Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ICrySaI OP t1_j206o7k wrote

Reply to comment by ----_________------ in I don't get the "frequency response graph" thing. by ICrySaI

I would say with the 10$ buds the instruments are harder to separate, you can't quite "pick out an instrument to listen to". Idk if that makes sense. The detail in the sound might be lost and it just generally sounds "bad"

Kinda like how a low quality file can make music sound bad, except in that case I understand why and how and in this case I don't. If I had to guess it's how accurately the driver reproduces the actual signal it's given. But again I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

4

----_________------ t1_j20ak7o wrote

it is hard to know what causes them to sound different because they are two extremely different products.

But even then, what metrics could cause them to sound different? Ignoring variables that affect perception (price, physical sensation, build quality, hearing, etc), we find that the most important objective metric is FR.

2

ICrySaI OP t1_j20cx8b wrote

yeah ok but why? you haven't addressed any of the points I mentioned.

from the fr graph you can guess at things like muddyness or clarity or whatever but ultimately they are guesses. from what I heard there are headphones with wild looking graphs that sound great and headphones with smooth level graphs that suck.

so sure, fr is important, but why?

1

----_________------ t1_j20fsl5 wrote

It is important because it is the (one of) the only objective metric with which one can evaluate headphones.

If you look at forums, reviews, videos, etc, you quickly realize how everyone likes different things. Worse is that people often hear the same gear differently as well. For example, you might like that "wild looking graph" headphone, but someone else might dislike it.

Soundstage, detail, imaging, dynamics, transients; what do they actually mean? Again, no solid definition, and again, people perceive these differently.

It all comes down to having at least one thing that is objective and (mostly) consistent across every reviewer. And most reviewers dont base their opinions just on the graphs, i have not seen one reputable reviewer do as such. They still rely on their hearing for those mysterious technicalities.

4

ICrySaI OP t1_j20it85 wrote

>Soundstage, detail, imaging, dynamics, transients; what do they actually mean? Again, no solid definition, and again, people perceive these differently.

yes but those are the things that I cannot tune myself, so those are the things I am most interested in.

If I buy new headphones and it has too much bass for my liking, I can lower the bass with EQ, problem solved. If I buy new headphones with bad imaging or soundstage then tough luck, I'm stuck with that.

and frequency response is just as subjective as any other metric. I know reviewers don't base their opinions entirely on the graph, but it's what they show and what they explain "sound quality" with.

2

----_________------ t1_j20n6s3 wrote

That is perfectly valid, a lot of people buy technically capable headphones and EQ its mediocre tonality to something they like. But like others said, that isnt always possible.

Frequency response is also NOT subjective. Perception of FR is, but the measurement itself is objective. Whether people listen to the reviewer's subjective interpretation of the graph is up to them.

5

audioen t1_j23jkj4 wrote

My guess is that differences other than frequency response are related to harmonic distortion, and things like ringing/resonance in the headset cup, mostly.

Harmonic distortion makes it hard to tell instruments apart because pure tones already gain extra overtones which can audibly affect the character of the sound if they are above some -60 dB relative to the main tone, and multiple tones do not blend cleanly, either, but interact and create additional extra frequencies, and it is typically called intermodulation distortion. These extra frequencies could be perceived as extra noise, or timbre changes, or such, and may make it hard to tell instruments apart. It is one of the reasons why I look for harmonic distortion graphs, especially those that have separated 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so forth, as physiological measurements of human auditory system show that the masking of the harmonic distortion mostly covers the 2nd harmonic at some -40 dB level, but barely at all for the higher ones, though there is general tendency for harmonic distortion below -60 dB to be inaudible no matter where it is.

For over-ear headphones, ringing in the cup is probably visible as narrow peaks in frequency response at some specific frequencies, assuming the graph is not overly smoothed. Ringing is usually also visible as minor kinks in impedance graph as well, as the driver behaves somewhat differently at those particular frequencies, and is likely also seen as abrupt changes in the group delay and phase. So I like to see a nice flat group delay plot up to some 10 kHz, to know that there are no phase or ringing issues to be expected. Above some frequency depending on the cup's distance to headset fixture and earlobes, the measurement device itself will add all sorts of phase issues, and generally speaking the measurement above 10 kHz is not usable. For IEMs, I think the measurement reliability extends far higher, though there will be a peak for the ear canal resonance frequency where soundwave bounces between eardrum and the IEM and the exact frequency depends on insertion depth.

2