Oratory1990 has REMEASURED a load of headphones and updated his pdf's

[Booker]

Does the ratio in the report before/after mean that 100 appraisers listened to headphones and rated them on a scale from -20 to 20?

 

[solderdude]

It means a computer program generated 'a number' based on 'a measurement'.
Before is without EQ, after means with the suggested EQ applied to a perfectly seated headphone on a standard fixture.

Do note the Stealth (which is about the best one he ever measured) and complies to Harman standard 'only' scores 88/100 while the cheap HD560S is 94/100

It gets even better for HD560S owners... after EQ that one scores 100/100 and the Stealth, with EQ scores 95/100
The Expanse is even 'worse' (only 84/100) but with EQ can rival the HD560S (with EQ).

Go figure...

 

[Viennacalling]

Cannot find the rating-list xx/100
Please, can anyone give me the link therefore?

 

[staticV3]

It means a computer program generated 'a number' based on 'a measurement'.
Before is without EQ, after means with the suggested EQ applied to a perfectly seated headphone on a standard fixture.

Do note the Stealth (which is about the best one he ever measured) and complies to Harman standard 'only' scores 88/100 while the cheap HD560S is 94/100

It gets even better for HD560S owners... after EQ that one scores 100/100 and the Stealth, with EQ scores 95/100
The Expanse is even 'worse' (only 84/100) but with EQ can rival the HD560S (with EQ).

Go figure...

All headphones can score a perfect 100/100 with EQ.

Oratory's post EQ score just reflects his relatively simple, manual, and adjustable PEQ design.

It should not be seem as a stamp of quality in my opinion, like "headphone x performs better than headphone y, even when both are EQed".

Here and there I've seen his scores being used to argue that point.

 

[solderdude]

It should not be seem as a stamp of quality in my opinion

Yep, it shouldn't yet many seem to do this.

All headphones can score a perfect 100/100 with EQ.

Yet, the Stealth only reaches 95/100 with EQ ... somehow.

 

[staticV3]

Yet, the Stealth only reaches 95/100 with EQ ... somehow.

only with this particular EQ that oratory created. Not with EQ generally.

 

[Viennacalling]

Fostex has 104/100
still looking for a list of all headphones for sorting ‍

Fostex T-X0.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[Jimbob54]

Fostex has 104/100
still looking for a list of all headphones for sorting ‍

Fostex T-X0.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

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

Automatic headphone equalization from frequency responses - jaakkopasanen/AutoEq

github.com

 

[IAtaman]

Fostex has 104/100
still looking for a list of all headphones for sorting ‍

Fostex T-X0.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Theoretically 114 is possible based on the original preference rating formula. In the newer graphs however, Oratory is using the formula that is normalized to 100. Here is an example:

Sennheiser HD660S2.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

He also offers comments to fine tune the EQ to preference variation, which I think is great.

 

[IAtaman]

It means a computer program generated 'a number' based on 'a measurement'.
Before is without EQ, after means with the suggested EQ applied to a perfectly seated headphone on a standard fixture.

Do note the Stealth (which is about the best one he ever measured) and complies to Harman standard 'only' scores 88/100 while the cheap HD560S is 94/100

It gets even better for HD560S owners... after EQ that one scores 100/100 and the Stealth, with EQ scores 95/100
The Expanse is even 'worse' (only 84/100) but with EQ can rival the HD560S (with EQ).

Go figure...

Both Expanse and Stealth deviate from the target less then HD560S, but they score a bit lower because of their warmer than neutral tilt. That and probably the medium Q deviations of HD560S is not "sensed" by the formula. In any case, 88 and 94 are more or less the same thing given that the "sensitivity" of the scoring system is ±6.7 anyway - all of them are Excellent out of the box, Expanse and Stealth "more" Excellent if you like a warmer tuning and sub-bass, HD560S is "more" Excellent if you don't.

 

[Dazerdoreal]

Cannot find the rating-list xx/100
Please, can anyone give me the link therefore?

You can find it here:

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

Automatic headphone equalization from frequency responses - jaakkopasanen/AutoEq

github.com

You should not take it too seriously, though.
A headphone with a score below 60 should be avoided without EQ unless you have a very specific taste, but you will not necessarily prefer a headphone with a score of 95 over a score of 90 or even 80.

 

[Jimbob54]

You can find it here:

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

Automatic headphone equalization from frequency responses - jaakkopasanen/AutoEq

github.com

You should not take it too seriously, though.
A headphone with a score below 60 should be avoided without EQ unless you have a very specific taste, but you will not necessarily prefer a headphone with a score of 95 over a score of 90 or even 80.

And one should never buy these horrors regardless of score ..

 

[IAtaman]

And one should never buy these horrors regardless of score ..

Why not? It measures great.

 

[solderdude]

Aside from +5dB 7kHz sharpness peak that is.

 

[IAtaman]

Aside from +5dB 7kHz sharpness peak that is.

That might be a nod to HD800 or the electrical motor.

 

[Jimbob54]

Why not? It measures great.
View attachment 340081

In fairness, leaving aside the ludicrous mouth visor nonsense the HP themselves arent too bad looking and in that particular mode measure well but are around $700/ £550.

 

[solderdude]

nah, wishful thinking. It does not anything remotely like an HD800.

 

[IAtaman]

In fairness, leaving aside the ludicrous mouth visor nonsense the HP themselves arent too bad looking and in that particular mode measure well but are around $700/ £550.

Mouth piece is optional I think. And it looks better on a blonde girl

Joking aside, I'd say not a bad first attempt from a company that manufacturers vacuum cleaners. We have seen headphone manufacturers do worse

 

[Robbo99999]

And one should never buy these horrors regardless of score ..

Ha, that's insane! What's the deal with the mouth guard thing, is that somehow a mic in there, but I don't understand why you'd want a design like that??

Mouth piece is optional I think. And it looks better on a blonde girl

View attachment 340084

Joking aside, I'd say not a bad first attempt from a company that manufacturers vacuum cleaners. We have seen headphone manufacturers do worse

Well that's a bit better! And yes I've seen worse measuring headphones!

 

[Dazerdoreal]

Aside from +5dB 7kHz sharpness peak that is.

There is also a "neutral" EQ preset with less bass boost and a more moderate lower/mid treble. Personally, I would prefer this for sure.

In-Ear Fidelity – Headphone Graph Comparison Tool

Easily compare industry-standard frequency response measurements of hundreds and hundreds of headphones.

crinacle.com