A “back of the envelope” method to consider if the aim is to measure a headphones neutrality. E.g., not over emphasizing any aspect of the frequencies response, not adding a signifiant amount of distortion. The methods to measure & reproduce (synthesize) this less cognitively biased method already exist, the scientific method.
As an example I infer the reader to the measurement of temperature. “Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature where nothing could be colder and no heat energy remains in a substance. “ https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/absolute_zero.htm
Or the measurement of timing using the benchmark of atoms.
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/international-atomic-time.html
Therefore, a temperature measuring device, e.g., thermometer can be calibrated for accuracy of temperature. This method mitigates the human cognitive bias effect of, to paraphrase, “I will always trust my own subjective sense of touch to get a more accurate temperature reading”. As it can be calculated why an accurate thermometer is more precise than human subjective experience & demonstrated using experiment to show a thermometer is more accurate than the human sense of touch for the measurement of objective temperature. Of course, devices that produce temperature don’t tend to cause such a fuss compared to headphones, due to behavioural psychological traits that are beyond the scope of this brief example. And many humans will simply not be able to accept being taken out of the “what’s the most accurate audio production” equation. However, they are missing out on the aim (point).
The question is, for those that really are interested in being able to develop a more accurate system to measure headphones audio accuracy, what can a headphones audio quality be calibrated against?. We’d need to use the physics of sound to produce an accurate audio measuring device to measure an objects sound, just as a calibrated thermometer can comparably accurately (compared to human touch) measure temperature. e.g., A microphone that measures (records),just for an example, a drum (using physics to quantify the measurements) . Once this is achieved, we have, to the best of our current understanding, an accurate benchmark to test any audio production devices sound reproduction accuracy. Of course taking into consideration the relevant limitations (acoustic finger print) of the audio device. However, we can then develop headphones & measure them using the same calibrated microphone.
The above is just a very brief outline & I’m sure mathematicians, physicists & audio engineers could provide more details.
Of course some would say, but that method does not take into account the many variables of human hearing. Yep, and that’s the whole point of the scientific methods, i.e., to remove human bias when trying to analyze objective reality. i.e., In general, science is about discovering objective reality, not trying to do the impossible & make objective reality conform to human individual & highly variable subjective experience (even though a less calibrated subjective experience believes that's possible). The physics of objective sound, e.g., the bang of a drum is also not taking human subjective perception into consideration (before it enters our ears). Therefore the human variable is actually irrelevant if we want to have a high degree of confidence that headphone “X” is producing more accurate “real world” audio . E.g., Subjectively we’d all hear (perceive environmental information) the accurate “X” headphone differently (within the subjective variance of our species subjective perception), just as we hear the bang of a drum differently ( environmental\ecological objective sounds differently). But at least we’d be more confident that the “neutral headphone” was producing the sound of the drum more accurately, & then our ears (biology) would analyze that sound using our own subjective experience. i.e., a more natural sounding headphone. Of course there are many acoustic variables to consider when recording the bang of a drum, e.g., environment the drum is in, location to the recording device. However, due to the reason why we hear, i.e., evolutionary psychological functional adaptions, the objective audio should be a sound from our natural environment as we are already more adapted to hear those sounds more accurately.
Of course the above method will not be a “cash cow” in a consumerist driven market place, in the context of different headphone manufactures maintaining the “the next product is better than the last” marketing strategy & headphone manufactures competing with one another for “the best headphone ever” strategy. Maybe they could, ultimately, do us all a favour & compete to produce the headphones with the “X sound signature” using more ecologically sustainable manufacturing methods.
Fortunately headphone manufacturers don’t tend to sell scientific instruments :wink: as marketing gimmicks and spin (lies if it’s intentional). i.e., science needs accurate instruments. Though personal bias has significantly corrupted the publics perception of the sciences that are related to anthropogenic climate change. e.g., ecolology, climatology. Thanks “humanity as usual” , you’ll make losers of us all if your not regulated to behave more ecologically sustainably. i.e., regulate yourselves for the good of yourselves.
As an example I infer the reader to the measurement of temperature. “Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature where nothing could be colder and no heat energy remains in a substance. “ https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/absolute_zero.htm
Or the measurement of timing using the benchmark of atoms.
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/international-atomic-time.html
Therefore, a temperature measuring device, e.g., thermometer can be calibrated for accuracy of temperature. This method mitigates the human cognitive bias effect of, to paraphrase, “I will always trust my own subjective sense of touch to get a more accurate temperature reading”. As it can be calculated why an accurate thermometer is more precise than human subjective experience & demonstrated using experiment to show a thermometer is more accurate than the human sense of touch for the measurement of objective temperature. Of course, devices that produce temperature don’t tend to cause such a fuss compared to headphones, due to behavioural psychological traits that are beyond the scope of this brief example. And many humans will simply not be able to accept being taken out of the “what’s the most accurate audio production” equation. However, they are missing out on the aim (point).
The question is, for those that really are interested in being able to develop a more accurate system to measure headphones audio accuracy, what can a headphones audio quality be calibrated against?. We’d need to use the physics of sound to produce an accurate audio measuring device to measure an objects sound, just as a calibrated thermometer can comparably accurately (compared to human touch) measure temperature. e.g., A microphone that measures (records),just for an example, a drum (using physics to quantify the measurements) . Once this is achieved, we have, to the best of our current understanding, an accurate benchmark to test any audio production devices sound reproduction accuracy. Of course taking into consideration the relevant limitations (acoustic finger print) of the audio device. However, we can then develop headphones & measure them using the same calibrated microphone.
The above is just a very brief outline & I’m sure mathematicians, physicists & audio engineers could provide more details.
Of course some would say, but that method does not take into account the many variables of human hearing. Yep, and that’s the whole point of the scientific methods, i.e., to remove human bias when trying to analyze objective reality. i.e., In general, science is about discovering objective reality, not trying to do the impossible & make objective reality conform to human individual & highly variable subjective experience (even though a less calibrated subjective experience believes that's possible). The physics of objective sound, e.g., the bang of a drum is also not taking human subjective perception into consideration (before it enters our ears). Therefore the human variable is actually irrelevant if we want to have a high degree of confidence that headphone “X” is producing more accurate “real world” audio . E.g., Subjectively we’d all hear (perceive environmental information) the accurate “X” headphone differently (within the subjective variance of our species subjective perception), just as we hear the bang of a drum differently ( environmental\ecological objective sounds differently). But at least we’d be more confident that the “neutral headphone” was producing the sound of the drum more accurately, & then our ears (biology) would analyze that sound using our own subjective experience. i.e., a more natural sounding headphone. Of course there are many acoustic variables to consider when recording the bang of a drum, e.g., environment the drum is in, location to the recording device. However, due to the reason why we hear, i.e., evolutionary psychological functional adaptions, the objective audio should be a sound from our natural environment as we are already more adapted to hear those sounds more accurately.
Of course the above method will not be a “cash cow” in a consumerist driven market place, in the context of different headphone manufactures maintaining the “the next product is better than the last” marketing strategy & headphone manufactures competing with one another for “the best headphone ever” strategy. Maybe they could, ultimately, do us all a favour & compete to produce the headphones with the “X sound signature” using more ecologically sustainable manufacturing methods.
Fortunately headphone manufacturers don’t tend to sell scientific instruments :wink: as marketing gimmicks and spin (lies if it’s intentional). i.e., science needs accurate instruments. Though personal bias has significantly corrupted the publics perception of the sciences that are related to anthropogenic climate change. e.g., ecolology, climatology. Thanks “humanity as usual” , you’ll make losers of us all if your not regulated to behave more ecologically sustainably. i.e., regulate yourselves for the good of yourselves.
Last edited:
