Topic: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency) (Read 4567 times)

OJneg · « **Reply #30 on:** August 12, 2015, 05:46:44 PM »

Push up bass, reduce stuff at 2k. Based on what I've played around with EQ it's not natural sounding to me.

I suppose it's not too different looking from the Nighthawk's curve on second thought.

Solderdude · « **Reply #31 on:** August 12, 2015, 06:29:53 PM »

Does anyone like Harman headphones to begin with ?
I listened to most of the JBL line and did not care much for the sound of any of them.
I suppose their headphones are marketted with that 'target curve' in mind (at least the expensive ones) why else would one do all this research and not apply it.

While it is true that the OW correction curve can only be applied to the same test setup Harman has (the same as Tyll's I believe) the RESULT is a target curve which also is NOT a flat response but like the red curve I drew in the picture OJ posted.
It is close to an the B&K room curve except that it has a dip in the same spot as many headphones have (around 2-3kHz) and a peak around 7kHz which also may headphones show.
So in the end the OW TARGET is a sloping curve with a 'brighter' wide hump around 7kHz.

Also a matter of taste ... many people like HP's EQ'ed or designed to be closer to the FR of a room, I don't.
Average people do tend to like bassier headphones with somewhat subdued treble for obvious reasons.

It may al be a matter of experience and 'internal' reference as touched by Anax a while back in this thread.

Have played a lot with EQ myself as well and although some crappy pop recordings do sound 'better' when reproduced via an 'in room curve, I think well made recordings sound too darkish and muddy when played though a 'room' corrected intrinsicly flat headphone and sound much more real on an EQ'ed 'flat' headphone with just a mild (sub) bass boost a bit like the GE target.

Personal opinion/taste though.

Marvey · « **Reply #32 on:** August 12, 2015, 06:37:33 PM »

Quote from: OJneg on August 12, 2015, 05:46:44 PM

I suppose it's not too different looking from the Nighthawk's curve on second thought.

That depends. How similar is their measurement apparatus to Sean Olive's?

Where did you get that graph? I want to ascertain if that is indeed how the O-W target translates to speakers @ listening position.

Solderdude · « **Reply #33 on:** August 12, 2015, 06:48:27 PM »

The graph was made by me on a not too scientific basis mostly inspired by measurements Rin and Tyll made.

The plot makes sense to me as the OW target headphone was determined by a 'flat speaker' in a Harman test room which is likely to be close to the B&K room curve.
Also the HATS effect as described by AQ has some merits IF you want to emulate a speaker in a 'normal' room at a 'normal distance and position' to a listener.
That curve will be between DF and FF.

Of course if you have a more accurate OW target curve (which I am sure SO will have published somewhere) than a linky please.

Marvey · « **Reply #34 on:** August 12, 2015, 06:50:17 PM »

Quote from: Solderdude on August 12, 2015, 06:29:53 PM

Does anyone like Harman headphones to begin with ?
I listened to most of the JBL line and did not care much for the sound of any of them.

I suppose their headphones are marketted with that 'target curve' in mind (at least the expensive ones) why else would one do all this research and not apply it.

No Harmon doesn't make headphones according to how their research scientists like them. Harmon shoves people like Olive into the "idiot room" and plays that card when handy "we have really smart people working for us". However, when it comes time for making headphones, the marketing sales guys idiots always win. People like Olive are too dangerous in multi-layered and vertically segment corporate environments. Even then regarding marketing and sales, AKG sucks at that. They need to hire Tyga and Kylie to market the headphones for them.

Quote from: Solderdude on August 12, 2015, 06:29:53 PM

It is close to an the B&K room curve except that it has a dip in the same spot as many headphones have (around 2-3kHz) and a peak around 7kHz which also may headphones show.

If and only if the red curve is actually correct, I don't think the in-room translation of the O-W target is close to the B&K curve at all. The downward slope begins at 50Hz and is down 5db at 2kHz. That's way too sudden and way too steep.

Quote (selected)

Also a matter of taste ... many people like HP's EQ'ed or designed to be closer to the FR of a room, I don't.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand "FR of a room". What specific targets, room sizes, and measurement distances and angles are we talking about? I think you would be shocked how much my or OJ's speaker tunings or well setup speakers in good studios sound more like HD600s than LCD2s. Keep in mind that the slight rolloff of the B&K target (that I use) at listening positioning usually equates to flat when speakers are measured head-on at 0 degree axis.

Marvey · « **Reply #35 on:** August 12, 2015, 06:54:41 PM »

Quote from: Solderdude on August 12, 2015, 06:48:27 PM

Also the HATS effect as described by AQ has some merits IF you want to emulate a speaker in a 'normal' room at a 'normal distance and position' to a listener.
That curve will be between DF and FF.

How do you define a 'normal' room at a 'normal distance and position' to a listener? The Nighthawk certainly doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like a speaker that is overly bassly and warm. No speaker I heard at THE SHOW for the last several years sounded like that except maybe the Sonus Faber Stradavari. The Nighthawk is actually worse because the bump bleeds more into the lower mids.

Solderdude · « **Reply #36 on:** August 12, 2015, 07:04:07 PM »

Quote from: marvey on August 12, 2015, 06:50:17 PM

If and only if the red curve is actually correct, I don't think the in-room translation of the O-W target is close to the B&K curve at all. The downward slope begins at 50Hz and is down 5db at 2kHz. That's way too sudden and way too steep.

Like I mentioned, its not what you believe to be true that counts.
My plot was derived from known plots and the difference to 'known' corrections which are again referenced to 'flat'.
Perhaps you have the real target response from Harman lying around somewhere ?

Quote from: marvey on August 12, 2015, 06:50:17 PM

Can you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand "FR of a room". What specific targets, room sizes, and measurement distances and angles are we talking about? I think you would be shocked how much my speaker tunings or well setup speakers in a studio sound more like HD600s than LCD2s. Keep in mind that the slight rolloff of the B&K target (that I use) at listening positioning usually equates to flat when speakers are measured head-on at 0 degree axis.

I already did, it's somewhere on page 2 or so.

Indeed an 'in room' curve is how speakers on average MEASURE in a very specific room which differs from Harmans room at the listening position.
But to more trained ears it does not sound like that curve at all which was my point.

Solderdude · « **Reply #37 on:** August 12, 2015, 07:14:20 PM »

Quote from: marvey on August 12, 2015, 06:54:41 PM

How do you define a 'normal' room at a 'normal distance and position' to a listener? The Nighthawk certainly doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like a speaker that is overly bassly and warm. No speaker I heard at THE SHOW for the last several years sounded like that except maybe the Sonus Faber Stradavari. The Nighthawk is actually worse because the bump bleeds more into the lower mids.

I do not define 'a room' I merely overlayed known (and granted a derived OW) plots.

I totally get your point about rooms and agree completely with you.

Never heard the nighthawk, can't comment on it and didn't.
I can only comment on the 'science' behind it which has some truth in it to most people, just not to me.

Their 'target' is different than the ones in the plot (but has some resemblance in certain bands to the, derived, OW plot.
AQ's 'measured' plot is often 5dB off from their own target anyway which I think is a lot.

B.T.W. their driver looks an awful lot like the Foster driver.
It looks like the TH900 membrane with a slightly different 'basket' and voicecoil slit.
See http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6917690.html it seems someone beet them to it ... or are these the same guys ?
Does someone know if the drivers are made by Foster (acc to specs supplied by AQ)

OJneg · « **Reply #38 on:** August 12, 2015, 07:30:11 PM »

Quote from: marvey on August 12, 2015, 06:50:17 PM

Can you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand "FR of a room". What specific targets, room sizes, and measurement distances and angles are we talking about? I think you would be shocked how much my or OJ's speaker tunings or well setup speakers in good studios sound more like HD600s than LCD2s. Keep in mind that the slight rolloff of the B&K target (that I use) at listening positioning usually equates to flat when speakers are measured head-on at 0 degree axis.

Well you know me, I actually prefer to tune speakers based on quasi-anechoic measurements taken one meter away from the baffle. Measuring (or more specifically EQing) at the listening position is too much of a moving target. I figure if I get the thing to be flat, I can remove that variable and then play with positioning and toe-in by ear until it sounds like the classic B&K curve recommends.

I like to think the same idea applies to headphones, in that you can remove all the inner ear and HRTF stuff and just measure the sound coming out of the driver. That response should be relatively smooth and flat. At least in my experience, the best headphones tend to be flat in this scenario. You can do this by using either coupling to some sort of open cell foam with minimal shtuff around it. Or, heck, just sticking a capsule mic close to a driver uncoupled can tell you a lot.

Anaxilus · « **Reply #39 on:** August 12, 2015, 07:30:33 PM »

Think I asked a marketing person back at Canjam south whether they were Fostex. The basic response was it was 'their own' driver. Take that for what it's worth considering the circumstances.

Author Topic: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency) (Read 4567 times)

OJneg

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

Solderdude

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

Marvey

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

Solderdude

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

Marvey

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

Marvey

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

Solderdude

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

Solderdude

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

OJneg

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

Anaxilus

Re: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Author Topic: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements (and its own target headphone frequency) (Read 4567 times)