Apple AirPods Max Review (Noise Cancelling Headphone)

[staticV3]

here's what Amir's PEQ settings will result in:

settings could be better of course, but looks pretty nice already

Edit:
these two PEQs seem to do the job well

 

[Robbo99999]

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

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.

 

[PeteL]

This actually looks pretty good, assuming you’re running an iOS device and using Headphone Accommodations.

View attachment 146259

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.

 

[staticV3]

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.

Frequency reponse from an iPhone is identical to a Windows laptop:

Source: https://crinacle.com/2020/12/19/apple-airpods-max-review-the-audiophiles-perspective/

 

[PeteL]

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.

H

 

[Zensō]

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.

On a related note, it would be nice if @amirm could test Apple products using an iPhone which would enable exploring some of the Apple-specific features such as Headphone Accommodations, Spatial Audio, etc.

 

[abdo123]

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

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.

 

[PeteL]

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?

 

[abdo123]

well, no. At which frequency in the subbass you want to do the crossing for both graphs?

100Hz.

 

[mononoaware]

well, no. At which frequency in the subbass you want to do the crossing for both graphs?

Just so you are aware.
The two graphs you posted are different scale.

If you overlay the graphs on the same scale, I think what abdo123 says is accurate.

 

[MayaTlab]

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?

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 ?) :

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.

 

[PeteL]

100Hz.

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.

 

[PeteL]

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.

Thanks, I can read a graph, scale is accounted for.

 

[GaryH]

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

As I alluded to earlier, it's down to unit variation, combined with crap positional variation. Just look how bad the frequency response consistency of this headphone in the treble is as measured by Rtings, and Oratory:

So much for impeccable Apple engineering There are much more affordable headphones available that exhibit both low unit and positional variance (many HiFiMan models for example), so there's absolutely no excuse for this.

If you get a unit that's an extreme of the unit variance at a particular frequency, then you happen to also measure at an extreme (in the same direction in amplitude) of the positional variance at that same frequency, the combined effect can be large as seen here. This is why it's paramount to take multiple varying positional measurements and average to get a better representation of what will be heard with a typical positioning on the head, as professionals and scientists such as Oratory and Sean Olive do.

 

[mononoaware]

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.

Also to my understanding the AirPods Max has internal microphones which adjust the tuning of the headphone with every use (the headphone attempts to compensate for seal/head/ear shape), therefore there will always be obvious variances in measurements even on the same rig.
This likely makes it a problematic headphone to measure.

 

[abdo123]

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 frequency response of the headphone changes as the seal changes, Dynamic EQ is the strongest feature this headphone has.

So basically if you're comparing responses Above 1KHz THEN the seal makes a difference because the Dynamic EQ does not function above 1KHz.

So basically just match the graphs at 2KHz or something.

 

[PeteL]

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.

I can accept that the measurment process may be what's at stake here, sure, so Yes you convinced me that the response is the same on windows, but then we can only rely on the subjective evaluation since the treble problem was the main gripe in the tonality of this headphones. Here's Amir toughts:

"Without EQ, the Apple AirPods is one terrible sounding headphone. As much as I like bass, I hate it without balancing high frequencies. I paid for the full spectrum of the music I consume, not just the bass."
Here's Crinacle toughts:
"Overall, the APM is a very well-tuned headphone, even within the context of the “hifi audiophile” models. The upper midrange is a little tame for my own liking but it’s not to the point where it’s screws with the tonality and timbre of vocals and instruments"
Basically, we are left with this because we can't rely on what mesurments say, despite a Whopping 4 dB difference in the hi mids, It's inside the measurments methods tolerance....

 

[MayaTlab]

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).

 

[mononoaware]

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.
Regarding the affected frequencies I do not know what Apple has done exactly, but it could affect the entire response.
(I am speaking from experience with the Creative SXFI Air headphones which require you to take a photo of your ears with an App and the corresponding adjustment I perceived as throughout the entire frequency range)

 

[MayaTlab]

Yes but to my understanding it does not always work as intended.

Well measuring headphones below 800-1000Hz on one's head is the easiest thing to do since it uses the same principle as ANC HPs's feedback mic, and I'd say it works pretty darn well... if it weren't for the APM's peculiar headband to cup attachment design ruining things in extreme edge cases for me (when I very significantly tilt / rotate my head left / right). Basically the curves always land in the exact same place every single time I measure it at lower frequencies. ANC headphones with a feedback mechanism are by far the most consistent closed backs I've ever tried in that regard, APM included.
But since the APM's pivot has the potential to be sub-optimal for some people's morphology it might not be quite as excellent for everyone. That said that's less an issues related to Adaptive EQ per se and more to the APM's design.