Headphone report-card: Let's judge them!

Headphones report-card: Let's judge them!

The idea is to collect as much data as possible about the performance of the headphones, as perceived by users. Determine the average and also build and post the various graphics depending on the voting receipts in the various selected parameters. It is obvious that the more we are the more realistic will be the result.

In this project there are no gurus, we are all equal. Let's vote and judge anonymously. This means that the Headphone community united to express an opinion on the headphones and the average on the various parameters.



At the end, the results will be posted with easy to read graphs and charts, and the raw data will be available for download (obvious that it's free) to be used by everybody in different manners.


Simple instructions:

- Download the Spreadsheet template file .ods http://www.stereo-head.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brand-Model-ENG.ods

(you can use Microsoft Excel or Libre Office Calc to open it)

- Rename the file with the brand and model of the headphone (i.e. Sennheiser HD600)

- Proceed to vote/judge by (1 to 10) the various parameters. If there are doubts about the terms there is the mini-guide.

- Send it as an attachment to [email protected]

- Use a file only for a headphone. That is, for 2 headphones 2 files, 3 headphones 3 files ... In the same email you can send multiple attachments.

- In giving the scores / judgments we should not think about the price, but only the sound quality. The value quality/price will be described later with the data coming out this statistics.

- For reference we think about HD600 and DT880 headphones, they can have an average about 6.5 to 7.5.





Parameters:



Transparency: A window to the music. Can we clearly see through it?

( detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise)



Extension: Extended frequency response, presence of sub-bass and upper harmonics with absent or very low distortion.



Balance:essentially tonal balance, the degree to which one aspect of the sonic spectrum is emphasized above the rest. Also channel balance, the relative level of the left and right stereo channels



Speed: Impulse response, fast transient. In fast passages everything is well defined.



Resolution: (detail, resolving, articulation) The ability of a component to reveal the subtle information that is fundamental to high fidelity sound. Easy to hear tiny details in the music in the original recording. Adequate high frequency response, sharp transient response and articulate bass.



Smooth / gentleness: Easy on the ears, not harsh. Flat frequency response, especially in the midrange. Lack of peaks and dips in the response. Every HP can be easy listening smooth, but often at the expense of detail retrivial. In this parameter we have to judge how much a Headphone can be detailed and smooth at the same time, detailed without being harsh or sibilant or hot.



Dynamic: Ability to easily reproduce the variations in sound volume in the song. For example, from pianissimo to a full orchestra. "reproduce easily dynamics" is not synonymous of impact or slam (parameters that will follow), In judging this parameter we focus on ease and fluidity with which these “jumps” are executed. With very good dynamics there is a sense effortless. Obviously, considering an adequate amplification.



Impact/slam : The physical perception of power that the HP can give us. The more is speaker like, the better it is. (often a good HP near 100 Hz)



Body: Fullness of sound, can be even an emphasis on mid-bass or upper bass. (around 200-300 Hz) If this fullness does not overwhelm the mids clearness, the judgment should be high.



Imaging: Instruments or voices perceived in a well defined location, with particular attention on focus.



Layering / 3d: the way they are distinct and far between the various levels of sound. You can hear the orchestra as developed in depth and width from near to far. It's not just a matter of “size” but also of well distinctions.



Head-stage dimension: Just judge dimensions, extension, in depth lateral height.



Musicality: It's too subjective... everyone has his own notion of musicality, but you know what's your's. With that headphone you just think about the music. Everything it's OK. Pleasant.



Listening fatigue: If you do not feel tired after hours of listening, the judgment should be high.



Engagement: Funny Headphone to listen to. Not Boring.



Bass: Quality and quantity of bass (0-200 Hz)



Mids: Quality and quantity of mids (200-2000 Hz)



Highs: Quality and quantity of Highs (2000-20000 Hz


Examples of results

 

I wonder if you should give an example for both a 1 and a 9, so that we may calibrate our impressions accordingly. For example: An el cheapo earbud would be a 1, whereas a Sennheiser HD800 would be a 9 in resolution? Or would you judge an HD800 as an 8 in resolution? etc..

I really like the project and will certainly contribute.

 

No, the site it's not mine. I've just wrote a pair of reviews there and I asked to host the .ods files

The charts resuming the work will be posted there and where I've posted a request such this.
The data (anonymous spreadsheet) will be available for open/free download at the end, so it is possible for everyone "to play" with the database.

 

I prefer to not influence anybody, especially with particular vote for particular headphones. But I can say that the report-card of HD800 I've recieved till now never go under 8,5 in resolution/detail.

 

Humans are dumb. What's an HD 850?

 

It's a joke, read the other names

PS to OP: If your samples are to be taken seriously, people have really been messing with you

 

I like the idea of this although I think it would be better if we redid the parameters.

A simple Mervey Satanic Heptagon would be easier to digest. Certain parameters (quantity of bass/mid/treble, "musicality", etc) are not relevant to the goals of this site and its users

• Macrodynamics/lack of compression
  
• Microdetail/dynamics
• Tonal balance & Cohesiveness
• Clarity
• Bass quality
• Treble smoothness
• Transient response

K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid)

 

That Mervey Satanic Heptagon is very very very good.

The problem is that we begun this thing in Italy, where I live, and we've already collected more than one hundred report-cards, and I know some people are working on the parameters already listed.

 

Can we see some of this data you have collected? Perhaps ones that doesn't include nonexistent headphones as 3/4 of its list?

 

Yes, well I am proposing we make our own SBAF official report card. Preferably an PDF form for easy use. Averages could be drawn, but not weighted a la Head-Fi where everything gets 4.8 stars.

 

This kind of scoring and bar graphs works for devices like Solid State Drives or Graphics Cards or CPUs, etc. It's what tech review sites use. I do not think such a system gives a good, absolute impression about how something sounds, no matter how large the sample size.

 

Kapanak:" Can we see some of this data you have collected? Perhaps ones that doesn't include nonexistent headphones as 3/4 of its list?"

it's a secret for the moment...

 

I will gladly participate in alessandro's system as well as in any SBAF-unique system. My issue is that without a set of defined reference points the whole thing really isnt very informative. Here is my suggestion:

1.) Specify a certain category, say 'Open circumaural headphones'
2.) Define a few reference headphones in that category. To be counted as a reference a headphone has to 1.) be very common, 2.) show little unit-to-unit variability. For open circumaural headphones I think the Sennheiser HD600, Sennheiser HD650, AKG K701 and Beyerdynamic DT880 could be considered references.
3.) Set values for those reference headphones by discussing them in a SBAF thread. For example, should the DT880 bass be considered a 4 relative to the HD650's 5? Etc. These values are set once and serve - you guessed it - as a reference henceforth.
4.) Invite users to submit their own ranking relative to the reference headphones. That means that everyone who wishes to submit a ranking HAS to be familiar with at least one of the reference headphones defined by the community.
5.) Average out the data.

If we dont use a procedure such as this one I really dont see how the system would work. For example: Person A might own the AKG K701, the Sony MDR-F1 and the Sennheiser HD600. To him the Sennheiser HD600 is a bass beast. Another person might own a Beats whatever, a JVC HA-SZ2000 and a Sennheiser HD600. To him the Sennheiser HD600 is bass anemic. Simply increasing the sample size doesnt work to deal with this kind of problem, since certain headphones are more likely to be owned by people that have less general familiarity with headphones. There are tons of users with Audio Technica ATH-M50's and Creative Aurvana Live's (the ultimate recommendations at around 100$). However very few of those users will have ever listened to an HD800 or LCD3 for prolonged periods of time. Their reference system is very different to a person who's listened to 50 headphones from all different price points.

I conclude, that without community defined reference headphones, which are common enough that most people will have owned at least one of them, the whole enterprise, while interesting, seems intellectually dubious to me. (Note: Reference headphones does not mean 'the best' headphones. We can define a 50$ reference headphone, a 300$ reference headphone and a 1500$ reference headphone. What matters is that they are common enough so that people can calibrate their rankings in relation to these sets.)

 

Yeah but then you will have guys like me putting the 600/650 over the 800, 558/598, and AKG for space as I know their space is false (the HD 800 less so). Most planar and closed dynamic headphone bass would also get marked down. I would damn headphones turning tricks in the presence region to hide ringing or increase soundstage.

I think the HD 600 would be a much better reference as the HD 650 has changed so much and many are unaware of how the current 650 compares to the current 600 (basically almost identical except for slightly damped treble and marginally cleaner HD 650 bass). You can't have people comparing black driver 650 vs silver driver 650 or 650 out of a Crack vs 650 out of a Magni as they sound totally different. I just don't like the idea. You will also have other issues like people judging headphones upper treble air with the DirectSound roll off.

I don't like voting. Let people post their own graphs.

 

"Musicality: It's too subjective... everyone has his own notion of musicality, but you know what's your's. With that headphone you just think about the music. Everything it's OK. Pleasant."

Thing are "secret" to not influence and because there is not a large number of data. "secret" is a joke!

Btw your list of parameters is very good and clear.

We thought about making a HD600 or hd650 as a mandatory reference to calibrate the rest. But we preferred to have a large number of people making report-cards. (I hope it will be)

 

MoatsArt: "4. The final graph is misleading and potentially dangerous to the r/dude's wallet"

I'ts too early, but for the moment the data show that some expansive HP are very close to some mid-price HP. So it can save part of the wallet.