I have yet to cross paths with a clear definition of what “technicalities” are.

Is this like the physical properties of what the hardware is made of?

Frequency Response doesn't matter now ? Explain yourself ?

Show where they said that

+15db high shelf????? 😱😱😱🤢🤮

I am not against the harman curve and people having fun with EQ but I miss the time when we were able to appreciate headphones with different sound signature for what they were without looking at the FR.

Communicating ideas by language effectively depends on everyone involved possessing a common baseline of experiences, particularly anything involving the senses.

Without that, you're stuck wrapping everything up in abstractions such as PRTF accuracy that don't entirely correspond 1:1 to what's actually going on (What do you mean, this IEM has a deep-sounding stage? Doesn't it bypass the pinna entirely?), and there's only so much you can do to explain to someone who's never seen before why, say, painting all of their walls hot pink is a bad idea.

15+ more upper mids and treble? We're ascending to the next level of hifi untapped before

This.

Charts are ruining headphones. Accuracy is overrated. Preference is king.

Someone pronounces an 's' and your eardrum gets immediately sliced in half.

> I have yet to cross paths with a clear definition of what “technicalities” are.

Because there isn't. Most people think "hearing new things in song" = TECHNICALITIES

Tbh, I feel there's been so much collective circlejerking going on over the Harman target curve that it must about close to spilling over...

For everyone it’s kinda different. And it’s been somewhat debunked aswell in some cases. Alot of it is tonality and fr. Some was driver performance. Some was design flaws. Some was literally nothing at all. Basically it’s people trying to describe the final 10% of sound that isn’t FR

Charts are fine. They give you at least something of a sense of what you're buying before you buy it. But there are three things about headphones culture that really annoy me right now:

1. Treating any deviation from the Harman target as a sonic defect that must be corrected rather than appreciated as the flavor of that headphone.

2. Referring to the Harman target and headphones that fit it well as "neutral" when that is clearly V-shaped. Neutral is flat, damnit.

3. Publishing frequency response graphs that are normalized to the Harman target. I guess this is done to allow one to pretend that V-shaped is neutral?

I don't understand why a person would EQ every headphone to Harman. Why even have multiple headphones? This is like the people who just want everything chocolate-flavored all the time and will invariably choose a chocolate ice cream over the hundreds of other available flavors. Hey, chocolate is tasty, but sometimes I want vanilla, or strawberry, or pistachio.

Then just don't?

It's a little bright and the timbre is a little metallic. It has a terrible cable with laughably bad ear hooks, is nicely packaged with a cute waifu on the box, comes with a cheap felt pouch, and sounds alright for $20. It's TWENTY DOLLARS. I'm sorry if it hurt you.

Then what is resolution?

Technicalities are acoustic properties that aren't related to subjective aspects such as tuning or timbre. Technicalities cover areas such as soundstage, resolving ability and attack/decay.

Fr, every headphones have different characteristics, people always overdone every headphones and tuned the eq to those target/curve, and forgets what sound signature they actually like to listen.

My impression is that it's basically "things that are hard/impossible to EQ"

It’s funny to me after 18 months of paying attention to the “professional” reviewers… none of them have tried to start a wiki or something like to build a common vocabulary/jargon list which is clear.

Browsing the /r/headphones front page every day doesn't count as paying attention. Crinacle and Precogvision have posted detailed articles on how they perceive and evaluate technicalities.

IIRC Head-Fi did it a loooooong time ago but it never really caught on. Also I’m sure newer reviewers like Resolve could do a much better version.

20hz-20khz

>I miss the time when we were able to appreciate headphones with different sound signature for what they were without looking at the FR.

This is a philosophical problem.

We can just speculate about this topic, maybe this text Here can help to understand.

Yeah basically this, I've yet to see anyone able to EQ for more accurate imaging, better layering, or faster transients. Though sometimes more treble can give perceived wider/bigger soundstage.

I always think EQ is like saying Corolla at 40 km/h is the same as Ferrari at 40 km/h, therefore they're the same car because they both travel exactly at 40 km/h. To certain extent it's true but doesn't tell the full story.

Being able to see the FR graphed let’s you know what your buying and what the baseline is. It doesn’t mean that you can’t make literally any other purchasing decision based on preference.

MF’ers out here totally shook by science 😂

>2. Referring to the Harman target and headphones that fit it well as "neutral" when that is clearly V-shaped. Neutral is flat, damnit.

I think when people think of Harman, they hyper focus on the bass, which is meant to be adjusted to your liking. More important to the Harman target are the mids and treble. That's why things like the HD600 are considered as following the Harman target really well, even though it has neutral bass

>Yeah basically this, I've yet to see anyone able to EQ for more accurate imaging, better layering, or faster transients. Though sometimes more treble can give perceived wider/bigger soundstage.

It really doesn't take much to demonstrate that you can indeed EQ to get better technicalities, just buy an in-ear with a shitty FR you can find the graph of online then EQ it to Harman/VDSF or a target that you find "technical", even better if you can use oratory1990's EQ list so that way you can stay sure that you didn't fuck up something in the process too.

While it will never sound exactly the same (Expecially in the "air" section of the FR) as other IEMs EQed to that target you will still get much better technicalities.

[deleted]

This is basically how I EQ the Variations to give it faster transients: https://i.imgur.com/E2tHn2C.jpg

The main problem with these EST tribrids that gives them their wispy treble character and slightly smeared transients is that the upper treble rise/fall past 10 kHz isn't properly present. If you listen to cymbals on them, you can easily hear that the shimmer lasts for too long and starts bleeding into other cymbal strikes because of that treble overextension. The slight dip at 10 kHz gives a bit of extra depth (and by extension, better layering), with the 5 kHz notch being necessary to make sure the imaging remains coherent.

Thank for nothing

>Communicating ideas by language effectively depends on everyone involved possessing a common baseline of experiences, particularly anything involving the senses.

Audiophilia is like that, but audiophiles are trying to communicate things WAY more subtle than the resolution of their 'common baseline of experiences'.
At least if they knew well what they're talking about, they wouldn't say that somehitng has slow bass, if having a darker sound or quiet upper range is the same thing.

"hearing new things in song" = TECHNICALITIES 😆😆😆

It can give you an idea, but not tell the whole story.

It can tell you that the treble is a little high, but not necessarily if it's harsh or sharp. It's really just volume levels. If people understand that, it goes a long way.

Bloated bass with notes that lack crispness and bleed into each other is something pretty much anyone who's listened to the crappy stuff should have heard before. It's hardly subtle.

Excess mid-/upper bass is part of what causes it, but a lot of it's related to subtle issues with treble presentation that are hard to point out on a graph, especially if you don't know what you're looking for. "Slow bass" is handy shorthand for all that.

Happy cakeday! The Chu didn't hurt me haha. This is just a meme in response to people with the belief that you can EQ anything to make it sound like a better headphone. If you EQ the Chu to an HE-1, then it sounds as good as the HE-1, right?

Ah, I misunderstood you, lol. Thanks. Yeah, it's like the other Redditor said in reply to a different comment "A Corolla going 40mph and a Ferrari going 40mph does not mean they are the same," or something like that.

Nah but for real, I think the term "Resolution" is misused a lot in audiophile terms since we think of Resolution as a fixed stat. Screen resolution, etc.

In terms of audio, we could call the frequency range or bit rate as "resolution" but that's not what people mean when they describe resolving headphones. They more talking about a perception or how it feels

This is different to what other people are describing online. PEople say that a subwoofer has slow bass...

It's just an inacurate language.
IF it's not bass that's doing it, then it's not slow bass. It's everything else that you described.

lol this is the most well explained/reasonable counter argument that I read on reddit. I'm being serious, good job.

My EQ on m PC is currently buggy/not working, once I get it fixed I'll look into it again.

I actually like bright headphones with moderate bass (more close to harman than to the neutral target), and (unpopular opinion incoming) I actually find that IEM a bit dull-sounding (is it only just me? :D )... I would actually prefer to add some in the range of 8k-16k and some bass on those, but sometimes it is good to listen to different sounding earphones outside of your comfort...

Thank you. That was interesting.

I look at headphones/speakers/IEMs as technology/hardware. So when I hear technicalities I expect something about part of the hardware, and it’s effects on all the stuff listed in the linked article.

Like different material filters = x resulting sound

Or driver arrangements in hybrid setups positioned differently = y result

Sorry if my perspective is off.

Subs have their own issues involving group delay, which can easily exceed audible thresholds.

FR and distortion are all that matter.

Technicalities do not actually exist in the "real" world. they are only the brain's subjective interpretation of the FR. They can and will vary from person to person. Ie, they are not quantifiable, just like other aspects of our brain and personal preference.

Resolution, which is part of the "technicalities" umbrella, will vary from person to person on what part of the FR improves/decreaces the sense of it. For example, elevated treble makes headphones sound "low resolution" to me. That may not be the case for everyone.

And, a +15 DB Chu would make me gouge my ears out..

Replace every statement in the meme to its opposite counter-part and it becomes a good meme.

actually I'd say that's quite easy to judge from an FR plot, "harsh" and "sharp" are words that usually map to frequencies well below where measurements get shaky. of course, knowing how FRs maps to what you hear subjectively takes some experience.

People just make shit up in this hobby

No worries- memes aren't the best way to communicate complex ideas haha.

That's a pretty accurate statement. Though there are many here that would disagree with my subjective interpretation of headphones. But listening back to back with the HD660 and LCD-5 (both have a pretty similar frequency response - LCD-5 has more 3kHz and doesn't roll off in the bass) only one of these headphones sound compressed when metal gets intense. Compressed meaning no separation between sounds and notes e.g. drum solo in 2:40 in Vicarious by Tool. It sounds like one drum in the 660 while on the 5 it's 4 different drums in different places and depth in the soundstage.

I've heard $10k speakers that also sound compressed so it's not exclusive to headphones.

That article lost me at "Knowing that all the characteristics of headphones are in frequency response graph..."

Something like this? https://www.head-fi.org/threads/describing-sound-a-glossary.220770/

I found it helpful to use this when describing what I was hearing.

Unless you mean understanding graphs or something

Yep! I think that’s the one I was thinking of.

It's still Monday so submit your own!

What's his name does youtube reviews on headphones he's never tried by looking at the FR lmao

Every man has it's own destiny. My destiny is to make shitposts, not memes!

I mean its the same for musicians. We describe sounds as fuzzy, thin, thick, warm, bright, moody, and so on. It works because we have a common reference of experience (im talking about guitar).

It always baffles me how headphone reviewers get so much schtick for their vocab. Sound is hard to describe.

Engineers (like Sean Olive and Oratory) who have already been able to speak about this have already explained that the material, price or "arrangement of the drivers" does not necessarily make one headphone technically better than the other in terms of speed, decay or something of that order.

For those of us who just want to know about sound quality, any headphone technical result is show in the frequency response graph and the THD graph. Remembering that most headphones on the market do not have THD high enough for us to be able to hear, for this reason we have more frequency response graphs available than THD graphs on the internet.

This is what engineers and scientists who study headphones talk about, only audiophiles disagree with this. I think it's worth remembering that these scientists and engineers also had the opportunity to listen to expensive headphones, such as the Hifiman and Stax headphones. If there was something about these headphones that wasn't showing on the frequency response graph and the THD graph, then those scientists and engineers who have been studying headphones for years would probably have noticed.

The problem is that since no one has yet figured out how to do a frequency sweep measured at my eardrum, measured FR also doesn't exist in the "real" world.

This is what I don't like about this hobby. Everyone says different things, you can't objectively compare audio quality like you can compare other products. I'd like it if FR was the only thing that mattered, but it seems more complicated than just FR. I want an explanation why eg HD800 sounded way more detailed to me than every other headphone I've heard. Same with the soundstage. I don't think there exists an EQ where my DT1990 would have the same amount of perceived detail as the HD800, but I don't know why. What makes the HD800 sound more detailed than other headphones? Sure, EQ does change the perceived detail. Lowering the treble on HD800 also removes some of the detail, but it's still better than a different pair of headphones with more treble.

I salute you good sir. And may you post many a shit on your travels

>IEMs EQed to that target you will still get much better technicalities

No they don't. You perceive the sound as if it was better due to the tuning being more to your liking, but the technicalities are exactly the same as before.

Replacing every statement in this meme to it's opposite counterpart would make a pretty good shitpost though.

Cope.

In a double-blind test the vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between a "highly resolving IEM" and a cheap IEM EQed to match it.

Well that does kinda tell me you didn't actually try doing what I said above, it's expecially apparent with IEMs since you remove a lot of variables with them.

>Technicalities are acoustic properties that aren't related to subjective aspects such as tuning or timbre. Technicalities cover areas such as soundstage, resolving ability and attack/decay.

There are definitely a few things that needs to be said about this statement:

a) Tuning isn't really a subjective aspect but it's very much objective, you may say that tuning preference is subjective but even that could be argued a bit since there is clearly a trend when it comes to preference among the general population.

b) Technicalities are also very much a subjective criteria (As oratory1990 himself noted) and you often have disagreements when it comes to that aspect even among well known reviewers.

c) As you can see from that comment technicalities in general are very much directly related to tuning since in the end that's pretty much the main aspect you have when it comes to audio transducers (Barring audible levels of nonlinear distortion), the thing is that it's generally kinda hard to quantify what aspects of the tuning makes the difference between a "highly resolving transducer" vs one that just has "good timbre" really.

It can be argued that FR graphs aren't the most accurate compared to how they would actually sound in your ears but again eh, it's also the only thing acoustic engineers have to go by when it comes to tuning their stuff besides listening with their own ears (Which are different from yours too) and of course a test group if said manufacturer is big enough.

sharur?

How dare you provide factual answer

link?

Generally when discussing sound signature of equipment, resolution is talking about 'ability to resolve' which is very much related to both the level and speed of decay in the treble region. A level high enough to hear clearly and a quick decay so that note don't bleed into each other and are separate and distinct will be described as high resolution.

Or resolution can be used to describe actual audio signal resolution in terms of bitrate and frequency. 24bit, 48khz etc.

He means as a community. Hence "we."

Yeah. What a random sample of people like isn't what you like necessarily. And your headshape and ears might mean even if the headphone measures completely according to the Harman target, you might not hear it sound like the Harman target.

There is this channel on YouTube run by a clown who doesn't even physically try the IEMs, just looks at the FR and labels them trash

Yes they do, but do these two things sound so similar that they deserve common name? I think we need to talk about audiophile dictionary in a more critical way, or else it'll continue to be just poetry. Poetry is nice, but for communication's purpose, it's interpreted with more disciplined language. It would be cool to have some intermediary terms that help us with interpretation and link physical phenomena to casual talk.

I'd like to add something that I've been always pointing out. Headphone audiophile speak came from speakers. Words like 'soundstage' are far more descriptive with speakers than with headphones. No wonder, newcomers are often confused. Not everyone imagines headphone soundfield as a stage, more often as a bubble.

Enjoy your Chu 😉

This is a knee jerk response to anything that doesn't say FR is everything

Construction, if a headphone leaves more room around you ear it appears wider…

Personally, I find EQ an interesting toy, but to my ear, when EQ'ing a headphone that was already good, it causes more oddities and distortions than it helps. I screwed with all kinds of curves for my HD6XX (it was the main reason I bought the ADI-2), but the artifacts and imperfections that resulted eventually returned me to the stock sound.

I tried messing with the VOs as well, both via the RME and Roon's rather awesome DSP interface. Either way, I could make it sound different in a whole lot of ways, and I could make it sound better for a few minutes' listening. However, I could never make it better, and again, I'm back at stock.

Turns out, Zach knows what the fuck he's doing with headphone tuning. Who'da thunk?

And EQ'ing my Sony WH-MX2 headphones was an exercise in futility. There isn't a force in the universe that can make those shitcans sound good. It's a lucky thing they don't need to sound good to do their job.

“Technicalities don’t exist” honestly seems pretty straightforward to me.

Let’s take the MEST, with its holographic imaging. Now if everything we hear is simply a matter of frequency, we should be able to EQ some free apple earbuds to sound exactly the same.

I’ll wait.

Let’s take two sets of MEST and see if we can EQ one so that it has shitty imaging.

I’ll wait.

Let’s see if we can pick two sets of headphones with identical driver configurations (say a single DD of equal size, or two hybrids with the same DD and BA combination). One set costs $100 and the other costs $1000. You volume match and play each from the same source. Can you EQ the $100 set to sound identical to the $1000 set?

Take the same scenario, and let’s assume both sets even match tuning on a frequency response graph. Assume they are tuned the same way. Listen to both. Do they sound identical?

Of course not. No for all scenarios. Claiming that there’s nothing to hear that can’t be limited to frequencies doesn’t hold water logically and it isn’t the case in real world usage either.

It’s the sort of argument put forth by hyper-objectivists and it’s laughable. They can’t demonstrate it, they can’t prove that any such experiments are consistently repeatable. The whole point of the objective approach to audiophile gear is to use science to prove the difference between products regardless of what one thinks they hear- but I am yet to see science prove that technicalities don’t exist. It’s ironic and again doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. All I can say is prove it or go home. I don’t need a clinical trial to know that you can’t EQ all technicalities. There are elements of hearing that can’t be reduced to frequency response.

I’m deeply skeptical of your statement. The Legend X SE is significantly boosted in the mid bass and has zero bloat or mudiness. Treble is also elevated. Again, no bloat.

I’ve purchased around 10 sets of IEM’s and combined them with 7 different DAP’s and 3 DAC/Amp combos. In my experience excess subbass leads to bloat. Or just a cheap/poorly implemented driver configuration.

Wouldn’t be able to prove it objectively, just saying my personal experience is different than it should be if what you’re saying is correct.

https://www.moon-audio.com/audiophile-terms-guide?gclid=Cj0KCQiA1ZGcBhCoARIsAGQ0kkopnjgkMR4znm_eT86Kl2A8Xu5YZEfzG89aPFU0qO-aFwl4Q-z0e68aAmCpEALw_wcB

https://www.headphonesty.com/sound-description-glossary/

https://www.audiophileon.com/news/how-to-describe-sound-an-audiophile-terminology-guide

https://www.thehonestaudiophile.com/post/the-honest-audiophile-s-terms-and-definitions-guide

https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary

I don't really care. The Crinacle dictionary has been perfectly adequate for judging and unambiguously describing the sound of virtually everything I've listened to, and I can correlate the terms both with what I hear in my test tracks and with FR elements such as pattern/magnitude of treble notches, upper treble downslope, and 5-8/10-16 kHz treble ratio.

Anyway, this post is about the reductionist big brains who constantly chant Harman curve as a thought-terminating cliché, and critically examining the terms that audiophiles use to describe sound isn't going to help with them at all.

Now you're learning that there's more to technicalities than general tonality and that the relationship between FR and sound is very complicated. Keep on doing that.

So what often gets lost in translation when people say that FR contains everything about the headphone is that, while that is true, we are not able to measure FR well enough or interpret it well enough to understand all of those nuances. When I am searching for headphones, I look to the FR graph for one thing, overall tonality. What you cannot glean from our current smoothed graphs is things like detail, imaging, soundstage, slam, etc.. That is what makes Audeze headphones so interesting to me. If you are willing to EQ the headphones more to your preferred tonality, they have some of the best technicalities for my taste being extreme detail and that sense of slam. It also helps that they have some of if not the lowest distortion drivers on the market which makes them perfect for EQ. So in my experience you can typically EQ a headphone to your preferred target but you cannot add technicalities like soundstage and slam. And before someone says that you can add more detail by adding a high shelf, detail retrieval impacts mids and the bass as well so while it would increase your ability to hear the high frequencies more compared other frequencies, it does not change the overall resolution across the entire FR.

Just as a FYI I agree with you. You can't EQ a Chu into a LCD-5 or HE-1. This meme format represents progressively stupider remarks which is mimicked by the person becoming more of a clown.

FR is the most important thing for tonal perception which is 99% of headphone sound. If you really get into it, is actually the only thing that matters. Most people say FR to refer to a graph someone posts. That graph that you see can give you an idea of the tonal balance with the conditions it was measured on (hopefully a good seal on an average pinna with a specific acoustic impedance).

In reality, what you hear will be different. Some headphones will interact with your ear better than other headphones, some headphones will have peaks and dips where you would normally hear peaks and dips and that would make the headphone sound wider or more natural than another headphone. The HD800/s have an upper mid dip that makes music sound further away along with excellent pinna interaction. This makes the headphone sound wide and naturally so. Rtings has a measurement for this but it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story every time but I've yet to see a better method.

Your ears alter the FR of everything you listen to. Things in front of you have a dip around 8-10kHz because the high frequency waves bounce off the ridges in your ear and cancel out around that frequency. A headphone that either has a dip where you have or interacts with your ear to make that dip naturally would sound more in front. Image example of what I'm talking about here.

Some headphones also are super hard to seal on anyone's head. If the headphone was measured on a head simulator with a good seal and it seals on your head very poorly, what you hear will be dramatically different from what was measured. Closed back and DCA open back headphones are notorious for this. There are some other headphones, like most Hifiman and the Meze Empyrean that are designed so that they don't have such a big change with a break in the seal, often times getting a small boost follow by roll off below the driver's resonance frequency. Examples: DCA, Meze, Hifiman.

All of these things are FR but not what you see on most FR graphs. Distortion affects FR, soundstage comes from FR, the natural feeling of a headphone comes from FR, it just isn't something you can point to on the usual graph and say "that's soundstage" because it is often different for each person the headphone is put on. You can see how a headphone interacts with the measurement fixture to see if it is just the innate peaks and dips of the headphone making it seem that way to one person or actual interaction with the measurement rig's ears. This requires multiple measurements most of the time and isn't normally shown with a regular FR graph.

Hearing is fairly well understood and is the effect of pressure at certain frequencies on your ear's sensory parts. The measurement of this pressure at a given frequency is what a FR graph is and why it is generally the main important part of a headphone but you have to understand what the graph means, what it can tell you, and what it can't tell you. Often times You pretty much always need much more than just one measurement though.

Why we perceive these things are also fairly well understood and I have a playlist of really nice lectures if you are genuinely interested in learning. It is some really cool stuff.

[deleted]

im just interpret freuqency response as like the brightness of a rainbow..the more detail the headphone are the cleaner and higher the resolution of a rainbows are

let say for example...a v shaped headphone it brighter on both end of the spectrum but that doesnt mean the quality of both end are better..it just that contrast is more towards both end then a neutral one

fr can correlate to technicality but it never is the full picture

Audiophiles community is a consumer-based community with the most gullible members.

Many just have money to buy, a few know about technicalities.

For an amp, I personally go out of my way to find an antiquated design that has a high potential to start a fire, introduces all kinds of artifacts and tonal/harmonic shifts to music, and has somewhere between 1000-10,000x more distortion than a THX 789.

And it's the most fun I've had with hifi gear.

I would think the same if I spent 5k on an LCD-5

Freq response is like the color tonality of your TV, resolution is how many pixels it has. I often wonder why this is so hard for peeps here to understand - there's even charts to measure "resolution" in terms of accuracy of various frequencies over time: waterfall charts. In those you can see which freqs have more decay. High resolution headphones have shorter decays. Planars have short bass decays for instance. To simplify: Freq response is a 2D snapshot of a 3D scene. Resolution requires that snapshot to be measured over time with how accurately it moves air precisely within that freq range.

Much of this "freq response is everything" I feel is wrapped up in classism (these $1k "high resolution" headphones can't possibly be worth it, especially because I can't afford it) and confirmation bias than anything else.

Good thing I bought it used! I hope you get to experience it one day. Happy listening until then!

"inverted snobbery" is the term you're looking for. And for the most part I agree. A lot of people seem to think confirmation bias only exists at the expensive end of audio but it works both ways.

And there are some phenomenal headphones that are 80% of what the flagships do for an order of magnitude less in cost. There's a reason I keep 660s and DT1990s around.

It's terrible

I know you posted it as a joke, I’m just drunk and ranting.

Oh, I posted a drunken rant elsewhere on the thread arguing just that. Cheers!

and spend inordinate amounts of money based on made up shit.

Guilty. Still loving it though.

Pay $5000 for a headphone.
Doubt creeps in.

Make reassuring meme.

​

​

Yeah, people prioritising FR are the clowns :)

You went out of your way to shit on someone’s joy with your opinion.

May you never trust a fart for the rest of your life, may your internet be slow and may your bacne increase tenfold.

Fair haha. Carry on and enjoy the tunes

FWIW I EQ the LCD-5 and have multiple profiles depending on what mood I’m in. So I am a big fan of EQ. I’m more trying to meme the people that believe you can EQ a HD660 into a LCD-5 (believe me I have tried).

And no doubt here! Got them 9 months and they eliminated my desire for other headphones because when EQ’d they’re perfect for me. Happy listening and I hope you get a chance to listen to a pair one day!

Sean Olive also speculated this.

I can see the sine waves

Huh TIL. Yeah that's it precisely. Also still have my HD6XX around too and they are great

Sorry but it's scientifically true

I'm interested in the lectures, this is what I was looking for, but didn't know where to look. Sounds really interesting.

Here is my YouTube one.

The AES does presentations open to the public and archives them here. There is another by JJ that is going to be added soon on signal bandwidth.

For headphone design principles, you can search for the book "Headphone Fundamentals" by Carl Poldy. Toole's book covers headphones to some degree as well.

I also have a copy of "Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook: Third Edition" that I managed to get cheap and use as a reference when I need to look something up. It doesn't have everything and I don't quite understand everything but it has a lot of info, lol.

Quick edit: Here is another neat YouTube channel. And two videos on the basic backbone of digital audio: 1 2

And intro to Fourier Transform.

Ok, why should other people looking at FR impact his enjoyment?

> Technicalities cover areas such as soundstage, resolving ability and attack/decay.

All of which are way more subjective than tuning.

And what is worse, they think that the "bloated Harman bass" is just mid-bass interfering with the rest of the sound, when it's actually sub-bass concentrated below 100 Hz and only comes out with content that has a great emphasis in that region (in a generally pleasant way, like physical rumble) whereas in the rest of music with low energy in bass frequencies, it's pretty much like a "neutral" Diffuse Field response.

I wonder what kind of brain explosion they would have if they listened to a good flat speakers in a well-treated room and realized that the bass is not only heard, but also FELT, just what the Harman target tries to replicate in headphones.

But hey, being an edgy lords that sails against the current always gives them a feeling of false superiority.

Probably because part of their enjoyment of the hobby is derived from partaking in the community, and they've been around long enough to see the meta shift from something they had fun with to something less appealing to them.

Come on man, use your imagination a little bit lol.

A self proclaimed Audiophile's dictionary of terms can be vast and countless.

If it can't be corroborated by measurements - they're nothing more than numberous mythical Names in Harry Potter that don't exist in real life.

And lastly never forget: Most of these people will give high praise meant for Can A to Can B in a blind listening test.

So like uhm i have my dt770 pros and i like listening to them , uhm my ape brain is struggling to understand any of the words written in the post 🥹

By that clown, do you mean Sha---?

Sha--r.

Someone with brain cells finally

Poor guy saw Sharur after dropping bandz on trash lol.

Also bad timing after the quarks DSP dropped and proved you wrong.

Yes indeed

The 6XX is pretty much perfect the way it is. Just keep your pads relatively fresh and you are good to go.

They willfully ignore the diaphragm on BA, EST & Planar are totally different to how DD's work. Not to mention the 5 ~ 10% bass THD on HD600 seems to get ignored when they claim you can make It act like a LCD-X or Saundra.

Feel like a long term troll baiting folk since you still get people who think the ER2XR is anything close to the ER4XR with 4db bass lift.

Whos Saundra? She hot?

It's a very well-sorted set of headphones. I ended up replacing my pads with the ZMF perforated leather pads a year ago when I'd crushed the stock pads down to roughly the consistency of cardboard. The ZMF pads sound really good as well. Different than the stock velour pads, but good.

The thing is, those are still more of a perception thing. The physical driver will follow whatever the signal is near instantaneously since it's a minimum phase system. Even between "slow" sounding and "fast" sounding headphones, the driver response is basically identical. So effects of attack, decay, speed, and clarity, are more due to frequency masking and what parts of the frequency a particular driver emphasizes more than another (not something you can just EQ in. Different drivers have unique sounds to them).

I just think the term "resolution" can be misleading to some since it may imply more of a physical difference you can read on a stat sheet, rather than something you just have to hear for yourself to understand

might be for better... people think to much about technicalities, just enjoy music and have fun :)

Pay $20 for an iem.

Get jealous of people who have several thousand $ gear.

"if i EQ my $20 iem to match the fr of a $2000 iem it'll sound the same right?"

Act superior because you "weren't fooled into buying snakeoil".

Oh you're one of those people...

I know there are grainy garbage headphones like the MDR-7506, but when a decent one or an IEM is well EQ'd it can be a ridiculous improvement. Like say EarFun Free Pro 2 with Oluv's firmware EQ vs a Dusk doesn't show me anything more really. That said an LCD-5 impresses the hell out of me compared to the LCD-X's etc that I'm more used to. I don't think it's just about tuning, but when distortion etc are below audible levels then EQ can take you 99% there I'd say.

That said your ears are useless for EQ of that caliber so practically doesn't help much past a measured preset.