ASR Headphone Testing and BK 5128 Hats Measurement System

[Jimbob54]

Yeah. Amir is going to burn out at this rate.

Nah

 

[Archsam]

On the other hand, headphones are a lot lighter to carry up to the attic than speakers.....

 

[Thomas savage]

More random and anonymous people turning up to moan and demand to be taken seriously in their complaints about the colour of amirm's trousers when he's testing things and how it's not science if it's not done just like they ( totally unqualified random person) think it should be ...

Can't wait lol

 

[Jimbob54]

More random and anonymous people turning up to moan and demand to be taken seriously in their complaints about the colour of amirm's trousers when he's testing things and how it's not science if it's not done just like they ( totally unqualified random person) think it should be ...

Can't wait lol

He wears trousers?

 

[Thomas savage]

He wears trousers?

Let's pretend he dose , my mind's happier that way.

 

[Robbo99999]

Exactly. for mics this is kind of easy to do. For HATS there are standards to which this should be done.
Unfortunately these methods are not the same as when headphones are tested. On top of this not all headphones are the same so larger drivers will differ from smaller ones even when they would be perfect. Also when slightly different but standardized pinnae are used there will be differences between them.
Furthermore the correction that is applied will differ from real world situations.
One measures what arrives at a certain place (average 'ear canal' and 'average' Pinna) and then applies an 'averaged' single correction curve.
That curve may well fit nicely with certain headphones but won't with all of them. That's what makes a 'standard' a 'standard yet may well deviate from real world, Since there is no 'confidence' number anywhere how do we know the 'standard' is more exact and matching to real life ?

Sure... EQ based on this will very likely improve things which is what is heard. An exact EQ thus will measure really well on the same rig but be many dB's off in reality. Chances of that happening at higher frequencie without a pinna are less likely. Of course a Pinna is more accurate between 1kHz and 5kHz compared to a flatplate. Saying that something is acc. to a standard only means it measures conform a standard.



That's where calibration comes in. The problem is calibration to what. perfect headphones do not exist so calibration must be done in other ways.




yet more and different correction files on yet another rig ?
My opinion is to look for common traits (like the beyer treble peaks for instance) on different rigs with their own corrections and make an 'average' EQ based on the obvious deviations. This will lead to more exact EQ than just banking on one specific rig with a specific compensation.
regardless of how professional the operator is, how expensive the gear is and experience. Just saying ... this is a (the best) standard and thus it is most 'realistic' is incorrect. Of course, an owner of said device must stand by it and believe what comes out is the absolute 'truth'.

In that sense all 'generated' EQ by definition is most likey wrong but will be similarish on average.
Then apply the similarities and you got rid of test-rig particular errors.

That's what I try to do and 'validate' by ear and FP which is compensated below 1kHz to match HATS performance.
Then apply 'bass correction' based on 'averaged preference' or based on other methods/theories.

So if Amir should test it will be similar to what's out there already and have its own 'deviations' from reality. I also think one should do more than just measure. That last part is tricky and very time consuming. One must 'reset' ones brain with 'references' but then again what is a reference to whom and who declared what is a reference.

An average EQ based on a number of different rigs is an interesting idea, however some rigs are known to have severe anomalies in some places on the frequency curve, so you'd have to disregard those sections for the average. Also, an average might not necessarily be better or more applicable to the person using the EQ generated from it, because their ear/HRTF might be different.......which leads me to come up with the idea that it would be pretty cool to have say 3 different artificial ears that might cover a populations "type of ear" better than just using one average.....I don't know if that exists, but I think it would be pretty cool to have 3 different average ears that more accurately describe the whole host of different ears that can be seen in this world (lol).....then a person is more likely able to find an EQ that they like from those 3 different EQ's - because one of them stands a greater chance of being most accurate to his ear. I'm just free thinking here.

 

[Soniclife]

He wears trousers?

I always assumed it was a lab coat only, this is science he is doing.

 

[Jimbob54]

An average EQ based on a number of different rigs is an interesting idea, however some rigs are known to have severe anomalies in some places on the frequency curve, so you'd have to disregard those sections for the average. Also, an average might not necessarily be better or more applicable to the person using the EQ generated from it, because their ear/HRTF might be different.......which leads me to come up with the idea that it would be pretty cool to have say 3 different artificial ears that might cover a populations "type of ear" better than just using one average.....I don't know if that exists, but I think it would be pretty cool to have 3 different average ears that more accurately describe the whole host of different ears that can be seen in this world (lol).....then a person is more likely able to find an EQ that they like from those 3 different EQ's - because one of them stands a greater chance of being most accurate to his ear. I'm just free thinking here.

3 times the measuring- thats really going to cut down on Amir's workload. Mrs Amir will be overjoyed!

 

[Jimbob54]

I always assumed it was a lab coat only, this is science he is doing.

Brings a whole new angle to measuring Dongles

 

[Kouioui]

...this is science he is doing.

 

[Fluffy]

Frankly, I think you should ditch the electronics and focus on transducers. There is already a massive and thorough electronics review library on this site, and any type of electronic anybody would want to buy is already covered. There are already so many near-perfect dacs and best-case-scenario amps, what's the point of testing more?

Truly objective speaker testing seems like a worthier cause, and a place where there is still a lot of improvement to be done. The headphones could be a nice adage, mostly to bust old myths, but as said before its already a pretty full plate.

 

[Robbo99999]

3 times the measuring- thats really going to cut down on Amir's workload. Mrs Amir will be overjoyed!

Yeah, I mean I don't even know if there has ever been designed say 3 different average ears to accurately cover the full spectrum of a population....probably not, I think it's mostly been based around creating one average ear. I was just theorising that it would be cool if the measurement company could have identified say 3 different average ears that fully describe a population in it's biggest trend variables, then there would be a greater chance of any given listener being able to choose an EQ based on one of those measurements that more accurately describes their own physical ear, so it would be more accurate. But this is just me free thinking, I don't think there are sets of different ears for the same machine that describe "different sections" of the population.....but it would be cool if there was. Because let's face it, all our ears are different and show big differences so it might be a better approach than just one average fits all. As it happens I think my ear is probably quite similar to whatever Oratory1990 uses because certainly from a tonality point of view all his EQ's (for different headphones I own: HP50 & HD600) are spot on from tonality point of view, whilst specifically increasing general clarity especially in the HP50 but I think that was from getting rid of the mid bass hump mainly. Yes, so when compared to my Harman Curve EQ'd JBL 308 speakers I find my Oratory1990 EQ'd headphones to be tonally identical, so I would bet I have an average ear that's not far off whatever ear attachment Oratory1990 is using.

 

[q3cpma]

Frankly, I think you should ditch the electronics and focus on transducers. There is already a massive and thorough electronics review library on this site, and any type of electronic anybody would want to buy is already covered. There are already so many near-perfect dacs and best-case-scenario amps, what's the point of testing more?

Truly objective speaker testing seems like a worthier cause, and a place where there is still a lot of improvement to be done. The headphones could be a nice adage, mostly to bust old myths, but as said before its already a pretty full plate.

I'd say that power amps aren't a done deal, but simple DACs (as in not complex interfaces) and headphone amps are completely solved problems.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yeah, I mean I don't even know if there has ever been designed say 3 different average ears to accurately cover the full spectrum of a population....probably not, I think it's mostly been based around creating one average ear. I was just theorising that it would be cool if the measurement company could have identified say 3 different average ears that fully describe a population in it's biggest trend variables, then there would be a greater chance of any given listener being able to choose an EQ based on one of those measurements that more accurately describes their own physical ear, so it would be more accurate. But this is just me free thinking, I don't think there are sets of different ears for the same machine that describe "different sections" of the population.....but it would be cool if there was.

The audiologists

Frankly, I think you should ditch the electronics and focus on transducers. There is already a massive and thorough electronics review library on this site, and any type of electronic anybody would want to buy is already covered. There are already so many near-perfect dacs and best-case-scenario amps, what's the point of testing more?

Truly objective speaker testing seems like a worthier cause, and a place where there is still a lot of improvement to be done. The headphones could be a nice adage, mostly to bust old myths, but as said before its already a pretty full plate.

The electronics (the hyped ones) drive lots of traffic. That said, no ads and people asking why their new a90 doesnt work maybe dont donate as much?

 

[amirm]

So the 5128 HATS will be here on Monday. And it must be shipped back on Friday. If you have a wish list of something specific to be done with it, this is the time to let me know! My current plan is to test with the few headphones I have and compare to what is out there. And do some investigation on distortion.

 

[Robbo99999]

So the 5128 HATS will be here on Monday. And it must be shipped back on Friday. If you have a wish list of something specific to be done with it, this is the time to let me know! My current plan is to test with the few headphones I have and compare to what is out there. And do some investigation on distortion.

Yes, good idea to compare your measurements for known headphones against measurements of same headphones that others have done (eg Oratory) to see where the differences are to be found. I would suggest HD600 and/or HD650......if you measure HD600 I'd be willing to test an EQ based on your measurements vs Oratory's for instance.....a lot of it would come down to how close a persons ear matches whatever the test rig uses. (Don't know if you also have NAD HP50 headphones, I could EQ test those for you too, or AKG K702) (K702 I don't have Oratory1990 EQ for though).

Distortion measurement, particularly in bass I would find interesting, because a common need in these open backed headphones is an EQ bass boost, and potentially people's could be worried about increased distortion masking the rest of the frequency range.

Headphone positioning has historically been really influential & important when it comes to headphone measurement apparently, so that might be worth testing/measuring or being aware of.

Headband resonance. For my HP50 headphones I remember reading a site where they measured a lot of headband resonance passing the "information" to the other earcup....that was just measured on a home brew rig.....so headband resonance influence might be an interesting phenomenon to explore.

That's it, can't think of anything else right now.

 

[amirm]

Thanks. I only have the HD650, not HD600. I like us to organize a task force of members who monitor and provide quick response on the data I generate with it given the time crunch. This thing costs nearly $7000/month to rent by the way!

 

[amirm]

On pads and repeatability, from what I have read, this new HATS is supposed to be a lot better due to flexible pinna and such. This is one of the top things I am going to test.

 

[Robbo99999]

Thanks. I only have the HD650, not HD600. I like us to organize a task force of members who monitor and provide quick response on the data I generate with it given the time crunch. This thing costs nearly $7000/month to rent by the way!

What kind of monitoring & responding are you after? In terms of listening tests for headphones you measure, or monitoring & responding in other ways?

 

[amirm]

On the issue of too much to do, with speaker testing, I have cut back some on electronic testing. I am also more picky about what I accept as far as testing if it is older/discontinued gear. More of this will have to happen with headphone testing depending on how time consumer it becomes.