[RockinCannoisseur]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you try the ED9?

Originally Posted by oqvist
Thanks. Would love to see the chart on the KeeS modded Pro 900 too to see how much you can actually relate. ED 8 does indead have a slightly rolled off treble so that is correct. It was like a year I run Pro 900 stock but the Ed 8 give a lot more mid bass then the Pro 900.

Deep bass is about the same on my Pro 900 and ED 8."


could this possibly be tru witht he stock pro 900?
same amount of deep bass as the ed 8......
so considering the edition 8 has lots more mid bass, would this give the impresssion of more overal punch and warmth or ????

and could this also mean on the other hand that the pro 900 sounds thin?

but wow same amount of deep bass and i am hoping punch(someone please clarify).

i was about to get somone some pro 900 for christmas and i was just gonna day dream abou the edition 8, but screw that i think id rather have a can that has detachable cables and can fold up nicely for port, i already have too many non portable cans lyin around..

---i did find it a tad annoying to find out really how unportable the edition 8 is, from the release it just seemed, to me at leas that these were designed for portable use,,, wrong,,

but aesthetically the edition 8 is definitley the coolest, 900 seems way more portable

 

[RockinCannoisseur]

Quote:

Originally Posted by big-ban /img/forum/go_quote.gif These are some measurements I did on my former PRO 900 a while ago: Yes, it sounded that way. When wearing them normally, the measurement was closest to the red graph. Extremely and overly bassy, cold mids and a bit distant. Totally unlike any other headphone I've ever heard. Once you get used to it, it's alright, but beware of listening to any other headphone in comparsion. Simply don't.

ooh this worries me,

did u do a direct compare to ed 8 and pro 900,

from your evaluation it sounds to me that the 900 is thins , hollow , forward highs and lacks warmth.

 

[oqvist]

Pro 900 does indead sound "weak" compared to the ED 8/DX 1000 or my speakers for example . But then I do run them at Pro 900 is for low level listening. I would love to see a comparison chart between the ED 8 and DX 1000 since I suspect they have similar response curves.

 

[donthuang]

ED8

Google Translate

PRO900

http://translate.google.com/translat...%2Fpro900.html

 

[rds]

Now we've seen 3 frequency response charts for the Pro 900 and while the headroom graph and the one below look very similar, the big-ban one looks completely different.

Looking at some of big-ban's other headphone measurements I'm wondering if there is not something strange going on with the measurement system being used.

 

[Acix]

Pro-900 compare to the HFI780/Pro550.

 

[haloxt]

Why does pro 900 have such a boost at 100?

 

[oqvist]

Basss I suppose

 

[bdr529]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now we've seen 3 frequency response charts for the Pro 900 and while the headroom graph and the one below look very similar, the big-ban one looks completely different. Looking at some of big-ban's other headphone measurements I'm wondering if there is not something strange going on with the measurement system being used.

They all look like they take on the same general shape, just scaled differently. I would say out of the three, the ryumastsuba looks like the different one.


give it a little squeeze and they look pretty close.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why does pro 900 have such a boost at 100?

The boost @ 100, It's a mystery...

About the graphs, there are not much of a differences. If you cross info between them they show the same spec.

BTW, above 1Khz the pro-900 sound very balanced.

 

[big-ban]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockinCannoisseur /img/forum/go_quote.gif ooh this worries me, did u do a direct compare to ed 8 and pro 900, from your evaluation it sounds to me that the 900 is thins , hollow , forward highs and lacks warmth.

Nope, sorry, I didn't have the chance to audition and measure the ED8 yet. Well, the PRO 900 is a double-edge sword in terms of warmth. It has lots of bass to begin which some might perceive as "warm". I simply found it to be bassy. But that bump in the bass doesn't continue into to the lower mids, there's even a slight recess in the 250 Hz region. The mids are more or less pushed back because the massive bass attracts your attention so much. It's not that its bass overshadows or bloats the mids, it just drags your attention away from the mids. I'd say its hard for the mids to sound warm and involving when there's so much bass. I hope that makes a little sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oqvist /img/forum/go_quote.gif What SPL did you measure at? If you bump the volume up the treble and bass go haywire

Unfortunately I don't have an SPL meter so I cannot tell what volume those measurements were taken at. However, all recordings were normalized to a uniform input level so they became best comparable.
It would be interesting to see how the frequency response changes with changing volume. I shall do that some time in the future

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now we've seen 3 frequency response charts for the Pro 900 and while the headroom graph and the one below look very similar, the big-ban one looks completely different. Looking at some of big-ban's other headphone measurements I'm wondering if there is not something strange going on with the measurement system being used.

My method doesn't claim to be scientific, but I found my measurements to be pretty representative in comparison to my subjective impressions. Keep in mind that I created those measurements using the mics and headphones on my own head, so my anatomy might have a certain influence on the measurements. Another major difference is that the microphones were sitting in the outer ear (like earbuds), unlike with the headroom measurements where a dummy head with in-ear-microphones was used.

The illustrations made by bdr529 basically illustrate what's the most irritating when comparing my measurements to others' measurements: the scale. I found it preferrable to widen the vertical scale a little more to be able to differentiate more of the tiny differences in frequency response.
After looking and comparing a little more closely, I decided to create an overlay mashup of all three graphs. It was a bit difficult getting it all clean and fitting the scales, but this is the best I could come up with:

The figures below the graphs indicate the frequencies of the respective source graphs (red - ryumatsuba, myself - white, blue - headroom). The caption underneath the graphs wasn't readable anymore after all that resizing, so I decided to put back the figures in readable font size just where they were relative to the original graph.

Here are my thoughts on the different graphs:

- ryumatsuba's measurement shows a bass peak at 50 hz, so does mine. In headroom's measurement it peaks at 100 Hz.
- Deep bass dropoff is much more severe on headroom's and ryumatsuba's measurements than it is on mine. Theres 8-9 db difference between the respective peaks compared to 20 Hz.
- The dip at 250 hz is almost identical on my graph and ryumatsuba's graph - as are the mids all the way up to 2 Khz
- The 3-5 Khz area is very different between ryumatsuba's and my graph. You need to be aware though that the slightest changes in positioning and especially the outer and inner ear characteristics play a big role here.
- The headroom graph is totally different from 500 Hz on, although many characteristics of the curve can be seen in my graph too. Note the dip at 2 Khz, the following bump at 3-6 Khz (with small dip at ~5 Khz each), followed by a large dip around ~10 Khz.

What can we learn from this? It's not new and not even rare that there's different sounding versions of the same headphone. It is no secret either that different methods of measurement yield different results. In the end much can be said about these graphs, but obviously there's too many unknowns in this equation to tell which of these graphs is the closest to reality. Maybe they all are, maybe all PRO 900s sounded that way?

Who knows. But it's safe to say that the overall tendency "bass heavy with recessed mids and bumped treble" can be extracted from all graphs.

 

[Acix]

Yes, you can hear the bass boost on the 900 you don't need the graph for that, the graph just confirm for me the amount of boost the in db's pulse the location's in Hz.

 

[rds]

Thank big-ban for that composite, which I think gets at what I'm saying about the graphs between very different. However, in your composite the vertical scaling is not right.

For example, from 100Hz to 250Hz your graph dips 24dB (!) whereas the headroom only dips 10dB and ryumatsuba's dips around 18dB.

Also, headroom shows a 12dB dip at 10kHz, you show a 10dB dip at 8.5-9kHz and ryumatsuba shows essentially no dip in that area.

Also, as you mentioned the graphs just look very different. I don't know what to make of that.


SIDE NOTE: the hd-800 has a bass boost of about 8db centered at 200Hz, but you don't hear people talking about it being bass heavy at all. Maybe it just doesn't register the same because the boost is spread from 10-1000Hz?

 

[big-ban]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thank big-ban for that composite, which I think gets at what I'm saying about the graphs between very different. However, in your composite the vertical scaling is not right. For example, from 100Hz to 250Hz your graph dips 24dB (!) whereas the headroom only dips 10dB and ryumatsuba's dips around 18dB. Also, headroom shows a 12dB dip at 10kHz, you show a 10dB dip at 8.5-9kHz and ryumatsuba shows essentially no dip in that area. Also, as you mentioned the graphs just look very different. I don't know what to make of that. SIDE NOTE: the hd-800 has a bass boost of about 8db centered at 200Hz, but you don't hear people talking about it being bass heavy at all. Maybe it just doesn't register the same because the boost is spread from 10-1000Hz?

You're right, didn't play close attention to that, suppose it was too late to think properly

What I was just trying to do was match the graphs vertically at the bass bump to see how the rest of the graph fits.
The only proper way to really compare the measurements would be to use the raw data and put it all into one coordinate system.

 

[somestranger26]

This thread is such a crack up. 3 graphs, 3 different results, and none of them will actually tell you how they sound without listening to them yourself.