[Skylab]

Feifan:

I have agreed that the FR data can't "prove" anything. However, your list above has no meaning, since you did not indicate a reference frequency. Against what frequency band are you basing your "nearly equal" or "very slight rise" on? The adjacent band? That is NOT what the graphs show. The average of the entire rest of the FR? And if the latter, did you actually take an average, or are you just eyeballing it? If you are going to try to present data to counter my statement in that way, you will need to present the data more precisely

Not trying to be rude here, but I do get the chance to reply to your counter, and what you have presented isn't very useful without more detail. Otherwise, it's just grandstanding to try to "prove" the HD800 doesn't have any flaws.

I also disagree that the comparison to the adjacent band isn't meaningful, and that isn't a realistic argument. There is no question that the changing of level from one frequency band to the next is audible. The only question is HOW audible. It's hollow to argue that in order to be audible, a peak or dip has to be higher than EVERY other frequency band.

And while I have a lot of respect for k3oxkjo, the mere fact that "he said so" does not make it true, Feifan. I worked for a transducer company for 8 years, and I have more than just a small working knowledge of the effects of small frequency response changes in a transducer. So k3oxkjo has his opinion, and I have mine - both are informed opinions, and there is no way to prove that one or the other is correct.

 

[RushNerd]

^^^???

Sorry I didn't read the whole thread, but i'm just confused at the difference between the OP on this graph

help?

 

[feifan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Feifan: I have agreed that the FR data can't "prove" anything. However, your list above has no meaning, since you did not indicate a reference frequency. Against what frequency band are you basing your "nearly equal" or "very slight rise" on? The adjacent band? That is NOT what the graphs show. The average of the entire rest of the FR? And if the latter, did you actually take an average, or are you just eyeballing it? If you are going to try to present data to counter my statement in that way, you will need to present the data more precisely Not trying to be rude here, but I do get the chance to reply to your counter, and what you have presented isn't very useful without more detail. Otherwise, it's just grandstanding to try to "prove" the HD800 doesn't have any flaws. I also disagree that the comparison to the adjacent band isn't meaningful, and that isn't a realistic argument. There is no question that the changing of level from one frequency band to the next is audible. The only question is HOW audible. It's hollow to argue that in order to be audible, a peak or dip has to be higher than EVERY other frequency band. And while I have a lot of respect for k3oxkjo, the mere fact that "he said so" does not make it true, Feifan. I worked for a transducer company for 8 years, and I have more than just a small working knowledge of the effects of small frequency response changes in a transducer. So k3oxkjo has his opinion, and I have mine - both are informed opinions, and there is no way to prove that one or the other is correct.

The FR charts that we're sharing in this thread, which are the same charts that you've referred to. What else are we referring to? The curves, as you must know, are in the charts for you and all to see. Simply look at the curves and use the grid lines in the charts to determine height. The "peak" that you mention is not a peak when compared to the full spectrum of the curves. You're basing your observation on a very narrow band. Again, look at the full curve.

BTW, "peak" is a relative term in a curve. No "reference frequency" is needed to identify them as peaks or non-peaks. And curves are a graphic representation of numeric data meant to facilitate visual analysis. As an expert in this field, I assume you know this.

Yes, this is the second time that you've mentioned your work in this field to support your opinions. I wasn't going to call you on it, but if you insist on using this experience as your authority, then what is the name of the company? What was your official position and job description? You also mentioned in a previous post -- again, to support your claim to authority -- that you taught a college course in audio science. What's the name of the college? What's your position and title? What's the title of the course and can you give us a brief course description? In which field did you receive your doctorate? What's the title of your dissertation?

Re your statement, "I have agreed that the FR data can't 'prove' anything." Again, as in your review and subsequent statements, you contradict yourself. If it can't prove anything, then why are you using it support your opinion?

Re "The adjacent band? That is NOT what the graphs show." Again, look at the curves before the so-called 6kHz "peaks." That's the 3 kHz band. It's adjacent (next to), and it dips, making the 6kHz look like a peak if you don't pay attention to the entire wave.

Re your use of "average" -- surely an audio engineering expert must know that "average" is a numeric measure. A graph could represent averages, but the actual averages themselves aren't needed to interpret the graphs. That's what graphs are for -- to provide a visual model of numeric data.

I won't go into the rest of your statements, i.e., unless I have to.

 

[UtzY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushNerd /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^^^??? Sorry I didn't read the whole thread, but i'm just confused at the difference between the OP on this graph help?

Another method used...these are not raw graphs, from what I know.

Also take a look here.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif The FR charts that we're sharing in this thread, which are the same charts that you've referred to. What else are we referring to? The curves, as you must know, are in the charts for you and all to see. Simply look at the curves and use the grid lines in the charts to determine height. The "peak" that you mention is not a peak when compared to the full spectrum of the curves. You're basing your observation on a very narrow band. Again, look at the full curve.

Right, and my point was that it matters what is going on right before the peak, not just what is going on in the whole spectrum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, "peak" is a relative term in a curve. No "reference frequency" is needed to identify them as peaks or non-peaks. And curves are a graphic representation of numeric data meant to facilitate visual analysis. As an expert in this field, I assume you know this.

That isn't the point, and isn't the point I was making. The point is, if you want to address the relative impact of the peak, some reference is needed. If you say, "a slight rise", then what is missing is, compared to what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, this is the second time that you've mentioned your work in this field to support your opinions. I wasn't going to call you on it, but if you insist on using this experience as your authority, then what is the name of the company? What was your official position and job description? You also mentioned in a previous post -- again, to support your claim to authority -- that you taught a college course in audio science. What's the name of the college? What's your position and title? What's the title of the course and can you give us a brief course description? In which field did you receive your doctorate? What's the title of your dissertation?

Now you're just being rude. You have, repeatedly, "lectured" me, feifan. And you have "instructed" me to read or re-read other people's posts, like they are proof I'm wrong. My point is that I don't need to be lectured by you. Let's just let this issue drop. I've already made more of my personal life public than I care to.


Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Re your statement, "I have agreed that the FR data can't 'prove' anything." Again, as in your review and subsequent statements, you contradict yourself. If it can't prove anything, then why are you using it support your opinion?

I'm not contradicting myself at all. I have never, ever said the FR graphs "prove" anything. If you actually read my post which you initially reacted to, you can clearly see that. All I did was wonder what my impressions would have been if my pair did not have the peak, which IS there.




Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Re "The adjacent band? That is NOT what the graphs show." Again, look at the curves before the so-called 6kHz "peaks." That's the 3 kHz band. It's adjacent (next to), and it dips, making the 6kHz look like a peak if you don't pay attention to the entire wave.

Again, you have misread what I said. If you are going to criticize me, at least please read what I say carefully. What you said is EXACTLY what I was saying - that the peak IS there if you look at the adjacent band.


Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Re your use of "average" -- surely an audio engineering expert must know that "average" is a numeric measure. A graph could represent averages, but the actual averages themselves aren't needed to interpret the graphs. That's what graphs are for -- to provide a visual model of numeric data. I won't go into the rest of your statements, i.e., unless I have to.

Again, you're first being rude, and then lecturing me here. My question, which you have completely skirted answering, is what you were basing your presented data on. You've attacked me, but not ever answered the question I asked. As such, I no longer find this discussion useful, and see no reason to continue it.

 

[feifan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif . . .

Skylab, I believe you've read my post. But I don't think you've understood any of it. If you wish to continue this discussion, I'd suggest you read it, carefully, then reply. Otherwise, cheers.

 

[RedBull]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, "peak" is a relative term in a curve. No "reference frequency" is needed to identify them as peaks or non-peaks. And curves are a graphic representation of numeric data meant to facilitate visual analysis. As an expert in this field, I assume you know this.

I think Skylab is right, you have to use 3 KHz as the reference. Reference means the frequency we're most sensitive to (for me), some websites use 3KHz as pivot. Headroom use 1KHz as pivot, all graph are 'zeroed' at 1KHz, from here then we can make comparisons.

Good or bad is a 'relative' impression to something, ... as well as peak, peak to what? PortaPro is good, compared to ibuds, something like this.


Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, this is the second time that you've mentioned your work in this field to support your opinions. I wasn't going to call you on it, but if you insist on using this experience as your authority, then what is the name of the company? What was your official position and job description? You also mentioned in a previous post -- again, to support your claim to authority -- that you taught a college course in audio science. What's the name of the college? What's your position and title? What's the title of the course and can you give us a brief course description? In which field did you receive your doctorate? What's the title of your dissertation?

What is this? Can we skip this? This is off-track. I'm the president of the United States, so what?

Calm man, calm, this is just hobby. Go back to topic! we want to hear opinions, not personal fights

What I've observed so far is that S/N above 1000 do not have 6K peaks (relative to 3KHz), which is a good thing. It is 'flatter'. Seems that Sennheiser is 'listens' to head-fi.

Question: for those who has 6KHz peaks, could you 'complain' to Sennheiser and change it to a more neutral one? I'm thinking to buy one, this is one question that worries me if happened that I got the 'peaks' one. I know some people are ok with it, I'm happy for you, but I'm one of who that can't take this 'peaks' at all.

 

[Karlosak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBull /img/forum/go_quote.gif Question: for those who has 6KHz peaks, could you 'complain' to Sennheiser and change it to a more neutral one? I'm thinking to buy one, this is one question that worries me if happened that I got the 'peaks' one. I know some people are ok with it, I'm happy for you, but I'm one of who that can't take this 'peaks' at all.

I don't think so. All of the graphs posted so far fall into the toleration zone (-3dB) as stated in the technical specification.

 

[feifan]

Hey, RedBull. Not sure if you read the beginning of the discussion. It began with this post by Skylab:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yep. And we've all already debated whether it's meaningful, but I still can't help but wonder - if my review pair had been a high serial number, and had a FR like pompon's, would I have felt the same way about it, versus FR's like Shellylh and Feifans, which are similar SN's to mine, and have the obvious 6kHz peak. Unless I get to try a high serial number pair someday, I will never know

And it was followed by my response:

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Skylab, what's obviously a "peak" may not be so obvious if you look closely at the FR curve across the full spectrum -- not just the upper treble 6kHz and above (brilliance). The SNs, listed below, are ordered from lowest to highest. I've placed asterisks next to Shellyh's (276) and mine (318). When you view the entire curve for each HD800 chart, the 6kHz band varies very little from the flat. Re the impact that this slight variance from flat (at 6kHz) might have on SQ -- I'd guess negligible. If anything, you might want to review k3oxkjo's comment re studying the adjacent bands that give the impression of a 6kHz peak. He, too, surmises that the impact on SQ can't be determined from this FR data alone. 6kHz Band for All Charts (as of 7.14.09) 00276 very slight rise* 00318 nearly equal* 00349 nearly equal 00459 nearly equal 00461 nearly equal 00517 very slight rise 00629 very slight rise 01230 very slight dip 01232 very slight dip

An interesting discussion, I thought, that quickly went South. If we can get past the emotions and stay on topic, it would be interesting to continue this talk.

The point is that if we use the gridlines in the chart as a baseline and look at the entire curve across the graph, the 6kHz peak actually doesn't exist. In all the graphs, the so-called peak is nearly level with the flat curve.

As I stated earlier, k3oxkjo mentioned the adjacent dip at 3kHz that might explain the apparent 6kHz peak. Visually, the dip makes the rise back to the flat look like a peak.

Perhaps another interesting question might be, Why the dip at 3kHz? Since it seems to be quite consistent in all the graphs, I'm guessing that it might be by conscious design. I'm also guessing that it's meant to compensate for a frequency that human ears are especially sensitive to -- the upper midrange (2kHz to 4kHz). Thus, many are reporting that they experience no fatigue when listening to the HD800.

Thanks for the voice of calm and reason.

 

[RedBull]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karlosak /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think so. All of the graphs posted so far fall into the toleration zone (-3dB) as stated in the technical specification.

I'm so sad

so meaning I have to keep buying and selling until I get my perfect graph, ha ha ha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif An interesting discussion, I thought, that quickly went South. If we can get past the emotions and stay on topic, it would be interesting to continue this talk. The point is that if we use the gridlines in the chart as a baseline and look at the entire curve across the graph, the 6kHz peak actually doesn't exist. In all the graphs, the so-called peak is nearly level with the flat curve. As I stated earlier, k3oxkjo mentioned the adjacent dip at 3kHz that might explain the apparent 6kHz peak. Visually, the dip makes the rise back to the flat look like a peak.

Yes indeed, this is interesting to hear experts like you sharing informations, which I learn a lot, but when it gets ugly, it's not fun anymore. Glad we're back on track. Thanks feifan!

It is a peak because it is relative to human's most sensitive frequency which is 3K, according to equal loudness contour

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps another interesting question might be, Why the dip at 3kHz? Since it seems to be quite consistent in all the graphs, I'm guessing that it might be by conscious design. I'm also guessing that it's meant to compensate for a frequency that human ears are especially sensitive to -- the upper midrange (2kHz to 4kHz). Thus, many are reporting that they experience no fatigue when listening to the HD800.

You're right, that is because we're most sensitive to 3K, which means, ... if they make 6K flat with 3K, it's a treble roll off already, you know what I mean? I'm not excellent in explaining things

But if it's too much hike, it is also risking annoying to some people, especially me, unlucky. So I think raise about 3-5 DB at 6K (relative to 3K) is just about nice, so we can hear equal loudness between 3K and 6K.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the voice of calm and reason.

Same to you.

 

[Hopstretch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karlosak /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think so. All of the graphs posted so far fall into the toleration zone (-3dB) as stated in the technical specification.

I'm a little curious as to why the scale of the x-axis appears to differ quite markedly in many of these graphs and whether this is just an artifact of the printing process or an accurate reflection of the measurement?

Anyway, another early serial, another more noticeable peak -- whatever that actually means.

 

[raccoon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Skylab, I believe you've read my post. But I don't think you've understood any of it. If you wish to continue this discussion, I'd suggest you read it, carefully, then reply. Otherwise, cheers.

You're being a bit rude, which isn't necessary. He's saying he's read your posts, but disagrees with what you're saying - no point in comparing the levels at 200Hz with 6KHz and saying since they're nearly the same that there isn't a spike. You have to look at the 6Khz region to the frequencies immediately before and after. He also noticed this spike when testing the headphones, well before these graphs came out. I got my graph (I'll eventually upload it) and there's definitely a spike in mine. I don't notice it when listening to my pair, or maybe I do but prefer it. Who knows. Some people are sensitive to this, such as Skylab, and these graphs help explain those spikes people are hearing. No need to get defensive.

 

[shellylh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yep. And we've all already debated whether it's meaningful, but I still can't help but wonder - if my review pair had been a high serial number, and had a FR like pompon's, would I have felt the same way about it, versus FR's like Shellylh and Feifans, which are similar SN's to mine, and have the obvious 6kHz peak. Unless I get to try a high serial number pair someday, I will never know

I guess I better keep my HD800 because nobody is going to buy my peaky FR!

 

[ztsen]

Is that mean when you sell your HD800, ppl will ask for the graph 1st? No 6khz peak have higher price? better resales value.

 

[RedBull]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shellylh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess I better keep my HD800 because nobody is going to buy my peaky FR!

No worries, we have many ear shapes and flavors in this world, ever wonder why people like Grado GS1K, which obviously have 'much' more 7K peak, but the owner has never been happier

They can still say that your HD800 is 'veil'