Because their application is based on the incorrect assumption that the listener’s head and ears are always bypassed when listening to audio through headphones, they introduce some spectral colorations that cannot be compensated for by the brain; this results in mid and high-frequency emphasis.
I can't help myself but agree to it. Headphone is not a IEM, and the soundwave indeed travels thru ear structures.
That said, I think folks at AudioQuest understand well; for most people who are supposed to be used to bright-sounding headphones would feel Nighthawk muddy and low-resolution at short audition during shows and meets. I think Nighthawk probably needs some brain-adjustment time.
I'm going to come off a little strong here (as usual), but rest assured I'm only addressing this commonly espoused belief directly and not making a personal comment. That said, I couldn't disagree more. Playing real life musical instruments requires ZERO brain-adjustment/psychoacoustics to understand their sound. They too pass through 'ear structures'. If it sounds muddy or low resolution, it's just wrong period. Real instruments do NOT sound muddy or low resolution.
Making an objective claim about what the proper and accurate frequency response of a headphone should be, and then falling back on the subjectivity of letting your brain burn-in is just a bunch of crap.
Having said that, precise diffuse field tuning for a headphone does sound bright and inaccurate up top. Both are wrong to different extents.
I would have to agree with Anax here. It's one thing to say "we have a target response that we think will subjectively fit most folks", and it's another when one claims "we have a target response that is more right than everything else that's being used, and if you think our target is false, your brain needs adjustments".
On that note, I haven't heard new Nighthawk, but what I heard last time was like... "Eh?"
If it is to be neutral to me, it needs to get brighter up top. And some here knows my preference typically goes for something like the LCD-2. In fact, I find the LCD-2r2 kinda grating and grainy in the treble.
There is such a thing as a headphone that's smooth, slightly dark, and super clean/clear that is not a Stax. I think this is what AudioQuest is gunning for. I need to hear the new version (if there is one?) to judge, but I don't think their target is right.
So basically, they designed a pair of headphones based on their own goals and methods. An okay approach, I guess, but i don't get the brain-readjust thing. Does this mean if I don't like them my brain hasn't adjust correctly?
Trained ears > measurements based on blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah science.
I wonder what 'flagship' headphone they used to compare the NH to ?
Or did they use the 'average' of a few flagships ?
Never seen any flagships measure like that.
I agree that setting a 'new' target response is a bit fishy and also think MOST pop recordings suffer from 'conditioned' guys at the mixing table + their monitors and thereby creating colored sound to begin with.
Sure there are some engineers with excellent ears + gears but I seriously wonder about most of them.
I am quite sure most recordings sound excellent in the studio they made the final mix in at blasting SPL's.
Olive Welti and Tyll also created new target responses... I wonder how many will follow.
I do think DF and FF are both incorrect as well.
Well made recordings, without too many 'adjustments' SHOULD sound 'real' on a good headphone and if that makes lesser recordings sound crap so be it.
That (real sounding music) is what should determine the target response IMO not what a recording sounds like in 'a room' with speakers nor what (averaged) type of headphones sound 'most right' to a large group of people.
I believe it's Beyer T1.
Well, about 'real sounding music' part... It's really hard to define 'real sounding music' because it is not just instruments and/or human voices that determine the sound.... The environment takes a huge role on how sound is produced. I mean, it's obvious that sound signature of a large orchestra hall is quite different from that of a small, enclosed room or inside of a church. Real sound music should be reference, but in reality it is also completely impossible at the same time.
In the end I am convinced it is really all moot
Well, about 'real sounding music' part... It's really hard to define 'real sounding music' because it is not just instruments and/or human voices that determine the sound.... The environment takes a huge role on how sound is produced. I mean, it's obvious that sound signature of a large orchestra hall is quite different from that of a small, enclosed room or inside of a church. Real sound music should be reference, but in reality it is also completely impossible at the same time.
I think the brain calibrates itself continuously though.
When I start listening to a KSC75 it sounds quite 'real' to me after a very short time already.
Yet, when I listen to a better headphone or real music first the flaws of the KSC75 are immediatly appearant and it takes a LOT longer for me to 'believe' the KSC again.
remains an interesting topic... what the reference should be and how to determine it.
So how to determine reference? Well, I like to go off just normal daily ambient conditions just as you would attending a live performance or playing an instrument. Unless you work with jackhammers or on a tarmac with boeing 747s, your ears are largely set for day to day activities in my estimation. So it's okay to start there. Granted early in the morning versus later in the afternoon might see a normal rise in SPL compensation, but tone and timbre would remain relatively consistent within Fletcher Munson and the fundamental level at which live instruments are performed is relatively consistent as well. Now some prefer to listen a lot lower for various reasons and preferences too. At that point, different gear could very well provide more accurate sound at those levels than say gear that would perform better at higher SPLs. To me, SPL is the only place where there is a very real audible sliding scale happening. Personal references and listening conditions are very rarely mentioned in audio reviews, yet are some of the most crucial.
Having said that, precise diffuse field tuning for a headphone does sound bright and inaccurate up top. Both are wrong to different extents.
I'm just excited for the day that science catches up to Luis' or OJ's ears.
We recommend that listeners put up to 150 hours of active playing time on NightHawk headphones before making serious attempts at assessing its sound quality.
This is the same sort of bullshit thinking that led the Ultrasone "scientist" to add random treble peaks to his headphones. Going against DF or FF is fine, but claiming to have some sort of revolutionary realization hitherto undiscovered by any audiologist or engineer requires either research or an actually good sounding headphone to back up the claim. Then again, this is fucking AudioQuest, king of the cable bullshit companies we're talking about.
What specifically about the Nighthawk's target curve doesn't make sense? At least on the surface it's following a logical pathway. I'd like to see Ultrasone provide a similar writeup to explain their S-Logic.
I fail to see how bringing up the fact that Audioquest sells expensive cables as relevant to the discussion. It's just a distraction that leads to the objectivist ad hominem dismissal of what might be valid method of tuning headphones.
They do not adequately test their hypothesis (target curve) by testing it either against prior measurement surveys or by running their own listening preference panels. Their assumptions appear to be logical, but that isn't enough to make something either practical or true in the real world. Without controlled testing they've come up with nothing more than a hypothesis (and one with which my ears disagree, for all of the anecdotal small sample size evidence that's worth).
Sounds too warm last time I heard it. High bass bleeding into mids.
Which parts wouldn't stand up under further investigation?
Listener preference panels give you Olive-Welti curves which sounds like absolute shit for headphones.
I suppose it's not too different looking from the Nighthawk's curve on second thought.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Olive-Welti curve and summary of headphone research/presentation can be found here. (http://db.tt/XMgixjBP) Response of the adjustments made from flat response at the listening position. I wonder why O-W didn't use a mannequin to determine the response at eardrum-equivalent for the in-room speaker.
O-W rig with headphone use would be generally similar to AQ, but O-W used large hard pinnae in testing, whereas AQ lists three different sets of pinnae used in measurements (hard small, hard and soft large).
And as regards the Nighthawk "white paper": would be funny if they developed a headphone that had all the technicalities right, but had a wrong-headed balance/response-target that drowned it all out.
Thanks briskly,
I will redraw my plot when I have some time.
Seems like a combination of the 'standard' room curves + GE targets.
My personal favorite is closer to the GE target (flat with a few dB lift in the lower bass)
Strangely enough the B&K curve is the opposite of the AKG sound (talking K500/K501/601/701) with less bass and hotter treble.
In the end you may be an 'inverted' B&K person not a converted B&K person :D
The older HD650 is more like a B&K signature.
The newer K127 and K7xx are closer to the B&K curve, maybe even leaning toward OW.
updated my plot:
(https://diyaudioheaven.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/correction-plots-2.png)
the OW curve is now based on Harman's plots instead of derived from DF vs OW differences.
In your data, I want to know where the B&K Target is deprived from. Is that a orto-telephonic gain from B&K company?
The target (room curves) are 'accumulated' signals at a listening spot (very averaged so VERY different from everyone's listening/living room spaces) where direct sound + reflections are accumulated.
The speaker itself should be 'flat' (presumably at 1m on axis in non reverbant room) in order to get a similar MEASUREMENT.
That means, graph that you've attached is target curve of flat loudspeaker in room?
then, you can't evaluate the headphones with those curves you've attached
I see. I didn't think about your measurement rig(what it called? a flatbed?). Actually, I never used that kind of rig to measure the on-ear and over-ear headphones, so I thought that I must compensate DF target on the data.