Master Complaint Thread About Headphone Measurements

[oversky]

Been waiting for the test since January.

https://is.gd/8Q3VHF

Porta pro has been kindly donated so look for that test soon...

 

[AluminiumEar]

Is there any measurements comparison about a power hungry headphone with/without amplifier?

Especially frequency response and distortion, i'd like to see how big difference it is

 

[solderdude]

As long as the amplifier section does not clip, nor distort sustantially and has a flat frequency response there are absolutely no measurable differences.

The issue in general is clipping (voltage or current) which adds distortion that, on its onset, isn't as audible as most folks think it is but results in perceived lacking of bass and overall lessening of sound quality. Not dissimilar to 'loudness war' sound.

 

[frix]

Just out of curiousity. How much time is spend listening to a headphone in those reviews? Is there a fixed methodology and a playlist?

 

[Andysu]

I don't have a compliant. I would like to see cinema processors tested. No not home avr/avp, actual commercial cinema processors it is the only one you not tested and surely would have gone to many cinemas and have ever wondered? But testing with actual film maybe the hardest part to get hold of like test film with test tones. A.m.p.a.s. gave the Dolby CP500 an academy award for technical science. I don't have the test gear you have. I have REW and TrueRTA.

My Sooty wanted to see if could EQ better and he succeeded where others have failed.

I could have brought a cake platter and Vic V 35mm for £250.00, 7 years ago, it was ether the skip or goes to new home. But I tuned the offer down as I been there done all that for two cinema chains. Film doesn't last well not most of it the colour will fade eventually and I don't have the space to store stacks of film reels. I rather like buying the cinema processors and use it as auxiliary with a consumer avr.

The Sony SDDS DFP-D3000 has a strange faint noise but when pressing the soft-keys to access any of the on-screen menu the noise goes away? Now that is strange and does it on all two of my SDDS so it is a flaw that even someone else was aware of. But it is so low far down the on the noise floor that no one at a cinema will ever hear it as the non-sync music will mask it, and the film and the fader or gain levels will never expose it in the cinema.

The Dolby CP200 has its own flaws the PS1B really needs to have parts to lower the noise floor so it doesn't get picked up but again got turn the fader right up for an audience to even notice it? Other than that it is a wow cinema processor made in 1980 and still in use in selected 70mm cinemas to this very day. So it has stood the test of time where other cinema processors have come and gone.

CP200 is on the left of the rack it is a towering cinema processor. - the Sony SDDS to the right x2 of them. Never mind the Denon AVC-X8500H that is rubbish. CP45 in the lower right of the rack and bit hard to see two Dolby SDU4 that are just above the CP45. CP500 in lower left of the rack.

 

[Robbo99999]

I don't have a compliant. I would like to see cinema processors tested. No not home avr/avp, actual commercial cinema processors it is the only one you not tested and surely would have gone to many cinemas and have ever wondered? But testing with actual film maybe the hardest part to get hold of like test film with test tones. A.m.p.a.s. gave the Dolby CP500 an academy award for technical science. I don't have the test gear you have. I have REW and TrueRTA.

View attachment 130055

View attachment 130056
My Sooty wanted to see if could EQ better and he succeeded where others have failed.

I could have brought a cake platter and Vic V 35mm for £250.00, 7 years ago, it was ether the skip or goes to new home. But I tuned the offer down as I been there done all that for two cinema chains. Film doesn't last well not most of it the colour will fade eventually and I don't have the space to store stacks of film reels. I rather like buying the cinema processors and use it as auxiliary with a consumer avr.

The Sony SDDS DFP-D3000 has a strange faint noise but when pressing the soft-keys to access any of the on-screen menu the noise goes away? Now that is strange and does it on all two of my SDDS so it is a flaw that even someone else was aware of. But it is so low far down the on the noise floor that no one at a cinema will ever hear it as the non-sync music will mask it, and the film and the fader or gain levels will never expose it in the cinema.

The Dolby CP200 has its own flaws the PS1B really needs to have parts to lower the noise floor so it doesn't get picked up but again got turn the fader right up for an audience to even notice it? Other than that it is a wow cinema processor made in 1980 and still in use in selected 70mm cinemas to this very day. So it has stood the test of time where other cinema processors have come and gone.

View attachment 130058
CP200 is on the left of the rack it is a towering cinema processor. - the Sony SDDS to the right x2 of them. Never mind the Denon AVC-X8500H that is rubbish. CP45 in the lower right of the rack and bit hard to see two Dolby SDU4 that are just above the CP45. CP500 in lower left of the rack.

Now that is niche! But also what's that got to do with headphones.....you posted in the wrong thread?

 

[Inazzab]

Would it be possible to add compression measurements of headphones, such as the one @solderdude did in his review of the HE-560? Subjectivists often praise or criticize headphones based on their "dynamics" or perceived lack thereof, so I think it would be worth investigating whether these claims have any objective basis.

 

[solderdude]

Amir already did some compression testing but used another method to display it.
It only says something about excursion limits though not about dynamics.
For that one would have to take a look in the time domain and find out how fast a signal decays over time.
A CSD or spectrum plot could be more useful but in the years I have been measuring HP's I have not found much relation between perceived dynamics and measurements in the time domain.
Perceived dynamic-ness of the sound seems mostly FR related. An elevation between 1kHz and 3kHz seems to be important as well as the bass area between 60 and 300Hz. A good combination of those areas seems to correlate somewhat with perceived dynamics.

 

[edahl]

I'm missing more comparative judgements in the reviews. The 1266 sounds great with EQ, but how do they compare to others in their price class (and below)? It'll ultimately be subjective, but it'll also be helpful.

 

[pwjazz]

An elevation between 1kHz and 3kHz seems to be important as well as the bass area between 60 and 300Hz.

Yes! Reviewers frequently talk about "bass slam", criticizing most Hifiman headphones for lacking it, praising most Focal models for excelling there and generally considering Audeze to do better than Hifiman. Sure Focals tend to have a little bass bump, but the real distinction is that Hifiman tunes in a 2KHz dip relative to Harman, whereas Focal tunes in a 1.5KHz bump. Audeze tunes in a huge cave between 2-5KHz, but the region from 1-2KHz tends to still be at a good level.

What I think people are hearing is a difference in the overtones and especially plucking/attack noises of low frequency instruments like bass guitar, kick drums and so forth and confusing that with "bass".

In tuning my own headphone design, I've found that I can increase 2KHz by adding rear damping, but at the cost of decreased bass level. As it turns out, more 2K makes recordings with contrabass and kick drums sound noticeably punchier, despite the decreased bass level.

 

[amirm]

Just out of curiousity. How much time is spend listening to a headphone in those reviews? Is there a fixed methodology and a playlist?

There is an intense and focused protocol for listening tests that is repeated for each headphone. I use the same set of tracks for testing. Starting ones are the same that I use for speakers as well (female vocals). I then switch to a specific set of tracks for headphones that emphasizes deep bass and spatial qualities -- two very important parameters that needs subjective verification. I am so strict with this list that after listening to these tracks probably 1000 times, I am so sick of them!

Note that using the same tracks is no guarantee of correctness in these listening tests. It just removes a variable. And takes advantage of the fact that these tracks are revealing of what I need them for.

The most important of this phase is development of EQ which attempts to correlate the measurements with listening tests. AB tests are then performed for each EQ band (sometimes blind if the correction level is small).

The measurement aspect takes one quarter of the time. Three quarters is spent on listening tests and EQ development as described.

Post final development of EQ, I often listen to the headphone through the tail end of my headphone playlist that I keep growing (to reduce hating the ones I have). Sometime this continues through the review writing itself. So while measurements are measured in minutes, listening tests are in hours.

 

[amirm]

I'm missing more comparative judgements in the reviews.

I agree it is a weakness that is hard to remedy since most of these headphones are a) loaners and b) expensive. So I don't have past headphones to compare. Maybe when you all make me rich beyond my wildest imagination, I can go buy all of these headphones to have for comparison. Until then, you have to use the measurements for that purpose.

 

[DVDdoug]

I am so sick of them!

Ha! Ha! When I was in high-school & college I worked at a place that repaired radios, TVs, stereos, & car stereos. We had a Four Seasons 8-track tape. I think that's the only 8-track we had for testing (we didn't sell music) and yeah, I got really sick of it. But I had it easy! I was just mostly doing short good/bad testing and I didn't have to listen super-carefully.

After many years I don't hate The Four Seasons anymore.

 

[RHO]

There is an intense and focused protocol for listening tests that is repeated for each headphone. I use the same set of tracks for testing. Starting ones are the same that I use for speakers as well (female vocals). I then switch to a specific set of tracks for headphones that emphasizes deep bass and spatial qualities -- two very important parameters that needs subjective verification. I am so strict with this list that after listening to these tracks probably 1000 times, I am so sick of them!

Note that using the same tracks is no guarantee of correctness in these listening tests. It just removes a variable. And takes advantage of the fact that these tracks are revealing of what I need them for.

The most important of this phase is development of EQ which attempts to correlate the measurements with listening tests. AB tests are then performed for each EQ band (sometimes blind if the correction level is small).

The measurement aspect takes one quarter of the time. Three quarters is spent on listening tests and EQ development as described.

Post final development of EQ, I often listen to the headphone through the tail end of my headphone playlist that I keep growing (to reduce hating the ones I have). Sometime this continues through the review writing itself. So while measurements are measured in minutes, listening tests are in hours.

Maybe you could elaborate a bit more on what you hear in future reviews.
My impression was that you spent the majority of the time evaluating the measurement results and just had a quick listen afterwards to check if your EQ did anything. And that's it. Seems this is the wrong impression. But could be the result of your briefness in describing what you hear when listening.
Headphones and IEMs are much more a subjective thing than amps and DACs etc. So maybe it should be reflected that way in the reviews?
It could also just be my interpretation of your reviews.

 

[edahl]

I agree it is a weakness that is hard to remedy since most of these headphones are a) loaners and b) expensive. So I don't have past headphones to compare. Maybe when you all make me rich beyond my wildest imagination, I can go buy all of these headphones to have for comparison. Until then, you have to use the measurements for that purpose.

I certainly understand that. In time perhaps enough people are able to donate a few "reference" headphones, or at least loan them to you for an indeterminate time period

 

[Robbo99999]

I certainly understand that. In time perhaps enough people are able to donate a few "reference" headphones, or at least loan them to you for an indeterminate time period

Count in the HD800s certainly, and then a very impressive closed back as a second (Dan Clarke Aeon RT perhaps). I don't think many headphones would need to be kept just two or so benchmark headphones representing the main types.

 

[amirm]

Maybe you could elaborate a bit more on what you hear in future reviews.
My impression was that you spent the majority of the time evaluating the measurement results and just had a quick listen afterwards to check if your EQ did anything. And that's it. Seems this is the wrong impression. But could be the result of your briefness in describing what you hear when listening.
Headphones and IEMs are much more a subjective thing than amps and DACs etc. So maybe it should be reflected that way in the reviews?
It could also just be my interpretation of your reviews.

I plan to do a video on this. For now, your summary above is both wrong and right. The time I spend on listening tests for headphones is much longer than the measurements. Measurements though are part of my listening test protocol. They are inseparable. If someone just give you pure listening test results devoid of input from measurements, you should wonder why it is accurate. Do you have that much trust in their hearing impressions? How would they prove their observations are correct?

 

[RHO]

I plan to do a video on this. For now, your summary above is both wrong and right. The time I spend on listening tests for headphones is much longer than the measurements. Measurements though are part of my listening test protocol. They are inseparable. If someone just give you pure listening test results devoid of input from measurements, you should wonder why it is accurate. Do you have that much trust in their hearing impressions? How would they prove their observations are correct?

I take every review with a grain of salt. The more measurements that support the claims, the less salt I need. But for headphones/IEMs the salt is always close by.

 

[Helicopter]

Umm...then what are we doing here? What's the point of being so strict about saying one measurement is better than the other, and shoot down people that don't agree with the results. Only to say measurements only tell 2/3rd of the story, and we have to subjectively decide what is good or not. If that's the case perhaps this site is a few decades of research too early, and we should wait until we have all the complexities scientifically solved before bothering with this.

Amir does his best to be as objective as possible with listening tests, and he's got some valuable experience and training to help him along the way. I didn't go back and read everything you posted, but generally, a qualified subjective impression of a transducer is welcome at ASR, even if it does disagree with Amir's impression. I certainly disagree with Amir's impression of the original Focal Clear, and to some extent, disagree with him on the Celestee as well. I haven't gotten any flack over being open about it in a respectful way.

Take that part of the review for what it's worth. It is a data point regarding 1/3 of the headphone coming from an expert. I would put a lot of weight on Sean Olive's impression too, since he's one of the foremost experts in the field. I would put some, though much less, on random Youtubers, and the most weight on my own impressions. I would encourage you to do the same, as everyone's ears and tastes are a little different. I don't really care that I am not an expert, or that I am biased, since I buy headphones for my own enjoyment.

 

[ethanchiu10]

I guess that is where I find this headphone part of the site somewhat contradictory. On one hand, it is trying to empirically determine what is the best headphone based on a single target, going so far as to EQ every headphone with the aim to make everything match that single target, which by definition contradicts that everyone has their own ears and tastes. And on the other hand, it is mixing in that very same subjective ears and tastes in to the review, which we can all agree is unscientific. Perhaps a giant disclaimer at the top of the headphone section of this site would help others like me who was under the impression that the recommendations here were entirely based on science.