Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 7, 2015 8:13:01 GMT
Tyll has a very nice blog as most know. I must admit, I enjoy his reviews and what he writes there but on occasions, once the replies start coming in, some start arguing as usual which is a shame. Tyll doesn't get involved though and all remains calm which is great. He has been looking for some time at the tricky subject of what constitutes 'flat' in a headphone and I know at one point he was saying that our understanding of 'flat' was starting to be developed and more clearly defined. He also enjoys experiments from measurements like the work Frans does. He mentions the Nad hp50 as being one of the flattest out there. I'm curious to hear it actually. Has anyone heard one? Of course, the headphone being flat isn't the be all and end all. There are lots of other things to consider, which is why a headphone adjusted to 'flat' isn't going to sound the same as another adjusted to flat. I saw here someone say that headphones should all sound the same if adjusted to flat, but it isn't as simple as that. Music played in your front room and then the same set up played in a hall sounds totally different and that's the same with materials used to construct headphones. In any case, there's no doubt in my mind that what we currently regard as 'flat' is a good way to go for most headphones. It's a good ideal to aim for, but the measurement of what constitutes 'flat' is changing, which is what Tyll is getting at. I think some who haven't heard a 'flattish' headphone don't really know what to expect and sometimes find it a let down. I think that there is a really simple reason for this; most people are very used to and tuned in to headphones that have a tilt in them. It's put there on purpose in order to make them sound different to other headphones. Flat should be closer to what we hear normally, so many would naturally find it 'boring' or non descript. That's what flat is I guess. What we hear normally. Nothing special then. No big meaty bass, and no searing treble. Nothing accentuated. Grey as opposed to colourful. Some may say 'unmusical' too. On top of frequency response though, there's a lot more. Some headphones react quicker so detail is better. That's another aspect that has to be considered but once you get a headphone close to flat and it's a good headphone, for me, there's nothing better. The Senn HD650 is absolutely outstanding when adjusted for 'flat' with proper bass extension. I can honestly say that this is what I could easily stick with and use as my only headphone, except I'd also need something closed. It's really worth acclimatising yourself to the ideal of 'flat' since the sound that you get is way more natural and then that only leaves the mess that the engineers put on there in the first place. It covers none of the errors made and boy, have I been hearing some!! When I think of the barnies I had when I was younger over products and their sound with the guys who supposedly knew what they were doing, it makes me laugh. Even more recently over rereleases which are just as 'wrong'. Once you get over the flattery of hearing yourself, you crave higher quality to reflect what you actually hear or to at least try to get a flavour of that sound out to listeners. To me, many recordings are like flat black and white photos with no real depth thanks to the experts manipulating a product that in the end, the artists have absolutely no control over with regard to sound quality. It's taken out of their hands completely by the companies. (Although modern practices are changing, but I'm not sure that this is leading to higher quality thanks to Internet distribution and lone traders) So the measurements with reference to flat measurements to me make great sense, in spite of some perhaps not being able to enjoy flat because they've been eating chocolates for too long with tilted headphones!! Bit like coming off sugar with your tea...... Tyll's articles are great. I do enjoy his stuff. They set me thinking about it along with Fran's amazing adjustments and experiments with amps and headphones. HD650 hits jackpot for me. Describing why is difficult because it just sounds 'normal' but more than that, it allows you to hear the truth on many recordings. Tyll's article; www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-one
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on Feb 7, 2015 9:15:51 GMT
Here is the plot of the NAD HP50. Its a plot I trust but the treble peak may be a tad higher in reality. To 1kHz it has a warmish tilt, good bass. So far it looks like bassier/warmer version of the LCD2 (LCD2 is better). BUT when you look at the distortion it is a bit on the high side (-45dB = 0.6%) and consists of 2nd, 3rd and 4th indicating 'clipping alike' bass, where the LCD has 0.3% but only 2nd harmonic (tube like). Then there is a 10dB DIP around 3kHz, a bit like a stock T50RP but less 'severe', gives it smoothness as the upper mids are simply subdued and this is where shrillness is in crappy recordings. Than we get a peak (like T50RP) and just like the T50RP a sharp roll-off in the upper treble. This means strings, cymbals etc will lack 'air' and 'realness' while not sounding particularly rolled off. I know Tyll prefers warmish tilted headphones and doesn't care about some HF roll-off. It should be noted that Tylls plots have the wrong 'correction' applied. This was from day one and because he would have to redo all his plots and pdf's and many of them 'float' in virtual space already he decided to leave it this way, for comparative purposes. All his plots roll-off from about 2kHz too much (he applied some 'room correction where he didn't have to) so when looking at Tylls plots you have to 'tilt' the treble part above 2kHz upwards to get to the real values.I think the LCD2 is MUCH better in this regard and easier to 'compensate flat'. The HP50 is more difficult to get 'flat'.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 7, 2015 10:09:05 GMT
His graphs are an example of how we are changing as to what constitutes 'flat' in a headphone as well, Frans.
The LCD2 looks like a really nice headphone. I haven't heard any of the LCD's but they do look heavily constructed and quite substantial.
The question of 'flat' is really interesting since eventually, we may refine it to a level that's generally accepted as the standard. I notice that some have a problem with 'flat' response and you'd imagine that flat, being what the ears should be hearing in normal circumstances would be instantly recognisable. So it's not just FR as you mentioned somewhere else, but a combination of factors that contribute.
The Senn instantly registered with me as being 'right'.
The K550 to me turns bland for some reason. It doesn't have the same realism. (I think you referred to it as a lack of musicality in one place) I think I get that too tbh, although it's better than the screeching headphone that it can be,
The T40 is way better but there also seems to be a slight colouration or tint in them that I do notice sometimes. Better with the filter switched in. I can't pinpoint whereabouts it is, but to describe it, I'd say slightly 'nasal' on some recordings. That could be to do with less dip around 2 or 3 KHz (is it?) I'll try the filter that you sent with the Kameleon since you mentioned that it may be fuller and that's perhaps what I'm missing.
Best of the bunch though is T40, until I heard the filtered Senn. That seems to be spot on. Instantly recognisable as 'right.' Then the second thing that hits you is the sheer depth of bass without any boominess. It's one I can easily stay with actually.
I should ask my mate to lend me an LCD2 to see how they differ perhaps. I don't like to pester though because he is really good at demolishing his stock for me!!! Even bringing stuff over to me. I'm very lucky that way so I try and help him with his shop sometimes.
Btw - I was looking at the components on the filters. You must have bottle top glasses!! They're tiny!!! What a great job, Frans. I showed my mate the Kameleon this morning and he wouldn't go after listening on my Senns. I left him and had to use my IPad while he sat with a coffee, transfixed. He loved it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 13:52:36 GMT
Because I'm poor and not actually looking for a flat frequency response curve I've been using Frans's graph produced by the HD 650 Kameleon filter as a basis for a parametric equivalent. Needless to say it's not so easy to replicate and I do understand that even if I manage it a hardware solution is going to produce better results than anything I can achieve with software.
Having said that I have to say I can get pretty close to what I think you hardware users are hearing and I do now understand why you're going that way. I hadn't actually noticed there was a mid-bass bloom with the 650's but you certainly notice once it's removed. Tonight I'm going to sit down and build a proper curve using iZotone Ozone 6. I have high hopes...
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 7, 2015 14:02:44 GMT
I honestly think flat is the way to go with the Senn hd650. There's nothing that stands out but you basically become totally unaware of the headphone. It kind of disappears so that you're left with whatever is on the recording.
So flat doesn't mean that everything sounds nice. I got a real shock with one of Dolby's albums where there really is no bass to speak of and it almost sounds like a transistor radio as a blob in the middle of your head. A nice rosy headphone would bloom it up a bit so give the impression of more bass. I've a feeling that is what goes on with a lot of headphones, all competing with each other.
On a good recording, you just don't struggle with searing treble or fat, masking bass. It sounds 'right' so that you don't have to struggle so much to hear inner parts.
It's the best I've heard and is the combo I'd stay with I think. This one filtered is the best I've heard. Perhaps I should get an lcd2 to compare but this is so natural sounding that it's virtually disappearing on your head. I still find it difficult not to focus on the massively deep bass when it appears though. It goes seriously low and just fills the sound out without overpowering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 14:43:23 GMT
I'm having some trouble trying to replicate this sub-bass you talk about Ian. Have you got an example?
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 7, 2015 15:39:39 GMT
A really nice one would be church organ. I think you have plenty of church stuff don't you?
Today, I've been listening to the newer King Crimson albums; one in hi res which has a bass stick that just rumbles like an earthquake.
Try Rite of Spring by Stravinsky, if you can stand it. The bass drum and timpani hits will be absolutely cleanly differentiated. On duff headphones, a bass drum hit is often not easily distinguished from a timp. (Or even on poor speakers) with the Senn, the sheer power and depth of a bass drum is awesome.
Don't get me wrong. The HD650 goes low, but on its own, it has a mid bass hump around 200, I think it is and then it kind of rolls away. So by the time you get to 50hz, it's about 4 or 5 db down I think it is. It's definitely down by 5 or more at 20. It actually goes lower and quite convincingly. I guess that many wouldn't have recordings with a lot right down in the basement, but when you find something with that low stuff on it, the Senn responds.
I don't know how Frans targets certain frequencies and what the width of adjustments are, but he's absolutely nailed the hd650.
Are you using a parametric equaliser Gordon? If the setting is too wide it might turn muddy if it creeps up I to the mid bass hump already there.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on Feb 7, 2015 15:54:43 GMT
I measure the headphones or look for 'trustworthy' measurements. Then I figure out what filter has to be created and simulate the plot in software. Then I build the module and measure (and listen) again and see what I want tweaked.
On normal equalizers one only has bands, often with fixed center frequencies which won't allow the exactly needed 'opposite' curve. Sometimes multiple 'band filters' have to be combined to get a reasonable approximation this way.
The filters I construct are mostly 1st order shelving filters and (if needed) just 1 wideband notch filter. I have used 'digital' EQ in the past, often to get a feel of HOW it will sound when EQ'ed but even when I use an analog multiband EQ it still doesn't sound as good as a 'simple' filter that exactly provides the needed compensation.
Of course the fact that one can only do so much with these simple filters limits the 'correctional' powers some parametric EQ can provide for complex headphones. I should note that headphones that need a LOT of EQ still don't sound nearly as good as an equally flat EQ'ed headphone that only needed some slight correction like the HD650 and LCD2 or HE500 and alikes.
Good can become great, great can become excellent but poor will never become good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 16:19:24 GMT
I'm not sure why I'd have church music. I don't anyway. I do have some Saint-Saens somewhere with some fiendish bass organ on it so I'll look it out. I don't really do classical music these days. Generally if I'm focussing on bass I'll put on some Royksopp or something like that. I'll look into it.
Yes, it's a parametric EQ. I use the one that comes stock with JRiver to make initial changes and if the theory works I'll shut that off and tryo to replicate it with a VST plug-in such as Voxengo's GlissEQ or the aforementioned iZotope Ozone.
At the moment I'm running with three filters as follows...
Low-shelf filter @ 37Hz, Q of 3 & gain of 2dB
Low shelf filter @ 190Hz, Q of 3 & gain of -3dB
High-shelf filter @ 12kHz, Q of 1 & gain of 3dB
I'm not sure I can actually hear any increase in sub-bass with the first low-shelf filter @ 37Hz.
The second low-shelf filter at 190Hz does make a big difference. It brings a lot more clarity to the mids without ever sounding thin so that's a keeper.
I'm not sure if the high-shelf gain at 12kHz (as shown on Frans' graph) is a deliberate act or a side-effect of the way Frans has implemented the filter. It does add a tiny bit of air up top which is quite pleasant but subtle.
How does that look to you guys?
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 7, 2015 17:17:05 GMT
Well, you're going the right way I guess, Gordon. It just depends on the width settings since it might create shelves' of boost. I'm sure it'll give you an idea.
As far as sound changes go, It's still a Senn sound. The airiness seems to come form a lack of mid bass hump rather than an increase in treble. The sound is more translucent compared to without filter. Trouble is, I don't really know exactly where the changes are. Frans will know. I just use my lugs!!
I thought you enjoyed Church organs for some reason. Must be someone else up in Scotland. Bass guitar hits quite hard and fast with the filter. It kind of brings the bottom end more to life like a sub woofer can as long as you don't turn them up too loud. The low bass is very well integrated with the mids but you are aware of lower weight in the sound that is quite remarkable. I don't know what frequency this bass is kicking at though. It is very low.
Actually, my filtered t40 does similar. That also creeps down. The Senn is very very natural sounding though.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on Feb 7, 2015 20:02:45 GMT
Forget the high shelf gain, this is needed for an HD650 with old and worn pads. The HD650 with newer pads only needs to remove the warmth and increase the subbass.
The treble part above 12khz did get a small lift of about +1dB The differences in the plot are casued by a slightly differint position on the rig
The subbass (10Hz) got a lift of +7dB
In your settings where both are low shelf you remove the frequencies below 200Hz by -3dB but also the sublows. You compensate this by adding 2dB around 37Hz but as you removed 3dB already you end up 1dB at 37Hz where you want +5 there. So your low shelf at 37Hz is still +6dB SHORT.
You need to set the 37Hz thus to +8dB !
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 7, 2015 20:17:21 GMT
Crikey, that's a lot more than I thought down there!!
Gordon, with the bass, I'm finding that I can clearly hear the pitch of the bass guitar notes in mixes. You're not just aware of the fast bass, but you can hear them quite clearly as notes rather than thuds.
With that, the headphone really isn't a bass monster either. It's no dt770 as far as quantity goes, but there is a much better clarity down there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 22:47:31 GMT
Thanks Frans. I understand what you mean there & I admit I hadn't thought of that. The trouble with parametric EQ's (as you probably already know) is that you're always going to have a step somewhere. If I wanted to boost only the sub-bass would it be sensible to set a centre-point for the boost at a frequency so low I can't actually hear it (and which the driver won't deal with anyway) and then make the Q factor very wide? In theory that should remove some of the 'step' effect.
edit - Yes! That seems to work.
I now have these two filters set...
Low-shelf +8dB @ 10Hz with bandwidth (Q) @ 5.
Low-shelf -3dB @ 190Hz with bandwidth (Q) @ 3.
the treble lift is not required as you point out since the cut in mids gives the impression of more air itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 23:33:14 GMT
I'm not going to do this any more. The closer I get in EQ to the curve produced by the hardware filter the more the Ember begins to sound like my O2.
It seems as though I'm removing some of the qualities that were introduced by the Ember and I like that the way it is. I mean, the 650 has a warm mid-bass hump and, even if only slightly, the Ember seems to add to that. So if I cut that hump am I not just cutting the colouration of the Ember?
Don't worry, those questions are rhetorical. I need to do some reading.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 8, 2015 7:31:40 GMT
The O2 won't be producing that lower bass though. I'll try the hd650 with my O2. Never did. I use other stuff portable but never even considered the Senn.
If the headphone is flat, then the Ember should be sounding as it is is...
Two mid bass humps is a lot of hump!!
It could be that the settings aren't really as sharp as the filter so it's only an approximation. Frans tests with eq before making filters I think as well but he does say it just gives an idea.
The HD650 sounds more like a refined HD600 via the filter with the addition of lower bass.
|
|