• 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!

"Bias" of some members towards headphone measurements?

Those are calculated from measurements made around the speaker in such a manner that the floor, ceiling and wall reflections of the garage (where he measures speakers) are not measured along and thus mimicking an-echoic measurements (but from around the speaker within a certain height range).
This is why in DIY we test the loudspeakers outside (in the absence of anechoic rooms which many speaker manufacturers don't even have!). To minimize unpleasant surprises I have always followed the advice of my first master to only use professional components and especially not "hi-fi".
 
Is possible to measure reflections alone? How to cancel direct sound without calculating delay?

I mean, if Amir measured his in garage response it will be so hard to deduce ours.

Not an expert on audio at all, but it seem that mathematically speaking establishing the simplest environment and some calculations is the lesser evil method…

What you propose as alternative one?
If you want to know how the Klippel NFS separates sounds originating from inside the measurement space (the speaker) from those outside it (the reflections) see thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nderstanding-how-the-klippel-nfs-works.13139/
 
This is why in DIY we test the loudspeakers outside (in the absence of anechoic rooms which many speaker manufacturers don't even have!). To minimize unpleasant surprises I have always followed the advice of my first master to only use professional components and especially not "hi-fi".
Outside? Do you mean outside a building?

But this doesn’t provide more informative data than anechoic chamber itself, I’m wrong?

Personally I agree with using pro gear: my actual setup is not better than others perhaps but I can exactly know where I am and value-money is excellent (Genelecs 8030 and Focusrite Scarlett). My only hi-fi piece is that cause more problems of conexion (Ifi Zen Streamer)
 
Is possible to measure reflections alone? How to cancel direct sound without calculating delay?

I mean, if Amir measured his in garage response it will be so hard to deduce ours.

Not an expert on audio at all, but it seem that mathematically speaking establishing the simplest environment and some calculations is the lesser evil method…

What you propose as alternative one?
measuring reflections is useless.
What the Klippel does is measure (and calculate) the amplitude over the frequency range and directional.
Based on that info it can calculate the frequency response at a listening position assuming a 'normal' living room.
Those plots can give an indication of how sensitive the speaker is for placement in a room.

That's all what the plots can show. Not how it will sound in any other room than the simulated one.
One can weed the better from the poorer (technically) performing speakers with that data.
The better ones might need less EQ in actual conditions or may be easier to place.

The best way is to try a speaker in the home and do some (moving mic) measurements at the listening position.
The Klippel is the next best thing.

Outside? Do you mean outside a building?

Yep, in a quiet garden/field which is free from early reflections and outside sounds.
One can do Klippel alike measurements this way and measure the radiation pattern under various angles.
Low frequencies are easier to measure this way as there is no room interaction.

How it will sound in a room depends on the room, radiation pattern and frequency response.
The latter 2 can be measured.
 
Last edited:
measuring reflections is useless.
What the Klippel does is measure (and calculate) the amplitude over the frequency range and directional.
Based on that info it can calculate the frequency response at a listening position assuming a 'normal' living room.
Those plots can give an indication of how sensitive the speaker is for placement in a room.

That's all what the plots can show. Not how it will sound in any other room than the simulated one.
One can weed the better from the poorer (technically) performing speakers with that data.
The better ones might need less EQ in actual conditions or may be easier to place.

The best way is to try a speaker in the home and do some (moving mic) measurements at the listening position.
The Klippel is the next best thing.



Yep, in a quiet garden/field which is free from early reflections and outside sounds.
One can do Klippel alike measurements this way and measure the radiation pattern under various angles.
Low frequencies are easier to measure this way as there is no room interaction.

How it will sound in a room depends on the room, radiation pattern and frequency response.
The latter 2 can be measured.
Is that I said in other post: we should send rooms to Amir to be reviewed, not speakers :)
 
Outside? Do you mean outside a building?

But this doesn’t provide more informative data than anechoic chamber itself, I’m wrong?

Personally I agree with using pro gear: my actual setup is not better than others perhaps but I can exactly know where I am and value-money is excellent (Genelecs 8030 and Focusrite Scarlett). My only hi-fi piece is that cause more problems of conexion (Ifi Zen Streamer)
Yes outside of your house, when no anechoic room is available. It's not as good of course.
Yes, as said before, Genelec uses PHL speakers, rock solid and inexpensive (approx a little more than 300$ for a 15" like the 5051, 98 dB/W/m, from 40 to 2000 Hz, real performance).

 
What you propose as test conditions instead anechoic ones? The problem will be the transfer function between different rooms, I think is easier to test anechoic and them use another measures as spinorama that provide radiation pattern of the speaker

each scientific analysis on a device here provides one overall data-point. The margin of error then could be calculated based on manufacturing consistency, and the number of units in a line. I have no idea where to find that info though.
 
each scientific analysis on a device here provides one overall data-point. The margin of error then could be calculated based on manufacturing consistency, and the number of units in a line. I have no idea where to find that info though.
You keep harping on this variability from product to product as if it is a major concern. Yes products can vary and yes one can be defective. In general especially with electronic products that variability unless it is plainly malfunctioning is very low. So low it is almost nothing to worry about.

In the case of some electronics here you can compare Amir's results to Stereophiles and other sources. They match up quite well almost all the time. So you really need to let this go. Not worth bringing up in every matter for sure. The retort to some result, especially a good result, that "hey you only measured one" just adds nothing useful to the discussion.
 
each scientific analysis on a device here provides one overall data-point. The margin of error then could be calculated based on manufacturing consistency, and the number of units in a line. I have no idea where to find that info though.
The accuracy of electronic component devices is so high that one can actually calculate the quantity of electrons passing a given point. It is so accurate that major corporations like Sony for example I believe can design and implement the design on the computers assembling the PCBs and stuff. They don't even need to prototype because they have the accuracy down so well. There is zero need to have multiple samples of the same model because they are so similar as to be considered near exact copies of each other.
 
Is that I said in other post: we should send rooms to Amir to be reviewed, not speakers :)
It would be possible to measure your room with standard sources and process the result with a known speaker using the spin data and get a good idea of what would happen. I don't know that any product lets you do this, but it would be possible. Harman has done the work to give us good guidelines. Not that the guidelines are perfect or beyond improvement. But that is where things stand now. If your room isn't too poor, a speaker with a good spin should work pretty well.
 
each scientific analysis on a device here provides one overall data-point. The margin of error then could be calculated based on manufacturing consistency, and the number of units in a line. I have no idea where to find that info though.
inter-sample variation is a real thing, but it's more of a problem in the extreme low end of the market. Even cheap (like $50) Bluetooth speakers, are typically checked on the factory line with a quick sine sweep and an analyzer before being sent out.

If you are spending hundreds of dollars on a mass-produced speaker, it's going to be very unusual to find more than +/- 1dB variation between them. Temperature in your room will tend to be a bigger factor than manufacturing tolerances.
 
Yes. That we don't have a standard to measure something yet doesn't mean that that thing necessarily doesn't exist.

Absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence.

At least some users here like to think that soundstage doesn't exist. I prefer the Rtings approach, because they are trying to measure it; with more or less success.
In terms of electronic audio signals we already know everything that can be measured. This has been proven bij null testing.

For transducers we all know that soundstage does exist and that for loudspeakers the radiation pattern plays an important role in that. That's exactly what RTINGS does, except with less accuracy due to the way they measure (not using a Klippel NFS or any anechoic measurements).
 
Yes. That we don't have a standard to measure something yet doesn't mean that that thing necessarily doesn't exist.

Absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence.
The analogue and digital theory and implementation of that theory has been around for centuries. The standardized systems and measurements have all been developed and in use for many decades. There is little to nothing remaining to realize when it comes to simple audio frequencies and metering those low frequency signals.
 
In terms of electronic audio signals we already know everything that can be measured. This has been proven bij null testing.

For transducers we all know that soundstage does exist and that for loudspeakers the radiation pattern plays an important role in that. That's exactly what RTINGS does, except with less accuracy due to the way they measure (not using a Klippel NFS or any anechoic measurements).
The analogue and digital theory and implementation of that theory has been around for centuries. The standardized systems and measurements have all been developed and in use for many decades. There is little to nothing remaining to realize when it comes to simple audio frequencies and metering those low frequency signals.

Maybe it is not only in the audio equipment where soundstage should be measured:

 
Maybe it is not only in the audio equipment where soundstage should be measured:

That is going to tricky from a mechanical aspect. Getting everything aligned and the same for each IEM will be tricky. The electronic metering systems of them will be the easy part although expensive but getting a jig and using it as we can see from Amirm's stated issues that he had when he first started metering IEM and buds and even over the ear phones.
 
I worry about being misunderstood on this one. I do not believe in magic.
But while the ASR community is partly a bastion against snake oil and subjectivism, I think some ASR users tend to overrate the meaningfulness of measurable data when it comes to headphones. (Maybe this also goes for other audio devices, but I almost only read the headphone topics here.)

a) Most of us agree that the frequency response is the most important parameter. But it is all about the frequency response in your ear, not on some measurement rig (you cannot know it exactly in beforehand). I have quite a few IEMs and Over-Ears, and when I tune them to Harman, they all sound different - some quite significantly - as they interact with my ear in a different way (also HRTF, hair, glasses etc.). Soundstage also seems a bit random.
b) The Harman Target is a very helpful standard, but it is not the perfect target for everyone.
c) Distortion is important if it exceeds a certain amount. But many people completely overestimate how well they can hear it. Besides, it is irrelevant if a headphone has high distortion on 114dbspl if you never listen to it at 114dbspl anyway.

So basically, my point is that, while all this data surely is more helpful than highly subjective reviews, our ears still are not measurement rigs. The things you hear come from an interaction between headphone and your ear, and not everything which is measurable does really influence your listening experience.

- If a headphone does exactly hit the Harman target that doesnt mean that it will sound perfect to you (or that there is something wrong with your ear if it does not sound perfect to you).
- You probably cannot hear in a blind test if a headphone has less distortion unless one of them performs badly.
- If you like a headphone which was reviewed with average/mediocre results, you were not necessarily fooled. It is not necessarily a good idea to buy a "better" headphone if you didnt feel something was wrong before you read the review.
every headphone should adhere to the harmen curve and none should cost more than 200 dollars..case closed
 
measuring reflections is useless.
What the Klippel does is measure (and calculate) the amplitude over the frequency range and directional.
Based on that info it can calculate the frequency response at a listening position assuming a 'normal' living room.
Those plots can give an indication of how sensitive the speaker is for placement in a room.

That's all what the plots can show. Not how it will sound in any other room than the simulated one.
One can weed the better from the poorer (technically) performing speakers with that data.
The better ones might need less EQ in actual conditions or may be easier to place.

The best way is to try a speaker in the home and do some (moving mic) measurements at the listening position.
The Klippel is the next best thing.



Yep, in a quiet garden/field which is free from early reflections and outside sounds.
One can do Klippel alike measurements this way and measure the radiation pattern under various angles.
Low frequencies are easier to measure this way as there is no room interaction.

How it will sound in a room depends on the room, radiation pattern and frequency response.
The latter 2 can be measured.
I know that, is precisely what I answered: the best way to measure standard is anechoic. I was supposing that the measure is given to another person.

Is obvious that the best measure for me, or for you, is measure your own conditions once purchased the speakers…

The only bias of measuring, in my opinion, is the subjective final perception of the consumer. I have the impression that is the solely engine on the industry to accomplish the acoustic taste of as many consumers as possible.

In my particular case, I prefer to adapt my taste to the speakers once measuring a reasonable flat response: within the years is what I found more enjoyable to focalize on music.

A lot of audiophiles are more concentrated on their gear and its particular sound minor characteristics than on music itself
 
every headphone should adhere to the harmen curve and none should cost more than 200 dollars..case closed

EQ can get you there (Harman target below US$ 200)... that is if you believe the EQ you apply is the correct one to achieve just that.
Some IEM's may get you close (on specific test fixtures, not necessarily in one's ear) without EQ.
 
Maybe it is not only in the audio equipment where soundstage should be measured:

Sure, but that is a completely separate discussion. Its like saying we can't measure color performance of analog film or monitors because not all people have the same ability to see color.
 
Back
Top Bottom