Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 16, 2015 7:56:01 GMT
This seems like an excellent idea. Saw it on Tyll's site and I watched their video explaining that you do a kind of 'ear' test so that the device knows your hearing profile and then comes up with an eq which it provides for all headphones.
I can see issues where, if one frequency needs to be massively boosted, then distortions could be introduced but it seems basically quite a nice idea. It's a little expensive but maybe this is a first which might reincarnate in a more 'hifi' way. Perhaps with a decent amp incorporated.
The idea of tuning every headphone to my hearing is very attractive. Poor Dave could have used one for sure. I'm quite curious about them myself tbh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 11:21:45 GMT
It's an interesting idea for sure particularly if they could incorporate it into better gear. Think I'd need to hear it in action to be convinced though.
The one thing I do wonder is if this tuning would remove the unique character of your headphones. I like different flavours so don't know that I'd want the same emphasis or de-emphasis in certain parts of the FR applied by a broad brush.
I did chuckle at the line "your ears are uniquely different.....but your audio equipment doesn't know". Neither does the outside world to be fair and yet our ears seem to get by just fine. The idea makes sense though as hearing damage is a real issue with headphones.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 16, 2015 14:22:35 GMT
Funny thing is that different headphones eq'd to flat, don't actually sound the same.
Different pads, chambers, drivers etc all create different 'timbres' even if they are tuned 'flat'. The more revealing headphones that I have are tuned to as 'flat' as possible by Frans who is a master of this kind of thing.
I also prefer them even though they do sound quite different.
I'd love a higher end version of this.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Jun 16, 2015 15:13:50 GMT
I have had quite an e-mail exchange with Dave about compensating his hearing. He went to an audiologist and had his ears measured (but they don't measure high nor low frequencies, just the midrange for speech) and we tried other methods. After we had determined his 'needs' I had him use EQ with certain settings.
That didn't sound right to him at all and he abandonned the idea. Seemed like a wise decision to me.
hearing aids can make up for some of the losses in hearing or particular types of hearing loss but will never become a hifi experience.
The reason why compensating hearing loss doesn't work is because. A: it depends on what exactly was lost in the hearing. B: Certain 'dips' by damage can't be corrected simply because the hearing doesn't hear. C: To much boost (it is always a boost) can lead to much higher distortion levels which may become audible in a range you can hear. D: Your ears are 'self calibrating' as you find something to sound natural when you have a reference from the real world. If your hearing has a dip or is 'rolled off' by damage (not earwax build up, or because your eardum is sucked hollow or bulging by the eustachian tube being blcoked) you still experience a piano or guitar as 'real'. That is your brains 'reference'. Incoming sound from headphones has to be 'flat' (when the recording is perfect) for the reproduction to be equally 'real'. If you turn up the 'lost treble' then it sounds unnatural again.
Funny thing is that even though I know for certain I could hear to 18-19kHz about 20 years ago and now have trouble with 16kHz music STILL sounds highly detailed and airy and don't think I am missing anything. Even though I know my hearing is limited upwards.
The reason EQ'ed flat headphones all sound different also has to do with how 'fast' the membrane is (rise times), Wiggles in 'flat headphones' easily still exceed +/- 3dB, try using a 32 band equalizer and move a few sliders up and down 3 dB here and there. The average FR is still 'flat' but it sounds quite different. Also distortion products, break-up of cones, fit (seal) etc. ALL make the experience quite different.
Basically you can EQ quite a lot of headphones pretty 'flat' and they may all be 'tonally correct' yet only a few headphones become exceptionally good sounding while the rest may improve somewhat but never reach stardom as it were.
Just my thoughts on this ... This
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 16, 2015 19:26:00 GMT
The distortion levels were exactly what I felt about it. I guess some people might need a lot in some parts of the spectrum so it would become distinctly low fi. It's an interesting thought ... A flat headphone eq'd to suit your hearing. I recommended one local guy to get a Sony 7506 recently because his hearing up top isn't great. (Damage due to high volume concerts) he finds them quite warm!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 22:31:33 GMT
Are the terms 'hearing' & 'perception' interchangeable?
|
|
z3d
quite active
Posts: 170
|
Post by z3d on Jun 18, 2015 20:21:46 GMT
Interesting debate here, as always.
This sentence "D: Your ears are 'self calibrating' as you find something to sound natural when you have a reference from the real world." is the same thing I think myself and could even explain the different flavours we likes when hearing an hi fi system which can be heaphones or speakers. A different reference will give for sure different goals about the tonality and the final results we want to achieve with the reproduction. I think even the physical differences between ears (externally and internally) and also the age have something to do with that.
..and we aren't even taking in account perception bias and psycoacoustic. Lol, too many things affects our sound perception!
|
|
z3d
quite active
Posts: 170
|
Post by z3d on Jun 18, 2015 20:26:03 GMT
Are the terms 'hearing' & 'perception' interchangeable? I think "hearing" is something more related to something you are really experimenting, while with "perception" I'd say it's more the result of the hearing plus the brain interpretation. Oh well, it's only my thinking about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 20:32:53 GMT
Are the terms 'hearing' & 'perception' interchangeable? I think "hearing" is something more related to something you are really experimenting, while with "perception" I'd say it's more the result of the hearing plus the brain interpretation. Oh well, it's only my thinking about that. I think, assuming we all have the same sensitivity, we hear the same thing but our brains might perceive something differently. Difficult to explain. I mean, two people might be sitting there hearing someone speaking in Russian & one of the people knows what's going on whereas I'm thinking about beer. Perception.
|
|
z3d
quite active
Posts: 170
|
Post by z3d on Jun 18, 2015 20:44:02 GMT
Lol. I'm drinking a cup of red whine, that's why I don't understand what you are sating! Just kidding, of course.
Well, I think the informations which arrives to our brain varies between different peoples by a little amount; for sure I'm not speaking about 50% but more in the 5-10%. I think that because even a phsycal diffence between pinna's (more or less angled, curved, different overall size, ecc) will affect somehow the sound we hear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 21:23:52 GMT
Yeah I know but what I'm saying is this.. Imagine that we both physically hear exactly the same thing with our ears. There's still no guarantee that we perceive the same thing is there? I mean, we could both go to an art gallery and study a Picasso. We'd both see the same thing but you might perceive a piece of art whereas I might perceive a piece of s**t. See what I'm getting at? Hey, I might also be completely wrong, that's why I asked if hearing & perception are actually the same thing. I genuinely don't know the answer to that. Wine does help though, up to a point.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 18, 2015 21:39:23 GMT
I think that perhaps the brain does a really good job in translating soumd to something more realistic for us, but more accurate gear makes the brain's job easier so that it's less fatiguing we probably do all hear differently but the brain may translate to much the same thing. If you're more eperienced with real music, I think the brain might translate more efficiently too.
I have seen musicians listenimg to really horrible gear, but loving the music. My guess is that they translate what they hear more easily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 23:37:39 GMT
I agree Ian. I have a very good friend who now lives over in Emmen but he's a guitarist & while he's never got into hi-fi himself he always appreciates coming to my house and listening to my gear. What he's actually appreciating though is the clarity; all the better for him to copy stuff. He can't read music but he's superb at playing by ear. So yes, musicians have a sort of built-in over-ride function that allows them to hear through the playback equipment. The side effect of that is that you guys are able to fill in the blanks, in a way. The logical extension of that though is that us mere mortals who can't play a note are perhaps better at analyzing hi-fi than a musician. I'll leave that there. I remember when the Japanese firms finally started to get their act together back in the 80's. They really took on the big beasts of the UK hi-fi industry. I'm thinking Pioneer, Technics etc. What their amps were particularly good at was vocals and my theory at the time was that this was because, not being native English speakers - and the vast majority of rock & pop being recorded in English - they naturally wanted the vocals to be as clear & realistic as possible. Just a theory.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 19, 2015 5:19:38 GMT
It's probably why I find most headohones ok. I perhaps compensate for them more readily!!
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Jun 19, 2015 9:11:44 GMT
Imagine that we both physically hear exactly the same thing with our ears. There's still no guarantee that we perceive the same thing is there? I mean, we could both go to an art gallery and study a Picasso. We'd both see the same thing but you might perceive a piece of art whereas I might perceive a piece of s**t. See what I'm getting at? This bit might also have to do with taste. I do agree though that if 2 people are hearing the exact same headphone (on a meet or so) with the same music that some may find a headphone strident, thin that another one is hearing it as flat. Let's leave things like seal out of this (person A wearing glasses or having other difficulties getting a good seal where person B doesn't wear glasses or manages to get a good seal) different people will be hearing the exact same thing but 'hear' or 'perceive' them different. Also experience (having heard good uns) and or knowing what something SHOULD sound like and recording quality/mastering has a lot to do with it. It's difficult... what's one mans 'bass' might be another mans 'bloat'. What's clear to some may be too bright to others, what's flat to this person may be 'midrangy' to someone else.
|
|