On Oct 4, 7:43*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 3:35 pm, "geoff" wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
I wonder whicvh major headphone manufacturer actually made them ? Many
are
actually made for other companies by AT....
Probably made by somone in China who was cloning some well-known
manufacturer's product, more or less. The most remarkable spec I see is the
use of relatively large 45 mm drivers in a set of headphones at this price
point. You can easily pay 3 times as much for 45 mm drivers. *However, the
FR curve admits that they roll off the bass, so at least that benefit of
large drivers is not being fully delivered. So, the myth of driver response
versus low end extension has been carried over from regular speakers.
At this price point, if you are really interested, just buy a pair and see
how they work. If they are not excruciatingly horrible you can at least use
them to repair equipment. If you really like them then you can use them for
your more critical work.
That does not explain their flat frequency response. Go on google
image and keyword rh-300 and frequency response and you'll see what I
mean! *only a tiny trough around 7k but otherwise ruler flat.
The actual frequency response of headphones and the desired frequency
response of headphones varies from listener to listener. Headphone FR is
nothing as simple as our usual desire for flat frequency response in
amplifiers and consoles (with their eq controls set flat).
The microphone coupling device that is typically used for measuring is
probably not that far out of the ballpark, but in fact its leading charm is
that it is standardized. *IOW, it makes no special attempt to duplicate
actual use. It does not include a good simulation of pinnae, HRTF, or ear
canal effects. *IOW, it does not try to duplicate the acoustics of the
pinnae and the ear canal that every headphone has to work with.
We also know that actual use varies from person to person because the pinnae
and the ear canal varies tremendously from person to person. There are
psychological and perceptual effects on top of the simple mechanics. For
example some people are tremendously put off by the imaging of headphones
and earphones, and other people are fine with it.
________________________________
Hi Fi News is referenced in one of the links on here. When I went to
their site and searched for "headphone" - typed just like that -
there were no results. WTH?? HOW can a mag like THAT not test and
review HEADPHONES?!?!
As far as our individual hearing goes, I do understand the effect of
our individual physiques - at least when it comes to the shapes of our
ears. And I also understand that even on the best testing rig - as was
described in that article, even if the testing mic is the best money
can buy, if it is moved even 1/10th of one mm the results will not be
the same. Still, I trust the results I see on headphone . com and
respect the work that goes into deriving those reults. I also know
that if I want the music I listen to to sound like . . .
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/sony-mdr-xb500.php(!) that's what
I have TONE CONTROLS and EQUALIZERS for!!
I have no problem duplucating quite faithfully a bass-heavy curve a la
Beats by Dr. Dre or the aforementioned Sony XBs, right on my Shure
440s or Sennheisers. But I also think mfgs have a responsibility to
provide a *reasonably* flat platform(speaker or headphone) and to
charge a reasonable price for that product. IOW the CONSUMER should
be allowed to tweak their sound - not have it tweaked by the sales/
marketing department of headphone mfg XYZ. And I've got words for how
a lot of music is posted nowadays also, but that's for another thread
and another day.
-CC