[prosperone]

There is a good amount of debate going on over on the AKG K812 thread right now about Tyl Hersten's apparent decision not to review the AKG K812.  As of this writing Tyl appears to have declined to review the AKG K812 largely based on measurements.  I respect this decision and Tyl's work. 
 
Still it leaves me wondering how enjoyable might this (or any other less than ideally measured) headphone might be?  In other words, simply because a particular headphone has measurable "defects" in its sound signature does this actually taint the listening experience?  If the measurable deviation from a standard exists, how much does it impact listening.  What percentage of listening will be impacted?  Is it an acceptable, or perhaps even desirable design decision, or simply a limit of current engineering/economics within a particular design and manufacturing house?  If "defects" exist, which are acceptable and which genuinely taint the listening experience?  Generally it seems that lacking a sonic signature doesn't detract in the same manner as overly accenting a particular sound signature.  For example a treble spike seems much more distracting than a lack of base.  Neither may be perfect, but one may be more acceptable than the other. 
 
Just wondering what people's thoughts are on where enjoyment of the headphone comes into play.  I fully agree that technical analysis of a headphone is useful in understanding how a headphone may perform sonically. 
 
That said, I wonder how closely headphone enjoyment tracks its technical prowess?  If one is seeking perfect sound reproduction I can understand this.  Perfection does not always equate to enjoyment.  The perfect food, nutritionally speaking may not always be the tastiest (Salad vs. Favorite craved food).
 
I understand at flagship price points reaching for perfection is understandable. However, how should this be measured.  What percentage of music which we listen to actually crosses the sound frequencies where the defects are noted?  If the headphone gets 95% of the music right 100% of the time AND is 100% enjoyable is this better than getting 100% of the music right but is only enjoyable 95% of the time??
 
Could a headphone that doesn't measure up still be far more enjoyable than one that measures perfectly??

 

[TMRaven]

   As of this writing Tyl appears to have declined to review the AKG K812 largely based on measurements.  

 
 
Wrong.

 

[prosperone]

   
 
Wrong.

Care to expound in a way that addresses the main point of the thread

 

[TMRaven]

The idea behind your thread is the classic objectivist vs subjectivist fiasco, which is cool and all.  However you shouldn't open it with an incorrect assertion.  
 
Tyll decides whether or not he likes a headphone based on subjective listening.  The objective measurements come afterwards so he can make sure what he's hearing isn't completely off.  In other words it helps him-- and others alike, become better listeners.  It isn't as if Tyll measures the headphones first, decides whether they're horrible or not, and decides whether or not to review them based on said measurements.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Does it matter what someone thinks even if it's Tyll. He's human like the rest of us and has his own sonic preferences that match or not preferences of others.
We all enjoy different things in life.
And btw, based on my digestion of the information in the other thread, he didn't like them even before the measurements.
I think this should be moved to lounge if not deleted.

 

[barid]

- headphones that measure poorly can be enjoyable.

- flagship headphones at this price point that are marketed for professional use should measure well. IMO.

- The k812 threads have been good comedy

- Tyll said hes listened to the k812 not just measured them

- wheres the beef?

- something something something

 

[prosperone]

  The idea behind your thread is the classic objectivist vs subjectivist fiasco, which is cool and all.  However you shouldn't open it with an incorrect assertion.  
 
Tyll decides whether or not he likes a headphone based on subjective listening.  The objective measurements come afterwards so he can make sure what he's hearing isn't completely off.  In other words it helps him-- and others alike, become better listeners.  It isn't as if Tyll measures the headphones first, decides whether they're horrible or not, and decides whether or not to review them based on said measurements.

I used the word "largely" in describing the situation to avoid the exact point you seem to be trying to make. I'm not sure that my assertion is incorrect, but that is really beyond the point of the thread.  Evidently it wasn't the carefully worded enough.  Tyl's decision, regardless of motivation was intended as a starting point for a discussion which you seem to be designed on derailing for some reason.  The point isn't whether measurements are good or bad.  I would hope that most can agree that measurements serve a roll as you have mentioned.  The point is digging down into this.  When do measurements matter the most. 
 
I'm curious why you find it to be a fiasco? I would agree that the subject matter becomes more of an art than a science.  Becoming better listeners is a noble goal.  Its why I asked the question.  When do the aberations in measurement become most critical?  When do they interfere with listening enjoyment. 
 
If you don't care to participate in a meaningful respectful manner then don't. 

 

[MacedonianHero]

  The idea behind your thread is the classic objectivist vs subjectivist fiasco, which is cool and all.  However you shouldn't open it with an incorrect assertion.  
 
Tyll decides whether or not he likes a headphone based on subjective listening.  The objective measurements come afterwards so he can make sure what he's hearing isn't completely off.  In other words it helps him-- and others alike, become better listeners.  It isn't as if Tyll measures the headphones first, decides whether they're horrible or not, and decides whether or not to review them based on said measurements.

 
FTR, I completely agree with you. Tyll even mentioned that he always listens first to a headphone before measuring. I pretty much agree with this, but like Tyll, I do like to look at the measurements as well when done listening....as Richard Feynman said, please read my sign.