Which headphone is better?

they're both inside the "fine" range but outside the "good" range based on the flatness of the frequency response, get whichever is cheaper

>>105823791 (OP)
whichever one produces the most pleasant feeling in my brain when I listen to them
flat response is a dumb psyop if you're not a musician or a mastering engineer

>>105823791 (OP)
>Which is better
A

>>105823791 (OP)
B

Which car is better?

>>105824866
whichever one bothers to label the axes

higher flatter lines [B]etter

>>105823791 (OP)
unless you are doing professional audio production for a living - you should choose based on personal preference in sound. some people like harmann, some people like bass, some people like tremble - it is all personal and you should not let meme charts to tell you how to enjoy the music. also, unless you buy some shit-tier 10$ chink garbage, many things can be tuned and adjusted with equalizers.
personally, i like harmann and reference sound with headphones, so i always go for best match considering budget and then just tweak it with eq. but for tv-setup i intentionally always use bose equipment, which has meme bass and sounds fun with their pre-processors, enhancers, and tweaks. so depends on usecase - for movies and tv i would never want to have harmann ref sound.

>>105823791 (OP)
Both unlistenable without EQ but with EQ B will be better due to lower distortion.

if you need to discern between a technology wioth graphs, it literally doesn't matter
>b-b-b-b-b-but muh-
nah, we're not electrical engineers designed a uarch, they're fucking headphones for listening to music.

Buy stax

>>105823791 (OP)
A
>>105824866
I'd need to see the whole rpm range but probably black

>>105826847
Correct.

>>105823791 (OP)
Planar is always better.

>>105823791 (OP)
>inb4 the good one is actually a $2 aliexpress iem

>>105823791 (OP)
>still comparing curves made with stupid methods like (single) frequency sweep
Lmao plebs.

b.
bump at 100hz is hot trash.

>>105830366
Sweep is the smartest method. Before the sweep you needed 3 separate measurements for FR, IR and THD, sweep gives you everything in one go.

>>105823791 (OP)
Right is bad, left is fucking garbage. Imagine listening to audio that's literally 10% noise and distortion at the most sensitive frequency for human hearing.

>>105827550
Literally all technology is about graphs nigga. CPUs, GPUs, RAM, monitors, fans and even keyboards all have graphs but we're supposed to make an exception for headphones? Get the fuck outta here. Buy cat ear headphones or something.

>>105830186
Aliexpress IEMs literally have better measurements than these. This is Beats vs Airpods or some shit.

>>105823791 (OP)
a for niggers, b for everyone else

>>105830576
Nah. When the measurements are complete dogshit you know you're looking at audiophile cult classic. Left is clearly some openback DD, probably beyer, right is some openback planar, probably audeze.

>>105830608
Even Audeze's poverty shit does better than the right. I could see it maybe being Sundaras or some other overpriced chinkshit.

>>105830539
>i'm autistic and focus on symbols over reality so you have to too
nah

>>105830723
My condolences.

Can anyone recommend me some good Bluetooth earbuds for jogging or working out?
I used to use Bose Soundsports, which were great until they went through the laundry.
Then I had some Sennheiser CX sports, but no matter what earpiece I used, they would never stay in while jogging.
I then got new Soundsports, but they must have changed the formulation of the rubber, which crumbled in like a year and eventually let in moisture which killed the electronics.
Can someone recommend something within these parameters:
1. Durable (will last 5+ years of daily use)
2. Inside $300 (before tax)
3. Decent sound quality (Doesn't need to be amazing, it's for exercise, not serious listening)
4. Attached together with a cord (optional, but I fear losing one of those small earbuds)

>>105830454
>sweep is good
>as if dynamic drivers were linear
lmao no

In this I can get recommend for my headphones?

>>105831901
>as if dynamic drivers were linear
Sweep literally measures non-linearity, retardbro, I even mentioned it in the post you replied to.

>>105823791 (OP)
The graph on the left is for a bassier pair of headphones than the one on the right. Beyond that, the only way to know would be to listen to them. I'd probably like B more because it's flatter like how I like my girls

>>105823791 (OP)
Show me impulse tests across a drone sweep background.

>>105827784
FINALLY someone here with a good taste for headphones. That's all I use. Well except for the occasional AKG K1000 day when I feel like going for mega soundstage.

Left image is almost surely some Sennheiser garbage headphone. Right is probably a chinese planar. Big preference for the right image. Sennheiser dynamic headphones are unlistenable and reddit-tier

>>105835716
>"wow anon you convinced yourself that the redditor meme headphones are good, so do I!!!!"

>>105835764
No, the redditor meme headphones are the sennheiser garbage they keep posting about. Stax on the other hand is the cream of the crop. Just don't go for the low end budget models like the new $500 (i think its 500?) X1. Pretty garbo. Just like the L300 or L500. More garbo.

>>105823791 (OP)
The most expensive one

>>105823791 (OP)
My ears aren't that good and my brain is rusty enough to not be able to tell the difference.

>>105826340
Some people like to eat hot pockets, some like to eat vegetarian and others like steak. Unless you're a gourmet chef I wouldn't worry about it, just eat whatever your retarded brain tells you is good enough

>>105835295
>Sweep literally measures non-linearity
with one tone retard, do you understand the meaning of LINEAR?
>f(k*A + h*B) = kf(A) + h*f(B)
A flat response curve isn't enough to claim linearity, retard.

>>105838553
Harmonic distortion is a non-linearity, retardbro. Yes, with one tone.

>>105839493
Obviously, and that's why using methods for linear systems is stupid, if your methodology is unsound the results are useless, that's why a monotone sweep is retarded.
THD is useless if you're just playing the most basic waveforms. Meanwhile codecs and DAC-Amps are subjected to much more rigorous testing.

>>105839579
Measuring THD with a sweep and with stepped sine gives identical results, you're wasting time on some hallucination you made up in your head.

>>105839631
> stepped sine
I'm not talking about that retard, dynamic drivers don't respond to very high frequency and most amp have low pass filters for obvious reasons.
What I'm saying is that real music isn't just a single tone moving around the audible spectrum but multiple audible tones at the same time.
If your stupid RC can't show the effects of playing bass and treble at the same time is useless, most headphones have muffled sound and you can't tell apart more than 2 or 3 instruments playing at the same time. And high pitch sounds of real music can be completely absent even if you can hear it when played in isolation.

>>105839721
You're talking about pic related. It's not distortion. Learn to EQ.

>>105839758
>n. Learn to EQ.
you can't equalize a shitty driver retard, multi tone distortion is measurable but plebs don't even know it's a thing.
>first result
https://www.klippel.de/know-how/measurements/nonlinear-distortion/multi-tone-distortion.html

Equalize picrel anon.
>btw the THD depends on the input, it's different for each audio track

>>105839785
You've never heard IMD in your life. Harmonic and intermodulation distortion have very high thresholds of audibity due to masking. If your treble disappears from bass that is 100% a tuning issue completely fixable with EQ.

anyone have the graph on age related hearing loss? you never could hear those flacs... in 10yrs you wont hear 1/2 of that response graph

>>105824866
^this
you have to consider:
-price
-build quality
-comfort
-repairability
-a bunch more shit (e.g. does it have a soldered cable? if not, does it use some tranny proprietary connector?)
you can't judge headphones by sound quality alone just like you can't judge a car by its horsepower figures.

A very easy way to realize drivers are a meme is to compare aliexpress IEMs to hd800 to studio monitors. By all metrics the drivers get progressively worse but the sound gets progressively more "detailed". It's all about the tuning.

>>105839830
>just use the EQ bro
Only if you completely mute other instruments because otherwise the EQ should be dynamic (and the result still would be crap)
>hey bro, let me preprocess this track to squeeze my shitty AKG headphones
lmao even .
There's no free lunch when the driver itself can't even reproduce classical music, it's like saying you can reproduce any pigment using CYMK and under any light. Guess what, you don't.

>>105839904
>aliexpress iems are better than hd800
fucking retarded poorfag cope, fuck off back to /iemg/

>>105839830
>just use the EQ bro
Only if you completely mute other instruments because otherwise the EQ should be dynamic (and the result would still be crap)
>hey bro, let me preprocess this track to squeeze my shitty AKG headphones
lmao even .
There's no free lunch when the driver itself can't even reproduce classical music, it's like saying you can reproduce any pigment using CYMK and under any light. Guess what, you don't.

>>105839933
Not a single headphone driver has any issue reproducing any music at safe listening volumes.
>>105839946
By the driver metrics you fell for IEMs annihilate hd800. If that wasn't a wake-up call for you that they don't actually matter then you're legit braindead.

>>105823891
But if you have a flat response headphones you are listenning music more closely as the musician intended, no?

>>105839964
>Not a single headphone driver has any issue reproducing any music at safe listening volumes.
"any issue " is highly debatable. Even popular "Professional Studio Monitor" headphones like the M50X that people liked to meme can't properly playback most classical music tracks or normal audio that haven't been compressed (DRC) like films. And those supposedly entry level 'decent' headphones are worse than a shitty in-ear is better at not muddling instruments.

>>105839785
Also notice how the IMD graph is just the THD graph with all the frequencies halved. They are not separate things, there's no such thing as driver with low THD but high IMD.

>>105840037
If you're a 120dB enjoyer then by all means, seek better drivers.

>>105835821
>ust don't go for the low end budget models like the new $500 (i think its 500?) X1. Pretty garbo. Just like the L300 or L500. More garbo.

interesting, i was looking into the x1 and l300 recently because they are somewhat reasonable, at least before the costs of amplifiers. Maybe i will just avoid them for now

>>105840037
Oh and never buy stax, this shit just straight up dies lmao.

>>105840091
>120dB
Lmao no, even at 70-80 dB an M50X can't play Rachmaninoff or Debussy.

>inb4 open back like the akg turds
lmao no. The problem is that a lot of popular brands are selling trash stuck in the 1990s at the same price as a 24" to 32" LCD, completely absurd.

>>105840326
Look, I have seen "I only listen at 80dB" dudes blasting openbacks across the room. If you're hitting driver limits at 80dB either it's not 80dB or it's not driver limits. Post what EQ you're using with m50x and we'll figure it out.

>>105840505
>EQ
You can't use a static EQ for audio track, retard. Saying that is like saying:
>you see bro, just use CMYK to reproduce any color

>>105840609
an audio track*

>>105840609
If you aren't using EQ then shut the fuck up about drivers. You physically can't separate the tuning from the driver quality.

>>105840625
>If you aren't using EQ then shut the fuck up about drivers.
Let me explain retard-kun
>Use EQ to """correct und normalize"""" the problem of playing treble and bass at the same time
>now the solos of treble or bass are distorted
Do you understand that? that's the simplest case. My point is monotone THD and RC are useless metrics, and no amount of cope-EQ will fix the distortions dependent on the input.

>>105840712
You don't know how to EQ and you're making up excuses. All this >>105839721 is perfectly explainable by the tuning.

>>105840734
Lmao, I guess the audio equivalent of colorblindness will never understand color.

>>105840744
Can you believe you wasted years believing in nonsense because you couldn't waste 10 minutes to read a guide? Must be extremely frustrating.

>>105840744
>blindness
don't forget to buy your cable risers audiofool, you don't want that pesky noise floor seeping into your audio equipment

Your music was mastered on gear with 100% bass THD, you ain't getting more detail than that out of your audiopedophile gear lil bro.

>>105840759
>Use EQ to """correct und normalize"""" the problem of playing treble and bass at the same time
>now the solos of treble or bass are distorted
Do you understand that?
Why should I waste time """fixing""" shitty headphones for an specific case if that degrades the sound for different cases? specially when an audio track isn't just one or two tones

I'll repeat my color analogy: no amount of dithering, preprocessing, etc will fix the limitations of CYMK

>>105840790
I understand you have absolutely no clue what you're doing. Because I'm still not seeing the filter curve of your preset.

>>105840768
>don't forget to buy your cable risers audiofool,
lmao
You can tell apart the bad clarity of a M50x using a 64K mp3. The problem is using tools incorrectly, monotone THD or RC are useless metrics to compare audio equipment that will playback normal audio not a monotone

>>105840800
>filter curve of your preset.
I'm not wasting time with something as retarded as static EQ.

>>105840815
>>105840759

>>105839976
who cares about their intentions though. the purpose is my enjoyment, not "correctness"

>>105839976
Yes. Dumb audiophiliacs are retarded who need boom boom boom in their nigger music

>>105840826
>he thinks the distortion of a non-lineal system is the same for any input
Sad.

>>105840857
>he calls bad tuning distortion
Lmao.

>>105839785
Your picture is for a speaker driver. Headphone drivers, including m50x drivers, have much, MUCH lower distortion.

>>105840830
>who cares about their intentions though. the purpose is my enjoyment, not "correctness"
I understand but you might be making the music worse (or better). They spend a lot of time mastering the songs and using a V-shape headphone seems like throwing that out of the window.
And you will probably get used to the sound and it won't be so fun after a few weeks same as it won't be boring with a flat response because you get used to it but at least you are listenning the true song.

>>105840999
V shape is for low volume listening. Flat is for 50 year old listening.

>>105840953
>Headphone drivers, including m50x drivers,
I owned an M50x for nearly 10 years, that's why I mention that model in particular, besides the fact those were recommended for years like the a 'good starting point'. The problem is that for the specific problem I'm talking about it was worse than some crappy 5 dollars Sony in-ear, not in all specs but that in particular, I didn't really realize of that problem until I got better headphones with far less "audio muddiness". It's evident even at low bit rate, not an ethereal audiophile thing buy simple bad audio clarity.

>>105840999
idk why you and the other guy are assuming I'm a basshead, I am not at all
I disdain bass niggers as much as you
I just think that for music *listening*, as opposed to production or mastering, you will be happier if you go with headphones that color the sound in a way that sounds nice to you, rather than caring about how neutral/flat they are

>>105823791 (OP)
Prob B due to technical feat