[zeus_hunt]

I have tried PX100... we know it is bassy (overly)... that graph shows that it does amplify by around 5db 200Hz freq...

Question 1 : Is it bassy just bcoz it is shown in the graph or are there other factors as well ?
Graph of PX100 and HD650 looks similar .. but I think there is a huge difference(frequence response wise... I guess clearity on HD650 would be high) in how they sound (I havnt heard HD650)

In the graph ER-6 looks most neutral.

Question 2 : And what is happening after 2000Hz with all those sine waves...
Wondering how can they produce neutral sound (after 2KHz) with that ...

Even with these high end ones graph goes haywire after that 2KHz mark

Question 3 : Is it difficult to get the freq graphs on reviews ?

 

[ericj]

if you think that's strange, compare the k501 with the hd580

 

[carlineng]

I personally find the usefulness of frequency response charts to be rather limited. Its hard to infer all that much about how a headphone sounds just by staring at some lines on a graph.

 

[zeus_hunt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlineng /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally find the usefulness of frequency response charts to be rather limited. Its hard to infer all that much about how a headphone sounds just by staring at some lines on a graph.

So can Shure SE530 be less bassy compared to Etymotic ER6 ?

 

[catscratch]

Headphones that sound flat to the human ear don't measure flat. All of those "sine waves" in the treble regions are basically compensating for the HRTFs that are ignored by headphones but still processed/compensated for by the brain. The HD650 is actually pretty damn flat through the treble region, meaning no noticeable treble spikes, though on the whole the highs are a bit recessed.

Headphone FR shouldn't be taken in absolute terms but as a basis for comparison between one headphone and another. I wouldn't look at that FR and say "well, the HD650 boosts 200hz by 5db" but I would be comfortable in saying that "the HD650 is 5db louder at 200hz than the ER-6i," though of course given the uniqueness of everyone's individual ear anatomy, even this may not always be true.

Headphone FR is a tricky business. Maybe that's why so few headphones sound flat. Or maybe it's just manufacturers being lazy since it's so hard to measure a headphone objectively in the first place. The kind of FR deviation that goes on in headphone-land would never fly in speaker-land where measuring objective FR is pretty easy.

 

[b0dhi]

This has been covered numerous times. Use the search.

 

[zeus_hunt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif This has been covered numerous times. Use the search.

I had done it.. but "Frequency Response Graphs" (with quotes) gives me 1000 serach results.

It would be kind of u to actually point me to a link...

Should be a Sticky I think

 

[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Headphones that sound flat to the human ear don't measure flat. All of those "sine waves" in the treble regions are basically compensating for the HRTFs that are ignored by headphones but still processed/compensated for by the brain. The HD650 is actually pretty damn flat through the treble region, meaning no noticeable treble spikes, though on the whole the highs are a bit recessed. Headphone FR shouldn't be taken in absolute terms but as a basis for comparison between one headphone and another. I wouldn't look at that FR and say "well, the HD650 boosts 200hz by 5db" but I would be comfortable in saying that "the HD650 is 5db louder at 200hz than the ER-6i," though of course given the uniqueness of everyone's individual ear anatomy, even this may not always be true. Headphone FR is a tricky business. Maybe that's why so few headphones sound flat. Or maybe it's just manufacturers being lazy since it's so hard to measure a headphone objectively in the first place. The kind of FR deviation that goes on in headphone-land would never fly in speaker-land where measuring objective FR is pretty easy.

x2 very well explained.

dont look into frequency graphs too much they just show a rough idea of how the earphones respond, the sound may vary massively

 

[locu64]

The frequency response of the human ear varies quite a lot too. Here's a graph of the frequency response of the middle-ear of 11 people. The dark line is the average.

[size=xx-small](R Aibara, JT Welsh, S Puria, RL Goode) Human middle-ear sound transfer function and cochlear input impedance - Hearing Research, 2001.
[/size]
Looking at 10kHz, two peoples ears can differ by almost 30dB! Imagine the poor soul who is exposed to grados with ears like that.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by locu64 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The frequency response of the human ear varies quite a lot too. Here's a graph of the frequency response of the middle-ear of 11 people. The dark line is the average. [size=xx-small](R Aibara, JT Welsh, S Puria, RL Goode) Human middle-ear sound transfer function and cochlear input impedance - Hearing Research, 2001. [/size] Looking at 10kHz, two peoples ears can differ by almost 30dB! Imagine the poor soul who is exposed to grados with ears like that.

what SPL was that tested at? did they take fletcher-munson into consideration?

 

[PFKMan23]

I'd also ask what are the ages and the professions of those people measured.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif what SPL was that tested at? did they take fletcher-munson into consideration?

Judging from the paper abstract, the measurements were made on the bones themselves, not people ("12 fresh human temporal bones"). In any case, the comparison (middle-ear gain) is valid to illustrate the point that different ears can hear quite differently, regardless of what the equivalent SPL would be, as long as it's the same between measurements.

 

[cotdt]

Those FR graphs are only valid till about 2000Hz due to measuring method. The higher frequencies need space to establish themselves, and these are nearfield measurements. Headphones actually measure relatively flat responses except dip down in the bass region.

I explained it back when I reviewed some headphones:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/7-p...2/#post3142717

You'd be surprised to see that there is actually very little HTRF built into most headphones. They have quite flat speaker-like responses.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those FR graphs are only valid till about 2000Hz due to measuring method.

Do you have access to the full text? What was the measurement method?

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you have access to the full text? What was the measurement method?

you can tell by the shape of the lower frequencies that they were nearfield measurements. the FR graph changes dramatically depending on measurement distance from the mic and time gating. closer distance is more accurate in the lower frequencies and farther distance for treble.