BenF
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2013
- Posts
- 4,504
- Likes
- 1,999
Crinacle's measurements are a lot closer to SyncerTech's, than they are to the unmentionable's.I was concerned about his measurements, but Crin's measurements also don't agree with Syncertech's: https://crinacle.com/graphs/iems/graphtool/?share=IEF_Neutral_Target,Canon_000. Now, n=3 is hardly a sample size to draw conclusions, but it's certainly strange. I agree that Syncertech's graphs represent the ideal outcome of the switches - each bass, mid, treble switches raises a few dB only at a specific FR range, but Crin and HBB's plots don't show this. I trust that both reviewers know what they are doing, so it's a bit troubling..
In terms of his reviews, it's just an impressions as he will post a full review later. Personally I like this approach as it means I can get an impression of a set pretty quickly, and can decide if I want to spend 30-45 min watching the full review once it's out. I guess YMMV.
He really likes it, so that's good news for me as it seems like I made the right choice in buying the Canon over the Tea MKII!
Take a look at the clear bass boost in the first switch:
There are small differences in the high treble, within the range of measurement error.
Compare it to this:
No bass boost, and wildly different treble.
Now let's look at the mids switch:
Mids are the same, but bass and treble are down?
Look what happens when we raise the 020 graph 3dB:
Or we can just normalize it at 50Hz instead of the default 1000Hz:
Now bass and treble match, and you can clearly see the boost in the mids.
You shouldn't normalize graphs on a point within a boosted range.
This is just another demonstration of how useless graphs can be when comparing two headphones - depending on the normalization point, results can be vastly different.
Last edited: