MiniDSP EARs measurement rig

A few more headphones for your consideration, using my rough test curve. In order: Massdrop x EMU Purpleheart, ZMF Eikon, and ZMF Atticus.

BTW, I had that hardest freaking time getting consistent results from the Atticus. No idea why. Eikon didn't give me nearly as many issues, and we're basically looking at the same enclosure, headband, pads, etc...I also have a hard time subjectively figuring out what I'm hearing on the Atticus, so I basically went for, "These results look a little more like what I see from others, so I'll stick with this take." Either way, even looking at Tyll's raw results for the Eikon and Atticus show these are a real bitch to measure consistently. I'm not yet at the point where I'm trying to average multiple takes yet.

Thoughts are welcome!

 

Atticus no sound like that!

 

Yes, the Atticus tossed a big ol' wrench at me. Will keep working on it but didn't want to omit data points to just to make the rig and my particular tests look better. Need to show warts too.

Then again the Atticus sounds kind of weird to me...just don't think it's that kind of weird.

 

Hmm, nope. I figured that would be one that needed a perfect seal, but I will give that a shot!

 

Been hard at work all day, possibly for little gain. Still, everything I experiment with brings me that much closer to where I want to be, even if learning through misdirection.

I know every rig will measure differently, and each rig will have its pros and cons as to what it captures accurately or not relative to other rigs. Some rigs might just be more accurate overall than other rigs, though we can only hope the compensation curve is a good one too. Blah, blah, blah, same old story.

Regardless, I know @Serious pointed out my original, in-ear mic method of measurements seemed to produce more accurate results in some areas, and for my own subjective hearing, I would generally agree. @Marvey pointed out that one take of Atticus measurements on the EARs rig looked pretty darn off. And I would agree with that too, though I'm not sure if the Atticus will ever fully cooperate with me and deliver consistent results on the EARs rig...

Combining these ideas, I wanted to see what it would look like if I took the EARs rig (mic flush with canal entrance) and built a compensation curve that averaged the difference on several headphones when taken from my original, in-ear method. In other words, get uncompensated EARs measurements, my normal in-ear measurements, subtract the difference, average the results together across several headphones, and then smooth it all out in the end to mitigate wild differences and artifacts.

I know, this could be terrible logic, and I could be heading down the wrong path. It's definitely not perfect logic even in the best case scenario. But I wanted to see if maybe that could get me to a nice middle ground with the EARs rig that would blend its traits with the traits of my older method. Could be best of both worlds, or possibly worst of both worlds. I might just be happy enough to get something "good enough" so I can stop sticking a mic in my ear and hurting myself in the process.

The compensation curve ended up looking like this (Note: still a WIP, am open to ideas and feedback - based on findings below, I am already reconsidering area between 300Hz-1KHz):



And now, I'll show you several measurements on both my original, in-ear mid method, and the EARs method with this compensation curve. (Note: Some of these headphones I re-measured today, since my original data was old and possibly faulty due to invisible glue on the mic...)

My modded HD650 is interesting measured this way. It's not nearly as bassy looking in this case. There are a couple areas that make me pause, like a less even transition from bass to mids (see around 300Hz), or a couple spots that look a little too...angular? See around 1.5KHz. But when compared to some other HD6X0 measurements, like what Jude has done recently, I see some similarities in the upper-mid and treble behavior, and I doubt most people would hear my HD650 nearly as bassy as my original measurements suggested.

Here are Tyll's measurements: https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD650.pdf

Marv's results: http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/sennheiser-hd650-love-appreciation-thread.44/

Jude's HD650/6XX results: https://cdn.head-fi.org/a/9327097.jpg





The LCD-2C is tricky. First, I'm not super familiar with it. I think I know how my unit sounds, but I'm not totally accustomed to it yet. Second, when you look at any historical LCD headphone measurement, they all measure at least slightly differently (if not majorly). Has Audeze fixed consistency issues with the LCD-2C? I have no idea. That makes it hard to reference my results to others.

There are times when I've listened that I feel they sound a little lean in the midrange. Other genres make them sound very full and powerful. It could be the custom comp curve scooped a little too much out of the midrange. That's the downside to the sort of averaging approach I took. Beyond that, I don't hear the upper-mids and treble as particularly smooth on the LCD-2C. Tonally balanced, yes, with a very slight slope downward. But it ain't no HD650 when it comes to cohesion by any stretch of the imagination.

Otherwise, these two results aren't horribly dissimilar. I won't bother linking other measurements due to possible unit-to-unit inconsistencies.





I am pretty happy with how the EMU Purpleheart turned out in this case. This one can be tricky to measure due to the on-ear nature, so some differences can naturally be attributed to that. Once again, I do wonder if the midrange got scooped out just a bit too much here. The transition seems off. And there's that sort of sharp change around 1.5KHz. I may need to do additional smoothing. But, otherwise, I feel decent about this one.

Here is what Tyll measured for comparison: https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MassdropxEMuPurpleheart.pdf

Marv's results: http://www.superbestaudiofriends.or...assdrop-x-e-mu-purpleheart-measurements.3539/

Jude's results: https://cdn.head-fi.org/a/9482880.jpg




A few more to come in the next post...

 

Continuing on with the AEON Flow Open. I think the EARs results remind me a bit more of Tyll's measurements, if you "read" into them closely. Or maybe I read into them too closely and fooled myself into thinking that.

One thing I like about the EARs results is that they make the AFO seem more aggressive between 1-5KHz overall, including a 4KHz bump. I always felt like I was hearing something on the AFO that my measurements missed, and that could be it.

Beyond that, I think the bass results are a bit closer on my older method, as is probably that bit of treble aggressive around 6-7KHz. Thankfully, both results have valuable information in showing the relative differences between an AFO with and without any additional front damping.

Tyll's results here (no filter): https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakerAeonFlowOpenNoFilter.pdf

Two notch filters: https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakersAeonFlowOpentwonotchwhitefilter.pdf



Here I'll get into the ZMF Eikon and Atticus, the two headphones that keep throwing wrenches at me. Still, I think the compensation curves got me...a little closer? Maybe? I have honestly found it tricky to really understand and assess these two headphones subjectively. I know I like them, both for different reasons, but also know they do some weird stuff that can be hard to pin down.

The Eikon was much easier to get consistent measurements with than the Atticus, for reasons I don't think I'll ever figure out or understand. And these look similar-ish enough that, yeah, I could make sense of both of them compared to what I heard subjectively, but obviously they're different rigs.

Tyll's measurements: https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/ZMFEikon.pdf

Marv's measurements: http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/zmf-eikon-measurements-and-review.4109/



The Atticus, now, that's the real troublemaker. Subjectively, it sounds pretty mid-bass heavy, but it also has this sort of thick midrange sound to it below 1KHz as well. I also find it to be rougher and less cohesive sounding than the Eikon, where you can hear dull and emphasized spots, kind of like how the Elear jumped around a lot in the upper-mids and treble.

But the real thing was that the Atticus just did not want to measure consistently. The slightest pressure, angle, or other fit change could give me something noticeably different looking. Most measurement's I've seen of it, including my original, in-ear method, show a fairly concentrated mid-bass hump. With the EARs rig, assuming you got a good seal, it wasn't nearly as concentrated (see below). I do prefer my original measurements here for the most part, though I'm not sure I heard the mid-bass as being so concentrated.

If you look at Tyll's raw measurements of the Atticus, you'll find it to be all over the place. And if you look closely, you might find a particular line or take that kind of looks like what the EARs rig gave me, and some results looking more like my older method or what Marv got.

Plus, it seems Zach may not have been able to perfectly match each channel on the headphones, which can be tricky if nothing else due to the type of pads he uses. So that can make relative comparisons difficult.

Anyway, I feel like I'm spending way too much time thinking about the Atticus on the EARs rig. Some headphones just don't like certain rigs, I think.

Tyll's measurements: https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/ZMFAtticus.pdf

Marv's measurements: http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/zmf-atticus-measurements-and-review.4090/

 

Once I'm done getting a feel for the LCD-2C and getting data points on it, I'll send it to Marv to do a consistency check. If you do an A/B on it, my particular unit, relative to the HD650, the measurements make more sense. The bass on it is absolutely fabulous, though.

Oh, and more headphones added in my second post, for everyone's confusion.

 

I actually hear the Atticus with the lower mid / upper bass dip.

 

Well, everyone thinks their baby is the cutest.

Really, though, I'm inclined to believe that dip is there. I gotta listen more closely for it myself, and it's there in my in-ear measurements. The EARs does not want to cooperate. I have a couple uneducated guesses as to why, but not sure for now.

 

Thanks, @Serious. Believe it or not, my original in-ear method only compensates bass roll off inherent to the ADC (minimal) and mic PSU (pretty severe). Long ago, I originally had it set to show less bass than it has for the last 2-3 years, but I made a call and felt it safer to just go with what the hardware itself measured. Though, it could be the mic itself, which I couldn't measure, had some sort of bass boost.

I'm torn, because I think the LCD-2C should measure flatter in the low end, but that could make other headphones look like they have less bass and extension than what I hear. I suppose it's easy enough to mentally calibrate once familiar with a rig's results.

I'm also considering ways to better mirror real-head seal on this rig. I have some thin, adhesive felt in one spot to try to add a bit of gap, but I'm still dialing that in. Too much, I found, and things get funky. Maybe I can shave my cat and glue some cat hair on my rig.

I may also raise the upper treble. That stuff is hard to get right, but you may have a point. I tried playing around with mic position, and the only way it seems I'd be able to get things consistent on both ears would be to make it flush with the canal entrance. Anything else and I'll just be eyeballing mic position and angle.

At the end of day, it'll look different than my old method and anyone else's. Just how it goes. And even the mega-buck rigs still have quirks to them. I like the idea of more people having similar rigs, but I also like how different rigs might point out elements we hear but get missed from other rigs. Like a sort of checks and balances.

 

I have no qualms with custom curves. The textbook stuff clearly doesn't work. Since we're all still figuring it out, I think custom curves from skilled listeners are more a good thing than bad.