I heard them at the dealer. It looks bad on graph and to my ears.To your ears and brain or on a graph?
Similar how?Interestingly it has similar dips as the Caldera.
I can not tell if they are indeed similar or just dips and bumps do look alike, but here is a graph from squig.link. Indeed Caldera's response seems to be similar in size and shape to that of other Audeze headphones, especially between 3K and 5K.similar as in what a lot of open planars do.
see: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...a-headphone-review.50016/page-29#post-1809810
The frequency may be slightly different but the overall depth and width of the peaks has more resemblance than most other planar headphones.
Fortunately this headphone is 10x cheaper ...
You need to not look below 200Hz as that's where there are differences in used target. It also appears as though the MM100 did not have a perfect seal on the fixture.
You may assume the 50Hz hump and drop off below that do not exist in reality (unless you wear glasses for instance) but is a straight line down to at least 10Hz.
Why would such a thing not be allowed here?Can anyone comment on how these actually sound or is that not allowed here?
Because measurements usually are worshipped and studied around here far more than subjective listening impressions?Why would such a thing not be allowed here?
Fair enough but we're not talking about a transparent DAC, we're talking about headphones and I think most ASR members acknowledge that every headphone can sound different.Because measurements usually are worshipped and studied around here far more than subjective listening impressions?
I can absolutely see why a newcomer to ASR may think that. I know I did in my early months here. I know better now, but it is kind of the vibe at times, agree or like or not.
Nothing to write home about. Bizarre frequency response and poor sound stage. The driver/magnet speed is great, the pads are poorly/economically designed which resulted in a very uneven frequency response that probably only individual calibration with a couple of binaural microphones in your ears can salvage. Individual calibration by Sonarworks on a dummy head didn't help much in my case. So my pair of MM-100 is gathering dust.Considering buying those Audeze mm 100 above, anyone listened to a pair yet?
So why not sell them or trade them?Nothing to write home about. Bizarre frequency response and poor sound stage. The driver/magnet speed is great, the pads are poorly/economically designed which resulted in a very uneven frequency response that probably only individual calibration with a couple of binaural microphones in your ears can salvage. Individual calibration by Sonarworks on a dummy head didn't help much in my case. So my pair of MM-100 is gathering dust.
Nothing to write home about. Bizarre frequency response and poor sound stage. The driver/magnet speed is great, the pads are poorly/economically designed which resulted in a very uneven frequency response that probably only individual calibration with a couple of binaural microphones in your ears can salvage. Individual calibration by Sonarworks on a dummy head didn't help much in my case. So my pair of MM-100 is gathering dust.
I waited for Oratory's PEQ settings and afterwards just forgot about them. (I guess it means I have too many headphones). With latest Oratory's PEQ settings they sound OK (have more resolution than even very expensive dynamic headphones) if you listen at high volume about 75db and don't care too much about sound stage. Comfortwise they are also just OK/passable, not as bad as round Sundara, not as good as oval shaped expensive Hifiman headphones. MM in the name is just a clever marketing gimmick. Its frequency response, especially treble, is way too uneven for studio work (you can see it in Oratory's measurments).So why not sell them or trade them?
When I'm mixing in headphones, I prefer ones that don't make things sounds too wide, because when panning instruments, as headphones separate left and right so much more than you would hear on speakers in a room (unless using software that tries to emulate that) it means I tend to not pan as wide as I should and thus the mixes will be pretty narrow compared to commercial releases when people listen back on their gear.I waited for Oratory's PEQ settings and afterwards just forgot about them. (I guess it means I have too many headphones). With latest Oratory's PEQ settings they sound OK (have more resolution than even very expensive dynamic headphones) if you listen at high volume about 75db and don't care too much about sound stage. Comfortwise they are also just OK/passable, not as bad as round Sundara, not as good as oval shaped expensive Hifiman headphones. MM in the name is just a clever marketing gimmick. Its frequency response, especially treble, is way too uneven for studio work (you can see it in Oratory's measurments).