Amazingly I was able to get a cup and string to mimic the FR graph of the LCD 3. The trick was a small silver 99.9% pure paperclip and pure silver wire as a cable! Am I missing something here or is it really just all placebo in the end?
Yes and yes. The emphasized part: that's why I stress the importance of impulse responses.
Sure, CSD is a very handy and nice means of visualization. I also agree that where our hearing is more sensitive, ringing is likely to be more audible too.
Yes -26 dB + 0 dB add up to 0.01 dB, just like 85 dB + 59 dB add up to 85.01 dB. You'd have to have a pretty significant dip in the frequency response at the frequency/ies of the overtone(s) for them to actually have a bigger effect (10 dB dip would cause +0.1 dB, 20 dB dip about +1 dB).
4. Yes CSD is useful in finding decay it seems (however it can't decipher if it's positive or negative sounding decay). Afaik it's useful for room acousticians, when the goal is zero decay.
You don't seem to understand what decay is. Room acousticians? Headphones are not intended to mimic a "room", the room is either in the recording or it's not. Any decay coming from the headphone is a coloration. You are right that it is up to the listener to decide if it is bad or good. But the fact that you can't gleam anything from them is hardly proof of anything because you don't know how to read them.
As has been explained multiple times in this thread, you can't draw sweeping conclusions about how a headphone sounds based on your misinterpretation of bits and pieces of measurements. Just like you can't make sweeping generalizations about how a headphone sounds by listening to an unfamiliar crappy recording of a solo bassist playing one note.
You have clearly made up your mind about this and aren't interested in learning anything new, or increasing your understanding about anything. Anyone can find bits and pieces to prove any point they want, lawyers do it all the time. But that's not proper research or science. You are threatened by measurements because you enjoy colored headphones and then for some reason you expect them to measure perfectly accurate. You don't like accurate. And that's fine. It's about what sounds good to you. But that has nothing to do with the validity of measurements.
Yes -26 dB + 0 dB add up to 0.01 dB, just like 85 dB + 59 dB add up to 85.01 dB. You'd have to have a pretty significant dip in the frequency response at the frequency/ies of the overtone(s) for them to actually have a bigger effect (10 dB dip would cause +0.1 dB, 20 dB dip about +1 dB).
No kiteki you don't understand them. You're just matching shapes together like its some sort of puzzle game or a slot machine.
Three squares! Jackpot!
You don't what what the differences represent or why they're important. You also don't understand how and why measurements at the extremes can be less reliable than the midrange. Seal is important in bass response but you can look at Tyll's traces from different positions to determine how sensitive the headphone's seal is to proper placement. In the high frequencies slight differences is position can easily change the exact frequencies of peaks and nulls in the FR. It doesn't make ~25dB over the range of an entire octave appear or disappear.
The thing is, have you tried it yourself? I have the methodology and means to match FR between headphones as heard by my ear without using instruments, and the results were good enough for me to dump $200 phones in favor of $10 ones (because they sound the same, and the $10 are more durable and more comfortable). Now granted I haven't heard any $2000 phones for an extended session but you know what they say about diminishing returns... would you be interested in trying it yourself?
In some ways the way I measure FR is more accurate than any measurements you can find out there because I can directly hear how the phones are interacting with my ears.
I don't know about dynamic vs electrostatic, but I couldn't hear what people make about dynamic vs BA bass after equalizing the bass response, for example.
Tell us more about your methodology and means to match FR, what software you use, and if you can save presets (if you wish) so we can try them.
I find dynamic versus BA quite difficult, for example I couldn't hear any dynamic driver in the UM Merlin at all. Electrostatic versus dynamic full-size open-air is totally different though. Electrostatic just has 'it's own sound' and I really doubt it's a code in the FR, unless someone wants to point out where.
Anyone can find bits and pieces to prove any point they want, lawyers do it all the time. But that's not proper research or science. You are threatened by measurements because you enjoy colored headphones and then for some reason you expect them to measure perfectly accurate. You don't like accurate. And that's fine. It's about what sounds good to you. But that has nothing to do with the validity of measurements.
I don't see how this is suddenly lawyer point twisting and not science. I have presented two sets of data, from two different sounding headphones. It's a specific case study, not vague, I asked:
1. Where in the data are the differences?
2. Can I 'golden FR' the Skullcandy?
Now, saying the differences are here or there, at this decibel (implied: This is the only difference in x versus y?), or saying the data is too intricate and complex for the average onlooker to perceive, are only escapist answers, they evade the question, that's more lawyer twisting than science, isn't it?
As for the rest of your post, it just looks like you have some issues with my science.
But the fact that you can't gleam anything from them is hardly proof of anything because you don't know how to read them.
As has been explained multiple times in this thread, you can't draw sweeping conclusions about how a headphone sounds based on your misinterpretation of bits and pieces of measurements.
you can't make sweeping generalizations about how a headphone sounds by listening to an unfamiliar crappy recording of a solo bassist playing one note.
You have clearly made up your mind about this and aren't interested in learning anything new
I don't see how this is suddenly lawyer point twisting and not science. I have presented two sets of data, from two different sounding headphones. It's a specific case study, not vague, I asked:
1. Where in the data are the differences?
2. Can I 'golden FR' the Skullcandy?
Now, saying the differences are here or there, at this decibel (implied: This is the only difference in x versus y?), or saying the data is too intricate and complex for the average onlooker to perceive, are only escapist answers, they evade the question, that's more lawyer twisting than science, isn't it?
As for the rest of your post, it just looks like you have some issues with my science.
I think it's been pointed out to you before, the greatest obstacle towards 'golden FR'ing' the Skullcandy may be its poor bass and treble extension, as evidenced in the severe roll off on the two ends of the FR graph compared to the LCD-3. EQing the Skullcandy up by 10+dB in the bass and 30+dB in the treble would probably drive them into audible distortion even if you know how to work the EQ to not clip digitally--and the resulting EQ may lose too much volume (from lowering the preamp to prevent clipping) to be usable without a very high gain headphone amp with very little noise.
Tell us more about your methodology and means to match FR, what software you use, and if you can save presets (if you wish) so we can try them.
I find dynamic versus BA quite difficult, for example I couldn't hear any dynamic driver in the UM Merlin at all. Electrostatic versus dynamic full-size open-air is totally different though. Electrostatic just has 'it's own sound' and I really doubt it's a code in the FR, unless someone wants to point out where.
It takes a lot of steps and I don't have the energy right now to write a complete guide so I'll try to walk you through step by step. First you need to install Virtual Audio Cable and VSTHost on your computer
http://software.muzychenko.net/eng/vac.htm
http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm
And get it working as per this review http://www.head-fi.org/products/beyerdynamic-dt-770-pro-closed-studio-headphones-250-ohms/reviews/5928 (but replace SAVIHost with VSTHost) so that you can equalize system sounds using VST plugins. And instead of his Marvel GEQ you need a parametric EQ like Electri-Q
http://www.aixcoustic.com/index.php/posihfopit_edition/30/0/
which is what I use. The paid version may be less bugg though:
http://www.aixcoustic.com/index.php/Electri-Q-FULL/13/0/
(I know how to work around the bugs in the free version but it may be easier to work with the paid version)
Come back to me when you've got this setup working so you can hear system sounds (such as stuff playing on youtube or spotify) being changed when you play with Electri-Q in VSTHost, or if you have problems setting this up and we'll discuss what to do from there.
Stay updated on HiBy at their facebook, website or email (icons below).
Stay updated on HiBy at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
I think it's been pointed out to you before, the greatest obstacle towards 'golden FR'ing' the Skullcandy may be its poor bass and treble extension, as evidenced in the severe roll off on the two ends of the FR graph compared to the LCD-3.
Come on, these are evasive answers (looking for differences), the deviation is under 30Hz, 30Hz!!! I know what 40Hz sub-bass enhancement sounds like, pretty good. I think we can overlook the 10dB difference at 10Hz.
Looking for differences and labelling them as severe is not the point of this case study. The point is to look at the differences and ask if they justify the differences perceived via listening, which intuitively - these two headphones should sound pretty different.
If the only difference between the LCD-3 and MMM is 1% noise and 10dB at 10Hz (which you can't even hear) then I just saved some people $1700 USD but that's not the aim of this exercise at all.
As for the SPL response above 11kHz, you can either say "1. This is severe, here is the difference, you're not even looking kiteki" or you can say "2. I suppose the LCD-3 and MMM will sound exactly the same with 96kbps MP3 then" <-- with no information above 11kHz.
There is only one accurate way to look at the data, you can't decide what data indicates, that's not science, you have to find out what it indicates.
It takes a lot of steps and I don't have the energy right now to write a complete guide so I'll try to walk you through step by step. First you need to install Virtual Audio Cable and VSTHost on your computer
http://software.muzychenko.net/eng/vac.htm
http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm
And get it working as per this review http://www.head-fi.org/products/beyerdynamic-dt-770-pro-closed-studio-headphones-250-ohms/reviews/5928 (but replace SAVIHost with VSTHost) so that you can equalize system sounds using VST plugins. And instead of his Marvel GEQ you need a parametric EQ like Electri-Q
http://www.aixcoustic.com/index.php/posihfopit_edition/30/0/
which is what I use. The paid version may be less bugg though:
http://www.aixcoustic.com/index.php/Electri-Q-FULL/13/0/
(I know how to work around the bugs in the free version but it may be easier to work with the paid version)
Come back to me when you've got this setup working so you can hear system sounds (such as stuff playing on youtube or spotify) being changed when you play with Electri-Q in VSTHost, or if you have problems setting this up and we'll discuss what to do from there.
20*log10(1.05) = 0.42 dB, not 0.01 dB. But still not much.
Somebody confirm / deny? Am I embarrassing myself and need to hit the sack again before doing trivial maths?
Anyway, let's back up. We're supposing that we have sounds at both 50 Hz and 100 Hz, in equal magnitude or something else. If you only had a 50 Hz tone, because of equal-loudness contours, the effect from the -26 dB harmonic at 100 Hz may be non-trivial compared to the fundamental at 50 Hz. We hear the 100 Hz tone relatively louder. That said, with real music, most anything that produces a 50 Hz tone will be producing 100 Hz harmonics at a higher level than -26 dB anyway, so is the effect of the 2nd harmonic alone that significant? However, anything with high bass distortion might also have long ringing in the bass, lots of IMD products down there, and so on. Maybe those contribute to higher perception of bass.
a) Yes. Have you ever measured a headphone at different SPLs (therefore, different amounts of THD) and looked at the FR?
b) I don't understand why you would assert that. Read again.
No that's fine, it was me that was too tired. I accidentally added the levels as if they came from incoherent sound sources. 0.42 dB is right, but yeah, still not much.
Quote:
Anyway, let's back up. We're supposing that we have sounds at both 50 Hz and 100 Hz, in equal magnitude or something else. If you only had a 50 Hz tone, because of equal-loudness contours, the effect from the -26 dB harmonic at 100 Hz may be non-trivial compared to the fundamental at 50 Hz. We hear the 100 Hz tone relatively louder. That said, with real music, most anything that produces a 50 Hz tone will be producing 100 Hz harmonics at a higher level than -26 dB anyway, so is the effect of the 2nd harmonic alone that significant? However, anything with high bass distortion might also have long ringing in the bass, lots of IMD products down there, and so on. Maybe those contribute to higher perception of bass.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I accidentally added the levels as if they came from incoherent sound sources. 0.42 dB is right, but yeah, still not much.