>>106478376
>>106478401
Maybe I'm not understand what you guys mean by "FR", this is the only frequency response data I'm aware of, these graphs. Are you guys referring to this? This tells you something for sure, like a general idea of how an audio device is tuned, but I'm not sure it tells you much else. Can you even tell the general quality of an audio device if I give you an unlabeled squiggle? I couldn't even tell the difference between some of the ones I own if I was just looking at their graphs. What do you even see here?

I'm not saying this is useless, but what I would want instead right now is some kind of measurement of detail in the sound (maybe by frequency too, like how muddy or clear the bass drum strikes are), which is something you can easily hear when you're comparing crap to good stuff but I don't know of any hard number for. I guess it's a lot to ask, though surely some autismo is trying to make his own measurement scale.

>>106478435
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that like 3/4 of these say "Crinacle" in the name. I'm still not sure what Crinacle means, but I get the gist that these Chinese companies collaborated with those guys to come up with a more "human"/Harman-like curve and target that with their new stuff, right? It makes sense that it worked, I always thought most western audiophile companies were crazy harsh in the treble. I think they only got away with that for so long because old rich guys with the money for audiophile gear can't hear in that range at all at their age.