[jon parker]

Just to re-iterate (I am also a full Sound Engineer

This headphone has the good quality of revealing what is in the mix
It is not completely neutral as the low end is often noticeably noticeable in the mix HOWEVER it CAN give an exceptional & accurate representation of the percussion... >>Sometimes<< - depending on the track. Sometimes though I do find there is a little bit too much emphasis on the lows - Not enough to spoil it for me...but irronically, enough to make realise that its not far from perfect in some regards
In general Im finding that the NDH 20 does not have a lot of respect for less than optimally mastered audio!

> In case we forget - This is a closed back headphone !!

In the sense that the NDH20's are quite revealing this means that sometimes the mids may well SOUND like they are scooped out and and other times they may well SOUND perfect - Assuming of course you are all listening to a qualified well recorded mixed & mastered source ?

How this is perceived will also depend on what your other reference points may be

There has been a recent upsurge in people taking as gospel a graph that 'someone' has posted online - This really needs to taken with as much reliance as you would receive from seeing a patch of green area with the appropriately symbolised types of trees on a map - You can glean that there is a wood or forest there and can get a rough idea of the type of forest BUT this is nothing like the experience of actually standing in the middle of and experiencing the forest in person !!
Its a very 1 dimensional tool to give a very rough idea of what a headphone might sound like - But with IEMS for example - all you need to do is change the seal or tips and that graph is then, often completely different

End of the day - I have had some amazing sessions with them and have been almost completely happy with the sound

Also today i did some editing with them and found the tonality of the female vocals and the resolution of the audio as a whole to be surprisingly good...in fact pretty much spot on - perfectly revealing the sound of the female vocals and the characteristics of the particular mic used

 

[jude]

Also, with respect to Sonarworks measurements: I'm not sure how they do their headphone measurements, and I don't know if they've ever specifically discussed it. I have seen (and heard) how they measured a studio for corrections/adjustments, and it was cool to see -- and the results in that case were awesome.

With headphones, though, again, it's a bit of a mystery (to me anyway) how they're measuring -- and I do suspect there's some kind of compensation being applied, so comparing theirs to mine (which is uncompensated, and from a known setup) may be of limited value.

Mastering engineers agree on one thing.
This is, that the magic of music happens within the midrange.
Music LIVES in the mids.
So, a ME is going to take note of speakers and headphones that have a good mid, vs one that is a "V" shape, as this is the death of music, as it castrates it.
The Neumanns like the recent Quads, are good with mids.
Not the best, but they do a good job with the mids.
The HEXV2 are good with mids.
The Audeze LCD-X are better then average, regarding mids.
Critical listening skills, are not about noticing the treble and bass response.
Think of it like this..... You have a Cake, and you have Icing on the Cake. The cake is the Midrange, the rest is the icing.
If you read 50 reviews of a certain gear, and all the reviews shout about the treble and bass, but say little about the mids, then you are not dealing with truly experienced listeners, and you are not dealing with an audiophile product. You are dealing with "consumer or prosumer" sound.
Quality of musical sound is always regarding midrange, because this is where music and musical reproduction accuracy live.

I really don't think every mastering engineer would agree with you on these headphones (or any other for that matter). You won't get unanimity.

 

[Max_Settings]

Also, with respect to Sonarworks measurements: I'm not sure how they do their headphone measurements, and I don't know if they've ever specifically discussed it. I have seen (and heard) how they measured a studio for corrections/adjustments, and it was cool to see -- and the results in that case were awesome.

With headphones, though, again, it's a bit of a mystery (to me anyway) how they're measuring -- and I do suspect there's some kind of compensation being applied, so comparing theirs to mine (which is uncompensated, and from a known setup) may be of limited value.



I really don't think every mastering engineer would agree with you on these headphones (or any other for that matter). You won't get unanimity.

Also to be fair Oratory's measurements also show quite the dip in the mids.

 

[Max_Settings]

 

[FullBright1]

There has been a recent upsurge in people taking as gospel a graph that 'someone' has posted online - This really needs to taken with as much reliance as you would receive from seeing a patch of green area with the appropriately symbolised types of trees on a map -

Graphs and charts are for paper.
Sound is for ears.
I enjoy it when someone uses a graph to illustrate 3 competing headphones, and you can follow all the lines which supposedly show how Headphone A. has deeper bass, while Headphone B has a treble spike at 6K, and Headphone C is the perfect Harman curve.
Then you listen to all 3 and none of them sound anything like how the graph defined them to sound.
See here is the thing........ a graph cannot duplicate human hearing, or the shape of a human head or the shape of human ears.
A graph is not sound, it merely ink on a page.
Headphones produce actual sound, they are not a graph or a chart, and so, in the case of endless madness related to "but the graph said".. "let me show you this chart"""......its like this......"illusion is painfully shattered, right were DISCOVERY STARTS".
SO, THE reality of the Graph and Chart, are deleted into oblivion once the headphone is on your head playing music.
Graphs and Charts, are similar to talking about LOVE, in that they both are nothing like the real thing.
Sound going into EARS is the real thing.
Graphs and Charts are not the real thing.

 

[Mud_Pum]

Graphs and charts are for paper.
Sound is for ears.
I enjoy it when someone uses a graph to illustrate 3 competing headphones, and you can follow all the lines which supposedly show how Headphone A. has deeper bass, while Headphone B has a treble spike at 6K, and Headphone C is the perfect Harman curve.
Then you listen to all 3 and none of them sound anything like how the graph defined them to sound.
See here is the thing........ a graph cannot duplicate human hearing, or the shape of a human head or the shape of human ears.
A graph is not sound, it merely ink on a page.
Headphones produce actual sound, they are not a graph or a chart, and so, in the case of endless madness related to "but the graph said".. "let me show you this chart"""......its like this......"illusion is painfully shattered, right were DISCOVERY STARTS".
SO, THE reality of the Graph and Chart, are deleted into oblivion once the headphone is on your head playing music.
Graphs and Charts, are similar to talking about LOVE, in that they both are nothing like the real thing.
Sound going into EARS is the real thing.
Graphs and Charts are not the real thing.

Define sound please.

 

[FullBright1]

Define sound please.

Sound is what your ear's perceive.
Without hearing, there is no perception of SOUND.

This is why a deaf person can't HEAR any SOUND.

Its like that statement about...."if a tree falls in the forest and there is noone around to HEAR IT".......then did it produce any sound?
Well, it only produced sound waves.
"sound" is realated 100% to hearing.
Where there is no hearing, then there is no "sound", as we understand this..........>.

Do you see?

 

[Mud_Pum]

Sound is what your ear's perceive.
Without hearing, there is no perception of SOUND.

This is why a deaf person can't HEAR any SOUND.

Its like that statement about...."if a tree falls in the forest and there is noone around to HEAR IT".......then did it produce any sound?
Well, it only produced sound waves.

Do you see?

From what I’m reading sound is defined as vibrations in the air. A physical wave if you will. Is there a consensus here?

 

[FullBright1]

From what I’m reading sound is defined as vibrations in the air. A physical wave if you will. Is there a consensus here?

you are speaking about vibrations.
But this is not sound.
"Sound" is a term that is related to hearing and perceiving.
So, until "sound waves" are heard, then sound is not being revealed or perceived as sound.
Sound has to do with perception.
Sound waves, by themselves, are not the same.

Think of it like this..
What is "beauty"?
Its the same as Sound.
Let me show you.

In the distance there is a sunset........the flames of orange and purple and pink light are burning the sky while the round orange ball of sun is descending into the Pacific Ocean, until it disappears.
So, you see all this happening, and think...."that is beautiful"..."BEAUTY">... "beautiful".
And why? Because until this is all PERCEIVED as BEAUTY, then its just light, in colors.
But once PERCEIVED< then this becomes a "beautiful sunset".

Its the same with sound waves, before they are PERCEIVED......and once perceived they are become "SOUND".

See it?

 

[jon parker]

To be fair, it takes a loooong time to fully understand and appreciate what 'good' sound is

There was a sound engineer of 60 years experience who recently said it was only in the last 5 years of his working life that finally began to fully appreciate what a good low end was!!

Over time your hearing and listening skills deepen. Im with ya @FullBright1 in that I couldn't really care less what a graph or anyone says about a given headphone
There is no way of knowing how qualified the graph is and for those who say the sound quality is this or that - That's fine but you never know what their source is !
Some people actually post reviews using mp3's out of a phone ??!!!! - As if that can come even close to revealing a headphones full potential ?!

Having said that
I am however more than happy to listen to others views and measure what they posit against my own views and experiences and as a result
re-evaluate and re-listen to see if what they say rings true for me or not

 

[Mud_Pum]

you are speaking about vibrations.
But this is not sound.
"Sound" is a term that is related to hearing and perceiving.
So, keep that in mind.

By what metric? From the sources I’m reading (various academic and opinion pieces), I’m seeing sound itself as being those very vibrations, and music is an organization of sound over time. Is perception only achievable through human means?

 

[jon parker]

From what I’m reading sound is defined as vibrations in the air. A physical wave if you will. Is there a consensus here?

Actually I would say that sound waves, vibrations, the physical mechanisms of the ear are an important part of the process - They are part of the various conditions that along with needed cause - give rise to sound but hearing itself is 'experienced' with the mind. You can for example 'hear' sounds with the sleeping (or subtle) mind . . . but that's a whole 'nother topic

 

[jude]

Also to be fair Oratory's measurements also show quite the dip in the mids.

Actually, this raw plot looks pretty much exactly like mine, including its comparison to the Harman AE/OE target. (Do you know if he measured it himself, or if he's basing this on existing measurements on the web?)

The vertical scale is different (70 dBSPL spread on mine, 50 dBSPL on his), and his frequency axis is also more compressed, which does make them look different.

 

[jon parker]

By what metric? From the sources I’m reading (various academic and opinion pieces), I’m seeing sound itself as being those very vibrations, and music is an organization of sound over time. Is perception only achievable through human means?

Sorry to jump in here but I would say that 'sound' has no power from its own side to be this or that - It is only when a consciousness perceives it and then imputes something upon it can it then be labelled (by the mind) as [not just] a sound but a 'meaningful ' sound, possessing a 'name' and this or that 'quality'

 

[jon parker]

Actually, this raw plot looks pretty much exactly like mine, including its comparison to the Harman AE/OE target. (Do you know if he measured it himself, or if he's basing this on existing measurements on the web?)

The vertical scale is different (70 dBSPL spread on mine, 50 dBSPL on his), and his frequency axis is also more compressed, which does make them look different.

Could you kindly share your graph here or link to were it is posted?
Despite me trust being more in ears rather than graphs I still find them interesting!