-
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!
HD58X frequency response investigation
- Thread starter Graph Feppar
- Start date
It doesn't make much sense to compare a local minimum to a local maximum like that. Comparing peaks and dips to 1 kHz (granted 1 kHz isn't located in a peak/dip itself) would give you a better idea of how bad the colourations really are. But yes, they do have a bit too much energy around 10 kHz, which is also noted in the review:
solderdude
Grand Contributor
The +6dB around 10kHz in this measurement is caused by very little Pinna activation and thus is not 'corrected' as much giving a different plot than what it does in reality.
The same happens with the HD660S.
(look at the 'soundstage' plot)
Last edited:
thomasjast
Active Member
It's neat that RTINGS is saying they're better than any HD600 series headphone for critical listening. That should get some conversations going!
If you only look at their FR graph, so yes, this is the most neutral HD5/6XX to date (in their book).
Why are Audioheaven and Rtings frequency response so different?
A hundred reasons: different method, instrumentation, scale, errors etc.
Then, I don't think both are "so" different and the overall shape of the avg curve is slightly similar.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Because Rtings uses their own compensation curve (this is why the bass differs) and uses a Pinna and ear canal
The effect of that is later on compensated to produce the graphs.
The 'problem' is that the used correction is not the same for each headphone (yet 1 compensation is applied) and this causes the FR to differ.
Audioheaven uses no Pinna and ear canal that later on need to be compensated so the output of the driver is what is measured.
There is a small error there too because of a lack of Pinna.
Also my 'bass correction' is not nearly as severe and steep as that of Rtings, Sonarworks.
Apples and pears in methodology.
The bass roll-off differs because Rtings wants bass to be 'louder' to sound realistic (think Olive-Welti) where I find that a tad too much.
The area between 3kHz and 8kHz differs because of Pinna gain (check out the soundstage plot which shows the differences between with and without pinna measurements and the 10kHz peaks because the 'correction' they apply is based on headphones showing a dip there (because of the Pinna) but as that dip depends on Pinna activation (which differs between headphones) the PLOT shows a peak.
A 10kHz peak I do not hear nor measure.
The S-T thing I do hear but when one uses EQ it orginates from 5-6kHz which, due to the applied correction is 'over corrected' and not visible but is visible when the driver output is measured (and ultimately this is what we hear) The Pinna and ear canal is already 'compensated for by the brain'.
So yes, there are similarities but also differences due to the measurement method.
Pick your poison.
The effect of that is later on compensated to produce the graphs.
The 'problem' is that the used correction is not the same for each headphone (yet 1 compensation is applied) and this causes the FR to differ.
Audioheaven uses no Pinna and ear canal that later on need to be compensated so the output of the driver is what is measured.
There is a small error there too because of a lack of Pinna.
Also my 'bass correction' is not nearly as severe and steep as that of Rtings, Sonarworks.
Apples and pears in methodology.
The bass roll-off differs because Rtings wants bass to be 'louder' to sound realistic (think Olive-Welti) where I find that a tad too much.
The area between 3kHz and 8kHz differs because of Pinna gain (check out the soundstage plot which shows the differences between with and without pinna measurements and the 10kHz peaks because the 'correction' they apply is based on headphones showing a dip there (because of the Pinna) but as that dip depends on Pinna activation (which differs between headphones) the PLOT shows a peak.
A 10kHz peak I do not hear nor measure.
The S-T thing I do hear but when one uses EQ it orginates from 5-6kHz which, due to the applied correction is 'over corrected' and not visible but is visible when the driver output is measured (and ultimately this is what we hear) The Pinna and ear canal is already 'compensated for by the brain'.
So yes, there are similarities but also differences due to the measurement method.
Pick your poison.
As far as I'm concerned, I chose both.
Last edited:
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Both measurements show excellent performance when it comes to tonal balance.
Sure. I waited for RTINGS review, in addition to yours, to make me decide. I'm going to order the 58X in the next few days!
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 507
- Likes
- 747
Somehow, Rtings methodology produces results that line up pretty well with my subjective impressions. My 3 favorite (owned) open backs are the HD58X, DT 1990 Pro and LCD2C, which occupy spots 7, 9 and 10 on their top sounding open backs. I prefer my HD58X to the HD600 that I used to own for its better bass extension and less shouty mids, which the Rtings frequency response measurements confirm.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 507
- Likes
- 747
I just did, and I like it so far. Cymbals on the stock HD58X sound just a little too splashy/hazy. Applying mild adjustments guided by the Rtings treble measurements (along with @solderdude 's bass and midrange measurements) has helped.
- Low Shelf 30Hz Q1 +1dB
- Peak 57Hz Q3 +1dB
- Peak 100Hz Q0.5 -1dB
- Peak 2200Hz Q3 +1dB
- Peak 4500Hz Q6 +2dB
- Peak 5500Hz Q7 +3dB
- Peak 8100Hz Q5 +2dB
- Peak 10000Hz Q4 -2dB
... here is what their current avarage profile from SW Ref 4 suggest for HD 58X
Mmm... Well, to my ears HD 6XX is definitely closer to ideal than HD 58X. Since these are relatively close to each others, I really wouldn't be surprised if different ear shape could swing things to favour one over one. Though, even if both had the same frequency response I'd prefer HD 6XX.
Maybe the absolute sweet spot frequency response curve would be right between HD 6XX and HD 58X for mids and up. HD 58X sounds boomiert to my ears so bottom end is a bit different story.
Maybe the absolute sweet spot frequency response curve would be right between HD 6XX and HD 58X for mids and up. HD 58X sounds boomiert to my ears so bottom end is a bit different story.
Finally ordered mine from EU stock. 199€ shipped with obviously no tax/custom fees. The package arrived this morning (only 2 days from the order!
) For now, I must say these sound fairly balanced. Way smoother in the mids/highs than my K712 Pro, with a narrower but accurate soundstage. However, clamping force is indeed an issue. I will follow @solderdude tips.
thomasjast
Active Member
It’s funny, I went the opposite way and couldn’t use the 58X after liking the AKGs’ sound so much. But, contrary to most people, I found the 58X to be more comfortable and consistent to wear.
Glad you like them! Clamping force is easy to fix.
Fixed! Now, it's pretty confortable to wear, even with glasses!
I guess the main "issue" with my K712 was the little peak at 2Khz. Also, these are more power hungry headphones. I had to crank up the volume, as I like to listening loud... And found these a bit "harsher" than the 58X at high volumes. The other problem is the big rounded pads: depending of the positioning on the head/ears, the response may change slightly. The shape of the 58X pads gives more FR consistency, in my opinion. I find both to have similar confort once you deal with the 58X clamping force.
At last, build quality of K712 seems better, although neither are particularly remarkable on that point.
PS: It's very hard to write about headphones with my English. Main reason: I have to deal with the plural/singular all the time. In French, the word for headphones is singular: un casque (litteraly: a helmet), because it's a single thing attached. Earphones/earbuds are plural, though: des écouteurs, des intras, because these are separate units.
Last edited:
