Technical performance is a combination of balance, transparency, realistic timbre, high resolution and texture across all frequencies, and FR smoothness. Those traits are all inter-connected of course.
I'll give you a nickel if you can coherently define any of those without using the word in the definition or any of the other words on that list (or copy/pasting from somewhere). Not to mention that none of this actually answers my original question (to quantify and qualify "technical performance" and make a solid case for why $1000+ is a performance category beyond "cost a lot"). Thus far you've handed me six new phrases to define one; am I going to get 36 in your next reply?
If I'm to infer (quite a lot) from your post, basically what you want is a headphone with a flat (or nearly flat) magnitude response, good (if not perfect) phase coherence, a clean IR/CSD showing, and minimal distortion across that - yes? If so, then we're just left debating "how good" and "is it noticeable" - which is going to result in variable answers. You'll also notice that radiation has been pushed aside (which you'll notice when you sit down to listen, even if you don't see it on the FR or IR). But just based on that, there are plenty of ~$100 headphones that get close enough to that burden (no, not accurate enough for a shot to the moon, but close enough). Finally, the remaining wrench I'll throw it is that just because you want those things, doesn't mean everyone else does or that those things will produce the best overall experience for everyone. So now we're back at page 1 - what is technical performance? And how do you define it?
Certainly looks like a sore thumb stuck out from an otherwise fantastically neutral and clean CSD, doesn't it?
No, not really. You're talking about a fairly wide and smooth bump that decays within 1ms. Sure, most FR shots will show a slight rise around 2k, but it's fairly gradual and it doesn't really "peak" against the rest of the FR. It's nothing nasty. They sound pretty clear throughout, but everything is distant or over-wide, simply because of their soundstaging. If they could image both close and far (and not just far) they'd be much improved, but something tells me that's like washing for a unicorn ridden by a warrior princess that poops out bacon cheeseburgers. It's not gonna happen.
Here's some more shots of the same headphone -
Still not seeing any terrible mutant-ness, even if they all disagree with one another. Based on my impression of the K701, the GE graph is the one I'd agree with - they have "odd" but inoffensive treble. As far as why we have three different shots of the same headphone (and GE's K702 graph disagrees further, despite the FR/IR looking pretty much consistent) - I have no good explanation. Terrible manufacturing tolerances would be an easy answer, but you'd expect to see a lot of "my 70x just broke!" threads if they were really that bad off.
But as I said - FR (and IR) is one piece, not the entire pie. Missing the forest for the trees and all that.
While I was writing this out, it looks like you edited your post, with this (or it didn't "grab" when I hit quote, one or the other
):
Jerg said:
As for quantifying technical performance, sure there isn't an objective scale to rely on. The next best thing though is to look for specific performance traits (listed above) analytically and compare and contrast the headphones against benchmark headphones one is familiar with. For instance, I am quite familiar with how HE400 and HE500 sound, and am familiar with their strengths and shortcomings, from that I could evaluate how well other headphones perform for my own internal scale. If something sounds good, it will sound good for a majority of people familiar with higher end cans who recognize what to listen for when they audition anything. (Of course there is still other variables like upstream setups / actual music tested, but this is a good starting point)
Now while I'm absolutely fine dismissing everything you've said after that opening line (because, if I'm understanding you right, you've basically just said you (nor anyone else) can really answer that question) - I'll read on!
The remainder of your post is basically describing a subjective and qualitative approach, which is what I've more or less been getting at. Where I'm going to disagree is where you want to circle back and try to quantify or normalize your observations - ignoring the methodological flaws, it's just a lot of effort beyond saying "this sounds good to me" or "this does not sound good to me" and leaving it at that (or, if you're a geek, figuring out how to better explain WHY). Why do we care what "the majority of people" (and I'm sorry but the way you hedged that in there, you might as well have written "the elect") will think or feel? Who seriously gives a hoot?
As normal, no ill-will or offense is intended in my posts.
That bump is what made me hate the K701, seriously. It was shouty.
And this is where I want to come back to "terrible manufacturing tolerances" as an answer, because when I see people saying the K701 are "shouty" or "brittle" or "over-hot" I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. But I suspect you wouldn't be saying it if you weren't hearing it.
