solderdude
Grand Contributor
What's interesting in the 'state of the art' presentation is that only a few HP's pass the cited criteria.
The HD800, HE60, SR009, HE6 and LCD-3
Those that heard the HD800, SR009, LCD3 and HE6 will know these do not sound the same yet all pass. The HE60 I never had the pleasure of hearing but did hear the HE1 (HE1060). One thing they have in common is that they sound good to me (not to everyone of course)
I would have to agree the HE6, LCD3 and SR009 sound good to me without EQ, the HD800(S) does not.
The 'specs' were based on Tyll's measurements which had the wrong compensation applied so when 'air' = -15dB is mentioned he actually means '0dB' when he would have used the right compensation.
Therein lies the crux of the measurements. What is the correct compensation for each HATS/measurement rig, Do you compensate for 'preference' things or give a second target line for perceived linearity? (Golden Ears).
Based on who's findings ? Would an 'average' suit most people ? Who were used for the subjective taste tests ? What recordings were used ?
Did people compare this to speakers in a 'perfect' listening room ? at what distance and angle ? Compared to actual sounds ? at which SPL level (this is really important !)
In case of thinking up a standard should personal tastes even matter ? Should it be measurements only based on measured SPL ? Would a flat measuring headphone (after compensation when applicable) sound 'correct' to an average audience ? At which level ?
Should the Pinna interaction be included and if yes... what would be an 'average' Pinna/Concha ?
These and many other questions might be the reason there is no 'standard' yet accept perhaps for Harman affiliated headphones ?
Why do all Harman affiliated headphones still sound very different when their standard is 'set' ?
Will other manufacturers comply to standards they may not agree with ?
Will they still build headphones for their target audience and simply not comply ?
Will such a standard (if shooting high like in the PPT) lead to 'better sounding' cheap and expensive headphones ?
My HE-6 measurements:
One of the 'flattest' headphones I measured. A real masterpiece and did not have the pricing of the current flagships yet.
Some of the current flagships (I had the pleasure of measuring and listening to) and ones mentioned in the PPT but with my correction and on a very cheap flatbed measuring rig of just a few Euros.
LCD4z:
LCD3 (Fazor):
Beyer T1 mk2
Hifiman Susvara
Ether Flow (granted the stat is the real TOTL one)
Sennheiser HD800, HD800S and HD820
40 year old Stax SR5 (a cheapy) to illustrate how far the headphones progressed.
Yep, a jungle. I don't expect one 'standard' to make much of a difference.
Afterall.. Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser, Harman and other brands all already have their own standards in place.
All of them, even within their own brand, have different sounding headphones yet they all already have their own 'standards' and 'house sounds'.
It could be that when one single standard exists some TOTL models may sound a bit closer to each other with respect to tonal balance.
The HD800, HE60, SR009, HE6 and LCD-3
Those that heard the HD800, SR009, LCD3 and HE6 will know these do not sound the same yet all pass. The HE60 I never had the pleasure of hearing but did hear the HE1 (HE1060). One thing they have in common is that they sound good to me (not to everyone of course)
I would have to agree the HE6, LCD3 and SR009 sound good to me without EQ, the HD800(S) does not.
The 'specs' were based on Tyll's measurements which had the wrong compensation applied so when 'air' = -15dB is mentioned he actually means '0dB' when he would have used the right compensation.
Therein lies the crux of the measurements. What is the correct compensation for each HATS/measurement rig, Do you compensate for 'preference' things or give a second target line for perceived linearity? (Golden Ears).
Based on who's findings ? Would an 'average' suit most people ? Who were used for the subjective taste tests ? What recordings were used ?
Did people compare this to speakers in a 'perfect' listening room ? at what distance and angle ? Compared to actual sounds ? at which SPL level (this is really important !)
In case of thinking up a standard should personal tastes even matter ? Should it be measurements only based on measured SPL ? Would a flat measuring headphone (after compensation when applicable) sound 'correct' to an average audience ? At which level ?
Should the Pinna interaction be included and if yes... what would be an 'average' Pinna/Concha ?
These and many other questions might be the reason there is no 'standard' yet accept perhaps for Harman affiliated headphones ?
Why do all Harman affiliated headphones still sound very different when their standard is 'set' ?
Will other manufacturers comply to standards they may not agree with ?
Will they still build headphones for their target audience and simply not comply ?
Will such a standard (if shooting high like in the PPT) lead to 'better sounding' cheap and expensive headphones ?
My HE-6 measurements:
One of the 'flattest' headphones I measured. A real masterpiece and did not have the pricing of the current flagships yet.
Some of the current flagships (I had the pleasure of measuring and listening to) and ones mentioned in the PPT but with my correction and on a very cheap flatbed measuring rig of just a few Euros.
LCD4z:
LCD3 (Fazor):
Beyer T1 mk2
Hifiman Susvara
Ether Flow (granted the stat is the real TOTL one)
Sennheiser HD800, HD800S and HD820
40 year old Stax SR5 (a cheapy) to illustrate how far the headphones progressed.
Yep, a jungle. I don't expect one 'standard' to make much of a difference.
Afterall.. Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser, Harman and other brands all already have their own standards in place.
All of them, even within their own brand, have different sounding headphones yet they all already have their own 'standards' and 'house sounds'.
It could be that when one single standard exists some TOTL models may sound a bit closer to each other with respect to tonal balance.