I was one of the few that voted for E. I was starting to think there was something wrong with me considering the few votes it got. I'm pleasantly surprised to see the response of E now.
I think the big thing that drove my decision is that I found the cymbals in most of the recordings problematic for long term listening. Cymbals seem to be what always fatigue me first, just a little too bright and they hurt a little. I could definitely hear that E had lower highs, but I think it was the added room response that make it the most enjoyable to me. My impression was that B was probably the most accurate, I just didn't think I would have liked listening to it for longer periods in the format presented. (Thanks to you I now have a set of TC9FDs burning in so I'll see what I think of them soon enough)
I was using a desktop with built in sound card (probably not the best but it was convenient for the test), with a O2 headphone amp and Ultimate Ears 600. I have the Nora Jones CD so I was A/Bing that with the first track as well.
XRK, thanks for running the test. I've definitely learned a lot about my listening preferences, other's preferences, and about measurement! I can't wait to get my own setup running. I would love to hear the drivers again, in the same setup EQed flat since so many have speculated there would be little difference between them then. It'd be great to learn what EQing can do.
I think the big thing that drove my decision is that I found the cymbals in most of the recordings problematic for long term listening. Cymbals seem to be what always fatigue me first, just a little too bright and they hurt a little. I could definitely hear that E had lower highs, but I think it was the added room response that make it the most enjoyable to me. My impression was that B was probably the most accurate, I just didn't think I would have liked listening to it for longer periods in the format presented. (Thanks to you I now have a set of TC9FDs burning in so I'll see what I think of them soon enough)
I was using a desktop with built in sound card (probably not the best but it was convenient for the test), with a O2 headphone amp and Ultimate Ears 600. I have the Nora Jones CD so I was A/Bing that with the first track as well.
XRK, thanks for running the test. I've definitely learned a lot about my listening preferences, other's preferences, and about measurement! I can't wait to get my own setup running. I would love to hear the drivers again, in the same setup EQed flat since so many have speculated there would be little difference between them then. It'd be great to learn what EQing can do.
There seems to be a lot of interest for the "EQ them flat and see if we can pick 'em" topic. This will take more time, and there is somewhat of an implementation variability as the EQ is only as good as the person doing them manually. I have had some practice and try to follow sound tenets of EQ'ing: cut peaks, don't fill valleys (unless broad and shallow), use sparingly (especially from 600Hz to 6kHz), use lower Q if possible. There may be some complaints disagreeing with how it is implemented.
I have to balance this with the new drivers that still need to be tested and clips recorded:
TG9FD, 10F/8424, FF105WK, Peerless 830986, TB W4 bamboo, Visaton B80, ...
Plus I have been given more suggestions to include Romantic era symphony classical, lute classical,
And to use AAC encoding at 320kbps as it is better than MP3.
I have to balance this with the new drivers that still need to be tested and clips recorded:
TG9FD, 10F/8424, FF105WK, Peerless 830986, TB W4 bamboo, Visaton B80, ...
Plus I have been given more suggestions to include Romantic era symphony classical, lute classical,
And to use AAC encoding at 320kbps as it is better than MP3.
Last edited:
Hey
i found this thread and the questions raised because of the topics very interessting and "enlivening" for the full range forum.
My thanks to all the participants and you xrk!
This sounds very intriguing:
Regards
i found this thread and the questions raised because of the topics very interessting and "enlivening" for the full range forum.
My thanks to all the participants and you xrk!
This sounds very intriguing:
I would greatly appreciate more info Scottmoose.
Regards
Xrk971
Yes I agree, to much variations and unpredictability. Na.. just go ahead and repeat the test with more drivers me thinks.
Yes I agree, to much variations and unpredictability. Na.. just go ahead and repeat the test with more drivers me thinks.
If you do this, definitely pick a subset (blinded to us, of course) of 2, max 3 drivers. Not only to make your life easier, but will also be more informative.
There will always be detractors to any test you do (ahem... 😀), so do as you see fit. Thanks for the work thus far.
I say do them manually, because it's entertaining to see people destroy other's respect for them by saying more words than they should.
Oh you like watching impending train wrecks? The DRC tool may be the way to have a robot do this and absolve the implementing person.
DRC is on my to do list. Just so many things to do already I want to stick with what I know and I know miniDSP PEQ pretty well.
Maybe get the members together to order you a pack of Rockwool or the more pleasing to handle Denim stuff too to cover first reflection points around the room...
+1
Open to this, but will rather like to see performance out of box because own experience is even a 8" in a unique relative close point in space can be EQed to sound great as taking on headphones. Polar and other specs play in here i think to have a driver spread nice into hole room. Think the audience be greater for out of box response making sence for both lovers of simple passive setups and the advanced ones where DSP steer and clear up on bad system parameters.
This one I'm really hot on, we talked via PM about a comparison you AMT relative wideband tweeter as reference setup against example TC9/TG9/F10/B10, and in that setup the EQ too as possibility to see if the lower cost cones react to EQ and amend their phase/group delay when frequency response are changed.
Hope inputs are ok, crazy how liked your sharing is for me and really think makes web usability shine for what it's good at, thanks.
Last edited:
I'm interested. No need for PM. After all this is a discussion forum for uhm discussing things.
Just be prepared there might be answers you don't like. You sure know how to 'not like' 🙂
Thanks for putting this together, XRK, I certainly enjoyed it!
I focused primarily on the AC/DC, since I was most familiar with that. I'm also a guitarist, and classic rock is what inspired me to pick up the guitar in the first place, so I'd like to think I know something about guitar tone.
Surprising to me was how different each sounded, even on these cheap JVC headphones I have at work, played through a computer that was also super cheap (i.e. built-in least-cost DAC, software volume control, etc).
One thing was clear, when you later posted the reference clip, all the samples sounded crummy in comparison... it wasn't just a veil that was lifted, it was like 50 down comforters were removed. 😉
When you re-do this with the more expensive drivers, will you throw in the one of the drivers from this test? Presumably the winner? I think that would be interesting to see how well the top of the "value" tier compares to the pricier tier.
Anyway, thanks again for all the work you put into this (and clearly are continuing to put into it)!
I focused primarily on the AC/DC, since I was most familiar with that. I'm also a guitarist, and classic rock is what inspired me to pick up the guitar in the first place, so I'd like to think I know something about guitar tone.
Surprising to me was how different each sounded, even on these cheap JVC headphones I have at work, played through a computer that was also super cheap (i.e. built-in least-cost DAC, software volume control, etc).
One thing was clear, when you later posted the reference clip, all the samples sounded crummy in comparison... it wasn't just a veil that was lifted, it was like 50 down comforters were removed. 😉
When you re-do this with the more expensive drivers, will you throw in the one of the drivers from this test? Presumably the winner? I think that would be interesting to see how well the top of the "value" tier compares to the pricier tier.
Anyway, thanks again for all the work you put into this (and clearly are continuing to put into it)!
X, I think the biggest improvement you could make is taming the recording room a little more. Make it more deader sounding, though not too dead. The previous room was too live (i.e., reverberant) I thought.
Hi Scott, I am interested! 🙂 I've long felt after a few driver purchases in my early days based on spec sheets that on paper looked fine but when I put them in my system I was very disappointed with, that there are certain characteristics of drivers that at least for me are show stoppers.
I've never really thought about it too much, but this thread has sparked my interest again.
One thing I suspect is that it has a lot to do with off axis response (at least in this case, as those early ones could not be redeemed no matter what) as the drivers I didn't like seemed to have more of the room present in their recordings (my thoughts that some had a lot more echo than others).
There is another aspect which has been done to death in another contentious thread so I will not bring that up! Not sure that is a factor here, but perhaps. ie I would prefer to stay away from a certain three letter acronym because I think it would derail the thread.
Tony.
Last edited:
my suspicion is that if the room were taken out my preferences may be quite different. I think that it is a good thing that the room featured in this test, without it, I suspect that it would be a lot harder to pick between the drivers. The same drivers recorded outside as was suggested in X's original objective thread, would make an interesting comparison!!
Tony.
Tony.
Last edited:
That 3 letter acronym is a prime example of cargo cult science. Obviously we haven't even explored the perceptual implications of frequency response in a meaningful way, i.e. compare different drivers under anechoic conditions; same test with drivers equalized to flat using minimum phase EQ vs. using mixed-phase EQ. So why search for alternative explanations for what we hear if the most obvious explanations haven't been examined thoroughly?
Thanks, a lot of the difference may be the 192kbit vs 320kbit reference. The next round will certainly include a few of the top ones from this round. I may record in 96kHz and 32bit wav for the native file then convert that to 320kbit AAC as someone pointed out to me that has better SQ according to some tests.
The room is an important aspect and I don't think my room is very different than most carpeted floor with normal drywall stick frame construction in the Unites States. Most of us don't have treated rooms or anechoic chambers to listen. This is where headphones are important so you don't add your room on top of my room.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.