How much does frequency response actually matter?

Discussion in 'General Audio Discussion' started by Lyander, Sep 20, 2024.

  1. Lyander

    Lyander Official SBAF Equitable Empathizer

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Likes Received:
    11,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Philippines, The
    So this is a topic I've been sitting on for a while beacuse I've been trying hard not to be too snarky and, at the end of the day, I am genuinely ignorant. Unlike a very many folks on the forum and elsewhere I have no real engineering knowledge and very often get principles backwards or things outright wrong (e.g. "The Studio Jr 300B sounded *significantly* better out of XLR out so it *must* be a balanced topology amp... whoops, nope!).

    Now and again I feel that ignorance can be an asset in a sense, mainly in how I pepper folks who actually know things with often silly questions that, hopefully, might generate meaningful and useful discourse down the line. At this point in time I think I'd have hoped that I'd know more concrete things about how amplifier or DAC topologies work or what sort of fine nuance actually goes into developing the analogue output stages on converters, but nah I'm as much an idiot as I've ever been and with an increasingly worsening memory.

    I've got vague ideas of how pairing certain DACs and amps and transducers work, but is the ENTIRE reason that the Sennheisers love those big boi tube amps just because they can provide GOBS of voltage? Is all of what can determine how much a headphone can scale just a matter of power handling and impedance matching, accounting for those massive low-frequency humps with dynamic drivers? How about how much sense of SLAM an amp can give a transducer like that one oldish amp I got to borrow that made my HD600s kick like Focals, is it all just a matter of the OI of that amp being REALLY high so the Senns were severely under-dampened? Is headstage really just an artefact from an upper midrange dip? What about image delineation?

    Why do different amps make as much of a difference as they do with planars then, which measure flat as a typical anime protagonist's character arc? Is it just that planar amps can run way more current without melting? And for that matter how much do those little jaggedy ripples you often see in unsmoothened FR traces for lots of planar headphones actually matter? Could those be indicative of how many planars tend to exhibit an undetailed, hazy/hashy/splashy/plasticky timbre up top?

    One thing that comes immediately to mind in this conversation is how @GoldenOne recently posted a video with headphonesdotcom where he managed to validate via ABX that yeah, DACs (or more pedantically, DAC *filters*) can be appreciably, audibly different:



    Okay, shocking news to the forum DACs and even DAC filters can sound different. Wow. Contestable as that statement is, I think we can all agree with Golden's conclusion that it's all just a matter of FR then? But wait, basically any modern DAC that isn't busted to hell measures like the Maldives (i.e. flat as a pancake) with maybe the occasional design exhibiting disgusting harmonic distortion spikes when measuring SINAD at... -90dBFS while pushing out 2VRMS. Ah, significantly below my noise floor even when listening at louder levels. Odd.

    Well it turns out that all the DAC filter differences can be easily ascribed to ultrasonic activity! Heck, lots of IC manufacturers have in recent years seem to have taken to attempting to address grass above 20kHz, so hey that could support the hypothesis that everything to do with DACs from presentation of stage to refinement of treble to sense of macrodynamic impact to detail retrieval to timbral differences to background clarity and even trailing decays can ALL be ascribed to FR (presuming distortion levels are well below threshold of perception of course)!

    And let's also bring the HATS vs flat plate coupler conversation back around because sure, some headphones will more deliberately elicit interactions with pinnae which will drastically alter measured FR relative to how others work. FR derived from flat plate measurements are useless then, right, and only ought be used as a supplementary point of reference and *only* ever be used to compare to other measurements on the same rig? They ought have no real crossover with what's perceived because everything from the acoustic impedance encountered by the transducer to the shaping of mid and high treble response (anyone still remember Jude vs Tyll re:the MDR-Z1R's treble?) on such a non-human-representative rig will be *incomparable* to what we actually perceive! What does HR(Transfer Function) stand for again?

    Okay I'm turning the sarcasm off now.

    To touch on distortion briefly (because I'm well and truly aware that I'm rambling at this point nearly) it ought be a criminal offence on here to not refer to @atomicbob 's great and painstaking contribution to the conversation about how SBAF's prior preferred method of visualising distortion as plotting D2, D3, and D4 across frequency, while leagues above how lots of folks just refer to SINAD/upside-down THD+N, still didn't fully capture how we might realistically perceive distortion because music and such are NOT steady-state signals. Distortion is also a part of the conversation of perceived sound, but one that many assert *must* be a solved problem owing to how high-feedback designs push things down to inaudible levels with NO deleterious effect to sound whatsoever (... sorry sarcasm off for real this time).

    Also, the R70x Redux thread reiterates how much @purr1n 's work with burst responses is equally important, if even more contentious because it deviates even more from what's commonly accepted as conventional wisdom among many well-educated audio engineers that time-domain elements such as CSD are useless for headphones as it's all resolved in FR anyway. I read it on Reddit so it HAS to be true! (sarcasm, sorry)

    Sincerely, I dislike EQing headphones. It can definitely help in many instances but whether it's because there's inexplicably a difference in sound when absolute polarity is flipped (that's ANOTHER contentious thing to lots of well-educated folks it seems) or placebo and stubbornness (I'm not above admitting I'm prone to both), it just sounds/feels/is wrong to me. Also, it just seems to me that folks who say to EQ everything are putting the hay before the cart-- I've always seen FR as being a symptom of physical realities, but many seem to act as if it were the other way around and you could just use DSP to try and alter how a physical thing sounds in reality, constrained at least a bit by distortion and such.

    But no those old EQs were all based on measurements from older, inferior couplers, the 5128 presents different measurements versus what the older GRAS stuff did so THAT must be the truth! It's significantly more accurate a model than anything that precedes it (and it's $41,000+!)

    [​IMG]


    ... Hmm, wait weren't some folks complaining about the treble smoothness on the HD660S2? That actually looks rather good, if a bit muted!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    ... Ah. Right.


    So, thoughts on FR?
     
    • Like Like x 9
    • Epic Epic x 3
    • heart heart x 1
    • List
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2024
  2. zottel

    zottel Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2022
    Likes Received:
    1,438
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Franconia, Germany
    I’ve been thinking about this a lot, too, lately, especially since some headphonescom stuff. Like the video you posted — I can easily hear the difference between HQPlayer filters (at least between some of them, some are very similar, too), but I can’t hear above 20k.

    And, even stranger to me, that headfi thread where Resolve makes clear that there’s nothing but FR, and every feature like resolution or stage can just be EQed in if you know which regions to adjust.

    That sounds completely wrong to my ears, but I don’t know enough about the subject to be able to prove him wrong or even be sure I’m right.

    I hope knowledgeable people will chime in here and explain it all to us. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agreed, ditto, +1 Agreed, ditto, +1 x 1
    • List
  3. RedFuneral

    RedFuneral Facebook Friend

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    CT, USA
    One stupid(?) question I have is how distortion would be represented in FR. In sweep tests it isn't obviously as you're playing/measuring one exact frequency at a time.. but what if you did sweeps overlaid with a constant 20hz tone, 21hz, 22... and every combination of tones possible? This is obviously impossible without an extreme degree of automation and still would need to be simplified significantly to not take an infinite amount of time to test; would such testing better represent a headphone in use than one sweep or single frequency distortion test?

    This line of query is assuming FR morphs due to contributions of a mix of harmonic/intermodulation distortion, resonances, & comb filtering as different frequencies are played simultaneously & that this interaction is different with different headphones(it may also extend to electronics.)

    A simple example of what I'm saying is that if you ran a sweep with a constant 50hz tone you'd see higher volumes as you hit 100, 200, etc tones due to the harmonics of 50hz than with a pure sweep. Bumps in the FR correlating to other tones present. Right? This seems more like what would happen during real use.

    I'm rather technically illiterate on these topics too but if there's any validity to this real-use apples-to-apples testing is impossible as the only situation one product will behave predictability to another is in artificial testing scenarios with a singular frequency playing at a time. This would certainly indicate the limited use of FR graphs for determining performance beyond tendency(dark/bright) & specific pain points(Beyer spike.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2024
  4. Lyander

    Lyander Official SBAF Equitable Empathizer

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Likes Received:
    11,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Philippines, The
    No clue honestly, I do think that there'd be merits to presenting tonality via RTA as opposed to frequency sweeps (which I remember was also done by others before) but I'm actually rather unsure of how common practise that is for whatever reason; maybe takes too long to get a high-enough resolution capture that environmental factors might end up more easily polluting the data?
     
  5. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    92,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    How would non-linear distortion be represented in FR? The answer is that it isn't!

    Non-flat frequency response is actually distortion too. It's linear distortion, linear meaning in that it can be corrected, e.g. via EQ. When it comes to "distortion", we typically mean non-linear distortion (and even that usually harmonic distortion because it is easily measured) which cannot be corrected.

    Here's an example that shows just how limiting frequency response by itself could be. The below shows the spectrum of a 60Hz tone stimulus at equal output level just under 90dbSPL. Anything else other than the spike at 60Hz is distortion or noise (including ambient noise from the environment).

    The fact is, even if the two headphones are playing back the same signal at the same level, they could sound different. The ESP950 has an extra third harmonic at 180Hz that the R70X does not have.

    R70X Refine Headphone
    60Hz @ 89.9dbSPL
    20-20k Spectrum
    upload_2024-9-21_9-18-30.png

    ESP950 Headphone
    60Hz @ 89.8dbSPL
    20-20k Spectrum
    upload_2024-9-21_9-26-27.png
    Note: 3rd harmonic spike that does not exist in R70X Refine

    Distortion plays a huge role. In my speaker building endeavors, I would actually tweak crossover networks by up to 1db for certain drivers depending upon the characteristics of DACs I happened to use!

    Resolve isn't dumb. Maybe this was something he said a while back or taken in the wrong context.

    --

    WHY I HAVE DE-EMPHASIZING FREQUENCY RESPONSE

    I won't deny that I have been de-emphasizing frequency response for some time. However the fact remains that frequency response remains paramount or the primary measurement one should go to, at least for gear with notable frequency response irregularities, headphones and speakers.

    I would agree that frequency response would be primary in situations were non-linear distortion and transient behavior are similar. For example, a set of multi-driver balanced armature IEMs (which typically employ similar crossover methods with a only a handful of different balanced armature drivers).

    --

    EXPERIMENT: EQ TWO DIFFERENT HEADPHONES TO HAVE SAME RESPONSE - DO THEY SOUND THE SAME?

    From my perspective after doing headphone measurements (and building speakers of different designs with different type drivers for 14 years, frequency response is kind of boring. I wanted to look into non-linear and later transient distortion after I EQ'd an Audeze LCD2 to have the FR of an HD600. The fact is, two headphones can be EQ'd to have the same frequency response, but both will still end up sounding different!

    In the example I cited, the Audeze LCD2 EQ'd to be more neutral from a measurement respective (for instance, use the Oratory parametric EQ stuff) actually sounded like shit (with awful highs and hardly neutral).
     
    • Like Like x 12
    • Epic Epic x 3
    • Agreed, ditto, +1 Agreed, ditto, +1 x 2
    • List
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2024
  6. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    92,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    This is exactly it! Harmonic distortion is a contributor to the perceived frequency response or as I like to call it, the subjective tonal signature.

    For instance, it's often been said that the Sennheiser HD650 has a veil and thickness in the upper lows and lower mids that is not heard in the HD600 (we are talking fairly recent iterations). Below we compare the HD650 vs JAR600 (the JAR has the same harmonic distortion profile as HD600, maybe slightly better)/ Let's compare at 94db SPL level.

    The HD650 has a third order harmonic distortion component not seen in the HD600. Both have second order distortion which is considered to be fairly benign because it's close to the fundamental, only on octave away, and likely masked to a large extent.

    Third order is another story. Here the distortion at the fundamental "infects" the spectrum at two octaves higher. For example, third order distortion at 100Hz manifests itself as junk at 300Hz! I postulate it's the HD650's third order distortion characteristics that explain a good part of the perceived veil of thickness of the HD650! (some of it is frequency response too!)

    JAR600 Distortion
    upload_2024-9-21_9-47-5.png

    JAR650
    upload_2024-9-21_9-52-29.png
     
    • Like Like x 8
    • Epic Epic x 1
    • List
  7. Lyander

    Lyander Official SBAF Equitable Empathizer

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Likes Received:
    11,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Philippines, The
    I think a great part of it is just that people go for the whitepapers without having had the necessary experience to translate sensible things into what might be perceptible.

    @purr1n it seems that there's a growing contingent of folks in the recording space who use impulse responses to try and mic-match things, e.g. make an AKG C414 sound like a Neumann U67 (cuz hey at least they're both condensers so ought be similar tech, no? Easy!). One guy sent four recordings in: these were of a TLM102, a TLM103, a TLM102 EQed to sound like a TLM103, and a TLM103 EQed to sound like a TLM102.

    The hilarious thing is I got them all wrong, i.e. without a baseline I had no idea which sample was of the dry 102 and which was the dry 103. The fun thing is that I did not confuse any of the dry samples from EQed ones, so even within pretty similar designs there's something different about the sound of EQ. I know the topic of linear phase vs minimum phase EQ is beaten to death now and it's possible they could have just used a better program and completely fooled me, but there's just something to making a diaphragm act differently than it is naturally predisposed to that makes it sound WEIRD.

    None of that even approaches how headphones are wholly different things, often outputting more complex signals than most mics record all the while interacting with relativelt large and complex structures e.g. pinnae and tufts of hair along the sides of head. Chaotic it seems.

    Also, distortion is a MASSIVE part of the picture too but what about time domain elements that so many well-read folks seem to dismiss as meaningless in headphone playback?
     
  8. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    92,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    Heck, the Neumanns of today are different than yesteryear, thanks to solid state electronics. There used to be tubes and transformers with their own non-linear distortion characteristics. Transformers are expensive, so Neumann doesn't use them anymore. Anyway, trying to mimic the impulse response still won't model non-linear distortion correctly. It may at a specific SPL level since impulse responses are level specific, but even then it's highly questionable for the reason below.

    FFT, THE MATH BEHIND SPECTRUM ANALYSIS, IS ACTUALLY AN AVERAGE OF MANY SAMPLES!

    Anyone looking at a spectrum in real-time, particularly with small window sizes (where the FFTs average less of the signal) will see the the harmonic distortion spikes go up and down. Distortion isn't constant, it always changes! The fact is, spectrum analyzer, SINAD, etc. measurements take an average. There is the FFT algorithm that is key. I won't go keep into it, but the math behind averages the signal in a window of time to give us nice stable spikes! Add to that, several FFTs are averaged after that to average out the noise! The deal is that transducers behave differently depending upon where the diaphragm is positioned in respect to the magnetic gap! (Do a search on BL curves). Heck, the suspension behavior is different depending upon where the diaphragm is at!

    Here are x3 shots of the R70X Refine with no averaging and a smallish FFT size of 8192 samples! The second harmonic (at the yellow cursor) jumps up and down, as low as 41.95db to 45.24db!

    d2 = 44.39db
    upload_2024-9-21_10-21-51.png

    d2 = 45.24db
    upload_2024-9-21_10-23-26.png

    d2 = 41.95db
    upload_2024-9-21_10-24-24.png
    Note: Hone? Shifted in frequency? Welcome to the nature of non-linear distortion of transducers!

    TOTAL ASIDE - ESTAT CHARGE UP IS REAL?

    Oh, BTW, this is the ESP950 after it's been warmed up a while. Distortion has gone down. I guess it took a while for the diaphragm to bias up! I guess the old wives tale of stats being need to be charged up to sound the best may have some science behind it after all!
    upload_2024-9-21_10-17-53.png
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Epic Epic x 1
    • List
  9. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    92,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    WHAT'S REALLY SCARY - TRANSIENT RESPONSE - FFT SPECTRUMS / SINAD WILL MISS THIS!

    So as I've explained in the prior post, FFT algorithms are applied on a window of samples, thus the results are an average over time (not to mention additional averaging of FFTs to reduce noise). FFTs by their nature also capture a steady state signal for the results to be valid.

    The problem is that real music is a a bunch of transients, unless it's some avant-garde composition that comprises a 60Hz tone for 44 seconds. Let is where the 10 cycles bursts some in (and lets consider that even the 10 cycle bursts is merely a test, a simulation, and hardly reflective of real music, but at least we are getting closer).

    ESP950
    50Hz 10 cycle burst
    upload_2024-9-21_10-39-9.png
    It takes about 5 half-waves for the 50Hz to settle! The first half wave is an undershoot, and then where is some back and forth until the behavior stabilizes.

    Note that an FFT spectrum, SINAD, is only going to return us the information after "stability" is achieved! Transient information is completely missing from these kinds of measurements!


    Now lets take a look at another headphone:

    70X Refine
    50Hz 10 cycle burst
    upload_2024-9-21_10-46-1.png
    The R70X Define stabilizes faster, after only three half waves. There no less see-sawing on the way up there. Also note weak nature of the first few half waves. Does this weak rise but fast stabilization explain the subjective "lack of heft" but "dexterous" nature of the R70X? ASR people will probably say that SBAF people are crazy and imagining things with respect to such subjective impressions, but there does appear to be some science behind it. More work definitely needs to be done. (Also note: lower wave isn't same amplitude as higher wave - this isn't uncommon with traditional dynamics, probably asymmetric suspension and BL force / magnetic gap).

    In all, I have to say that I am very disappointed smarter people haven't picked this up. All people these days seem to want to do is buy expensive measurement equipment, get a lot of data, and rank shit from S to C, like what YouTubers do with Space Marine 2 classes or weapons. The data great, but no one is pushing the bounds of measurement techniques or really thinking hard*. But I get it, there is no money in this for smart people. Unless someone gives me a $1M stipend or grant, I do not intend to pursue this any more than I have.

    And let's not even get into transient decay!

    * Lack of thinking hard: Blindly accepting Sean Olive Harmon curves are biblical since 2015, even though there are like five different versions now. People missed the point of the Harmon curves.
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Epic Epic x 6
    • List
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2024
  10. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    92,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    Well WTH, decays here...

    Several takeaways:

    1. ESP950 bounces a bit less after the 50Hz stimulus signal stops. There is one half wave followed up with another that doesn't even quite make it all the way there. Let's say that the ESP950 takes 2/3 of a wave to stop for 50Hz signal. The R70X Refine takes about 1-1/3 wave to stop. Both headphones are pretty fast subjectively.
    2. The ESP950 has a very low level bounce after the initial major decay that continues on "forever". This seems common with planar diaphragms at specific frequencies. In the lows, it's often seem in estats. Probably explains the subjective lack of grain of estats and orthos.
    R70X Refine
    50Hz Burst Decay
    Line indicates where signal stops
    upload_2024-9-21_11-9-58.png
    R70X Refine takes about 1-1/3 wave to stop

    R70X Refine
    50Hz Burst Decay Extended
    (absolute values instead of log/db scale to see low level stuff)
    upload_2024-9-21_11-8-16.png

    ESP950
    50Hz Burst Decay
    Line indicates where signal stops
    upload_2024-9-21_11-5-27.png
    ESP950 takes 2/3 of a wave to stop

    ESP950
    50Hz Burst Decay Extended
    (absolute values instead of log/db scale to see low level stuff)

    upload_2024-9-21_11-23-5.png
    Very low level bouncy bouncy after the initial significant decay
     
    • Epic Epic x 5
    • Like Like x 2
    • List
  11. Lyander

    Lyander Official SBAF Equitable Empathizer

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Likes Received:
    11,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Philippines, The
    Eh you put the ideas out into the world and now it's up to others who might actually have the time and motivation to see where this goes. I do plan on investing in *some* source measurement gear when I have my headphone rig in a place where I can say that I'm close enough to DONE chasing better and better because it's all super interesting stuff, but I do hope those with more resources at their disposal might beat me to the punch.

    Also, love that you brought the older visualisation for burst cycles back here, I still find those significantly more intuitive than the multicoloured attack and decay things (even though the latter bunch are honestly more informative and look cooler). I think that distortion is understood and accepted enough in the current space that it's more transient response and time domain elements that need proper investigation by the erudites.

    The decays of e.g. the ESP950 goes a LONG way towards describing how I feel those estats sound so weirdly bouncy! Could you be bothered to maybe do similar for the JAR600 vs a stock one? Curious how the subjective differences there'd align (or not, who knows!)
     
  12. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    92,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    Agreed. They tell a better story.

    It's hard work. Need people not only to write code, but really understand algorithms. This is rare today because coders depend on code libraries these days. Algorithms is a lost art. Also, even if done, few will understand the results, and fewer will care.

    I've often joked: post a few shots of AP measurements, name drop Olive. Post S to C rating, numeric 7-10 or 90-120 or pose Pink Panther (appeal to creds) and write a few things. Most everyone will believe you.

    I have literally seen people look a sites with graphs and numbers (without understanding them) and exclaim: now you see, I trust that guy!

    Easier to make money by shilling with expensive gear than actually go "grad school".
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agreed, ditto, +1 Agreed, ditto, +1 x 2
    • List
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2024
  13. Lyander

    Lyander Official SBAF Equitable Empathizer

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Likes Received:
    11,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Philippines, The
    Oh hell yeah. I know nothing about software really-- I love reading the threads on here but real talk you, ultrabike, scblock, and loads of others just post things that I skim, try to comprehend, smile and nod at, and ignore in favour of how they might have an audible effect on things, which I do understand. There are enough memes on the internet about how many systems nowadays are running on legacy code that's impossible to fix pending a complete rework from the ground up cuz of how the foundations were written by some dude in the 70s or 80s and absolutely no one else knows how the Rube Goldberg machine works.

    [​IMG]

    Yeah, I know this statement is gonna age me but it does seem obvious that folks nowadays just want information spoonfed to them. Even taking a few minutes or maybe a couple of days to really learn how to read different graphs is more effort than can be warranted when trying to integrate insightful objective measures into the "which headphone?" discourse.

    And hey with how things are nowdays it's REALLY hard to blame folks who want to chase the money. There are a few people on planet who have way too damned much of it, but orders of magnitude more who you can't blame for wanting more. Real curiosity doesn't always prove useful I guess.
     
  14. Armaegis

    Armaegis Friend

    Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    8,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    So we have acoustic measurement devices to measure the transducer during a burst response... but can we also measure the actual output of the testing device? Do they generate a clean start/stop of the burst or is there some garble there too? If so, how much of the garble is affected by the load?
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agreed, ditto, +1 Agreed, ditto, +1 x 1
    • List
  15. Biodegraded

    Biodegraded Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    May 28, 2017
    Likes Received:
    8,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vancouver BC
    Sewing a few things together...

    1) If the influence of ultrasonics on things other than FR down in the audible range turns out to be important - as suggested by apparent audible differences in DAC filters - then in practical terms the measured FRs of transducers are never going to tell you anyway, because the responses of measurement mics don't extend high enough.

    2) Connected with this, if we use FFTs of frequency measurements to analyze time-domain responses and want to see how those vary with frequency, we also lose high-frequency information: mathematically, the top 50% of the samples are lost during the transformation.

    3) There seems to be evidence that humans' temporal perception of sounds is really good. It's worth directly quoting parts of MN Kunchur's response to a criticisms of his work that were referenced in a recent thread here:

    So parameters purporting to characterize perceptions of temporal phenomena but which are obtained from frequency-based measurements aren't going to be precise enough anyway.

    3) Distortion - yep; see my sig. :p None of this is new.

    Having said all that though, I do think the effect of FR on our perceptions of some sonic characteristics deserves a bit more credit than maybe we're inclined to give it here. Staging, for one, can be very dependent on troughs and peaks in the upper mids through treble. These days Sennheiser seems to be very deliberately using a right-shifted 'BBC dip' in some of its products (certain recent IEMs, and the HD 620S - or HD 620W, as it really should have been named) to try to achieve better perceived separation.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Epic Epic x 1
    • List
  16. Lyander

    Lyander Official SBAF Equitable Empathizer

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Likes Received:
    11,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Philippines, The
    Thinking it's case of certain transducer types presenting a more challenging load to amplification ergo the resultant sluggishness in coming to stable performance? That's actually a really good point given how different headphones do appear to stress amplification a lot more than others, I'm thinking that maybe sticking with one transducer type ought help at least eliminate that from consideration, not to mention yeah checking the source (somehow?) for any feedback from the transducer. Thinking that could end up bollixing the signal in itself though, sort of like observer effect, slapping something in the signal path.

    I do agree with this much cuz of how e.g. some Sennheisers and LOTS of the HiFiMAN headphones do have those pronounced upper-mid troughs and all seem to throw a large stage out. Not quite sure how this'd necessarily tie in with imaging performance though, which I do view as being adjacent but not the selfsame thing as staging-- delineation on some things that stage diffusely can be pretty great or nah. I'm looking kinda specifically at the Campfire IEMs for this where both the Andromeda 2020 and Solaris have relatively large stages for the form factor; the Sols are pretty pinpoint in localisation whereas things are just generally diffuse on the Andros out of the same gear. Granted though, there ARE FR discrepancies between them so I could be eating crow on that.

    Rather curious still at the mechanisms behind how high frequency ultrasonics might have influence on perceived slam and stage, among many other things. I know that you do need a fair bit of high frequency information present to make a drum sound *snappy* and aggressive, it's never just more bass, but that's all within audible bandwidth I think so not sure how much of that'd apply to here.

    Myself the moron asking questions again but I'm aware that many opine IR can be directly correlated to other changes in FR; given that, is it possible to directly translate pre-and-post-ringing in DAC filters to FR?
    https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...d-post-effin-ringing-and-shit-like-that.2627/
     
  17. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    92,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    All measurement devices will have their own distortion. Heck even the vaunted APx555 does too!

    As long as we can get discernable results with consistent stimulus tones, then we are getting somewhere.

    I mean if the FR, distortion, and bursts all looked the same from HD650 to Susvara to ESP950, that would be a problem. The fact is, the measurement results show individual differences very very well.

    These cheapy panny capsules have magnitudes lower transient and non linear distortion than what they are measuring. In my experience, ambient sounds are a greater problem, as is balancing gain / workflow speed.
     
  18. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    92,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    A thought on ultrasonics. I don't believe for a minute that we can hear ultrasonics.

    However I highly suspect that difficult to measure (by traditional means) transient performance may sometimes be reflected in the ultrasonic region steady-state measurements.

    They are possible indicators.

    ... Thought experiment:

    Note massive linear and non-linear distortion in the burst responses! This from purely visual observation. Keeping in mind that 10% THD would be hard to eyeball on a sine wave!
     
  19. Lyander

    Lyander Official SBAF Equitable Empathizer

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Likes Received:
    11,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Philippines, The
    I can just barely still hear so 17kHz so yep I'm with you there, but I get the feeling that at the very least an argument can be made that ultrasonic sound is still "information" that can saturate a system e.g. a transducer and sort of distract from what else that component could be doing.

    upload_2024-9-22_2-41-56.png

    Screenshot of what a snare drum hit from one of those high-res Chesky Records things (Dave's True Story - Misery, I actually like this album haha) looks like in visualisation here. I wonder how much smoother this'd be if it were a regular redbook recording and whether that'd influence transducer motion any?

    n.b. this is not a measurement but one of the stock foobar2000 oscilloscope visualisers so it ought be what's being shoved into my DAC.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2024
  20. zottel

    zottel Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2022
    Likes Received:
    1,438
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Franconia, Germany
    I looked up the thread: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/frequency-response-at-the-ear-drum.972580/

    I respect Resolve as one of the best YouTube reviewers I know, and I think that he’s really a nice guy, but that stuff is strange.

    Disclaimer: I only read the first few pages of the thread, so maybe there’s something further on that puts that into perspective.
     

Share This Page