Here is the production pair jude measured with comparison to prototype
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mas...8x-jubilee-review-measurements.867972/page-44
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mas...8x-jubilee-review-measurements.867972/page-44
The old iec318(before consolidated all to iec60138), was just the way you described. But no one has done listening tests to calibrate it. Why the flat line at ear entrance reference point is flat? So no it's not.One can measure the response of a driver in 2 ways.
Use a microphone in front of the driver with the same diameter and distance as the entry of the ear canal.
or.
measure the driver through angle dependent band-filters (fake Pinna + 'standard' ear canal) and not exactly 'correct' for the modifications afterwards.
Your choice to believe what method gives the best indication of how a driver performs.
Is the earcanal in the measurement rig exactly the same as that of all humans in shape, lining, length diameter ?
Is that fake earcanal compensated exactly ?
Is the fake Pinna the same in response as that of all humans ?
Is it exactly compensated for all headphones under all angles and driver diameters ?
Like with anything in life .. choosing your references is paramount.
You made your choice I made mine.
Result ... different plots, different compensations based on different references.
One can debate this all day long how the 'Pinna + earcanal' is a more realisitic 'load' than a flat surface and that such should lead to better 'perceived sound correlation' but in the end this all depends on how well the modifications are 'compensated' afterwards.
I say ... no modifications to sound is no compensation needed is closer to what the driver does.
It's the driver's response that needs to be compensated.
Ones own Pinna and earcanal influence is compensated for perfectly by the brain.
One can either agree or disagree with my, Tylls, Judes, Rtings, SBAF's (various), Sonarworks, RAA's or your choice of 'reference'.
as load of course it's more accurate to use pinna and canal emulator.
All you need to do above this is to do listening tests. And that's where harman is doing wrong. Too much to say. I hope you understand. And I do understand all you are saying. Thanks for your time.As said before, one can debate references and preferred methods all day long and never see eye to eye.
As a LOAD the pinna and canal emulator is more correct but will ONLY give correct 'compensation' when used in lab conditions in certain field measurements at specified distances and angles under which the sound enters.
This differs a LOT with different headphones. More so than with flat plates.
Both methods are inherently incorrect. Just one more than the other. That's where one makes a choice to 'trust' one method more over the other.
That ... and the price of admission.
Flat plates because they lack a Pinna, setups with a Pinna and ear canal that use a single and far from perfect 'single averaged) compensation that differs from headphone to headphone as well.
The problem here is ... chances are my early HD58X may NOT be the same as the ones in the later drops and invalidate my mods for the later versions. So.. I only recommend my mods for those that joined the first drop. The effect the mods will have on later HD58X will be the same (reduction of midbass and treble) but the end result may not be as expected and may sound different but less 'correct'.
My point was if you're going to upgrade, try something that's quite a bit different, rather than something that is so similar. It's also worth listening to planars; the good ones have phenomenally low distortion and linear response, especially in the bass.
Wow. That is great performance at any price, and fantastic for the price.Here is the production pair jude measured with comparison to prototype
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mas...8x-jubilee-review-measurements.867972/page-44
By that, do you mean what are midrange good performing planar headphones?
My info may be out of date since I found the ones I like a few years ago and have been happy since. I also still have my old HD580s which gives you an idea of what I like. To my ears, the LCD-2 Fazor is like an HD-580 with flatter, deeper, tighter bass and more natural midrange voicing.
Suggestion: check the InnerFidelity wall of fame; it still comes from Tyll's reviews, not the new management.
Too expensive
I meant best value
Hifiman is treble happy, I don't like treble.
but the M1060 has a treble spike.