[DJ The Rocket]

basically what I'd like to achieve with this thread is confirmation that I'm reading and understanding this graph correctly--or if not, I'd like to understand where my mistakes are coming from. Here is a typical spectral decay graph with the model info removed.



As I understand it, this headphone is likely to have above average clarity (especially in the upper ranges). The bass bloat is fairly typical of a dynamic driver, with a longer than average decay, but that might be mitigated somewhat by its relatively lower level. Overall this headphone measures quite well, and it's reasonable to expect it to have a mostly accurate sound--and in the case of a listener that prefers the bass to be boosted a bit more than a truly flat signature would provide, it's a very promising model that absolutely merits an audition.

Can all that be correctly inferred from the graph?

--Rocket

 

[RRod]

basically what I'd like to achieve with this thread is confirmation that I'm reading and understanding this graph correctly--or if not, I'd like to understand where my mistakes are coming from. Here is a typical spectral decay graph with the model info removed.

--Rocket

 
I think people try to make mountains out of molehills with the waterfalls/STFT for headphones. With only 2.5ms to worry about you may as well just focus on the frequency response. For instance, how much lower is it at ~5kHz than ~3kHz, or how much higher is it in the bass? It would be easier to tell with an FR-only graph that had readable scales. You could then overlay the plot over some kind of reference response (like the Harman curve) to discuss relative differences. Save the time/frequency analysis for rooms with real problems.

 

[castleofargh]

basically what I'd like to achieve with this thread is confirmation that I'm reading and understanding this graph correctly--or if not, I'd like to understand where my mistakes are coming from. Here is a typical spectral decay graph with the model info removed.



As I understand it, this headphone is likely to have above average clarity (especially in the upper ranges). The bass bloat is fairly typical of a dynamic driver, with a longer than average decay, but that might be mitigated somewhat by its relatively lower level. Overall this headphone measures quite well, and it's reasonable to expect it to have a mostly accurate sound--and in the case of a listener that prefers the bass to be boosted a bit more than a truly flat signature would provide, it's a very promising model that absolutely merits an audition.

Can all that be correctly inferred from the graph?

--Rocket

oh a fellow psychic medium, I usually read headphone specs in coffee cups, but graphs are fine too.
when I focus on this graph I see a fragile headband, and the energies align toward a white plastic.
 
PS: if this wasn't a troll, sorry for the misunderstanding but I can't even imagine how you would seriously interpret all that stuff from this pic.  RRod is right, those delays serve at best to show when there is a massive problem. and it's hard to have some energy stuff looking bad with 1/3 octave smoothing.