Apple's first high-end headphones

[Frank Dernie]

Surprised to not see comments here about these phones now they're in people's hands. The thread at Head-fi has been blowing up with a fair bit of praise, comparing them to good wired sets like HD6xx and LCD2 classic... while not the greatest resource, it's not Macrumors

In any case, got mine today, surprisingly good, esp. after finding out that you can tweak the sound profile a bit in the accessibility section of iOS - Settings -> Accessibility -> Airpods -> Airpods Max -> Audio Accessibility Settings -> Headphone Accomodations.

I prefer Balanced Tone w/ Slight for the soft tones. It brings out a bit of extra presence over the default profile.

Crinnacle @ head-fi measured these and it appears Apple did try to target the Harman curve. An impressive amount of lower bass without a midbass hump.

These adjustments are aimed at the hard of hearing rather than altering the frequency response, unfortunately, and give mainly varying frequency levels of, effectively, compression

 

[M00ndancer]

I was about to send them back when I read your advice, now I'm keeping em .
Vocal range @ moderate is the most pleasing to me. Mid-range is now "normal" and not veiled / laid back as with the default profile.

I've read that this accessibility feature can import audiogram curves from the health app, so a much more precise EQ could potentially be done !

These adjustments are aimed at the hard of hearing rather than altering the frequency response, unfortunately, and give mainly varying frequency levels of, effectively, compression

That was unfortunate. I'll pass my judgement until someone has tested the audiogram import. I'm also certain that Apple will do what they always do. Sell you the first version, then iterate with new features next year. Just like many other tech companies. I'm not counting that they will upgrade the firmware on the older model either. So you "have" to get the new skiny toy.

 

[Frank Dernie]

That was unfortunate. I'll pass my judgement until someone has tested the audiogram import. I'm also certain that Apple will do what they always do. Sell you the first version, then iterate with new features next year. Just like many other tech companies. I'm not counting that they will upgrade the firmware on the older model either. So you "have" to get the new skiny toy.

I am just surprised at how much more muffled and unbalanced they sound than the cheaper and earlier airpod pro

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

You display your resentment like a big red nose on a clown.
Calm down.
Obsessive love or hate of a manufacturer is deeply puerile.

Agnostic.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Agnostic.

Multiple posts show that you deceive yourself

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Multiple posts show that you deceive yourself

I was taught not to discuss religion or politics. I forgot Apple Mania was a religion.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I was taught not to discuss religion or politics. I forgot Apple Mania was a religion.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[MayaTlab]

Preliminary measurements from Oratory1990 available here :
https://headphonedatabase.com/oratory?ids=238
Still fairly consistent with other measurements.

 

[maverickronin]

Preliminary measurements from Oratory1990 available here :
https://headphonedatabase.com/oratory?ids=238
Still fairly consistent with other measurements.

On the plus side that's easily fixable with 2 or 3 bands.

On the down side something with that much silicon in it should really ship that way to begin with...

 

[MayaTlab]

On the plus side that's easily fixable with 2 or 3 bands.

On the down side something with that much silicon in it should really ship that way to begin with...

In the realm of the current crop of ANC BT over-ears headphones it's a miracle. Not that they have any serious competition anyway. Below 1000hz very few closed backs can pretend to have such a smooth and controlled curve (the K371 being one of them... at least on a test rig).
I'd take measurements, particularly above 2000hz or so, with a pinch of salt. There's very strong evidence that they're (very ?) conservatively tuned around the 3000hz peak but I wouldn't read too much in the magnitude of it as it will vary between different test rigs and individuals anyway.
For example :
Head Acoustic HMS Vs B&K 5128 - Audio Science Reviewwww.audiosciencereview.com › forum › 5128-pdf
I'm quite interested in Rtings' measurements as they use something different, and I'd love to see them measured on a B&K 5128 as it's one of the fixtures Apple seems to have designed them with.

 

[maverickronin]

In the realm of the current crop of ANC BT over-ears headphones it's a miracle. Not that they have any serious competition anyway. Below 1000hz very few closed backs can pretend to have such a smooth and controlled curve (the K371 being one of them... at least on a test rig).
I'd take measurements, particularly above 2000hz or so, with a pinch of salt. There's very strong evidence that they're (very ?) conservatively tuned around the 3000hz peak but I wouldn't read too much in the magnitude of it as it will vary between different test rigs and individuals anyway.

 

[Mashcky]

According to the Oratory measurements, the AirPods Max do track the 2018 Harman curve better than the Sony XM4s, Sennheiser Momentum 2, and even just as well as the Senneheiser HD600/650 (Apple wins below 100hz, Sennheiser from 1.5-10khz) with both only needing one low Q band, albeit in difference places. These are fine measurements for sure but the ANC wireless competition is a low bar at such an exorbitant price.

 

[Feelas]

Well, from o1990 I'd say that it looks a bit like B&K-ed Harman (w/ treble rolloff), to be honest. One high-shelf starting @ 2kHz pushed +6dB and we're nearby the target in treble.

 

[bobbooo]

According to the Oratory measurements, the AirPods Max do track the 2018 Harman curve better than the Sony XM4s, Sennheiser Momentum 2, and even just as well as the Senneheiser HD600/650 (Apple wins below 100hz, Sennheiser from 1.5-10khz) with both only needing one low Q band, albeit in difference places. These are fine measurements for sure but the ANC wireless competition is a low bar at such an exorbitant price.

No, they really are not fine measurements at all. And they certainly do not track the Harman curve just as well as the HD600/650:

You can't equate the APM matching the curve better in an 80 Hz range in the bass with the HD600 matching it better over a 9000 Hz range in the upper mids / treble. Studies have shown there is some variation in bass preference, but much less so in mids / treble preference, where our ears are most sensitive. The APM just completely fails to account for any kind of pinna gain, which is necessary for good tonality, and combined with the high bass results in a dark, muffled overall spectral tilt, to the HD600's more balanced tonality.

 

[16/44]

I am just surprised at how much more muffled and unbalanced they sound than the cheaper and earlier airpod pro

Would you suggest getting the AirPod Pro over the Max?

 

[Mashcky]

I think my previous assumptions may not be right, but I was under the impression that correcting three octaves in the bass would take the more amplification power than three octaves in the treble. Am I mistaken? It looks like they each need an approximately 5db boost in the respective areas for correction.

Of course if the listener prefers no bass boost, there is no contest.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Would you suggest getting the AirPod Pro over the Max?

Well that is an ear-bud versus headphone choice so more to it than the SQ.
For me the Pro is clearer with a more natural frequency balance.
The Max is the sort of thing I may have liked when I was 16.
I am considering returning them, maybe they are faulty.

 

[16/44]

Well that is an ear-bud versus headphone choice so more to it than the SQ.
For me the Pro is clearer with a more natural frequency balance.
The Max is the sort of thing I may have liked when I was 16.
I am considering returning them, maybe they are faulty.

I see. Seeing that I prefer the HD58x over the HD600, the AirPod Max might be a good choice for me! Thanks!

 

[Feelas]

No, they really are not fine measurements at all. And they certainly do not track the Harman curve just as well as the HD600/650:

View attachment 101055

You can't equate the APM matching the curve better in an 80 Hz range in the bass with the HD600 matching it better over a 9000 Hz range in the upper mids / treble. Studies have shown there is some variation in bass preference, but much less so in mids / treble preference, where our ears are most sensitive. The APM just completely fails to account for any kind of pinna gain, which is necessary for good tonality, and combined with the high bass results in a dark, muffled overall spectral tilt, to the HD600's more balanced tonality.

Well, calling 600's balanced while they're almost like 6-7dB short in bass is actually an overstatement. Liking thin sounding gear ain't no crime, but come on. I'll be happy to see 600/650 cultism slowly disappearing, due to them being just insufficient. Actually, the bass fundamentals range are mostly missing in 600's.

Not to say that I'm not personally quite disappointed with how APM's measure on the couplers, yet...

... accounting for typical head vs head variation between people, I'd say that treble tuning being -5dB from the target is a very safe way to go, considering that the target group either doesn't care or doesn't know better, and you'd be risking putting them into shrillness region, if boosted towards Harman - even here at ASR the variance towards Harman is so big, that we can't consider crowd here being positive towards the curve - and that's okay. Being shrill might be worse than feeling "muffled" - especially if you're trying to beat XM4's & Bose NC700, both of which are either dark or very forward.

My first impression with (won - so hardly buyer's remorse & self-compensating the act of spending much money) QC35-II was that they are so full and unmuffled that I was lotta impressed. So much that I became disillusioned w/ razor-thin KNS8400s and pretty much anything bass-lacking.

Lack of body is mistaken for detailed and that's something that we all should fight.

 

[MayaTlab]

... accounting for typical head vs head variation between people

I also feel that it's been deliberately tuned above 2000hz to avoid being too uncomfortable to some people - perhaps a little bit more than I'd personally like.

One study I found seems to suggest that with some headphones, when placing tube mics inside the ear of the subjects, there can be up to somewhere around a 5dB or so standard deviation around the 3000hz peak (which seems to be the APM's main departure from the Harman target on Oeatory1990 / Crinacle / 0dB / etc. rigs). And even more so between 4000 and 8000hz or so (I wouldn't trust measurements that much past that anyway).

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
Between test rigs there can also be quite a substantial difference even as low as 2000-3000hz - and that difference is inconsistent between headphones :

As far as I'm concerned I don't use measurements above 2000hz or so as a basis to determine the degree of the correction I may want to introduce (ie how many dBs exactly), only rough general tendencies, particularly ones observed across various measurements.

The APM's response around 3000hz is sufficiently low that we can assert that we'll likely find a depression there regardless of test rig / methodology / etc. and that most people may benefit from EQing it upwards but I'm not sure that we can assert by how much exactly.