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.
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 - 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. More
like, for our own good!
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. I want to burn them in for at
least 10 hrs. before even putting NEAR my head let alone on it. LOL!
I hope the fact they are late is not a bad omen.
-CC