[PointItZoomIt]

I was a bit surprising to see science "banned" from the rest of the forum, and I think my question belongs here.
 
HeadRoom and Inner Fidelity have frequency response charts for many headphones. I plan to use these charts to find more options that match a few headphones I heard and liked. Maybe mixing and matching different frequencies liked best.
 
Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
 
Can the same charts be used to evaluate matching to neutral balance? This is following the paper discussed at http://www.head-fi.org/t/632286/aes-2012-paper-relationship-between-perception-and-measurement-of-headphone-sound-quality but I don't know if "neutral" headphones are necessarily mostly flat. They could have done some transformations so I don't know if their charts can be directly compared to the charts from HeadRoom and Inner Fidelity.
 
Any thoughts on this?

 

[namaiki]

Don't forget square wave shape, distortion and CSDs.
 
For the frequency graphs at Innerfidelity, a flat line is pretty good though some people have slightly different preferences for sound. You can look at graphs of the HD800, LCD-2/3 and Hifiman HE-500 for some examples of what I think looks pretty good. Even the 2012 D5000 and D7000 look pretty good.
 
Then there's the Beyerdynamic DT1350 and the AKG K550 which measure pretty well sometimes, but can have some production differences with some headphones sounding and measuring different to others of the same model.

 

[xnor]

@#1: See http://www.head-acoustics.de/downloads/eng/application_notes/Equalization_brochure.pdf page 4, InnerFid. is using the ID (independent of direction) equalization.
 
You should be able to create a plot of the difference from ID to DF (diffuse field) and then from DF to the new curve in the paper you linked. Main difference to DF is roughly a 1 dB drop every octave (doubling of frequency).

 

[Ronion]

Why should the curve be based on something other than what your ear hears in a stereo triangle using a calibrated stereo?

In this case, the dummy heads?

I read that there was evidence against the Harman/KEF target curve, but I couldn't find it.

 

[PointItZoomIt]

Quote:

  Don't forget square wave shape, distortion and CSDs.

I noticed there's a bunch of other graphs that it would be interesting to learn about, but time...
Thanks for recommendations of reference pairs.

You should be able to create a plot of the difference from ID to DF (diffuse field) and then from DF to the new curve in the paper you linked. Main difference to DF is roughly a 1 dB drop every octave (doubling of frequency).

See, I knew this was going to happen. I was going to come in here, and be exposed to a whole new world of technical details, and I'd want to learn about them, but will need to find time for that.
 

Why should the curve be based on something other than what your ear hears in a stereo triangle using a calibrated stereo?

You're right in that the final decision should be made based on personal preference, but with so many options (and limited local access to on display HPs) I thought it would be a good way to quickly check a recommendation and/or make a shortlist.

 

[Nick 214]

I find it akin to buying lenses based solely on MTF charts... It's not the whole story, nor is it particularly useful without a great deal of context. 
 
Best of luck finding the right fit for you
 
NK

 

[Makiah S]

 
 luck
 

+1 fr graphs are great... then you find out there are 3 revisions of the headphone on your head and you've got Rev 1 and the graph is for REV 2...
 
So it's a toss up really, the combo of graphs and reviews is usually helpful though! 

 

[xnor]

Science never was easy, never will be. It takes some effort to read graphs correctly.
 
Another problem is tolerances. For example, measured sensitivity can vary by +/- 3 dB from one headphone to the next one of the same model! Frequency response will vary a bit too, as will distortion ...