SIVGA SV021 Headphone Review

[amirm]

@amirm, there is not data in the review.

Oops. Sorry about that. Just added it.

Score no EQ: 35.2
Score Amirm: 79.3
Score with EQ: 79.2

I beat the computer! I beat the computer!!!

 

[Maiky76]

Oops. Sorry about that. Just added it.


I beat the computer! I beat the computer!!!

No you did not...

With actual data:

Score no EQ: 34.9 (was 35.2)
Score Amirm: 78.2 (was 79.3)
Score with EQ: 78.4 (was 79.2)

 

[Tom C]

No you did not...

With actual data:

Score no EQ: 34.9 (was 35.2)
Score Amirm: 78.2 (was 79.3)
Score with EQ: 78.4 (was 79.2)

View attachment 273317

Well, gosh, that’s really close. Even if he didn’t beat the computer, he pretty much equaled it. And that’s not easy!

 

[GaryH]

Except look at the actual EQed frequency responses above and it's abundantly clear Maiky's algorithm does a better job of matching the target...

 

[beagleman]

I suspect there is some history or argument going on that I am not aware of, so might be stepping on a landmine here. Oh well, curiosity killed the cat. Could you please help me understand the following:

• With this out of box tuning, you really think you would not be able to tell the tonality is crap without looking at the FR?
• Listen before you measure made sense to me on the face of it as I have experienced myself it is very easy to hear things you expect to hear, but I do not have much insight into the counter argument. Would you mind elaborating please.

uhm, yes and no.
Maybe the boosted bass for sure.

The stuff above 2k or so, not so much. Deviations that are up and down like this are not really as apparent as they seem when looking at a graph.

That is why I constantly say, measurements while important, are often not DIRECTLY related in a 1;1 scale of how "good" something sounds to the actual ear or listener.

 

[mmmdc]

I do not disagree with that point but that does not mean the headphone has to sound as terrible as it measured.
I mean:

This suggests good deep bass (well extended) with some 'punch' (100Hz-300Hz elevated a bit), good clarity (1kHz to 6kHz following the curve on average, and some extra treble and treble extension without a lot of peaks/dips. At least ... above 6kHz it becomes a crap-shoot anyway.
I can see why this headphone may not sound 'bad' at first listen even though the dip at 500Hz would give some 'hollow' sounding coloration to voices.
Would I prefer it over another headphone ? Most likely not. Still may sound 'impressive' and pleasant to some.

Product variance, differences in fixtures, as it is closed it may sound different on the head than on a fixture.

Frankly I was very surprised when Amir wrote he liked the sound at first.

These headphones kinda aren't that bad with some tracks, but with others the super weird frequency response becomes apparent very quickly. And with video games where you know how individual sounds "should" sound like it's super obvious.

There are good looking headphones and they look and feel pretty premium considering the price. I think for what they are asking, they do a lot of things right. Except for the actual sound. I never bought and sold headphones as quickly as these, their stock tuning is just very wrong in many areas.

 

[Chibrax]

Of course not a great response but that fixed single point level alignment makes it possibly look to many eyes look worse than it is (it does at least for mine), here how it looks aligned to rather an average of the mid band:

Source of above measurement: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sivga-robin-sv021-closed-back-over-ear-headphones/4.html

Dunno why Amir keeps posting hp measurements the way I does may he explain ?
I got mine for 100$ today and I agree with amir without EQ garbage with EQ (I used the one from amir as a base) it is a really cool headphone quite a bit of soundstage (for a closed back).