IMHO the "catch" is the special character of headphone listening (the anatomical ear making for the most of the "listening room"):Hello Amir, hello all
Thank you for your educational videos and very informative website. As an engineer (chemical engineer), I really appreciate that you make assessments based on measurements and physics.
I have been reading the tests and the comments on the forum about my headphones (Sennheiser HD 820) and my headphone amplifier (Sennheiser HDV 820). The results and the comments are rather poor and it seems that EQ is required to get a good sound. This does not coincide at all with my experience and so I have a rather basic question. Maybe you or someone on the forum can answer this question. I would like to understand the relationships in more detail.
The Frequency Response curve deviates greatly from the ideal. Therefore, many recommend that you use EQ to compensate for these deviations and linearize the curver. To my ear, however, the HD 820 and the HDV 820 sound very good. Could it be that my hearing is a perfect match for the Frequency Response curve. By this I mean that, for example, amplified highs fit my age-related hearing loss. This would put the overlay arriving in the brain back in the good range. So, by chance, one could have a matching hearing with its deficits for all frequency ranges of the headphones, and when the overlay is applied, a quasi-linear curve results in the brain. If I linearize the headphones by EQ the sound of the headphones would be good but not the felt signal in my brain. Does this consideration make sense?
I am very curious about your comments.
To my ear, however, the HD 820 and the HDV 820 sound very good
Could it be that my hearing is a perfect match for the Frequency Response curve. By this I mean that, for example, amplified highs fit my age-related hearing loss.
Hello Amir, hello all
Thank you for your educational videos and very informative website. As an engineer (chemical engineer), I really appreciate that you make assessments based on measurements and physics.
I have been reading the tests and the comments on the forum about my headphones (Sennheiser HD 820) and my headphone amplifier (Sennheiser HDV 820). The results and the comments are rather poor and it seems that EQ is required to get a good sound. This does not coincide at all with my experience and so I have a rather basic question. Maybe you or someone on the forum can answer this question. I would like to understand the relationships in more detail.
The Frequency Response curve deviates greatly from the ideal. Therefore, many recommend that you use EQ to compensate for these deviations and linearize the curver. To my ear, however, the HD 820 and the HDV 820 sound very good. Could it be that my hearing is a perfect match for the Frequency Response curve. By this I mean that, for example, amplified highs fit my age-related hearing loss. This would put the overlay arriving in the brain back in the good range. So, by chance, one could have a matching hearing with its deficits for all frequency ranges of the headphones, and when the overlay is applied, a quasi-linear curve results in the brain. If I linearize the headphones by EQ the sound of the headphones would be good but not the felt signal in my brain. Does this consideration make sense?
I am very curious about your comments.
This, and, pleasant does not equal accurate. In this case (hearing loss) accuracy is useless for the listener, who must find his "own fidelity".The bottom line, though, as always, is "do you like the sound?". If yes, then great. Just don't push this as an objective finding!
I totally agree. But Sennheiser must have had a clear development target. Has anybody ever heard why they did it (Frequency Response Curve) this way?The bottom line, though, as always, is "do you like the sound?". If yes, then great. Just don't push this as an objective finding!
To sell more headphones! I'm sure they have focus groups etc - not people like the typical ASR reader I would guess.I totally agree. But Sennheiser must have had a clear development target. Has anybody ever heard why they did it (Frequency Response Curve) this way?
You're right!There is also the weird mental state (sunk cost) where the more you pay, the better the product which applies everywhere in society from healthcare to cars
Please see this thread for context: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/most-useful-diagram-of-hearing-loss.26779/Interesting - as a fellow age-related hearing loss person, I can pretty much ignore everything that is happening above 9 kHz and not worry about it. However, I am curious as to what is happening in those inaudible (for me) regions - it indicates how much thought the engineers who build these things have put into their product.
Even more curiously though is the fact that one of my ears hears quite a bit less well than the other by about 5-10 db. I think I notice this with speakers but I don't notice it at all with headphones and presume that headphones will, in addition to pushing sound down the ear canal to the eardrum and then onto to the brain (with a boat load of transducers down there), also result in hearing through the bones of the skull, bypassing the pinna, the ear canal and the ear drum. This is how Beethoven made such great music in spite of being deaf and apparently it is good for much higher frequencies than I would have guessed - https://www.tinnitusjournal.com/art...-sound-in-the-audiometricultrasonic-range.pdf
My hearing loss was measured with a couple of earpods (yes, I know...) as this was what the app on my phone was calibrated for, so it would be completely focussed on the ear canal, ear drum and points beyond that.
The bottom line, though, as always, is "do you like the sound?". If yes, then great. Just don't push this as an objective finding!
And, my arguments avoid me spending hard cash on a headphone amp that allows balance controls. Although curiosity is a great motivator.
Thanks. An interesting thread (I didn't listen to the talks, but will) - your comment, of course, leads to a critical medical question, one which often is not asked: "what do you want to get out of this?" Given the mild hearing loss that I've had for ages (not nearly as severe as figure 2!), the answer is just that I want my idle curiosity indulged. And no more.Please see this thread for context: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/most-useful-diagram-of-hearing-loss.26779/
I don't have any advice other than: go to an audiologist and get some measurements done. They won't be high resolution, but they will let you see what kind of loss and imbalance you have, roughly.
I'll answer for myself: to know and let go of untested suppositions. Once you have experimental data you can begin examining your perceptions anew and maybe learn about how, unconciously, you've adapted or developed certain personal tactics."what do you want to get out of this?"
I like that - yes, often good to get an unbiased opinion to anchor reality.I'll answer for myself: to know and let go of untested suppositions. Once you have experimental data you can begin examining your perceptions anew and maybe learn about how, unconciously, you've adapted or developed certain personal tactics.
AHaHahahaHah damn you for making me laughDoes she complain about the midrange dip?
I agree with you. I own it since years, it is a top confort device and the only over ears that I can use in the Sumner time. Definitively I love it. P.s. I have an hifiman susvara and a focal elegia too, do I have good device ti benchmark and say it's good. IHD 820's comfort is the best I have tried for a closed headphone and I find its sound great as well.
That being said, I prefer the HD 800S, but that headphone is open.