[xnor]

There may be some correlation, but what was tested is mainly the frequency response regardless of cost/reputation. Bose for example doesn't have the best reputation but scored pretty well. V-Moda has imo good reputation and the crossfade is not exactly a cheap headphone but scored not so well.

 

[audiophilic0]

Different measuring equipment will give you slightly different tolerances, so there is no perfect measurement. Some companies don't even rely on the measurement of frequency response.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Different measuring equipment will give you slightly different tolerances, so there is no perfect measurement. Some companies don't even rely on the measurement of frequency response.

Hi, audiophilic0, and welcome to Sound Science.  
 
While I agree that there may be some very slight differences in calibration of different measurement equipment, the tolerances for any device designed to measure frequency response is well below the point where there could be a measurement error that wouldn't correlate well with what is audible.  When performing frequency response measurements on headphones, there are some special challenges in getting a good seal, or coupling of the headphone to the measurement rig, but the effects of poor coupling are easily determined, and can be adjusted for.  Yes, I agree there's no perfect measurement, but measurements with errors below audibility are done every day, and are most certainly taken into account during design and manufacturing.
 
In any case, frequency response would be the most basic and primary audio measurement, and would be important for every piece of equipment in the chain, from microphone through headphone or speaker.  No equipment designer would ever ignore it, or not rely upon at least some basic measurement for verification of unit to unit consistency, though I agree that many manufacturers don't publish FR specifications well, or at all.

 

[xnor]

Not every manufacturer (or maybe reseller is more correct?) cares though.

 

[jazzman7]

Quote:

Simulating LCD2s with a K518... Now that's not what I call common sense! If the simulated phones came out on top all the commonsense audiophiles that say you can't polish a turd with EQ would turn into a lynch mob at the door of Olive-Welti! As it stands, for all we know the simulated phones may have gotten lower ratings simply because the subjects knew something was up when they could change the sound of the phones completely at the touch of a button

If just simulating phones could turn in such close results, it's no wonder that I could make cheap phones sound better than expensive ones to me by tweaking the frequency response extensively to fit my preference instead of just blindly following the expensive phones

It would be like the K518 tuned to fit the Olive-Welti target vs the stock LCD2s...

 
Big props to udauda, who posted this gem several years ago:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/482386/building-a-headphone-measurement-lab/210#post_6704551
 
From the two papers udauda links (from 1992), it appears that a simulated headphone tends to score lower than the actual one.  I'm not sure if Olive-Welti made this type of comparison.

 

[vwinter]

Simulating LCD2s with a K518... Now that's not what I call common sense! If the simulated phones came out on top all the commonsense audiophiles that say you can't polish a turd with EQ would turn into a lynch mob at the door of Olive-Welti!

God those poor two. They'd be in their bath robes and everything, getting ready for a nice soak, rose petals floating gracefully in the tub. Tender moments are far and few between. We need to stop this mob from destroying true love! Are you with me?!?! :rolleyes:

 

[Joe Bloggs]

LOL

 

[TMRaven]

Look at some of Purrin's graphs.  He compensates his graphs based on his flat-measuring near-field monitor setup.  What's flat on his graphs are more or less flat as per speakers at average listening distance.

 

[NLNH]

subbed ....