Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
Yep sure are, many Rock artists still think louder is better, and I imagine Heavy metal groups that I never go to are just as bad. my experience is that I like the BASS loud, but not the mids or highs. Seems that everything is loud these days. The cheap foam ear plugs attenuate the mids and highs and leave the bass, so that makes me a happy camper. m |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
What I find annoying about such films is the sound effects are usually ear splitting loud, but the dialog is often hard to hear. :-( I am increasingly suspecting this is because they are mixed in tiny dubbing rooms with the intention of getting good sound in living rooms, and then when those films are shown in auditoria with a much longer reverberation time intelligibility suffers and the immediate response is to turn levels up. Theatrical releases don't get the money, the money is in home distribution today so that is what the sound mixes are optimized for. The days of 2,000 square foot dubbing stages are long gone. --scott also it seems mumbling is in fashion now. m |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
On 20 Dec 2017, Trevor wrote in rec.audio.pro:
What I find annoying about such films is the sound effects are usually ear splitting loud, but the dialog is often hard to hear. :-( My theory about that is that many big-budget, SFX-laden action movies are made for the world market, including (maybe especially) non-English speaking countries. The movies are crafted so that the story is told mostly visually, with a minimimum of dialog, and that dialog is fairly simple and easy to dub for foreign markets. This leaves the sound and visual effects of primary importance - the dialog is almost superfluous. You can follow the story even without it. It's mostly a roller coaster ride, anyway. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
Nil wrote:
On 20 Dec 2017, Trevor wrote in rec.audio.pro: What I find annoying about such films is the sound effects are usually ear splitting loud, but the dialog is often hard to hear. :-( My theory about that is that many big-budget, SFX-laden action movies are made for the world market, including (maybe especially) non-English speaking countries. The movies are crafted so that the story is told mostly visually, with a minimimum of dialog, and that dialog is fairly simple and easy to dub for foreign markets. That's really good point. There's a Matt Damon fantasy release from this year, and watching the trailers for it, I thought "They don't care how that does in the US; they just care how it does in China." This leaves the sound and visual effects of primary importance - the dialog is almost superfluous. You can follow the story even without it. It's mostly a roller coaster ride, anyway. I think they just mix 'em with the wrong room volume. Probably too loud. The Fletcher-Munson curve predicts that. Then again, it might be that I'm expected to have a center channel speaker cranked up to carry all the dialogue, and the interns do the stereo mix. I have no idea why you can't hear the dialogue any more. Why bother having a movie at all if the people onstage don't have anything to say? -- Les Cargill |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
On 21/12/2017 6:02 AM, Nil wrote:
On 20 Dec 2017, Trevor wrote in rec.audio.pro: What I find annoying about such films is the sound effects are usually ear splitting loud, but the dialog is often hard to hear. :-( My theory about that is that many big-budget, SFX-laden action movies are made for the world market, including (maybe especially) non-English speaking countries. The movies are crafted so that the story is told mostly visually, with a minimimum of dialog, and that dialog is fairly simple and easy to dub for foreign markets. This leaves the sound and visual effects of primary importance - the dialog is almost superfluous. Well the whole movie is superfluous in many cases, but when people are speaking it's nice to actually hear what they are saying. Sub titles fix that in foreign markets, but you have to wait for the DVD if you want English sub titles on English language films. I usually find myself skipping the theatre altogether these days, and simply waiting for the DVD release. With a 5.1 mix I can simply turn the effects channels down, or switch to sub titles if absolutely necessary. Thankfully big screen TV's have minimised the benefit of going to the theatre now, so I don't really miss it. Trevor. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 21/12/2017 2:59 AM, wrote: my experience is that I like the BASS loud, but not the mids or highs. Seems that everything is loud these days. Glad you are happy, but I often find that just turns the sound to mud. :-( It does, when there isn't deep low end extension. I am increasingly convinced that the secret to keeping rock concert levels sane is to have deep, deep bass extension, going down to the drop below 20 Hz if at all possible. This allows people to get that visceral bass feeling without crazy high levels. Those old W-bins do not go deep enough. You add a lot of slap at 100 Hz and what you get is unintelligible mush. The problem is that it's very difficult to do right, although in part thanks to the crazy EDM people, we are starting to get cabinets designed for the purpose finally. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
On 24/12/2017 3:47 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote: On 21/12/2017 2:59 AM, wrote: my experience is that I like the BASS loud, but not the mids or highs. Seems that everything is loud these days. Glad you are happy, but I often find that just turns the sound to mud. :-( It does, when there isn't deep low end extension. I am increasingly convinced that the secret to keeping rock concert levels sane is to have deep, deep bass extension, going down to the drop below 20 Hz if at all possible. This allows people to get that visceral bass feeling without crazy high levels. Right, but I was referring to the part you snipped, not the bit you left. Trevor. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200? .... and OT - Macca
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:16:22 PM UTC-7, Geoff wrote:
On 19/12/2017 2:59 AM, wrote: geoff wrote: "Was dismayed to realise that I'd left my earplugs at hotel Saturday night when half-way to Macca concert. But thankfully the levels were not at all excessive. Not like Neil Youg last(?) year, who was painful even *with* 20dB Etymotic ear-plugs in ! " If one needs to wear ear plugs at a concert then something is clearly wrong. Something is indeed clearly wrong. Presumably you haven't been to many rock concerts in the last decade..... geoff I went to a concert at a Local ampitheatre this year. Melissa Ethridge was the opening act. I always kind of liked her music but never gave much attention to the performer. The concert blew me away! Not only was i amazed by the depth of her professionalism and quality of her playing, the sound was pristine. During intermission I remarked to the sound guys for Ethridge how I appreciated the sound especially that it wasn't lead kick drum and bass guirar. Their response was thanks and"We were told". The headliner was Pat Benatar along with Neil Giraldo. Crank up the levels! Boost the bass at 80 Hz. Horrible sound! 114dB{A}-ridiculous. I toughed it out with my electronic ear plugs but left before the encores. Too bad, I had heard Benatar at the Gorge a few years ago opening for Steve Miller and the sound then was great. A few years ago at the MGM Grand, ZZTop was opening for Aerosmith, Another horrible experience. I left my $300 seat and sat in the mezzanine until they left the stage My guess on SPL at that concert was at least 120dB and the bass and kick drum obliterated any guitar or vocals. STUPID! Aerosmith came out and the sound was fine. Paul Simon played in Missoula last summer and the sound could have been a bit louder. I believe that the PA wasn't quite up to the outdoor gig. The level was probably ok, however there were people who would just not shut up. Another pique of mine. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
3 kc the magical frequency!
Jack |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. Adrian - how do you couple a headphone transducer to a microphone for measurement? By using a dummy head? -- Les Cargill |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Les Cargill wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. Adrian - how do you couple a headphone transducer to a microphone for measurement? By using a dummy head? Make up a stack of thick hardcover books about the same thickness (and density!) as the space between my ears. Allow the headphones to clamp themselves over the stack and slip a couple of electret pressure microphone capsules on thin wires into the cavities. Connect the headphones to an audio signal generator, connect the mic capsules to a small recorder with suitable phantom power (Tascam DR-04) and read the sound level off the recording level display. The measurements are good to a dB or two - and are going to be far more accurate than the accuracy of most budget headphones (and some expensive ones). If there are any acoustic artefacts that need investigation, they will change if the mic capsule positions are changed or the air cavity shape is altered by compressing the earpads. If they don't change, then they can reasonably be attributed to the headphones themselves -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 31/12/2017 2:45 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. And nobody noticed this huge dip ? Maybe the transducers have had an aging r=effect which is causing this now ? The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. Cheap and maybe not quite so nasty ? I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. Still pretty cheap. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. How about testing some more recent higher-end AKGs. And some actual listening testing, because steady-state frequency response is only one of many factors in sound quality. And arguably a minor one at that ... geoff |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: Adrian Tuddenham wrote: What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better Sorry I'm a bit late contrubuting to this thread: I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. Adrian - how do you couple a headphone transducer to a microphone for measurement? By using a dummy head? Make up a stack of thick hardcover books about the same thickness (and density!) as the space between my ears. Allow the headphones to clamp themselves over the stack and slip a couple of electret pressure microphone capsules on thin wires into the cavities. Ah. So for some models of 'phones, there is effectively no cavity, and I suspect making one would munge the measurements severely. So I wonder is a piece of whitewood with a hole drilled to have the electret's surface flush with, or slightly under the plane of the wood would work? Connect the headphones to an audio signal generator, connect the mic capsules to a small recorder with suitable phantom power (Tascam DR-04) and read the sound level off the recording level display. The measurements are good to a dB or two - and are going to be far more accurate than the accuracy of most budget headphones (and some expensive ones). If there are any acoustic artefacts that need investigation, they will change if the mic capsule positions are changed or the air cavity shape is altered by compressing the earpads. If they don't change, then they can reasonably be attributed to the headphones themselves That's interesting - thanks for that. I would have thought you'd want the geometry of things to be pretty rigidly controlled; didn't think of moving the elements as a control like that. -- Les Cargill |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
geoff wrote:
On 31/12/2017 2:45 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: [...] I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. And nobody noticed this huge dip ? Maybe the transducers have had an aging r=effect which is causing this now ? I was quite surprised that nobody had noticed it. I heard it first on a sweep tone and thought my ears were playing tricks, so I set up a rough-and-ready test rig and confirmed it by measurement. Whatever was causing it was almost identical on both earpieces. It would be interesting to test another pair from the same era and then comare this with some of the later models, but I only have the one pair that I bought secondhand. There is no way of knowing what conditions my headphones were subjected to before I bought them; but it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that could cause such a dip, let alone one that would have been exacerbated by poor storage conditions. I thought the manufacturer's data sheet or some of the independent reviews might shed some light on this dip, but I was soon disabused of such a quaint notion. There doesn't appear to be any sort of meaningful specification for the performance of these headphones and the reviews on the Web are utter bo**ocks; it doesn't look as though anyone has ever bothered to check their frequency response. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. Cheap and maybe not quite so nasty ? They are both cheaper and better sounding than the K-240s that I tested. They do have minor defects, but I can live with those and make allowance for them when doing rough checks on recording quality. I have just tested the AKG K-52 and found that is is better than both of the above models, wth no obvious wobbles or other deficiencies. At first I was puzzled by an apparent falling-off around 3 Kc/s, but clamping the earpieces a little more firmly to the test rig removed this. Still pretty cheap. They seem to be a lot lower in sensitivity, but I presume that is the trade-off for a flatter frequency response. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. How about testing some more recent higher-end AKGs. And some actual listening testing, because steady-state frequency response is only one of many factors in sound quality. And arguably a minor one at that ... I would be quite happy to do some simple frequency response tests if someone is prepared to loan me suitable candidates. Perhaps more elaborate dynamic testing would show up minor differences in the performance of headphones that show apparently good static responses; but when there are such gross errors in the basic properties, there doesn't seem to be much point in going on to test for anything more subtle. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Les Cargill wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Les Cargill wrote: [...] Adrian - how do you couple a headphone transducer to a microphone for measurement? By using a dummy head? Make up a stack of thick hardcover books about the same thickness (and density!) as the space between my ears. Allow the headphones to clamp themselves over the stack and slip a couple of electret pressure microphone capsules on thin wires into the cavities. Ah. So for some models of 'phones, there is effectively no cavity, and I suspect making one would munge the measurements severely. So I wonder is a piece of whitewood with a hole drilled to have the electret's surface flush with, or slightly under the plane of the wood would work? I expect it would, although the shape and volume of the human ear cavity varies enormously between individuals - so anything which relied heavily on exact cavity dimensions for its performance would give rather unpredictable results in practice even if it showed up well on standardised tests. The sound reflecting properties of the lightly-embossed covers of hardback books are probably nearer to human skin than the surface of whitewood, but I haven't noticed any significant difference between measurements on the 'dummy head' and the same measurements made on a real head. Something which can affect the response of headphones is the poor seal caused by locks of hair or spectacle frame sides spacing the ear pads off the side of the head. Pressing the pads firmly onto the ears can often make a noticeable difference due to the improved sealing, whereas further pressure, which compresses the pads enough to decrease the cavity volume, has much less effect. Connect the headphones to an audio signal generator, connect the mic capsules to a small recorder with suitable phantom power (Tascam DR-04) and read the sound level off the recording level display. The measurements are good to a dB or two - and are going to be far more accurate than the accuracy of most budget headphones (and some expensive ones). If there are any acoustic artefacts that need investigation, they will change if the mic capsule positions are changed or the air cavity shape is altered by compressing the earpads. If they don't change, then they can reasonably be attributed to the headphones themselves That's interesting - thanks for that. I would have thought you'd want the geometry of things to be pretty rigidly controlled; didn't think of moving the elements as a control like that. It's a very powerful tool in acoustics; change the air space and see if the problem changes. "Stuff a sock in it" can be a quick and valid scientific way of tracking down the source of air cavity resonances. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 31/12/2017 11:06 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
geoff wrote: On 31/12/2017 2:45 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: [...] I measured the frequency response of a pair of early-model AKG K-240 headphones some time ago and found they had a huge dip of about 20 dB in the HF range. Both left and right transducers demonstrated this at nearly the same frequency, so it appears to be an inherent property of the design, not an individual faulty unit. And nobody noticed this huge dip ? Maybe the transducers have had an aging r=effect which is causing this now ? I was quite surprised that nobody had noticed it. I heard it first on a sweep tone and thought my ears were playing tricks, so I set up a rough-and-ready test rig and confirmed it by measurement. Whatever was causing it was almost identical on both earpieces. Presumably both earpieces have been subject to the same usage, aging, and storage conditions. SDo I wouldn't be surprised. It would be interesting to test another pair from the same era and then comare this with some of the later models, but I only have the one pair that I bought secondhand. There is no way of knowing what conditions my headphones were subjected to before I bought them; but it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that could cause such a dip, let alone one that would have been exacerbated by poor storage conditions. I find it hard to imagine that professionals over several decades using these headphones also hadn't noticed. Only JJ wouldn't be surprised. I thought the manufacturer's data sheet or some of the independent reviews might shed some light on this dip, but I was soon disabused of such a quaint notion. There doesn't appear to be any sort of meaningful specification for the performance of these headphones and the reviews on the Web are utter bo**ocks; it doesn't look as though anyone has ever bothered to check their frequency response. I find that concept to be utter ******** ;- ) There *will* be a reason. The AKG K-44 showed some minor wobbles in the frequency response curves with a rise at the lowest and highest frequencies, but overall sounded a lot better than the K-240. To me K44s sound like they look. Cheap and plasticy. Haven't heard K52s. Again, something is grossly wrong with the K240s. My conclusioin is that, of the three models teated, the K-52 is the best for flatness of response as long as it is properly positioned on the listener's head. The K-44 isn't bad and the early-model K-240 is a waste of time and money. How about testing some more recent higher-end AKGs. And some actual listening testing, because steady-state frequency response is only one of many factors in sound quality. And arguably a minor one at that ... I would be quite happy to do some simple frequency response tests if someone is prepared to loan me suitable candidates. Perhaps more elaborate dynamic testing would show up minor differences in the performance of headphones that show apparently good static responses; but when there are such gross errors in the basic properties, there doesn't seem to be much point in going on to test for anything more subtle. Maybe pick up another pair of old K240s and compare ? And another thought (though not necessarily specific to the particular conundrum - what is the output load impedance specification of the sig gen ? geoff |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 31/12/2017 11:06 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
I expect it would, although the shape and volume of the human ear cavity varies enormously between individuals - so anything which relied heavily on exact cavity dimensions for its performance would give rather unpredictable results in practice even if it showed up well on standardised tests. Something which can affect the response of headphones is the poor seal caused by locks of hair or spectacle frame sides spacing the ear pads off the side of the head. Pressing the pads firmly onto the ears can often make a noticeable difference due to the improved sealing, whereas further pressure, which compresses the pads enough to decrease the cavity volume, has much less effect. Likely to affect lower frequencies, rather than high. geoff |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
geoff wrote:
On 31/12/2017 11:06 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: geoff wrote: [...] I find it hard to imagine that professionals over several decades using these headphones also hadn't noticed. Only JJ wouldn't be surprised. Very often people under pressure to get a job done don't stop to question the details of the tools thay are using. They may know that a certain type of headphone has a good or bad reputation or they find for themselves that one type sounds poor on cymbals but better on vocals, for instance, but they don't have the time or inclination to make laboratory-type measurements to find out exactly why it sounds like that. I thought the manufacturer's data sheet or some of the independent reviews might shed some light on this dip, but I was soon disabused of such a quaint notion. There doesn't appear to be any sort of meaningful specification for the performance of these headphones and the reviews on the Web are utter bo**ocks; it doesn't look as though anyone has ever bothered to check their frequency response. I find that concept to be utter ******** ;- ) There *will* be a reason. I'm sure the manufacturers checked the prototypes when they were developing that model, but they appeared to be keeping the results to themselves. I can't imagine each unit was checked for response curve during manufacture; even batch-sampling was probably only concerned with cosmetic matters and major defects such as open-circuit coils. None of the reviews mentioned frequency response measurements - indeed, I got the impression that none of the reviewers would have known how to make them, how to interpret them properly or, in some cases, what they were. [...] I would be quite happy to do some simple frequency response tests if someone is prepared to loan me suitable candidates. Perhaps more elaborate dynamic testing would show up minor differences in the performance of headphones that show apparently good static responses; but when there are such gross errors in the basic properties, there doesn't seem to be much point in going on to test for anything more subtle. Maybe pick up another pair of old K240s and compare ? I can't justify buying them, but I will keep my eyes open in case I can borrow a pair. And another thought (though not necessarily specific to the particular conundrum - what is the output load impedance specification of the sig gen ? That is a very good point. The sig-gen was 600-ohms output and ran through one of the distribution rack buffers which again delivered from 600 ohms. I seem to remember that I wondered about that at the time and repeated the test with a completely different low impedance driver - but although I have forgotten the details, I'm sure it made little difference. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
geoff wrote:
On 31/12/2017 11:06 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: I expect it would, although the shape and volume of the human ear cavity varies enormously between individuals - so anything which relied heavily on exact cavity dimensions for its performance would give rather unpredictable results in practice even if it showed up well on standardised tests. Something which can affect the response of headphones is the poor seal caused by locks of hair or spectacle frame sides spacing the ear pads off the side of the head. Pressing the pads firmly onto the ears can often make a noticeable difference due to the improved sealing, whereas further pressure, which compresses the pads enough to decrease the cavity volume, has much less effect. Likely to affect lower frequencies, rather than high. ....also likely to produce Helmholz resonator effects with the enclosed volume and a poorly-sealed passage to the outside air. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 12/31/2017 9:14 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
None of the reviews mentioned frequency response measurements - indeed, I got the impression that none of the reviewers would have known how to make them, how to interpret them properly or, in some cases, what they were. I think that's true. Reviewers can write their subjective opinions, but few are equipped with even basic test equipment. For example, when writing about a computer audio interface, "Mic preamp gain: 56 dB" means nothing because you never see that gain. What's significant is input level at maximum gain that produces a specific digital level. I connect a signal generator, crank it up to digital full scale, and record the level, so in my review I can say: "Minimum mic input level for 0 dBFS: -42 dBu." But most readers don't know what that means, but, oh, boy, they sure can compare gain numbers. The sig-gen was 600-ohms output and ran through one of the distribution rack buffers which again delivered from 600 ohms. I seem to remember that I wondered about that at the time and repeated the test with a completely different low impedance driver - but although I have forgotten the details, I'm sure it made little difference. It would be interesting to check it out, and also check the transient response. Mostly these days, people are interested in knowing how loud the earphones will play, and manufacturers have started making headphones that expect to get their power at lower voltage and higher current, which means lower load impedance and lower source impedance. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Make up a stack of thick hardcover books about the same thickness (and density!) as the space between my ears. Allow the headphones to clamp themselves over the stack and slip a couple of electret pressure microphone capsules on thin wires into the cavities. Connect the headphones to an audio signal generator, connect the mic capsules to a small recorder with suitable phantom power (Tascam DR-04) and read the sound level off the recording level display. The measurements are good to a dB or two - and are going to be far more accurate than the accuracy of most budget headphones (and some expensive ones). The thing is, you don't want flat response in this environment. First of all, this doesn't necessarily give you an accurate measurement because the shape of the ear canal dramatically affects response above around 1kc or so. Which is why we have things like the Zwislocki coupler for measuring earphones. Secondly, for sealed headphones, the volume inside the cups (which most unfortunately includes the volume inside your ear canal) changes the response on the low end substantially. (Unfortunately this means that the measured response of headphones on my head will not be the same as on your head.) But the real big deal is that you don't _want_ flat on-axis response from a headphone driver. In normal life, you're listening to sources that are in front of your head, 90 degrees off-axis, so you want the response to simulate that of an off-axis source. Which.... means an upper midrange dip somewhere. But exactly _where_ depends on a person's head. And this is why headphones that measure and seem flat to one person may not to another. If there are any acoustic artefacts that need investigation, they will change if the mic capsule positions are changed or the air cavity shape is altered by compressing the earpads. If they don't change, then they can reasonably be attributed to the headphones themselves This is a fair way of identifying issues that result from the first two effects I described... but the third one is the killer. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 1/01/2018 3:14 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Very often people under pressure to get a job done don't stop to question the details of the tools thay are using. They may know that a certain type of headphone has a good or bad reputation or they find for themselves that one type sounds poor on cymbals but better on vocals, for instance, but they don't have the time or inclination to make laboratory-type measurements to find out exactly why it sounds like that. You are talking about one of the major studio headphone models used for decades(?) by people who do know about these things .... geoff |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Make up a stack of thick hardcover books about the same thickness (and density!) as the space between my ears. Allow the headphones to clamp themselves over the stack and slip a couple of electret pressure microphone capsules on thin wires into the cavities. Connect the headphones to an audio signal generator, connect the mic capsules to a small recorder with suitable phantom power (Tascam DR-04) and read the sound level off the recording level display. The measurements are good to a dB or two - and are going to be far more accurate than the accuracy of most budget headphones (and some expensive ones). The thing is, you don't want flat response in this environment. First of all, this doesn't necessarily give you an accurate measurement because the shape of the ear canal dramatically affects response above around 1kc or so. Which is why we have things like the Zwislocki coupler for measuring earphones. Secondly, for sealed headphones, the volume inside the cups (which most unfortunately includes the volume inside your ear canal) changes the response on the low end substantially. (Unfortunately this means that the measured response of headphones on my head will not be the same as on your head.) But the real big deal is that you don't _want_ flat on-axis response from a headphone driver. In normal life, you're listening to sources that are in front of your head, 90 degrees off-axis, so you want the response to simulate that of an off-axis source. Which.... means an upper midrange dip somewhere. But exactly _where_ depends on a person's head. And this is why headphones that measure and seem flat to one person may not to another. If there are any acoustic artefacts that need investigation, they will change if the mic capsule positions are changed or the air cavity shape is altered by compressing the earpads. If they don't change, then they can reasonably be attributed to the headphones themselves This is a fair way of identifying issues that result from the first two effects I described... but the third one is the killer. --scott According to the tests by Etymotic Research, a flat frequency output from a speaker in front of their dummy head has a curve at the ear drum that looks like the dotted line in this graph: http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/image...tech-specs.jpg I wonder how much different people's heads and ears differ from that target curve. Also, I wonder what the frequency output curve that an over the ear headphones would need to produce to get the above 'target curve' at that same dummy's ear drum. Anyway, I love my Etymotic Research ER-6 phones, which were under $200. Their curve is also shown in the same graph. -- Matt |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Matt Faunce:
Most (professional, anyway) headphones have a dip corresponding to the peak in that Etymotic frequency curve. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
geoff wrote:
On 1/01/2018 3:14 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Very often people under pressure to get a job done don't stop to question the details of the tools thay are using. They may know that a certain type of headphone has a good or bad reputation or they find for themselves that one type sounds poor on cymbals but better on vocals, for instance, but they don't have the time or inclination to make laboratory-type measurements to find out exactly why it sounds like that. You are talking about one of the major studio headphone models used for decades(?) by people who do know about these things .... I realise that, which is why it was such a surprise to hear an almost complete dip-out in the H.F and why I decided to make up a rough testing rig to check that I wasn't imagining it. It's not my imagination or one faulty earpiece - but I can't say whether it applies to a lot of the production run or just to a few, of which mine happens to be one. Perhaps some of the other people who own early K-240s would like to do a slow sweep and let us know if they can also hear this dip; it is very deep, although quite sharp and narrow. You don't need elaborate test equipment, it is perfectly obvious by ear if you sweep slowly enough. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
On 1/01/2018 1:14 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
geoff wrote: And another thought (though not necessarily specific to the particular conundrum - what is the output load impedance specification of the sig gen ? That is a very good point. The sig-gen was 600-ohms output and ran through one of the distribution rack buffers which again delivered from 600 ohms. I seem to remember that I wondered about that at the time and repeated the test with a completely different low impedance driver - but although I have forgotten the details, I'm sure it made little difference. It's always nice to be "sure" about things without any proof. :-) Feeding headphones from a relatively high impedance source (Vs the actual headphone impedance) is well known to cause FR irregularities if the impedance of the headphones varies as is usually the case. A common problem with some headphones when fed from a power amp with a simple series dropping resistor as often used. Anyone with a basic understanding of ohms law would realise that of course. Easy enough to check if the dip in response corresponds to rise in headphone impedance though. Trevor. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Yet another update.
After a few days, the Grado SR60e was hurting my head too much, and the amount of background sound in my main environment (open office workspace) was driving me nuts. I ended up buying ATH-M50x after all. To my taste they aren't quite as nice as the Grados, and they cost twice as much; but they are a lot more comfy to wear and filter out a lot more background noise. They are definitely hyped in the lows and more aggressive than I'd like up top, but after living with them for a couple weeks I still find them quite listenable without EQ. Really nice sense of space. I kept hoping I'd find something I'd like even better, but there was nothing else I tried that came close without going a LOT more expensive. Also: Plug for Audio46 in Manhattan. A headphones-only shop that has a pretty wide range of things stocked, will let you try on pretty much anything with your own player. I went a couple times and tried a lot of things (I did not keep a list) before making my final decision. They seemed happy to either offer advice or leave me alone (I'm more a "leave me alone" customer). Prices were on par with what I've seen online. Incidentally, I do remember trying the ATH M40x that some here mentioned. I didn't take notes but a direct comparison of 50 vs 40 was pretty dramatic .... I judged the 50 well worth the extra cost. Don't know which one measures more flat but I do remember that on all the different source tracks I tried, I vastly preferred the 50. - Paul On Wednesdapay, October 1, 2014 at 2:11:30 PM UTC-4, slinkp wrote: Hi folks, It seems to be hard to find headphones to actually try out, sadly, so I'm hoping to get a few more suggestions for things I can try to hunt down. Intended usage: Mostly just listening to music at home or office. Occasional home recording use. No critical mixing or tracking. My listening tastes are largely (old) rock and indie pop, some electronic music, some acoustic folk-ish music. What I like: My ideal headphone would be so subjectively transparent and physically comfortable that I'd be able to forget I was wearing headphones. Not fatiguing. It should sound smooth and not obviously hyped. If I had to trade some clarity and detail vs. smoothness, I would probably lean that direction. Decent isolation of ambient noise would be a nice bonus but isn't critical. Comfort for long wearing is critical, but is highly subjective and dependent on head shape etc, so obviously I'm not gonna get much help here - have to find some to put on eventually! Price is somewhat arbitrarily capped at $200. What I've tried: In the past I've been pretty happy with AKG K-240 (they fit me fairly comfortably, the sound is pretty "natural" to my ears, not fatiguing)... but they could be a bit better in the detail and clarity department, and they don't isolate the room at all. I could end up buying a pair if I don't find anything I like a lot better. I've also tried a borrowed older ATH-A700 which was really impressive - quite comfortable. Good background isolation. Really smooth clear bass and mids. Very clear sound and not harsh. My only complaint is the high treble is a bit "pingy", it's pretty subtle, but it struck me that there's a bit too much of the very highs. I could probably get used to it. These are currently my top contender, but what else is out there? Also I'm not sure what's different between the A700 I tried and the newer A700x. I tried some Sony MDR-6... ouch! Did not fit me well at all and hurt my head, the sound was much too harsh for me as well, I wouldn't be able to wear them for five minutes without physical pain and ear fatigue. A store around here had some Sol Tracks V8 ... never heard of them, cost about $100, comfy to wear and pleasant to listen to but rather hyped: way too much mid-bass, and I think some midrange scooped out ... it sounded nice on the few things I listened to but it's definitely not a neutral sound, not what I'm looking for. Any other suggestions? If there was something just like the A700 but with slightly reined in high treble I'd be very into it... Thanks, - Paul |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
geoff wrote: On 1/01/2018 3:14 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Very often people under pressure to get a job done don't stop to question the details of the tools thay are using. They may know that a certain type of headphone has a good or bad reputation or they find for themselves that one type sounds poor on cymbals but better on vocals, for instance, but they don't have the time or inclination to make laboratory-type measurements to find out exactly why it sounds like that. You are talking about one of the major studio headphone models used for decades(?) by people who do know about these things .... I realise that, which is why it was such a surprise to hear an almost complete dip-out in the H.F and why I decided to make up a rough testing rig to check that I wasn't imagining it. It's not my imagination or one faulty earpiece - but I can't say whether it applies to a lot of the production run or just to a few, of which mine happens to be one. Is it deliberate, though? Is it an attempt to simulate the dip from reflections off your shoulders that you normally experience without headphones? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Hi,
Sorry if it has been already mentioned... Sennheiser HD 202, bought about 10 years ago for about 35 USD (certainly cheaper in the USA), no idea if they are discontinued by now and replaced by other models. No fancy room/space simulations, possibly not for sophisticated audiophiles, but not bad to me, I do _not_ want such fancy staff anyway, and they are comfortable enough to stay a few hours with it on my head. Materials proved to be stable (unlike other brands like Koss, two of their headphones with rotten cushions in a couple of years). |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Headphones to try out under $200?
Hi,
The AKG450 is a nice one, a closed over-ear one. A cheaper one which I have is the Teufel Aureol Real, an open over-ear one, if it is available in your area. The AKG is slightly more transparent in the very high range; I had to be pointed out the differences before I noticed them. I bought the Teufel just because it was open. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Headphones | Audio Opinions | |||
does anyone like the AKG K-400 headphones? | Pro Audio | |||
USB Headphones hack - Soldering a 3.5mm plug instead of the headphones | Tech | |||
[eBay] FS: Headphones AKAI ASE 22, nice headphones vintage ... very low starting price ... 2 Euro!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | Marketplace | |||
Seeking Recommendations for Open Headphones and Closed Headphones | Audio Opinions |