True-Fi headphone software correction

[pkane]

Any chance of a photo?

Warning: it's not pretty

 

[Blumlein 88]

Wow, what a wrongheaded take on the HD650's? I think you'd find there are about a million owners that would dis-agree with that statement Maybe your hearing has become so damaged in the upper octaves you need a lot of boost there to hear details and balance the response?

I've no experience with True-Fi software but think I'll just leave the response of my Senn's as designed and save the $80 , they sound fantastic to me.

I don't know Sal, his description is what I hear in the HD650's. Yes it is a minority opinion, but it fits with what I hear on them. Headphones are worse than rooms and speakers because everyone's ear is shaped a little different and headphone fit varies because everyone's head is different too. I find headphone subjective descriptions to be of only limited use. Only if the phone is horribly unbalanced are they useful to me. But maybe I have weird ears.

Some older Beyer DT880's I have sound far better than 650s to me, but most people don't hold that opinion. The 650 and 600 have what I would describe as a stuffy covered sound. Like listening thru a blanket at all frequencies. Of course wrong-headed may have extra real meaning in headphones. In the video JustIntonation linked to earlier in the thread, they mention having custom correction curves for each ear were of no use because simple repositioning of the phone on the outer ear made more difference than the EQ amounted to for the phone.

BTW, the general consensus among pro recording people is still that you can't mix on headphones. Now of course you can, but most consider it a big, big handicap. My own limited experience is I can mix on headphones for headphone listening. Or speakers for speaker listening. And trying to accommodate both is a compromise.

Sometimes doing small groups with close miking I've done the full left, right and center mix. A quick way to an okay mix. Sounds fine on speakers. Sounds very weird on headphones. So I compromise with 80% left, 80% right and center mix. You barely notice it on speakers and it sounds okay on headphones.

 

[Sal1950]

Warning: it's not pretty

View attachment 13286

Looks like you stole the eye off a dalek. Exterminate.

 

[Sal1950]

I don't know Sal, his description is what I hear in the HD650's.

Off to the otolaryngologist with the both of ya. LOL

 

[JustIntonation]

Some older Beyer DT880's I have sound far better than 650s to me, ..

Perhaps if we share somewhat similar "ears" for headphones I can recomend you the Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro.
I haven't heard many headphones, leaving out the lowest budget ones I've owned the Sennheiser HD600, HD650 and HD800, AKG K1000 and K701 and now the Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro and I found all these headphones except for the DT1990 to have such big flaws to me that I couldn't live with them for a long period (HD800 came close though, very impressive in ways but not so in others). But the DT1990 is a keeper I think. Only have it now for about 2 weeks though so time will tell if it's indeed a keeper, but really appreciating it at the moment.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Off to the otolaryngologist with the both of ya. LOL

Okay some data. I've got some data.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/BeyerdynamicDT880250ohm.pdf

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD650.pdf

Which of these would sound down in the detail parts of the spectrum?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Perhaps if we share somewhat similar "ears" for headphones I can recomend you the Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro.
I haven't heard many headphones, leaving out the lowest budget ones I've owned the Sennheiser HD600, HD650 and HD800, AKG K1000 and K701 and now the Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro and I found all these headphones except for the DT1990 to have such big flaws to me that I couldn't live with them for a long period (HD800 came close though, very impressive in ways but not so in others). But the DT1990 is a keeper I think. Only have it now for about 2 weeks though so time will tell if it's indeed a keeper, but really appreciating it at the moment.

Thank you for sharing that info. I may well look into those.

For someone who doesn't want to spend that much, and may have similar ears, I've been using the Sony MDR7510 phones. They are around $125. They are similar to the MDR7520 in sound and design. The 7520s go for around $300 depending upon where you get them.

Don't know about you, but I've never been impressed with binaural recordings as they stay inside my head almost completely except right at the sides. Otherwise everything sounds at the top of my skull. The MDR7510 are the only conventional headphones that let the sound somewhat outside my head with binaural recordings. And other recordings aren't clustered at the top of my skull. They also seem to capture fine detail without being bright and tiresome.

Headphones are just very personal. I'm not sure what to think of the Harman research into this so far. Perhaps I'm an outlier on ear shape.

Also I'm not a huge head phone audiophile so haven't used so many phones as some and only use them when I have to do so.

 

[Hrodulf]

And btw, I'm also curious why you claim / think to have the worlds best measurement technique for headphones. Have you written any information online about your measurement technique and advantages achieved over other systems? I'd be curious to read it.

No, Sonarworks has chosen not to, which is debatable yet completely understandable. In my time there have been comparative trials with other measurement rigs and Sonarworks’ method always came on top. The big difference is that Sonarworks measurement corpus has more strict requirements due to the fact that these curves are not for looks only - they have to correlate to each other and to speaker calibration done on the same platform. What you see should be what you hear.

Also I should urge you to reconsider the significance of ear shape to audio perception - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/science/ears-shape-hearing.html I’d say that habit plays a much larger role.

 

[Blumlein 88]

snippage...........

Also I should urge you to reconsider the significance of ear shape to audio perception - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/science/ears-shape-hearing.html I’d say that habit plays a much larger role.

Your brain learns processing to match directional perception with your earshape. If that shape changes in time the brain adapts to that new shape. There has been similar prior research. It was found that initially changing shape took days for your hearing to reach the same directional acuity. However they could remove or replace those inserts and at that point the brain could correct for earshape in minutes. Almost like it has two sets of compensation curves and could switch to the correct one was that compensation curve has been developed.

What I think is missing with headphones is visual feedback. You don't have the visuals matching directional hearing and the brain has limited ability to build a template. I suppose the same kind of test on blind people would be instructive on this matter. Perhaps the brain can learn directionality in other ways.

The phones are altering ear shape, they have different directionality of response from a real ear (maybe beyond the ability of the brain to compensate for). Maybe enough time hearing combined with video for directional training would help dial in the directional aspects of headphone use.

 

[JustIntonation]

Thank you for sharing that info. I may well look into those.

For someone who doesn't want to spend that much, and may have similar ears, I've been using the Sony MDR7510 phones. They are around $125. They are similar to the MDR7520 in sound and design. The 7520s go for around $300 depending upon where you get them.

Don't know about you, but I've never been impressed with binaural recordings as they stay inside my head almost completely except right at the sides. Otherwise everything sounds at the top of my skull. The MDR7510 are the only conventional headphones that let the sound somewhat outside my head with binaural recordings. And other recordings aren't clustered at the top of my skull. They also seem to capture fine detail without being bright and tiresome.

Headphones are just very personal. I'm not sure what to think of the Harman research into this so far. Perhaps I'm an outlier on ear shape.

Also I'm not a huge head phone audiophile so haven't used so many phones as some and only use them when I have to do so.

I haven't heard many binaureal recordings. Don't know any good music recorded that way so I only listened to it long ago as a sort of gimmick.
For me most music is better on speakers. Except for more natural position classical recordings which I now prefer on the DT1990 more than on speakers.
For instance the Vierne I mentioned earlier:

With the DT1990 I'm there in a very real and natural way.
Past few days I've been thinking about giving processing to pop and electronic music etc mixed for speakers another go on headphones by adding reverb. Tried this once many years ago but the results weren't good enough but perhaps with these new headphones and better reverb (Altiverb 7 would be my first try, it includes many sampled living rooms and studio monitoring rooms etc) It may work out this time. If it does I'll post about it here
Btw, I think that's the whole point of the Harman curve. It tries to make music meant for speaker systems in a room sound balanced on headphones as well in their dry state. I don't think this is ever going to be as good as speakers, and fully dry sound will never sound the same on headphones as on speakers in a room with early reflections and reverb.
But similarly a natural wet classical recording will clash with room early reflections and reverb on speakers and sounds best in a really dead / anechoic room or on headphones I think.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I haven't heard many binaureal recordings. Don't know any good music recorded that way so I only listened to it long ago as a sort of gimmick.
For me most music is better on speakers. Except for more natural position classical recordings which I now prefer on the DT1990 more than on speakers.
For instance the Vierne I mentioned earlier:

With the DT1990 I'm there in a very real and natural way.
Past few days I've been thinking about giving processing to pop and electronic music etc mixed for speakers another go on headphones by adding reverb. Tried this once many years ago but the results weren't good enough but perhaps with these new headphones and better reverb (Altiverb 7 would be my first try, it includes many sampled living rooms and studio monitoring rooms etc) It may work out this time. If it does I'll post about it here
Btw, I think that's the whole point of the Harman curve. It tries to make music meant for speaker systems in a room sound balanced on headphones as well in their dry state. I don't think this is ever going to be as good as speakers, and fully dry sound will never sound the same on headphones as on speakers in a room with early reflections and reverb.
But similarly a natural wet classical recording will clash with room early reflections and reverb on speakers and sounds best in a really dead / anechoic room or on headphones I think.

Chesky recordings when of music I liked was a past favorite. They used a Blumlein configuration for recordings. Then in 2012 they switched to dummy head binaural. Which made me unhappy as binaural doesn't work well for me. Now they do some other processing which is supposed to make it good over phones or speakers. It is provided by the fellow behind BACCH 3D processing, but is special filtering for crossfeed apparently. I don't find it nearly so nice as their earlier recordings.

You can listen to samples from selections on this page.
http://www.chesky.com/content/binaural-series

Alexis Cole is a good demo.

I don't find it awful. It is still pretty good. But not as nice as their earlier Blumlein based miking in my opinion. It reminds me of Jecklin disc recordings which to me have a near hole in the middle problem. Not quite, but almost. A thinning of the sound in the middle of the soundfield.

 

[JustIntonation]

Chesky recordings when of music I liked was a past favorite. They used a Blumlein configuration for recordings. Then in 2012 they switched to dummy head binaural. Which made me unhappy as binaural doesn't work well for me. Now they do some other processing which is supposed to make it good over phones or speakers. It is provided by the fellow behind BACCH 3D processing, but is special filtering for crossfeed apparently. I don't find it nearly so nice as their earlier recordings.

You can listen to samples from selections on this page.
http://www.chesky.com/content/binaural-series

Alexis Cole is a good demo.

I don't find it awful. It is still pretty good. But not as nice as their earlier Blumlein based miking in my opinion. It reminds me of Jecklin disc recordings which to me have a near hole in the middle problem. Not quite, but almost. A thinning of the sound in the middle of the soundfield.

Ah ok thank you for the link I will have a good listen later!

 

[Hrodulf]

What I think is missing with headphones is visual feedback.

Well, it's true that visual perception is the main way for us to make sense of the world and cross-check data from other senses. Headphones are no different in that regard than speakers, both attempt to give an impression of an external event by providing the appropriate auditory data. It's not uncommon to hear reports from listeners that the imaging from a setup is so good that they could "see" the performance in front of them.

I don't really see binaural working properly without three things:
1. Complete spectral control of the playback system (FR calibration)
2. Tuning for listener head dimensions
3. Precise head movement tracking

At the same time there's a good chance that some people will be harder to deceive than others.

 

[SIY]

No, Sonarworks has chosen not to, which is debatable yet completely understandable. In my time there have been comparative trials with other measurement rigs and Sonarworks’ method always came on top. The big difference is that Sonarworks measurement corpus has more strict requirements due to the fact that these curves are not for looks only - they have to correlate to each other and to speaker calibration done on the same platform. What you see should be what you hear.

Also I should urge you to reconsider the significance of ear shape to audio perception - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/science/ears-shape-hearing.html I’d say that habit plays a much larger role.

Their patent applications give some pretty good insight into how their curves are derived. It's a multi-point process, and their validation seems solid.

Re: ear shape, Jan Didden and I did a quick experiment a few years ago with the Smyth Realiser. The calibration of this device involves measurements taken with little mikes stuck in the user's ears and the headphones in place. Clearly, the cavity will be different with different pinnae, and we found that swapping our calibrations (in the same room and with the same loudspeakers) caused massive tonal changes and totally destroyed the "sound coming from the speakers" illusion that the Smyth gives. I've had a skepticism about headphone frequency response as an absolute measurement ever since.

That said, the effects of the Sonarworks on the two sets of headphones I tried was, subjectively, completely positive- removal of some of the treble resonances made the spectral balance much closer to what I get from my speakers. I turned off the age/gender correction, which still makes no logical sense to me, and I change the EQ depending on whether I'm just listening for pleasure or listening analytically.

I'm still a speakers guy at home and when evaluating mike positions when I record, but when I travel, I have no other choice than headphones so may as well make the most of it.

 

[Timbo2]

I don't know Sal, his description is what I hear in the HD650's. Yes it is a minority opinion, but it fits with what I hear on them. Headphones are worse than rooms and speakers because everyone's ear is shaped a little different and headphone fit varies because everyone's head is different too. I find headphone subjective descriptions to be of only limited use. Only if the phone is horribly unbalanced are they useful to me. But maybe I have weird ears.

Some older Beyer DT880's I have sound far better than 650s to me, but most people don't hold that opinion. The 650 and 600 have what I would describe as a stuffy covered sound. Like listening thru a blanket at all frequencies. Of course wrong-headed may have extra real meaning in headphones. In the video JustIntonation linked to earlier in the thread, they mention having custom correction curves for each ear were of no use because simple repositioning of the phone on the outer ear made more difference than the EQ amounted to for the phone.

BTW, the general consensus among pro recording people is still that you can't mix on headphones. Now of course you can, but most consider it a big, big handicap. My own limited experience is I can mix on headphones for headphone listening. Or speakers for speaker listening. And trying to accommodate both is a compromise.

Sometimes doing small groups with close miking I've done the full left, right and center mix. A quick way to an okay mix. Sounds fine on speakers. Sounds very weird on headphones. So I compromise with 80% left, 80% right and center mix. You barely notice it on speakers and it sounds okay on headphones.

Have you tried various IEMs and found the same issues?

I have a pair of Shure SE535s that I also like, but the sound is quite different from my 600s. The problem is it is hard for me to describe the differences in anything other than standard audiophile terms. Siightly thinner on mid bass, but more detailed top end and not quite as “balanced” for lack of a better word.

Comfort wise I’m in the minority that much prefers IEMs.

I agree headphone preference seem to be very personal.

 

[Timbo2]

I haven't heard many binaureal recordings. Don't know any good music recorded that way so I only listened to it long ago as a sort of gimmick.
For me most music is better on speakers. Except for more natural position classical recordings which I now prefer on the DT1990 more than on speakers.
For instance the Vierne I mentioned earlier:

With the DT1990 I'm there in a very real and natural way.
Past few days I've been thinking about giving processing to pop and electronic music etc mixed for speakers another go on headphones by adding reverb. Tried this once many years ago but the results weren't good enough but perhaps with these new headphones and better reverb (Altiverb 7 would be my first try, it includes many sampled living rooms and studio monitoring rooms etc) It may work out this time. If it does I'll post about it here
Btw, I think that's the whole point of the Harman curve. It tries to make music meant for speaker systems in a room sound balanced on headphones as well in their dry state. I don't think this is ever going to be as good as speakers, and fully dry sound will never sound the same on headphones as on speakers in a room with early reflections and reverb.
But similarly a natural wet classical recording will clash with room early reflections and reverb on speakers and sounds best in a really dead / anechoic room or on headphones I think.

I’m assuming you know about Meier crossfeed as another alternative.

http://www.meier-audio.homepage.t-online.de/crossfeed.htm

I have it as a plug-in on Foobar. For some music I like it, on others not so much.

 

[pkane]

Your brain learns processing to match directional perception with your earshape. If that shape changes in time the brain adapts to that new shape. There has been similar prior research. It was found that initially changing shape took days for your hearing to reach the same directional acuity. However they could remove or replace those inserts and at that point the brain could correct for earshape in minutes. Almost like it has two sets of compensation curves and could switch to the correct one was that compensation curve has been developed.

Dennis, I think that's right. More than the shape of the ear or the HRTF, it is how the brain learns to process sounds that it receives and to determine the direction that affects one's ability to hear binaural.

I'm the polar opposite in my preferences, in that I really like binaural recordings including the later ones with the crossfeed filter by Chesky through HD650s. What's interesting to me is that I like them through the speakers, as well. I've collected a good number of binaural recordings in trying to experiment with a more natural soundstage. A few binaural recordings were truly exceptional, where I've been startled enough by the sound of an opening door, for example, to have to look to see if this was real or in the recording (this was with HD650s).

 

[pkane]

Okay some data. I've got some data.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/BeyerdynamicDT880250ohm.pdf

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD650.pdf

Which of these would sound down in the detail parts of the spectrum?

View attachment 13287

View attachment 13288

Here's my measurements of HD650s (using the same ugly rig I posted earlier):

 

[Timbo2]

Here's my measurements of HD650s (using the same ugly rig I posted earlier):

View attachment 13290

Interesting, thanks for posting. Any thoughts on why the large difference at 3kHz compared to innerfidelity?

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD650.pdf

 

[SIY]

Interesting, thanks for posting. Any thoughts on why the large difference at 3kHz compared to innerfidelity?

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD650.pdf

I'll make a bet that it's the physical test jig. Here's an example of the same headphones tested with and without artificial pinnae.