ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:23 pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
__________________________________________
That curve you re-plotted is for the ATH-M50 RIGHT BELOW IT! See
top post, 2nd graph down he
http://www.head-fi.org/t/533917/rola...0-vs-hd-25-vs-...
And by itself if you prefer:http://cdn.head-fi.org/3/3c/3c969bd4_img024..gif
As I'm sure you would in a sound rig, please "check your sources"!
The source, Mr. Coaster, was the google images reference you
provided. If you provided ambiguous or conflicting sources,
that's your fault.
Again, here is the ATH-300 by itself:
http://cdn.head-fi.org/a/a8/a8dd81ad_rh-300_f.gif
Even when I exaggerated the y axis on this it was still flatter than
what you pdf'd.
Well, here's the graph you pointed me to in comparison
to the one I originally did.
http://cartchunk.org/audiotopics/RH-300-1+2_nfr.pdf
Frankly, calling either of these "flat" is a triffle
absurd. The difference in the low frequency could easily
be a difference in how well the phones are sealed against
the head: I've often seen larger differences than this
with the same headphone but positioned slightly differently.
Above 1 kHz, the response of both is pretty abysmal.
(note both graphs are normalized at 1 kHz for ease in
comparison.)
And suggesting that EITHER of them is dramatically better
than other headphones would suggest a lack of knowledge
of headphone measurements.
BTW nice work on PDFing the graph, just the wrong
headphone. 
Actually I didn't PDF anything. I have written a utility
which, in fact, converts a wide variety of images of graphs
back to tabular data. Then a second utility plots the resulting
tabular data on a graph conforming to IEC263 requirements.
The output of that goes through a standard ghostscript pdf
printer.
BTW, IEC 263 states, among other things, what the ratio
of horizontal to vertical scale should be. You will note,
for example, that in the graphs I presented, 20 dB dB of
vertical scale, corresponding to a factor of 10 in
voltage, corresponds to a decade of frequency also a factor
of 10, on the horizontal scale. This is to prevent the
deceptive, misleading and essentially useless frequency
response graph display such as exactly the ones you
reference.
Beyond that, I would rate either of these headphones as "eh".
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
_______________________________
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree, as the old expression
goes. 
What are you disagreeing with? You quoted me entire post and
then disagreed? Which part? The measurements? Well, that's
the data you pointed me to. If you disagree with that,, you're
disagreeing with your own sources: go argue with them, not me.
Are you disagreeing with my statement that the headphones
indicate they are anything but flat as you claim? If so,
tou're not only disagreeing with the measurements, which
aren't mine, but you're arguing with yourself below.
Are you disagreeing with my assessment that the headphones
are "eh"? Fine, but you haven't even listened to them, it
seems, and you haven't suggested ANY measurement data that
would suggest otherwise.
As far as performance between 1K and 10K goes, I've seen *at least* a
shallow dip, or dips, anywhere between 3 & 5kHZ on even the highest
recommended phones on headphone.com. Even the so-called GAWHHHD!!!!!
of headphones, http://www.headphone.com/headphones/...ser-hd-800.php
, goes down a bit above 2kHz and recovers just below 10kHz. And
there's probably a good reason for that
Yes, there is, but it is not what you state below
if you study the same band
on the equal-loudness contour and complementary audiograms. Turns out
(most) humans have the highest hearing sensitivity right where those
headphones valley out. Coincidence? Conspiracy? I think not.
It is a conspiracy, but not the one you'd like to claim.
The fact is that above a couple of kilohertz, the wavelengths
are proximal to and smaller than the dimensions of the "chamber"
in which the sound is being produced, be it the "standard
ear" or your ear. It's simply physically impossible to
produce a flat frequency response under conditions where
the wavelengths are so short you have resonance,
cancellation and reinforcement effects due to the physical
dimensions of the space and the drivers involved.
Now, the maximum peak sensitivity of the ear at around
4 kHz is, in fact, due to the primary resonance of the
ear canal, due to its physical dimensions. But many of
the other response anomalies are unique to headphones:
there are resonances in headphones that simply don't
exist in normal hearing because, normally, the ear is
NEVER enclosed and in close proximity to the sound source
as they are when headphones are used.
Further, the notion that you would even WANT the alledged
match between the ears (average) response and headphone
response is simply bogus logic: the gross sensivity
response of the ear is there whether you're listening to
headphones or not. Try to compensate for what is already
the natural response of the ear, one that the owner deals
with all the time already, results in an overcompensated
and quite unnatural response. It's very much the same
as equalizing your speakers based on hearing sensitivity:
whether you listen to music live or over speakers, you
still are using the same ear. If you think need to equalize
your speakers to compensate for your ears, why don't you need
to equlaize the live music to also compensate for your ears?
More like, for our own good!
No, more like for the good of the shareholders of the
headphone companies.
I'm anxiously awaiting delivery of these things - they were supposed
to be here today acc to B&H on line when I place the order yesterday -
guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow.
So you've already come to your conclusion and thus don't
need to avail yourself of B&H's return policy, having never
heard these things in your life?
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+