"Bias" of some members towards headphone measurements?

[tmtomh]

I've read on RTings that the soundstage is created not recreated by the equipment. A measurement protocol would therefore pick it up as distortion.

No.

 

[oleg87]

I like your comment. I've read on RTings that the soundstage is created not recreated by the equipment. A measurement protocol would therefore pick it up as distortion.

What?
Distortion measurements should measure distortion (ie, nonlinearities in the response). A measurement protocol to measure soundstage should be designed to measure soundstage. Considering an illusion of soundstage would necessarily depend on your particular head/ears, it's far from obvious how you would measure this in a useful way, RTings' dubiously evidenced attempts aside.

 

[amirm]

Had not seen this thread before and somehow landed on page 8 where member who used to work at Harman was asking why we use a headphone fixture whereas we don't for speakers.

There is a simple answer: the output of a headphone is very low as to try to measure it in an anechoic chamber or Klippel NFS. The fixture solves that problem by sealing the space between the headphone/IEM and putting the microphone very close to it. This in turn causes acoustic coupling issues due to frequencies involved. To solve this standardized fixtures were developed which while not perfect, is all we have. The fixture also removes the external aspects of the headphone from interfering with the measurements.

Given what we are stuck with, then research was performed to see what measurements correlate with preference. To the extent that was successful, then we have nullified the negative effects of using a fixture.

Same thing happened with speakers where an anechoic measurement succeeded as reference as opposed to say, always measuring a speaker in certain room.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I like your comment. I've read on RTings that the soundstage is created not recreated by the equipment. A measurement protocol would therefore pick it up as distortion.

I'm not so sure of that. Many people associate lateral spread with soundstage, and I agree that can be "created". A good recording of an orchestra will certainly exhibit lateral spread that is natural, and not "created".
I also associate soundstage with depth, and that is more difficult to recreate. Please listen to this selection and tell me what you think:

I would also listen to OneMic recordings, and see whether you hear depth in addition to lateral spread.

For depth that is created rather than recreated, just listen to Holly Cook's "Angel Fire", or Roger Waters' "Amused to Death", made with QSound. They are entertaining, but to me they are very unnatural.

P.S. - my 'phones are Audio Technica ATH-M40x ... not the best but not the worst, either.

 

[Heinrich]

I think some ASR users tend to overrate the meaningfulness of measurable data when it comes to headphones.

The measurements are meaningful for a certain purpose. That purpose is not to help with a personal choice. Hence the curves are not useful to sell the product to yourself.

Other than with speakers the interpretation of headphone measurements takes several steps. In some the 'absolute truth' is dismissed deliberately. Example given when deciding to tune to 'diffuse field'. The latter even pulls the validity of stereo into question (besides the missing crossfeed).

It is not easy to dig into the topic, and it may become a bit frustrating also, not to have an ideal. That's why, and I confirm your observations.

Many times I asked myself, if people actually agree to a preference rating scheme, as there is a personal preference needed to begin with. It should be as easy as can be, but not with real enthusiasts it seems.

 

[Barry_G]

I would also listen to OneMic recordings, and see whether you hear depth in addition to lateral spread.

WOW!!!!! Those recordings are amazing!

 

[Jim Taylor]

1. Sound is personal – Even if a headphone matches the Harman Target, it may not sound perfect to you because everyone's ears are different.
2. Distortion is overrated – Many people can't hear small amounts of distortion, and it doesn’t matter at high volumes if you never listen that loud.
3. Trust your ears – If you enjoy a headphone, a bad review doesn’t mean it’s bad for you. You don’t need to upgrade unless you feel something is missing.

I would express these points differently.

1) Preference is personal. Learn how your preference deviates from a standard, such as the Harman curve. This is called "correlation".

2) You can then apply this correlation to measurements to predict with more accuracy whether the headphone under consideration is right for you or not. This way, you have at least one reproducible facet of your search (measurements) so that you won't need to "trust your ears". Trusting to sensory input is notoriously unreliable, because it is not reproducible and is subject to many biases.

 

[Heinrich]

I would express these points differently.

1) Preference is personal. Learn how your preference deviates from a standard, such as the Harman curve. This is called "correlation".

2) You can then apply this correlation to measurements to predict with more accuracy whether the headphone under consideration is right for you or not. This way, you have at least one reproducible facet of your search (measurements) so that you won't need to "trust your ears". Trusting to sensory input is notoriously unreliable, because it is not reproducible and is subject to many biases.

I decidedly won't pick on you, but did you already try to optimize your headphones towards your preference? I tried and, for the time being, failed.

A flat coupler came to use, not an HATS. Adjusted the frequency response to a smoothly falling line as we expect from speakers. Correlated to white noise to be smooth. First obstacle was, it depends a lot on sound volume! Second, with music it didn't sound to good. Third, after some time not listening to the headphones the impression changed again.

Maybe white noise is to sensitive to serve as a sensible benchmark. Also a smooth line isn't a goof target either, as it doesn't reflect my directional HRTF for what I prefer the sound to come from.

 

[thewas]

Pink noise for listening tests is a better choice as its due to the human auditory system is perceived closer to neutral than white noise which is perceived bright.

 

[Heinrich]

Pink noise is less revealing at the top end. I see that the topic gets heated once the universal validity of "the Harman" is put to doubt. Let's see how the scene develops once the other, more detailed Harman is officially released. People seem to need curves, and then they will have a new one.

Edit, there's already a new one, more details: https://crinacle.com/2025/02/05/the-new-2025-ief-target/

The whole article is worth the time reading for the fun of it.

I find our new target a bit embarrassing in that it replicates, or shall I say predicts, my preference for a sharper peak, lower in frequency for the main ear gain. The "10k" dip comes to the rescue, as it is defined (a pun) at 11k now, but I like it a lower in frequency. Not so normal.

 

[Chuckser]

I'm not so sure of that. Many people associate lateral spread with soundstage, and I agree that can be "created". A good recording of an orchestra will certainly exhibit lateral spread that is natural, and not "created".
I also associate soundstage with depth, and that is more difficult to recreate. Please listen to this selection and tell me what you think:

I would also listen to OneMic recordings, and see whether you hear depth in addition to lateral spread.

For depth that is created rather than recreated, just listen to Holly Cook's "Angel Fire", or Roger Waters' "Amused to Death", made with QSound. They are entertaining, but to me they are very unnatural.

P.S. - my 'phones are Audio Technica ATH-M40x ... not the best but not the worst, either.

Thanks Jim, what an excellent recording. I was trying to listen to Tchaikovskys Violin concerto last night on Tidal and the orchestra was very left and right with the soloist appearing and disappearing into the sound stage. My hearing isn't very good and the dynamics were causing me problems. I didn't know if it was the performer the recording or my DAC headphone combo but the contrapunction between soloist and first violin seemed to be awry I thought it might be exaggerated separation or perhaps the conductor. Would you mind having a listen if you have Tidal? I'll try what you have suggested but I think you might have saved me a packet. I'm using the RME ADI-2 DAC fs through a Topping A70 Pro into Anandas. I was going to try a MOJO into HD800s or Audeze LCD-X at a local hifi shop out of curiosity following Amirms review. Thanks for your help.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Thanks Jim, what an excellent recording. I was trying to listen to Tchaikovskys Violin concerto last night on Tidal and the orchestra was very left and right with the soloist appearing and disappearing into the sound stage. My hearing isn't very good and the dynamics were causing me problems. I didn't know if it was the performer the recording or my DAC headphone combo but the contrapunction between soloist and first violin seemed to be awry I thought it might be exaggerated separation or perhaps the conductor. Would you mind having a listen if you have Tidal? I'll try what you have suggested but I think you might have saved me a packet. I'm using the RME ADI-2 DAC fs through a Topping A70 Pro into Anandas. I was going to try a MOJO into HD800s or Audeze LCD-X at a local hifi shop out of curiosity following Amirms review. Thanks for your help.

I would love to help you, but I do not subscribe to Tidal ... or any other streaming service. I have a small (very small) library on-site.
I have the Julia Fischer recording, with the Russian National Orchestra under Yakov Kreizberg. Other than Ms. Fischer being miked a bit too close, I don't hear anything strange. However ... there is another Fischer recording with the Orchestre Philharmonique de Radio France under under Vasily Petrenko. That recording seems to be miked differently.

There are several other recordings of the Violin concerto (Baeve and, I believe, Hahn) but I've not heard them. Sorry that I can't be of further help.

 

[pablolie]

I don't know how we can endlessly debate some of these issues.
Using modern measurement tools we can measure speakers and closely determine how well it can reproduce a waveform
both anechoic and into some known room parameters.
Preference is preference but when we discuss a tool for High Fidelity Music REPRODUCTION, a speaker is little different from any other source.
It's output should mirror it's input as accurately as possible.
Unfortunately speakers are as yet a long way from being as accurate as an amp, and the room interface is a huge unknown factor.
But still, within small margins we are able to measure and determine which of those speakers come quite close, and which miss by a mile.
If accuracy is important to the listener, we then have to choose the speakers from within the "very good" measurement group, which ones will best suite
our personal preferences and needs for room size, spl, etc.
If accurate reproduction isn't what you want, you can even use the spec's to find those that will please the boom and sizzle crowds.
We've come a long way baby.

Indeed. This seems yet another bait thread inspired by another shape-shifting troll.

 

[pablolie]

The measurements are meaningful for a certain purpose....

Many times I asked myself, if people actually agree to a preference rating scheme, as there is a personal preference needed to begin with. It should be as easy as can be, but not with real enthusiasts it seems.

It is actually dead easy. Measurements tell you how true to the original signal a component (or chain thereof) can get.

Nobody forces anyone to declare that feat of engineering their favorite. People can prefer whatever they want. And due to many possible factors, subjective hearing may respond better (or worse) to certain deviations from that ideal linear response. Plus let's keep in mind many recordings do not deserve nor care about utter accuracy.

I KNOW my personal preference deviates some from. total linear accuracy. I also know how to read that in measurements. ASR is unique in offering that training as well as data. While Amir has his preferences, he will never shoot you down for drawing your own conclusions from the measurements he provides.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

It is actually dead easy. Measurements tell you how true to the original signal a component (or chain thereof) can get.

Nobody forces anyone to declare that feat of engineering their favorite. People can prefer whatever they want. And due to many possible factors, subjective hearing may respond better (or worse) to certain deviations from that ideal linear response. Plus let's keep in mind many recordings do not deserve nor care about utter accuracy.

I KNOW my personal preference deviates some from. total linear accuracy. I also know how to read that in measurements. ASR is unique in offering that training as well as data. While Amir has his preferences, he will never shoot you down for drawing your own conclusions from the measurements he provides.

Exactly.

But to see that, you need to start with the right foundation. You need something solid to build on.

That foundation is objective measurements -neutrality, flat response, and linearity. Once you’ve got that down, you can test yourself and figure out your own hearing thresholds. Then, choosing gear becomes much easier because you’ll know you just need equipment that meets those thresholds.

After that, you’re free to explore and fine-tune things according to your own taste, without second-guessing the basics.

Simple.

 

[Doodski]

Exactly.

But to see that, you need to start with the right foundation. You need something solid to build on.

That foundation is objective measurements -neutrality, flat response, and linearity. Once you’ve got that down, you can test yourself and figure out your own hearing thresholds. Then, choosing gear becomes much easier because you’ll know you just need equipment that meets those thresholds.

After that, you’re free to explore and fine-tune things according to your own taste, without second-guessing the basics.

Simple.

PEQ friendly I call it.