4 ms·

Granted, it's the middle of the afternoon, so I might be braid dead... but which "bunch of things that should be measured" are listed in that comment?

Dylan16807 9y ago
"Sine wave measurements of audio gear ignore impulse response, intermodulation distortion, phase shift, and a host of other real-world physical device responses to real-world musical signals." Plus discussion of dynamic range; I don't think they were tested at different volumes.
- bigiain 9y ago
  Note that the article make no claim to be determining which headphones "sound better when stuck in human hears listening to music". And the article draws some specific conclusions and points out some of it's known limitations. Humour me - what are some/any of the "bunch of things that should be measured" that were not, for a study titled "No correlation between headphone frequency response and retail price"? I notice they also failed to test for "soundstage" "musicality" "warmth", or waterproofness, taste, and availability in a range of colours to suit your decor. Another "bunch of things" they didnt set out to test nor made any claims about.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    It's obvious from the title that frequency response is being used as a proxy for quality, and it's outright stated multiple times such as "assuming that the perceived audio quality is largely determined by the spectral magnitude response of headphones". But it's a bad way to test frequency response. And don't pull out those weird undefined words when this was a discussion of important objective audio-quality measures being ignored.
    - betenoire 9y ago
      I don't think it is obvious. I have headphones I use for mixing, because of the frequency response. I don't use them to listen to music. Quality depends on what you are measuring, and no one claims a perfect frequency response necessarily means it sounds good. Often the opposite, since we use those types of headphones to find the flaws. So to ME, it's obvious that this is NOT about being a proxy for quality, and I'm inclined to believe that it is about what it claims to be about.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        A sine sweep is still a very narrow and incomplete way to measure frequency response. > it's obvious that this is NOT about being a proxy for quality "Interestingly, sound quality does not seem to be a major attribute for purchase decisions." "Root-mean square errors (RMSEs) were calculated across frequency for each headphone with respect to an assumed target curve to assess an objective quality metric." "assuming that the perceived audio quality is largely determined by the spectral magnitude response of headphones" Are you sure?

Dylan16807 9y ago

"Sine wave measurements of audio gear ignore impulse response, intermodulation distortion, phase shift, and a host of other real-world physical device responses to real-world musical signals." Plus discussion of dynamic range; I don't think they were tested at different volumes.

bigiain 9y ago
Note that the article make no claim to be determining which headphones "sound better when stuck in human hears listening to music". And the article draws some specific conclusions and points out some of it's known limitations. Humour me - what are some/any of the "bunch of things that should be measured" that were not, for a study titled "No correlation between headphone frequency response and retail price"? I notice they also failed to test for "soundstage" "musicality" "warmth", or waterproofness, taste, and availability in a range of colours to suit your decor. Another "bunch of things" they didnt set out to test nor made any claims about.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  It's obvious from the title that frequency response is being used as a proxy for quality, and it's outright stated multiple times such as "assuming that the perceived audio quality is largely determined by the spectral magnitude response of headphones". But it's a bad way to test frequency response. And don't pull out those weird undefined words when this was a discussion of important objective audio-quality measures being ignored.
  - betenoire 9y ago
    I don't think it is obvious. I have headphones I use for mixing, because of the frequency response. I don't use them to listen to music. Quality depends on what you are measuring, and no one claims a perfect frequency response necessarily means it sounds good. Often the opposite, since we use those types of headphones to find the flaws. So to ME, it's obvious that this is NOT about being a proxy for quality, and I'm inclined to believe that it is about what it claims to be about.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      A sine sweep is still a very narrow and incomplete way to measure frequency response. > it's obvious that this is NOT about being a proxy for quality "Interestingly, sound quality does not seem to be a major attribute for purchase decisions." "Root-mean square errors (RMSEs) were calculated across frequency for each headphone with respect to an assumed target curve to assess an objective quality metric." "assuming that the perceived audio quality is largely determined by the spectral magnitude response of headphones" Are you sure?