"Bias" of some members towards headphone measurements?

[Axo1989]

I believe that if Lord Vader was an audiophile his living room would look such as this…

Hopefully melamine foam can be ordered in anthracite (or just basic black)?

 

[Axo1989]

Yes I do. What do you think fits better a tailored suit or a two sizes fits all?

I guess it depends on the use. I was thinking all this time about the use of room characteristics when seeking excellence in high end audio in a world where so much care and objective measurement goes into speaker design

Of course it is not valuable if you seek excellence, but the debate was about what "normal" meant and whether the term was useful or not.

Not about normal being the requirement for excellence.

I recall asking here about the room dimensions assumed by the CEA-2034 and IEC etc protocols used for Klippel NFS measurement/analysis, but so far the somewhat vague response has been that it's based on a range of rooms. Obviously once the near-field scan is undertaken, characteristics of reflected sound can (theoretically) be calculated for any room size and/or absorption characteristics, I'd guess.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I recall asking here about the room dimensions assumed by the CEA-2034 and IEC etc protocols used for Klippel NFS measurement/analysis, but so far the somewhat vague response has been that it's based on a range of rooms. Obviously once the near-field scan is undertaken, characteristics of reflected sound can (theoretically) be calculated for any room size and/or absorption characteristics, I'd guess.

I could be wrong, but based on some conversations with JJ when I was doing my rebuild he seemed to be saying room acoustics in real life are too complicated to accurately predict this way. Ya gotta measure

 

[Axo1989]

Architects probably won’t have much to add.

Ethan Winer is an expert on room acoustics but he left the forum in disgust after some less than cordial exchanges with a few forum regulars over the merits of side wall reflections

And since this is a thread about ASR biases. IMO that fall out with Ethan highlighted THE prime ASR bias. If Dr. Toole says it, it becomes dogma.

JJ knows a lot about room acoustics. Does someone want to invite him to the discussion?

Haha, more dialectics, less dialectrics?

 

[pablolie]

Yeah I was asking what the poster was referring to by that. But it seems that and other questions such as "who exactly on here doesn't believe in soundstage" shall remain unanswered.

The soundstage thing also has been answered about several thousand times. Yawn to that.

 

[kemmler3D]

The bias I see permeating around here at ASR is that it's Science VS everything else. not necessarily in the reviews, but within the forum. Pitting Science against all other forms of knowing and saying this isn't biased is a painfully, clearly, obviously biased position to take - called Scientism.

Yeah, well... this is Audio Science Review... if it wasn't heavily biased toward science that would be odd. Communicating about sound quality using primarily non-scientific ideas has proved very detrimental to the industry and consumers over the past 30 years or so.

I'm not one of those people that will argue it's inappropriate and worthless to speak subjectively about audio, but I will argue that there is still a dearth of scientific thinking in the consumer audio world, and the pendulum has not swung nearly far enough toward scientific / quantitative rigor and away from magical thinking and self-delusion. Maybe someday, but not yet.

Until people like Mark Levinson and Rob Watts are laughed off the internet instead of idolized for spouting their brand of nonsense, we should ask for more science, not less.

Also, it's worth noting that recorded audio is a completely quantifiable entity until it hits the loudspeaker, and even after that we can do pretty well with Klippel and other measurements. The idea that we might prefer non-quantitative modes of analysis of audio electronics is like wanting reviews of CPUs or GPUs without any benchmarks. You can tell me the framerate looked high or "silky smooth" or whatever, but we'll all save time if you just tell me what the framerate WAS.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Until people like Mark Levinson and Rob Watts are laughed off the internet instead of idolized for spouting their brand of nonsense, we should ask for more science, not less.

And those guys don’t even make my top 10 most wanted list

 

[Dazerdoreal]

I would not say that I argue for "less science" in my OP. I think being realistic about the limits of the conclusions which be drawn out of measurements for the individual listening experience is actually very scientific in a certain way.

 

[kemmler3D]

I would not say that I argue for "less science" in my OP. I think being realistic about the limits of the conclusions which be drawn out of measurements for the individual listening experience is actually very scientific in a certain way.

I actually don't disagree that much here, but I would say... I think it's easy to underestimate how multi-dimensional the subjective impact of relatively small changes in FR can be. I spent a few weeks at my previous job tuning headphones by ear (and also with microphones) by tweaking EQ curves.

The difference between "A refined sense of detail" and "Piercing, unpleasant" can be moving a 2dB peak from 6khz to 4khz, for example. It doesn't take much movement in FR to move one's opinion. And you don't always experience these changes in a simple way. The subjective experience tends to feel more complex and multi-faceted than what you do to the FR.

But then again, it's really hard to pick that up from looking at graphs if looking at graphs isn't your full time job. So I do think the information is in there, but it also depends entirely on your personal experience reading that type of data and relating it to your own experiences.

 

[usern]

I spent a few weeks at my previous job tuning headphones by ear (and also with microphones) by tweaking EQ curves.

Which gave better result?

 

[kemmler3D]

Which gave better result?

Since we weren't going for a certain target curve but rather an "expensive" sound similar to a competitor's, I think both were needed. But realistically I should have spent more time using the test jig, in retrospect. On the other hand, I got a lot of experience in tweaking headphones, so that's nice.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I actually don't disagree that much here, but I would say... I think it's easy to underestimate how multi-dimensional the subjective impact of relatively small changes in FR can be. I spent a few weeks at my previous job tuning headphones by ear (and also with microphones) by tweaking EQ curves.

The difference between "A refined sense of detail" and "Piercing, unpleasant" can be moving a 2dB peak from 6khz to 4khz, for example. It doesn't take much movement in FR to move one's opinion.

But then again, it's really hard to pick that up from looking at graphs if looking at graphs isn't your full time job. So I do think the information is in there, but it also depends entirely on your personal experience reading that type of data and relating it to your own experiences.

Yes some long experience with various room eq devices now going back 20 years gave me similar ideas. Some friends would ask to tune response to taste for them.

You learn small changes here and there can push soundstage around, enhance detail or give more space and air. The changes are not large once you learn to make them.

 

[krabapple]

Yes, I noticed that he is quoted on the same way that people quotes the bible.

He is misquoted fairly often too; nuance gets lost. He wrote a 'bible' on the topic of speakers in rooms, synthesizing decades of published literature and experience. In said book, you'll find, for example, diagrams showing...room treatments. Which some claim Toole is 'against'.

Big misconceptions come from people not realizing that Toole is starting from a spectrum of listener experience preference, with 'detail' on one end and 'envelopment' on the other. Based on research saying that the typical person highly values audio envelopment --as opposed to, say, the professional sound engineer who needs to hear every detail in a mix-- and it also being his own preference (he's a fan of upmixing 'stereo'), he aims much of his advice towards achieving that -- and not in a dedicated listening room like we nerds favor, but in a 'normal' living space like his own family room, and not necessarily listening alone like your classic ' audiophile'. So, get speakers that perform well on and off axis. Don't (over)treat first reflections. Explore surround sound and consider upmixing. Invest in good bass management. With good tonal balance over a few seats and envelopment as goals, you may not *need* purpose-built treaments beyond what you can achieve with normal furnishing and layout -- and bass management. His family room doesn't have any obvious treatment product; his system is a surround setup with SOTA multi-subwoofer bass management (so, he obviously isn't anti-'room eq' DSP either, as some claim). His main speakers are placed upside down! All based on sensible science. But,for a dedicated home theater, you will see him suggesting room treatments.

IOW, to my mind, his suggestions are all science based but aren't necessarily aimed at 'audiophiles' like us ....whose preferences often run more toward the 'etched details' side, scrutinizing audio alone from the MLP. But if that's what you want, he knows how to get you there, too. You can glean it from his book.

He's respected because he's a trained EE who worked for two renowned nexuses of audio research (Canada's NRC, and Harman-Kardon/JBL) , published his own seminal basic research on loudspeaker preference as well as review papers, and has forgotten more about home audio than most of us will ever learn in the first place.

Ethan Winer's a nice guy, but not in the same class as an audio scientist/expert on room acoustics. He's a cellist who got very into absorptive room treatments and made a business out of them. His listening room is virtually coated in them. Like lots of autodidact hobbyists he has developed some strong views about what's 'right'...whether science backs it up or not.

 

[mps]

There is a reason that even at ASR, Amir includes listening tests for headphones. Not everything that can affect sound is captured by the headphone measurements. Also, the Harman Curve is a statistical measure of personal preference (unlike DAC measurements, which measure transparency). Your preferred curve may be different.

 

[Tell]

The bias towards measurements is fine and all because they show exactly what they're showing. The problem is though when talking electronics is that some people still chases the higher numbers even though there's no point in doing that. A difference between 110dB and 120dB SINAD, 0.3dB less frequency response deviation at 20khz etc is not audible. Even going as low as 60dB in SINAD will in most cases sound _exactly_ the same as something with 120dB SINAD.
So yeah I'd say measurements are generally quite overrated, but it's still not nearly as overrated as any subjective things people might say they're hearing.

 

[krabapple]

There is a reason that even at ASR, Amir includes listening tests for headphones. Not everything that can affect sound is captured by the headphone measurements.

Like what?

Also, the Harman Curve is a statistical measure of personal preference (unlike DAC measurements, which measure transparency). Your preferred curve may be different.

This is the real reason.

 

[Jaxx1138]

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.

The Harman target curve only gives a data point which is all subjective and preference based. It is useful but it is just a starting point not the final answer to what headphones might need in order to sound balanced in their timbre. What we need is a reliable repeatable metric for headphones. One that that equates to a good loudspeaker with a flat free field FR , with good directivity, low distortion (both linear and nonlinear) and relatively good time domain characteristics all in a good listening room. Because that is the reference. That is how music recorded professionally is made (for the most part). If we don't know what the response is supposed to look like, then we are just playing target practice in the dark with our current metrics on headphones. I am arguing that what we are doing is not following a good scientific protocol. An objective metric would measure the headphone/earphone and not a humans anatomical hearing apparatus. These acoustical filters are blurring the picture. I believe that we need to look into changing that with new industry standards for how we go about measuring headphones. With a goal of looking at the acoustic performance of the headphone in a purely objective manner and eliminate the variables (HRTF'S). If we want to study binaural effects, then let's do that. But if we want to study how headphones operate and preform then let's focus on that.

 

[solderdude]

Measuring according to a standard is one thing.
Measurements can be done correctly and incorrectly and have a certain accuracy.
Addition of target curves is another thing.
Proper assesment of measurements is another thing. This might require expert knowledge.
Then there is the discrepancy between measurements and the person that is listening.

Harman is fine. It is based on valid research and the majority (so not everyone) seems to prefer it.
This requires measurements according to standards. Those measurements can be done correctly and incorrectly.

We can have yet another standard but don't see how that would help or give progress.

 

[Jaxx1138]

Measuring according to a standard is one thing.
Measurements can be done correctly and incorrectly and have a certain accuracy.
Addition of target curves is another thing.
Proper assesment of measurements is another thing. This might require expert knowledge.
Then there is the discrepancy between measurements and the person that is listening.

Harman is fine. It is based on valid research and the majority (so not everyone) seems to prefer it.
This requires measurements according to standards. Those measurements can be done correctly and incorrectly.

We can have yet another standard but don't see how that would help or give progress.

Are loudspeakers measured with a HATS apparatus? Like in Klippel NFS...... (Not that I am aware of) . Is this wrong??? So for a objective evaluation a loudspeaker we don't want to use a HATS. But for headphones we do? Can you list the scientific reasons why an pinna acoustic filter is required for a headphone objective metric? I am oversimplifying but this still applies generally.

 

[Miguelón]

Well, if we’re introducing subjective points of view, or at least physiological ones…

I think flat FR and smooth directivity is a good point to start, because being able to identify slight differences from what is smooth and flat (as we can see easily a ‘bump’ or a spike in a smooth curve, or if a straight line is “bended” at any section.

From flat response one can easily transform in a V shape pattern just by a couple of dB LS and HS.

Good directivity is also a good thing, if one want control that room response to be regular and smooth. Again from that, enhancing one region or attenuating of some other by 2 or 3 (negative or positive) dB is easy.

Poor directivity and bizarre FR curve makes kind of a tyranny: transform into a desired curve is way more difficult and poorer resutls.

And even more, to find your golden speakers or headphones you have to try theoretically all in the market…

That is why I’m grateful to ASR: otherwise I would became again the poor guy that tired from one commercial gear, goes to another and starting again…

Now I can concentrate better in learning EQ and extending a little bit my monitors in bass region, but I know that different brand or buying another pre-amp will not give better music.