Yes, they can use some analog EQ inside the IEM (with or without multiple drivers, Crossover=EQ) to change the sound or a DSP (digital EQ).

That's the point I'm making in my last comment. Detail, dynamics and speed is a subjective perception, individual perception is phenomenology. It's a relational subject.

It is not meaningless if this is something that is important to this person and if he is looking to have this experience.

The problem is that each individual will perceive details in different places in different songs. So the detail is there, but there are multiple details as much as there are multiple songs, multiple instruments recorded in different ways, and multiple headphones with different frequency responses in the world.

u/SupOrSalad

All these problems are about phenomenology and the problem of qualia.

If you listen to a speaker in a room with some reflection, you will likely also hear bass reverberations. Harman's research takes into account these reverberations because they consider the type of environment in which people normally listen to music.

You are unlikely to see someone listening to music in an anechoic chamber.

Regardless of Sharur, Harman performed virtualizations (EQ) so that one headphone could sound like another, which is part of the methodologies used to develop the Harman Target. Among the studies conducted, individuals did not report significant differences between the original headphone and the equalized one, although there may be differences when wearing them in your ears. It is worth noting that the main differences will be found in the range of 1 kHz to 20 kHz, as these are the ranges with the greatest variations among HRTFs. u/West-Cheek-156

Read about this subject here. TL;DR: The cleaner the headphone is between frequencies, especially in the high frequency region, the more definition it can have, and as a result, you will notice more "details." These descriptions correlate with the idea of auditory masking.

Among audiophile reviews and headphone frequency response graphs, what correlates with the idea of "more detail" is usually the region above 10kHz.

The region above 10 kHz is usually reduced in headphones as it is a region that we hear at high volume, but some headphones made for audiophiles have a lot of activity above that region so that the details in that range can be heard more easily.

oratory1990>rtings>headphonecom>innerfidelity.

The Cloud Alpha is the best of the line, the others of this line have some resonances in the mids. They can take EQ very well.

I really don't know, sorry. Just an engineer knows about a thing like this. I speculate that it's to increase the rigidity of the diaphragm, adding a surface that is not completely straight with unevenness between its surface. I don't think that is a big thing, because some Focal and BeyerDynamic headphones don't have an unevenness surface in their drivers.

The diaphragm material, speaker size, speaker magnet, and speaker coil all contribute to the performance of a headphone's speaker.

It's difficult to say why a speaker has a specific design or uses a specific technology - audiophiles can only speculate.

Only an engineer or someone who studies the subject can make definitive statements, but explaining it also involves understanding the mathematics and physics of audio.

Acoustics also plays a part in the performance of the headphones and are related to the speakers.

Finally, the entire construction of a headphone is related to the acoustics of your ears, whether it's the acoustics of the outer part of your ears (pinna) or the acoustics of the inner part of your ears (auditory canal).

All of these factors are synthesized in what is called the headphone frequency response graph (the most useful information for us as consumers) and THD.

Regarding the analogy between headphone speakers and cars, it is not a perfect analogy. It is possible to make good headphones with speakers that can be considered inexpensive.

Regarding "speed" in headphones, mathematically speaking, the idea of speaker speed is not very interesting since the frequency response can be derived from an impulse response. So if the headphone can reproduce frequency X at Y dB with no distortion, that's what it does.

The idea of attack speed can only be understood as something derived from the auditory perception of the frequency response of the headphone in your ears. I recommend that you don't place too much importance on the term "speed or attack speed," as each audiophile may have a different interpretation of what it means. It's a language game.

If you want to know about some of these terms, I recommend this here.

>Is it only the sound stage or are the other differences?

The difference is the sensation of the sound around your ears (especially the bass). You may think that this is a minor thing, but it's not. Yes, this affect soundstage sensation.

The only other difference lies in the frequency response of the two devices. In-ear monitors (IEMs) have better isolation and do not interact with the outer ear, allowing them to deliver a good volume with "less effort". This makes it much easier to create IEMs with excellent sound quality and considerably low harmonic distortion, allowing for easy equalization.

Some IEMs with multiple BAs have slightly higher harmonic distortion. This type of driver is mostly used in high-end IEMs, while headphones (IEMs) with dynamic drivers have considerably lower harmonic distortion, reaching values as low as ≤0.1%.

The airpods is nice, but maybe you can buy the 7Hz Crinacle Zero or Truthear Hola if you want a wired IEM. About the over-ear, the M50x is a great closed-back (it's not perfect, but the build quality is acceptable, and you can do some EQ on it), and the HD560s or Hifiman Ananda it's a good point to go if you want some open-backs.

Maybe u/oratory1990 can help in this subject, or you can make the question in oratory subreddit.

Minimum phase system in the general frequencies that a human ear can hear. And the differences between the response time will also be noticed in the frequencies, and the EQ will change that too.

When evaluating headphones, what is most important is activity in different frequency ranges; in the Harman tests, pop and classical music are the best for testing headphones. Polyphia is very similar to pop songs in terms of activity at different frequencies. The dynamic range is not that important for this specific activity.

This is what engineers and scientists who study headphones talk about, only audiophiles disagree with this. I think it's worth remembering that these scientists and engineers also had the opportunity to listen to expensive headphones, such as the Hifiman and Stax headphones. If there was something about these headphones that wasn't showing on the frequency response graph and the THD graph, then those scientists and engineers who have been studying headphones for years would probably have noticed.

Engineers (like Sean Olive and Oratory) who have already been able to speak about this have already explained that the material, price or "arrangement of the drivers" does not necessarily make one headphone technically better than the other in terms of speed, decay or something of that order.

For those of us who just want to know about sound quality, any headphone technical result is show in the frequency response graph and the THD graph. Remembering that most headphones on the market do not have THD high enough for us to be able to hear, for this reason we have more frequency response graphs available than THD graphs on the internet.

We can just speculate about this topic, maybe this text Here can help to understand.

>I miss the time when we were able to appreciate headphones with different sound signature for what they were without looking at the FR.

This is a philosophical problem.

Sundara is a neutral headphone, it is quite close to the Harman Target (the 2020 version, the previous one had some differences according to some audiophiles who have already tested both).

It has a very linear response between 100Hz to 1.7KHz and maintains a good amount of volume from 4KHz to 7KHz without causing hearing fatigue or major anomalies, which helps with the feeling of separation/imaging. It has a little more activity above 10KHz, which makes it look more detailed than headphones that don't have as much activity in this region.

It doesn't have a big soundstage, the Sundara doesn't have the very deep cuts between 1KHz to 2KHz and 7KHz to 10KHz, but these cuts can generate some unwanted effects, like some things sounding very distant and small.

Because of all these things, it's a pretty technical headphone, but without sounding weird or overly fatiguing.

>chocolately

I don't know, sorry, I don't use Mac. A Qudelix is ​​a very good thing, I recommend it.

>2 models of the same headphone have different FR, I heard about this, but isn't it so small, that one person can't distinguish by his ears?

Yes, but this is difficult.

>what about IEMs?

In the IEM world this is more easy, you can EQ a 7Hz Salnotes Zero to be really similar to a Thieaudio Monarch MKII or a UM Mest MKII (I tested both IEMs, it's not the same because of the differences in your own ear, but it's very similar), yes. In the headphone world, because of the pinna interaction, it is very difficult to make one headphone sound similar to another headphone.

You can improve the EQ using a sine sweep, this can improve things like "imaging" or "detail" because you are reducing some peaks and dips that happen with ear interaction, this makes the headphones clearer without auditory masking or "veils", but it's very boring to do the process.

>It's good, but not impressive

Headphones aren't necessarily made to impress you, tech products are meant to do what they do. In the case of a headphone, their goal is to have good sound quality.

Maybe you were hoping for a headphone that would do some magic, but headphones are just a technological product.

They won't show details that aren't already in the song, they won't show an imaging that wasn't built into the song.

Maybe you expected an Iliad or an Odyssey, but headphones are like the paper that was used to reproduce to you the art that was made in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Here, only the final part of the text.