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
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:
P. S. The majority of people prefer neutral sound. See the audio musings site.


Unless I'm completely misundertanding the paper, that's not what Olive and Welti's 2015 Convention Paper "Factors that Influence Listeners’ Preferred Bass and Treble Levels in Headphones" reports. These graphs show bass and treble adjustments made by test subjects to a frequency response curve of headphones normalised to a flat reference speaker. Age seems to have a factor, although the sample size is small so caution regarding the results is needed. By the way, the conclusion written in the second slide is misleading. It should say "with increasing age listeners prefer to increase bass in smaller amounts and decrease treble in larger amounts until 56 after which they prefer to increase bass in smaller amounts and decrease treble in smaller amounts".





tIB
So are we allowed to make recommendations of headphones we have used that have been better for us than other headphones we have used?
strettara
tIB wrote:
So are we allowed to make recommendations of headphones we have used that have been better for us than other headphones we have used?

You’re really asking for a spanking.
dubonaire
tIB wrote:
So are we allowed to make recommendations of headphones we have used that have been better for us than other headphones we have used?


If you are asking me, yes absolutely. I think that's what the OP wanted and didn't want a misguided lecture based on some sponsored conference papers based on frequency response narrowly presumed to be the indicator of quality.
milkshake
tIB wrote:
So are we allowed to make recommendations of headphones we have used that have been better for us than other headphones we have used?


Of cause you are free to do that.

But what is the value of such a statement?

Rule number 1 of critical thinking is: When no evidence is provided for a statement, don't believe it.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:
P. S. The majority of people prefer neutral sound. See the audio musings site.


Unless I'm completely misundertanding the paper, that's not what Olive and Welti's 2015 Convention Paper "Factors that Influence Listeners’ Preferred Bass and Treble Levels in Headphones" reports. These graphs show bass and treble adjustments made by test subjects to a frequency response curve of headphones normalised to a flat reference speaker. Age seems to have a factor, although the sample size is small so caution regarding the results is needed. By the way, the conclusion written in the second slide is misleading. It should say "with increasing age listeners prefer to increase bass in smaller amounts and decrease treble in larger amounts until 56 after which they prefer to increase bass in smaller amounts and decrease treble in smaller amounts".







Here's a link to a later paper, so people can make up their own mind.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19275

Edit:More papers on the subject.
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:

Here's a link to a later paper, so people can make up their own mind.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19275


You have to pay to read the paper. That paper is about in-ear headphones and the abstract states "Both trained and untrained listeners preferred the headphone equalized to the Harman IE target curve." The Harman curves are shown below, the IE curve from this paper is the one in green showing more bass compensation. This curve is from an even smaller sample size so who knows, but check out the cliff at 8kHz! It's not surprising IE listeners want more bass.

milkshake, I honestly don't know if you are not understanding the papers or not reading them, or you are, as you accused me, hanging on to a confirmation bias.

But again, all these papers are about frequency response, not about headphone quality or suitability for monitoring. I'm sorry OP this thread has become so derailed.

tIB
dubonaire wrote:
tIB wrote:
So are we allowed to make recommendations of headphones we have used that have been better for us than other headphones we have used?


If you are asking me, yes absolutely. I think that's what the OP wanted and didn't want a misguided lecture based on some sponsored conference papers based on frequency response narrowly presumed to be the indicator of quality.


We're on the same page. Guinness ftw!
tIB
milkshake wrote:
tIB wrote:
So are we allowed to make recommendations of headphones we have used that have been better for us than other headphones we have used?


Of cause you are free to do that.

But what is the value of such a statement?

Rule number 1 of critical thinking is: When no evidence is provided for a statement, don't believe it.


The value as I see it is in the opinion of the poster, as recieved by the OP. Discussions on headphones (and monitors and lots of other things) tend to take similar paths, because responses are generally skewed around what has sold most/is most popular. Even so, I've done well in the past taking recommendations from other posters which have aided my research/eventual purchase. It's all opinion, and so entirely subjective, but I don't see an issue with that on a discussion forum- I assume the OP will take out of it what he or she wishes.
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:
tIB wrote:
So are we allowed to make recommendations of headphones we have used that have been better for us than other headphones we have used?


Of cause you are free to do that.

But what is the value of such a statement?

Rule number 1 of critical thinking is: When no evidence is provided for a statement, don't believe it.


Rule number 2 is: evidence must be relevant, otherwise discount it.

Rule number 3: evidence purported to be science must be good science, otherwise discount it.

That is why the links you provided need to be seen in context and challenged as poor to average science.

Rule number 4 is: the scientific method, even if credible, is not the only basis for critical thinking.

That is why subjective opinion about audio is valuable. For climate change, it's not. For what headphones are good to use, it is.
strettara
dubonaire wrote:

Rule number 4 is: the scientific method, even if credible, is not the only basis for critical thinking.

thumbs up
Muzone
tIB wrote:
........ I've done well in the past taking recommendations from other posters which have aided my research/eventual purchase.


Yes, I would certainly agree - I've learned more useful things listening to people than looking at graphs lol
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:

Here's a link to a later paper, so people can make up their own mind.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19275


You have to pay to read the paper. That paper is about in-ear headphones and the abstract states "Both trained and untrained listeners preferred the headphone equalized to the Harman IE target curve." The Harman curves are shown below, the IE curve from this paper is the one in green. This curve is from an even smaller sample size so who knows, but check out the cliff at 8kHz! It's not surprising IE listeners want more bass.

milkshake, I honestly don't know if you are not understanding the papers or you just want to argue.



There are 4 different target curves in that picture. Look at the names for these curves.
The exact target curve is still in debate, as I've mentioned before.

If you make a headphone with a flat frequency curve, it will not sound good. The reason is that the head, shoulders outer ear, ear cannal and inner ear all effect what frequency curve you actually perceive. Humans automatically correct for these things, we have evolved like that. But when using headphones things are different, as the sound is now only coming from just outside the ears. The head, shoulders, and outer ear have far less influence.

It turns out that you need that strange 8kHz bump for it to sound good. This is counter intuitive, but the available data suggests this.
Look at the high scoring headphones on rtings.com. They all have this peak. And all high scoring headphones have a raw frequency curve very close to the IE2017 curve.
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/sound-quality/raw-frequency-re sponse

A simple extrapolation of this data suggests that if you eq a headphone to the IE2017 curve, it will sound good. And tests confirm this.


P.s You responded while I edited my post. More links are added in my previous post.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:
tIB wrote:
So are we allowed to make recommendations of headphones we have used that have been better for us than other headphones we have used?


Of cause you are free to do that.

But what is the value of such a statement?

Rule number 1 of critical thinking is: When no evidence is provided for a statement, don't believe it.


Rule number 2 is: evidence must be relevant, otherwise discount it.

Rule number 3: evidence purported to be science must be good science, otherwise discount it.

That is why the links you provided need to be seen in context and challenged as poor to average science.

Rule number 4 is: the scientific method, even if credible, is not the only basis for critical thinking.

That is why subjective opinion about audio is valuable. For climate change, it's not. For what headphones are good to use, it is.


On rule 2 and 3.
So you think that you are better in evaluating the research than the peer reviewers.
I don't have that arrogance.
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:
P. S. The majority of people prefer neutral sound. See the audio musings site.


milkshake wrote:
If you make a headphone with a flat frequency curve, it will not sound good.


I suppose this could be a semantic thing, that a neutral sound is not a flat frequency curve, although most people would think a neutral curve means a flat curve.

Harman's research, which always seems to be saying don't buy expensive headphones, is based on a flawed null hypothesis (which is never actually stated - so most academic journals would not even publish these papers) because frequency response is not proved to be the indicator of quality which is their first principles assumption, and so really helps no one. Actually I'd argue that a lot of their research proves frequency response is of low importance, yet they equate frequency response to quality. But I don't think their methodologies are robust. So basically I would say ignore their research other than for being passingly interesting. Such as older people don't like bass to be as hyped as younger people. Me, I'm old and I like hyped bass but I'm a bass freak so probably an outlier. Not sure how you deal with outliers when you have a sample size of less than 100.

But that has nothing to do with what makes a good reference set of headphones. And I would say high impedance, closed over ear, large diaphragm headphones that are comfortable to wear and a good headphone amp is the answer for bass music. And for bass light music I'd say comfortable electrostatic headphones, could be open ear, which also need a matched headphone amp.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:
P. S. The majority of people prefer neutral sound. See the audio musings site.


milkshake wrote:
If you make a headphone with a flat frequency curve, it will not sound good.


I suppose this could be a semantic thing, that a neutral sound is not a flat frequency curve, although most people would think a neutral curve means a flat curve.

Harman's research, which always seems to be saying don't buy expensive headphones, is based on a flawed null hypothesis (which is never actually stated - so most academic journals would not even publish these papers) because frequency response is not proved to be the indicator of quality which is their first principles assumption, really helps no one. Actually I'd argue that a lot of their research proves frequency response is of low importance. But I don't think their methodologies are robust. So basically I would say ignore their research other than for being passingly interesting.


1
Neutral sound only means a flat frequency response in electronic equipment. For in room loudspeakers and headphones this is not the case.

2
If you can't find a null hypothesis in these research papers, then your not looking.
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:

1
Neutral sound only means a flat frequency response in electronic equipment. For in room loudspeakers and headphones this is not the case.

2
If you can't find a null hypothesis in these research papers, then your not looking.


But they use a room speaker EQ'd to a flat response as the headphone reference frequency response in the paper that says people like hyped bass. I can't be bothered pasting the graphics from the papers any more.

A null hypothesis should be explicitly stated in the paper.

Dude, read the fucking papers or give it a rest.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:

But that has nothing to do with what makes a good reference set of headphones. And I would say high impedance, closed over ear, large diaphragm headphones that are comfortable to wear and a good headphone amp is the answer for bass music. And for bass light music I'd say comfortable electrostatic headphones, could be open ear, which also need a matched headphone amp.


I'm perfectly willing to believe you, if you provide evidence.
Can you do that?
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:
dubonaire wrote:

But that has nothing to do with what makes a good reference set of headphones. And I would say high impedance, closed over ear, large diaphragm headphones that are comfortable to wear and a good headphone amp is the answer for bass music. And for bass light music I'd say comfortable electrostatic headphones, could be open ear, which also need a matched headphone amp.


I'm perfectly willing to believe you, if you provide evidence.
Can you do that?


Prove to me you understand what evidence means, because so far you have proven to me you have no idea what the links you have posted mean (which are sponsored conference papers of little merit), how they are relevant, or how robust they are.

You don't have to believe me, I'm just trying to help you understand irrelevant sponsored conference papers do not axiomatically equal critical thinking. I've quoted the information in those papers to disprove your assertions, even though I think they are not robust.

This is going to come across as point scoring, I'm not. I'm just trying to help people understand posting a bunch of links to things called "papers" does not equal proof.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:

1
Neutral sound only means a flat frequency response in electronic equipment. For in room loudspeakers and headphones this is not the case.

2
If you can't find a null hypothesis in these research papers, then your not looking.


But they use a room speaker EQ'd to a flat response as the headphone reference frequency response in the paper that says people like hyped bass. I can't be bothered pasting the graphics from the papers any more.

A null hypothesis should be explicitly stated in the paper.

Dude, read the fucking papers or give it a rest.


The amount of arrogance that you display here is mind-boggling.
You a non scientist, think you know better than the actual scientists working in the field for decades.
Just wow.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:
dubonaire wrote:

But that has nothing to do with what makes a good reference set of headphones. And I would say high impedance, closed over ear, large diaphragm headphones that are comfortable to wear and a good headphone amp is the answer for bass music. And for bass light music I'd say comfortable electrostatic headphones, could be open ear, which also need a matched headphone amp.


I'm perfectly willing to believe you, if you provide evidence.
Can you do that?


Prove to me you understand what evidence means, because so far you have proven to me you have no idea what the links you have posted mean (which are sponsored conference papers of little merit), how they are relevant, or how robust they are.

You don't have to believe me, I'm just trying to help you understand irrelevant sponsored conference papers do not axiomatically equal critical thinking. I've quoted the information in those papers to disprove your assertions, even though I think they are not robust.

This is going to come across as point scoring, I'm not. I'm just trying to help people understand posting a bunch of links to things called "papers" does not equal proof.


Post something that you consider evidence.
Without it I can't believe you. And neither should anyone else.
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:

1
Neutral sound only means a flat frequency response in electronic equipment. For in room loudspeakers and headphones this is not the case.

2
If you can't find a null hypothesis in these research papers, then your not looking.


But they use a room speaker EQ'd to a flat response as the headphone reference frequency response in the paper that says people like hyped bass. I can't be bothered pasting the graphics from the papers any more.

A null hypothesis should be explicitly stated in the paper.

Dude, read the fucking papers or give it a rest.


The amount of arrogance that you display here is mind-boggling.
You a non scientist, think you know better than the actual scientists working in the field for decades.
Just wow.


I am a post graduate qualified scientist. Obviously you are not reading what I'm posting. I know what a good scientific paper is. These are not. They are rubbish. They don't contain proper statistical tests. They are conference papers clearly labelled by a company. No reputable scientific paper has a brand on the publication. But more importantly they only talk about people's perceptions of different EQ curves. FFS dude give it a rest.
dubonaire
milkshake wrote:

Post something that you consider evidence.
Without it I can't believe you. And neither should anyone else.


I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm disproving the Harman papers tell you what headphones to buy, or tell you opinions of others are invalid. And I am saying anyone who posts these papers calling them science, or using them as examples of critical thinking, doesn't know what science or critical thinking is.

Call me arrogant. You are the person who joined the thread to tell people they are talking out their arse.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:
milkshake wrote:

Post something that you consider evidence.
Without it I can't believe you. And neither should anyone else.


I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm disproving the Harman papers tell you what headphones to buy, or tell you opinions of others are invalid. And I am saying anyone who posts these papers calling them science, or using them as examples of critical thinking, doesn't know what science or critical thinking is.

Call me arrogant. You are the person who joined the thread to tell people they are talking out their arse.


You have made claims here on this page in the thread concerning good headphone sound quality without any evidence, so far.


I'm only saying, this is what the science guys have to say and provided links. I can't help it that what the scietists are saying is not what you say.
milkshake
dubonaire wrote:


I am a post graduate qualified scientist. Obviously you are not reading what I'm posting. I know what a good scientific paper is. These are not. They are rubbish. They don't contain proper statistical tests. They are conference papers clearly labelled by a company. No reputable scientific paper has a brand on the publication. But more importantly they only talk about people's perceptions of different EQ curves. FFS dude give it a rest.


An argument from authority.
Post what you think is evidence for your claims.

Edit: If you do provide what you think is evidence for your claims, then the wigglers can compare the presented evidence for both sides of the arguments.
I don't give a shit if I'm wrong or not, I care about what's correct or not.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next [all]
Page 3 of 5
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group