Where does he say that he is referring to the FR at the eardrum? And even if he were taking about it, it is still a bold claim, how does he know, what backs up this hypothesis?
It's not really, if we're talking about preference (also see the study in the blog post below that the above paper relies upon):
It's implicit.
1. The physics of acoustics.
seanolive.blogspot.com
Serious question: Are you saying driver size, angle, and distance from the ear have no effect on the spatial qualities of a headphone?
Driver size, no.
But we are not talking about preference here. The question is if spatial effects are are consequence of frequency response (of a Headphone/IEM) or if these two things are independent. It is clear that they largely are. Spatial effects MUST depend on the FR at the eardrum, because it determines simply the total of audible impressions. But I think that even Sean Olive has not a very good understanding of how this is happening (take for example a look at the Levionson 5909 headphone from Harman (Levinson), nice FR, poor spatial effects).
Sorry, but I think there is lacking much more research to make solid claims.It's implicit.
1. The physics of acoustics.
2. The physiology of hearing.
3. His own research:
A Virtual Headphone Listening Test Method
Fig. 1 The Harman Headphone Virtualizer App allows listeners to make double-blind comparisons of different headphones through a high...
Maybe I’m misreading this, but it appears he doesn’t completely rule out size as a contributor.
The Frequency Response of the headphone is quantified on the standard GRAS 45CA Test Fixture.
Sean is though, in the twitter thread you quoted him from.
Is it? Also, two variables cannot be 'largely independent', they either are or they're not.
So they're not independent then.
Says whose controlled blind listening?
Sean's main point in that thread, the claim that "frequency response is the dominant factor behind people's sound quality preferences" follows from this research, and the tweet you quoted follows from the fact that perceived spatial effects are dependent on frequency response at the eardrum.
Ok, then I misunderstood his tweet. I am not talking about preference, although I am not quite sure, I think I would prefer the HD800 with his huge soundstage and tuning out of the box to many headphones with a Harman FR, I guess. So I am happy that he does not claim that spatial effects can only be achieved with correct FR, because that is easily disproved.
They're talking about how 'natural' a headphone sounds, which includes not only spatial effects but is dependent on the acoustic impedance of the headphone, and it's this acoustic impedance that Oratory's saying can be affected by driver size. I believe these acoustic impedance effects only really come into play for over-ear headphones below ~500 Hz, below the frequencies which I'd think contribute to most spatial effects, but even so, yes strictly speaking every physical parameter of a headohone that affects its frequency response can affect its spatial effects, including driver size, but that's very different from the audiophile trope of 'bigger driver => bigger soundstage'. There's no such simple relationship there.
That appears to be true, for example the new Fiio FT3 headphone has a 60mm driver and I haven't heard anybody gushing about his spatial effects (HD800 "only" 56mm). But do you have any hints what it is then, large earcups, angled drivers? The HD800 for sure is not the only headphone having these characteristics, yet he is still a beacon of soundstage.
yes they can, just be having a small Pearson correlation, like 0.1.
It was not blind, but Amir mentioned it in his review. One really has not to do blind tests do realize if the soundstage is huge or small.
Ah ok, my bad, just reported what was written on the Fiio homepage.
Ok, let's assume it is all this. Why didn't anybody coming up with a headphone surpassing the HD800 in spatial effects? It seems many costumers want this. The HD800 was introduced 2009, that is almost 15 years time of the competitors to at least catch up. But apparently nobody did.
That is what I guessed, in this case you really get more for the money (although I usually hate this reviewers phrase).
But we are not talking about preference. We are talking about the sound stage of HD 800S and effects of EQ on that. A claim was made that there is Harman research which suggests the FR is the primary predictor of sound stage when in reality there is none. We already have a lot of people claiming things that does not exist. It would be great if at least the educated among us could seperate their personal convictions from actual facts.
That can only mean a review is around the corner. Great! I am quite intrigued by the Fiio headphone and am looking forward to your review of it.
FR (at the eardrum) is though, and it must be, because that's how our hearing works physiologically.
Both could be contributing factors, although angle may be unlikely due to free field effects I believe not occurring until very high frequencies.
We're talking about causal independence here. I'd rather call that minimal statistical dependence to be clear.
High frequency hearing is required for discriminating and reliable sound judgements, including of spatial cues some of which are located at these frequencies. So is controlling for sighted cognitive biases if you want to make conclusions about the actual acoustic causes of spatial effects with headphones, and more than a single (or even a few) anecdotal reports at that.
