And something like subjective EQ curve to flat/taste is probably going to be more valuable than measurement results. IF we have consistent listener/s.
I would say, current measurement equipment can help creating "less bad" headphones but not enough for "better" headphones. For evaluation purposes, it depends on where you draw the line. But according to current speakers measurements and reviews I can only see less correlation between measurements and subjective results. And to be scientific we will see something like: 'your ear canals will likely be different so you may or may not have the peak' much more often.
And something like subjective EQ curve to flat/taste is probably going to be more valuable than measurement results. IF we have consistent listener/s.
I agree what you are saying.I agree and disagree a bit.
Yes, the current rigs and measurements have limitations and assumptions built-in. I use a IEC60718-4 coupler for IEMs. It has limitations and a well-known resonance inherently in the system that can be shifted around with insertion depth. That can also be the same with a real live human, and how deep you insert can change the treble response of the IEM -- that I definitely agree with.
I do still think measurements, even the limitations we have today are beneficial and useful to have and one can learn a lot from them. But of course, measurements are only useful as long as you know the assumptions and how to actually read them.
There's an entire side of psychoacoustics and human anatomy that isn't touched upon when it comes to all of this sound stuff enough, and it does definitely play a big factor and sometimes can be forgotten when people look at graphs.
Shouldn't having a baseline measurement be useful to have any consistency for EQing to determine a preference target? (that's essentially what Olive et al did in their studies, as well as others in the industry who haven't published data).
What, that doesn't make sense to me, are you suggesting some kind of an experiment where you take the EQ filters from headphones that have been designed to meet the Headphone Harman Curve and take those same filters and apply them to a flat speaker.....that's crazy because the Headphone Harman Curve is definitely not supposed to be flat. Have I missed a step in my understanding of what you're proposing, and what is it?There's one game that we can play to prove how inconsistent the harman target/the current measurement equipment is.
First, get a flat speaker sounding flat(to in room target) in the room without any dips or peaks. (perfect sounding speakers basically)
Second, apply EQ of harman target compensated frequency response of various headphones to the speakers.
Thrid, play the preference game and score all the different headphone EQs including the original speakers without EQ.
Then you will know the problem.
NO, I am not saying that. I am saying to be a bit provocative, that current efforts are more like looking for your lost keys by the lamp post because that is where there is light in the dark. But you lost your keys somewhere else.So we are saying science has no way of helping create a better headphone?
gotta be something from Beats.What is a known bad headphone that is cheap?
What, that doesn't make sense to me, are you suggesting some kind of an experiment where you take the EQ filters from headphones that have been designed to meet the Headphone Harman Curve and take those same filters and apply them to a flat speaker.....that's crazy because the Headphone Harman Curve is definitely not supposed to be flat. Have I missed a step in my understanding of what you're proposing, and what is it?
This is why I thought partnering with someone on the measuring end, and maybe Amir just does the listening made some sense. Or perhaps this is a case sense every person is different where a volunteer panel who agrees to do listening evaluations after Amir measures would work. Maybe a panel of 20 or 30 people who agree to do this. Develop a standard form of reporting. Something like MUSHRA and cookie cutter outlines of personal evals.I don't think that is what he means.
His thought experiment is to compare a flat meausuring speaker (I assume in a 'conditioned' listening room) and compare its sound impression (thus including body sensation addition to perception) and compare that complete perceived sound to the 'sound signature/experience' of an EQ'ed headphone.
What John questions is that these may differ depending on the used headphone, applied EQ based on specific rigs and when different 'speaker in room' corrections are applied.
I would add that this experiment would yield different results at different average SPL (say 70dB and 80dB).
For this reason I would like to see how Amir's measurements of well documented headphones (or rather the used HATS) compares to other measurements. Specifically above 5kHz where I found most problems in headphones are and when EQ'ed just a few dB 'wrongly' can make a difference.
Amir's experience is very welcome and useful in this way. The question is once the differences appear to be smaller than I expect is it worth investing 40-50k$ for the pleasure of a few people that might use generated EQ from Amirs rig compared to that of the already established Oratory or Rtings plots.
Also what data and listening impressions are posted and what other value is added compared to Rtings and the rather 'basic' info Oratory provides.
IMO it will be the added measurements/info/data that could make this work. I can tell you the measuring part is NOT the time consuming part.
The information gathering, plots generation, listening and evaluation and writing part are the time consuming things.
When Amir wants to reach > 200 headphones as to have a meaningfull database that increases ASR fame and traffic it will be years later.
In such case it might be handy if Amir measures and listens and puts that in words and perhaps let the data crunching, fomatting etc. be handled by someone else. Thereby maximizing the costs of hiring or buying such expensive gear.
It seems to me that headphone measurement has many people doing it and no real consensus on what is either a good measurement method or what the result should look like.
‘Would you consider testing headphones only subjectively?
Hmmmm.
What is a known bad headphone that is cheap?
Ah, is that what he's getting at (JohnYang).....well for me the Harman Headphone Oratory1990 EQ'd HD600's I have, for me they sound very close to my Harman Curve EQ'd JBL 308's, whereas my NAD HP50's that also have a Harman Headphone Oratory1990 EQ don't sound quite as accurate to my speakers, they miss the treble, treble is a bit dull in the NAD HP50's. So yes, there's variation from headphone to headphone, and even if they are EQ'd both to the Headphone Harman Curve they won't always sound the same, but the HD600 I have with Oratory EQ is a very good match for my speakers.I don't think that is what he means.
His thought experiment is to compare a flat measuring speaker (I assume in a 'conditioned' listening room) and compare its sound impression (thus including body sensation addition to perception) and compare that complete perceived sound to the 'sound signature/experience' of an EQ'ed headphone.
What John questions is that these may differ depending on the used headphone, applied EQ based on specific rigs and when different 'speaker in room' corrections are applied.
I would add that this experiment would yield different results at different average SPL (say 70dB and 80dB).
For this reason I would like to see how Amir's measurements of well documented headphones (or rather the used HATS) compares to other measurements. Specifically above 5kHz where I found most problems in headphones are and when EQ'ed just a few dB 'wrongly' can make a difference.
Amir's experience is very welcome and useful in this way. The question is once the differences appear to be smaller than I expect is it worth investing 40-50k$ for the pleasure of a few people that might use generated EQ from Amirs rig compared to that of the already established Oratory or Rtings plots.
Also what data and listening impressions are posted and what other value is added compared to Rtings and the rather 'basic' info Oratory provides.
IMO it will be the added measurements/info/data that could make this work. I can tell you the measuring part is NOT the time consuming part.
The information gathering, plots generation, listening and evaluation and writing part are the time consuming things.
When Amir wants to reach > 200 headphones as to have a meaningfull database that increases ASR fame and traffic it will be years later.
In such case it might be handy if Amir measures and listens and puts that in words and perhaps let the data crunching, fomatting etc. be handled by someone else. Thereby maximizing the costs of hiring or buying such expensive gear.
Yeah this is better.I don't think that is what he means.
His thought experiment is to compare a flat measuring speaker (I assume in a 'conditioned' listening room) and compare its sound impression (thus including body sensation addition to perception) and compare that complete perceived sound to the 'sound signature/experience' of an EQ'ed headphone.
What John questions is that these may differ depending on the used headphone, applied EQ based on specific rigs and when different 'speaker in room' corrections are applied.
I would add that this experiment would yield different results at different average SPL (say 70dB and 80dB).
For this reason I would like to see how Amir's measurements of well documented headphones (or rather the used HATS) compares to other measurements. Specifically above 5kHz where I found most problems in headphones are and when EQ'ed just a few dB 'wrongly' can make a difference.
Amir's experience is very welcome and useful in this way. The question is once the differences appear to be smaller than I expect is it worth investing 40-50k$ for the pleasure of a few people that might use generated EQ from Amirs rig compared to that of the already established Oratory or Rtings plots.
Also what data and listening impressions are posted and what other value is added compared to Rtings and the rather 'basic' info Oratory provides.
IMO it will be the added measurements/info/data that could make this work. I can tell you the measuring part is NOT the time consuming part.
The information gathering, plots generation, listening and evaluation and writing part are the time consuming things.
When Amir wants to reach > 200 headphones as to have a meaningfull database that increases ASR fame and traffic it will be years later.
In such case it might be handy if Amir measures and listens and puts that in words and perhaps let the data crunching, fomatting etc. be handled by someone else. Thereby maximizing the costs of hiring or buying such expensive gear.