[bigshot]

My six year old daughter flawlessly made a monkey out of all of us

 

[KinGensai]

What tests can be done to a headphone that demonstrate the sensations we hear as more realistic timbre, more clarity and separation of instruments, more natural voices, spatial sensation ... etc? With a frequency response it is not possible as there are headphones that have a similar response but there is a world of quality between them.

What you are asking about here refers to something called Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) which is a unique and quantifiable parameter that dictates what kind of transducer will fit your physiology well. Most of this function is involved with what is known as the pinna gain region, which roughly involves the 1kHz to about 5kHz range. Bass is also a bit affected, but changes to the pinna gain region are responsible for almost all of those characteristics you are concerned with.

You have to either experiment with an EQ and patience to figure out what your rough HRTF is or use in-ear microphones and a set of transducers.

IIRC of course.

 

[bigshot]

HRTF is more than just frequency response. It involves time shifting too. I think what you're referring to is the effect of the shape of the ear canal. Everyone is a little different, so ideal response curves are different for each individual. That's why there are so many curves in headphones. Something for everyone.

 

[Riccioli30]

I cavi non farebbero alcuna differenza se fossero superconduttori.

I also have a problem with the way the title is worded. Other titles could include:

My six-year-old daughter flawlessly passed a Rorschach test.

My six-year-old daughter flawlessly pulled out the ace of spades after the magician asked her to pick a card, any card, then shuffled the deck, and asked her to draw from the top.

My six-year-old daughter flawlessly wrote a story about the adventures of a Bumble Bee.

But let's not joke! It was a beautiful thread. It inspired me to try a transparent electrical cable that turns on my bedside lamp instead of a well-known signal cable. And, actually there was no difference when listening. My daughter didn't notice anything either. Just a very small nuance which is definitely an auditory hallucination. She tells me that everything sounds brighter now. As if a lamp had turned on in the system. Have more discussions like this! We hope to start another such constructive one. But - perhaps - not in this section of the forum.

 

[KinGensai]

HRTF is more than just frequency response. It involves time shifting too. I think what you're referring to is the effect of the shape of the ear canal. Everyone is a little different, so ideal response curves are different for each individual. That's why there are so many curves in headphones. Something for everyone.

That makes sense, it also involves distance between the ears and torso shape, so time delay and phase shift changes too, right? I've been learning how to use a crossfeeder and learned that stuff recently.

 

[bigshot]

Yeah. It’s pretty complicated and the specifics of how to create custom HRTFs are still being worked out. I use an app called Boom 3D to play with that stuff.

 

[The Jester]

Yeah. It’s pretty complicated and the specifics of how to create custom HRTFs are still being worked out. I use an app called Boom 3D to play with that stuff.

Never had much to do with that stuff, when you say “time shifting” is that the whole audio band or manipulation of discrete frequencies ?

 

[bigshot]

as Kin said phase and time delay. Very small shifts. It’s to simulate the head and shoulders and stuff. Castle is the one that knows all the details of it. I just know broad strokes.

 

[KinGensai]

Never had much to do with that stuff, when you say “time shifting” is that the whole audio band or manipulation of discrete frequencies ?

As I understand the concept, time shift is one of a few things that change what each ear hears as the location of a sound relative to the listener/recording hardware changes.

Say the source is dead center and at head level to the listener. There effectively is no time delay because the sound reaches both ears at the same time. As the source moves left or right, one ear gets the sound faster than the other, usually up to 5ms earlier if the sound is very hard panned IIRC.

That is only one factor of course, the head and torso will also attenuate the sound before the further ear hears the sound, so higher frequencies will be absorbed faster as the sound travels.

This is what makes headphones and especially IEMs so difficult to manufacture for a general audience. Everyone has different HRTFs, so you'll never be able to make everyone happy. That's why the Harman target response curve is so favored, it gives companies a standard to aim for that is based on some hard data on consumer preference. Not perfect, but it's the best that can be managed right now until new tech emerges.

 

[Ryokan]

Well I can't hear much above 12khz and kids can hear up to 20khz, so I wouldn't feel qualified to tell her she can't possibly hear a difference. Interesting.

 

[gregorio]

I dislike the condescension present in certain responses, whether they come from one side or the other.

That’s at least somewhat inevitable. If someone repeatedly states that the Earth is flat or that 1+1=3, it’s hard to repeatedly respond to such nonsense claims without the possibility of appearing condescending. However, you disliking the condescension you perceive doesn’t affect the facts.

On one hand, some ‘scientists’—have any of you conducted original experiments, or do you merely parrot the findings of others?

Firstly, we’re not claiming to be scientists. This is a science discussion forum, not a platform for scientists to conduct or publish science. Secondly, I’m not sure what you mean by “original experiments”? I’ve certainly done quite a number of DBT/ABX tests and also measured signals/equipment differences numerous times. None of that was “original experiments“ though, they’ve been done by tens of thousands of others, countless times for many decades.
Lastly and most importantly, what difference does it make anyway? I’m not a mathematician, I’ve never done and am not capable of doing an “original experiment” to prove that 1+1=2. Does that mean I can’t challenge someone claiming that 1+1=3 and state that actually 1+1=2? I’ve never done an original experiment to demonstrate the Earth isn’t flat and I’ve never jumped off a skyscraper to see if Newton was right. Isn’t that pretty much the whole point of science, and how it advances? Namely, that we can and do “parrot the findings of others” when the scientific method/process has been followed, because it’s specifically designed to enable scientists and others to do this with a high, near absolute or in some cases absolute confidence. Why do you think science has theories, theorems and laws and how do you think they’re arrived at? Your question implies you don’t know what science is!

This specific forum is a cesspool of arrogance, just move on.

Yep, we’re funny like that. When faced with nonsense/ridiculous assertions and having to repeatedly argue that say 1+1=2, that the Earth isn’t flat or various other proven facts, it‘s very difficult not to eventually appear arrogant. In other forums and sometimes even here, posters are frequently making nonsense/ridiculous assertions, they often do so humbly, in order to save face if anyone picks up on their BS. Although there’s also a great deal of arrogance in other forums too, from those most deluded by the audiophile marketing.

I think it's impossible, as far as I can see, to have a pleasant conversation and discussion on these topics, and that's a shame.

It is indeed a shame, not least because it’s so easily avoided! Namely, in this or any other science discussion forum in any area of science, do NOT make assertions of fact that contradict the science without an appropriate amount of reliable supporting evidence. Phrase it as a question INSTEAD of an assertion of fact!

I know very little about all this and I am not ashamed to admit it …

Then don’t argue about it! If there’s something you don’t understand, doesn’t make sense or seems contrary to your beliefs, then ASK, don’t just argue, make-up or repeat false assertions on the basis of ”knowing very little about all this”. Science of course knows a great deal about all this because audio recording and reproduction was invented ENTIRELY from science and many of us in this subforum are familiar with that science.

I have a doubt: for example, there are two headphones that seem very similar to me both when I listen to them and when I look at their frequency graphs (they have the mid bass a little forward, a drop in the 1-2 Khz and some treble peak) such as the Hifiman Arya Organic and the HE1000SE... however the latter are more resolving, more separation of layers, the instruments are more realistic and the sound in general is more open and have more quality (its price is also an indicator). Can all the above be measured with electronic devices?

Unfortunately, that’s the same mistake which has been made, repeated and explained several times in this thread already. You are confusing the actual physical properties of audio signals and sound with your personal perception/response to them. We generally cannot measure what’s going on inside your head (your perception/response) and when we’re measuring the performance of say a cable, DAC or other piece of equipment then we’re obviously measuring that equipment/component, not your personal brain. The items you listed are ALL your personal impressions/perception, we cannot measure your personal impressions and are not trying to, we’re measuring the HPs (in this example), not your brain. So in answer to your question: “No”, the above cannot be measured with electronic devices and pretty much no one, except you personally, would want to. The only things we can accurately measure are the actual properties of the signals/sounds being processed/reproduced, not your impressions of them.

I’m not sure how to more clearly explain this and the only reason I can think of that’s it’s not already completely self-evident is audiophile marketing, which for decades has deliberately tried to confuse this otherwise obvious fact. Take any other product, say a car for example, do we wire-up the driver’s brain to electronic devices and attempt to measure their impressions/perception of the performance (say the acceleration) or do we just use electronic devices to measure the car’s 0-100kph time? Why do you think we only do the latter?

Unfortunately it is a question of point of view and points of view are like ears and head: everyone has their own. Old story, nothing new, it's been fine for decades and we'll end it here.

We can agree that it’s an “old story, nothing new”, in fact this marketing falsehood/fallacy has been employed for around half a century in the audiophile world and for far longer in the marketing of certain other products. It is NOT a “question of point of view” it’s a point of objective, proven and demonstrated fact! Of course, you’re entitled to your own point of view but if it‘s contradicted by the actual facts/science, then obviously it’s an incorrect point of view.

Cables would make no difference if they were superconductors.

True but that’s a straw-man argument, as no one is claiming that cables make no difference. The proven fact is that cables do make a difference but given the correct cable for the task, that is functioning correctly, the difference in the analogue signal is either inaudible or so tiny it can’t even be reproduced as sound to start with!

G

 

[Dragonmilenario]

That’s at least somewhat inevitable. If someone repeatedly states that the Earth is flat or that 1+1=3, it’s hard to repeatedly respond to such nonsense claims without the possibility of appearing condescending. However, you disliking the condescension you perceive doesn’t affect the facts.

Firstly, we’re not claiming to be scientists. This is a science discussion forum, not a platform for scientists to conduct or publish science. Secondly, I’m not sure what you mean by “original experiments”? I’ve certainly done quite a number of DBT/ABX tests and also measured signals/equipment differences numerous times. None of that was “original experiments“ though, they’ve been done by tens of thousands of others, countless times for many decades.
Lastly and most importantly, what difference does it make anyway? I’m not a mathematician, I’ve never done and am not capable of doing an “original experiment” to prove that 1+1=2. Does that mean I can’t challenge someone claiming that 1+1=3 and state that actually 1+1=2? I’ve never done an original experiment to demonstrate the Earth isn’t flat and I’ve never jumped off a skyscraper to see if Newton was right. Isn’t that pretty much the whole point of science, and how it advances? Namely, that we can and do “parrot the findings of others” when the scientific method/process has been followed, because it’s specifically designed to enable scientists and others to do this with a high, near absolute or in some cases absolute confidence. Why do you think science has theories, theorems and laws and how do you think they’re arrived at? Your question implies you don’t know what science is!

Yep, we’re funny like that. When faced with nonsense/ridiculous assertions and having to repeatedly argue that say 1+1=2, that the Earth isn’t flat or various other proven facts, it‘s very difficult not to eventually appear arrogant. In other forums and sometimes even here, posters are frequently making nonsense/ridiculous assertions, they often do so humbly, in order to save face if anyone picks up on their BS. Although there’s also a great deal of arrogance in other forums too, from those most deluded by the audiophile marketing.

It is indeed a shame, not least because it’s so easily avoided! Namely, in this or any other science discussion forum in any area of science, do NOT make assertions of fact that contradict the science without an appropriate amount of reliable supporting evidence. Phrase it as a question INSTEAD of an assertion of fact!

Then don’t argue about it! If there’s something you don’t understand, doesn’t make sense or seems contrary to your beliefs, then ASK, don’t just argue, make-up or repeat false assertions on the basis of ”knowing very little about all this”. Science of course knows a great deal about all this because audio recording and reproduction was invented ENTIRELY from science and many of us in this subforum are familiar with that science.

Unfortunately, that’s the same mistake which has been made, repeated and explained several times in this thread already. You are confusing the actual physical properties of audio signals and sound with your personal perception/response to them. We generally cannot measure what’s going on inside your head (your perception/response) and when we’re measuring the performance of say a cable, DAC or other piece of equipment then we’re obviously measuring that equipment/component, not your personal brain. The items you listed are ALL your personal impressions/perception, we cannot measure your personal impressions and are not trying to, we’re measuring the HPs (in this example), not your brain. So in answer to your question: “No”, the above cannot be measured with electronic devices and pretty much no one, except you personally, would want to. The only things we can accurately measure are the actual properties of the signals/sounds being processed/reproduced, not your impressions of them.

I’m not sure how to more clearly explain this and the only reason I can think of that’s it’s not already completely self-evident is audiophile marketing, which for decades has deliberately tried to confuse this otherwise obvious fact. Take any other product, say a car for example, do we wire-up the driver’s brain to electronic devices and attempt to measure their impressions/perception of the performance (say the acceleration) or do we just use electronic devices to measure the car’s 0-100kph time? Why do you think we only do the latter?

We can agree that it’s an “old story, nothing new”, in fact this marketing falsehood/fallacy has been employed for around half a century in the audiophile world and for far longer in the marketing of certain other products. It is NOT a “question of point of view” it’s a point of objective, proven and demonstrated fact! Of course, you’re entitled to your own point of view but if it‘s contradicted by the actual facts/science, then obviously it’s an incorrect point of view.

True but that’s a straw-man argument, as no one is claiming that cables make no difference. The proven fact is that cables do make a difference but given the correct cable for the task, that is functioning correctly, the difference in the analogue signal is either inaudible or so tiny it can’t even be reproduced as sound to start with!

G

Thank you Gregorio (Spanish?). I have always found your contributions in this thread respectful and interesting.

I have a question about measuring the quality of two different headphones. Anyone can notice that, as I said before, an HE1000se has a better sound (by far) than an Arya Organic (good headphones but less technical) although both have a similar frequency response. What can we measure and study scientifically with measuring devices to check what?

 

[Riccioli30]

That’s at least somewhat inevitable. If someone repeatedly states that the Earth is flat or that 1+1=3, it’s hard to repeatedly respond to such nonsense claims without the possibility of appearing condescending. However, you disliking the condescension you perceive doesn’t affect the facts.

Firstly, we’re not claiming to be scientists. This is a science discussion forum, not a platform for scientists to conduct or publish science. Secondly, I’m not sure what you mean by “original experiments”? I’ve certainly done quite a number of DBT/ABX tests and also measured signals/equipment differences numerous times. None of that was “original experiments“ though, they’ve been done by tens of thousands of others, countless times for many decades.
Lastly and most importantly, what difference does it make anyway? I’m not a mathematician, I’ve never done and am not capable of doing an “original experiment” to prove that 1+1=2. Does that mean I can’t challenge someone claiming that 1+1=3 and state that actually 1+1=2? I’ve never done an original experiment to demonstrate the Earth isn’t flat and I’ve never jumped off a skyscraper to see if Newton was right. Isn’t that pretty much the whole point of science, and how it advances? Namely, that we can and do “parrot the findings of others” when the scientific method/process has been followed, because it’s specifically designed to enable scientists and others to do this with a high, near absolute or in some cases absolute confidence. Why do you think science has theories, theorems and laws and how do you think they’re arrived at? Your question implies you don’t know what science is!

Yep, we’re funny like that. When faced with nonsense/ridiculous assertions and having to repeatedly argue that say 1+1=2, that the Earth isn’t flat or various other proven facts, it‘s very difficult not to eventually appear arrogant. In other forums and sometimes even here, posters are frequently making nonsense/ridiculous assertions, they often do so humbly, in order to save face if anyone picks up on their BS. Although there’s also a great deal of arrogance in other forums too, from those most deluded by the audiophile marketing.

It is indeed a shame, not least because it’s so easily avoided! Namely, in this or any other science discussion forum in any area of science, do NOT make assertions of fact that contradict the science without an appropriate amount of reliable supporting evidence. Phrase it as a question INSTEAD of an assertion of fact!

Then don’t argue about it! If there’s something you don’t understand, doesn’t make sense or seems contrary to your beliefs, then ASK, don’t just argue, make-up or repeat false assertions on the basis of ”knowing very little about all this”. Science of course knows a great deal about all this because audio recording and reproduction was invented ENTIRELY from science and many of us in this subforum are familiar with that science.

Unfortunately, that’s the same mistake which has been made, repeated and explained several times in this thread already. You are confusing the actual physical properties of audio signals and sound with your personal perception/response to them. We generally cannot measure what’s going on inside your head (your perception/response) and when we’re measuring the performance of say a cable, DAC or other piece of equipment then we’re obviously measuring that equipment/component, not your personal brain. The items you listed are ALL your personal impressions/perception, we cannot measure your personal impressions and are not trying to, we’re measuring the HPs (in this example), not your brain. So in answer to your question: “No”, the above cannot be measured with electronic devices and pretty much no one, except you personally, would want to. The only things we can accurately measure are the actual properties of the signals/sounds being processed/reproduced, not your impressions of them.

I’m not sure how to more clearly explain this and the only reason I can think of that’s it’s not already completely self-evident is audiophile marketing, which for decades has deliberately tried to confuse this otherwise obvious fact. Take any other product, say a car for example, do we wire-up the driver’s brain to electronic devices and attempt to measure their impressions/perception of the performance (say the acceleration) or do we just use electronic devices to measure the car’s 0-100kph time? Why do you think we only do the latter?

We can agree that it’s an “old story, nothing new”, in fact this marketing falsehood/fallacy has been employed for around half a century in the audiophile world and for far longer in the marketing of certain other products. It is NOT a “question of point of view” it’s a point of objective, proven and demonstrated fact! Of course, you’re entitled to your own point of view but if it‘s contradicted by the actual facts/science, then obviously it’s an incorrect point of view.

True but that’s a straw-man argument, as no one is claiming that cables make no difference. The proven fact is that cables do make a difference but given the correct cable for the task, that is functioning correctly, the difference in the analogue signal is either inaudible or so tiny it can’t even be reproduced as sound to start with!

āmēn. The celebration (in the biblical sense) is over. Go in peace

 

[KinGensai]

@gregorio
I think there is one thing @Dragonmilenario is saying here that makes some sense about the quality of the sound outside of FR graphs.

For instance, if I am understanding what he's saying here, I can draw a parallel in a direct comparison of the Etymotic ER2XR to the QDC Anole V14. The ER2XR is a single BA IEM, and it posts 1% THD on average, which is quite high and is obviously audible when comparing to the 10 BA 4 EST Anole V14, which I haven't been able to find exact measurements of but, to my ear, achieves =< 0.1% HD across frequencies I could find test tones for.

This information is not exactly readily available to someone who doesn't know what to look for, but when they hear it they likely can tell something is different, so they'll articulate that qualitative difference a bit poorly, and apparently attributing such qualitative differences to things that often have little to no causal relevance to what they are hearing.

 

[KinGensai]

Thank you Gregorio (Spanish?). I have always found your contributions in this thread respectful and interesting.

I have a question about measuring the quality of two different headphones. Anyone can notice that, as I said before, an HE1000se has a better sound (by far) than an Arya Organic (good headphones but less technical) although both have a similar frequency response. What can we measure and study scientifically with measuring devices to check what?

There are a few different metrics I've seen now and then.

There's total harmonic distortion graphs that show how much unwanted sound is generated by the transducer when it is playing a pure sine wave. I have seen sites like rtings.com post graphs like those, and some companies will post their internal graphs sometimes.

Sound pressure level is a metric that measures how much air is compressing and rarefacting when playing sounds. It's roughly correlated to FR, but not always (orthodynamic vs electrostatic is a very different physical sensation, and SPL graphs help indicate that).

Impulse Response is another stat that describes how quickly the transducer starts and stops moving on a pure sine wave with clean start and clean break. This is a very important stat for determining how "clean" a transducer is going to sound along with how good it will be at imaging.

There are others I'm probably not familiar with.