CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

  • December 31, 2015, 09:39:42 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Ultrasone Tio measurements  (Read 2767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ultrabike

  • Burritous Supremus (and Mexican Ewok)
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • *****
  • Brownie Points: +4226/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2384
  • I consider myself "normal"
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2015, 07:50:15 AM »

LOL! you copycat you.

Anyhow, IEM measures seem pretty hard to make. Do build on the work of others, but IMO, don't take it for granted.
Logged

Solderdude

  • Grab the dScope Kowalski!
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +206/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 907
  • No can do skipper, the dScope was terminated
    • DIY-Audio-Heaven
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2015, 08:20:45 AM »

I can't catch your opinion... You are saying that IEM doesn't need compensation?


Of course the raw plots need compensation ... but NOT the ones that apply to the outer ear/torso (DF, FF, OW) as that is not in the equation.
OW for on-ear/over ear headphones is more correct than DF/FF in any case but does not apply to IEM.

You will ONLY need to compensate for the earcanal/eardrum part.
That compensation should be supplied with the coupler itself.

Then again compensation also will depend on insertion depth as well.
You need different compensation for different depths (in theory) as Rin has also shown.

Its the reason why the IEM plots here are all raw b.t.w.
I have to admit that this is very confusing and has no relation to what's perceived though.

Do 'we' know how much spread there is in human ear canal widths, lengths and geometry and how a simulated coupler comes close to this ?
Can there be a 'correct' compensation if insertion depth is specified and can easily be checked ?
Logged
Use your ears to enjoy music, not as an analyser.

speakerphone

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +23/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2015, 09:19:07 AM »

As you know, earphone's final goal is simulating stereo loudspeakers.
We use pinna for listening to music with loudspeakers. But IEM doesn't need pinna. So when listening to IEM, we have to simulate pinna on purpose(to hear the sounds like pinna does). That is what DF means.

So, we have to use DF(simulates pinna) because IEM is not using pinna (torso & neck, concha and Pinna).
Also headphones should use DF too. Because the measurement is just a recording of eardrum, so real pinna actually boosts 3kHz of headphones, and can make DF equalization.

Of course DF doesn't simulate actual pinna when measuring headphones, but simulates dummyhead's(in DF target) pinna.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 10:04:57 AM by speakerphone »
Logged

Solderdude

  • Grab the dScope Kowalski!
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +206/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 907
  • No can do skipper, the dScope was terminated
    • DIY-Audio-Heaven
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2015, 02:02:41 PM »

It will depend on what you want to show with the plot(s).

If you..
A: want it to show the actual SPL that we perceive/hear
B: want to see a 'flat' line in a plot as if an 'ideal speaker in a conditioned room' would have sounded like.

If its 'B', use all the room compensation you like, as it is unrealistic and a bad representation of the average living room anyway so won't produce correct plots but will be comparable IF it is clear what compensation is used.
personally I prefer to see plots of the first kind (A)... the ones that show actual SPL as that correlates better to me on how they are perceived.
Closer than other compensations. This may have something to do with training.
I know I perceive headphones differently than your average youngster listening to popular crappy loudness warred recordings.
What sounds real to me may sound bassless, midrangy and lifeless to them.

If you want to show how it actually sounds you will have to compensate the (shortened) earcanal only in case of an IEM.
That will thus differ from the correction that comes with coupler and is made to compensate for sounds outside of the coupler.

OW is obtained by 'averaging perceived sound by multiple people with multiple headphones' and comparing/correlating those 'impressions' to ONE specific dummy head/coupler yielding a compensation curve for that specific type of dummy head.
This headphone FR spectrum will differ from the FR spectrum an IEM generates, so using OW for headphones makes sense (when derived from headphones) but NOT with IEM's

That's my POV though, others may disagree entirely..

as a reference Personal audio ru's interpretation of the Tio (but alas heavily smoothed, I much prefer less to no smoothing)



Logged
Use your ears to enjoy music, not as an analyser.

speakerphone

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +23/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2015, 02:50:11 PM »

If you want to show how it actually sounds you will have to compensate the (shortened) earcanal only in case of an IEM.


Nooo... That's not the fact...  I can't understand why you are thinking like that.


There is no one who compensates only ear canal response on IEM...
 
Then you are thinking that whole measurement sites(ex: innerfidelity, headroom, Golden Ears, rin choi etc.) are compensating the IEM wrong way?

Solderdude

  • Grab the dScope Kowalski!
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +206/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 907
  • No can do skipper, the dScope was terminated
    • DIY-Audio-Heaven
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2015, 04:28:12 PM »

Did you ever actually compare plots/measurements from Tyll (be it headroom/Innerfidelity) plots with those from Golden ears and Rin's ?
And I don't mean the raw data but the actual 'perception' plots ?

Did you ever find any quite resembling plots ?
Did these plots match within 1 or 2 dB ?
How well did any of those plots completely correlate with 'general' or your impressions ?
Do you think this may be caused by different test methods/compensation curves ?
Which one is more correct in an absolute sense ?

So... I guess the sites you mentioned don't only compensate for the ear canal alone 'cause if they did their plots might have been more similar (the raw plots seem to be).
Just as some of your plots are all derived from the same measurement but with different compensations ?
Which one would you say is closest to how you perceived them ?
Do others perceive the same items the same way ?
Do they use the same tips ? the same insertion depth ? Do they get the same seal ?

This isn't criticism on your measurements b.t.w. and think your measurements (the RAW ones) are accurate and nice.
I think its great having someone with a real coupler and this may help other DIYers a lot.
My remarks are here to make you think about it and not just follow paths others already tried, and perhaps regard as 'truth' because noted person this or that said so.
A bit like Alex (AZ) who also invented his own method. It remains to be seen who is 'righter' but at least he walked another path and thought out of the box.
Only out of the box gets us further.

I am thinking this way because, other than audio, do a lot more measurements which have to be compensated for charateristics of the transducers / circumstances and only use compensation that is needed in order to get an accurate response, not so it can match someones idea of how the results should be.
In case of the IEM only the (partial) ear canal is in the way between the SPL coming out of the nozzle and your eardrum.
Perhaps an over simplification but where is that wrong... assuming I want to plot the actual SPL and not what some 'speaker in a room' and my head/pinna which aren't in the picture at all make of it ?
Logged
Use your ears to enjoy music, not as an analyser.

speakerphone

  • Powder Monkey
  • *
  • Brownie Points: +23/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2015, 05:17:03 PM »

Did you ever actually compare plots/measurements from Tyll (be it headroom/Innerfidelity) plots with those from Golden ears and Rin's ?
And I don't mean the raw data but the actual 'perception' plots ?

-> Yes. Those sites uses their own compensation Target.

Innerfidelity - ID Target of Head Acoustics HMS
Golden Ears - B&K DF + room gain + 6dB effect compensation
Rin - ISO 11904-2 & olive welti target

Did you ever find any quite resembling plots ?
-> Yes these measurements resemble in characters.

Did these plots match within 1 or 2 dB ?
-> sure it is not. The compensation Targets are different.

How well did any of those plots completely correlate with 'general' or your impressions ?
Do you think this may be caused by different test methods/compensation curves ?
-> Yes.

Which one is more correct in an absolute sense ?
-> Olive-Welti Target in my opinion.

So... I guess the sites you mentioned don't only compensate for the ear canal alone 'cause if they did their plots might have been more similar (the raw plots seem to be).
Just as some of your plots are all derived from the same measurement but with different compensations ?
Which one would you say is closest to how you perceived them ?
-> that would be differ to person. But I prefer OW target.

Do others perceive the same items the same way ?
-> of course not.

Do they use the same tips ? the same insertion depth ? Do they get the same seal ?
-> of couse not


--------------------------------------
The coupler can't simulate the real human ear, but resembles.
We can't find the perfect compensation target for their own ears. Because human HRTF is different with each other.

I want to measure the IEM in Internationally Verified way. Not my way.
That's why I reference the IEC standard, ISO standard and Target which verified in AES.

Solderdude

  • Grab the dScope Kowalski!
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +206/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 907
  • No can do skipper, the dScope was terminated
    • DIY-Audio-Heaven
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2015, 07:05:53 PM »

The coupler can't simulate the real human ear, but resembles.

Yes it does, but the coupler without a pinna is nothing more than a waveguide.
When you compensate for the wave guide you end up with the real SPL at the entrance of the waveguide.
The Pinna and the rest is not involved so why compensate it ?

We can't find the perfect compensation target for their own ears. Because human HRTF is different with each other.

Then why bother trying to compensate the measurement anyway with a method you prefer as 'best fitting' ?

I want to measure the IEM in Internationally Verified way. Not my way.
That's why I reference the IEC standard, ISO standard and Target which verified in AES.

Then you need to create at least 4 plots and neither of those plots will actually show what came out of the IEM.
You should post the raw plot, the IEC standard, the ISO standard, any AES verified standards (OW) and that's it.

That's what you've done so far and that's a good thing.
I merely placed some question marks regarding the 'standards' and hoped/thought you would be willing to think out of the familiar boxes and be able to come up with something refreshing like O & W research.

IF I were ever to measure IEM's (they don't interest me so I won't) than I would try very hard to come up with a more accurate compensation than the ones others use for their own reasons to try and get better correlation to reality.
See what pirates think of those graphs and if they correlate to their findings.
That's what I am trying to convey.
THINK about what happens in the coupler, WHAT you want to know, WHY there are different standards that come up with different results and investigate WHY they differ and see the logic and possible flaws behind it. Why would a speaker sound be preferable and why one should compensate for things that aren't there ?

The OW curve is designed to compensate for measurement 'errors' that are not applicable in this case and even though it may be closest to the way you perceive them, it cannot possibly be the correct compensation regardless if others think so.
Why not ask the OW guy, he is active in several forums and can tell you if you can apply the OW target directly to an IEM inserted to a coupler.

I understand you don't feel the need to research this and wonder why, as you seem to be someone that likes to measure and likes to find the correlation between perceived sound and raw data and thought thats why you joined.

If you just want to do what others have done before and come up with identical results (which don't seem to be fully identical) than that's an option and IMO a missed chance to actually improve on creating more accurate plots.

Willing to bet there are a lot of pirates here willing to think and debate it with you.
Lots of peeps here with IEM experience and a few guys that measure them (not acc to exact standards)
Logged
Use your ears to enjoy music, not as an analyser.

briskly

  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Powder Monkey
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +6/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
  • Net Stalker
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2015, 07:54:23 PM »

The IEC standard is the coupler specification itself, it defaults to ISO 11904-2 for the DF equalization target of headphones and IEMs.
Olive/Welti noted that people prefer different amounts of bass and treble quantity in speakers and in headphone after the headphones were compensated to to an in room response on a HATS (which appears very close to DF anyway). If we can trust Tyll to paraphrase Olive correctly, the listener preference in IEMs is also different.
Logged
I love the asmr vids - a bunch of people just got together and decided that foley sound effects were now an official fetish
-Anetode

Solderdude

  • Grab the dScope Kowalski!
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +206/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 907
  • No can do skipper, the dScope was terminated
    • DIY-Audio-Heaven
Re: Ultrasone Tio measurements
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2015, 08:49:18 PM »

That's my point.

ISO 11904-2 describes a manekin based measurement method and is just like OW for measurements of drivers CLOSE TO the ears, not partially shoved inside the ear canal.
Other corrections apply in this case as the Pinna, Concha and other aspects do not apply anymore therefore don't need that compensation.
To obtain the SPL from the IEM port you only need to correct for the part of the artificial ear canal between the sound source and eardrum which differs from the ear canal in the coupler itself.
Rin also has touched this subject if I remember correctly and wrote about insertion depths and its influence.


Logged
Use your ears to enjoy music, not as an analyser.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4