Yeah, that looks good, although in both it looks like there's too much energy above 8kHz generally, which you might get rid of the 8kHz peak with a maybe a Q2/Q3 filter at 8kHz, and then maybe use a High Shelf at 10kHz to reduce the energy above 10kHz (or about a Q1 Peak Filter at around 13kHz instead). I suppose you'd want to listen to it first though, but measurements suggest way too much energy up there.here's what Amir's PEQ settings will result in:
View attachment 146260
settings could be better of course, but looks pretty nice already
Edit:
these look pretty nice:
View attachment 146265
It certainly deserve investigation, I think that what we can take from this review is that they don't want you to use it with windows, not only the frequency response don't match that, but all this trouble with the gain. Personally I do not think many windows users would consider this purchase so it may be if not intentional, a non issue for apple.This actually looks pretty good, assuming you’re running an iOS device and using Headphone Accommodations.
View attachment 146259
Frequency reponse from an iPhone is identical to a Windows laptop:It certainly deserve investigation, I think that what we can take from this review is that they don't want you to use it with windows, not only the frequency response don't match that, but all this trouble with the gain. Personally I do not think many windows users would consider this purchase so it may be if not intentional, a non issue for apple.
Agreed. I don’t see why these would be appealing to Windows/Android users.It certainly deserve investigation, I think that what we can take from this review is that they don't want you to use it with windows, not only the frequency response don't match that, but all this trouble with the gain. Personally I do not think many windows users would consider this purchase so it may be if not intentional, a non issue for apple.
How are those Identical. I see both Graph touching target at 500 Hz (more or less 1 dB that seems to be channel to chanel tolerance), At 3K crinacle one is about 3 dB below target and Amir's one about 7 dB below Target?We can theoretically move the crossing at 300Hz if we want and reajust crinacles graph, or anywhere for that matters, it will not account for these differences.
View attachment 146287
HView attachment 146286
well, no. At which frequency in the subbass you want to do the crossing for both graphs?in crinacle's measurements if you just lift the target so the sub-bass of the target would fit the sub-bass of the headphones you basically get Amir's measurements.
well, no. At which frequency in the subbass you want to do the crossing for both graphs?
well, no. At which frequency in the subbass you want to do the crossing for both graphs?
How are those Identical. I see both Graph touching target at 500 Hz, At 3K crinacle one is about 3 dB below target and Amir's one about 7 dB below Target?
OK, we can pull down if we are generous the Crinacle grapf from 1.5 to 2 dBs, it doesn't make the 4 dB at 3 K and even more at 5K. But subbass is not a good frequency as a point of reference comparison, seal play too much of a major role down there.100Hz.
Thanks, I can read a graph, scale is accounted for.Just so you are aware.
The two graphs you posted are different scale.
If you combined the graphs on the same scale, I think what abdo123 says is accurate.
How are those Identical. I see both Graph touching target at 500 Hz (more or less 1 dB that seems to be channel to chanel tolerance), At 3K crinacle one is about 3 dB below target and Amir's one about 7 dB below Target?We can theoretically move the crossing at 300Hz if we want and reajust crinacles graph, or anywhere for that matters, it will not account for these differences.
View attachment 146287
HView attachment 146286
OK, we can pull down if we are generous the Crinacle grapf from 1.5 to 2 dBs, it doesn't make the 4 dB at 3 K and even more at 5K. But subbass is not a good frequency as a point of reference comparison, seal play too much of a major role down there.
OK, we can pull down if we are generous the Crinacle grapf from 1.5 to 2 dBs, it doesn't make the 4 dB at 3 K and even more at 5K. But subbass is not a good frequency as a point of reference comparison, seal play too much of a major role down there.
The response in Crinacle's graphs is a little more elevated at, for example, 100 and 1000Hz, than in Amir's. If you were to normalise there the difference at 3kHz I think would diminish a bit. Crinacle's rig is quite different from Amir's it seems other than the plate / coupler (and pinna ?) :
View attachment 146292
https://crinacle.com/2020/12/19/apple-airpods-max-review-the-audiophiles-perspective/
In regards to the APM in particular I think this is a form of over-interpretation. I'd take measurements of the APM with a pinch of salt in terms of the exact magnitude of the ear canal gain response and the way the FR is shaped above 5kHz. Oratory uses the 5001 pinna (is that the same as Crinacle's ?) but on a HATS and gets pretty different results in the trebles, particularly in terms of magnitude.
Also to my understanding the AirPods Max has internal microphones which adjust the tuning of the headphone with every use, therefore there will always be obvious variances in measurements even on the same rig.
Making it a problematic headphone to measure.
Adaptive EQ is meant to reduce variation, particularly related to seal issues, and operates only below 800-1000Hz in all likelihood. Similar to Bose or Sony's ANC headphones (but in the case of the APM it likely also works this way when ANC is turned off).
Yes but to my understanding it does not always work as intended.