Headphones and Earphones Benchmarking Test Files
audiocheck.net
audiocheck.net
Also, extremely cool!
Different strokes, I suppose.
Seems weird from the outside, but the feeling is really quite nice, and very relaxing. The pseudoscientific name is annoying though.
Even when I replay it I get freaked out.
Is it just me, or does the left channel id clip have quite a different equalisation/sound to the right one?
Also, regarding the centre/twisted test clips - these are encoded as mp3 (for playing - the downloads are wav). Mp3s often encode stereo by encoding the average of the two channels and the difference between the two channels, with a lower bit rate. If one channel is inverted, then the average of the two channels will be zero, so all the sound information is encoded in the lower bit rate difference, which would give it a lower quality. Something to be aware of when making test clips like this.
I have the Sennheiser HD650s and AKG K701s. Used to have the HD595 also. I tend to prefer the latter for most music, as well as speech. The Senns I find more preferrable for movies and classical music.
I also have an ancient pair of Grado SR-80s (or SR-60s?), which are by no means an expensive high-end headphone. But I still like their sound on some things.
Other people prefer considerably bassier headphones and I can see how that is a valid preference, especially considering how some electronic music is mixed.. in fact, I wouldn't mind having such a pair for myself.
http://mikebeauchamp.com/misc/sennheiser-hd-555-to-hd-595-mo...
I've got a pair of HD558s which I quite like; indeed, they're the best headphones I've ever owned. What I'm curious about is this: Can someone who's actually done the foam mod give me an idea of whether the result is worth the risk? I'm pretty sure I can complete the modification without damaging my headphones, but I'd like to know it's worth my while before I carry it out. Thanks in advance!
I'd be more interested in a carefully controlled double blind trial.
I suspect most people would not be able to tell the difference between modfied and unmodified headphones, and that is before making adjustments for the terrible source quality of most people's MP3 collections.
I'd like to see a double-blind trial as well, but that's not what I'm after here; all I'm looking for, in the comment to which you replied, is a sense of whether it's worth my time to modify my headphones. Will I hear a difference? If I do, will it be genuinely there or simply a result of the placebo effect? Who knows? Who cares? If we were talking about $1000 cables, then, sure, it's worth asking those questions. But this is a non-destructive, easily reversible fifteen-minute modification to a pair of $150 headphones I already own, and can afford to replace if I slip and impale a driver or something. Given the minimal stakes, I'm strongly inclined to just go ahead and see what happens. If it makes, or seems to make, a difference, then great! I'll stick with it. If not, I'll put the foam back. Either way, I figure it's worth a shot.
Whether that difference is real, or some psychological boost you get from the "free upgrade to better headphones" is debatable.
I wouldn't do it because I'm a ham-fisted klutz and I'd probably damage something. Other people are not as clumsy as me!
None whatsoever, actually, with either music (1938 Karajan/Berliner Philharmonic recording of the overture to "The Magic Flute"), or the "Ultimate Headphone Test" files; any difference made by removing the foam is evidently so subtle as to be completely lost on me. I don't feel like dismantling my headphones again to put the foam back right now, so I'll leave it out (stuck to the inside of a Zip-loc bag, since I don't have any proper backing paper handy to preserve the adhesive) until the next time I take the pads off for cleaning, and put the foam back in then. I doubt I'll notice any more difference in sound at that point than I do now.
> I wouldn't do it because I'm a ham-fisted klutz and I'd probably damage something.
On the other hand, the modification really is as simple as its adherents purport it to be, especially since the cord is detachable; the only even vaguely dicey moment I had was when I took out the left driver and found that its connection to the cord socket PCB is made by a wire that's both quite short and very fine, and that the foam would have to come out past the wires to both drivers. If I'd dropped the driver, I'd probably have needed to trim the wire and heat up my iron, so I'm glad I didn't do that. Other than that, it was a snap; anyone can do it in ten minutes who has screwdriver, tweezers, and reasonably steady hands.
Edit: Now I think about it, what I really should have done was take the foam out of one side, but leave it in the other, and see if I could pick out any difference that way; having both sides in the same state makes it essentially impossible to compare. Perhaps, when it next comes time to clean my pads, I'll give that a try.
I've got a nice set of GE monitors from probably the mid 70s and they sound fantastic for music that's not incredibly bass heavy and were a quarter so that was nice.
Have you tested the Senn Momentums? They are closed and have a lot more low end than the 600/50s. I really liked them but, since I'm mostly alone at work, I went with the 650s.
I now use the Beyerdynamic DT990's (32 ohm version, because the FUD about needing a headphone amplifier scared me away from the higher resistance versions) and couldn't be more happy with them.
I've been dragging my feet selling them. Now I kind of want to. Thanks. :)
http://www.head-fi.org/f/62/meets-get-togethers-factory-tour...
here's buyer's guide also http://www.head-fi.org/a/2013-head-fi-summer-buying-guide-in...
A lot of older music gets remastered the same way when it's re-released; this is one of the legitimate reasons for preferring vinyl, since you can be sure you won't find that problem on an LP. (Granted, you'll have to put up with Rice Krispies instead, but some find that preferable to trying to suffer through modern mastering, and I can't really say I blame them.)
These plus a good USB-DAC (like those based around NwAvGuy's ObjectiveAmp) will make your listening experience much nicer.
I returned them and grabbed the V-MODA CrossFade LP. Its bass response is heavier than even the ATH-M50s, and a much better high frequency response. Their only downside is a dip in the middle frequencies. It gives them that club sound (DJs general dip the mids in clubs, as it makes it easier for people to hear one another). I like it for most of my music, but they definitely suck the life out of classical music and other similar, balanced sounds.
I'll probably grab pair of open Sennheisers to compliment my V-MODA. I'm hesitant only because Sennheiser, despite the HD-280 Pro being built like a tank, they've burned me multiple times now on shoddily constructed portable headphones.
How do audiophiles get a chance to do this? I've never seen a "headphone store" on a street corner.
(source: I was an audio engineer in a previous life. I also own 3 pairs)
Since I was working in a cubicle environment at the time, I figured I'd keep the 280s at work, primarily for their excellent isolation, and the 558s at home, where I maintain a quiet environment in which open headphones' lack of isolation doesn't pose a problem. That lasted about a week before I started carrying the 558s to work, because I could simply no longer stand to wear the 280s.
It really is a shame the 280s are so big and clunky, because they are, as you say, quite good headphones otherwise, albeit IMHO a little weak in the lower part of the frequency range. HD558s being as cheap as they are, and from all I can gather being also the price/performance sweet spot of the Sennheiser 5x8 range, my experience leads me to suggest that it'd be worth your while to consider picking up a pair.
(And I hear elsethread that the 558 foam mod makes them effectively indistinguishable from the twice-as-expensive and even more neutral HD598; I can't speak to that from personal experience, as I have yet to do the mod, but if true then the HD558 is most certainly the standout performer of its range.)
However, they're really hard on most music that hasn't been mastered well. And that is pretty much all modern music.
It really does seal you off from your environment a bit... I can't hear my cell phone ring in my pocket when I have them on.
I believe they use the same drivers (and superficial design) as AKG K240s.
In this case, they passed the tests reasonably well I think. Great frequency response (cut in at the limits of my hearing), no rattle, all the rest... I might put together a few sets for this test, though I suspect the Grados will fail rattle :)
While geared for car audio (tight control over listener position, questionable speaker placement and acoustics), they're also good for home systems, and somewhat good for headphone/earphone selection. You want disc 2 for basic setup, and disc 1 if you plan on using an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer.
[0] http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf
For most things, yes. There are some sounds that do not compress well, however. Harpsichords and trumpets in particular are pretty noticeable.
This is probably a failure of the major algorithms rather than a damnation of audio compression in general. I imagine even they will someday be basically imperceptible in difference.
Right now, though, I can score 100% on a blind ABx test on most horn instruments =\
[EDIT]: Headphone tone and response also changes over time - what sounds ideal at 0 hours will sound very different after 100 hours of break-in and use.
Would help if there was a note about this on the site, and recommendations for basic steps you can take to correct for these.
I'm spoiled - headphone.com is based out of my hometown, so I can listen to any headphones I want on their expensive equipment and find what really works the best.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-brea...
> Did I show break-in exists? No. There are too many variables still. Was it simply movement? I don't know. If I did it again to another brand new pair would I get the same results? I don't know. If I did it to an already broken in pair would I get the same results? I don't know.
Testing one pair of headphones one time doesn't show anything.
Given that people accept break-in is required for, and changes the sound qualities of, larger speakers, it would seem that the benefit of doubt should go to the "headphones do break-in over time". After all, headphones are speakers, just smaller.
To quote John Grado: "All mechanical things need break-in."
> To quote John Grado: "All mechanical things need break-in."
Really? How many slices of bread should I go through to make sure the pop-up mechanism in my toaster is solid before making my bespoke artisanal toast? How long should I run my oscillating fan before allowing moving air to touch my delicate skin? Should I limit myself to only stapling two pages until my stapler is properly adjusted?
Sarcasm aside, even very complicated pieces of equipment like combustion engines don't require break-in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-in_%28mechanical_run-in%...
"In general, people no longer break in the engines of their own vehicles after purchasing a car or motorcycle, because the process is done in production." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-in_(mechanical_run-in)#En...
Anyways there is very little dispute that headphones sound different off the shelf compared to having been used for a significant amount of time. People dispute if those changes are noticeable or not, but few dispute that the sound signature changes.
Anyways you have brought forth no evidence to support your claim, while dismissing evidence against you opinion as non-conclusive. At the least you might want to be less dismissive and silly with your analogies.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7686552
> Shure has tested some thoroughly used pairs of its E1 earphones, which first launched in 1997. And guess what? They measure the same now as when they came off the line. In fact, during the 15 years Shure has been actively selling earphones, its engineers have reached the same conclusion again and again: The sound produced by these tiny transducers during final testing is the same sound you’ll get in a day, in a year, and in five years… unless something goes wrong.
I would agree that IEMs (the E1 is an IEM which is different than headphones) don't require burn in and the signiture change is not noticable. But even your evidence against burn in doesn't dispute headphones with large drivers (traditionally audiphile grade headphones) have sound signiture that alter with use.
Thank you for providing more evidence for my point and against yours. I would reccomend reading past the title next time.
"Matt Engstrom, director of monitoring products at Shure, admits there is evidence that suggests transducers in larger headphones can experience burn-in, and that this could, in theory, produce different sound over time. Again, no one has shown this conclusively, largely because a) companies aren’t rushing to tell audiophiles they’ve been wrong all these years and b) there’s no single industry standard for testing headphones."
Matt Engstrom is not very sure is he? His evidence "suggests" burn-in which "could, in theory" (sounds like the colloquial meaning of 'theory' too, not the scientific meaning) change the sound.
So really no one knows.
As pointed out by modoc below, your link identifies exactly why break-in is still required for motors. That section lays out that break-in procedures have changed over time, but break-in is still required.
Then the vacuum diaphragm on my distributer needed to soften a little. On first use it wasn't flexible enough to move the advance arm quickly within the distributer so my spark advance curve was to low. After breaking it in it is much more responsive.
I would guess speaker diaphragm movement changes as materials wear, weaken or transform into their expected constituency.
Your toaster on the other hand.. maybe the oil will burn off the elements and your toast will taste nicer?
It's impossible to prove a negative. The test was: "is there evidence for headphone output changing over time" and there was not enough evidence to show this by the author's own admission.
Given the ocean of audiophile bullshit out there, it's not unreasonable to take the default position of assuming a claim is bullshit until there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
And the test was positive, given the test parameters. The author didn't want to extrapolate beyond that (I attribute that to the author's own biases against break-in: "I rarely hear break-in", "voodoo" when referring to break-in), which is their prerogative.
Not to mention that by their very criteria, "all I'm looking for here is a clear trend where the data changes smoothly from the start to the end reference", it did happen.
However, theirs is not the only test out there which shows differences over time. In my limited googling, the consensus seems to be "headphones do break in, even if the effects are limited".
http://www.wired.com/2013/11/tnhyui-earphone-burn-in/
> Shure has tested some thoroughly used pairs of its E1 earphones, which first launched in 1997. And guess what? They measure the same now as when they came off the line. In fact, during the 15 years Shure has been actively selling earphones, its engineers have reached the same conclusion again and again: The sound produced by these tiny transducers during final testing is the same sound you’ll get in a day, in a year, and in five years… unless something goes wrong.
Since there was only one test of one pair with no control, we don't know if the difference is a manufacturing variable, a testing error, or something else.
I don't know enough about statistics, are the differences shown by the author statistically significant?
The mass of coil and diaphragm? Can't.
The compliance of the surround? Won't.
The resistance, inductance or capacitance of the coil? Can't.
The shape or size of the chamber? Can't.
The magnet strength? Won't.
The coil/magnet coupling? Can't.
The relative placement of interacting parts? Won't.
The stiffness of the diaphragm? Won't.
I think that about covers all the possibilities. It is far more likely that the listener's perception changes due to expectation. Far, far more likely.
your link says: "For many kinds of equipment (with automotive engines being the prime example), the time it takes to complete break-in procedures has decreased significantly from a number of days to a few hours, for several reasons."
So the break-in period has gotten smaller, but certainly isn't gone. Also many/most modern car/motorcycle manufacturers still have break-in periods specified lasting hundreds or thousands of miles.
That's a good thing though. I want to know which headphones or speakers work best with my equipment in my normal conditions with my hearing. I don't care which ones are "the best". I want "the best for me".
I agree - this should absolutely be your goal.
That said, as an example of why these differences matter, my MacBook pro spits out a lot of noise and has a different sound profile when compared to my iPhone, which sounds completely different than my Mac mini which is connected to my headphone amp/dac. When evaluating headphones, evaluate them on the device you'll be listening to them on. Don't trust your laptop to tell you how your phone will sound (or vice versa).
Also, if you do transfer the files to your mobile player - make sure they aren't automatically converted to lower quality files.
It's even freaky when I know that it's just an audio file playing.
Aw shucks. I see they are discontinued (some left on Amazon though.) That's the problem with Philips, they have such a huge line that consumers can't find their way through it to find the gems and thus they languish. In general I will say emphatically that nobody offers better cost/performance than Philips.
This is the first time in years I even see it mentioned and people sound all surprised and somewhat freaked out. It's not new technology or something, as far as I know anyway. My father happens to be an audiophile so that's why I happen to know, but it seems like really cool technology that nobody uses.
Edit: Or wait, they record sounds for movies individually too, most of the sound you hear is not there "live" or something... Or at least I think I saw that in some making-of once.
And I just saw aroch's link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7685820
In particular, they make the MDR-7506 look bloated in the lows and weak in the mids and highs; I once compared the two headphones with a Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic recording of Tchaikovsky's overture '1812', and it wasn't even a contest -- the 7506 rendered the final crescendo so badly, with the cannon fire so thoroughly overwhelming the entire rest of the orchestra, that I couldn't even stand to listen to all of it.
As with almost all Sennheiser products, the HD558s are as neutral as possible (modulo the odd bit of foam, so I gather), and that's not for everyone; I listen mostly to music from the common practice era, so neutrality suits me well, but more modern music probably wants a more forgiving headphone -- listen to new pop masters in a set of "warts and all" cans, and you're going to hear a lot of warts. In any case, if you can make the opportunity to try out the HD558s before you make your choice, I think it's well worth your while so to do.
I tried the HD700 in the store and it was unbelievable. But I'm not paying that much for headphones.
You might be able to find a V-Moda M80 around that price too
Head-Fi has excellent recommendations for all types of headphones (IEMs, closed, etc) at different price points.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CMS0XU/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M...
They're great as long as you don't mind them being bright purple.
I'm tired of tangled wires and my imac sort of spoiled me in that regard.
Any reason not to use these, or are there better sample/reference files for that ?
Ultrasone sells a lot of different headphones that target different audiences. For instance, the Edition models tend to be very design-oriented and typically get very mixed reviews in terms of sound quality (I can't confirm that from my own experience). Others are for the pro market and tend to sound much more balanced.
I own the Signature Pro, which has the newer generation S-Logic Plus, and I'm extremely happy with it. The soundstage is as wide as that of great open-back headphones (e.g. Sennheiser HD650, which I also have), but you get the isolation and bass punch of closed headphones. I retired all my older headphones (HD650, Grado RS1, Shure SE-535) after getting the Signature Pro. Unfortunately, this model is not exactly cheap ($1300 list price) and quite ugly, but I've never heard better music reproduction.