What Causes This Output from Headphones?

[LIΟN]

Realistically we cannot expect someone on this board to take the effort. It wonders me if anyone is willing to falsify it was not just noise, and I have none bad feelings about that either.

No one in this thread seems to be dismissing it as mere noise, so why are you disregarding the opinions of others?
Just looking at post #49 by @solderdude in this thread makes it clear that this is not the case at all.
And what I mentioned was also something that allowed for approaching and testing that aspect from a different perspective. As I said earlier, there’s no need to worry about or measure this—if what you hear matches your preference, you can simply use it as is.

 

[Verig]

Here, sighted bias and fit also play a role as variables.
For example, last year, I remember testing an Apple Earpod that had been equalized based on my personalized measurements and applying the impulse response of the HD800s.
Yes, it sounded quite similar to the HD800s. But something still felt missing. So, I placed the unplugged HD800s on my head, and suddenly, it felt like I was truly experiencing the HD800s.

So can we say that equalizing two different headphones the same way is not enough, you needed to add IR?
If FR measurement is the only thing we can reliably interpret in headphone reviews doesn't that mean that there truly are things that can't be measured in these reviews? (A bit tongue in the cheek this one considering where we are.)

Good point about bias and feeling the size. This brings to mind a practical mechanical problem. Headphone fit and feel is a very important part of the experience.
If there are two headphones that truly sound the same but the other one is not comfy or gives the correct sound only when positioned just a bit uncomfortably then the choice is pretty clear as the listener can never enjoy the sound the device is capable of, perhaps not even know it sounds the same as the other one. Subjective comparison of headphones between people is much more difficult than with speakers.

However, to determine whether group delay (or various measurement artifacts?) affects the audible range and preference, one would need to match the magnitude response to their own ears and then compare the effects of excess phase or GD. -If someone says that the sound feels richer or clearer, we first need to separate whether that is due to the effect of excess phase or differences in frequency response.

It's funny that this really hasn't crossed my mind. I can do that.

 

[Verig]

I do understand that many things boil down to FR.
The problem is that very minute variations in FR can make a notable difference depending on where they are. The big picture is easy enough but nuances not at all.
What I'm looking for is simply whether I can use GD and phase as an underlying clue or not.

 

[Heinrich]

I do understand that many things boil down to FR.
The problem is that very minute variations in FR can make a notable difference depending on where they are. The big picture is easy enough but nuances not at all.
What I'm looking for is simply whether I can use GD and phase as an underlying clue or not.

You can not. Even frequency amplitude response is not clear. It is mirrored against head related transfer function. That differs a lot (speak +/- 10dB) just with the angle of incidence. For one the HRTF chosen is for diffuse field, but the argument for doing so is weak, in my book at least. Second to that I was told lately that makers deviate from that rule already. Not the least the HRTF is a personal thing, and the industry still has to offer a solution that adapts to the owner and listener individually in an automated, inherent manner. Last the HRTF is in parts minimum phase, in parts non-minimum phase, which questions the revealing character of GD altogether.

Anyway, to determine in what the 'fine grass' in the group delay originates would be a nice move, on an engineering level.

 

[Verig]

Yes. It seems I do need some more reading on this. I have some twenty years of experience in what makes different sounds (and especially distortions) tick but it's much more on practical level. This is a bit too deep but then again I can always just try to to match K712 to Arya and see where it leads me.

 

[LIΟN]

So can we say that equalizing two different headphones the same way is not enough, you needed to add IR?

Honestly, it's hard to feel a significant difference, but it does allow for more detailed matching compared to a standard EQ. As for the excess components... well, I'm not sure.
That's why I previously said that if it is audible and aligns with personal preference, then it's best to listen in the way that suits you.

Headphone fit and feel is a very important part of the experience.

That's right. That's why whenever people ask me about headphones, I always tell them to consider the fit first.

Subjective comparison of headphones between people is much more difficult than with speakers.

That's why virtual headphone experiments were conducted to eliminate the fit variable.
Of course, even aside from that, the absence of crosstalk makes comparisons inherently difficult. This is because the final perception involves not only the device’s own response but also the interaction between the sound and the shape of one’s outer ear, followed by the individual’s subjective interpretation and imagination while listening.

It's funny that this really hasn't crossed my mind. I can do that.

You can measure it with an in-ear microphone. Also, each headphone must be precisely equalized. Dr. David incorporated the Two-Tone method here to take perceived loudness into account.

You can not. Even frequency amplitude response is not clear. It is mirrored against head related transfer function. That differs a lot (speak +/- 10dB) just with the angle of incidence. For one the HRTF chosen is for diffuse field, but the argument for doing so is weak, in my book at least. Second to that I was told lately that makers deviate from that rule already. Not the least the HRTF is a personal thing, and the industry still has to offer a solution that adapts to the owner and listener individually in an automated, inherent manner. Last the HRTF is in parts minimum phase, in parts non-minimum phase, which questions the revealing character of GD altogether.

It seems that from your very first post in this thread, you have been mixing up HRTF and HPTF.

 

[Heinrich]

It seems that from your very first post in this thread, you have been mixing up HRTF and HPTF.

Decidedly not, but I already gave up. You are more interested in the field than me.

 

[mike7877]

ASR is not a forum for test engineers but for consumers with an interest in audio gear and would like to see some basic plots they (think) they can understand.

More data is always better, even if it's under a hyperlink that says "more"

How else can one determine how things are related with only surface-level data?

 

[mike7877]

The problem is that if ASR measurements don't have measurement error (or representation error) then it may be that I happen to perceive higher group delay as more naturally cohesive, spacious and preferred. That would be great news for me. But as others don't show similar results but smooth over them then I'm back to square one (in this regard at least).
I know this is a technical discussion but I'd very much like to be able to benefit from the results in a form of a graph I know how to read in relation to what I hear.

What I think the higher and varied group delay in the 1-6kHz range sounds like is speakers in a room with reflections - it almost takes away from the detail, not so much adds spaciousness.