@amirm, do you maybe have the cheaper variants from Audeze to measure?
I'm just flabbergasted at the lack of logic and an apparent lack of understanding that you seem to have based on the points you've brought up, and all whilst being a professional in the field which I find astounding....I mean I wouldn't have minded but each post you made added something new that showed those traits.OK, well, you sure put a lot of energy dismissing my points, or my credentials but beside telling us that some headphones are better than other at spacial quality, which I never disagreed with, can you share your own take on it? If I am so wrong, what makes one better than the other? Don't tell me something in the like "The ability to be speaker like" That's just defining spacial quality, but why an headphone, in the same category, would be better than the other one if the driver or it's ability to resolve subtleties has nothing to do with it?
Besides, You'll notice that many headphones good at spacializing often have an elevated response in the Hi-Mid, which is exactly the zone mixing engineers like to band limit the reverb effects, to make it sit in the mix and open up the sound, bass in the reverbs makes a mix sound muddy, but what do I know, according to you, how the music is produced is irrelevant also... But what is relevant then?
You'll also notice that headphones that are great at specializing, tends to be bright and analytical, HD800 is a good example, there is no magic there, low frequencies are non directional, their contribution to the sound stage is limited because by definition you can't localise them easily.
I'm just flabbergasted at the lack of logic and an apparent lack of understanding that you seem to have based on the points you've brought up, and all whilst being a professional in the field which I find astounding....I mean I wouldn't have minded but each post you made added something new that showed those traits.
First you say Harman Headphone Curve is just a preference curve, which shows a lack of understanding on your part in how it was created - it wasn't just people randomly twiddling knobs....it started out as a measured response as I had explained and then there was preference added to that on top.
Second, you made the argument that EQ'ing your gear by ear was a good approach because you said the albumns you listen to have been EQ'd by ear and therefore by extension it's fine to tune your own gear by ear, which was a logical misstep of yours to join those two points, they're not the same thing and show a lack of understanding of circle of confusion, as well as just plain illogical. They're not related.
Thirdly you say spatial qualities in headphones is mainly about fidelity of the driver, which is not true. I have HD600 and it has a small soundstage (not good) and that's a very high fidelity driver in terms of that headphone delivers nuance & detail at the best level of any of my headphones (or equal level as my K702)....so soundstage cannot just be related to driver "high fidelity" although it might be a joint part of it. I proposed angled drivers and/or angled pads combined with large earcups as the most likely factor for creating a good large soundstage.
And then finally you talk about headphones artificially enlarging soundstage and bring up the point again that soundstage is created by the mixing engineer, with the last point being true but irrelevant to the discussion because of course that is the case, it's about the speakers or headphones reproducing those points as accurately as possible.
So really all-in-all you've exasperated me with your lack of logic and seemingly lack of knowledge and then I find out you actually work in the field.....I mean I'm gobsmacked, but hell I'm sorry, I'm going on about this too much, I won't bring it up again.
----------------------------------------------------------------
But to answer your questions in your post......
All my referencing in comparing my headphones is after they've been EQ'd to the Headphone Harman Curve, so frequency response is taken out of the equation as much as possible....so when I've been comparing soundstage it's mostly down to the design differences of the headphones, as the measured frequency responses are pretty much identical. I mean there will be some unit to unit variation which will create some inaccuracies, but for reasonable practical purposes they're all the same frequency response. I've already described how I experience soundstage for my different headphones in this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eze-lcd-24-review-headphone.23949/post-808085
I also describe in that post that frequency response can affect spatial qualities too, and I've found that bumping up 1-3kHz resulted in improved spatial ability in gaming (when tested on my HP50) which also equates to the same in music listening:
View attachment 134324
But I find I don't like the tonality, so I don't use that for music listening (nor indeed gaming), but it was an experiment.
So frequency response certainly is an element of determining spatial qualities, but most of my comparisons have been done when EQ'd to the Harman Curve and then comparing my different headphones, which I've talked about already.
I meant more like LCD-2\LCD-1 or even LCD X, but more in depth. like these here.He has measured the LCD X https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-open-back-headphone-review.16777/post-541627 and apparently Audeze have sent him a revised model of the X that he has now.
Or do you mean there is a cheaper version of the LCD 24? These were from a member so I doubt he has any other variants.
The X review was I think his first formal hp review and he's definitely expanded the reviews since. The new X he has got now to measure will I am sure follow the same format as this review. Maybe other members have or will send him lower tier models but the review queue is something of a secretI meant more like LCD-2\LCD-1 or even LCD X, but more in depth. like these here.
Well you're being a lot more logical here, so I understand the points you're making.....but I don't see them as the same things you were saying in your other posts. I'm happy to leave it here as I think we've probably both said our piece.Sorry sir but you are being extremely condescending, and just for the sake of it. None of what you bring here in contradicting what I said, none, are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
-I said EQing by ear is a valid method when done properly, not that it was the best method.
-Harman Curve is a preference curve, I also said that it's rightfully commonly considered the "correct" curve. The fact that it's a preference curve don't mean that it was not obtained by a scientific method, or that we shouldn't follow it, still, it's a preference curve that's all I said. I have nothing agains't the value of following a target that suits most people.
-You said yourself, Frequency response affect the spatial quality. We say the same
-You refuse to adress my main point, what is your gripe here, "so soundstage cannot just be related to driver "high fidelity" although it might be a joint part of it." First I did not say "Only" the only difference here is that I believe it's the main one, you believe stuff like angled driver and large drivers is the main one. OK, convince me. It could also be argued that the highest fidelity headphones out there have large drivers. And notice my question "In the same category" So yes if you compare a large over ear open back to IEM, sure, having larger transducers helps of course, but I tought that was obvious. You have an other gripe with "artificially" well, to me, messing with the tonality to get a bigger image, means having an artificially large image. We say, again, the same thing.
- You keep bringing the irrelevance of the mixing process, well maybe if you'd understand what I said. I specifically talked, in my first answer to reverb tails, that is fully relevant because nobody can't argue that reverberation, natural of induced by fx is what defines the size of the space. Spectral content and stereo width too, but the last two, are not as much affected by the resolving nature of the drivers. In a mix reverbs are a magnitude lower in amplitude than the main notes. Unresolving headphones will be able to give you the music, but not the reverberation of the space it was recorded in, that's pretty simple. You loose this you loose much of the sound stage, I really don't see what you find illogical. If you think that reverbs are irrelevant to this debate, we'll not reach an understanding.
-Finally. HD600 is not an analytical headphone, maybe it was considered one 20 years ago. It's a great neutralish headphone with nice tonality.
All my referencing in comparing my headphones is after they've been EQ'd to the Headphone Harman Curve, so frequency response is taken out of the equation as much as possible....so when I've been comparing soundstage it's mostly down to the design differences of the headphones, as the measured frequency responses are pretty much identical. I mean there will be some unit to unit variation which will create some inaccuracies, but for reasonable practical purposes they're all the same frequency response.
Hopefully he will also get an LCD2\3 in the future to review, since it is seems to have a better out of the box frequency response and I've been thinking of buying a pair for quite some time now.The X review was I think his first formal hp review and he's definitely expanded the reviews since. The new X he has got now to measure will I am sure follow the same format as this review. Maybe other members have or will send him lower tier models but the review queue is something of a secret
I'm not saying that the frequency response seen by the GRAS measurement device when my headphones are EQ'd is gonna be the same frequency response that I receive at my ear - I'm aware that anatomical differences mean we all differ in some respects from the dummy head/ear that was measured. I'm also aware that this difference is larger the higher up the frequency range you go & that also as you go up the frequency range then how you place your headphones on your head each time you put it on can influence the frequency response, especially above 10kHz where it can be affected by even just small changes in positioning. But for all intents & purposes the fact remains that my headphones have been EQ'd to the same frequency response on the same measuring gear, and that's a fact. I also am aware that there might be specific interactions of certain headphones with your own ear that mean that if I was to measure my headphones on my own head they would differ from each other to some extent even if they had been EQ'd to measure the same on the GRAS unit. But, my point was, my headphones have to the best of my power been EQ'd to the same frequency response. I'm aware of the variables & inaccuracies that can occur.As I've already written, they really aren't. Remaining differences when your specific headphones are mounted on your own head are likely to be above threshold of audibility (and in the case of two headphones that already tracked a target rather well may not always bring them even closer).
That's just with in concha mics with two passive open headphones from Sennheiser : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the...-at-a-breakthrough-value.943107/post-16300055
Above 3-4kHz it's likely to be even more significant (something which I feel I'm increasingly capable of actually measuring to a degree of precision and repeatability that's useful).
Thinking that frequency response is a controlled variable when using third party measurements and profiles to a target is most likely inaccurate.
Yup. So for the lay consumer, there really is no substitute for auditioning a pair of headphones. Even better, auditioning them with eq to preference curve of choice.So… the logical conclusion should be that you’re quite a way away from being able exclude frequency response as a variable to explain « soundstage » or « imaging » (whatever that means).
IMO as long as it remains an uncontrolled variable it’s pointless to try to go look into hypothetical other factors when FR differences at your DRP are not hypothetical in all likelihood .
By all means read measurements and subjective reviews to winnow down a shortlist but you really won't know how they sound until you try.
No, I disagree that the frequency variable is not controlled enough to compare my headphones for soundstage capabilities once all are EQ'd to the Harman Curve. Two reasons, firstly I think the differences in frequency are not large as they sound all pretty much the same in tonality, and secondly any deviations between the different headphones when placed on my head will be random small changes based on unit variation and how that specific headphone reacts to my ears in a different manner to how it would on the GRAS unit and I think these small random changes won't be significant enough to majorly influence spatial properties of the headphone in one direction or another. You can think frequency response is not a controlled variable enough if you like for me to draw conclusions about the inherent soundstage properties of my headphones, but I know you're wrong - there's also correlated evidence in headphone reviews (Amir's included) with reference to soundstage/imaging properties of headphones, so if you think it's all so "uncontrolled" & impossible to relate to a specific headphone then that's your own loss when it comes to choosing the right headphones for yourself & also if that's the case I suggest you don't pay any attention to Amir's subjective listening impressions either.So… the logical conclusion should be that you’re quite a way away from being able exclude frequency response as a variable to explain « soundstage » or « imaging » (whatever that means).
IMO as long as it remains an uncontrolled variable it’s pointless to try to go look into hypothetical other factors when FR differences at your DRP are not hypothetical in all likelihood .
What about AVR's with Dirac or Audyssey? Isn't that the same thing?you should get a headphone working out of the box for 3000$.
the fact that high-end headphone manufacturers have indoctrinated people that THEY need to put the effort to get the best sound possible out of the headphones is gross.
I think the differences in frequency are not large as they sound all pretty much the same in tonality, and secondly any deviations between the different headphones when placed on my head will be random small changes based on unit variation and how that specific headphone reacts to my ears in a different manner to how it would on the GRAS unit and I think these small random changes won't be significant enough to majorly influence spatial properties of the headphone in one direction or another.
You can think frequency response is not a controlled variable enough if you like for me to draw conclusions about the inherent soundstage properties of my headphones, but I know you're wrong -
there's also correlated evidence in headphone reviews (Amir's included) with reference to soundstage/imaging properties of headphones, so if you think it's all so "uncontrolled" & impossible to relate to a specific headphone then that's your own loss when it comes to choosing the right headphones for yourself & also if that's the case I suggest you don't pay any attention to Amir's subjective listening impressions either.
What about AVR's with Dirac or Audyssey? Isn't that the same thing?
To be honest, I'm not interested in having long hashed out "book" posts with you about this topic in a random headphone thread. I know for sure my comparison of my headphones is valid. What you do with your headphones with measuring on your head & EQ'ing to god knows what target curve I think is less valid, and certainly when I have to explain to you what is soundstage & imaging then I think you may as well not bother considering. You'd be best off taking note of what trusted reviewers and individuals say in general about certain headphones (especially in comparisons of headphones EQ'd to the same target curve) when it comes to soundstage properties of certain headphones as there is valid information in those trends and it would save you/ (& people) a lot of trouble in making short lists of headphones to try out, rather than you wading around with your narrow soundstage HD650 with mics in your ears.I often wonder about the actual audibility with musical content of variations in FR. It's been studied (Toole and Olive, surely ?).
But what I believe is that it's quite reasonable to believe that a very large bandwidth difference of, let's say, 1dB, or a medium one of, let's say, 3dB, are audible (and particularly a succession of several medium bandwidth deviations taken as a whole), and that's typically the sort of stuff I'm seeing when equalising headphones to the same target and measuring them on my head.
And I'm being very, very conservative here as I've spent most time measuring open passive Senheisers. It's likely to be a lot worse with headphones with a closed front volume, poor design in terms of ensuring positional consistency, or manufacturers with poorer manufacturing consistency (you can see above that the first copy of the Sundara I received shows a much stronger high Q dip at around 1.2kHz than you see in other measurements, and since the slopes surrounding it have a large bandwidth the total area affected is significant, which makes for a very audible - and un-EQable in practice - problem).
Otherwise, I've actually started to measure positional variation at higher frequencies on my own head to see what it is like. With some headphones I have a feeling that it's an overrated problem, while with others it's an underrated one.
The most comforting thing about considering that it would be ideal to better control that variable before looking into other factors is that we don't need to go against what I wouldn't be surprised to learn some acousticians would tend to say about it : https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/gbdi7v/_/fpb63ht On one hand, we have a phenomenon that we know is likely, for most headphones comparisons and most people, to be audible one way or another, even if only slightly (ie two headphones equalised to the same target on a test rig still having a different FR at a listener's eardrum).
On the other hand we have... not much to chew and a lot of question marks.
So I think that it's entirely reasonable to consider that a better control of that variable is needed before proposing other hypothesis.
Otherwise it's the usual audiophile missing the forest for the tree problem.
Where's the evidence (big word) ?
Note that I'm not necessarily going to disagree that some headphones may be designed in a way that increases the likelihood that they produce a FR at the drum that is more likely to increase the proportion of listeners for which the FR at the eardrum would be more conductive to perform well in sound localisation tests. That was the basis behind Rtings' PRTF test unless I'm mistaken. But in the end that's still FR.
Otherwise I've indeed increasingly learnt to not bother with subjective impressions in audio matters when they use terms that aren't operational defined (to me "I hear a peak at 6300Hz" is a very different subjective impression in nature than "Imaging is precise, soundstage is narrow").