Is there any way to objectively measure headphone resolution?

[Feelas]

That's the beauty of software eq rather than physical mods or ludicrous hardware alchemy. Quick to on/off and infinitely variable.

Wouldn't you rather be romantic at night, and, I don't know, roll some triodes?

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

Wouldn't you rather be romantic at night, and, I don't know, roll some triodes?

Smooth operator!

 

[BDWoody]

Yes, and? You're actually contradicting yourself, since you bothered to write 3-5kHz and yet now linking that typical ear canal resonance is 2-4kHz. Well... And actually, that'd mean that DF/FF targets should be even higher, because the measurements were probably taken with blocked ear-canal, instead of at eardrum. Even so, it'd be unnecessary to apply the ear resonance, when applying personalized HpTF it should take the ear resonance level into account & not force this bump to happen.

View attachment 96377
Please don't try if you're not going to bother discussing, merely using half-truths. Actually ear resonance isn't merely 3-5kHz, it's a moving target .I believe I read it somewhere on Sean Olive's blog that there was a study noticing VERY high variance between subjects in ear resonance frequency.

So NO, if you are willing to suggest to anyone that they have broken ears, get your facts straight first, asshole. Either start behaving or I'll merely ignore anything you say. Maybe contribute something else than just some unfirm opinions, which don't get us anything further.

We don't talk to each other like that here.
Watch the language and the rush to take offense.

If you want to ignore someone, just do it. No need for a lecture beforehand.

You've been here a week, maybe settle in.

 

[amirm]

So NO, if you are willing to suggest to anyone that they have broken ears, get your facts straight first, asshole.

Hey, hey, hey! We don't speak like this in this forum. This is a professional site. Keep your disagreements to technical points and for sure don't use foul language. Next warning will be formal.

 

[Feelas]

Hey, hey, hey! We don't speak like this in this forum. This is a professional site. Keep your disagreements to technical points and for sure don't use foul language. Next warning will be formal.

That's all understood, still mentioning that anyone disagreeing must have deficient hearing (and having nothing to show for that) isn't nice either. Worded differently, yes, but nicer? Na. All in all, got it, your place.

 

[100rounddrum]

Yes, and? You're actually contradicting yourself, since you bothered to write 3-5kHz and yet now linking that typical ear canal resonance is 2-4kHz. Well... And actually, that'd mean that DF/FF targets should be even higher, because the measurements were probably taken with blocked ear-canal, instead of at eardrum. Even so, it'd be unnecessary to apply the ear resonance, when applying personalized HpTF it should take the ear resonance level into account & not force this bump to happen.

View attachment 96377
Please don't try if you're not going to bother discussing, merely using half-truths. Actually ear resonance isn't merely 3-5kHz, it's a moving target .I believe I read it somewhere on Sean Olive's blog that there was a study noticing VERY high variance between subjects in ear resonance frequency.

So NO, if you are willing to suggest to anyone that they have broken ears, get your facts straight first, asshole. Either start behaving or I'll merely ignore anything you say. Maybe contribute something else than just some unfirm opinions, which don't get us anything further.

Stick your distorted harsh sounding AKGs down your graphs you have printed out and are worshipping.

 

[okok]

price

 

[Feelas]

Stick your distorted harsh sounding AKGs down your graphs you have printed out and are worshipping.

Well, you don't actually have to listen to them, so what's the problem? If it doesn't work for you, that's okay.

Nobody wants to make everyone obey Harman, it's just that for most people it works, even if they're not hearing-deficient. I think it was well-established in the topic that a universal curve is almost impossible to get. And yet it's standard fare to mention that both FF and DF targets aren't close to reality.

 

[BDWoody]

Stick your distorted harsh sounding AKGs down your graphs you have printed out and are worshipping.

You need to watch your tone a bit. It's like you are trying to start a bar fight.
Take it back a notch please.

 

[Robin L]

Because of ASR and Solderdude's DIY Audio Heaven website, I've got a new headphone system. I noticed that the DAC and headphone amp have distortion levels that, in theory, would have no audible impact on the sound. That would be the Topping E/L 30 pair. The source is a mini flash drive full of Apple lossless files plugged into a cheap laptop. This is all complicated by the use of the APO EQ, enabling me to jack up the bottom octaves beyond taste or reason. Good for the Material track I'm listening to now. The biggest variable is the headphones. I'm using Drop 6XX 'phones now, will be getting Philips X2 HR headphones later in the week.

About 30 years ago, I was using Stax earspeakers, and in between I've had lots of different headsets, all sorts. The Stax were the best for the subjective sense of "resolution", but there is a quandary in that the sources available at the time were not high resolution. Back then, my LP playback gear was pretty good but far from the best, and [as we all should know by now] the LP format is all over the place as regards sound quality and, in the case of used LPs, wear. At the same time, digital gear was, on average, pretty crappy at the time. So I don't really know how good the Stax headphone/amplifier combo is compared to what I'm listening to now. The upper registers via the 6XXs seem a touch muted, but I have to wonder how much of my expectation of more 'grip' in the treble is based on listening to distorted sources. I am hearing the sorts of things subjectively described as more voices, more musical lines, more 'inner detail'. I am not hearing a lot of the congestion I recall from playing tracks previously. A lot of those memories are from LP sources, so a lot of what I recall is obvious distortion. "The Chain" and "Go Your Own Way" from Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" are good examples, both wandering into clipping on peaks in the LP playback, sounding congested on top during the vocal peaks on CD playback from years ago, open, clear and harmonious playing from my rip or from Amazon music.

"Resolution" in audio is not as definite a term as it is in video. Get close enough to the screen and it's easy to see how the difference in measurable levels of resolution affect the image quality. But do the same with audio and a 'lower resolution' recording, and the real difference usually turns out to be a difference in mixing or mastering, not a jump in the amount of data per second.

Maybe "resolution" is a red herring.

 

[Robbo99999]

I just realized something. As far as I know, the only sources indicating that some headphones have greater resolution / detail retrieval than others are subjective reviews. Oftentimes from the same people who would have you believe in benefits of multi-thousand $ cables, 192+ kHz audio and other such nonsense.

My question is... Perhaps, just perhaps, might it be possible that the differences in resolution between various headphones are also mostly imagined? The fact that headphone blind testing is complicated to say at least only adds to my concerns.

What objective proof do I have that something like a Stax SR009/S, an Abyss Phi TC or a Raal SR-1A have greater resolution than something like this: https://drop.com/buy/drop-hifiman-he4xx-planar-magnetic-headphones ?

Anything other then ''I compared them myself and heard a clear difference'', because as we know, in the world of audio, people swear to hear all kinds of differences which objective measurements prove to be imaginary.

(Just found this thread). In my experience with EQ'ing different headphones, it is frequency response that is the major factor in "resolution", if you're referring to "resolution" as meaning the ability to seperate out the different elements of the music, allowing you to follow the bass line along with the other elements/instruments. This is from me trying different EQ's based on different headphone measurements (different measurement sources), along with comparing stock vs EQ'd in terms of noticing the sound difference and comparing that to what the frequency response graph looks like when stock & EQ'd. I think Frequency Response is the biggest factor when it comes to your "resolution".

Independant of frequency response, I also think that the actual headphone itself will influence the "resolution" you hear, because I've tried EQ'ing 3 different headphones to the same curve, and they all sound a little different although broadly similar in tone....but it's true some have better "resolution" than others in my experience.

So in conclusion I'd say "resolution" of a headphone is primarily down to Frequency Response, and then secondly down to other "headphone qualities" that differ from model to model....this might be things like distortion and pinna activation, as a semi-educated intuition.

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

(Just found this thread). In my experience with EQ'ing different headphones, it is frequency response that is the major factor in "resolution", if you're referring to "resolution" as meaning the ability to seperate out the different elements of the music, allowing you to follow the bass line along with the other elements/instruments. This is from me trying different EQ's from different headphone measurements (different measurement sources), along with comparing stock vs EQ'd in terms of noticing the sound difference and comparing that to what the frequency response graph looks like when stock & EQ'd. I think Frequency Response is the biggest factor when it comes to your "resolution".

I also think that the actual headphone itself will influence the "resolution" you hear, because I've tried EQ'ing 3 different headphones to the same curve, and they all sound a little different although broadly similar in tone....but it's true some have better "resolution" than others in my experience.

So in conclusion I'd say "resolution" of a headphone is primarily down to Frequency Response, and then secondly down to other "headphone qualities" that differ from model to model....this might be things like distortion and pinna activation, as a semi-educated intuition.

Which is what Olive says.

 

[Feelas]

"Resolution" in audio is not as definite a term as it is in video. Get close enough to the screen and it's easy to see how the difference in measurable levels of resolution affect the image quality. But do the same with audio and a 'lower resolution' recording, and the real difference usually turns out to be a difference in mixing or mastering, not a jump in the amount of data per second.

Maybe "resolution" is a red herring.

Couldn't agree more. This is especially problematic since, for example, there are numerous stereo recording techniques and they don't give the same results, stuff can go out of sync pretty fast. With resolution it's actually easy, but it even works for colours - just take a colorimeter and you can measure how far it deviates from the reference color. I think we could easily attribute it to audio being a much more problematic topic with so much stuff happening in brain, in non-objective ways; although I've seen papers regarding computerized distance perception, so you know, it maybe isn't that far after all.

Yet even if we have Smyth Realizer with all the tricky data processing, I don't think there's a push to show it all to people. Marketing works better with snake-oil cables.

 

[MayaTlab]

(Just found this thread).
Independant of frequency response, I also think that the actual headphone itself will influence the "resolution" you hear, because I've tried EQ'ing 3 different headphones to the same curve, and they all sound a little different although broadly similar in tone....but it's true some have better "resolution" than others in my experience.

So in conclusion I'd say "resolution" of a headphone is primarily down to Frequency Response, and then secondly down to other "headphone qualities" that differ from model to model....this might be things like distortion and pinna activation, as a semi-educated intuition.

The problem might simply be that two models that are equalised to the same target on one specific fixture will not have the same FR curve at your own tympani when mounted on your own head, or am I wrong ? The way they interact with your own anatomy may introduce differences that the test fixture wouldn't have had.
So even if you EQ two headphones according to, let's say, the Harman target based on Oratory1990's measurements and corrections, are you sure that at your tympani you're really getting that exact same FR curve ?
Distortion has repeatedly been shown to be a trivial problem once it's low enough.

 

[solderdude]

The problem might simply be that two models that are equalised to the same target on one specific fixture will not have the same FR curve at your own tympani when mounted on your own head, or am I wrong ? The way they interact with your own anatomy may introduce differences that the test fixture wouldn't have had.
So even if you EQ two headphones according to, let's say, the Harman target based on Oratory1990's measurements and corrections, are you sure that at your tympani you're really getting that exact same FR curve ?
Distortion has repeatedly been shown to be a trivial problem once it's low enough.

That is exactly what is happening. When you use EQ based on HATS one it will not measure flat on another test rig (HATS or not) and also not on your or my ears.
What it can do is get the overall response closer to 'neutral' or 'a target'.

For this reason I am a strong proponent of looking at various plots on various systems. Look for commonalities (there always are) and then EQ only the 'concensus' (and not the sharp dips/peaks) and EQ will be fairly accurate.

There is no single test rig that is 'accurate' to my, your or anyone's ears. No matter how much money is spent on the rig and how much one wants to believe the one they bought is the most accurate one. Those that did, I am sure will have to believe theirs is THE best.

 

[Robbo99999]

The problem might simply be that two models that are equalised to the same target on one specific fixture will not have the same FR curve at your own tympani when mounted on your own head, or am I wrong ? The way they interact with your own anatomy may introduce differences that the test fixture wouldn't have had.
So even if you EQ two headphones according to, let's say, the Harman target based on Oratory1990's measurements and corrections, are you sure that at your tympani you're really getting that exact same FR curve ?
Distortion has repeatedly been shown to be a trivial problem once it's low enough.

Yes, I agree with what you're saying there, I'm familiar with that theory....that's certainly a variable in the equation too.

 

[Feelas]

Since we're talking a lot about FR here, I just came up with the idea that assessing the relation (or lack thereof) between FR defects and perceived heightened/lowered emotionality of music could be interesting. Either I'm overthinking this thing (due to, if for instance, brain was able to fill back the fundamentals missing from heard harmonics).
Look:

Having just an "innocent" hump pretty much anywhere could upset the delicate balance of chord notes. You'll have a different chord if, for instance, CEGB chord suddenly turns into EGB due to masking. I wonder if (with the real articulation and real musical material) having a bump or hole of 3-6dB height can upset the perceived emotional balance of whole piece. After all, the relative loudness range between players is always much lower than the effective SNR of a whole piece.

Going further, it'd not be entirely a matter of "preference curve", but a sole matter of ultimate consideration to pursue the most accurate curve possible, both in recording and in playback. If (and I just say IF) emotion could be gone just because of some technical matters being put to play (and not ones that are easy to notice), then it'd be a very sad situation.

If anybody encountered any real papers about the topic (and I believe it'd be uncommon for such obvious things to not be researched at least once), please tell me!

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Manufacturers like Hifiman improve his planar magnetics by reducing the weight, with the hifiman 4** series they have nice measurements and a par with something like the he1000, but the sundara already reduce the thinness of the driver in comparasion to 4** series, the ananda is even lighter, the he1000 reduce the thinness too, susvara the same thing
But in measurements this kind of stuff doesn't show properly, why? the difference in measurements of 400i and he1000 aren't as obvious as if you hear them, he1000 is clearly superior. No one in the planet (?) think the 400i is in the same level of he4** even with EQ

 

[bobbooo]

Manufacturers like Hifiman improve his planar magnetics by reducing the weight, with the hifiman 4** series they have nice measurements and a par with something like the he1000, but the sundara already reduce the thinness of the driver in comparasion to 4** series, the ananda is even lighter, the he1000 reduce the thinness too, susvara the same thing
But in measurements this kind of stuff doesn't show properly, why? the difference in measurements of 400i and he1000 aren't as obvious as if you hear them, he1000 is clearly superior. No one in the planet (?) think the 400i is in the same level of he4** even with EQ
View attachment 104243

You're succumbing to flowery marketing hyperbole. Just take a minute to think about what sound actually is and what a transducer is physically doing to produce it.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

You're succumbing to flowery marketing hyperbole. Just take a minute to think about what sound actually is and what a transducer is physically doing to produce it.

OK.