[bigshot]

Well he doesn't have to do that does he? Since he is using his own ears.
If they sound flat to your ears then they are flat, that's the whole idea isn't it?
Have to use the compensation stuff when using microphones to measure FR.

I just thought about this and you are absolutly correct. The Fletcher Munson curve is to adjust measurements made with a microphone to make them match the natural imbalance in human hearing. When you EQ by ear, you are applying the Fletcher Munson curve automatically. It's a built in correction in your mind and your ears. It's the same with EQing to music. The engineer that made the recording EQed to apply the Fletcher Munson curve naturally as he mixed. If you balance a tone flat by ear, you are balancing a recording of music flat by ear too. Audibly flat is audibly flat. The only time you need to apply corrections is when you are using a microphone to measure, and you aren't using human ears.

 

[musicheaven]

Are you saying that you heard the phones and that they are so good that one has to hear them to believe it?

No I am saying there is no amount of data or hearsay that will replace one's old trusted ears.
I would really like to audition a pair to see (no pun intended) how good they sound.

I am sure they'll be more owners that will provide comparisons with their current gears so plenty of time to make a decision.

 

[Articnoise]

I heard these same arguments when I started calibrating my speaker system. A lot of it just isn't true.

First of all, frrequencies are sound, and flat response is natural sound. An acoustic violin playing on a recording has the same response as an acoustic violin playing live in the room. Balance the volume levels and dynamics, eliminate distortion and push the noise floor below the noise floor of the room and they sound *exactly* the same. Audibly flat response is audibly flat response. If an acoustic violin in person sounds exactly like an acoustic violin recorded, the response is by definition flat. You don't have to apply any corrections. Flat response is critical in acoustic music like chamber music, acoustic jazz and orchestral music. Those of us who listen to live music know instinctively what those instruments are supposed to sound like. (It doesn't matter so much in music where all the musicians plug in, because there is no baseline of "realistic sound" in purely electronic music. But it's still best to be accurate to what the sound engineers intended the mix to sound like.)

Secondly, many of the problems with sound reproduction trace back directly to response imbalances. Frequency masking can mess up clarity and transparency. Masking can also hide the aural cues that indicate depth in a recording. Noise levels in historical recordings are exaggerated by headphones with boosts in the upper mids to give "in your face" sound. Frequency extension is a lot less important than frequency balance to sound quality. If you want deep bass, start with balanced bass.

Thirdly, our sensitivity to frequency imbalances increases as the volume increases. Big spikes in the response in the wrong range can massacre your ears. That's why you EQ in passes, from lower volume to high. If you have time and want to do a really precise job, you start at a low volume and work your way up an octave or two at a time in mmultiple passes until you get to the maximum volume level your ears can stand. But that is going to be a louder sound level than unbalanced, because you don't have a nasty spike sticking up 20dB to shred your ears any more.

Lastly, no matter what your hearing is, flat is flat. If I can't hear about 17kHz, don't ask me to EQ the stuff at the edge of audibility for you. But in the core frequencies, humans are pretty doggone consistent. Even if we weren't, it wouldn't matter because flat response with whatever our ears does to it is exactly the same as natural sound with whatever our ears do to it. Natural sound is natural sound, no matter how we perceive it.

Achieving a balanced frequency response isn't easy. Throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Expensive transducers have the same problems midrange ones do. It takes research and hard work. Figuring out how a parametric equalizer works can be very non-intuitive and difficult. But a balanced response is natural and present sound. It is achievable. And balanced for me is exactly the same as balanced for you.

 
The sound from an instrument like a violin or voice don’t sound the same or shows the same frequency respond then you listen to it on different distance. The high frequency is fading away first then the mids, bass end finally the sub bass. The difference between different tons (Hz) is very big.
 
An assumption that the violin or voice you hear on a live concert on let say 10 meters distance and a recorded one with a microphone 0.5 meter from it would sound very different and will have more high frequency. An even closer recording would change it even more. To get as clean sound as possible without distortion from other instrument they often use near field microphones that only will capture the sounds from that instrument and then use separate mics that are recording the ambiance and the concert hall. The other reasons to this is, is that it make it possible to change the volume on different instrument and voices during the concert and recording.
 
In all recordings with acoustic instrument they use microphones to capture the sounds and the different location on the mic (the mic itself and the mixing board etc. will also come in to play). Also different room or concert halls sound different and wherefore also the instrument if you listen to them on a distance. Equally I would say that acoustic instrument are more local dependent than electronic ones.
 
To sum it up. No one witch doesn’t know the exact position of that violin in the room, the distance to the mic and what filter and mixing board used etc. etc., will know what the volume on a certain  frequency’s would have been. The more instrument you add the harder it gets. And even if we know all this we also need to know if the technician have changed the volume or EQ on the mic from the violin to compensate for something.
 
 

 

[smellyfungus]

this thread has been quite an interesting battle ive been reading thru my night shift.
 
i feel like we'll have to wait for impressions/reviews from people who were not in the beta/fresh ears.
 
i'd assume most of the beta testers will rave about the production model since it has been tuned based on their feedback.

 

[Matias]

I appreciate that BigShot spent his time giving feedback to the Oppo team in order to make a product better. And also to be here answering all these questions.

If PM-1 is indeed as flat as possible, and flatter than the competition, I think it will sell a lot.

 

[Barry S]

The PM-1 sounds promising, but I'm looking forward to feedback from non beta testers. Props to HiFiGuy528 for recognizing his bias and sending the PM-1 out for at least one alternative review. There's some basic human psychology at play when people are involved in the development process and receive free equipment. Beta testers making broad or absolute claims reveal more about the reviewer than the headphone. I'm looking forward to hearing these myself and from others that have experience with flagship headphones.

 

[up late]

x2 - just wish I'd said it

 

[conquerator2]

x3 - we'll have to wait for comparisons.

 

[DoctaCosmos]

New bose "natural sound" headphones just hit my email.

 

[Q Mass]

The PM-1 sounds promising, but I'm looking forward to feedback from non beta testers. Props to HiFiGuy528 for recognizing his bias and sending the PM-1 out for at least one alternative review. There's some basic human psychology at play when people are involved in the development process and receive free equipment. Beta testers making broad or absolute claims reveal more about the reviewer than the headphone. I'm looking forward to hearing these myself and from others that have experience with flagship headphones.

THIS
I feel that impressions from any/all that have heard it are fascinating though.
I'm less enthused re' the sound science debate drowning out actual impressions, but I still wouldn't insist that it's moved/removed or otherwise censored.

 

[Beagle]

  im wondering why oppo needed ANYONE to tell them hey, flatter is better. we ran sweeps since you didn't and we're seeing dips and peaks that shouldn't be there.

+2
 

  Must say, a SINGLE DRIVER capable of producing a perfectly flat response in the audible range is a pretty big deal.  Im guessing since they've been able to do this they probably will be making a speaker soon enough that will blow the market away.

+2
 

 
 They sent me a nice box of Sees candy at Christmas, and this week when the beta stage was over, they sent me a complimentary set of the retail shipping version of the headphones. That's how it worked. I'm not advertising.

 
Now it makes sense..
 

I apologize if I don't understand the words. I've long been baffled by audiophile terminology. I'm a practical soul. More of a hifi nut than an audiophile.
 

 
Something wrong there..
 

First of all, frrequencies are sound, and flat response is natural sound. An acoustic violin playing on a recording has the same response as an acoustic violin playing live in the room. Balance the volume levels and dynamics, eliminate distortion and push the noise floor below the noise floor of the room and they sound *exactly* the same.
 

 
All recordings of violin are flat?
 

The PM-1 sounds promising, but I'm looking forward to feedback from non beta testers. Props to HiFiGuy528 for recognizing his bias and sending the PM-1 out for at least one alternative review. There's some basic human psychology at play when people are involved in the development process and receive free equipment. Beta testers making broad or absolute claims reveal more about the reviewer than the headphone. I'm looking forward to hearing these myself and from others that have experience with flagship headphones.

 
Best post in the thread...

 

[BenF]

Any comparisons to HE-400/500/6?

 

[germay0653]

Although they're more prevalent with speakers, as opposed to headphones since they're typically one driver, no one has talked about phase or timing anomalies which affect how "natural" instruments or voices sound.

 

[JeffA]

FWIW, the comments that have been posted from the NY meet have hardly been glowing. While complimenting the PM-1 on build quality, people are reporting they sound very closed, making them think they are overpriced for their performance. 

 

[Ratheriian]

  FWIW, the comments that have been posted from the NY meet have hardly been glowing. While complimenting the PM-1 on build quality, people are reporting they sound very closed, making them think they are overpriced for their performance. 

Then they should rename them to "Ultrasone Edition PM-1"