurement.

 

[SUSSUS AMOGUS]

Or you could just talk to people who like headphones you like and see what else they like. Finding other folk with similar tastes and hitting them up for recommendations has always been MUCH more effective for me than any graph or chart.

That's what we're already doing, what good is talking to more people who say the same thing? That's why measurements are important, and why people like ASR are very critical because they are here to do these measurements and explain the science to many people who don't, so that everybody can make informed decisions on both facts and reviews.

To some, such as me, with most headphones, frequency response is far from the most useful measurement.

What do you mean by this? What other measurement could possibly tell you anything about it? Impulse response isn't relevant, waterfall plots are not relevant because the FR will give you better data, impedance measurements are not relevant unless you have a problem with your amplifier. Or are you referring to human measurements as in reviews?

 

[hottyson]

What do you mean by this?

What I mean, is that your statement, "FR is in fact the most useful measurement," is a blanket statement that does not apply to me, nor to most all of my headphones. A careless assumption made entirely inaccurate when describing my experience, in which I have rarely, almost never, valued measured frequency response.

 

[SUSSUS AMOGUS]

What I mean, is that your statement, "FR is in fact the most useful measurement," is a blanket statement that does not apply to me, nor to most all of my headphones. A careless assumption made entirely inaccurate when describing my experience, in which I have rarely, almost never, valued measured frequency response.

I argue that's a misplay on your part because the FR tells far more about the equipment than meets the eye then. There's a reason it has become the standard to release the graph whenever equipment is sold. Your individual experience with headphones doesn't negate the objective information the FR gives.

Let me give some perspective, my friend designed and we then built his speakers. They play beautifully, but not perfect and you could tell the room was destroying the response. So we measured them and sure enough, there were some gnarly dips due to standing waves. So he moved the location and angling, added panels and redid the DSP. Updated system had noticeably tighter bass with the same great extension. Frequency response cleared right up and was much more flat.

Notice how we didn't have any other measurements to diagnose and solve the issue, and the FR told us all the information we needed to know to make the audio sound "reference." This is what I mean by FR is the most useful measurement. It's objectively the king and I've *never* been burned by going with the best measured performance, and *then* following reviews based on that.