Only if you don't manage the duration the duration of your listening session. An average of 85dB SPL has been agreed upon by content authors and can be listened to safely for 8 hours. Listen to a lower volume and you lose bass due to the Fletcher-Munson effect.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Beyerdynamic DT990 Pro Review (headphone)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Not according to studies on 200+ subjects around the world showing that preference doesn't vary much above 200Hz.
Of course the emulation isn't 100% perfect, but I wouldn't say there are 'substantial' errors. In his initial analysis of the headphone virtualization method, Sean Olive found there was a 0.85 correlation between listener ratings given for real and corresponding virtualized headphones, and that's with the nuisance variables of cognitive bias caused by headphone weight and tactile feel e.g. clamping force differences present for the real headphones but constant for the virtualized tests. Then there is the nuisance variable of leakage in the headphone measurements used for the EQed emulation, due to the relatively stiff and protruding artificial pinnae used in this early 2013 study, which were improved upon significantly by Todd Welti for the later tests we're talking about here. You can see the large improvement below, showing the error relative to in-ear mic measurements on actual listeners (from this paper, flat plate measurements with the worst error of course
):This all means the actual correlation between real and emulated headphone ratings in the 2018 study we're talking about will likely be even higher than the (already high) 0.85 figure.
Then we have Olive's 2016 study reaffirming the validity of the virtualization method, this time with in-ear headphones, for which he found a correlation of 0.98 between real and virtualized headphone ratings. Yes you read that correctly. That's essentially perfect correlation, and suggests if you remove the biases from weight, clamping force etc. present in over-ear headphones, and leakage measurement error, there is little if any room (at most 2% of the correlation) for contributions to headphone sound preference other than frequency response e.g. non-linear distortion, non-minimum phase behaviour, or any supposed subjectivist 'intangibles' lumped under 'technicalities', like 'resolution' or 'detail retrieval'. The scientific evidence simply does not support the oft-repeated but never backed-up claim that headphone virtualization (and by virtue of its basis on EQ matching, frequency response measurement) is a grossly inaccurate method of determining true, blinded (and so bias-free) headphone sound preference - in fact quite the opposite is the case.
Last edited:
solderdude
Grand Contributor
IEMs and over ears are quite substantial.
Obviously the ratings of the actual DT990 and the simulation is too far off to be considered valid.
When it would just be off by one or 2 points o.k. but this is too far off is it not ?
I mean you treat thse ratings as gospel and a very small difference for you is enough to state they can't sound as good.
This is utter bollocks. The ratings are an indication NOT an exact science. If it were all ratings should be close together and opinions wouldn't vary as much. Practice learns differently.
But sure... when you EQ something closer to the sound signature but won't be the same. For IEMs (with the same insertion depth/seal/comfort) I can easier see a higher correlation.
In this thread I was commenting on the delta between the ratings of the DT990.
Obviously the ratings of the actual DT990 and the simulation is too far off to be considered valid.
When it would just be off by one or 2 points o.k. but this is too far off is it not ?
I mean you treat thse ratings as gospel and a very small difference for you is enough to state they can't sound as good.
This is utter bollocks. The ratings are an indication NOT an exact science. If it were all ratings should be close together and opinions wouldn't vary as much. Practice learns differently.
But sure... when you EQ something closer to the sound signature but won't be the same. For IEMs (with the same insertion depth/seal/comfort) I can easier see a higher correlation.
In this thread I was commenting on the delta between the ratings of the DT990.
Aerith Gainsborough
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 853
- Likes
- 1,280
And yet, headphones that differ significantly can be very successful, as you can see on any Headphone Beyerdynamic creates. What does that tell us?
Right, it's still up to taste. Sure, Harman curve may hit the tastebuds or .. hairs of the majority but not the whole population.
That implies that you wish to propose a better solution. I'm eagerly waiting.
Zensō
Major Contributor
It doesn’t tell us much. Only a small percentage of the people who purchase headphones are into it as a hobby. Most will make a purchase based upon price first, and possibly a recommendation, then just adapt. Of the many musicians I know, very few could tell you which headphones they own without looking.
amicusterrae
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2020
- Messages
- 57
- Likes
- 54
Do two posts of audiograms start a trend?
Listening to the DT990s for years didn't do this to me; it's asymmetric hearing loss
At low volumes, my version sounds a little bright but not intolerable. And my experience is surely informed by long-term adaptation to the headphones and the physical damage in my left ear. There are lots of untrained and in my case, damaged listeners out there.
We need standardized objective data because our subjective impressions are--to overgeneralize--unreliable. Blind listening would be ideal, but the practical limitations with headphones are real. While I'm not sold on broad EQ, Amir is doing a great service to the community with these reviews. His data and listening impressions are building a growing data set that allows for ready comparisons with everything he has reviewed.
Listening to the DT990s for years didn't do this to me; it's asymmetric hearing loss
At low volumes, my version sounds a little bright but not intolerable. And my experience is surely informed by long-term adaptation to the headphones and the physical damage in my left ear. There are lots of untrained and in my case, damaged listeners out there.
We need standardized objective data because our subjective impressions are--to overgeneralize--unreliable. Blind listening would be ideal, but the practical limitations with headphones are real. While I'm not sold on broad EQ, Amir is doing a great service to the community with these reviews. His data and listening impressions are building a growing data set that allows for ready comparisons with everything he has reviewed.
The 880 600ohm are no doubt pretty similar, at least the brightness.
I laughed a whole lot with the:
thanks for the EQ, I have one but I will compare it with the one I have to see which I like the most.
I laughed a whole lot with the:
LOL
thanks for the EQ, I have one but I will compare it with the one I have to see which I like the most.
There seems to be some repeated confusion in this thread over different 'ratings'. To be clear, there are three main categories of ratings (in order of accuracy and usefulness for the average user):
1. The averaged preference ratings given by a large group of actual listeners in controlled, double-blind (bias-free) listening tests such as those conducted by Harman and their leading acoustic scientists in the field i.e. Sean Olive et al.
2. The predicted preference ratings calculable using Sean's formula, based on either:
a) Harman's own measurements, using their specific equipment and methodology, which the formula was devised from and so will be most accurate with.
b) Professional third-party measurements using similar equipment (i.e. only differing in the artificial pinnae used, as Harman's is custom made), and methodology (i.e. averaging left/right channels and multiple re-seats to mitigate against positional variation), such as Oratory's.
c) Third-party measurements with further differences in equipment (e.g. using a different coupler), and methodology (e.g. only a single measurement with no averaging).
3. Uncontrolled, sighted (bias-prone), non-level matched subjective ratings from single users.
Up until now, in this thread I have been specifically talking about ratings of type 1, and indirectly their tension with some people's individual type 3 ratings / impressions of the DT990. Differences between type 2 and 1 (or even within type 2a, b and c) ratings are not the issue here, and just act to obfuscate the matter.
Surprisingly (especially for a science forum), it seems a lot of people here are giving primacy to others' type 3 ratings over scientifically controlled type 1 ratings. Let me be clear, I do not even take type 1 ratings as gospel, let alone the less accurate type 2. But the fact is, type 1 ratings are limited in the number of headphones Harman tested, so in lieu of type 1 (and type 2a), type 2b ratings are the next best predictors of headphone sound quality we currently have, and they now cover a huge number of models thanks to people like Oratory.
Back to the DT990, Sean Olive's scientifically conducted study showed that when biases are removed via blind listening, on average actual people rated (type 1) its frequency response as 91/100, as I posted previously, from this presentation of Sean's.
An average listener preference rating this high corresponds to 'excellent' under Harman's definition (from the 2018 paper):
(Note: to be clear, the DT990'S rating of 91 and the others given in the presentation linked above are not predicted, type 2a ratings from the formula as some have confused them for - they are real, type 1 listener ratings. How do we know this? Just take a look at headphone 6 and 30 for example - their ratings of 39 and 28 respectively on slide 35 clearly match their position on the 'preference rating' axis in the graph on slide 29, and not their higher 'predicted preference rating' values.)
So what could explain the difference between some users' type 3 impressions of the DT990 and their 'excellent' type 1 rating? Firstly, the evidence is compelling that HP26 from the study is indeed the DT990, any claim otherwise requires equal or better counter-evidence, which no-one has provided. The same goes for insinuations of an error in Sean's paper, which has no foundation. In addition to the ubiquitous, inescapable potential subconscious biases that apply to every single listener's type 3 ratings / impressions ('trained' or otherwise), I provided three other potential influencing factors in my original post on this issue:
(i) Unit variation
(ii) Some users' actual pinnae response not being adequately represented by Harman's custom pinnae
(iii) Some individuals listening at higher volumes than the 85 dB average level used in Harman's blind tests
The similarity between the measurements here and Oratory's would suggest (i) is unlikely. As I said in my previous post, Todd Welti's measurements of headphones using his custom pinna compared to in-ear mic measurements of real people show very low error, so it seems (ii) is also unlikely (although those measurements were only really valid up until ~500 Hz so there may still be differences in treble response). (iii) still seems like a strong possibility, it being evident that some listen at much higher levels than others. Looking again at the differences in error response (from the Harman target) of Oratory's measurements of the DT990 with new and old pads, likely due to their fast rate of compression over time compared to other brands, has made me think there might be another factor at play here.
DT990 error response (new pads):
DT990 error response (old pads):
I suspect that old DT990 pads may impart similar acoustic differences to the headphone's frequency response as new pads when worn on a larger / wider head, as in both situations the pads are more compressed than otherwise, moving the driver closer to the ear, as well as likely decreasing the permeability and so increasing the seal the pad creates, which would result in increased bass response and extension as seen with the old pads above. In Welti's paper he says the left/right flat plate measurements he took "were separated by 15.5 cm to match the breadth of a typical human head." He doesn't say in the paper but I would think the GRAS 45CA would be of similar width. So someone with a head width greater than this 'typical' 15.5 cm may experience the DT990 with new pads closer to the measured sound profile of the headphone with old pads as seen above, due to higher effective clamping force compressing the pads, therefore a greater seal and relatively more bass (which can also be perceived as reduced treble). Conversely, someone with a head width less than 15.5 cm may experience even less bass level / extension (and so relatively greater treble) due to lower clamping force and so less pad compression. One caveat to this is Rtings' frequency response consistency measurements for the DT990, which show low variation in bass across the 5 subjects they tested with in-ear mics. However, I have my reservations about their (seemingly somewhat arbitrary) level-matching and 'crossfading' (as they put it) of the in-ear mic and HATs portions of the measured frequency response, which could mean the DT990's higher inconsistency in the treble range may in fact translate to inconsistency in the bass with different level-matching / 'crossfading' choices.
TL; DR: bigger head / lower volume => DT990 good; smaller head / higher volume => DT990 bad (?)
1. The averaged preference ratings given by a large group of actual listeners in controlled, double-blind (bias-free) listening tests such as those conducted by Harman and their leading acoustic scientists in the field i.e. Sean Olive et al.
2. The predicted preference ratings calculable using Sean's formula, based on either:
a) Harman's own measurements, using their specific equipment and methodology, which the formula was devised from and so will be most accurate with.
b) Professional third-party measurements using similar equipment (i.e. only differing in the artificial pinnae used, as Harman's is custom made), and methodology (i.e. averaging left/right channels and multiple re-seats to mitigate against positional variation), such as Oratory's.
c) Third-party measurements with further differences in equipment (e.g. using a different coupler), and methodology (e.g. only a single measurement with no averaging).
3. Uncontrolled, sighted (bias-prone), non-level matched subjective ratings from single users.
Up until now, in this thread I have been specifically talking about ratings of type 1, and indirectly their tension with some people's individual type 3 ratings / impressions of the DT990. Differences between type 2 and 1 (or even within type 2a, b and c) ratings are not the issue here, and just act to obfuscate the matter.
Surprisingly (especially for a science forum), it seems a lot of people here are giving primacy to others' type 3 ratings over scientifically controlled type 1 ratings. Let me be clear, I do not even take type 1 ratings as gospel, let alone the less accurate type 2. But the fact is, type 1 ratings are limited in the number of headphones Harman tested, so in lieu of type 1 (and type 2a), type 2b ratings are the next best predictors of headphone sound quality we currently have, and they now cover a huge number of models thanks to people like Oratory.
Back to the DT990, Sean Olive's scientifically conducted study showed that when biases are removed via blind listening, on average actual people rated (type 1) its frequency response as 91/100, as I posted previously, from this presentation of Sean's.
An average listener preference rating this high corresponds to 'excellent' under Harman's definition (from the 2018 paper):
(Note: to be clear, the DT990'S rating of 91 and the others given in the presentation linked above are not predicted, type 2a ratings from the formula as some have confused them for - they are real, type 1 listener ratings. How do we know this? Just take a look at headphone 6 and 30 for example - their ratings of 39 and 28 respectively on slide 35 clearly match their position on the 'preference rating' axis in the graph on slide 29, and not their higher 'predicted preference rating' values.)
So what could explain the difference between some users' type 3 impressions of the DT990 and their 'excellent' type 1 rating? Firstly, the evidence is compelling that HP26 from the study is indeed the DT990, any claim otherwise requires equal or better counter-evidence, which no-one has provided. The same goes for insinuations of an error in Sean's paper, which has no foundation. In addition to the ubiquitous, inescapable potential subconscious biases that apply to every single listener's type 3 ratings / impressions ('trained' or otherwise), I provided three other potential influencing factors in my original post on this issue:
(i) Unit variation
(ii) Some users' actual pinnae response not being adequately represented by Harman's custom pinnae
(iii) Some individuals listening at higher volumes than the 85 dB average level used in Harman's blind tests
The similarity between the measurements here and Oratory's would suggest (i) is unlikely. As I said in my previous post, Todd Welti's measurements of headphones using his custom pinna compared to in-ear mic measurements of real people show very low error, so it seems (ii) is also unlikely (although those measurements were only really valid up until ~500 Hz so there may still be differences in treble response). (iii) still seems like a strong possibility, it being evident that some listen at much higher levels than others. Looking again at the differences in error response (from the Harman target) of Oratory's measurements of the DT990 with new and old pads, likely due to their fast rate of compression over time compared to other brands, has made me think there might be another factor at play here.
DT990 error response (new pads):
DT990 error response (old pads):
I suspect that old DT990 pads may impart similar acoustic differences to the headphone's frequency response as new pads when worn on a larger / wider head, as in both situations the pads are more compressed than otherwise, moving the driver closer to the ear, as well as likely decreasing the permeability and so increasing the seal the pad creates, which would result in increased bass response and extension as seen with the old pads above. In Welti's paper he says the left/right flat plate measurements he took "were separated by 15.5 cm to match the breadth of a typical human head." He doesn't say in the paper but I would think the GRAS 45CA would be of similar width. So someone with a head width greater than this 'typical' 15.5 cm may experience the DT990 with new pads closer to the measured sound profile of the headphone with old pads as seen above, due to higher effective clamping force compressing the pads, therefore a greater seal and relatively more bass (which can also be perceived as reduced treble). Conversely, someone with a head width less than 15.5 cm may experience even less bass level / extension (and so relatively greater treble) due to lower clamping force and so less pad compression. One caveat to this is Rtings' frequency response consistency measurements for the DT990, which show low variation in bass across the 5 subjects they tested with in-ear mics. However, I have my reservations about their (seemingly somewhat arbitrary) level-matching and 'crossfading' (as they put it) of the in-ear mic and HATs portions of the measured frequency response, which could mean the DT990's higher inconsistency in the treble range may in fact translate to inconsistency in the bass with different level-matching / 'crossfading' choices.
TL; DR: bigger head / lower volume => DT990 good; smaller head / higher volume => DT990 bad (?)
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #391
There is plenty of foundation that the measurements shown for supposed DT990 in the paper do not match reality, not by my measurements, Oratory or anyone else. Original measurements of DT990 are not shown in the paper so you don't have any data on this whatsoever. Only that an equalized surrogate headphone with this kind of response:
achieved excellent results in blind testing and in predicted response as it should. We don't have this kind of response. We have this:
Much less bass and much more highs. Such a headphone would not do remotely this well either in listening tests or predicted score. End of story.
@solderdude already explained this so not sure why you jumped past that simple explanation and post this missive.
I'm excited to see what Amirim thinks of the other Beyers. I do agree that the DT990 just sounds... Wrong, but I think the 770 and 880 are salvageable, and the 1770 and 1990 sound quite great to my ears (though sometimes I have an EQ profile to tame the treble a bit).
RTINGS, Inner Fidelity et al:
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#329/4029
AMIR: They are not posting raw measurements for that. They are post processing it to their thinking.
So Amir is doing it right, rtings et al are doing it wrong
Amazon, et al
Thousands of customers around the world praise the dt 990s since the dawn of (audiophile) time
AMIR (I guess?): People just don’t know better, my measurements and my ears don’t lie. Besides: people like crappy stuff (Beats... )
Study
Back to the DT990, Sean Olive's scientifically conducted study showed that when biases are removed via blind listening, on average actual people rated (type 1) its frequency response as 91/100, as I posted previously, from this presentation of Sean's.
AMIR: Misunderstands it (?) and talks about oratory score
Oratory
Oratory scores for DT990 (78) are better than scores for:
dt1990,
Etymotics ER4xr (58 before EQ so they are total garbage… of course)
Neumann NDH-20
And the Sennheiser 660s (78 is the score) have exact the same score.
Amir (see rtings): that quy is wrong or at least not right, it is not the bible, my measurements are better. The dt 990s suck…
There is a lot of voodoo snake oil BS in hifi (cables, amps, lossless vs lossy, etc...) And Amir is right to point that out. But here with the dt990s he is dead wrong and it shows the limitations of his approach.
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#329/4029
AMIR: They are not posting raw measurements for that. They are post processing it to their thinking.
So Amir is doing it right, rtings et al are doing it wrong
Amazon, et al
Thousands of customers around the world praise the dt 990s since the dawn of (audiophile) time
AMIR (I guess?): People just don’t know better, my measurements and my ears don’t lie. Besides: people like crappy stuff (Beats... )
Study
Back to the DT990, Sean Olive's scientifically conducted study showed that when biases are removed via blind listening, on average actual people rated (type 1) its frequency response as 91/100, as I posted previously, from this presentation of Sean's.
AMIR: Misunderstands it (?) and talks about oratory score
Oratory
Oratory scores for DT990 (78) are better than scores for:
dt1990,
Etymotics ER4xr (58 before EQ so they are total garbage… of course)
Neumann NDH-20
And the Sennheiser 660s (78 is the score) have exact the same score.
Amir (see rtings): that quy is wrong or at least not right, it is not the bible, my measurements are better. The dt 990s suck…
There is a lot of voodoo snake oil BS in hifi (cables, amps, lossless vs lossy, etc...) And Amir is right to point that out. But here with the dt990s he is dead wrong and it shows the limitations of his approach.
samwell7
Senior Member
Luckily audio preferences are subjective and what you're 'picking apart' above is pretty much solely related to Amir's subjective listening impressions.
You don't need to take what Amir says as gospel as far as listening is concerned, everyone has different listening gear (ears, heads) which changes how we perceive sound, on top of that people like listening to music in different ways.
What Amir is doing is using his own time and money to put detailed measurements and comments together for various pieces of equipment as requested, if you don't like it you can invest tens of thousands of dollars in gear and start your own site?
solderdude
Grand Contributor
What Amir shows in the measurements are the test results from his rig which differs from the one from Rtings and Tyll and some others.
Also Amir measures at much higher SPL than others who tend to measure between 80 and 90dB SPL only or step up to 100dB SPL.
One could argue that 114dB SPL is unrealistically loud and that would be the case when one would be listening to 114dBA average levels.
However, when one is listening to 80dBA average levels the SPL around 30Hz (which is what Amir measures and not dBA) then peaks well over 100dB SPL can be present.
It makes sense to measure those levels..
About this... Amir is replying to distortion measurements made by Rtings. Amir is 100% correct about the distortion plots of Rtings being weighted acc. to their own rating. These plots are not comparable at all. Rtings nor Amir are doing things 'wrong' just differently.
The discussion about the Harman score the SIMULATED DT990 (still needs to be confirmed it was a simulated DT990 !) and Oratory or other ratings being further apart than expected is not the same as invalidating research done by Olive et all.
The fact that Amir uses the latest Harman curve as a target should tell you that research is not ignored.
That discussion is only about the (assumed correctly or not) simulated DT990 as opposed to real DT990.
Furthermore... not all DT990 are created equal. There have been silent revisions, production spread, small changes and various versions over the last 30 years or so.
Then there is the question of difference in interaction between test fixture used during the trials/tests and the headphone used and interactions between the actual used headphone and that test fixture as well as its 'correction'.
Lastly... everyone that measures it measures it differently, may not use the same correction, may have differing versions and above all some owners are not bothered by the 'tonal balance' and 'presentation' and may even like (prefer) it.
Amirs conclusion is a bit harsh for owners who like the DT990. Those that use it wisely (SPL wise) and maybe EQ have a good headphone in their hands. Not a broken one. That said... distortion at higher levels is real and the treble peak as well. On those accounts it doesn't perform top notch.
One should always see reviews as a measurement point and subjective finding leading to a conclusion by the reviewer. One can agree or not.
Also Amir measures at much higher SPL than others who tend to measure between 80 and 90dB SPL only or step up to 100dB SPL.
One could argue that 114dB SPL is unrealistically loud and that would be the case when one would be listening to 114dBA average levels.
However, when one is listening to 80dBA average levels the SPL around 30Hz (which is what Amir measures and not dBA) then peaks well over 100dB SPL can be present.
It makes sense to measure those levels..
About this... Amir is replying to distortion measurements made by Rtings. Amir is 100% correct about the distortion plots of Rtings being weighted acc. to their own rating. These plots are not comparable at all. Rtings nor Amir are doing things 'wrong' just differently.
The discussion about the Harman score the SIMULATED DT990 (still needs to be confirmed it was a simulated DT990 !) and Oratory or other ratings being further apart than expected is not the same as invalidating research done by Olive et all.
The fact that Amir uses the latest Harman curve as a target should tell you that research is not ignored.
That discussion is only about the (assumed correctly or not) simulated DT990 as opposed to real DT990.
Furthermore... not all DT990 are created equal. There have been silent revisions, production spread, small changes and various versions over the last 30 years or so.
Then there is the question of difference in interaction between test fixture used during the trials/tests and the headphone used and interactions between the actual used headphone and that test fixture as well as its 'correction'.
Lastly... everyone that measures it measures it differently, may not use the same correction, may have differing versions and above all some owners are not bothered by the 'tonal balance' and 'presentation' and may even like (prefer) it.
Amirs conclusion is a bit harsh for owners who like the DT990. Those that use it wisely (SPL wise) and maybe EQ have a good headphone in their hands. Not a broken one. That said... distortion at higher levels is real and the treble peak as well. On those accounts it doesn't perform top notch.
One should always see reviews as a measurement point and subjective finding leading to a conclusion by the reviewer. One can agree or not.
Hey Defender!
Of course as implied in his conclusion:
Conclusions
While the DT 990 Pro is a comfortable headphone to wear, it has a seriously flawed design with poor frequency response which exaggerates the heck out of highs and dumps a bunch of distortion in there for good measure. It also lacks deep bass reproduction.
It is just his subjective impressions and hast nothing to do with his "measurments". Come on...
But if I don't like it... I dont want to disturb your cult. already looking for a way to delete my profile? How do I do that?
Thanx for nothing...
Of course as implied in his conclusion:
Conclusions
While the DT 990 Pro is a comfortable headphone to wear, it has a seriously flawed design with poor frequency response which exaggerates the heck out of highs and dumps a bunch of distortion in there for good measure. It also lacks deep bass reproduction.
It is just his subjective impressions and hast nothing to do with his "measurments". Come on...
But if I don't like it... I dont want to disturb your cult. already looking for a way to delete my profile? How do I do that?
Thanx for nothing...
I like your sense of humor. 114dB Come on! According to experts in this field (Manowar) everything below 120dB is not really loud...
samwell7
Senior Member
What I was saying sort of implies the opposite of a cult, i.e. use whichever bits of the measurements and/or the site you like, I'm not saying blindly follow dear leader.
The world would be pretty boring if everyone liked exactly the same thing.
I think it's great that detailed measurements are getting provided for us and I also think subjective impressions have their place.
Amir roasted the Sony SS-CS5's, it was the first thread I saw on this site.
I already had the speakers and liked them because they sound good to me, I didn't get up in arms about his subjective review because the measurements proved something I already knew, they sound very good for the price and are highly rated budget speakers which obviously aren't everyone's cup of tea, much like the beyers.
Aerith Gainsborough
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 853
- Likes
- 1,280
As I already said: some readers here seem to get WAY too hung-up on the Harman target vs not Harman target vs some imaginary/arbitrary "Rating" number, somehow thinking that the Harman target is
Yes, the DT-990 deviates from the Harman target. No that does not make the headphone "wrong" or "bad" per se, that merely says that if the reader knows that he is into the Harman tuning, he will, most likely, not like the headphones frequency response.
IMHO, while good information, that is the least interesting part of the review to me. Target curves can be fixed with EQ, if the user so desires.
I find the driver behavior, distortion levels and headroom concerns (for EQ) far more important, because these are actually objecitvely measurable and not subject to personal taste. Knowing that a can, which one would need to e.g.: heavily EQ in order to like it, does not actually have the driver-headroom to do so (or does not respond well to it), should be a red flag for anybody that knows his own preference.
Having access to such information with the kind of precision that is demonstrated here before making a purchase is awesome.
Edit: changed the "hard science" in order to avoid misunderstandings. It was not my intention to call the research done by Harman unscientific.
Last edited:
highpurityusbcable
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2020
- Messages
- 196
- Likes
- 279
Making an account, calling people meanies and histerically announcing your profile deletion request. Same behavior every time, like from some handbook. I hope you are not a grown man at least.
Similar threads
