[Makiah S]

Quote:

A flat frequency response throughout the range of human hearing.

And btw, we are talking about how the mechanics of a headphone reproduce natrual sounds, what in the machine changes the weight. What makes it more or less real in each headphone 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

I happen to enjoy knowing the science behind what I am hearing, so what adds that additional heaviness and solidity in the mids of my w1000x that makes it sound more "weighty" than the Akg K550? 

I think the main difference really is in the bass, especially mid bass. Taking a close look, e.g., at Tyll's measurements you can see that:
- the W1000x bass peak at ~100 Hz is about +5 dB relative to 500 Hz
- the K550 on the other hand has a dip just below 90 Hz, so relative to 500 Hz there's like little to no boost at all
 
The video you linked above does have energy roughly around 90-100 Hz each time a note is hit, especially for the lower ones so you were almost spot on with your 90-130 Hz. If you didn't look this up in a spectrum analyzer you got pretty good frequency analyzing skills.
 
Even though there's not much energy in that frequency range it is there and quite audible since it's not being masked by anything else (no bass guitar, no bass drum or the like).
 
The bass peak seems to be the main thing that adds this weight you're hearing.

 

[bigshot]

And btw, we are talking about how the mechanics of a headphone reproduce natrual sounds, what in the machine changes the weight. What makes it more or less real in each headphone 

Frequencies are what we hear. A balanced response is the most lifelike, and the clearest. I don't really know what you mean by "weight" if it doesn't have to do with frequency response. I'd suggest getting a good digital equalizer and dial in your "weight" the way you like it.

 

[Makiah S]

Quote:

I think the main difference really is in the bass, especially mid bass. Taking a close look, e.g., at Tyll's measurements you can see that:
- the W1000x bass peak at ~100 Hz is about +5 dB relative to 500 Hz
- the K550 on the other hand has a dip just below 90 Hz, so relative to 500 Hz there's like little to no boost at all
 
The video you linked above does have energy roughly around 90-100 Hz each time a note is hit, especially for the lower ones so you were almost spot on with your 90-130 Hz. If you didn't look this up in a spectrum analyzer you got pretty good frequency analyzing skills.
 
Even though there's not much energy in that frequency range it is there and quite audible since it's not being masked by anything else (no bass guitar, no bass drum or the like).
 
The bass peak seems to be the main thing that adds this weight you're hearing.

Makes, sense. 
But to the OP, the more you listen the more you'll start to feel and grasp an understanding of these terms, once you hear it once, once you feel it once,  you remember and can pick it out of almost anything. 
 
And for me allergies have all but ruined my sense of smell, taste and vision... so all I got left to REALLY enjoy is hearing and feeling <3 [thank gawd for glasses, though.] 
 
Quote:

Frequencies are what we hear. A balanced response is the most lifelike, and the clearest. I don't really know what you mean by "weight" if it doesn't have to do with frequency response. I'd suggest getting a good digital equalizer and dial in your "weight" the way you like it.

 
Indeed, the little bit of extra bass from the w1000x Frequancy Response give it a little more weight. The Dt 880 had a simmilar but less signifigcant bass peak which also lead to a nice weight to the mids.
 
So that's good to know. 

 

[xnor]

Sure, I agree with you bigshot, flat frequency all the way! It's just that there seems to be a lot confusion with headphone measurements, since you are not measuring them in your living room but inside your ears/ear canals/near the ear drums.
Depending on the type of headphone most of your HRTF may be bypassed, maybe the pinna is still doing partly its thing (now the sound is coming from the side and not the front of your head), and the ear canal usually adds resonances but that's about it.
 
Additionally, each different headphone measurement system has a different target curve. Even if they don't show raw but compensated curves the compensation may be off.
 
A +5 dB mid-bass boost in the raw measurement data may actually be needed to result in perceived flat(ter) sound.

 

[Makiah S]

Quote:

Sure, I agree with you bigshot, flat frequency all the way! It's just that there seems to be a lot confusion with headphone measurements, since you are not measuring them in your living room but inside your ears/ear canals/near the ear drums.
Depending on the type of headphone most of your HRTF may be bypassed, maybe the pinna is still doing partly its thing (now the sound is coming from the side and not the front of your head), and the ear canal usually adds resonances but that's about it.
 
Additionally, each different headphone measurement system has a different target curve. Even if they don't show raw but compensated curves the compensation may be off.
 
A +5 dB mid-bass boost in the raw measurement data may actually be needed to result in perceived flat(ter) sound.

maybe not that much, but yea my Beyer Dt 880s had that Boost in mid bass, and I enjoyed them very much for the weighty mids. 
 
Good to know that freq curve is one I enjoy... 

 

[EthanWiner]

To a lot of people showing a frequency response elicits the response=What does that mean"

I did acknowledge that some descriptive words such as "thin" or "bright" are useful. But let's look at the big picture. If someone has a hobby - not just hi-fi - you'd think they would want to learn as much as they can. The more you know about something, the more you can appreciate it. Imagine if video folks were afraid to use terms like "black-level" or "gamma" or "color-balance," and instead felt they had to dumb down their explanations to not confuse or offend newbies. Same for car enthusiasts, aspiring chefs, or any other avocation or hobby. I don't often hear people say "the engine goes bumpity bump" instead of "the timing needs to be advanced," or "adding too much seasoning makes the food taste icky" and so forth. So it makes no sense to me that audiophiles should prefer to remain ignorant about how their audio gear works. I understand that some people do not care about audio, and just want to listen to music that sounds good. But those people are not audiophiles, they're merely consumers.

--Ethan

 

[dakanao]

Quote:

I did acknowledge that some descriptive words such as "thin" or "bright" are useful. But let's look at the big picture. If someone has a hobby - not just hi-fi - you'd think they would want to learn as much as they can. The more you know about something, the more you can appreciate it. Imagine if video folks were afraid to use terms like "black-level" or "gamma" or "color-balance," and instead felt they had to dumb down their explanations to not confuse or offend newbies. Same for car enthusiasts, aspiring chefs, or any other avocation or hobby. I don't often hear people say "the engine goes bumpity bump" instead of "the timing needs to be advanced," or "adding too much seasoning makes the food taste icky" and so forth. So it makes no sense to me that audiophiles should prefer to remain ignorant about how their audio gear works. I understand that some people do not care about audio, and just want to listen to music that sounds good. But those people are not audiophiles, they're merely consumers.

--Ethan

Can you recommend me a clean tight deep bass heavy headphone with a lot of body and weight to the midrange and good treble aswell?

 

[Makiah S]

Quote:

Can you recommend me a clean tight deep bass heavy headphone with a lot of body and weight to the midrange and good treble aswell?

Get a modded w1000x <3 

 

[bigshot]

When you say you want a headphone with good bass, midrange and treble, you are saying you want one with a flat response. Accentuating any frequency weakens the others. Balanced is equal across the board.

 

[dakanao]

Quote:

When you say you want a headphone with good bass, midrange and treble, you are saying you want one with a flat response. Accentuating any frequency weakens the others. Balanced is equal across the board.

Hmm I see. I didn't actually mean to say that I want a flat response. I want emphasized tight, clean, deep, hard hitting bass, without overpowering the mids and highs, and body and weight to the mids (which gets me engaging for my music) and just a bit sparkly, non fatiguing treble.

 

[Makiah S]

Quote:

Hmm I see. I didn't actually mean to say that I want a flat response. I want emphasized tight, clean, deep, hard hitting bass, without overpowering the mids and highs, and body and weight to the mids (which gets me engaging for my music) and just a bit sparkly, non fatiguing treble.

K550 sounds right up your alley. I'll admit the mids are not the heaviest or but the have nice body, and the bass clean deep and hard HITTING. The Dt 880 might be great as well

 

[bigshot]

Hmm I see. I didn't actually mean to say that I want a flat response. I want emphasized tight, clean, deep, hard hitting bass, without overpowering the mids and highs, and body and weight to the mids (which gets me engaging for my music) and just a bit sparkly, non fatiguing treble.

You're describing a balanced frequency response. If you want big bass, that is going to come at the expense of the mids and highs. If you want lots of high end, that is going to take away from mids and bass. With balanced response, all frequencies are equally able to come to the forefront, depending on how the recording is made.

You can learn an awful lot by playing with an equalizer. If you want to boost bass, there are two ways to do it. One is to increase the gain in the low frequencies. The other way is to reduce the gain in the mids and highs. Both come out with the same result.

Do you understand what I'm talking about now?

 

[Makiah S]

Quote:

You're describing a balanced frequency response. If you want big bass, that is going to come at the expense of the mids and highs. If you want lots of high end, that is going to take away from mids and bass. With balanced response, all frequencies are equally able to come to the forefront, depending on how the recording is made.

You can learn an awful lot by playing with an equalizer. If you want to boost bass, there are two ways to do it. One is to increase the gain in the low frequencies. The other way is to reduce the gain in the mids and highs. Both come out with the same result.

Do you understand what I'm talking about now?

Indeed that is a great way to get an understanding things 

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

Quote:

a more musical presentation but still with detail.   

 
That's drifting off into vagueness again, I'm afraid. It would help if you focused on the aspects of sound... frequencies, dynamics, distortion, etc. We all know what that means. But you could put a gun to my head, and I wouldn't be able to identify "more musical" headphones.

 
The term "musical" came about from a translation from Chinese of an attempt to describe a very slight difference between the sound of two different types of circuits, each designed to be "neutral" but slightly different all the same.
 
Quote:

What's the difference between accurate "scientifc" terms people need to learn vs. inaccurate, flowery audiophile terms people need to learn? But that's not all of it. For such terms it's usually not enough to just read the glossary, you also have to skim through reviews and get to know the "taste" of the reviewer to get a better idea what he means.

 
All terms are useless without actual experience of them. You could teach someone the science behind all of audio over a few years, but if they never listened to music throughout that time, it'd all be meaningless. It is the same with all science.
 
Quote:

Quote:

 
Reality is a flat response by definition.

Indeed, so reality can't be defined with terms that are used to describe the effects of something that is the result of an mechnical reproduction. 

 
This is exactly right. When we are listening to to music out of an audio system, it is not reality at all.
 
Maybe more to the point: Even if you do go to live music, you aren't hearing each instrument as it would sound in a sound-deadened room, it will be coloured by the venue. Even if you go to a piano recital, whether you sit where you can see the player's hands or, as people in the know do, on the other side, will change what you hear.
 
So, without going through all the other issues with recording, mastering and reproducing music and, not to mention, the inability of headphones to have a genuinely flat response for everyone or act as speakers with a proper stereo image, we are here to enjoy listening to music, which doesn't always mean what we might think it should.
 
Quote:

This should be the goal of audiophiles. Complete acoustic transparency within the range of human hearing. No coloration. No distortion. No compression. It's possible to get very very close if you are smart and understand the way sound works.

 
I guess my car stereo will have to go then. But old Van Halen recordings don't sound any better through a better stereo.
 
Quote:

Quote:

To a lot of people showing a frequency response elicits the response=What does that mean"

I did acknowledge that some descriptive words such as "thin" or "bright" are useful. But let's look at the big picture. If someone has a hobby - not just hi-fi - you'd think they would want to learn as much as they can. The more you know about something, the more you can appreciate it. Imagine if video folks were afraid to use terms like "black-level" or "gamma" or "color-balance," and instead felt they had to dumb down their explanations to not confuse or offend newbies. Same for car enthusiasts, aspiring chefs, or any other avocation or hobby. I don't often hear people say "the engine goes bumpity bump" instead of "the timing needs to be advanced," or "adding too much seasoning makes the food taste icky" and so forth. So it makes no sense to me that audiophiles should prefer to remain ignorant about how their audio gear works. I understand that some people do not care about audio, and just want to listen to music that sounds good. But those people are not audiophiles, they're merely consumers.

--Ethan

 
A slight digression, but a friend of mine LOVED cartoons, Disney, WB and LOVED drawing. She was so good that she ended up working for Disney and drew some of the Lion King and other famous movies. She lost her ability to appreciate watching them as she could see when watching any cartoon any flaws in the drawing and often even guess who drew different parts.
 
But, aside from that, I've spent years trying to learn as much as possible, without overdoing it, but it is endless. If it is a major hobby, sure, but the vast majority of people only want simple answers, and communicating a complex topic in a simple manner is a huge challenge. A friend of mine did his PHD on it! Even if you can explain something reasonably simply, people have to experience things for themselves for it to make any sense, which is why many of us say "Go to a meet if you can and try for yourself". Someone pointed out, after years of going through the whole thing with audio that it was simpler to look for advice from people who liked the same music as he did. I pretty much agree, as even after all I've learned that is what it boils down to mostly: Whether the music you like will sound good out of the headphones you choose.