Neutrality and Price

[Deleted member 60987]

Anyone have the Philips Fidelio X2HR? I have the Philips SPH 9500 and don't think they sound that great. Comfortable. Look cool. But not the best.

 

[Hatto]

Neutrality doesn't mean the best. That's what eq is for.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

Neutrality doesn't mean the best. That's what eq is for.

For recording and mixing it is generally what people look for. And durability, which is why studios usually wont go over $300. They are going to take some abuse. Mikes are a different story. They will shell out for a Neumann U-87 without blinking. And expensive monitors.

 

[Hatto]

For recording and mixing it is generally what people look for. And durability, which is why studios usually wont go over $300. They are going to take some abuse.

If you seek absolute neutrality, your best bet is to get a high end planar (for ultra low distortion) with accurately measured, known frequency response curve and tune with EQ to absolute flat response.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

If you seek absolute neutrality, your best bet is to get a high end planar (for ultra low distortion) with accurately measured, known frequency response curve and tune with EQ to absolute flat response.

You don't really need absolutes. Just some variety. I have 3 monitors and 10 headphones. Listen in my car. Which unfortunately SUCKS in the Prius. The Avalon had sweet JBLs. Even re-coned the woofer once.

 

[markanini]

I would question their neutrality metric. Here Senn HD600, AT M50x and Bose QC35 have an equal score. Contrasting with Harmans predictive model the scores are 92, 73, 69 in order. The Harman scores would probably correlate better with subjective rankings of multiple listeners.

 

[Hatto]

You don't really need absolutes. Just some variety. I have 3 monitors and 10 headphones. Listen in my car. Which unfortunately SUCKS in the Prius. The Avalon had sweet JBLs. Even re-coned the woofer once.

You can extended my answer to make ANY low distortion headphone with accurate measurement profiles available to give you ANY freq response you desire.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

I would question their neutrality metric. Here Senn HD600, AT M50x and Bose QC35 have an equal score. Contrasting with Harmans predictive model the scores are 92, 73, 69 in order. The Harman scores would probably correlate better with subjective rankings of multiple listeners.

What is here? I do think they are never perfect. There are measuring methods, different qualities they use to comprise the rating. One had Sure SRH 440 the highest which I know is false, because I have it along with a bunch of better headphones.

 

[GaryH]

What is here? I do think they are never perfect. There are measuring methods, different qualities they use to comprise the rating. One had Sure SRH 440 the highest which I know is false, because I have it along with a bunch of better headphones.

The AutoEQ ranking I linked for you in another of the (many) threads you've started around this general topic uses Harman's predicted preference rating, devised by acoustics luminary Dr Sean Olive, calculated from the measured frequency response of the headphones on an industry standard GRAS ear simulator. The predicted rating has an 86% correlation with the average actual rating given to headphone frequency responses by many listeners in scientifically controlled double-blind tests. Rtings in contrast use an outdated ear simulator and their 'neutrality score' has no such demonstrated correlation with actual listener ratings. As mentioned to you before though, after first finding a high-ranked headphone on the AutoEQ list, it's best to then check Rtings' frequency response consistency measurements for that headphone, which, below ~450 Hz, show the variation in response for 5 different people using in-ear mics (above 450 Hz it's positional variation on their simulator), which is particularly poor for the SRH440, likely explaining why you don't rate them very highly.

 

[markanini]

What is here? I do think they are never perfect. There are measuring methods, different qualities they use to comprise the rating. One had Sure SRH 440 the highest which I know is false, because I have it along with a bunch of better headphones.

If you read perfection from that then you need to learn more about Harmans predicative model, which showed a successful prediction rate of roughly 9/10 times. Rtings in contrast have not provided any comparable data to validate their scoring.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

If you read perfection from that then you need to learn more about Harmans predicative model, which showed a successful prediction rate of roughly 9/10 times. Rtings in contrast have not provided any comparable data to validate their scoring.

My post is about neutrality. As a musician and recording engineer that is what we look for. It makes no claim about which is the best or worse, only which headphones seem to color sound the least. In some cases very expensive ones do well. In some cases very cheap ones do well. What is it you don't get about that? It literally has a chart based on that one aspect. Not build, comfort, cost or soundstage. Just one aspect of headphones.

 

[GaryH]

My post is about neutrality. As a musician and recording engineer that is what we look for. It makes no claim about which is the best or worse, only which headphones seem to color sound the least. In some cases very expensive ones do well. In some cases very cheap ones do well. What is it you don't get about that? It literally has a chart based on that one aspect. Not build, comfort, cost or soundstage. Just one aspect of headphones.

The AutoEQ ranking according to Harman rating is also about that one aspect, perceived neutrality. Unlike Rting's neutrality rating however Harman's has actual demonstrated experimental confirmation by professional acoustic scientists backing it.

 

[markanini]

My post is about neutrality. As a musician and recording engineer that is what we look for. It makes no claim about which is the best or worse, only which headphones seem to color sound the least. In some cases very expensive ones do well. In some cases very cheap ones do well. What is it you don't get about that?

Sean Olive blog post "Audio's Circle of Confusion" talks about defining a common frequency response for consumers and content creators alike. Is that not neutrality? http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

 

[GaryH]

Indeed, and Sean explicitly talks about the high correlation between neutrality and preference here, referencing Dr Floyd Toole's work before him:

I think it is well established that flat bass in a headphone or in-room response of a loudspeaker is NOT neutral. We’ve had trained listeners draw the perceived spectral balance of these targets and they are perceived as not flat.
Toole spent 10 years having listeners rate loudspeaker based on perceived fidelity/neutrality. When we switched to preference, the loudspeakers ratings didn’t suddenly change. There is a high correlation between fidelity/neutrality/ preference.

Our headphone targets do not deviate significantly above 200 Hz from a anechoically flat speaker measured in our reference room at the DRP. For the AE/OE target it’s within 2 dB of the bass of the in-room speaker target. For the IE target it’s higher, but there are data to support it needs to be higher to be perceived as equivalent

 

[Deleted member 60987]

The AutoEQ ranking according to Harman rating is also about that one aspect, perceived neutrality. Unlike Rting's neutrality rating however Harman's has actual demonstrated experimental confirmation by professional acoustic scientists backing it.

Who cares how 5 people perceive something? That is as unscientific as it gets. Electronic measurement at least attempts to measure how accurately something follows a signal of varying frequencies. What you are talking about is practically a poll. Totally subjective.

 

[Deleted member 60987]

Indeed, and Sean explicitly states that here, referencing Dr Floyd Toole's work before him:

How old are these people? Can they even hear 20khz, because kids can. I assume they use adults. You measure neutrality with instruments, not ask people to guess.

 

[GaryH]

Please read my posts more carefully. The 5 people I mentioned are from Rtings' measurements of the headphones using in-ear mics on them, which I recommend to check to give a general idea of a headphone's frequency response consistency across different people after looking at Harman's ratings on the AutoEQ ranking. The controlled scientific research behind Harman's ratings included 130 listeners, with 37% under 30, and as young as 13, as well as measurements of headphones on industry standard ear simulators to which their ratings were correlated via a predictive formula based on the latter's deviation from their target response, developed using 249 listeners (median age 32, with a standard deviation of 11.4 years). I suggest reading this overview of Dr Olive's research along with the quote I posted above and his blog post on audio's circle of confusion linked by @markanini in order to properly understand all this:

The Perception and Measurement of Headphone Sound Quality- What Do Listeners Prefer? - Sean E. Olive

acousticstoday.org

 

[JSmith]

Philips Fidelio X2HR

Philips Fidelio X2HR Review (headphone)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Fidelio X2HR open-back headphone. I bought mine on sale for US $116 but current price is US $145 including Prime shipping on Amazon. The X2HR reminds of Grado headphones if they grew double in size and substance: Let me warn you that if you...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JSmith

 

[Deleted member 60987]

Got the Fidelio X2HR in the mail today. Not pleased. Uncomfortable where the 9500 were extremely comfortable. And while the 9500 were not bad sounding, I am not convinced this is an improvement considering it has a very high neutrality rating and very close to the Harmon Curve. Hate to say it but I enjoy listening to music more on my Samson SR850 and Rockville Pro M50 at a fraction of the cost, not to mention the Shure 440 or AKG 361. Will return, whereas the 9500 I will probably hang on to. Why I don't really trust charts or specs that much. What are these 5kz to 40khz with a 8.4 neutrality rating and THIRD in Harmon scores out of 2086? On paper they are superb. In reality? They are uncomfortable headphones that sound ok. It's not that numbers or charts lie, exactly. It's that they mislead. And they sound nothing like the 440s regardless of being right next to them in rating. Maybe Shure boosts high and drops low, where Philips does the opposite here.

AutoEq/results/RANKING.md at master · jaakkopasanen/AutoEq

Automatic headphone equalization from frequency responses - jaakkopasanen/AutoEq

github.com