[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

All though I dislike using headphones for 'professional' listening,
there are times when the need arises. I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
K240 MkII headphones, thinking they would be the best headphones that
would ever fall within my budget and might be adequate for occasional
monitoring use. They turned out to be a big disappointment.

There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
earpiece. Before buying, I had read some of the 'independent' reviews;
they were utter bull****, not one of them even noticed those two glaring
faults.

For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
K240 MkII headphones

There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
earpiece.

How do you measure the frequency response of headphones? I've always
been curious about my headphones, but I don't think I can trust what
shoving an SPL meter mic into the cups shows me. Do you have a test
fixture? Is it reasonable for mere mortals like me to build one?



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
All though I dislike using headphones for 'professional' listening,
there are times when the need arises. I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
K240 MkII headphones, thinking they would be the best headphones that
would ever fall within my budget and might be adequate for occasional
monitoring use. They turned out to be a big disappointment.

There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
earpiece. Before buying, I had read some of the 'independent' reviews;
they were utter bull****, not one of them even noticed those two glaring
faults.

How are you measuring these?

Both of those could be measuring artifacts.

For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

They are a much newer design also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:

How do you measure the frequency response of headphones? I've always
been curious about my headphones, but I don't think I can trust what
shoving an SPL meter mic into the cups shows me. Do you have a test
fixture? Is it reasonable for mere mortals like me to build one?

There are several standard test fixtures. Most of the plots you see in the
real world are done on an IEC 60711 ear simulator, or with the older
Zwislocki coupler. Both provide fairly good mechanical analogies to the
ear which are accurate between about 200 Hz and 10 KHz. However, both will
give slightly different plots.

There are no standard pinna simulations.

Also, the standard headphone measurements are usually made at 94 dBSPL
since that is the level at which the sound pressure is one pascal and so
it makes the math much easier. Unfortunately there are some headphones for
which the response changes a bit with level.

I think you could probably make an IEC 60711 equivalent pretty easily with
a little machine shop work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

The AKG web site lists the K44 as "discontinued" but there seems to be a
K44 Perception model that replaces it, with no indication of the
difference between the discontinued and current model other than the
name. And although prices vary, I couldn't find any that were 1/10 the
price of any K240.

Which K44 do you have, or do you know?



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
K240 MkII headphones

There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
earpiece.

How do you measure the frequency response of headphones? I've always
been curious about my headphones, but I don't think I can trust what
shoving an SPL meter mic into the cups shows me. Do you have a test
fixture? Is it reasonable for mere mortals like me to build one?

The dips and peaks were very obvious just by listening, but I decided I
ought to make some sort of rough-and-ready measurements before posting a
criticism, even if those weren't to any recognised standard.

I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of
Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a
small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under
the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording
input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.

The voltage level at 1 Kc/s, fed into the headphones from a signal
generator, was adjusted until the bar display on the Tascam reached a
mark about 12dB below peak, then the signal generator attenuator was
used to keep the response at that level over the range of frequencies
tested.

I checked, by compressing the ear pads, that any major variations were
not due to standing waves or air leakage; there was some overall sound
pressure increase as the cavity was compressed, but standing wave
effects were negligible and the headband alone seemed to give sufficient
consistent pressure for my measurements.

Not super-accurate, not a World Standard, but good enough to measure the
gross faults that my ears had already told me were there.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

The AKG web site lists the K44 as "discontinued" but there seems to be a
K44 Perception model that replaces it, with no indication of the
difference between the discontinued and current model other than the
name. And although prices vary, I couldn't find any that were 1/10 the
price of any K240.

Which K44 do you have, or do you know?

It is the Perception model.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
All though I dislike using headphones for 'professional' listening,
there are times when the need arises. I bought a secondhand pair of AKG
K240 MkII headphones, thinking they would be the best headphones that
would ever fall within my budget and might be adequate for occasional
monitoring use. They turned out to be a big disappointment.

There is a 16dB dip in the response just below 4 Kc/s and a sharp 8dB
peak at 6.5 Kc/s. Both sides are similar, so it isn't a fault in one
earpiece. Before buying, I had read some of the 'independent' reviews;
they were utter bull****, not one of them even noticed those two glaring
faults.

How are you measuring these?

See other reply

Both of those could be measuring artifacts.

Unlikely, given that I could also hear them clearly.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[William Sommerwerck]

As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
and "obvious".

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of
Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a
small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under
the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording
input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.

Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what
you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:58:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:



I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of

Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a

small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under

the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording

input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.



Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what

you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.





--



If I understood correctly, the phones are feeding into the hard cover surface of the books.

I would try it with at least some sound absorbant material (cotton?) in there.

Mark

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

wrote:

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:58:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:



I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of

Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a

small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under

the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording

input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.



Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what

you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.





--



If I understood correctly, the phones are feeding into the hard cover
surface of the books.

I would try it with at least some sound absorbant material (cotton?) in
there.

I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
little woolly-headed at times).


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Williamson]

On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
wrote:

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:58:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:



I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of

Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a

small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under

the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording

input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.



Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what

you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.





--



If I understood correctly, the phones are feeding into the hard cover
surface of the books.

I would try it with at least some sound absorbant material (cotton?) in
there.

I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
little woolly-headed at times).


Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 22/08/2014 1:41 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

The AKG web site lists the K44 as "discontinued" but there seems to be a
K44 Perception model that replaces it, with no indication of the
difference between the discontinued and current model other than the
name. And although prices vary, I couldn't find any that were 1/10 the
price of any K240.

Which K44 do you have, or do you know?




K44 were cheap plastic junk (though better junk than other junk around
same price).

I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?

And surely it's been "Hz" for half a century or more ? ;-)


geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

John Williamson wrote:

On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
wrote:

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:58:39 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/21/2014 10:02 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:



I clamped the headphone onto a stack of books (old bound copies of

Wireless World) to about the thickness of a human head. Then I put a

small pressure microphone capsule on a bit of thin screened cable under

the centre of each ear cup. The mics were connected to the recording

input of a Tascam DR-05 with phantom power switched on.



Sounds like a test fixture to me. Certainly close enough to confirm what

you heard even if the numbers aren't exact.





--



If I understood correctly, the phones are feeding into the hard cover
surface of the books.

I would try it with at least some sound absorbant material (cotton?) in
there.

I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
little woolly-headed at times).


Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?

No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
dips like that in the response curve.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

geoff wrote:

On 22/08/2014 1:41 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/21/2014 9:15 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

For comparison I bought a pair of AKG K44s, they suffer from far more
minor ripples in the response, including a peak at HF, but overall they
sound better than the K240. They also have much better isolation, being
semi-closed back, and they are only 1/10th of the price.

The AKG web site lists the K44 as "discontinued" but there seems to be a
K44 Perception model that replaces it, with no indication of the
difference between the discontinued and current model other than the
name. And although prices vary, I couldn't find any that were 1/10 the
price of any K240.

Which K44 do you have, or do you know?




K44 were cheap plastic junk (though better junk than other junk around
same price).

I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?

Yes, I was surprised when the audible output virtually disappeared as I
tuned through it, so I set up the test system to find out if it could be
measured and how deep the notch was. It was very plain to hear with the
'cans' on or with them held in free air, so i don't think it was caused
by reflections from my head.

Before that, I was aware of the 'glittery' and hissy response at the top
end, so I also suspected the HF peak long before I found it by
measurement.


And surely it's been "Hz" for half a century or more ? ;-)

I'm older than that.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 8/21/2014 5:31 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
geoff wrote:

...snip...


And surely it's been "Hz" for half a century or more ? ;-)

I'm older than that.


Hmm, do you still use micro mics for small capacitors? :-)

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote: "As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
and "obvious". "


Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads as do MDR-7506s.

[geoff]

On 22/08/2014 9:31 a.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?

Yes, I was surprised when the audible output virtually disappeared as I
tuned through it, so I set up the test system to find out if it could be
measured and how deep the notch was. It was very plain to hear with the
'cans' on or with them held in free air, so i don't think it was caused
by reflections from my head.
\

Perhaps a faulty set ? I might have some in a box somewhere to compare
- will have a scratch around.


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: "As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
and "obvious". "

Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads as do MDR-7506s.

The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never
heard AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral.
If they have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should
be simple and "obvious".

Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads
as do MDR-7506s.

The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.

Scott, please re-read what I said.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Scott, please re-read what I said.

Read what you wrote.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:23:23 PM UTC-4, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott .panix.com...

thekmam wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:



As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never

heard AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.



It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral.

If they have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should

be simple and "obvious".



Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads

as do MDR-7506s.



The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.



Scott, please re-read what I said.
__________

I think what Dorsey meant was that perfectly flat headphones do not translate too well to how we(humans) hear.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:23:23 PM UTC-4, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott .panix.com...
thekmam wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never
heard AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral.
If they have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations
should
be simple and "obvious".

Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads
as do MDR-7506s.

The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.

Scott, please re-read what I said.
__________

I think what Dorsey meant was that perfectly flat headphones
do not translate too well to how we (humans) hear.

A "perfectly flat" headphone does not sound flat. This has been known for
probably 60 years. Subjectively flat headphones do not measure "flat". THIS IS
NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

The OP was not happy with the AKG headphones. This wasn't surprising, as I've
never heard an AKG headphone, at any price, that was any good, by any standard
of "goodness". (That includes the original K1000.)

Audiophile headphones are supposed to be subjectively flat. Monitoring
headphones usually have some intentional coloration that recording engineers
prefer (such as the fat bass of the 7506). (If I'm wrong, correct me.)

OF COURSE the MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral. That's its point.
But its non-neutrality is intentional, not a side-effect of bad design. It is
otherwise a relatively neutral transducer. (I've never heard the 7506, but I
have heard the V-90.)

In other words, any monitor should have subjectively flat response /except/
for those errors the engineer thinks will be useful in judging the recording.
Perhaps this is so intuitively obvious that there's no way to say it without
sounding stupid.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
and "obvious".

An unreasonable mandate given the variety of human ear shapes.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Nate Najar]

I like the regular 240 headphones (not the mkii) for tracking and editing. They sound pleasant and fit very comfortably.

[geoff]

On 22/08/2014 12:55 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2014 9:31 a.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?

Yes, I was surprised when the audible output virtually disappeared as I
tuned through it, so I set up the test system to find out if it could be
measured and how deep the notch was. It was very plain to hear with the
'cans' on or with them held in free air, so i don't think it was caused
by reflections from my head.
\

Perhaps a faulty set ? I might have some in a box somewhere to compare
- will have a scratch around.


geoff



OK, found some K240 Monitor (600R) and no notch, or significant boost.
Ditto with K271. And K240 (mark1) were some of these nicer sounding AKG
phones, IIRC. Don't think I've listened to K240Mk2.

Agree with the 'tizziness' thing with the K271s.

So I'd say yours were faulty, or the notch was 'elsewhere'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/08/2014 4:10 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

OF COURSE the MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral. That's its
point. But its non-neutrality is intentional, not a side-effect of bad
design. It is otherwise a relatively neutral transducer. (I've never
heard the 7506, but I have heard the V-90.)

Apart from the epic (exaggerated) bass of the 7506s they have
ear-shreddingly bright low treble.


I'm pretty sure that's what Scott was referring to, as they are useful
for picking out high-mid and treble problems.

..... and painful for casual music-listening at anything more than a whisper.

geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Ron C wrote:

On 8/21/2014 5:31 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
geoff wrote:

...snip...


And surely it's been "Hz" for half a century or more ? ;-)

I'm older than that.


Hmm, do you still use micro mics for small capacitors? :-)

Jars!


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

geoff wrote:

On 22/08/2014 12:55 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 22/08/2014 9:31 a.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

I suspect AKG might know just a little about headphones, and the 16dB
dip may be a measuring-method anomaly. Do you hear it on a sweep ?

Yes, I was surprised when the audible output virtually disappeared as I
tuned through it, so I set up the test system to find out if it could be
measured and how deep the notch was. It was very plain to hear with the
'cans' on or with them held in free air, so i don't think it was caused
by reflections from my head.
\

Perhaps a faulty set ? I might have some in a box somewhere to compare
- will have a scratch around.


geoff



OK, found some K240 Monitor (600R) and no notch, or significant boost.
Ditto with K271. And K240 (mark1) were some of these nicer sounding AKG
phones, IIRC. Don't think I've listened to K240Mk2.

Agree with the 'tizziness' thing with the K271s.

So I'd say yours were faulty, or the notch was 'elsewhere'.

I had wondered about a fault, but both sides were similar (the notches
differed in frequency very slightly ).

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Williamson]

On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
little woolly-headed at times).


Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?

No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
dips like that in the response curve.


Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
surface with dummy ear cavities.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

John Williamson wrote:

On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
little woolly-headed at times).


Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?

No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
dips like that in the response curve.


Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
surface with dummy ear cavities.

Or put it on my own head with tiny mics near my ear holes. (Jokes about
dummies now anticipated.)


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Williamson]

On 22/08/2014 10:16, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
little woolly-headed at times).


Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?

No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
dips like that in the response curve.


Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
surface with dummy ear cavities.

Or put it on my own head with tiny mics near my ear holes. (Jokes about
dummies now anticipated.)


Hits delete key

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

William Sommerwerck wrote:

As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard
a
pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If
they
have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be
simple
and "obvious".

An unreasonable mandate given the variety of human ear shapes.

This has puzzled me for years. Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of
the pinna on the sound entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend
to agree on what a given pair of headphones "sound like"?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:29:38 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 21/08/2014 22:31, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

On 21/08/2014 21:34, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
I did consider using a cushion, but decided that something well-damped
but solid, like a pile of books, would give more realistic result
because it was acoustically more like my head (although I do feel a
little woolly-headed at times).


Did you drill a hole to simulate the ear cavity?

No, my old copies of Wireless World are far too valuable a resource for
that. I was only trying to get confirmation of what I heard and some
rough measurement of its magnitude. If my measurements had been 50% in
error, it would have made little difference to my point that a so-called
'monitoring quality' pair of headphones shouldn't have sharp humps and
dips like that in the response curve.


Fair enough. I wasn't sure how exact you were being. I suppose the
ultimate test stand for headphones and ear buds would be a firm, not
hard, dummy head with microphones at the eardrum position and head
surface with dummy ear cavities.

That is the last thing you want. You are trying to include a part of
the human hearing mechanism. What you want to know is that the ear's
environment is being presented with a flat frequency response. After
that the ear does what it needs to do in processing the sound.

d

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: "As a "serious listener" (as opposed to a recording engineer), I never heard a
pair of AKG headphones I liked. Your dissatisfaction doesn't surprise me.

It seems to me that monitoring headphones should be basically neutral. If they
have colorations desirable for monitoring, those colorations should be simple
and "obvious". "

Yet they appear on as many studio and field engineer's heads as do MDR-7506s.

The MDR-7506 is useful because it's not neutral.

Agreed. And the 7506s are non-neutral in a useful way in that the scooped response
works well when listening at low levels (my preference with cans). That's also
helpful when a noisy location environment requires high levels, and you're wearing
earplugs with the cans.

But what I like the best about them is that among nearly all dynamic cans I've
heard, they don't have some sort of nasty "plasticy" tonality imprinted. Oh, it's
there, but it's at a tolerable low level.

Plus, they're not overly uncomfortable over long wearing periods; you can beat the
crap out of them; and they are consistent. After 10 years, I replaced the pads on
one old set and also bought another complete new set at the same time. The two sound
exactly the same. I was not expecting that.

I'm not a Sony salesman (and always prefer to use real monitors!), but for US$100
and all things condsidered these seem like a good buy.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I think what Dorsey meant was that perfectly flat headphones do not translate too well to how we(humans) hear.

No, I mean that headphones are a tool that engineers use, and sometimes you
do not want them to be flat or accurate. The MD-7506 is popular because it
is so exaggerated on top and bottom that it becomes a useful tool for editing
and field recording work.

You can't judge EQ accurately on a 7506, but it's not _for_ that. That's a
job for a different tool. It's not pleasant to listen to or accurate, but it
isn't supposed to be. It's not for that either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

This has puzzled me for years. Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of
the pinna on the sound entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend
to agree on what a given pair of headphones "sound like"?

They often don't!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

William Sommerwerck wrote:

This has puzzled me for years. Most headphones alter (or remove)
the effect of the pinna on the sound entering the ear canal. So how
is it that people tend to agree on what a given pair of headphones
"sound like"?

They often don't!

What about Sennheisers? Almost everybody agrees that most of their products
are basically neutral.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/22/2014 7:27 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
Most headphones alter (or remove) the effect of the pinna on the sound
entering the ear canal. So how is it that people tend to agree on what a
given pair of headphones "sound like"?

They do? No, every headphone manufacturer thinks his sounds like it's
supposed to "sound like." Consumers don't know what they want, but
sometimes they like what they get.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com