Philipp Paul Klose
Member
When the miniDSP EARS was announced, it was for me like a 'yeah yeah yeah' moment. Two mics, rubber ears, ear canal, ADC, compensation curves... Shut up and take my money!
Stuart Yaniger wrote a very good objective review of the EARS product (https://audioxpress.com/files/attachment/2692). Everything you need to know about the EARS is in there. Bottom line, Stuart says, it is a great thing, but its results have to be taken with a grain of salt. Makes sense.
But, how would an EARS stack up against something that is widely being taken as a serious reference, like a Head Acoustics HMS II.3 artificial head? Both fixtures have a straight ear canal and a simulated pinna and designed to be used in the extreme near field.
So in order to compare the two, I have created three use case scenarios:
- 1. Headphone measurement of a Sennheiser HD600 (https://en-de.sennheiser.com/best-audio-headphones-high-end-stereo-hifi-hd-600)
- 2. Loudspeaker measurement of an Canton Plus X loudspeaker at 1m distance (https://www.canton.de/de/produkte/pro-house/speziallautsprecher/plus-x.3)
- 3. Dampening measurement of 3M PELTOR Optime, a personal ear protection headset (https://www.3mdeutschland.de/3M/de_DE/p/d/v000082831/)
Note: In none of the measurements the calibration files were applied!
1. HD600 from EARS and HMS II.3
The HMS II.3 shows good compliance with the rtings HD600 measurements (https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-5/graph#325/7917). The EARS show the 'character' of the HD 600, but the massive ear canal resonance at 4.5 kHz (+16 dBr!) is a little irritating. Peaks at 8.5 kHz and 15 kHz are visible with both tools. Breakup modes of the membrane at 280 Hz and 1050 Hz are also detectable with both fixutres. The higher level in the low frequencies with the EARS is probably due to a better fit of the HD600 on the EARS.
2. Loudspeaker measurement from EARS and HMS II.3
This not the use case intended for both fixtures. But it is interesting, anyway. Both measurement are wildly off. The delta in the mids and highs is probably due to 'head shape' of both fixtures.
3. Dampening of 3M PELTOR Optime hearing protection
To measure the dampening factor of the Optime hearing protection, a baseline measurement without the headset has been taken (A) with the Canton Plus X as external stimulus, then one with the headset (B). To calculate the dampening factor, measurement B has been subtracted from A. The EARS gives a 5 dBr higher dampening factor on average (-21 dBr vs -16 dBr with HMS II.3). Here, too, the EARS seems to have the better fit and grip then the HMS II.3.
4. Conclusion
Honestly, the EARS is a great product. It has its caveats, but so does every other piece of measurement equipment. It seems to me, that fit of the EARS is better than with a HMS II.3. Which surprises me. If you want comparability and repeatability between measurements, you have to use always the same measurement tools. That goes for cheap and expensive equipment.
Stuart Yaniger wrote a very good objective review of the EARS product (https://audioxpress.com/files/attachment/2692). Everything you need to know about the EARS is in there. Bottom line, Stuart says, it is a great thing, but its results have to be taken with a grain of salt. Makes sense.
But, how would an EARS stack up against something that is widely being taken as a serious reference, like a Head Acoustics HMS II.3 artificial head? Both fixtures have a straight ear canal and a simulated pinna and designed to be used in the extreme near field.
So in order to compare the two, I have created three use case scenarios:
- 1. Headphone measurement of a Sennheiser HD600 (https://en-de.sennheiser.com/best-audio-headphones-high-end-stereo-hifi-hd-600)
- 2. Loudspeaker measurement of an Canton Plus X loudspeaker at 1m distance (https://www.canton.de/de/produkte/pro-house/speziallautsprecher/plus-x.3)
- 3. Dampening measurement of 3M PELTOR Optime, a personal ear protection headset (https://www.3mdeutschland.de/3M/de_DE/p/d/v000082831/)
Note: In none of the measurements the calibration files were applied!
1. HD600 from EARS and HMS II.3
The HMS II.3 shows good compliance with the rtings HD600 measurements (https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-5/graph#325/7917). The EARS show the 'character' of the HD 600, but the massive ear canal resonance at 4.5 kHz (+16 dBr!) is a little irritating. Peaks at 8.5 kHz and 15 kHz are visible with both tools. Breakup modes of the membrane at 280 Hz and 1050 Hz are also detectable with both fixutres. The higher level in the low frequencies with the EARS is probably due to a better fit of the HD600 on the EARS.
2. Loudspeaker measurement from EARS and HMS II.3
This not the use case intended for both fixtures. But it is interesting, anyway. Both measurement are wildly off. The delta in the mids and highs is probably due to 'head shape' of both fixtures.
3. Dampening of 3M PELTOR Optime hearing protection
To measure the dampening factor of the Optime hearing protection, a baseline measurement without the headset has been taken (A) with the Canton Plus X as external stimulus, then one with the headset (B). To calculate the dampening factor, measurement B has been subtracted from A. The EARS gives a 5 dBr higher dampening factor on average (-21 dBr vs -16 dBr with HMS II.3). Here, too, the EARS seems to have the better fit and grip then the HMS II.3.
4. Conclusion
Honestly, the EARS is a great product. It has its caveats, but so does every other piece of measurement equipment. It seems to me, that fit of the EARS is better than with a HMS II.3. Which surprises me. If you want comparability and repeatability between measurements, you have to use always the same measurement tools. That goes for cheap and expensive equipment.