You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. Prev 1 … Go to page. Go to page. First Prev 26 of 49 Go to page. Joined Jul 30, Posts 1, Likes That would miss the point of the product.
A neutral sound for engineers to mix on the road. Joined Jun 5, Messages 2, Likes 1, Chromatischism said:. I think this is all the job of content. If your content doesn't move people, make different content. Speakers should simply reproduce content as faithfully as possible. That means designing speakers that come close to the research done over the last several decades by Toole, Olive, Welti, Devantier, and more and are graded and reviewed here at ASR.
Sancus Major Contributor Forum Donor. Feb 5, I speculated that they failed the subjective listening test. Focusing below Hz, we see our loudest and most offending peak is around Hz. Let's dial in a single parametric filter by eye and see what does[ Boy, was that a miracle fix! Gorgeous detail was there with almost no loss in total bass energy. Indeed bass was now tighter.
Joined Jan 23, Messages 3, Likes 5, I speculated that they failed the subjective listening test because of intermodulation distortion, which is a problem known to plague coaxial drivers.
It wasn't measured in the review. I tend to believe that whatever we can hear in a speaker can be measured as well. Subjectivists will say that measurements don't explain everything.
This is true if you have a limited set of measurements. However, the solution is more measurements to get a better understanding, not chalking up the disparity between what we hear and a limited set of measurements to magic or hidden variables. Sancus said:. They failed it due to a room mode, this was specified in a subsequent review.
The test was essentially no longer blind. Details on the method and its validation were presented at the 51st Audio Engineering Society International Conference on Loudspeakers and Headphones  in Helsinki, Finland in A PDF of the slide presentation can be found here. Headphone virtualization is done by measuring the frequency response of the different headphones at the DRP eardrum reference point using a G.
More details about the method are in the slides and AES preprint. An important questions is: "How accurate are the virtual headphones compared to the actual headphones"? In terms of their linear acoustic performance they are quite similar. The agreement is quite good up to kHz above which we didn't aggressively equalize the headphones because of measurement errors and large variations related to headphone positioning both on the coupler and the listeners' head. The dotted curves are based on the physical headphone and the solid curves are from the virtual replicator headphone.
The measurements of the right channel of the headphone red curves have been offset by 10 dB from the left channels blue curve for visual clarify. More importantly, "Do the actual and virtual headphones sound similar"? To answer this question we performed a validation experiment where listeners evaluated 6 different headphone using both standard and virtual listening methods Listeners gave both preference and spectral balance ratings in both standard and virtual tests.
The differences between virtual and standard test results we believe are in part due to nuisance variables that were not perfectly controlled across the two test methods. A significant nuisance variable would likely be headphone leakage that would affect the amount of bass heard depending on the fit of the headphone on the individual listener. This would have affected the results in the standard test but not the virtual one where we used an open-back headphone that largely eliminates leakage variations across listeners.
Author Topic: AudioQuest's Headphone measurements and its own target headphone frequency Read times 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. Solderdude Grab the dScope Kowalski! Response of the adjustments made from flat response at the listening position. I wonder why O-W didn't use a mannequin to determine the response at eardrum-equivalent for the in-room speaker.
O-W rig with headphone use would be generally similar to AQ, but O-W used large hard pinnae in testing, whereas AQ lists three different sets of pinnae used in measurements hard small, hard and soft large.
Preferred response of loudspeaker and headphone. I love the asmr vids - a bunch of people just got together and decided that foley sound effects were now an official fetish -Anetode. Quote from: briskly on August 13, , AM. Well whatever. Everyone and their brother spent the last six months telling them they had too much upper bass bleed veiling the mids and not enough air up top.
If you don't want to actually listen with your ears, since that's what the you're actually supposed to do with these things, pick whatever curve you want. The Claw chooses who will go or who will stay. Does anyone know if Tyll has a review dropping soon? Joined Nov 29, Posts Likes Burn in doesn't even matter.
The Nighthawk is dark, not very linear. Bass extension looks poor. Joined Jul 15, Posts 1, Likes Oppo graphs being so different from reliable Inner Fidelity graphs for it tell me those are not accurate. Especially in the low end.
Yep, looking at the InnerFidelity Oppo PM-3 measurements, those posted here aren't even close to the same. I'd take the Nighthawk measurements from the same source with some degree of skepticism.
If the seal is bad, it can affect more than just subs. Lack of subs can affect other frequencies in my opinion.
Test av høyttalerne, speakers quad stereophilecom, big 7 dac, bee ist gestorben, voltikus power supply, wilson sabrina measurements, virtual surround system, devore orangutan o96, part 2 1990, may strongly disagree, 47 stereophilecom, amp audio cyrus2, signature delta loudspeaker, guitar can do