3 ms·

> it's missing the most important part of a headphone review: a measurement of the frequency response curve! Why is it the most important part? As you said thi

> it's missing the most important part of a headphone review: a measurement of the frequency response curve! Why is it the most important part? As you said this is a main-stream headphone review. From my experience, most consumers don't enjoy listening to music w/ a flat curve - if that is where you're going with this. I've sunk several thousand dollars into high-end gear, and even I don't want a flat curve. A flat curve is most useful if you are an audio engineer working in a studio. I'd much rather use different headphones for different kinds of music, than compromise and use a flat-curve which sounds incredibly boring (to me).

threeseed 6y ago
It says in the title that this is an Audiophile review. I would expect a frequency response graph and sound signature e.g. U, V, Harman etc.
- passivate 6y ago
  The comment I was responding to accepted that this was a mainstream review, but then complained about the lack of a frequency response graph - the importance of which I personally think is way way overblown even as an audio nut myself.
Green_man 6y ago
A frequency response curve should be included because it provides useful information to (some) consumers, not because a "flat" curve is necessarily desirable. While the entire experiance cannot be discerned from a curve alone, and users can eq the signal, it provides a good idea of what the headphones will actually sound like, and a set of priorities and tradeoffs made in designing the headphones.
- passivate 6y ago
  > it provides a good idea of what the headphones will actually sound like, and a set of priorities and tradeoffs made in designing the headphones. OK, I'll bite. Two headphones with the same response curve can still sound very different (as you also alluded to), so what useful information are you hoping to convey to a consumer? I'm all for objective measurements provided they actually tell the buyer something useful that can influence their decision. If we have to fall back to subjective impressions of imaging, detail, sound-stage, etc, etc, then it becomes moot, and we're back to square one.
  - Green_man 6y ago
    yes, but the curve is actual numbers, while I haven't seen an effective (or standardized) objective measure of soundstage or detail. Even though the frequency response curve isn't _everything_ that matters, because it's both relevant to the sound, and can be measured fairly objectively, I think it's an important detail in a headphone review. While subjective impressions could say that "bass is anemic" or "no mids", I may not know (or disagree with) what they consider "normal". A measured response curve, combined with subjective impressions, can demonstrate the reviewer's preferences within a better context. Reviewers who don't show a response curve could instead communicate their impressions of other popular headphones, but market fragmentation (and the cost of nice headphones) makes this less useful imo. Largely, I agree with your sentiment, in that reviews of headphones/audio are less useful than reviews of other products. In the absence of objective measurements of every important variable, I find myself resorting to buying brands I've had good experiences with, rather than spec chasing. I wish I had more numbers to use, but in the meantime, I try to buy headphones less frequently.
    - astrange 6y ago
      A frequency graph doesn't describe headphones that well because there's many other objective variables. I think impedance, sound isolation and THD are more important since you can't calibrate those out even if you wanted to. Even a good objective review like rtings is just another review, since headphone performance depends on your player, the shape of your head and ears, and the noise level of your environment. It's probably best to read multiple reviews and take them all as samples.
      - Green_man 6y ago
        you're right, there are more important numbers when considering headphones, and I forgot or neglected to mention them.
illvm 6y ago
Why not a flat curve + EQ?
- passivate 6y ago
  Yes, logically that makes sense. I have tried to EQ my old K701s but they can't really match my JVC HA-SZ2000s for pure bass. Years ago, I was seduced by the flat curve thinking it would give me the best sound rendering - the way the mixing engineer intended it. Since then, I have found that I actually enjoy having a colored response, and that there is some value in that as well. Don't get me wrong, I like & use flat sound signature headphones sometimes - for classical and jazz music. But that is not my usual jam.
rokweom 6y ago
Considering he's linking to Sean Olive's (the main guy behind Harman's research into headphones and Harman curve) blog, he's likely very much aware that flat frequency response doesn't sound good.
fomine3 6y ago
Also "Flat curve" isn't really flat. It seems that it's considered that Harman Curve is neutral but I don't know it's reasonable.

threeseed 6y ago

It says in the title that this is an Audiophile review. I would expect a frequency response graph and sound signature e.g. U, V, Harman etc.

passivate 6y ago
The comment I was responding to accepted that this was a mainstream review, but then complained about the lack of a frequency response graph - the importance of which I personally think is way way overblown even as an audio nut myself.

Green_man 6y ago

A frequency response curve should be included because it provides useful information to (some) consumers, not because a "flat" curve is necessarily desirable. While the entire experiance cannot be discerned from a curve alone, and users can eq the signal, it provides a good idea of what the headphones will actually sound like, and a set of priorities and tradeoffs made in designing the headphones.

passivate 6y ago
> it provides a good idea of what the headphones will actually sound like, and a set of priorities and tradeoffs made in designing the headphones. OK, I'll bite. Two headphones with the same response curve can still sound very different (as you also alluded to), so what useful information are you hoping to convey to a consumer? I'm all for objective measurements provided they actually tell the buyer something useful that can influence their decision. If we have to fall back to subjective impressions of imaging, detail, sound-stage, etc, etc, then it becomes moot, and we're back to square one.
- Green_man 6y ago
  yes, but the curve is actual numbers, while I haven't seen an effective (or standardized) objective measure of soundstage or detail. Even though the frequency response curve isn't _everything_ that matters, because it's both relevant to the sound, and can be measured fairly objectively, I think it's an important detail in a headphone review. While subjective impressions could say that "bass is anemic" or "no mids", I may not know (or disagree with) what they consider "normal". A measured response curve, combined with subjective impressions, can demonstrate the reviewer's preferences within a better context. Reviewers who don't show a response curve could instead communicate their impressions of other popular headphones, but market fragmentation (and the cost of nice headphones) makes this less useful imo. Largely, I agree with your sentiment, in that reviews of headphones/audio are less useful than reviews of other products. In the absence of objective measurements of every important variable, I find myself resorting to buying brands I've had good experiences with, rather than spec chasing. I wish I had more numbers to use, but in the meantime, I try to buy headphones less frequently.
  - astrange 6y ago
    A frequency graph doesn't describe headphones that well because there's many other objective variables. I think impedance, sound isolation and THD are more important since you can't calibrate those out even if you wanted to. Even a good objective review like rtings is just another review, since headphone performance depends on your player, the shape of your head and ears, and the noise level of your environment. It's probably best to read multiple reviews and take them all as samples.
    - Green_man 6y ago
      you're right, there are more important numbers when considering headphones, and I forgot or neglected to mention them.

illvm 6y ago

Why not a flat curve + EQ?

passivate 6y ago
Yes, logically that makes sense. I have tried to EQ my old K701s but they can't really match my JVC HA-SZ2000s for pure bass. Years ago, I was seduced by the flat curve thinking it would give me the best sound rendering - the way the mixing engineer intended it. Since then, I have found that I actually enjoy having a colored response, and that there is some value in that as well. Don't get me wrong, I like & use flat sound signature headphones sometimes - for classical and jazz music. But that is not my usual jam.

rokweom 6y ago

Considering he's linking to Sean Olive's (the main guy behind Harman's research into headphones and Harman curve) blog, he's likely very much aware that flat frequency response doesn't sound good.

fomine3 6y ago

Also "Flat curve" isn't really flat. It seems that it's considered that Harman Curve is neutral but I don't know it's reasonable.