[nordkapp]

I have owned several preamps and amplifiers from a classic American manufacturer, likely the most well known, who used to always emphasis their outstanding specs. Well turns out I thought they all sounded veiled and un-dynamic. Great measurements do not necessarily correlate to the best sonics.

 

[taktik]

No it is not the only thing it tells you. A FR chart give you a general understanding of how a set of cans perform and to people who are well versed with measurements this is useful. However by itself it does not show anything conclusive, that is why Tyll also measures 30Hz and 300Hz square wave response as the latter shows provides further evidence for the accompanying frequency response in terms of bass sustain and also how the response after the 300Hz step can be compared with different headphones which show a great link to transients and how we locate sound (soundstage). Not only this he couples the measurements with impulse response to show how the responsive the driver diaphragm is. A FR chart by itself is useless. I linked a video response above somewhere with Tyll's lecture on the matter.

I wanted to add something also to what @taktik said above just for conjecture for his argument. if you were to go to a live concert and are able to retain in your mind perfectly (inhumanly) how all of the instruments sounded based on the room dynamics, band position and microphone levels. With that imaginary eidedic memory you were then given 2 sets of headphones, one matched as perfectly to what you heard and the second set just like in this case, that added a bit more fun into the mix. Drums hit harder, highs were elavated etc.. Does the imaginary person not have every right to call the sound flawed. Not bad or nasty but not accurate either?

I fully agree. Defining a standard is somewhere artificial and it's clearly not an absolute. Anyway, it's an essential basis to a rational debate. Whithout a standard, we let the door open to concepts like "fun" which mean nothing and which is mainly used to disguise sonic flaws.

 

[nanaholic]

Does the imaginary person not have every right to call the sound flawed. Not bad or nasty but not accurate either?

No he doesn't, because as said, then the most apt description is that the headphone is not accurate, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's take your example further. If say the headphone designer also went into this imaginary live concert and recalled every detail of the sound of that live, but he was standing a few feets away so he got a slightly different signature, so he reflected this in his headphone design, then to *him* it is actually perfect and according to his plan, even if the other guy found the sound not accurate to his experience, so to him there's no "flawed sound" in his design. Here you see "flaw" suddenly becomes a subjective opinion, and not actually objective true for everyone, thus to use that word to make the describe is not fitting and is misleading.

Again the words have dictionary meanings and all that. Why can you not just say it's not accurate and stop there? A headphone that is inaccurate says all there needs to be said about to it, however describing it as a "flawed" headphone implies you know the intention of the headphone designer and know that they somehow couldn't achieve that intention and made something unintended. That's a HUGE leap in conclusion and assumptions that is attached to using that word to describe the headphone.

 

[castleofargh]

sorry for the off topic, sort of. I read so much nonsense that it makes me, an enthusiast measurement noob, feel like I need to post stuff for correction. it would be much better if it came from someone who actually knows the job, but here I go.

the Harman target starts based on some assumptions(not on certainties) that we will like on a headphone the same signature we like on speakers. then they let hundreds of people EQ to their preferences, and they sure did it. it's an average curve based on subjective preferences!
most other curves rely on measured sound at the ear, or perceived equal loudness contour with whatever reference sound they want, like speakers in an anechoic chamber or speakers in a particular room... pick a reference make a curve, boom you have a target response.
they all show different graphs for the same sound because they are all using a different reference as the flat line. so they mean absolutely nothing to those who can't even understand what the graph refers to in each instance.

there are at least 2 main consequences to how graphs are made:
-1 a flat line almost never claims to sound neutral to your own ear, and only a few curves tried to "feel" neutral for the average ear. so what I read about flat graph to sound like the musician played, this is a total misconception. and I say it in the nicest terms I could find in me. the first draft was cataclysmic.
-2 when the reference is supposed to rely on humans, it is almost always a statistical average! the reference does what it claims to do for the perfectly average human it references. but are you it? even if it's likely to come close to reference X for you because that's what stats do, are you sure you have a perfectly average head and body? I'm 1.93m(6'4"), that's a bad start for average body. I can tell you that while I'm closer to the average human than I am to a banana(but not by much), the ideal neutral signature for the perfectly average human will not sound right to me on headphones. and at least some of the reasons are physiological and can be measured so it's not only because I listen exclusively to Britney Spears and Cradle of filth.


neutral:
take a DAC, send some audio signals to it, measure what comes out. if the frequency response didn't change then the graph will be flat and the DAC can be said to be and to sound neutral within a given frequency range. simple, clean, logical idea of neutral where subjective and objective approaches are very close.
doing that with headphones, to quote a famous Twitter user, "sounds good, doesn't work". electrical neutral doesn't sound neutral at all on headphones. we can still pick a reference and express the frequency response of the headphone compared to that reference, but all those who pretend to have some morale high ground about neutral based on the graphs we got, should stop posting silly stuff and go read about headphone measurements. it would really be a good idea for them, and for us. the reality is that there could basically be one neutral per user for headphones. if you don't know enough to make deep assessments(and at some point only the guy making the measurement can do that TBH), then do as I do: stick to direct comparison of 2 graphs for 2 headphones measured by the same guy. always!!!!! they use the same reference so you don't have to care anymore, the reference should mostly cancel out as you look only for the variations between the 2 signatures. mathematical maaaaAAAAgic!!!!! it's just a beginning and as I said last time, it objectively only tells you stuff about the pairs that were measured on each graph under specific conditions, not about all the headphones of the same model on all heads in all positions. but at least it's a start and it's information the graphs really contains for a change.

real sound: for all the argument about how a live event is a proper reference of right sound. if you're placed at a different position in the concert you'd get a different frequency response(and other differences). and that also applies to the microphones that aren't placed where you stood.
then there are those apparently irrelevant guys given what I read here, who mix and master the album without touching anything so that the sound remains untouched. ^_^ except that when talking to them you come to realize that "the sound like the artist played it" is almost never what they try to achieve unless it was a specific request.
so just thinking that the album must sound like the artist does IRL is a misconception. of course using that as reference if wrong as you don't actually have a reference to use. you're taking 2 different sounds and try to make them match. I don't know where that can lead, but real sound isn't it.



to end pretending like I'm some wise Shaolin dude: just because graphs look easy, doesn't mean interpreting them is also easy.

 

[taktik]

Again the words have dictionary meanings and all that. Why can you not just say it's not accurate and stop there? A headphone that is inaccurate says all there needs to be said about to it, however describing it as a "flawed" headphone implies you know the intention of the headphone designer and know that they somehow couldn't achieve that intention and made something unintended. That's a HUGE leap in conclusion and assumptions that is attached to using that word to describe the headphone.

OK, let's say accurate instead of flaw for the FR. But the behavior of a driver have many other characteristics for which it's difficult to use the word "accurate". Flaw is an imprecise generic term which points out something that may be better.

 

[rnros]

Approaching 11,000 posts!!

This certainly is one of the most talked about headphones. Less than a year. Strong following, vigorous opposition, many wishing to dismiss it without hearing it, intense debate on importance of current measurement systems, disciples frantic about disrespect to favorite reviewer, hostility towards those who would dare to measure headphones without being anointed... Jeez.

No, I don't think Sony would feel embarrassment in reading this thread, quite the opposite, I don't think Sony could ever imagine this level of success and popularity.

To think that a single headphone could actually call into question the validity of current measurement systems and those who dare to post their results. Perhaps, we should legislate a state agency to license those who choose to operate headphone measurement equipment. We also need to enforce proper interpretation of FR charts, no one should speak, or hold an opinion, of FR charts without state certification. Additionally, there is far too much liberal attitude concerning the five positions chosen for headphone placement on the dummy. Diagrams and training will be provided. You will receive further notification. If you fail to follow state protocol, or should you engage in this activity as a hobby, we will find you.

If ever there was a reason to bet on a classic, this would be it. I should purchase another Z1R, these are likely to increase in value quickly if ever discontinued.

 

[Beagle]

I wanted to add something also to what @taktik said above just for conjecture for his argument. if you were to go to a live concert and are able to retain in your mind perfectly (inhumanly) how all of the instruments sounded based on the room dynamics, band position and microphone levels. With that imaginary eidedic memory you were then given 2 sets of headphones, one matched as perfectly to what you heard and the second set just like in this case, that added a bit more fun into the mix. Drums hit harder, highs were elavated etc.. Does the imaginary person not have every right to call the sound flawed. Not bad or nasty but not accurate either?

It would have to be unamplified instruments, no microphones....just live voices and instruments in front of you. If your gear (headphones, amp, source) can simulate that, the tone, the timbre, the naturalness....that should be all that matters.

 

[jmills8]

It would have to be unamplified instruments, no microphones....just live voices and instruments in front of you. If your gear (headphones, amp, source) can simulate that, the tone, the timbre, the naturalness....that should be all that matters.

Bass drum will shake the floor, doors and windows.

 

[nanaholic]

OK, let's say accurate instead of flaw for the FR. But the behavior of a driver have many other characteristics for which it's difficult to use the word "accurate". Flaw is an imprecise generic term which points out something that may be better.

*sigh* Again, that better/worse thing is best described as "inaccurate", just stop using the word "flaw".

I have a pair of Just ear XJE-MH1 which was specifically tuned to MY personal sound preference after hours of careful tuning and direction given by me to Sony sound engineer Matsuo-san. It's highly inaccurate and I would never dispute that fact, but the sound is NOT flawed because I WANTED it exactly as it is now. Can it be more accurate if I wanted? Sure absolutely no doubt about it, but it CANNOT be "better", because subjectively, it is the perfect sound to ME and is absolutely flawless. You cannot substitute the words here and dispute my subjective goal. If you say to me "your MH1 are inaccurate" I would give a nod and say "yep, you are absolutely right", but if you say to me "your MH1 are flawed", to which I would say "No way, it's exactly how I wanted it!".

See the difference?

 

[jude]

Wow. We didn't expect or intend for the response to our measurements and comments to be as controversial as they turned out to be. In posting those measurements, as well as my opinions and assumptions about them, we simply wanted to add to the discussion. We certainly didn't post them to stir things up, or to say "I'm right, you're wrong."

• When we first saw Tyll's measurements (and his accompanying impressions), we were--like many of you--surprised. Based on my own subjective experience with the MDR-Z1R, and our observations of the general subjective consensus here on Head-Fi, Tyll's article seemed to us to offer a contrasting assessment.
  
  
• With our curiosity aroused, we then measured our prototype, as well as another Head-Fi'ers production unit. While they weren't exactly alike, we think it fair to say they were similar, and neither exhibited the magnitude of the treble peak shown in InnerFidelity's measurements. To be clear, we did not say our measurements are right or Tyll's are wrong. We simply stated that neither of the MDR-Z1R units we had on hand exhibited the treble peak to the magnitude present in InnerFidelity's findings with the one he has on hand.
  
  
• Our measurements also exhibited significantly lower harmonic distortion, particularly in the bass range, compared to InnerFidelity's. Again, are we saying his measurements are inaccurate or wrong? No. Nor are we saying that our measurements are more accurate or right, relative to InnerFidelity's. We are saying our measurements of the two units we have here showed less total harmonic distortion than Tyll's measurements showed for the unit he had there. Tyll felt the bass distortion he measured looked problematic and assumed/suspected that the distortion he was seeing might be due to excursion-limiting from a small magnet, and I can understand (given what he measured) why he would venture a guess at possible reasons for the distortion he was seeing, because...
  
  
• ...when we review and/or measure, we all have to make a modicum of reasonable assumptions. For example, if we're sent a sample unit (and most of us who get review units usually only get one of a particular model), we assume it's representative of the ones others are purchasing. We, therefore, assume our impressions of the headphone are impressions of a unit representative of the ones others are purchasing. When we measure the headphone, we assume the same about our measurements. Tyll measured a large treble peak and also heard it. We don't doubt him.
  
  
• Discussions of compensation curves came up as one possible cause (as there can certainly be differences between compensation curves--we use the KEMAR DF compensation that was provided to us), so I was asked to post uncompensated measurements. I posted uncompensated frequency response measurements of prototype X009 (since that's the unit I'll be sending to Tyll).

• Today, we wanted to see (using the production unit, since it seems a bit more consistent in terms of measured performance) if we could coax this one into producing a treble peak similar to the one InnerFidelity was seeing and hearing from their unit. To do this, we put the headphone on the head, and we tried to maximize its output around 10 kHz. To get it to peak required gentle nudging while watching the monitor in real time--even very small movements can substantially change levels ~10 kHz. Focusing only on maximizing output ~10 kHz--independent of anything else that we'd usually consider as we position the headphone--we were not able to get the treble peak level that InnerFidelity measured in their uncompensated plot, but we were certainly able to get the ~10 kHz level significantly up versus our normal measurements. Here's InnerFidelity's uncompensated plot (red arrow pointing to it below--it's the bottom plot). (Note that I truncated their X axis down to 20 kHz for an easier comparison (our X axis only goes to 20 kHz.)):

​

• Here's our attempt to maximize ~10 kHz on both channels. Please note that there may be a couple more left-channel (blue) plots than right-channel (red) ones, as we had an easier time coaxing it out of the left channel from positions that looked more normal, so on a couple of the measures we focused solely on the left. Here's what we got:

​

• Again, focusing only on maximizing the output ~10 kHz, we were able to get a higher reading than with our typical measurements, though still not as high as InnerFidelity's measurement shows there. In doing these, the 30 Hz square wave comparison (a technique we first saw Tyll do in a video years ago, and that we and others have since regularly employed) was not the same for the two channels in any single measurement, and more poorly formed than when focusing on getting the square waves as right as the headphone allows. Again, this is because, for this exercise, exacting overall measurement placement wasn't the main focus, maximizing output at ~10 kHz was.
  
  
• We then decided to try something else, which is to do a hybrid between our normal headphone placements for measuring and the above. Specifically, we mounted the headphone for measurement and worked placement as we normally do (including Tyll's square wave tests and other checks). However, once we had it set, we'd then move the earcups in small increments to increase output ~10 kHz (monitoring the measured level in real time) before running the sweeps. The difference from the test above was that we limited the placement and movement to keep the 30 Hz square waves intact and equal between channels (or relatively close anyway). Doing this, we were able to squeeze a few more decibels out ~10 kHz (though not to the extent that we were able to above), with a mild increase in right channel variance down low in a couple of measurements (versus the left), in terms of both frequency response and THD. Here's what we got when doing this:

​

Our conclusion? Again, it is simply too soon for anybody to be drawing firm conclusions as of yet, assuming any firm conclusions will ever be drawn. Again, our frequency response and THD measurements of the two MDR-Z1R's that we have on hand continue to differ from InnerFidelity's measurements of the one they have. This could very well be due to different measurement rigs, or different MDR-Z1R units, or both. We look forward to measuring (and listening to) the unit that Tyll had, and we are sure he looks forward to doing the same with ours. We expect there to be more illuminating discussion, too, but hopefully with fewer snits in britches.

 

[Treeko]

stick to direct comparison of 2 graphs for 2 headphones measured by the same guy. always!!!!!

I'm defo looking forward to @jude future measurements.

the reference should mostly cancel out as you look only for the variations between the 2 signatures. mathematical maaaaAAAAgic!!!!!

Haha reading this made me chuckle, I may have to spend more time in the sound science threads.

 

[canali]

i'm hopping in my spaceship to visit 'another planet'
... should be..super interesting ....

 

[Makiah S]

Wow. We didn't expect or intend for the response to our measurements and comments to be as controversial as they turned out to be. In posting those measurements, as well as my opinions and assumptions about them, we simply wanted to add to the discussion. We certainly didn't post them to stir things up, or to say "I'm right, you're wrong."

• When we first saw Tyll's measurements (and his accompanying impressions), we were--like many of you--surprised. Based on my own subjective experience with the MDR-Z1R, and our observations of the general subjective consensus here on Head-Fi, Tyll's article seemed to us to offer a contrasting assessment.
  
  
• With our curiosity aroused, we then measured our prototype, as well as another Head-Fi'ers production unit. While they weren't exactly alike, we think it fair to say they were similar, and neither exhibited the magnitude of the treble peak shown in InnerFidelity's measurements. To be clear, we did not say our measurements are right or Tyll's are wrong. We simply stated that neither of the MDR-Z1R units we had on hand exhibited the treble peak to the magnitude present in InnerFidelity's findings with the one he has on hand.
  
  
• Our measurements also exhibited significantly lower harmonic distortion, particularly in the bass range, compared to InnerFidelity's. Again, are we saying his measurements are inaccurate or wrong? No. Nor are we saying that our measurements are more accurate or right, relative to InnerFidelity's. We are saying our measurements of the two units we have here showed less total harmonic distortion than Tyll's measurements showed for the unit he had there. Tyll felt the bass distortion he measured looked problematic and assumed/suspected that the distortion he was seeing might be due to excursion-limiting from a small magnet, and I can understand (given what he measured) why he would venture a guess at possible reasons for the distortion he was seeing, because...
  
  
• ...when we review and/or measure, we all have to make a modicum of reasonable assumptions. For example, if we're sent a sample unit (and most of us who get review units usually only get one of a particular model), we assume it's representative of the ones others are purchasing. We, therefore, assume our impressions of the headphone are impressions of a unit representative of the ones others are purchasing. When we measure the headphone, we assume the same about our measurements. Tyll measured a large treble peak and also heard it. We don't doubt him.
  
  
• Discussions of compensation curves came up as one possible cause (as there can certainly be differences between compensation curves--we use the KEMAR DF compensation that was provided to us), so I was asked to post uncompensated measurements. I posted uncompensated frequency response measurements of prototype X009 (since that's the unit I'll be sending to Tyll).

• Today, we wanted to see (using the production unit, since it seems a bit more consistent in terms of measured performance) if we could coax this one into producing a treble peak similar to the one InnerFidelity was seeing and hearing from their unit. To do this, we put the headphone on the head, and we tried to maximize its output around 10 kHz. To get it to peak required gentle nudging while watching the monitor in real time--even very small movements can substantially change levels ~10 kHz. Focusing only on maximizing output ~10 kHz--independent of anything else that we'd usually consider as we position the headphone--we were not able to get the treble peak level that InnerFidelity measured in their uncompensated plot, but we were certainly able to get the ~10 kHz level significantly up versus our normal measurements. Here's InnerFidelity's uncompensated plot (red arrow pointing to it below--it's the bottom plot). (Note that I truncated their X axis down to 20 kHz for an easier comparison (our X axis only goes to 20 kHz.)):

​

• Here's our attempt to maximize ~10 kHz on both channels. Please note that there may be a couple more left-channel (blue) plots than right-channel (red) ones, as we had an easier time coaxing it out of the left channel from positions that looked more normal, so on a couple of the measures we focused solely on the left. Here's what we got:

​

• Again, focusing only on maximizing the output ~10 kHz, we were able to get a higher reading than with our typical measurements, though still not as high as InnerFidelity's measurement shows there. In doing these, the 30 Hz square wave comparison (a technique we first saw Tyll do in a video years ago, and that we and others have since regularly employed) was not the same for the two channels in any single measurement, and more poorly formed than when focusing on getting the square waves as right as the headphone allows. Again, this is because, for this exercise, exacting overall measurement placement wasn't the main focus, maximizing output at ~10 kHz was.
  
  
• We then decided to try something else, which is to do a hybrid between our normal headphone placements for measuring and the above. Specifically, we mounted the headphone for measurement and worked placement as we normally do (including Tyll's square wave tests and other checks). However, once we had it set, we'd then move the earcups in small increments to increase output ~10 kHz (monitoring the measured level in real time) before running the sweeps. The difference from the test above was that we limited the placement and movement to keep the 30 Hz square waves intact and equal between channels (or relatively close anyway). Doing this, we were able to squeeze a few more decibels out ~10 kHz (though not to the extent that we were able to above), with a mild increase in right channel variance down low in a couple of measurements (versus the left), in terms of both frequency response and THD. Here's what we got when doing this:

​

Our conclusion? Again, it is simply too soon for anybody to be drawing firm conclusions as of yet, assuming any firm conclusions will ever be drawn. Again, our frequency response and THD measurements of the two MDR-Z1R's that we have on hand continue to differ from InnerFidelity's measurements of the one they have. This could very well be due to different measurement rigs, or different MDR-Z1R units, or both. We look forward to measuring (and listening to) the unit that Tyll had, and we are sure he looks forward to doing the same with ours. We expect there to be more illuminating discussion, too, but hopefully with fewer snits in britches.

Thank you! It's excellent to see some more data from your rig, I'm happy to see you guys were opening to experimenting to see how you could put more emphasis on the 10khrz peak, as well as how the measurements changed depending on placement. I'll also be looking forward to seeing how you read Tyll's and likewise how he measures yours.

 

[Beagle]

Bass drum will shake the floor, doors and windows.

Of what? A cabin, a warehouse?

 

[Sonic Defender]

I think the Z1R is an excellent sounding headphone, it is a presentation style that works for some and not all. I agree in principle with using an objective standard to compare against, but given the absence of a universally accepted standard, not saying the current efforts as discussed couldn't provide one; however, be that as it may, as it stands now there is no universal standard. In that context I agree calling something flawed when it might deviate is inaccurate. If we have a standard and everybody is to use it as a target template frankly why bother having different headphones, or even different companies? There could just be one company that produces all headphones in a way that conforms with the universal standard and we would lose the diversity of sound signatures, but we could obtain the goal of a headphone that is perfectly in compliance with a universal standard. What a dumb goal I think. It is precisely the variation in sound signatures and tuning opportunities that make this hobby so compelling. There is room for the Utopia, Z1R, Ether Flow, Stax 009, HD800S and on and on, I love the diversity. I don't want some universal standard to strangle the life out of this hobby.

And the proponents of this universal standard are doing just that if they know it or not. So what should be the correct deviation from perfect reproduction off of this standard? Who will decide that? The only logical conclusion is that there should be no deviation allowed in which case we circle back to only having one sound signature crafted to tightly fit to one universal standard. If we reject that idea, but accept that a standard can be used as a baseline, but accept that all kinds of deviating interpretations can yield a variety of signatures that appeal differently to different people, we have what we have today. So stop coming in here and telling us the Z1R is flawed, nobody has that right, nor is there some hallowed absolute ground to make that determination from. The Z1R is lovely sounding for those who like it, it was designed to sound as it sounds. Nobody will hold a gun to your head and force you to buy. Go and make your own decisions that satisfy your needs, I won't tell you your choices are flawed, so stop telling me and others here that our choices are flawed. It is ridiculous.