[bigshot]

  How do you measure the output from headphones best? Do I have to put a mic where my ear will go?

 
There are people who do those sorts of measurements and post them on the web. You don't have to go to all that trouble. Just figure out what the numbers mean in terms of real world sound that ears can hear and start looking at the charts. The problem is that most people don't bother to figure out what the real world sound is and base their opinions on abstract wavy lines.

 

[Cryozeal]

Thanks, This is one of the most useful compilation of articles I have ever read.

 

[appsmarsterx]

Does anyone knows how we can measure (properly compare) refinement of a headphone compared to another ?  sometimes I feel very guilty for saying "X headphone is more refined than Y". 
and anyone knows how we can measure headphone characteristics like "grain", without giving our subjective impressions like "X is less grainy than Y" ?

 

[liamstrain]

First you need to define what exactly is meant by the terms. What characteristics define "refinement" and "grain." As it is, those are very fuzzy concepts. Then we can find tests to show it. 

The flip side of that is - not everything is objective. How do you evaluate a painting for elegance? Is that even a useful criteria to try and apply objectively? Is there an agreed upon standard by which to make such a comparison. 
 
When comparing headphones - you could probably start to draw some correlations between square wave performance, and the frequency response - and see which ones are more likely to have harsh spikes, or distortion when changing frequencies (and other measures) - and contrast those with impressions of words like refinement, and grain... to begin to see what elements might contribute to such a characteristic. But you are always going to be stuck with the definitions problem.

 

[money4me247]

  Does anyone knows how we can measure (properly compare) refinement of a headphone compared to another ?  sometimes I feel very guilty for saying "X headphone is more refined than Y". 
and anyone knows how we can measure headphone characteristics like "grain", without giving our subjective impressions like "X is less grainy than Y" ?

 
I think refinement would really just be correlated to how neutral the frequency response is.
 
Honestly, you will find that most things in this hobby is simply subjective impressions. Can vary from listener. Just the nature of it. Would love to have more objective data, but that doesn't seem to be the trend.

 

[bigshot]

  The flip side of that is - not everything is objective. How do you evaluate a painting for elegance? Is that even a useful criteria to try and apply objectively? Is there an agreed upon standard by which to make such a comparison. 

 
Actually, artists have fundamental principles that they can judge the quality of art on... the flow of a composition, balance, line of action, silhouettes, negative space, color theory, etc. Analysis and functionality are as important in art as in any other field.
 
Anything can be judged by objective criteria. The differences in opinions come in when someone values one particular criteria more than another person does. In that case, neither are wrong, they just have different priorities. This is entirely different than like/don't like based on pure subjective taste.

 

[bigshot]

The way to analyze headphones is to first, understand the basic criteria for judging sound (frequency response, distortion, dynamics, time error, etc.). Then find out how those elements affect sound and what the thresholds of audibility for each one are. When you know those two things, you can compare one set of headphones to another in very specific ways. You can also look at the graphs that get posted and know what that will end up sounding like.
 
A lot of people understand the criteria, but never get around to researching the audibility. This is actually worse than knowing nothing at all, because they end up chasing numbers that don't relate at all to what their ears can hear, and worry about waterfall chart measurements and square wave performance that are totally irrelevant to good sound.

 

[liamstrain]

   
Actually, artists have fundamental principles that they can judge the quality of art on... the flow of a composition, balance, line of action, silhouettes, negative space, color theory, etc. Analysis and functionality are as important in art as in any other field.
 
Anything can be judged by objective criteria. The differences in opinions come in when someone values one particular criteria more than another person does. In that case, neither are wrong, they just have different priorities. This is entirely different than like/don't like based on pure subjective taste.

 
I certainly agree. My point was not that you could not judge the painting objectively. But that some applied criteria are not objective. 

 

[castleofargh]

 

   
Actually, artists have fundamental principles that they can judge the quality of art on... the flow of a composition, balance, line of action, silhouettes, negative space, color theory, etc. Analysis and functionality are as important in art as in any other field.
 
Anything can be judged by objective criteria. The differences in opinions come in when someone values one particular criteria more than another person does. In that case, neither are wrong, they just have different priorities. This is entirely different than like/don't like based on pure subjective taste.

 
I certainly agree. My point was not that you could not judge the painting objectively. But that some applied criteria are not objective. 

if it's not objective, it's sexual, and might involve my mother.  art V1.0 Freud style.

 

[vertical]

 
if it's not objective, it's sexual, and might involve my mother.  art V1.0 Freud style.

 
Ha ha. Thx, I needed that 

 

[bigshot]

   
I certainly agree. My point was not that you could not judge the painting objectively. But that some applied criteria are not objective. 

Wouldn't any defined criteria be basically objective? It might not be cut and dried, but objectivity is about the process, not the result.
 
I work with great artists daily, and I can tell you that some of them can analyze art in ways that a scientist could learn from.

 

[money4me247]

  Wouldn't any defined criteria be basically objective? It might not be cut and dried, but objectivity is about the process, not the result.

could be a defined subjective criteria... like what sounds best to me. =P

 

[liamstrain]

 
Wouldn't any defined criteria be basically objective? It might not be cut and dried, but objectivity is about the process, not the result.
 
I work with great artists daily, and I can tell you that some of them can analyze art in ways that a scientist could learn from.

 
The problem is that word "defined." Often there are no agreed upon definitions, or comparison points. I also work with artists daily (I'm an art director in an ad agency, and also a photographer) - and while we can break something down pretty specifically, some things are still pretty vague/personal/subjective. I used elegance before as a term which is loosely defined. 
 
We can evaluate the things that go into elegance. clear expression of purpose, well defined and organized composition, good execution, etc. Each of which can be defined and evaluated mostly objectively - or at least against good benchmarks. But does meeting those criteria mean something is elegant? Sometimes. It depends. I do think some criteria, or at least some synthesis conclusions drawn from multiple criteria defy objectivity. 

To me this devalues those criteria as useful tools (grain/refinement, etc) when discussing a headphone (or painting). At the very least means judgements using them, must be backed up by the evaluations we can measure. 

I'm not sure I'm saying this clearly... I also suspect you and I largely are in agreement here - just nitpicking to clarify the argument. 

 

[bigshot]

Elegance is vague. Clear silhouettes and a composition that flows and is balanced is pretty clear. There is specific terminology in art too. Lots of very specific aesthetic theories, (like warms against cools, contrasts in scale of textures, etc) too

 

[liamstrain]

Precisely - which is the point of my response regarding "refined" and "grainy" in headphone evaluation. There is specific terminology in audio evaluation, which are well defined, testable, and benchmarked. Then there are terms like "refined." Which doesn't mean anything objectively - too vague. Like "elegant." 

"Elegance is vague. Clear silhouettes and a composition that flows and is balanced is pretty clear." - I would argue though, that the latter may be a component of elegance, but do not completely define it. And just meeting those criteria would not guarantee elegance.