Mad_Economist Canjam Presentation - These are the Dark Ages

[markanini]

I mean, ideally you'd start with a "well-scoring" target set and do some blind testing yourself - something analogous to Sean's IEM experiment where the Soundguys target and his new Harman IEM target were about tied, even though their FRs were the least similar in the test set.

Yeah, things have changed now that we have two validated IEM FR targets with equal statistical preference, even though they're substantially different. It's not necessarily a new paradigm for all audio reproduction. But until we have a third curve that scores higher in preference than H2019 and SoundGuys, we have to accept that there's a range of valid preferences.

 

[napfkuchen]

Headphones are just like people. They all differ and interact differently.

Reminds me of a quote from Dr. Spaceman when asked "Couldn't you inject s.th. right into his heart?"
"I'd love to. But we have no way of knowing where the heart is. See, every human is different!"

Like, if anything, my default recommendation to a person who bought headphones and has the patience to do some experimental EQ would be to start with Harman, then play with the shelf filters to get the general sound they want, then maybe get weird with peak filters if they thing there's something specifically bugging them.

Thanks. I think it is easy for the average user (me) to get lost in the recommendations available. This seems to be a reasonable approach. On the review thread for my new headphones (Sennheiser HD 800S) this was also recommended with the speculation added that maybe to much eq might harm this headphone's "spooky layering" (Amir's words in the verdict). Maybe also - at least to some extent - the music material (genre) you are listening to plays a part.

 

[InfiniteJester]

It is not the job of science to validate all the subjective perceptions and circumstance of all people. But it seems that a lot of people in this hobby want just that.

I mean, you could go on and on. Your perception of how a headphone sounds might significantly depend on the previous headphone you have been listening to for a week prior. That's something that will not show up in the frequency response. The psychoacoustic effects of loudness, the design, branding and marketing of the headphone. You broke up with your girlfriend, now the iem she gave you sounds terrible. Whatever.

But that's precisely why you have to have objective standards, to get rid of all that noise. Why are people afraid to do this? I just don't get it. Because the alternative "Trust me bro" is far worse than whatever flaws we could find with actual standards.

Every time I see someone assuming that humans are so gullible and influenced by circumstances, I'm reminded of this stellar arcticle:

Against Automaticity

An explanation of why tricks like priming, nudge, the placebo effect, social contagion, the “emotional inception” model of advertising, most “cognitive biases,” and any fiel…

carcinisation.com

 

[Sean Olive]

I don't know who this is "dark ages" for. It certainly doesn't represent my view of testing I do. We have a nicely lit road as far as I am concerned.

Sure, folks are making a mess out there with creating this and that target curve, on this and that fixture. If you are one looking for consensus between measurements, you won't get it for that reason.

This problem ultimately has no absolute solution because the music production has no standards. I have test clips which I am confident would invalidate some of the research. My sub-bass tracks for example, easily prove that distortions are audible and can override importance of frequency response. Have a headphone click and fall apart and listeners will absolutely knock it down regardless of frequency response. As a general rule, such tracks are under-represented even for frequency response tests.

With speakers, we have some of the above issues but I see no one complaining about dark ages there. Measurements help us get 2/3 of way there which is massively more than nothing. Some of the rest can be had with disciplined, subjective evaluation with proper protocol. Ultimately every playback system needs to have EQ and an enthusiasts needs to learn to use it to create tonality they want. Again, just like we have with speakers.

With speakers, we are there as far as desirability of flat anechoic response. We need the same objective graph and measurement setup for headphones and let the rest be solved per above. Having more than one answer to the same question is going to create the wild west where everyone does what they want.

I interpreted the Dark Ages as before the Harman Research but maybe I am biased and only hearing what I want to hear - like a YouTube reviewer

 

[Mad_Economist]

I interpreted the Dark Ages as before the Harman Research but maybe I am biased and only hearing what I want to hear - like a YouTube reviewer

I would say it's more that the Dark Ages are extent now in the form of folks who aren't engaging fully with your research. The time before the Harman research is more like the Stone Age in my opinion. Or, I suppose, in the metaphor of the seminar, the bronze age collapse.

 

[Sean Olive]

The short version of the presentation (IMO) is:
HP measurements and perceived sound don't always go hand in hand because of several factors.

• HP measurements on different fixtures give different squiggles for several reasons
• Human heads differ from that of the few 'standard' fixtures that are available
• Some fixtures are better suited than others for OE/IE measurements
• Seal and positioning matters both on fixtures as well as actual heads
• There is no single correct squiggly so any EQ based on a single squiggly also is not going to be 'perfect' either but can bring it closer to some chosen target on a specific fixture in a specific circumstance (which created the squiggle for that headphone). At least it can provide a starting point to work from.

Displaying tolerance bands is a good idea but only relevant to positional variances if only shown for that headphone (when displaying squiggles in various positions).
Displaying average tolerance bands is a good idea but only relevant to the particular fixture it is measured on and depending on personal circumstances could be worse than that.

Doing a review based on how it 'sounds' to a certain individual also is equally suspect as measurements are but at least measurements add some measured data, even if the measurements aren't coinciding with other measurements.

Headphones are just like people. They all differ and interact differently.
There still is no real standard nor will there ever be one for the above reasons. (There can only be one does not apply)
Science is fun to certain people, it might not be to others.
Science progresses. It is good to see progress in headphone (measurement) science but will not lead to consensus.
People need education but have to be 'open' for it.
When people have formed an opinion it might be hard to convince them to look at things in a different way.

I agree this does not invalidate Harman research but shows what was already shown in Harman research but is not highlighted enough.
The Harman target merely suits the majority of people, not all people.

Then there is the other issue that also can change the sound. The interaction between electrical output impedance of the source in combination with the electrical impedance of the headphone.
Then there is product variance (not all drivers are created equal).

This sounds right except two slight changes I would make
1. I would change electrical impedance to acoustic impedance -- that is what he discussed.
2. There is a standard -- the DF response (ITU/AES/). We know it's not a "real " standard.

 

[Sean Olive]

I would say it's more that the Dark Ages are extent now in the form of folks who aren't engaging fully with your research. The time before the Harman research is more like the Stone Age in my opinion. Or, I suppose, in the metaphor of the seminar, the bronze age collapse.

OK I need to review my ages which I think are being intermixed with each other .


Timeline of the Periods in History

• Stone Age: 3.3 million to 5,000 years ago.
• Bronze Age: 5,000 to 1,400 years ago (1,200 BC)
• Iron Age: 1,200 BC to 500 BC.
• Classical Era: 500 BC to 500 AD.
• Medieval Era: 500 AD to 1500 AD.
• Early Modern Era: 1500 AD to 1800 AD.
• Modern Era: 1800 AD to present

I keep hearing Dark Ages applied to where we are heading for the next 4 years but that has nothing to do with headphones science.

• The "Dark Ages" refers to a period in European history following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, typically considered to be between the 5th and 10th centuries, characterized by a perceived decline in culture, learning, and economic stability, often associated with a lack of written records and the dominance of the Catholic Church; while considered an outdated term by many historians, it is still sometimes used to describe this era of the Middle Ages.

 

[Mad_Economist]

OK I need to review my ages which I think are being intermixed with each other .


Timeline of the Periods in History

• Stone Age: 3.3 million to 5,000 years ago.
• Bronze Age: 5,000 to 1,400 years ago (1,200 BC)
• Iron Age: 1,200 BC to 500 BC.
• Classical Era: 500 BC to 500 AD.
• Medieval Era: 500 AD to 1500 AD.
• Early Modern Era: 1500 AD to 1800 AD.
• Modern Era: 1800 AD to present

I keep hearing Dark Ages applied to where we are heading for the next 4 years but that has nothing to do with headphones science.

• The "Dark Ages" refers to a period in European history following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, typically considered to be between the 5th and 10th centuries, characterized by a perceived decline in culture, learning, and economic stability, often associated with a lack of written records and the dominance of the Catholic Church; while considered an outdated term by many historians, it is still sometimes used to describe this era of the Middle Ages.

I suppose I spend too much time hanging out with history nerds, but the metaphoric progression I was going for there was that your work has essentially put us in the Classical Era, coming out of the...well, darkness is an obvious metaphor, but I guess I'm going to have to go with "paucity" of the prior work in headphones. From my POV, we're at risk of losing sight of the stuff we've gained under your empire (Ave Olive?), which is why I went with the title.

 

[AnalogSteph]

For the three data series taken from "A Statistical Model That Predicts Listeners' Preferences for Around-Ear and On-Ear Headphones", HP14 = HD600, HP20 = HD800, HP26 = DT990

I think you may have gotten HP14 and HP20 sdrawkcab there. Pretty sure the blue one around 27:00 is the HD800 and the yellow one is the HD600. (BTW, the latter has remained a fixture in the recording field for decades now, with no signs of going away. It is one of those classics that have really held up well. Fortunately Sennheiser eventually canned the fugly marble finish. Mine finally displaced my trusty HD590 from way back when.)

51:36 Holy sh...

 

[Mad_Economist]

I think you may have gotten HP14 and HP20 sdrawkcab there. Pretty sure the blue one around 27:00 is the HD800 and the yellow one is the HD600. (BTW, the latter has remained a fixture in the recording field for decades now, with no signs of going away. It is one of those classics that have really held up well. Fortunately Sennheiser eventually canned the fugly marble finish. Mine finally displaced my trusty HD590 from way back when.)

Correct you are, that's what happens when I edit posts too hastily!

 

[amirm]

I interpreted the Dark Ages as before the Harman Research but maybe I am biased and only hearing what I want to hear - like a YouTube reviewer

I read it the opposite way. That you were the bright spot and now folks are going in every direction without due diligence. I agree people are doing that but in no way or shape accept that we are in dark ages. A few youtubers trying to differentiate by creating their own random measurement criteria for headphone preference is unfortunate. But those of us following your research are not impacted. Not only that, we have seen the fruits of that last year with a handful of low cost IEMs complying with the target you developed has incredibly transformed sound reproduction for many people. The power of research is clear and present. To say it is dark ages makes no sense whatsoever. It is not like there is some edict that has ordered us to ignore your work and run around confused.

 

[solderdude]

This sounds right except two slight changes I would make
1. I would change electrical impedance to acoustic impedance -- that is what he discussed.
2. There is a standard -- the DF response (ITU/AES/). We know it's not a "real " standard.

I realize the electrical impedance was not part of the talk (so should not be in the summary of the talk) and was something I threw in there to emphasize there are also other aspects that can cause a discrepancy between measurements (regardless how accurate) and usage at home which can make a headphone sound (even drastically) different from a measurement.
The electrical impedance maybe, I assume, may be in the second talk ?
I threw in there and was about how a graph (taken with near 0 ohm source output) could sound different from the measurement if it were used on some higher impedance source such as interfaces, (OTL) tube amps, integrated amp outputs which can run up to several hundred ohm.

What I would like to see measured one day is to see the 'link' between the measured electrical impedance of a headphone/earphone (with a large electrical impedance swing) when measured on 2 fixtures with a large acoustical impedance difference.
I know the electrical impedance varies when you measure such a headphone in the open air versus on a fixture (which makes perfect sense) but wonder how big the influence is between 2 fixtures with a different acoustic impedance (say KU100 and 5128)

And yes I know there is a standard, the DF, as well as other (speaker) standards but don't think they are really applicable as a true standard for headphones.
Of course one can bombard it to a standard for headphones (for all types of fixtures/configs) and apply some tilting as target but that's not an official standard for headphone measurements. It might become one though.
Having one standard would be ideal. In that case we are out of the industrial ages at least when it comes to a standard but then still the question pops up what target to use. One that satisfies the majority (which makes sense) but would prefer tolerance bands to go with it to end the bickering we see now or will there still be pioneering audio cowboys that prefer another target.
The closest standard (IMO) would be the Harman one (on the custom pinna) but that seems to have been subject to changes due to an increase in insights.

Most bickering/discussion we see is not so much about the measurement standard (which fixture, which coupler, which pinnae) but rather about the target used.

Perhaps the 5128 could be used to make the standard on as the acoustic impedance is closest to that of 'the average human' until an even more accurate one is made for headphone measurements only ?
I guess that would have to be done by people who can register the fixture+target as a true headphone standard (the only one as DF is not really what happens with headphones let alone IEMs).

 

[Sean Olive]

I realize the electrical impedance was not part of the talk (so should not be in the summary of the talk) and was something I threw in there to emphasize there are also other aspects that can cause a discrepancy between measurements (regardless how accurate) and usage at home which can make a headphone sound (even drastically) different from a measurement.
The electrical impedance maybe, I assume, may be in the second talk ?
I threw in there and was about how a graph (taken with near 0 ohm source output) could sound different from the measurement if it were used on some higher impedance source such as interfaces, (OTL) tube amps, integrated amp outputs which can run up to several hundred ohm.

What I would like to see measured one day is to see the 'link' between the measured electrical impedance of a headphone/earphone (with a large electrical impedance swing) when measured on 2 fixtures with a large acoustical impedance difference.
I know the electrical impedance varies when you measure such a headphone in the open air versus on a fixture (which makes perfect sense) but wonder how big the influence is between 2 fixtures with a different acoustic impedance (say KU100 and 5128)

And yes I know there is a standard, the DF, as well as other (speaker) standards but don't think they are really applicable as a true standard for headphones.
Of course one can bombard it to a standard for headphones (for all types of fixtures/configs) and apply some tilting as target but that's not an official standard for headphone measurements. It might become one though.
Having one standard would be ideal. In that case we are out of the industrial ages at least when it comes to a standard but then still the question pops up what target to use. One that satisfies the majority (which makes sense) but would prefer tolerance bands to go with it to end the bickering we see now or will there still be pioneering audio cowboys that prefer another target.
The closest standard (IMO) would be the Harman one (on the custom pinna) but that seems to have been subject to changes due to an increase in insights.

Most bickering/discussion we see is not so much about the measurement standard (which fixture, which coupler, which pinnae) but rather about the target used.

Perhaps the 5128 could be used to make the standard on as the acoustic impedance is closest to that of 'the average human' until an even more accurate one is made for headphone measurements only ?
I guess that would have to be done by people who can register the fixture+target as a true headphone standard (the only one as DF is not really what happens with headphones let alone IEMs).

I replaced my relatively high output impedance RME UCX with a low output impedance RME ADI 2/4 Pro SE after measuring the TruthEar IEM which has relatively low impedance in the bass causing a peak in the bass response . This is a case where buying a good cheap headphone didn’t save me any money in the end.

 

[solderdude]

Some headphones react quite a lot to a higher output Z, some do not change tonality at all.
One of the worst offenders in OE headphones are the Focals
Below the Focal Clear (OG) driven from 0.2Ω and 120Ω

Imagine buying a Focal having heard it in a shop and then connecting it to an AVR or integrated amp with 300Ω output Z because the headphone out is just the speaker amp with a resistor in series.
The UCX is 'merely' 30Ω...

 

[Roland301]

By dint of anecdote, a number of high-Z closed designs have reports like this. This includes both cheap designs like the K371 and expensive ones like the Stealth. This is something I'd like to thoroughly document in a test which monitors real time in situ FR on human heads using dual channel FFTs, but I don't expect there to be any big surprises: the likely result is "people who dislike the Stealth/Expanse/371/K550/etc are getting different in-situ response than the mannequin response".

I recently bought an Aeon Closed X and I can add my own anecdote to this..

I noticed that the channel balance sounded a little off to me... but when I measured the drivers in free field I found that they were actually very well matched.
Thus I think it is likely positioning and physical asymmetry causing the difference.

I also did not like any of the EQ adjustments I tried making based on GRAS measurements, although I think the stock response sounds fine enough.