CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Headphone Measurements => Topic started by: Marvey on November 02, 2012, 01:56:24 AM
-
I've discovered that my measurement methodology overemphasizes ringing. Ooops. All my measurements are wrong. I will now set about to correct all my wrongs!
Boy. They sure do remind me of those from another site!
-
HD700 here! What's cool is that these headphones sound better now that I've revised my measurement methodology!
-
ZOMG! ZOMG! I'm gonna cum so hard!
-
WTF. The Jades. Wow! The RS-1 and T1 are faster and better behaved too!
-
ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE:
ALL OF THE ABOVE GRAPHS WERE GENERATED WITH THE EXACT SAME SETS OF DATA AS WE SEE WITH THE OTHER MEASUREMENTS ON THIS SITE. JUST THAT THE VISUALIZATION PARAMETERS WERE DIFFERENT:
- Smoothing
- Ranges
- FFT Window Rise Times
- FFT Length
IF YOU WANT NICE TIDY LOOKING GRAPHS, GO ELSEWHERE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FIND THEM HERE.
-
ZOMG! ZOMG! I'm gonna cum so hard!
:)p13 :)p13 :)p13 :)p13 :)p13
-
at first I was like p:8, but then I was like :)p13
-
Indeed. If the purpose of a pretty plot is to guide us on what to expect from a product, the plot parameters need to be carefully chosen based on our SUBJECTIVE evaluation of said product. Otherwise, pretty plots are useless.
-
Wut?? no decay on the hd700..
cept for teh bass... oo dayum dat bass
-
:)p13 LOLOLOL
-
Indeed. If the purpose of a pretty plot is to guide us on what to expect from a product, the plot parameters need to be carefully chosen based on our SUBJECTIVE evaluation of said product. Otherwise, pretty plots are useless.
You have to remember that Shike actually doesn't listen to stuff. I don't think he even has access to the stuff. (Unless his master tells him to buy it.) He just looks at the measurements.
I'm sure he glanced over at GE's site and determined that the measurements here overemphasized ringing based on his comparison of the charts. Mainly because I don't smooth the CSDs, use a lower floor, and use a low rise time for the FFT left window. I even attempt to normalize the levels with a higher weight placed on the upper mids / lower treble compared to the rest of the spectrum. A lot of thoughtful work has actually gone into the math and visualization aspects of the measurements here.
And you are right, many nuances of the CSD presentations have been tweaked to reflect upon what I can and do hear. I wouldn't be posting these if there wasn't good correlation with subjective experience. But you guys already know this. What's awesome is seeing you guys learning the system. At H3, CEETEE called out the minor FR irregularities of the Orpheus while he was listening. He was spot on in indicating all three bumps at 4, 7, and 10kHz.
-
You have to remember that Shike actually doesn't listen to stuff. I don't think he even has access to the stuff. (Unless his master tells him to buy it.) He just looks at the measurements.
Out of curiosity, who is Shike's master?
-
nwavguy.
-
nwavguy.
Oh, duh, right. I was thinking of another head-fier for some reason.
-
I wonder how long it will take people to infer a similar cult of personality about Marv and assume pirates posting like-mindedly on HF are "mindless minions" who just regurgitate his opinions. One or two crazies on IF already have. I'd like to think most of us sound less crazed and insane than the average prostelytizer but crazy people never think they're crazy, it's the rest of the world that's insane.
-
Just look at that bold leading edge for the Jades. Now that's what I call a strong attack, Grado owners would be jealous! ;)
-
HD700 here! What's cool is that these headphones sound better now that I've revised my measurement methodology!
LOL
-
ZOMG! ZOMG! I'm gonna cum so hard!
(http://www.badgirlsdiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/orgasm-face-bad-girls-diet.jpg)
-
Do you have to re-do the test or can you just re-process existing data?
-
I have no idea who Shike is. :)p1
-
One of nwavguy's minions.
-
Searched my username in google for shits and giggles and found this, so dead thread resurrection!
I get under your skin enough that I deserve my own thread? Awesome.
Let me ask you this:
Have you got past your phobia of dummy heads and upgraded past using sponges on your measurement rig?
Are you still scared to tell people your testing methodologies, which when making a claim is kind of important?
Can you apply the same filters you claim the "other" sites use, like 1/3 octave and -30dB? Maybe even use headphones they have in their system for comparison to see how off you claim they are?
Have you even found a study to correlate ringing audibility in relation to frequency, amplitude, and perception? You know, something to actually give context to the graphs? Or are you instead proposing others find their *own* context to go by, and as such your classification of good/bad is absolutely without reason?
How many here have seen a graph and went "THAT'S TERRIBLE" (or similar) without hands on or said corresponding context?
As for being a "nwavguy" minion - the only thing I own that even begins to relate to him is the O2 which isn't even my primary amp. My DAC? A DacMagic connected via toslink. I don't have the HD650 which he loves as I don't care for it. I have Pioneer Monitor 10's (original), AKG K702 and K601, ATH-AD700, etc. I did own a pair of Stax 202 which were laughable sounding far to similar to the K601, without a hint of bass, to warrant keeping them. I've had hands on with the HD800 which sounded like a better cousin to the K601. Also tried some Mad Dogz TR50P and HE500's, the Mad Dog sounded too empty in areas, and the HE500 while not bad didn't really sound amazing though did sound better than the Stax. Ultimately the HD800 sounded the best, but not enough to warrant the asking price IMO. Would eventually like to try higher end Stax, but finding a place to try them is a PITA.
But yes, by all means I'm a NwAvGuy minion - because I question measurements and their applicability on something he hasn't even discussed once. :-Z
//will probably get flamed/banned for dare questioning Purrin's absolute word.
-
Purrin, do you even have a fucking faraday cage around your house you idiot bastard mother fucker bitch?
-
Nope, but you'll get flamed for not posting first in the new members section.
And it's obvious that you you're not going to fit in anyway with all the assumptions and hyperbole you're tossing around in that post, so save us the trouble and head to for next google hit on your list.
-
Searched my username in google for shits and giggles and found this, so dead thread resurrection!
I get under your skin enough that I deserve my own thread? Awesome.
//will probably get flamed/banned for dare questioning Purrin's absolute word.
Seem like a good sport, your life may yet be spared!
How many here have seen a graph and went "THAT'S TERRIBLE" (or similar) without hands on or said corresponding context?
When I see a bad graph, I think 'that's terrible, but I will still listen to it at least once to confirm'. What's the phrase? Trust but verify?
-
Have you ever asked a question that wasn't indicative of your intellectual disability? My turds are brighter than you, now go walk the plank .
Edit - If you ever learn to read, three things would happen:
1-You'd be able to answer your own stupid questions.
2-You'd stop mischaracterizing everything people say that you don't agree with and shifting arguments.
3-You'd go somewhere where you were welcome. Perhaps an institute that measures coat hangers and hands out Quaaludes.
-
How many here have seen a graph and went "THAT'S TERRIBLE" (or similar) without hands on or said corresponding context?
I feel characterization is important, but there are a couple of things that a frequency response plots and CSD won't tell you. Part of the remaining story (but not all) may be found in non-linear behavior characterization plots such as THD, IMD, and HF. Also note that one of the main points of this thread is that plots can be tweaked to mislead: x-y scales, smoothing, windowing... Finding the right parameters seems to involve listening.
Even with all these plots, there are perceptions of pitch that a well carried out characterization won't tell you. In other words dummy heads will not tell you the whole story, and I think you know that...
Anyway, the deal here is to get along... Otherwise what's the point?
-
Btw, where's your girlfriend NWAVass? Ran for the hills after shilling his own products hiding from the liable lawsuits? A little basic arithmetic is all it took to build an army of the blind charging the walls of Jerusalem waving the banner of Objectivity. How's it feel to be part of audio's Children's Crusade?
-
Have you ever asked a question that wasn't indicative of your intellectual disability? My turds are brighter than you, now go walk the plank .
Edit - If you ever learn to read, three things would happen:
1-You'd be able to answer your own stupid questions.
2-You'd stop mischaracterizing everything people say that you don't agree with and shifting arguments.
3-You'd go somewhere where you were welcome. Perhaps an institute that measures coat hangers and hands out Quaaludes.
HAHA agreed, it barely takes 30 secs to search up GE's measurements and compare their data against purrin's, which I have found out after a while, were pretty damn useless.
-
How many here have seen a graph and went "THAT'S TERRIBLE" (or similar) without hands on or said corresponding context?
There are a couple of things that a frequency response plots and CSD won't tell you. Part of the remaining story may be found in non-linear behavior characterization plots such as THD, IMD, and HF. But even then, there are perceptions of pitch that full on characterization won't tell you. Dummy heads will not tell you the whole story, and I think you know that...
Of course they don't tell everything. However, the whole thread was made because I questioned the validity of his testing in practice and noted other sites with what I consider better testing equipment (and transparent testing methodologies) had generally less ringing even if they were smoothed in comparison.
Anyway, the deal here is to get along... Otherwise what's the point?
Ask Purrin and Anax, I apparently must have really thrown him in a tissy to make this thread.
Edit - If you ever learn to read, three things would happen:
1-You'd be able to answer your own stupid questions.
2-You'd stop mischaracterizing everything people say that you don't agree with and shifting arguments.
3-You'd go somewhere where you were welcome. Perhaps an institute that measures coat hangers and hands out Quaaludes.
Btw, where's your girlfriend NWAVass? Ran for the hills after shilling his own products hiding from the liable lawsuits? A little basic arithmetic is all it took to build an army of the blind charging the walls of Jerusalem waving the banner of Objectivity. How's it feel to be part of audio's Children's Crusade?[/quote]
Rhetorical questions sparky.
As for shilling - that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
-
Instead of questioning validity, if something is bothering you about what you see, figure out what it is and try to convey your findings (if any) in a constructive way (which is something WhatsHisName should have done.)
-
Ask Purrin and Anax, I apparently must have really thrown him in a tissy to make this thread.
Tissy?
Just for (as you so eloquently put it) shits and giggles, you might consider lurning 2 spel.
-
God, he's daft. It's like Chinese water torture.
-
...had generally less ringing even if they were smoothed in comparison.
R U Dum?
-
...had generally less ringing even if they were smoothed in comparison.
R U Dum?
Well, he did take the bait...
-
Tissy?
Yes, "tissy"[sic] - play on words of hissy fit and tantrum. Common in certain regions.
Well, he did take the bait...
Self-admitted troll is self-admitted?
R U Dum?
No, I just note that a dummy head may create reflections in the canal that cancels some of the ringing and as such should be examined (or maybe the inverse and reinforce). Equally, this creates another question on how HRTF would interact with ringing. This doesn't even include the potential of temporal masking in the auditory system itself (I think I'll make tones to test this sometime).
Rather than just the ringing, I think better steps towards identifying the audibility of said ringing should be taken. We have a baseline of audibility of numerous measurements, but what do we have for CSD if anything? These concerns of course seem to get marginalized and tossed aside.
-
Since you are starting to make sense:
I have access to several dummy heads, but I don't use them for various reasons. Most of my very early measurements (never published b/c I felt the data was not useful), were done a a dummy head, until I got the idea to use various couplers. The sponge is an attempt to simulate a free air measurement. I also use two other couplers to take sealed measurements.
- The canals create resonances of their own when combined with earcups (especially those headphones which are sealed - think ported speakers!) The question is whether these canal / earcup resonances are actually heard or not. My sense is that they tend to not be heard. We don't hear in the frequency domain. We hear in the time domain. I've always suspected that our brains are smart enough to pick up on certain kinds of echos related to the canal and throw that information away. There needs to be more investigation in this area. It's these very issues which make me throw away all information on my IEM measurements past 8-9kHz because I haven't yet figured out a way to "sponge" measure IEMs.
- I wanted to get away from HRTF issues. Speakers are measured with a microphone in free air. When I build speakers, I take two measurements. One at 1m away from the tweeter, and another at the listening position. These two measurements are usually never the same because of room and boundary effects. The final tuning is always is by ear. It's kind of an art. Usually the final adjusted FR tune is somewhere between the 1m and sitting position measurements. I didn't see why a free air microphone approach couldn't be used with headphones, since that's what speaker measurements (Stereophile, Zaph, etc.) are calibrated against. JA doesn't use dummy heads for measuring speakers. Essentially what I am measuring is outside of the ear. It's simply another way of doing things (BTW, Stereophile had used a similar method in measuring the HP1000s).
- As an aside, the various proposed defuse field EQs are too iffy at the moment. (Although I feel that some sort DF EQ is necessary for IEMs.) Heck, it should be noted that many speaker manufacturers intentionally EQ their speakers in almost a reverse defuse field. This is well known as the "BBC curve." This BBC curve works well with playback in highly reverberant listening rooms or recordings from highly reverberant concert halls.
- The B&K HATS that GE uses does NOT have a ear canal. It does have a combined coupler/mic unit though. Many such $$$ systems actually don't utilize a real ear canal. LFF has a dummy head with an actual canal for binaural recordings. Some serious EQ actually has to be applied with his dummy head for recordings to come out right. You can search this site for his binaural recordings.
- Arnaud and I have actually worked with Tyll and used some of his raw data to produce CSDs. There seemed to be some early promise, but his software was decimating the data past 1-2ms. I suspect the software is intentionally and progressively hrowing away the later time data to reduce the resonance effects in order to produce good FR data. Maybe we'll revisit this later. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no war or "I'm doing it better than you" or "your stuff overstates ringing" nonsense, but rather there are just different methods employed. As for GE's results, I believe many here think they are inconsistent or at worst, have no correlation with what they hear. As far as I know, no one is trying to be "right". Well at least I'm not. I'm just trying to discover and learn. Most people on this site actually use other data points as well, i.e. Sonove, GE, IF, etc. to come up with the big picture.
- There are a few measurement sites out there which indicate I use X $$$ equipment and Y ISO calibration and Z HRTF, (appeal to authority) and thus everyone else's results are wrong. That's great for them - I hope the AES gives them awards. The approach here is "I think I have some interesting data, please listen and compare graphs, and let me know if this works." This does have some serious downsides - as you mentioned - there is no study to correlate subjective results of ringing, etc. - which of course requires learning the system, unless one if already somewhat familiar with speaker measuring techniques. I think most people have figured it out here. It's really not that hard unless you are lazy to figure things out like Steve Guttenberg or are not very smart. In some ways, the site and the people participating are really the study. And it's a study still in progress. I don't know if you were ever cognizant of this. Don't be surprised one day if you wake up and the measurements all look slightly different (BTW this has actually happened in the past).
- Whether my visualizations show more or less ringing, it doesn't matter as long as the measurements are compared relative to other measurements on the site. The measurements I produce were never intended to be absolute, but merely relative. This is probably one of the greatest misconceptions which people have of the measurements here.
- A lot of your questions in your first post can be answered if you browse through the site. It's all scattered. I apologize for the lack of neat organization or tidy scholarly articles, but this is a hobby to me and I'm not making any money off of it. Feel free to ask.
- There is a certain way you can ask or propose intelligent questions without coming off as a know-it-all asshole or presume or misconstrue certain things. BTW, one of the early slogans on this site was "the non-authoritative and irreverent site for headphone measurements" and I seriously meant it. CS is really an alternative take it or leave it resource - there's absolutely no sense for me to replicate Tyll's measurements (which I can perfectly do BTW.) But getting back on topic: it's obvious you are an adherent of nwavguy's style. I think he's very clever and has good some ideas. But he does come off as a self-righteous asshole. BTW, he wasn't the first one in audio. I believe Doug Self was the first. D. Self has done some great work with op-amps and was highly influential in audiophilia at one point. Like for a year or two. Now he's just a footnote.
P.S. As far as the -36 floor instead of -30db, I normalize all plots (using a weighted average increasingly skewed toward the treble with a cutoff at 12kHz) at -6db. It never lines up perfectly because most transducers do not measure flat.
-
Since you are starting to make sense:
I have access to several dummy heads, but I don't use them for various reasons. Most of my very early measurements (never published b/c I felt the data was not useful), were done a a dummy head, until I got the idea to use various couplers. The sponge is an attempt to simulate a free air measurement. I also use two other couplers to take sealed measurements.
- The canals create resonances of their own when combined with earcups (especially those headphones which are sealed - think ported speakers!) The question is whether these canal / earcup resonances are actually heard or not. My sense is that they tend to not be heard. We don't hear in the frequency domain. We hear in the time domain. I've always suspected that our brains are smart enough to pick up on certain kinds of echos related to the canal and throw that information away. There needs to be more investigation in this area. It's these very issues which may me throw away all information on my IEM measurements past 8-9kHz because I haven't yet figured out a way to "sponge" measure IEMs.
- I wanted to get away from HRTF issues. Speakers are measured with a microphone in free air. When I build speakers, I take two measurements. One at 1m away from the tweeter, and another at the listening position. These two measurements are usually never the same because of room and boundary effects. The final tuning is always is by ear. It's kind of an art. Usually the final adjusted FR tune is somewhere between the 1m and sitting position measurements. I didn't see why a free air microphone approach couldn't be used with headphones, since that's what speaker measurements (Stereophile, Zaph, etc.) are calibrated against. JA doesn't use dummy heads for measuring speakers. Essentially what I am measuring is outside of the ear. It's simply another way of doing things (BTW, Stereophile had used a similar method in measuring the HP1000s).
- As an aside, the various proposed defuse field EQs are too iffy at the moment. (Although I feel that some sort DF EQ is necessary for IEMs.) Heck, it should be noted that many speaker manufacturers intentionally EQ their speakers in almost a reverse defuse field. This is well known as the "BBC curve." This BBC curve works well with playback in highly reverberant listening rooms or recordings from highly reverberant concert halls.
- The B&K HATS that GE uses does NOT have a ear canal. It does have a combined coupler/mic unit though. Many such $$$ systems actually don't utilize a real ear canal. LFF has a dummy head with an actual canal for binaural recordings. Some serious EQ actually has to be applied with his dummy head for recordings to come out right. You can search this site for his binaural recordings.
- Arnaud and I have actually worked with Tyll and used some of his raw data to produce CSDs. There seemed to be some early promise, but his software was decimating the data past 1-2ms. I suspect the software is intentionally and progressively hrowing away the later time data to reduce the resonance effects in order to produce good FR data. Maybe we'll revisit this later. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no war or "I'm doing it better than you" or "your stuff overstates ringing" nonsense, but rather there are just different methods employed. As for GE's results, I believe many here think they are inconsistent or at worst, have no correlation with what they hear. As far as I know, no one is trying to be "right". Well at least I'm not. I'm just trying to discover and learn. Most people on this site actually use other data points as well, i.e. Sonove, GE, IF, etc. to come up with the big picture.
- There are a few measurement sites out there which indicate I use X $$$ equipment and Y ISO calibration and Z HRTF, (appeal to authority) and thus everyone else's results are wrong. That's great for them - I hope the AES gives them awards. The approach here is "I think I have some interesting data, please listen and compare graphs, and let me know if this works." This does have some serious downsides - as you mentioned - there is no study to correlate subjective results of ringing, etc. - which of course requires learning the system, unless one if already somewhat familiar with speaker measuring techniques. I think most people have figured it out here. It's really not that hard unless you are lazy to figure things out like Steve Guttenberg or are not very smart. In some ways, the site and the people participating are really the study. And it's a study still in progress. I don't know if you were ever cognizant of this. Don't be surprised one day if you wake up and the measurements all look slightly different (BTW this has actually happened in the past).
- Whether my visualizations show more or less ringing, it doesn't matter as long as the measurements are compared relative to other measurements on the site. The measurements I produce were never intended to be absolute, but merely relative. This is probably one of the greatest misconceptions which people have of the measurements here.
- A lot of your questions in your first post can be answered if you browse through the site. It's all scattered. I apologize for the lack of neat organization or tidy scholarly articles, but this is a hobby to me and I'm not making any money off of it. Feel free to ask.
- There is a certain way you can ask or propose intelligent questions without coming off as a know-it-all asshole or presume or misconstrue certain things. BTW, one of the early slogans on this site was "the non-authoritative and irreverent site for headphone measurements" and I seriously meant it. CS is really an alternative take it or leave it resource - there's absolutely no sense for me to replicate Tyll's measurements (which I can perfectly do BTW.) But getting back on topic: it's obvious you are an adherent of nwavguy's style. I think he's very clever and has good some ideas. But he does come off as a self-righteous asshole. BTW, he wasn't the first one in audio. I believe Doug Self was the first. D. Self has done some great work with op-amps and was highly influential in audiophilia at one point. Like for a year or two. Now he's just a footnote.
P.S. As far as the -36 floor instead of -30db, I normalize all plots (using a weighted average increasingly skewed toward the treble with a cutoff at 12kHz) at -6db. It never lines up perfectly because most transducers do not measure flat.
^
This is the sort of discussion I was looking for, and I do admit it seems we got off on the wrong foot at HF. I'll even admit you're right in that I'm kind of an asshole, I've always been very cynical and insist on horse then cart - as such I'm very reluctant to take any findings at face value. In fact, before the O2 came out I owned a mini^3. I questioned his (Nw's) measuring technique and was extremely skeptical. . . then I tried it myself with a dummy load. Sure enough, it measured within a decibel of Nw's in relation to crosstalk even using a simple SBL! external USB. When I got my O2, I attached the same shitty worst case dummy load and once again was within a decibel. A new guy comes out making large claims, of course I'm going to verify some of them if I can.
On the other hand, if you're saying that I value an engineering first methodology that is also correct.
In response to your actual post, I'm not sure I completely agree with free air measurements for headphones as the head and ear become a substantial part of the system itself compared to speakers. After all, with the existence of such polar headphones like the K601 (I can listen all day as can other, you and other can find them shrill/etc) then I'm curious as if it's the actual capability of hearing, the HRTF, difference in models, personal preference, or some other underlining reason.
I also don't think that people identifying their equipment for measurements is a bad thing. It's a form of standardization so results can be repeated and analyzed. Sometimes testing methodologies can have issues, anything that helps standardize to weed them out helps IMO.
Either way, now that that's handled something amusing since you like pirates:
(http://i.imgur.com/xGt40P6.jpg)
Pirate zebra centaur.
-
I believe Anetode posted something similar, but with nipple rings on chains.
As with the K601, it's probable that the one that I've measured exhibited worse behavior than the one you own. I suspect the lower line AKGs have poorer QA. This was certainly evident with the K550. In some ways, the K601 are better than the K701. However this particular K601 I measured was a bit thin sounding. The lack of bass extension coupled with the ringing (which in hindsight does not look as bad as many other headphones) did not result in a pleasant listen experience with certain tracks. I'm sure even this particular K601 would have been fine with certain kinds of music.
As an aside, I do tend to purposely use subpar recordings to subjectively test headphones. There is a good reason for this which I will explain in a bit.
-
- The B&K HATS that GE uses does NOT have a ear canal. It does have a combined coupler/mic unit though. Many such $$$ systems actually don't utilize a real ear canal.
A question regarding the Bruel & Kjaer Type 4128C HATS (GE uses). Do you have detailed info on this thing as Google turns up little about this plastic fella.
The reason I ask is what do you mean exactly by ear canal (the definition of it related to dummy heads) and it (and most others) lacking a real one.
As far as I can see the microphone is mounted inside the head connected via a metal (thick brass, not lined with soft material ?) tube in front of it (so IE can be measured)
What's the difference with the one LFF uses ? does it have a different type of 'canal' ?
The correction curves that GE applies suggest the microphone is mounted behind an ear canal too (a straight tube).
A real ear canal is shaped differently and lined with soft material... is that what you meant by real ear canal ?
Just curious about it...
Finished my own 'rig' but it is nothing fancy and can only measure over ear.
+1 for an excellent reply !
-
^ yup
-
A question regarding the Bruel & Kjaer Type 4128C HATS (GE uses). Do you have detailed info on this thing as Google turns up little about this plastic fella.
The reason I ask is what do you mean exactly by ear canal (the definition of it related to dummy heads) and it (and most others) lacking a real one.
As far as I can see the microphone is mounted inside the head connected via a metal (thick brass, not lined with soft material ?) tube in front of it (so IE can be measured)
Yup, it's a coupler doo-dad exactly as you described. Not anatomically correct, but it works. But so does the silicone tube that Sonove uses. LFF feels that a simulated canal close to being anatomically correct yields the best binaural effect.
-
As an aside, I do tend to purposely use subpar recordings to subjectively test headphones. There is a good reason for this which I will explain in a bit.
This of course comes down to the matter of neutrality. There has been a lot of misunderstanding of neutrality. One such misunderstanding has been the straw-man (falsely assumed of neutrality proponents) argument from none other than Steve Guttenberg that neutrality is an attempt to get closer to the artists' vision. (When I play bass guitar and piano, I could give a rats ass about how it sounds on the HiFi - it's the performance that matters.)
Neutrality is very simple. It's simply a reference, albeit difficult to exactly define subjectively with 100% accuracy, which one tries to shoot for. Subjective impressions of neutrality will vary slightly from audiophile to audiophile. Subjective impressions of what is neutral vary little among recording engineers. (UE was not kidding, making stuff up, or fucking around when they said their reference monitors were tuned by sound engineers at Capitol Records.)
Even though the fuzzy "neutrality" bullseye may be fuzzy subjectively, at least we know there are people who try to shoot for it. Because of personal tastes of sound engineers (or even directives from Studio Execs), we will see variances in how material is mixed and mastered in terms of tonal response. For example, the guy (don't remember his name) who does a lot of the Patricia Barber stuff prefers a darker sound (with close mic'ing) vs. the guy who did the Bowie Let's Dance remaster a few years ago. Natalie Merchant's Tigerlily is dark compared to the MFSL Pixies stuff.
So there's always going to be variance. What I love about "neutrality" is that this variance will almost always sound acceptable on a neutral system. I like to use MFSL Nirvana Lithium to test upper midrange issues. A few tracks from Radiohead The Bends I also like to use for this test. The K550, at least the pairs which I've heard, massively failed this test. You can call it shitty music or whatever, but the fact it, I feel the interpretations are spot on from the recording engineers for these two discs. Certainly things are supposed to sound aggressive. But on bad system or system with upper midrange issues, this is going to sound nasty.
I like to use Natalie Merchant's Tigerlily to make sure systems are not too dark. Systems which are too dark tend to suck the life out of that record. I also use Talking Heads Naive Melody to test for a variety of many things (too much bass, vocal sibilance, percussion nasties, etc.)
What I don't use is classical music. Classical music is generally bandwidth limited. Now comes the question: is a transducer which sounds good on classical / girl+guitar / flamenco guitar, but not with pop a good transducer? IMO, the answer is an unequivocal no. I'm not into mid-fi. What is comes down to is that a neutral system will be the most flexible with the most recordings for most (but not all) people.
Does this invalidate personal preferences? The answer is also an unequivocal no. Heck, I happen to think the HD800 works really swell with Tigerlily. The HD800 really helps liven up that recording. Although I'm sure others prefer Tigerlily from the LCD2 instead.
BTW, I do prefer a very slightly dark sound. The Paradox s/n 001 fits the bill. So do my modded Jades. The UERM is slightly too "reference monitor" for me.
Finally, generally as along as a transducer has smooth response, I'm OK with it and can adjust. So even then, I wouldn't say that neutrality is my number one priority (another misunderstanding which folks have attributed to me.) Number one priority is a smooth response (no peaks). EQ'ing screwy response is difficult. EQ'ing a smooth response is easy.
-
Just an idea. Are we really going to go down this rabbit hole? Thought we were here to avoid this type of thing. :vomit:
-
See Soapbox articles written shortly after this website went live: http://www.changstar.com/index.php/board,4.0.html (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/board,4.0.html)
I think it's important to clarify frame of reference and priorities. It's so when I say the X is a piece of shit, people understand where I am coming from.
-
I read all of them before I joined. Support the idea. Perhaps I just feel this is more personal. If not, ignore my previous comment. Please continue to fire at will. :)p1 :)p1
Really hoping my weekend on the 17th will have more pleasant conversations. :money:
-
Yup, it's a coupler doo-dad exactly as you described. Not anatomically correct, but it works. But so does the silicone tube that Sonove uses. LFF feels that a simulated canal close to being anatomically correct yields the best binaural effect.
Ah O.K. makes sense ;D
thanks for the info.
One could easily bend the silicone tube in the same way as the ear canal is I reckon and that could have an influence on the correction needed as well.
Silicone seems a better mimicking material as a straight copper tube.
Neutrality is very simple. It's simply a reference, albeit difficult to exactly define subjectively with 100% accuracy, which one tries to shoot for. Subjective impressions of neutrality will vary slightly from audiophile to audiophile. Subjective impressions of what is neutral vary little among recording engineers.
Well put !
I made a recording of some music via an (equalized) T40RP and compared that to the original.
Did the same with other headphones (standard and modded ones)
Also did the same but using white noise.
Analysed the spectrum and listened to the recordings comparing them with the white noise.
Differences are immediately apparent.
Will do more of those in the future, having a rig is more than enlightening when modding away.
EQ'ing screwy response is difficult. EQ'ing a smooth response is easy.
Indeed !
It can even be done analog in a lot of cases.
-
So even then, I wouldn't say that neutrality is my number one priority (another misunderstanding which folks have attributed to me.) Number one priority is a smooth response (no peaks). EQ'ing screwy response is difficult. EQ'ing a smooth response is easy.
I've never thought you were after an ultimate neutrality, just that you want to know exactly what it is you are listening to, and to use those measurements to figure out what it is that you truly want. Part of the reason why I'm here is to use your materials to do just that for myself, as are most of us, I would assume.
-
"What is comes down to is that a neutral system will be the most flexible with the most recordings for most (but not all) people."
See, this makes sense to me.
-
"What is comes down to is that a neutral system will be the most flexible with the most recordings for most (but not all) people."
See, this makes sense to me.
Me too. That's what I have been trying to do with my speaker rig for years. Couldn't put it into words. I think it's also why a friend of mine who is a drummer, has never quite liked the sound of my system.
-
Something closer to neutral will definitely sound better on more systems. Preference will too - I also would rather have something slightly south of neutral than north.
But FR balance is only one factor in the system - albeit one of the most obvious and deal-breaking factors. A neutral FR that is slow or lacks resolution (or has high-ish distortion) also affects how much, if any, music I'm likely to really enjoy it rather than tolerate it on. Of course, most of these factors have measurable parameters as well, but not on the neutral/colored scale.
In other words, there is a difference between an LCD-3 and Skullcandy Mixmasters.
-
"What is comes down to is that a neutral system will be the most flexible with the most recordings for most (but not all) people."
See, this makes sense to me.
Me too. That's what I have been trying to do with my speaker rig for years. Couldn't put it into words. I think it's also why a friend of mine who is a drummer, has never quite liked the sound of my system.
Has he actually defined what he thinks is 'wrong' with the sound?
-
Ian, are you back?
-
Yes. One more try!
-
+23 karma for you.
-
"What is comes down to is that a neutral system will be the most flexible with the most recordings for most (but not all) people."
See, this makes sense to me.
Me too. That's what I have been trying to do with my speaker rig for years. Couldn't put it into words. I think it's also why a friend of mine who is a drummer, has never quite liked the sound of my system.
Has he actually defined what he thinks is 'wrong' with the sound?
Hey mate, glad to see you.
Yes, to paraphrase," the sub bass doesn't rattle the windows enough, and I can't feel my chest cavity move." In other words he likes a few dB's more in the lower Hz range than I. Personal prefs, but makes too much of my collection boomy and unbalanced. For me. Then again, I have passed my hearing tests, and I don't think he has ever had one. :)p13 Perhaps too many dB's for too long. :)p8
-
Thanks guys. Especially Purrin. Thank you.
It's interesting about the drummer since I was working with one who didn't like the playback of his kit and he couldn't actually define what it was.
At the same time, I'd been listening to a very expensive speaker set up in my home on trial. I noticed that the system seemed to 'clatter' fine in the kitchen department without that top sizzle. The treble was there but not the freezing cold top end that I had experienced in many headphones.
By eq'ing the very top edge, the drummer started to like the sound and I think what it was was the sound of the snare drum in particular. It was losing its depth of tone on playback and was giving this sharp edged, defined sound which he most definitely didn't like.
It was at that point I realised that one thing I really don't like in a headphone is a sharp top edge which is often described as 'detailed' when in fact it's emphasised. (Even from a studio master)
I find drums quite good at pointing out some deficiencies in systems because they are so damned difficult to record. (Along with pianos)
The kick drum doesn't go quite as deep as some drummers think. It's the speed of attack that's more important. For some reason, drummers think their kick drums are full sized orchestral bass drums which they're not. Kick drums go down to about 50Hz if it's a low tuned beefy one. A harp goes all the way down to 30 and organ down to 20.
So it's likely that your system is working well by not producing a fat bottom kick that rattles the chest. In any case, it's often higher up at around 100Hz and mistaken for deep bass!! You get that in stadium type stuff, but then it's heavily amplified and eq'd for public tastes. Then it's often coming from a multitude of speakers anyway.
-
Rabbit, thanks for that. You'll have to forgive me as I'm about to babble on for a while. Your post makes me reconsider something I've given a lot of though to in the past when i've struggled to put into words what I am hearing, what I like or dislike. It reminds me of racing motorcycles... kind of...
There are some riders who can take a bike on the track, do a few laps, come in and explain to the mechanics exactly what the bike is doing in detail. They know how to tell them what is going on in the same "language" that they use, which lets them quickly make changes to the bike. The same rider can go out again and tell them if the changes had any effect, if they helped, or if they hurt. These riders are extremely valuable to teams trying to develop bikes. It lets them test new gear and settings quickly. These riders are NOT always the fastest riders. They may know how to explain how the bike is reacting, but that doesn't mean that know what to ask the mechanics to do to make it better!!
Sometimes the fastest riders can do the same thing, but just as often they are CLUELESS when it comes to understanding what the mechanics are doing, or how to explain what they are experiencing on the track. Worse yet, some truly talented riders can make due with HORRIBLE bike settings and still get around a track really fast. This all makes the job of setting up and improving a race bike really difficult.
So factory teams can afford to have both guys... the fast guy and the test rider. Great if you can afford it, but still somewhat flawed. Every rider is different and will want a bike set up for his own style. So your test rider can help, but sooner or later you need to be able to work with the other guy to really dial things in.
I, unfortunately, was not on a factory team. In fact, other than help from friends I was left as my own mechanic. So this meant I needed to learn how to tell people what my bike was doing, or what it wasn't doing, in a way that they could help me to tune it. And while I'll never be as good at it as a factory test rider (and we won't go into the fact that I certainly will never be "the fast guy") I was able to learn the skill well enough to start tuning my bike well enough to be competitive.
In my audio journey I'm seeing a lot of similarities.
I've played with musicians who struggle to read music or discuss music theory but are amazing artist. I myself have always been a strong technical player, but have only lusted after the ability to truly jam.
As I've grown interested in improving my listening gear I've learned a lot, and I have a lot to learn. I found myself learning, slowly, that I don't know how to really explain what I'm hearing. That know the difference between something approaching neutral and something I like may be very different. That often I didn't understand what exactly what I was hearing was telling me. I needed to get to a point where I understood how to have that discussion that would let me learn how to make the right changes to improve my listening experience. I was/am learning more about how to listen, what to listen to and for, and how to interpret and discuss what I'm hearing.
One of other cool similarities between racing and this hobby is that "the fast guys" are always willing to help you out... I don't have to know it all, I just need to learn enough to discuss and learn from them.
I'll quit while I am ahead... sorry if that's a little out there and off topic!
-
Wow...
I think the idea of having a neutral headphone is about right to be honest. You'd be surprised what some pros use on their heads as monitoring headphones. Far from neutral.
There's an interesting thing I've seen on here too though. It's difficult to get a truly flat response but as long as the dips and peaks are smooth, they're not too bad.
I also think that neutral just sounds ..... neutral. Nothing in particular hits you in the face very often. It just sounds 'right' I guess.
There are manufacturers who want to stand out from other headphones and they do that very often by voicing them with traits that are instantly commented on. To me, that sounds like a 'tailored' headphone on the go.
I guess the only real way to get a true idea of what is flat is to actually measure because we are very clever as humans at adapting to sounds and easily accept neutral for quite a long way away from true neutral.
Musicians are notorious for not worrying about neutral!! They just get involved with the sound. I'm just as gullible and the security of a rock solid measurement often makes me feel relieved of the pressure!!
You're right about information. Too much just gives some people too much to think about. You just need to know what you need to know at any particular time. That takes a special skill for the person imparting the knowledge.
For me, I need some kind of reference in order to describe another headphone quite often. The best kind of reference would be as neutral as possible. With amps it's even harder.
-
I really hadn't thought about what frequency the kick drum was. Makes a lot of sense. When I go up to his place he has his system running through an eq and the lower end is always bumped up. It may be he is used to hearing the drums from his prospective as a player. He also owns a set of electronic drum pads and listens to them through headphones, which may have changed the way he prefers his sound system.
The speakers I tend to like are ones that I read later on are used in the mixing studio. My current ones are Dunlavy's which apparently are favored by some because they can balance the mix so the base and drums don't blow you out on your home system. I'm not sure if they are neutral, but they do not seem to make one instrument or the other stand out, unless it was mixed that way. They go from 20,000 to 20 Hz, but don't energize my room like a subwoofer. The funny thing is when he brings a CD to my house that his band has made, he always remarks that he can hear the mix better than when he was in the studio. I like them because I feel I am hearing whole of the music and the parts at the same time. If that makes sense. ::) I think I use my speaker rig more as a reference when listening to headphones than other headphones. Maybe that is why I like the most current version of the LCD-2 and I'm not a big fan of Beyers.
-
They go from 20,000 to 20 Hz, but don't energize my room like a subwoofer.
How so? I'm assuming you mean their response is compensated for room gain rather than anechoic.
-
What is comes down to is that a neutral system will be the most flexible with the most recordings for most (but not all) people.
Purrin's 'Sandwich Theorem' of Neutrality.
-
It's spot on in my opinion too.
It would save having a lot of headphones in the long run.
-
What would save a lot of money in the long run for the audio enthusiasts and everyone else in the long run would be decent music education on basic and higher levels. I only had decent music education in the first years of high school but now I realize what I missed out on.
Of course as a music lover I'm a bit biased...
-
What would save a lot of money in the long run for the audio enthusiasts and everyone else in the long run would be decent music education on basic and higher levels. I only had decent music education in the first years of high school but now I realize what I missed out on.
Of course as a music lover I'm a bit biased...
I suppose more of an insight into what you're listening to is useful. The only thing is, you're not trained to recognise good recorded sound via a music training.
It's also difficult to explain what constitutes good sound in speakers or headphones.
One thing that really set a 'standard' for me was a system set up for me in my home to trial. It cost a fortune but the memory of that sound and what grabbed my attention has never left me.
Describing it is very difficult and being a subjective type of thing, possibly inaccurate now too.
-
The first time I really listened to music with my Pioneer Monitor 10 and HD250 II Linear I was amazed. My dream is to have a dedicated listening room at one point...
-
My dream is to have a dedicated listening room at one point...
A high end headphone ........ p;)
-
They go from 20,000 to 20 Hz, but don't energize my room like a subwoofer.
How so? I'm assuming you mean their response is compensated for room gain rather than anechoic.
Correct. In room. Each speaker was voiced in an anechoic chamber at the factory to be about 20,000 to 25 Hz flat + or - 1 db. Or so the claim. Even though the speakers I have are 6 feet tall, sealed and quite large, I really feel that they were designed for a medium sized room and not the large room I have them in. The recommended placement is on the long wall as well, and that is a problem with the shape of my listening room. Right now they are placed so that I get a pretty flat response at the listening position with an RTA, although I can't seem to get rid of a 5 db drop at 300 Hz??? :-Z I would like to try them in a different room, but they would only fit in an area that has not proven to be very good when it comes to imaging with other speakers. At some point I would like to try a pair of stereo subwoofers. I'm not shocked that I like their sound as my last speakers where Quad ESL's. I think I prefer accurate bass over the intensity of the bass. The journey continues for a headphone to come close. Some are promising. Hopefully the Pirates can help headphone companies move in the right direction.
-
This may sound ott, but a long time ago, I had problems with room reflections and I went to great pains to line the walls with sound absorbent material. I think it worked well but was unable to compare the untreated room with treated quickly enough.
I think the speakers sounded better in terms of clarity.
-
My dream is to have a dedicated listening room at one point...
A high end headphone ........ p;)
The HD250 II and K500 were already an awesome combination. One comfortable and 'good' sounding closed headphone and I'm content for the long run. Before I can go high end as you guys call it I have to survive on a tight student budget.
After headphones I'll first opt for 'good' Pro-Audio monitors because I like having a good speaker system.
-
My dream is to have a dedicated listening room at one point...
A high end headphone ........ p;)
The HD250 II and K500 were already an awesome combination. One comfortable and 'good' sounding closed headphone and I'm content for the long run. Before I can go high end as you guys call it I have to survive on a tight student budget.
After headphones I'll first opt for 'good' Pro-Audio monitors because I like having a good speaker system.
I don't know the K500 but the HD250 II I know very well. It also has a tailored response but it's a very good headphone.
It's not really a monitoring device though. Recently, I encountered the Fostex TR50RP for the first time thanks to forums. That works well as a monitoring headphone, but wouldn't be as pleasant for Hi Fi enthusiasts though I guess. Until now, I've stuck with the DT150 for years with all of its problems. However, I'm not using them for serious stuff like mixing, but for monitoring performances more than judging recording quality. It does that well since it plays at lifelike volumes without pain and it's comfortable and passes the 'I can sit on it' test. (My memory is painful and I aways forget where I put them until I sit on them!!)
However, I am getting pulled more and more to the T50 since I know of someone modding them who is getting quite amazing results from them as a result.
Therefore what I'm saying is that you don't really have to spend a fortune on headphones if you know what to get. One of the biggest advantages of being part of a huge forum of people with a vast array of experience and equipment at their disposal.
-
You should definitely go T50RP route. Even the most basic mods yields the good results.
-
You shouldn't definitely go T50RP route. Even the most basic mods yields the good results.
The value for money is astounding. Even just a pad change and blocking of vents makes them into something more preferable for hi fi enthusiasts.
I haven't been able to take them off. Relaxing sound that gets you into the 'room' so well and cleanly at high volume too.
I'm not even getting the 'honk' that you can get from closed in types of headphones. (Although this is semi-closed)
In UK, they are a bit more expensive than the USA but still incredible value.
-
This may sound ott, but a long time ago, I had problems with room reflections and I went to great pains to line the walls with sound absorbent material. I think it worked well but was unable to compare the untreated room with treated quickly enough.
I think the speakers sounded better in terms of clarity.
Yes, it's sort of the equivalent of minimizing ringing in headphones. You'll get more low level resolution and it will be generally less fatiguing.
-
I did all of the walls and even lined the ceiling! When I'd finished, I did wonder if everything had become rather 'dry' sounding though.
I had heavy curtains on a patio door and even experimented by moving the curtains sllghtly to expose glass surfaces in order to tart the sound up!!!
I'm not certain a 'fully damped chamber' is always the best thing at home in spite of the way that speakers get 'tuned'.
Good speaker sound is more rife with problems in many ways than a headphone I suppose. The massive variations in rooms must account for an awful lot of bad sounding systems.
UK homes tend to be small as well so furniture is crowded in etc, so I have no idea how good sound is achieved in them other than to use shelf monitors or near field monitors. Ceilings can also be quite low. Therefore there will be wonderful room resonances that will interact beautifully with your 'flat' speakers.
Doing a frequency sweep from speakers in a room shows surprising amounts of reverberation/ringing of frequencies and not many people take that into consideration when buying speakers.
Not too many of us can afford to build an anechoic chamber in our houses!! They're ugly but a little bit of treatment and care can really help a lot. Identifying key reflection spots is useful and a mirror could be used to identify where they are. Moving a mirror down the side walls and sitting in the listening position will show where sound gets reflected - when you can see the speaker in the mirror from the seated position. That's where the padding can be critical to cut down room reflections. Not many people actually do this though.
On the key areas, dampening can really cut room revererations down quite well and still leave some room 'liveliness' to keep that 'musicality' there. (For want of a better word)
I guess headphones and 'flat response' have a slight edge since speakers are rife with in room problems and furniture.
To generate a nice clean 20 Hz, a room size bigger than about 17 meters would theoretically be needed as well. A room to dream for.
-
"Good speaker sound is more rife with problems in many ways than a headphone I suppose."
Not at all. Everyone overstates the affect rooms have and I have to constantly repeat this so my apologies to those who have read this before. At least compared to what we see in headphones. You'd have to specifically design a room to create teh kind of resonances you see in most headphones. I will say again, that I have no room treatment, one of my speakers is 4 inches in front of a glass wall and they are cleaner than almost all headphones ever made (maybe cleaner than anything ever made). Maybe some kind of sealed cement chamber with specific shapes on the wall could create something nasty. I'm still doubtful.
The affect of rooms has more to do with changes in FR. And the biggest impact is on bass. It's more like EQ than it is resonance. And the affects on dynamics, clarity, detail is more akin to upgrading to a better amp with the same headphone.
The way my speakers change between rooms is more like HD600 vs HD650 plus the variations introduced by various amps plus a bad sub thrown in sometimes.
Maybe you could say that rooms have a big effect on resonance in the bass region with speakers and decay rate overall. But headphones have serious resonance problems in the much more problematic midrange-treble area that cannot be fixed, it's in no way comparable.
-
I guess it's easier to change a headphone than change a room. Standing waves are also a problem in rooms.
Have you ever measured what is going on in your room with a frequency sweep? It can be very revealing. Speakers aren't measured by factories in a normal room. Then again what's a normal room? In the UK, it tends to be smaller than the USA so the little shelf speakers tend to be more popular over here than in USA. They don't really give the low end grunt though.
Likewise, popular speakers emanating from USA don't tend to sound quite so good in UK homes. It's all to do with room sizes and proximity of furniture.
-
What does a frequency sweep have to do with it? IME rooms affect the FR of speakers, but not midrange-treble resonance in any serious way. I can hear it I don't need to take measurements. I have heard my speakers in countless rooms and never heard the kind of painful midrange-treble resonance that almost all headphones exhibit. Never heard the kind of midrange resonance that even the HE500 exhibits. What I have heard is differences in bass quantity/tightness, changes in dynamics, speed, clarity, FR. IME the kind of midrange-treble resonance introduced by rooms must be very broad and gentle, affecting the decay rate but not creating sharp mountain ranges.
My speakers are kind of muddy in my current room (purrin frowned when he heard them haha), and I could improve clarity but I don't care enough to.
To be fair, I guess it depends on your priorities as to what format is more challenging. I think it's probably easier to get clarity, resolution, dynamics with headphones, and much easier to get smooth FR and clean response from speakers.
-
"Good speaker sound is more rife with problems in many ways than a headphone I suppose."
Not at all. Everyone overstates the affect rooms have and I have to constantly repeat this so my apologies to those who have read this before. At least compared to what we see in headphones. You'd have to specifically design a room to create teh kind of resonances you see in most headphones. I will say again, that I have no room treatment, one of my speakers is 4 inches in front of a glass wall and they are cleaner than almost all headphones ever made (maybe cleaner than anything ever made). Maybe some kind of sealed cement chamber with specific shapes on the wall could create something nasty. I'm still doubtful.
The affect of rooms has more to do with changes in FR. And the biggest impact is on bass. It's more like EQ than it is resonance. And the affects on dynamics, clarity, detail is more akin to upgrading to a better amp with the same headphone.
The way my speakers change between rooms is more like HD600 vs HD650 plus the variations introduced by various amps plus a bad sub thrown in sometimes.
Maybe you could say that rooms have a big effect on resonance in the bass region with speakers and decay rate overall. But headphones have serious resonance problems in the much more problematic midrange-treble area that cannot be fixed, it's in no way comparable.
Are you listening near field or further away?
The side wall/floor/(possibly) ceiling reflections will be more critical if you're further from the speakers. My listening distance is slightly over 3 m.
So I agree that it's not as hyper critical as resonance in headphones (they're also sitting inches from your ear), but dampening the reflections in speakers still makes a significant improvement. Far bigger than sources, proper (ie not under powering or clipping) amps, etc.
The treatments also aren't something that easily lends itself to quickly adding and removing. But when I removed all my side wall treatments there was a significant difference in the amount of smearing I was hearing leading to low level resolution loss. Also it was generally more unpleasant to listen to at the same volume as before.
-
Many different rooms. They're nearfield montors, but I listen to them at further distances as well. I've heard them in treated rooms, large living rooms, huge wharehouse, carpet, hardwood floor, furniture, no furniture, high ceilings, low ceilings, close to the wall, further away from the wall. Never heard a sharp resonance like you see in most headphones.
I'm not arguing that rooms make no difference, I'm saying that it's not the same as the problems in headphones. And I guess it depends on your priorities as to which is going to be the bigger annoyance- the problems rooms create vs the problems headphones create- and I forget that some people aren't as bothered by peaky resonance as I am. The worst I've experienced with speakers is boomy bass, and then I just adjust the acoustic space on my speakers and its' fine. (it's just an EQ). The worst I've experienced with headphones is gushing blood out of every orphis. And there was no "turn off the blood switch"
-
Everyone overstates the affect rooms have and I have to constantly repeat this so my apologies to those who have read this before.
Rooms DO have quite an effect. I'm sorry to make you repeat this statement again.
As Omegakitty says....
when I removed all my side wall treatments there was a significant difference in the amount of smearing I was hearing leading to low level resolution loss.
No one has suggested that rooms produce spikes or midrange resonance. Also, of course they don't have the same problems as headphones because they're not close to the ears.
However, headphones don't contain room resonances. (Well, I suppose they have 'mini' room resonances) But the 'room' that you're listening in is consistent. That's basically why I said that headphones are easier. Self contained and consistent room plus (as you say) their own inherent problems.
Speakers themselves could be really flat in FR (measured in a chamber) but the room will alter (again, as you say) the bass response that you hear. I once had a room with nasty flutters higher up as well btw.
At higher frequencies the room still has an influence, but resonances are less of a problem since it is much easier to get absorption at higher frequencies.
Most rooms have their fundamental resonances in the 20 Hz to 200 Hz region with each frequency being related to one or more of the room's dimensions. These resonances affect the low-frequency low-mid-frequency response of the system in the room and are one of the biggest obstacles to accurate sound reproduction.
With a typical room, and say 10 reflections there are over 1,500 images in 3-dimensions, so changing a room size and material is going to have an effect. This doesn't even take into account, reverberation times which could cause some nice smearing in the perceived sound.
A frequency sweep would point out room resonances for you and is a measurable thing rather than assuming what you hear is flat.
Not such a big deal if you're using near field monitors plus you and the speakers are away from walls.
We're talking about flat response and Ringingears brought up:
Each speaker was voiced in an anechoic chamber at the factory to be about 20 to 25 KHz flat + or - 1 db. Or so the claim. Even though the speakers I have are 6 feet tall, sealed and quite large, I really feel that they were designed for a medium sized room and not the large room I have them in. The recommended placement is on the long wall as well, and that is a problem with the shape of my listening room.
The speakers that he has are very good but he was concerned that he's not hearing as flat a response as he thought he should. Could be the room.
Interestingly, measurements are taken on a routine basis here on Changstar and they really give an accurate indication of 'on head' response. People go to great lengths to imitate a real head so that the response is 'real world' and 'accurate'. We don't do this with speakers to find out the 'in room' response because of the inconsistencies. The speaker you hear in the shop on the same source may well not sound the same at home.
The makers have a recommended placement for a reason.
I think it's probably easier to get clarity, resolution, dynamics with headphones, and much easier to get smooth FR and clean response from speakers.
I agree. It can be very difficult to eliminate room resonances with speakers though, unless you use near field monitors and stay clear of the walls - therefore almost using speakers like giant sized headphones. (Like on a monitoring desk)
I guess speaker listening is easier for us since it tries to replicate a performer in your room and your brain adjusts for the room resonances very readily. Record the sound from your seated position with a microphone and listen to that on a headphone and you'll often become so much more aware of what the room does to the sound.
Each to his own in the speakers v headphone ring ......