[Bilavideo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jp_zer0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not sure why the graph-agnostics should be ipso facto banned from the discussion. I would think it is extremely relevant to the discussion that the graphs may be irrelevant to SQ.

I'm not trying to ban anyone from the discussion. I'm just saying that a thread was opened to talk about the SR-60 graph. It may well be relevant to such a discussion to argue the limitations of the graph (limitations on accuracy, factors not considered, et cetera) but if somebody's contribution to the thread is nothing more than dismissal of graphs, accusations that to talk about graphs is "posting nonsense," to call the OP a "noob" - and to otherwise simply raise one's voice (and contempt) higher and higher and higher - that's not a discussion. It's a temper tantrum. I get it. I'm an idiot for bringing up the discussion. I'm a fool for wanting to talk about it. I get it. Now, if that's all, I think the argument against having this discussion has run full course. If there's nothing more from the graph haters, I suggest we move on, those of us who want to actually discuss the graph (other than to say that all graphs are pointless and that all those interested in talking about this are clueless).

I haven't gone to any moderators to complain about anybody. I'm not asking that anybody be banned from the thread. I'm just saying that if this discussion is a complete waste of time for some people, maybe they should go find fresh kill somewhere else.

 

[jp_zer0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not trying to ban anyone from the discussion. I'm just saying that a thread was opened to talk about the SR-60 graph. It may well be relevant to such a discussion to argue the limitations of the graph (limitations on accuracy, factors not considered, et cetera) but if somebody's contribution to the thread is nothing more than dismissal of graphs, accusations that to talk about graphs is "posting nonsense," to call the OP a "noob" - and to otherwise simply raise one's voice (and contempt) higher and higher and higher - that's not a discussion. It's a temper tantrum. I get it. I'm an idiot for bringing up the discussion. I'm a fool for wanting to talk about it. I get it. Now, if that's all, I think the argument against having this discussion has run full course. If there's nothing more from the graph haters, I suggest we move on, those of us who want to actually discuss the graph (other than to say that all graphs are pointless and that all those interested in talking about this are clueless). I haven't gone to any moderators to complain about anybody. I'm not asking that anybody be banned from the thread. I'm just saying that if this discussion is a complete waste of time for some people, maybe they should go find fresh kill somewhere else.

Of course, I was just making a general, philosophical point. (I read threads backwards, I just now read the mid-thread. Had no clue about the ambassador of high end.

) (and "banned" was just a figure of speech)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't misrepresented what he's said at all. He's saying going to Headroom's measurements for an idea of sound quality is "stupid". Yet without measurement how would we have something objective? He keeps saying "Headroom's" graphs are worthless, and seems to be making an accusation that they aren't accurate. Either that, or that FR graphs in general are useless, which of course is a direct contradiction to his latest statement so seems to be unlikely. This means the burden of proof is upon him for evidence or he has broken the defamation rule of this forum. Plain and simple, his argument keeps on changing when it's most convenient for him and tries shifting blame around -- which isn't working very well for him honestly. Lastly, if you want antagonistic and arrogant I suggest you read his first few posts in this thread filled with sarcasm and a condescending attitude towards the OP. The same reason DBT is banned from the tweaks section. PS: Block quotes are worthless. So if you're going to try and point out a section where I misrepresented him make sure it's identifiable in your complaint.

Yeah, he's pretty antagonistic too.

"Yet without measurement how would we have something objective?"

Not sure why objective standards are absolutely necessary or how Headroom is the be-all end-all of measurement, but that other dude has made a pretty pathetic effort of backing up his affirmations.

Looking back I can see why his pretentiousness might have struck a nerve

, but still, your back-and-forth wasn't a good read. (My tiresome philosophizing probably isn't either, hohoho)

 

[Justin Uthadude]

Why did I find myself wondering as I read through this thread, "did I accidently click hydrogen audio instead of head-fi?"

.

 

[Bilavideo]

Well, as Alec Baldwin said in Glengarry Glenn Ross, I'm going on. Headroom isn't, by the way, the end-all/be-all with the graphs. They simply showed up with some. If I had a better source, I'd be happy to post its graphs.

 

[chesebert]

He wrote: "Perhaps for no reason other than they existed, high fidelity headphones have for years been evaluated using couplers and artificial ears intended for use as transfer standards in audiometry. In these devices there is no attempt to simulate anything but the most rudimentary acoustical functions of the external ear. Neither were they designed to be used with the myriad configurations of high-fidelity devices. As a consequence of this, and the understandable commercial motivation to produce flat frequency responses, countless headphones have been designed using the wrong devices and the wrong performance objective" Stereophile: Between the Ears: the art and science of measuring headphones

[The 43AG ear-and-cheek simulator from GRAS] is about as good as commercially available headphone-measurement solutions get, but equipping yourself with such a device is just the beginning of your difficulties. As already alluded to, the frequency response you measure from a headphone using an artificial ear usually isn't flat, nor should it be. So a correction needs to be applied to generate a more familiar response trace, in which flat is nominally correct. This requirement may sound simple enough, but it projects us into the middle of a controversy that has raged for decades: Just what should the ideal headphone frequency response be?

HeadRoom's measurement data is straight off the scope, so to speak. Unless you're an engineer, you're likely not going to understand the whole meaning of the peaks and dips in the graphs. The important thing to know generally is, the fewer the better. Headphones are notoriously difficult to measure, and even the very best headphones have complex graphs. So, look for simple results but don't be surprised by a lot of wiggles---they are normal. And take everything with a fairly good sized grain of salt. Learning Center - About Headphone Measurements | HeadRoom Audio

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif countless headphones have been designed using the wrong devices and the wrong performance objective" Stereophile: Between the Ears: the art and science of measuring headphones

Yet that has no impact judging the results after the fact. We can tell they have been designed wrong or have the wrong performance objective by measuring them AFTER the design stage.

Quote:

Just what should the ideal headphone frequency response be?

My opinion? The flattest one possible attached to an equalizer (assuming all other attributes measure well too).

Quote:

And take everything with a fairly good sized grain of salt. Learning Center - About Headphone Measurements | HeadRoom Audio

Of course, just because it measures well doesn't mean you'll like it. I don't see what you're getting at on this one honestly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jp_zer0 Looking back I can see why his pretentiousness might have struck a nerve , but still, your back-and-forth wasn't a good read. (My tiresome philosophizing probably isn't either, hohoho)

Yeah, I know what you mean. As I said, I'm pretty much of the opinion that this thread has ran its course.

 

[Bilavideo]

Even if this graph were made by Satan himself, I want to hear what Satan has to say. This is what I think it's saying:

First, measuring it against the sub-325 Grados in the Prestige series (minus the iGrado), the SR-60 shows the most bass presence in the frequencies between 10 and 150 Hz.

Second, from about 150 Hz to about 2.5 kHz, the SR-60 matches these other Grados, at least volume-wize in its representation of these frequencies. From bout 150 Hz to about 500 Hz, all of these Grados descend from +3 to 0, which suggests a modest midbass hump leading to relatively flat mids.

Third, at 2.5 kHz, this is where the SR-60 starts deviating from its more expensive rivals with a 3 dB when the 125 stays relatively flat and the 80 and 225 are hitting a 3 kHz peak of +5 and +6 dB. That's a difference of 8-9 dB at 4 kHz.

Fourth, this gap narrows at 5 kHz, where the SR60 bounces up to 0 to meet the 80 and the 125 at that same point.

Fifth, another divergence occurs at 6 kHz, where the 60 drops a decibel or two while the others punch it up about 3 dB higher.

Sixth, by 7 kHz, all of these Grados are doing roughly the same thing, climbing 3-4 dB above the line.

Seventh, beteen 8-10 kHz, they're all doing the same thing, peaking up from the line. It's just that the SR-60 is peaking the least, to about +5 while the others are peaking to +7, +8 and +11 (the 225, 80 and 125 respectively).

Eighth, between 10 and 15 kHz, the SR60 is the first to plummet to -10dB, bouncing back a little to -6dB, then rolling off to -8dB around 15 kHz.

Ninth, A similar pattern occurs with the others, but a little further along in the spectrum (11 or 12 kHz) and took a greater degree. Where the SR60 drops to -10 dB at about 12 kHz, the others drop to about -14 dB around 13 kHz. Bottom line: From about 10 - 12 kHz, the 60 has less HF presentation (around -10) but from 12 to 14 kHz, the 60 has more HF presentation (about 3-5 dB more, though they're all more than 5 dB below the line.

Tenth, in the post-15-kHz slice of the FR chart, the 60, 80 and 225 converge to around -7 dB while the 80 bounces back to 0.

For better or worse, that's what Satan says.

 

[Mink]

Satan who?

 

[paranoize]

graphs ain't pointless ... pointless is believing that the flatter they are the better it is

 

[Bilavideo]

 

[Bilavideo]

Here's a graph showing the SR's graphed performance against the next tier of Grados. A few observations are in order:

1. Till about 70 Hz, the SR60 has the most bass presence, a modest hump of +4 dB.

2. From 70 Hz to about 500 Hz, the SR60 is overshadowed. Around 150 Hz, there's a bass bump, with the RS1 at +7, RS2 at +5, SR60 at +3/+4 and the 325 at +2.

3. From 500 Hz to about 800 Hz, they're all relatively flat.

4. From 800 Hz to 1 kHz, the other phones spike to around +5 while the SR60 spikes to +3.

5. Not to get bogged in minutiae, I'm going to summarize what happens from 3 kHz to 15 kHz as a roller-coaster ride of 5 dB spikes and troughs with a big roll-off between 8 and 10 kHz. In this overall pattern, the SR60 troughs the most and spikes the least, trailing the others by a few decibels at each point and rolling off first at 8 kHz where the others roll off at around 9 and 10 dB. For the most part, the 325 presents on the outside of the pack (mostly spiking more and rolling-off later). The RS2 and RS1 fall between them with the RS1 maintaining HF extension a little more.

 

[Bilavideo]

Here is yet another graph, one showing how the SR60 performs against the top of the Grado line.

 

[Bilavideo]

SOME OBSERVATIONS

1. From about 10 to 50 Hz, the SR60 does as well, if not better than the top Grados. It presents about as well as the GS1K and the PS1K, and about 5 dB better than the RS1.

2. Beginning at 50 Hz and then peaking at 100 Hz, big changes take place, putting as much as 10 dB difference between the SR60 and the GS1K. This 100 Hz bass hump is strongest with the GS1k, followed by the PS1K, followed by the RS1. The SR60 still has a +5 bass hump but these top-tier Grados push past it (doubling it, in the case of the GS1k).

3. From 100 to 500 Hz, the hump wanes to zero, but the obvious effect is that, from about 50 to 200 Hz, the GS1k and the PS1k have the strongest bass hump (+5 to +10) with the RS1 peaking a little later and to about +7. Within these same frequencies, the SR60 has a more gradual bass hump between +3 and +4.

4. From about 500 Hz to about 1.5 kHz, all of these Grados enjoy a flat midrange response, with the GS1K recessing 1-2 dB between 1.5 kHz and 2 Khz.

5. At 1.5 kHz, the RS1 peaks to +5, the SR peaks to +3 while the GS1K and PS1K dip to about -2 dB.

6. Between 2 kHz and 15 kHz, there's a roller-coaster ride up and down to about +9 before a succession of roll-offs. The SR60 peaks the least (+5) and begins its roll-off lowest (8 kHz). The RS1 and PS1K have the highest peaks, with the PS1K rolling off at 7 kHz while the RS1 rolls off between 9 and 10 kHz. In this frequency pattern, the SR60 falls on the inside while the RS1 falls on the outside.

7. At the twilight of the FR chart, the GS1K has the last laugh at -3 dB, about 4 dB above the PS1k, which is a dB or two above the RS1. The SR60 has the lowest FR, at about -14.