MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Headphones 2019 ugh “monitor quality” LOL
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next [all]
Author Headphones 2019 ugh “monitor quality” LOL
milkshake
cptnal wrote:
milkshake wrote:
Bath House wrote:
What’s a solid, decent pair for mixing and monitoring synth music on that are reasonably neutral but reproduce bass well enough? Since having a kid I spend 90% of my studio time on headphones. I’ve used Sony MDR-7506 for 20 years and they sound like dick but I know them. I’m ready for an upgrade. I’m looking at the 7510’s since they have better bass reproduction. What else? I hate this topic because it ends up bonkers. Help!!


Critical thinking dictates us to ask the following:
What do the science guys have to say about this?

Here are some links:
https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2017/02/twirt-337-predicting-headphone- sound_17.html
Quote from article:
The highest scoring headphone was a $100 model that we equalized to hit the Harman target response, which our research has shown to be preferred by the majority of listeners.

https://www.listeninc.com/wp/media/Perception_and_-Measurement_of_Head phones_Sean_Olive.pdf

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-target-response-curve- research-update

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19237

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-and-headset-measuremen t-seminar-sean-olive



There are so many links to post but I'll stop here.
Smart wigglers will get the gist.


Evidence-based decision making? It'll never catch on. Dead Banana


Looking at the posts here kinda proves you right.

Not a single person backs up his/her claims with evidence, it's just people saying stuff on the internet, thinking there is value in what they say.
strettara
milkshake wrote:

Not a single person backs up his/her claims with evidence, it's just people saying stuff on the internet, thinking there is value in what they say.

Well my ears do get hot. That’s an actual fact. You can come over and touch them if you want proof.
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:
cptnal wrote:
milkshake wrote:
Bath House wrote:
What’s a solid, decent pair for mixing and monitoring synth music on that are reasonably neutral but reproduce bass well enough? Since having a kid I spend 90% of my studio time on headphones. I’ve used Sony MDR-7506 for 20 years and they sound like dick but I know them. I’m ready for an upgrade. I’m looking at the 7510’s since they have better bass reproduction. What else? I hate this topic because it ends up bonkers. Help!!


Critical thinking dictates us to ask the following:
What do the science guys have to say about this?

Here are some links:
https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2017/02/twirt-337-predicting-headphone- sound_17.html
Quote from article:
The highest scoring headphone was a $100 model that we equalized to hit the Harman target response, which our research has shown to be preferred by the majority of listeners.

https://www.listeninc.com/wp/media/Perception_and_-Measurement_of_Head phones_Sean_Olive.pdf

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-target-response-curve- research-update

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19237

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-and-headset-measuremen t-seminar-sean-olive



There are so many links to post but I'll stop here.
Smart wigglers will get the gist.


Evidence-based decision making? It'll never catch on. Dead Banana


Looking at the posts here kinda proves you right.

Not a single person backs up his/her claims with evidence, it's just people saying stuff on the internet, thinking there is value in what they say.


I spent some time explaining to you a lot of this research should have been rejected if peer reviewed by good scientists. You just didn't want to hear any of that. I think I asked you if you were a scientist but you didn't reply. And then I wonder if you really even understand the implications of the bit you highlighted, which has little relevance to this discussion, which is that they modified the 100 dollar headphones to meet the mean curve of listener preference and then said that it was the highest scoring. Their algorithm would have been flawed if that didn't happen! All they did was test their algorithm against the the average of preferred experience and their research notes that listeners prefer a curve which hypes the bass. And this makes sense given the bass experience is different in headphones. I use headphones with hyped bass and they are not very expensive. But that's a conscious decision. This research is largely aimed at the consumer, but has little bearing on producers looking for reference headphones in studios.
Panason
Scientism is the new religion... Also, fuck "peers" and their reviews. Sold out careerists, the lot of them!
dubonaire
Panason wrote:
Scientism is the new religion... Also, fuck "peers" and their reviews. Sold out careerists, the lot of them!


No that's not true at all. I've worked with scientists most of my life, I am one, and most are genuine. If scientists were all sold out careerists there would be no advance in science, and you would have to be living in a bubble to think there are no advances. When it comes to published science you just need to be careful, and training in the scientific method helps. There are biases, that's just human, so you need to look for research that seeks to eliminate bias and has sound methodology (no pun intended). It's for this reason scientific papers publish the raw data and the methodology, so that other scientists can replicate the results or find flaws. Generally scientific hypotheses are considered unproven until replicated by others.

However we do need to be alert to the risks of scientism, and thinking faith etc is for stupid people - but we need to be comfortable with the difference. We also need to be aware of the commercial pressures on scientists and journals, especially when so many people are making stupid statements like scientists are sold out careerists. Because people who, for example, devote their entire lives to finding a cure for a type of cancer or other diseases, or devote their lives to measuring climate change, become devalued by society. And that is a sorry state of affairs. If you say these things, you have no idea how hard these people work. And that shits me no end.

When it comes to things like sound pressure levels, the science is very robust. When it comes to value statements of sound quality, science can be shaky. It's a leap of faith to think a frequency spectrum plot represents absolutely the subjective listening experience. (Although the research above, despite problems with its robustness, suggests you can average the qualitatively ranked listening experience and get a model average frequency response. But I still think this has the illusion of accuracy). And results of experiments, especially when there are statistical problems around subjective values, are best served by highly qualified conclusions.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:

I spent some time explaining to you a lot of this research should have been rejected if peer reviewed by good scientists.

If you actual read the published papers, you'd know that it has been peer reviewed and published in actual scientific journals.

dubonaire wrote:
You just didn't want to hear any of that.

You just show cognitive dissonance, ignoring the peer review for instance.

dubonaire wrote:
I think I asked you if you were a scientist but you didn't reply.

You ask me for an argument from authority....
Critical thinking, what's that.

dubonaire wrote:
And then I wonder if you really even understand the implications of the bit you highlighted, which has little relevance to this discussion, which is that they modified the 100 dollar headphones to meet the mean curve of listener preference and then said that it was the highest scoring. Their algorithm would have been flawed if that didn't happen! All they did was test their algorithm against the the average of preferred experience and their research notes that listeners prefer a curve which hypes the bass. And this makes sense given the bass experience is different in headphones.


I perfectly understand.
It means you can EQ headphones, as they are primarily minimum phase devices, so that they will sound just like neutral speakers in a good room.
That's what the target response does.
Or you can EQ them to taste, that's up to the individual.
Maybe you should read those peer reviewed papers....
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:
dubonaire wrote:

I spent some time explaining to you a lot of this research should have been rejected if peer reviewed by good scientists.

If you actual read the published papers, you'd know that it has been peer reviewed and published in actual scientific journals.

dubonaire wrote:
You just didn't want to hear any of that.

You just show cognitive dissonance, ignoring the peer review for instance.

dubonaire wrote:
I think I asked you if you were a scientist but you didn't reply.

You ask me for an argument from authority....
Critical thinking, what's that.

dubonaire wrote:
And then I wonder if you really even understand the implications of the bit you highlighted, which has little relevance to this discussion, which is that they modified the 100 dollar headphones to meet the mean curve of listener preference and then said that it was the highest scoring. Their algorithm would have been flawed if that didn't happen! All they did was test their algorithm against the the average of preferred experience and their research notes that listeners prefer a curve which hypes the bass. And this makes sense given the bass experience is different in headphones.


I perfectly understand.
It means you can EQ headphones, as they are primarily minimum phase devices, so that they will sound just like neutral speakers in a good room.
That's what the target response does.
Or you can EQ them to taste, that's up to the individual.
Maybe you should read those peer reviewed papers....


I did read the papers, last time and again this time. I'm not going to endlessly argue again. I said peer reviewed by good scientists. I find it embarrassing that a presenter needs to put images of papers published for only one society. And most of them are conference and convention papers. I can tell you from experience submit a paper for a conference and it will be approved, especially if you are a sponsor. I've guaranteed getting conference papers published and speaking roles by sponsoring conferences. That's how it works. You get given prospectuses which tell you what opportunities you'll get for your sponsorship dollar. These presentations are clearly on behalf of Harman, not a university.

What is he trying to prove though? Perceived spectral balance has nothing to with clarity or responsiveness. And measured frequency relies on detectors which are physical approximations of human ears such as the GRAS Ear Simulator https://www.gras.dk/products/ear-simulator/product/248-ra0045.

Most of these reports talk about frequency spectrum. His papers are about technologically approximated versus subjectively evaluated perceived frequency response. Can you not see the problems with that? And an you not see that is only one quality? And we already know frequency response of headphones is poor.

You can drive a bus through this stuff. Enough already.
calaveras
dubonaire wrote:


Not a single person backs up his/her claims with evidence, it's just people saying stuff on the internet, thinking there is value in what they say.

Yeah uh, this is a message board not a reasearch foundation. The only thing you will find on message boards is opinions.
You want the specs on the headphones, look them up.
Most of us don’t have measurement equipment to analyze time and frequency domain response.
Besides, loudspeakers and headphones are the worst offenders in our entire signal chain. 2-5% distortion is not uncommon. Freq response is rarely within 3db tolerance. All you can get is subjective opinion. Use that to get a feel for what is out there, then go try them for your self. No amount of quantifying by anyone else can replace your ears.[quote]
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:

I did read the papers, last time and again this time. I'm not going to endlessly argue again. I said peer reviewed by good scientists.


If the science doesn't comply with your world view, the science must be bad.
Classic cognitive dissonance.
milkshake
[quote="calaveras"]
dubonaire wrote:


Not a single person backs up his/her claims with evidence, it's just people saying stuff on the internet, thinking there is value in what they say.

Yeah uh, this is a message board not a reasearch foundation. The only thing you will find on message boards is opinions.
You want the specs on the headphones, look them up.
Most of us don’t have measurement equipment to analyze time and frequency domain response.
Besides, loudspeakers and headphones are the worst offenders in our entire signal chain. 2-5% distortion is not uncommon. Freq response is rarely within 3db tolerance. All you can get is subjective opinion. Use that to get a feel for what is out there, then go try them for your self. No amount of quantifying by anyone else can replace your ears.
Quote:


That was my quote.

Only people who have no clue about perceptual testing say: Use your ears.
dubonaire
[quote="calaveras"]
dubonaire wrote:


Not a single person backs up his/her claims with evidence, it's just people saying stuff on the internet, thinking there is value in what they say.

Yeah uh, this is a message board not a reasearch foundation. The only thing you will find on message boards is opinions.
You want the specs on the headphones, look them up.
Most of us don’t have measurement equipment to analyze time and frequency domain response.
Besides, loudspeakers and headphones are the worst offenders in our entire signal chain. 2-5% distortion is not uncommon. Freq response is rarely within 3db tolerance. All you can get is subjective opinion. Use that to get a feel for what is out there, then go try them for your self. No amount of quantifying by anyone else can replace your ears.
Quote:


Dude, this is exactly what I am saying.
calaveras
We are making music, not dropping scientific instruments on Phobos.
Though I do appreciate a healthy dose of science fiction in my tunes. (one of my projects is called Nasa Space Vehicle).
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:
dubonaire wrote:

I did read the papers, last time and again this time. I'm not going to endlessly argue again. I said peer reviewed by good scientists.


If the science doesn't comply with your world view, the science must be bad.
Classic cognitive dissonance.


What you are presenting is poor science, including insufficient sample sizes, questionable methodology including a manufactured baseline, testing equipment even they discuss as an issue, poor statistical analysis (I see tables where the only statistical value is the SD, which is large anyway but alone means very little) presented by Harman employees under its imprimatur to make unqualified conclusions in conference papers. You don't see this because you are either not a scientist or a poorly educated scientist. Mainly rubbish and even if it was good science, it's only about the frequency spectrum, which I have said all along is poorly reproduced by headphones. Frequency spectrum reproduction is only one quality of headphones.

As I said, I use relatively cheap headphones, VModa in fact, which I love, bass heavy which the conference papers say people like, nothing near top end prices, so I'm not in any way biased against the claims being made. If I agree that all headphones have poor frequency response, and I use relatively cheap headphones, which conform to their findings when it comes to their documented listener preferences, where is the bias and the cognitive dissonance? It's just not very good science, and it's only looking at one quality.
dubonaire
calaveras wrote:
We are making music, not dropping scientific instruments on Phobos.
Though I do appreciate a healthy dose of science fiction in my tunes. (one of my projects is called Nasa Space Vehicle).


I agree totally. So when someone quotes poor science to challenge subjective opinions it's doubly annoying.
strettara
Dr. Sean Olive from Harman.

I wonder what people’s reaction would be if Dr. Joe Blow from Texaco gave a presentation on climate science? It would be regarded with some scepticism at best.

Apart from that I can’t judge the quality of the work being presented. I’m sure Sean Olive is as conscientious and as good a scientist as his research resources allow him to be.

As for me, if it sounds good in my ears I’m happy. I don’t listen to music in pursuit of some higher sonic truth.
GrantB
Having read through the PDF of the presentation, all it "proves" is that out of their 75 listeners, most of them preferred the listening experience with eq applied to provide a specific frequency response curve. The response curve appears to have been determined in part by a survey of listeners preferences, so this is not surprising.

This doesn't tell us which headphones help create mixes and sounds that translate well, or which ones are the most comfortable and least fatiguing.

*This science brought to you by Harman, a Samsung company
thevegasnerve
dubonaire wrote:
Panason wrote:
Scientism is the new religion... Also, fuck "peers" and their reviews. Sold out careerists, the lot of them!


No that's not true at all. I've worked with scientists most of my life, I am one, and most are genuine. If scientists were all sold out careerists there would be no advance in science, and you would have to be living in a bubble to think there are no advances. When it comes to published science you just need to be careful, and training in the scientific method helps. There are biases, that's just human, so you need to look for research that seeks to eliminate bias and has sound methodology (no pun intended). It's for this reason scientific papers publish the raw data and the methodology, so that other scientists can replicate the results or find flaws. Generally scientific hypotheses are considered unproven until replicated by others.

However we do need to be alert to the risks of scientism, and thinking faith etc is for stupid people - but we need to be comfortable with the difference. We also need to be aware of the commercial pressures on scientists and journals, especially when so many people are making stupid statements like scientists are sold out careerists. Because people who, for example, devote their entire lives to finding a cure for a type of cancer or other diseases, or devote their lives to measuring climate change, become devalued by society. And that is a sorry state of affairs. If you say these things, you have no idea how hard these people work. And that shits me no end.

When it comes to things like sound pressure levels, the science is very robust. When it comes to value statements of sound quality, science can be shaky. It's a leap of faith to think a frequency spectrum plot represents absolutely the subjective listening experience. (Although the research above, despite problems with its robustness, suggests you can average the qualitatively ranked listening experience and get a model average frequency response. But I still think this has the illusion of accuracy). And results of experiments, especially when there are statistical problems around subjective values, are best served by highly qualified conclusions.


thanks dubonaire, I really value your input on these things.. I would add that there is not likely "one best headphone for everyone" It is a somewhat flawed discussion based on each individuals unique physiology (for lack of a more appropriate word).. I was a Sony 7506 user for awhile, but have switched to Beyer DT-770s and AKG 240 (Massdrop version) for a little better clarity and less bass response. The DT-770s are very comfortable. just my preference, but I would recommend either for "affordable" headphones with generally not over-hyped bass.
nativestate
I use the Phonon Headphones Smb-02 as my daily drivers. Highly recommended.
francoprussian
DT-770 are amazing for the price. Not sure about US but in Europe they can be had for around £100/€115, which is ridiculous considering they're still manufactured in Germany and are very sturdy and sound like you'd hope good phones to sound.
dubonaire
thevegasnerve wrote:

thanks dubonaire, I really value your input on these things.. I would add that there is not likely "one best headphone for everyone" It is a somewhat flawed discussion based on each individuals unique physiology (for lack of a more appropriate word).. I was a Sony 7506 user for awhile, but have switched to Beyer DT-770s and AKG 240 (Massdrop version) for a little better clarity and less bass response. The DT-770s are very comfortable. just my preference, but I would recommend either for "affordable" headphones with generally not over-hyped bass.


Thanks! You probably mean anatomy rather than physiology but there can be physiological differences as well. I think comfort is a huge factor and I think Beyer make great headphones.
Blairio
Reputable UK hifi magazine What HiFi has an interesting article on headphone amplifiers - including compact devices for providing good performance even from laptops and smartphones.

https://www.whathifi.com/best-buys/accessories/best-headphone-amplifie rs

The headphone out of my Focusrite Pro 24 seems pretty good, but I would love to A/B a half decent headphone amp to see how much of a difference there is. I have known pals spend several hundred pounds on headphones, and then plug them into modest music centres and hifi amps, neither of which will have much of the budget allocated to the headphone feed.
strangeowl
Best studio headphones that I know of are Audeze (lcd-x) or the new Rosson Audio headphones.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:
dubonaire wrote:

I did read the papers, last time and again this time. I'm not going to endlessly argue again. I said peer reviewed by good scientists.


If the science doesn't comply with your world view, the science must be bad.
Classic cognitive dissonance.


What you are presenting is poor science, including insufficient sample sizes, questionable methodology including a manufactured baseline, testing equipment even they discuss as an issue, poor statistical analysis (I see tables where the only statistical value is the SD, which is large anyway but alone means very little) presented by Harman employees under its imprimatur to make unqualified conclusions in conference papers. You don't see this because you are either not a scientist or a poorly educated scientist. Mainly rubbish and even if it was good science, it's only about the frequency spectrum, which I have said all along is poorly reproduced by headphones. Frequency spectrum reproduction is only one quality of headphones.


What other audible qualities in headphones, besides the frequency curve, have been found to be important in double blind listening tests?
And can you post a link to that published research?





thumbs up
milkshake
Just to clarify.

All I do is show the wigglers what the science guy's are saying about headphone sound quality: The frequency cure of headphones is a very important factor concerning sound quality. And you can improve the quality of your headphone with eq.
This last thing is easy for every wiggler to verify: If your headphone is bass shy, add a bit of bass through eq. Now it will sound less bass shy. Is this really bad science?

Let's talk about the target curve.
How did they get to that?
Very simple, test lots of headphones for preference and try to find out what the top scoring ones have in common. This turns out to be a specific frequency curve.
If you eq other headphones to this curve, they will now also come out on top in preference tests.
Is this outcome surprising? Or the research bad science?


I don't have the arrogance to know it better than people who have been doing this research for decades and have published their results in peer reviewed papers.
It's up to the wigglers to use this information anyway they seem fit.
milkshake
GrantB wrote:

This doesn't tell us which headphones help create mixes and sounds that translate well, or which ones are the most comfortable and least fatiguing.


No it doesn't.
And fact is that if you can't mix on any headphone, you can't mix.

But I speculate that a headphone that is neutral, meaning it doesn't fafour or suppress any frequencies, makes mixing dessisions a lot easyer.
With headphones this neutral behavior is NOT a flat frequency curve, but instead it's very very close to the target cures used by Harman and rtings.com. The exact "neutral" curve is something to debate among the scientists.
P. S. The majority of people prefer neutral sound. See the audio musings site.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next [all]
Page 2 of 5
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group