3 ms·

A frequency response curve should be included because it provides useful information to (some) consumers, not because a "flat" curve is necessarily desirable.

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.

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.