[TMRaven]

To what in real life?  Different instruments can sound different based on the room shape, size, reflectivity and other acoustic characteristics that the instrument is in.  Different instruments can also sound brighter or duller based on how far away you are from them.  Different people have different taste in orchestral music based on their real life experiences with how close or far away they sit from the performance.  For what it's worth, most of my experience with live orchestral performances is from a position of about 20 rows back.
 
No, I never said anything about the green-line being 'flat' in my post.  I was commenting about how the bass of planar magnetics measures flat on a graph yet all sound slightly different from each other.  Never did I say anything about the Flat Speaker HRTF being flat.
 
Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in Tyll's measurements around the 6khz regoin, most of his measurements show a headphone that's more depressed in that region than what it is on other people's measurements (and subjective listening.)

 

[Music Alchemist]

  To what in real life?  Different instruments can sound different based on the room shape, size, reflectivity and other acoustic characteristics that the instrument is in.  Different instruments can also sound brighter or duller based on how far away you are from them.  Different people have different taste in orchestral music based on their real life experiences with how close or far away they sit from the performance.  For what it's worth, most of my experience with live orchestral performances is from a position of about 20 rows back.
 
No, I never said anything about the green-line being 'flat' in my post.  I was commenting about how the bass of planar magnetics measures flat on a graph yet all sound slightly different from each other.  Never did I say anything about the Flat Speaker HRTF being flat.

 
I have performed in orchestras, jazz bands, etc. in addition to watching them. I have tons of experience listening to most instruments out there. I know how they sound in all sorts of circumstances. I listen to all sorts of music. These headphones are too dark to be accurate. It's easy to hear. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying, plain and simple -- either that or their hearing is drastically different, which is unlikely.
 
Please read my post again. I illustrated that the HE400i follows the green line in the bass. The implications should be obvious. (But in case I need to spell it out: You said the HE400i has flat bass. It follows the green line in the bass. The green line is the flat speaker HRTF. Therefore, the flat speaker HRTF is flat.)
 
I also edited that post multiple times, so might as well read it again to make sure you didn't miss anything.

 

[TMRaven]

The only thing I stated was that different planar magnetics have "measurable" flat bass, yet they all sound slightly different in that region, nothing more.  Then I finished it by saying that it's wrong to lump them all together because of this very phenomenon.
 
Stop taking people's posts and interjecting your own thoughts into them with your responses, making out like they're something that they're not.
 
 

 Oh, so you admit that the green line is flat now? 

 
It looks like a flat line, but I'm not talking about whether this is accurate or not, I'm merely stating that it's measurably flat.  Unless you are wondering if I think that it looks like a flat line.  In that case I do, and probably most other people do who are over the age of 3.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  The only thing I stated was that different planar magnetics have "measurable" flat bass, yet they all sound slightly different in that region, nothing more.  Then I finished it by saying that it's wrong to lump them all together because of this very phenomenon.
 
Stop taking people's posts and interjecting your own thoughts into them with your responses, making out like they're something that they're not.
 
It looks like a flat line, but I'm not talking about whether this is accurate or not, I'm merely stating that it's measurably flat.  Unless you are wondering if I think that it looks like a flat line.  In that case I do, and probably most other people do who are over the age of 3.

 
Okay...then if it is measurably flat, that means the flat speaker HRTF is measurably flat, therefore contradicting everything you said about the Harman curve being measurably flat, unless I'm seriously misinterpreting you. (No offense, of course.) It's common knowledge that a flat/balanced/neutral frequency response is not a literal flat line the whole time, so when you talk about flat, I'm assuming you are referring to the frequency response -- not just the bass, but everything else as well.

 

[TMRaven]

The flat speaker HRTF is an objective-based HRTF based off a pair of speakers EQ'd to flatness for an in-room response, and then measured at the eardrum.  The listener preferred HRTF is a subjective based curve based off listener impressions of headphones.  There is a difference between being measureably flat and being subjectively flat when it comes to the listener's preferred HRTF.  That is the entire basis of the Harman research, to attempt to derive a better headphone target response based off subjective impressions, because you can't just take an in-room speaker response and translate it directly to headphones.
 
 
Anyways, all this is a moot point. If you have the experience that you claim to have with being a musician with jazz and orchestral performances, then go out there and grab a couple of the most recommended headphones in this topic to see which sounds the most realistic based off your past subjective experiences-- FR graphs need not even apply here, as I said multiple times previously in this thread, even the FR graphs won't paint the entire picture of a headphone's sound.  As I also said earlier, it'd be easier to start with something that's cheaper and can be sold off with minimal loss like the HE-560, then you can go from there based on what you like and dislike about it.  On a completely hypothetical note, if you think it's too bright for you and it turns out that the 009 is even brighter, then you know you can stay clear of the 009 and go with something warmer, or vice-versa.

 

[diamondears]

I've owned:

1. PSB M4U 1
2. NAD HP50
3. Audeze LCD-2.2 (pre-fazor)
4. HifiMAN HE-400
5. Grado SR80i (vent modded)
6. Grado SR80e
7. Grado SR325is
8. Grado RS1i

Flame suit on...

 

[Music Alchemist]

  The flat speaker HRTF is an objective-based HRTF based off a pair of speakers EQ'd to flatness for an in-room response, and then measured at the eardrum.  The listener preferred HRTF is a subjective based curve based off listener impressions of headphones.  There is a difference between being measureably flat and being subjectively flat when it comes to the listener's preferred HRTF.  That is the entire basis of the Harman research, to attempt to derive a better headphone target response based off subjective impressions, because you can't just take an in-room speaker response and translate it directly to headphones.

 
Why even talk about a headphone measuring flat in the bass if it doesn't relate to a perceived flat frequency response?
 
Are you saying that a headphone has to follow the Harman curve to have a perceived flat frequency response? If so, in my opinion, you might as well say that headphones that follow the black line in the bass are the ones that measure flat, as far as human ears are concerned.
 
However, I just don't see how this relates to accuracy, because the Harman curve is based on preferences, not objective data. Just because people on average like more bass doesn't mean that that much more bass is accurate.
 
I heard the Harman target response is for both headphones and speakers, anyway.

 

[diamondears]

The flat speaker HRTF is an objective-based HRTF based off a pair of speakers EQ'd to flatness for an in-room response, and then measured at the eardrum.  The listener preferred HRTF is a subjective based curve based off listener impressions of headphones.  There is a difference between being measureably flat and being subjectively flat when it comes to the listener's preferred HRTF.  That is the entire basis of the Harman research, to attempt to derive a better headphone target response based off subjective impressions, because you can't just take an in-room speaker response and translate it directly to headphones.

 
Anyways, all this is a moot point. If you have the experience that you claim to have with being a musician with jazz and orchestral performances, then go out there and grab a couple of the most recommended headphones in this topic to see which sounds the most realistic based off your past subjective experiences-- FR graphs need not even apply here.  As I said earlier, it'd be easier to start with something that's cheaper and can be sold off with minimal loss like the HE-560, then you can go from there based on what you like and dislike about it.  On a completely hypothetical note, if you think it's too bright for you and it turns out that the 009 is even brighter, then you know you can stay clear of the 009 and go with something warmer, or vice-versa.

The Harman curve is the truth. Too bad very few are near it. This explains why the LCD-2.2 sounded emphasized in mids to me (I put my ears as high and as far back as possible so that my ear flaps cover the least area of the drivers, thereby avoiding treble roll off...lol).

 

[diamondears]

Why even talk about a headphone measuring flat in the bass if it doesn't relate to a perceived flat frequency response?

Are you saying that a headphone has to follow the Harman curve to have a perceived flat frequency response? If so, in my opinion, you might as well say that headphones that follow the black line in the bass are the ones that measure flat, as far as human ears are concerned.

However, I just don't see how this relates to accuracy, because the Harman curve is based on preferences, not objective data. Just because people on average like more bass doesn't mean that that much more bass is accurate.

I heard the Harman target response is for both headphones and speakers, anyway.

Lol

 

[Music Alchemist]

Anyways, all this is a moot point. If you have the experience that you claim to have with being a musician with jazz and orchestral performances, then go out there and grab a couple of the most recommended headphones in this topic to see which sounds the most realistic based off your past subjective experiences-- FR graphs need not even apply here, as I said multiple times previously in this thread, even the FR graphs won't paint the entire picture of a headphone's sound.  As I also said earlier, it'd be easier to start with something that's cheaper and can be sold off with minimal loss like the HE-560, then you can go from there based on what you like and dislike about it.  On a completely hypothetical note, if you think it's too bright for you and it turns out that the 009 is even brighter, then you know you can stay clear of the 009 and go with something warmer, or vice-versa.

 
That's pretty good advice. All I know is that tons of people think the SR-009 sounds the most realistic to them. I could also try the much cheaper SR-207, which has similar measurements...but I kind of wanted to put that money towards the SR-009 system.

 

[alpha80]

+1 I never thought Audezes sounded natural either.

I too think Audeze, even the LCD-X, sound too thick, buttery/vaseline-y, and dim/dark for my tastes.
But I like very sharp, clean, detailed phones.

 

[TMRaven]

   
Why even talk about a headphone measuring flat in the bass if it doesn't relate to a perceived flat frequency response?
 
Are you saying that a headphone has to follow the Harman curve to have a perceived flat frequency response? If so, in my opinion, you might as well say that headphones that follow the black line in the bass are the ones that measure flat, as far as human ears are concerned.

 
At this point I'm just going to assume you're not an English speaker and blame this constant misunderstanding-- or rather failure to see my point-- as a language barrier
 
I've said it at least 2 time within the past couple of posts that my comments about planar magnetics all having measurably flat bass, yet still sounding different in the bass response, was only geared as a retort to your remark about how they're all touted as the most realistic in the bass.  This has nothing to do with interpreting accuracy in which it relates to this notion of neutrality based off FR data, but only to illustrate a point which I've been trying to make time and time again in this topic-- one that you seemingly can't get your head wrapped around-- in that FR measurements aren't the end-all story when it comes to perceived sound.
 
 
 
 
So I will try to make it crystal clear again:
 
Quote: Music Alchemist

 Why do you think it is that virtually every planar magnetic headphone follows the green line in the bass and not the black one, yet they are regarded as having the most easily accurate bass?

 
Quote: TMRaven

Different planar magnetics have different sounding bass, yet they will all measure completely flat on a graph.  For instance, I prefer the bass of the Hifiman HE-400 to the HE-560 and LCD-X.  The 560 is slightly soft sounding in the bass while the 400 remains solid and impactful, the X is a little sloppy sounding in the bass in comparison and a bit rounded on its attack and lingering in its decay.  The 400i measures completely flat in its bass region, yet in subjective listening has a mild mid-bass emphasis over sub-bass.  I definitely would not lump all planar magnetics as having the 'most easily accurate bass.'

 
 
Take this for what it is, and nothing more.  This response has nothing to do with target curves and which methodology is more accurate than the other.  This has only to do with the limitations of measurements-- particularly in the bass region for this specific case.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  However, I just don't see how this relates to accuracy, because the Harman curve is based on preferences, not objective data. Just because people on average like more bass doesn't mean that that much more bass is accurate.
 
I heard the Harman target response is for both headphones and speakers, anyway.

 
As I said just a couple posts up, one can not take objective data from speaker measurements and apply it directly to headphones to achieve the desired target response.  If the matter were so simple, then there would be no need for research and no need for both trained and untrained listeners within their program.  
 
Harman actually did work for speaker target curves in the 80s, but that was a completely different line of work.  The current study being conducted is for headphones.
 
 

 

[alpha80]

   
To me, dark and warm are the same thing. What's the difference, in your opinion?

I feel those two terms have always meant very different things.
 
I feel warmth means, as others have said, a pronounced bass and lower mids response, coupled with enough 2nd & 3rd order harmonic distortion to make those aforementioned areas of the frequency range, sound overly smooth, soft, and pleasing.  This warmth can be present in a headphone with a bright top end, or a dark/dim top end.
 
I feel dark/dim, specifically means a headphone which lacks treble quantity.  Or a closed phone which has sooo much bass and lower mids, that by sheer volume and refraction, drowns out the highs.

 

[ubs28]

The Harman curve is the truth. Too bad very few are near it. This explains why the LCD-2.2 sounded emphasized in mids to me (I put my ears as high and as far back as possible so that my ear flaps cover the least area of the drivers, thereby avoiding treble roll off...lol).

So Tyll is smarter than the engineers at Sennheiser who are using the wrong graph?

 

[kman1211]

   
At this point I'm just going to assume you're not an English speaker and blame this constant misunderstanding-- or rather failure to see my point-- as a language barrier
 
I've said it at least 2 time within the past couple of posts that my comments about planar magnetics all having measurably flat bass, yet still sounding different in the bass response, was only geared as a retort to your remark about how they're all touted as the most realistic in the bass.  This has nothing to do with interpreting accuracy in which it relates to this notion of neutrality based off FR data, but only to illustrate a point which I've been trying to make time and time again in this topic-- one that you seemingly can't get your head wrapped around-- in that FR measurements aren't the end-all story when it comes to perceived sound.

Exactly, FR graphs are best used as a general guideline and possibly noting potential problem spots in a headphones sound. There is definitely much more to a sound than the FR response and even other measurements. The measurements often wont tell you very well how a headphone will sound in my experience, it may just give an idea of the sound. Presentation can definitely vary greatly from headphone to headphone and in my experience the system can change how a headphone sounds quite drastically, sometimes a headphone can sound quite off until they are on the right system.