Chicken Or The Egg? Freq Response Or Impedance? Headphone Help!
ChrisCoaster
published nearly flat frequency responses. But so far only the
Sennheiser HD-280, my(long gone) MDR-V6 and my MDR-7506 have sounded
truly flat TO MY EARS. Yes, I am a "sealed" headphone fan. And
everytime I go out and buy a headphone based on its freq response
along comes something like the Beyer DT1350 which makes me want to
reach deeper into my retirement accounts. Uggh!!!
I also noticed the "Impedance" graphs for all these cans and have to
ask the following questions:
Which is more important, chicken/egg style: Frequency Resp or
Impedance per frequency?
Secondly, does that impedance curve effect how that "flat" frequency
diagram will sound to me, and how?(Please don't get too mathematical
on me!).
Not to mention the angle of the transducer inside the earcup - the
Roland's is at an angle where as the Sony's and Sennie's are flat/
straight within the cup.
I'm all confused!! But I'm willing to learn how impedance/ohm affects
the sound as well as the pretty response curves I admittedly have been
putting too much weight on.
Please folks - educate and enlighten me on what stats are really
important and might translate to the best listening experience for me.
-ChrisCoaster
Scott Dorsey
>
>I also noticed the "Impedance" graphs for all these cans and have to
>ask the following questions:
>
>Which is more important, chicken/egg style: Frequency Resp or
>Impedance per frequency?
drive headphones from relatively high-Z sources (and that means most of
the crappy drive stages inside consoles and iPods), then you might care
about load impedance. If you're driving from a nice big headphone amp,
you don't care amuch.
>Secondly, does that impedance curve effect how that "flat" frequency
>diagram will sound to me, and how?(Please don't get too mathematical
>on me!).
whatsoever. Plug it into a crappy Mackie headphone jack, and it will.
>Not to mention the angle of the transducer inside the earcup - the
>Roland's is at an angle where as the Sony's and Sennie's are flat/
>straight within the cup.
If you don't have ISO standard ears, the effect could be good or bad either
way.
>I'm all confused!! But I'm willing to learn how impedance/ohm affects
>the sound as well as the pretty response curves I admittedly have been
>putting too much weight on.
to predict how they actually sound on your head, the headphone specifications
today are about as useful as speaker specifications in the 1940s.
This is combined, of course, with the fact that what you see on the datasheet
has been measured with whatever method will make it look best.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
ChrisCoaster
Well, the data sheets come from external sources, not from the speaker/
hp manufacturer themselves.
Three that I have sourced include INNER FIDELITY-
http://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-data-sheet-downloads ,
HEADPHONE . com - http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/technical.php
, and lastly, this Chinese website: http://www.geocities.jp/ryumatsuba/review.html
. On that last website, the headphones are divided into two groups.
Hence if you are looking for specs on the MDR-7506, that is in the
first list. The HD-280 Pro - in the second.
Surprisingly, in this day and age when looks matter more than function
and the shift is back to pre-WWII "buyer beware", few headphone
manufacturers actually supply datasheets or graphs for their product.
Sennheiser does, for only a couple of their vast line of headphones,
including the HD-280. And to be frank I would rather trust the graphs
in http://www.headphone.com/headphones/sennheiser-hd-280-pro.php than
on Sennie's own site: http://www.sennheiserusa.com/media/productDownloads/productSheets/HD280PRO_ProductSheet.pdf
!! The curve on their own site is so truncated as to be unreliable,
compared to that at Headroom or even the Chinese site.
If I had to go solely on graphs, I wouldn't trust the mfgs.
But I'm trying to move beyond what the graphs say - or infer, and
become a more educated headphone buyer.
-CC
Scott Dorsey
>Well, the data sheets come from external sources, not from the speaker/
>hp manufacturer themselves.
>
>Three that I have sourced include INNER FIDELITY-
>http://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-data-sheet-downloads ,
>HEADPHONE . com - http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/technical.php
>. On that last website, the headphones are divided into two groups.
>Hence if you are looking for specs on the MDR-7506, that is in the
>first list. The HD-280 Pro - in the second.
they are all done with the same method, but it doesn't necessarily mean
that method is any good.
>Surprisingly, in this day and age when looks matter more than function
>and the shift is back to pre-WWII "buyer beware", few headphone
>manufacturers actually supply datasheets or graphs for their product.
accurate measurements anyway.
>Sennheiser does, for only a couple of their vast line of headphones,
>including the HD-280. And to be frank I would rather trust the graphs
>in http://www.headphone.com/headphones/sennheiser-hd-280-pro.php than
>!! The curve on their own site is so truncated as to be unreliable,
>compared to that at Headroom or even the Chinese site.
you numbers above 8 KC is not giving you trustworthy numbers. You can measure
the same headphones twice and get totally different numbers in the top octave,
just from minor changes in position.
The plot on the Sennheiser datasheet you list is not an actual headphone
response, it is a simulation of what the diffuse field response would be.
However, Sennheiser actually _can_ make accurate and repeatable measurements
according to the most recent IEC standard. That simulated response is
derived from them. Will they give them to you? Maybe not.
>If I had to go solely on graphs, I wouldn't trust the mfgs.
>
>But I'm trying to move beyond what the graphs say - or infer, and
>become a more educated headphone buyer.
ChrisCoaster
> ChrisCoaster <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> >become a more educated headphone buyer.
>
> Then you need to go out and listen to headphones.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis.
So basically, I am my own test equipment, just as you are yours, and
so-and-so across the hallway is their own. Fair enough. Let the
consumer ratings speak the truth! If the 'phone fits, you must
acquit. :)
-CC
Ty Ford
(in article
<286fbf24-b5f6-40b6...@hd1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
> my MDR-7506 have sounded truly flat TO MY EARS
They have an increase bass and treble.
The Audio-Technica ATH M50 are flatter and closed.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
ChrisCoaster
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:57:21 -0400, ChrisCoaster wrote
> (in article
>
> > my MDR-7506 have sounded truly flat TO MY EARS
>
> Well the 7506 aren't flat, but I really like them for many reasons.
>
> They have an increase bass and treble.
>
> The Audio-Technica ATH M50 are flatter and closed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
________________________
Your ears and mine are different, that's all. The best measure of
flat is what you like listening to for any amount of time, from 4
minutes to 4 hours.
We can debate the merits of one headphone over another but as has been
said on here already, the human ear is the final arbiter.
I still think a headphone's impedance *is* important, as it may gauge
how loudly you have to run your playback source, and how it will sound
at different volumes. For instance, I never realized that a headphone
with average 30ohms impedance will actually run down an iPod at
moderate volume setting faster than a headphone with, say 200ohms
impedance with the iPod cranked up almost all the way. I suppose the
size of the driver also matters here.
-ChrisCoaster
ChrisCoaster
>
> Hint: there is no standard way to get plots above 8 KC. Anybody who gives
> you numbers above 8 KC is not giving you trustworthy numbers. You can measure
> the same headphones twice and get totally different numbers in the top octave,
> just from minor changes in position.
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
So is THAT why so many hearing exams at the doctor's office measure
only from 200Hz up to 8kHz! The human ear physique would probably do
the same thing to the tones from the test equipment, both above and
below that band, correct?
I'm learning, I'm learning, Obi Wan... :)
-CC
Scott Dorsey
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:57:21 -0400, ChrisCoaster wrote
>(in article
><286fbf24-b5f6-40b6...@hd1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> my MDR-7506 have sounded truly flat TO MY EARS
>
>Well the 7506 aren't flat, but I really like them for many reasons.
>
>They have an increase bass and treble.
of things like editing work. I think it's probably a good thing for tracking
as well, since it exaggerates defects easily.
I couldn't stand to listen to the 7506 all day but the top end boost is
not always a downside.
>The Audio-Technica ATH M50 are flatter and closed.
because the low end response changes as your ear canal volume changes.
Scott Dorsey
>Your ears and mine are different, that's all. The best measure of
>flat is what you like listening to for any amount of time, from 4
>minutes to 4 hours.
flat.
I rather like listening to the Grado headphones, which are very musical,
but I wouldn't characterize them as accurate in any way.
>I still think a headphone's impedance *is* important, as it may gauge
>how loudly you have to run your playback source, and how it will sound
>at different volumes. For instance, I never realized that a headphone
>with average 30ohms impedance will actually run down an iPod at
>moderate volume setting faster than a headphone with, say 200ohms
>impedance with the iPod cranked up almost all the way. I suppose the
>size of the driver also matters here.
with a much lower output Z to drive any modern headphones. All of these
devices sacrifice a lot in order to get long battery life.
Scott Dorsey
>So is THAT why so many hearing exams at the doctor's office measure
>only from 200Hz up to 8kHz! The human ear physique would probably do
>the same thing to the tones from the test equipment, both above and
>below that band, correct?
fancy methods to do it, some of which involve plugging the ear canal up
and some of which involve laser interferometry of the eardrum.
But if you just do a quick and dirty threshold test, the equipment used
is normally a standard set of headphones calibrated on the older IEC 60711
reference ear standard, good up to maybe 10 KC.
Both Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic are capable of making accurately calibrated
headphones for these applications, and the work that goes into those gets
used elsewhere in their lines.
ChrisCoaster
>
> The iPod isn't exactly a quality source device. You really want something
> with a much lower output Z to drive any modern headphones. All of these
> devices sacrifice a lot in order to get long battery life.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Explain that low output Z thing to me in as non-mathematical terms as
you possibly can. I really want to learn but seriously can barely add
2 +2!
-CC
ChrisCoaster
Hey Scott - just noticed there is a higher ohm version of the HD-280.
It is called simply the HD 280-13, and is listed as having either a
300 or 600ohm impedance, depending on what site you go to(!). If I've
enjoyed my 64ohm version will I have better experience with the -13?
-CC
Mike Rivers
> Your ears and mine are different, that's all. The best measure of
> flat is what you like listening to for any amount of time, from 4
> minutes to 4 hours.
No, that's not a measure of "flat," it's a; measure of
"non-fatiguing" which is very important. When I'm recording
outside the studio, I always take a set of Sony 7506 phones
along with me because they most easily show up problems with
setup - odd reflections, buzzes, and other noises. They're
decidely not flat, but they're "revealing." But I don't care
to wear them (or any other headphones for that matter) when
I'm listening to music for enjoyment because I feel too
detached to the music with those things on my ears. Others
feel more attached to the music when wearing earphones.
I can tell you that when I'm forced to mix wearing
headphones, if I'm using the 7506, the bass is usually wrong
and if I mix to what I hear, the top end is always wrong. I
do better with my Fostex T20 phones, but only if I'm far
enough away from the acoustic source so the bass doesn't
leak in. When mixing with those phones and also mixing the
PA, I always have too little bass in the recording because I
hear it around the phones.
So what works for you depends on why you're using headphones
at all ('t'ain't natural).
> I still think a headphone's impedance *is* important, as it may gauge
> how loudly you have to run your playback source, and how it will sound
> at different volumes.
That's at least partially correct. In my recent review of
the Focusrite Scarlett audio interfaces, I was checking the
headphone output for distortion because even though it
wasn't ear-bleeding loud at full volume, I heard some
distortion. Using a 75 ohm resistor as a load (to get rid of
the varying impedance with frequency of the phones) to check
out the amplifier itself, I found that when playing full
scale digital level recording, THD reached 1% somewhat
before the headphone volume control was up full, and when
cranked all the way, distortion rose to greater than 15%. At
1% THD, the output to the headphones was about 43 mW.
As far as the "cheap Mackie headphone jack" that Scott
mentioned: A cheap Mackie (a 402-VLZ3) with the main output
at maximum level, distortion started to rise above 1% with
the headphone volume control just about halfway up, but at
that point it was putting out about 240 milliwatts into the
75 ohm load. Considerably louder with the same set of phones
as the Focusrite. Bear in mind that either one should be
"loud enough."
> For instance, I never realized that a headphone
> with average 30ohms impedance will actually run down an iPod at
> moderate volume setting faster than a headphone with, say 200ohms
> impedance with the iPod cranked up almost all the way. I suppose the
> size of the driver also matters here.
It's not the size of the driver, it's the Law of the Ohm.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
ChrisCoaster
> interesting audio stuff
_____________
And that is something I have never been able to understand because
everyone who tries to goes off into math and I lose them! You're free
to try Mike, but if you mention one number or one formula my brain
will implode helplessly. LOL!
As far as why I listen through headphones? I enjoy hearing every
detail of songs I heard as a kid but whose hearing at that age
resembled a weak AM radio station during a solar storm! My hearing
has gotten better since moving away from a second-hand smoke
environment, removing toxins such as mercury fillings from my body,
and eating healthier(incorporating more raw/cooked vegetables into the
diet). I can therefore hear better than I did when I was 11(30 years
ago!!), and can appreciate the nuances headphones can afford the music
played over them. A wide range of frequencies, being able to hear the
musicians breathing during the solo in the middle of the song waiting
for the final verse - I really dig that!
So you can say that my listening needs over headphones are both
analyitical and recreational. If there is such a headphone for that I
would say personally, given MY EARS - ahem!! - my HD 280-Pros and my
MDR-7506s have come closest to that ideal. Again, your ears - your
mileage may vary. There are critical listeners out there for whom
nothing other than Beats By Dr. Dre fulfill this same mission - and
THAT'S OK. That particular phone mated perfectly with that person's
ear.
I would still like to know if Sennheiser even makes the higher-
impedance HD 280-13, and if it is available in the U.S.
-CC
Frank Stearns
>On 10/12/2011 11:24 AM, ChrisCoaster wrote:
Snips
>So what works for you depends on why you're using headphones
>at all ('t'ain't natural).
Amen.
But I do like the Sonys because of the "odd" ways I use them...
In the field, I'll often wear earplugs then crank the phones to get better effective
isolation -- I can (mostly) hear things as the mics are hearing them, without the
influence of live acoustic sound mixing in. The scooped response compensates
somewhat for the earplugs.
In post, most mix time is spent on monitors, but I will occasionally spend time with
phones -- but I keep the levels very low (best guess is around 50-60 dB). The
scooped response also helps compensate for the low level.
Overall, though, I appreciate them because of all the phones I auditioned for those
jobs, the Sonys had the least amount of that fake/colored plastic-y sound that
plagues so many phones.
YMMV.
(A friend did loan me his pair of multi-kilobuck Stax at one point, and they were
quite nice, but they were completely impractical for field use -- and they were
still phones. Good as they were, it'd take some getting use to mix on them.)
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
John Williamson
Make an *exact* model of your ear, and test using a microphone in the
same position as your eardrum. That gives you one curve. Now move the
earpiece slightly, and that will give you a different curve.
Now make an exact model of my ear, and do the same. You will get a
totally different family of curves.
For in-ear 'phones, it's even more pronounced.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Scott Dorsey
>Hey Scott - just noticed there is a higher ohm version of the HD-280.
>It is called simply the HD 280-13, and is listed as having either a
>300 or 600ohm impedance, depending on what site you go to(!). If I've
>enjoyed my 64ohm version will I have better experience with the -13?
No.
ChrisCoaster
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
____________________
That's what I've been trying to say, in my usual backwards round'about
Aspergerian manner(!) The ear plays an equal amount in how a
headphone will sound despite how flat the headphone appears on paper.
-CC
Scott Dorsey
>That's what I've been trying to say, in my usual backwards round'about
>Aspergerian manner(!) The ear plays an equal amount in how a
>headphone will sound despite how flat the headphone appears on paper.
The changes due to ear canal shape and size are really only significant
below around 200 Hz or so. But it can be _very_ significant on the bottom end.
Ty Ford
(in article
<78ba58da-f8c0-462d...@t6g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):
> Your ears and mine are different, that's all. The best measure of flat is
> what you like listening to for any amount of time, from 4 minutes to 4 hours
Well of the 20 some odd location audio people I know who use the MDR 7506, we
all say the same thing.
My guess would be that you might get your ears checked for hearing loss.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
Scott Dorsey
>Explain that low output Z thing to me in as non-mathematical terms as
>you possibly can. I really want to learn but seriously can barely add
>2 +2!
Okay....
The source impedance is a measure of how much current the source can drive
a constant voltage into.
The load impedance is a measure of how much current the load will take, given
a constant voltage.
The plot on the datasheet shows how much current the load will require at
various frequencies.
As long as the source impedance is a good bit less (maybe a factor of ten)
lower than the load impedance at all frequencies, everything is fine.
When the source impedance is too high compared with the load, and the load
impedance varies with frequency, the frequency response will be affected.
The solution, of course, is to use a better amp with a lower output impedance.
Other nasty things can happen also.
I think any description beyond this is probably going to need vectors.
Les Cargill
Lower source impedance means "can send more current for the same
voltage level." It also may mean that you'll get frequency dependent
distortion as the current runs out.
--
Les Cargill
Mike Rivers
> And that is something I have never been able to understand because
> everyone who tries to goes off into math and I lose them! You're free
> to try Mike, but if you mention one number or one formula my brain
> will implode helplessly. LOL!
You're asking about something that's technical and not all
technical things can be explained in non-technical terms.
When you're ready to dig into some basic laws of
electricity, you'll be able to understand why these things
work the way they do. Either don't worry about it or don't
fight it.
> As far as why I listen through headphones? I enjoy hearing every
> detail of songs I heard as a kid but whose hearing at that age
> resembled a weak AM radio station during a solar storm!
Well, I'm different. I don't care to take someone's musical
work apart and examine each little piece in detail. I'm sure
that's not what the artist had in mind. He put all of those
pieces together in a way that pleased him and that he hopes
will please your and me as a whole. You don't want to go any
further than 1+1=2 to understand how electricity works. I
don't want to get into the artist's mind and figure out why
he did what he did, I just want to enjoy what he gave me.
When it comes to recording, however, it's part of my job to
pay attention to details - but they aren't details like that
little three note trumpet trill that I missed when I heard
the song on the car radio, it's about does the recording
sound like the real thing, or the artist's vision of the
real thing.
> So you can say that my listening needs over headphones are both
> analyitical and recreational.
Sure, if you get a kick out of being analytical there's
nothing wrong with that.
> given MY EARS - ahem!! - my HD 280-Pros and my
> MDR-7506s have come closest to that ideal.
To me, those are very different. Do you hear different
things when you listen with each?
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
swanny
Driven from a source with very low impedance, it won't make a scrap of
difference how high the load impedance is.
Don Pearce
Driven from a low enough impedance, he will get 3dB more level from
the 300 ohm phones than the 600 ohm ones. All else being equal, of
course.
d
ChrisCoaster
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, ChrisCoaster wrote
> (in article
>
> > Your ears and mine are different, that's all. The best measure of flat is
> > what you like listening to for any amount of time, from 4 minutes to 4 hours
>
> Well of the 20 some odd location audio people I know who use the MDR 7506, we
> all say the same thing.
>
> My guess would be that you might get your ears checked for hearing loss.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
_______________
With all due respect Ty, that last suggestion is taken as an insult.
I'll have you know that my 2009 audiogram is both flatter, and in both
ears, than that taken by me in 1979. Admittedly, the results are
slightly lower than ideal at the 8k tone, and I'm not gonna lie: I
can't hear squat above 14kHz!
That said, my bottom end actually evened out for the better,
particularly my left ear which as a kid couldn't hear a M80 at 10
feet, and every thing else is relatively flat in between.
Accordingly, I can definitely distinguish tonal differences and
spatial differences between my SRH-440, HD 280-pro, MDR-7506, and the
Rolands quite well, thank you very much. And time and time again, the
280-Pros are what MY EARS perceive as the most tonally balanced, with
the 7506s a coat of paint or two behind them in 2nd place.
Uh, now what part of "MY EARS" did you not get? . . .
Kindest regards,
-The Coaster
hank alrich
> Your ears and mine are different, that's all. The best measure of
> flat is what you like listening to for any amount of time, from 4
> minutes to 4 hours.
That is an imaginary definition of "flat". It's fine to prefer this or
that device. It's goofy to misuse basic terminology in relation to
measurable attributes versus personal preferences. Yes, headphones are
goofy things to measure. Flat still means something.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
ChrisCoaster
I'm perfectly aware of all that. And I'm not going to just rush out
and buy any old headphone and expect it to sound good or accurate.
There are several cans out there which I shall refer to simply as "the
venerables" - headphones that simply by virtue of the folks going back
to them after trying others that have come out over time. And there's
a reason they keep coming back to them, and that reason may be deeply
personal, or that the headphones themselves are simply that damn GOOD
for the money. They include the V6, its derivative, the 7506, and the
HD 280-Pro, to name a few. And I'm sure that will be the case 20
years from now.
As Scott basically alluded to, a phone may measure as flat as Kansas,
but a particular individual's ears could turn it into the Swiss Alps.
LOL!
-ChrisCoaster
Ty Ford
(in article
<f523ed8c-5970-459f...@b10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):
> With all due respect Ty, that last suggestion is taken as an insult.
> I'll have you know that my 2009 audiogram is both flatter, and in both
> ears, than that taken by me in 1979. Admittedly, the results are
> slightly lower than ideal at the 8k tone, and I'm not gonna lie: I
> can't hear squat above 14kHz!
>
> That said, my bottom end actually evened out for the better,
> particularly my left ear which as a kid couldn't hear a M80 at 10
> feet, and every thing else is relatively flat in between.
> Accordingly, I can definitely distinguish tonal differences and
> spatial differences between my SRH-440, HD 280-pro, MDR-7506, and the
> Rolands quite well, thank you very much. And time and time again, the
> 280-Pros are what MY EARS perceive as the most tonally balanced, with
> the 7506s a coat of paint or two behind them in 2nd place.
>
If you say so, Chris.
No insult was meant, but logic an be blunt. If it isn't "this" than logic
says it has to be "that."
> Uh, now what part of "MY EARS" did you not get? . .
The part where yours are not like almost everyone I know.
Regards,
Ty Ford
PS: not much good above 14kHz myself now.
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
Don Pearce
wrote:
>If you say so, Chris.
>
>No insult was meant, but logic an be blunt. If it isn't "this" than logic
>says it has to be "that."
Ah, the good ol' fallacy of the false dichotomy. The alternative to
"this" is "not this". It may or may not be "that".
d
ChrisCoaster
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:20:33 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreef...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If you say so, Chris.
>
> >No insult was meant, but logic an be blunt. If it isn't "this" than logic
> >says it has to be "that."
>
> Ah, the good ol' fallacy of the false dichotomy. The alternative to
> "this" is "not this". It may or may not be "that".
>
> d
Well, if you just realize that there are things we know, and things we
know we know, and that there are both known and unknown unknowns, than
that's pretty much all you need to know, or might know you need to
know.
-Uncle Donnie ;)
ChrisCoaster
>
> The part where yours are not like almost everyone I know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> PS: not much good above 14kHz myself now.
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
_____________
Let's just settle this like gentlemen. You have no more right to
make comments about my ears than I do about yours. What you hear via
a particular set of transducers(room speakers included) will NEVER
sound like what I hear via that same set of transducers, understand?
We are all individuals.
Therefore that last comment about my "ears are not like anyone elses
you know" has in my eyes destroyed your credibility when speaking
about either my ears, the Sony MDR-V6/7506, or any other headphone.
Because anyone less civil than I might construe that to mean "YOUR
EARS ARE WEIRD" and take action accordingly. You wouldn't want that
now, McFly, . . . . . WOULD ya?
I come in here to learn more about how to evaluate audio gear, and all
you've got is cold beer and a dumb comment?
Say hello to your mom for me!
-B. Tannen
Scott Dorsey
>Let's just settle this like gentlemen. You have no more right to
>make comments about my ears than I do about yours. What you hear via
>a particular set of transducers(room speakers included) will NEVER
>sound like what I hear via that same set of transducers, understand?
>We are all individuals.
Yup, but we can put a small microphone in your ear canal and measure what
the effective response of different headphones is on your personal ears.
We can even use a laser interferometer to watch your eardrum moving back
and forth.
And, when you do this over a large number of different people, you get
radically different response at low frequencies but not many response
differences above 200 Hz. (You do get major differences above 10 Khz for
other reasons not having to do with ear canal volume, but that's also well
above the huge peak in the V-6).
>Therefore that last comment about my "ears are not like anyone elses
>you know" has in my eyes destroyed your credibility when speaking
>about either my ears, the Sony MDR-V6/7506, or any other headphone.
The MDR-V6 has such a huge gargantuan treble boost that it's hard to
ignore it. I mean, we're talking more than a 12dB boost here, it's
not a subtle thing. It's far more dramatic than the differences between
normal ears. Listen to fiddle on it, and then on some calibrated reference
speakers known to be flat.
John Williamson
Calm down,chaps. :-)
The gold standard of sound reproduction is "Does it sound exactly like
the live preformance?"
If you can say that, then the chain is good all the way through. Most
users who listen regularly to sound before it's recorded agree on
certain things. If you say that a set of headphones (Or speakers,for
that matter), that everyone else agrees have a coloured response, have a
flat response, then either you're convincing yourself of something
that's not true, or you've done insufficient comparison with real sound.
I have used a particular type of headphone, which I know have a coloured
sound, for a long time now. I can allow for that colouration because I
know it's there. Change the colouration,and the results on the final
output change, as I can't automatically compensate for the new colourations.
And before you start slagging Ty off, check out his website and his
posting history here.
ChrisCoaster
According to this site's graph, http://www.headphone.com/headphones/sony-mdr-v6.php
There is a pronounced dip in the V6's response, about -5dB down, just
below 6kHz. From there it steadily rises up, about 10dB, to about
+5dB on the graph at around 9kHz. So yes, relative to that 5.9kc
trough, there is a 10+ db boost there. What's making that boost so
apparent is the trough just below it in frequency, so of course it's
noticeable.
As far as HD 280-pro vs 7506 goes, in MY EARS the HD-280's low end
seems way more present and extended, and therefore more usable when
listening at low volumes.
-CC
ChrisCoaster
>
>
> To me, those are very different. Do you hear different
> things when you listen with each?
>
> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
> operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
> it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
> of audio." - John Watkinson
>
> interesting audio stuff
____________________________
MDR-7506: More presence above 1kHz, less presence presence below
100Hz.
HD 280-Pro: More presence below 100Hz, but extended, not boosted.
Above 1kHz they sound "smoother" from the high-mids into the highs.
SRH-440: The most bottom-shy of these three, very smooth midrange,
plus a sibilance somewhere between 5-10kHZ that I can't seem to
duplucate with EQ on the other headphones. It can be heard across all
genres of music I listen to via them, and thus lends a timbre to all
music I like to listen to.
-CC
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
> that's not true, or you've done insufficient comparison with real sound.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
________________________
John: what you said right there, above, carries more weight than
anything I will ever hear from Mr. Getchyerearzczechd(!)
Honestly, no, I am not much of a concert-goer, be it Carnegie Hall,
the Met, Yankee Stadium or the Oakdale Theater in CT. I have no
problem with the quality of concert sound other than in most cases,
the few concerts I've been to, it's just "too damn loud" to quote
instructor Huey Lewis from Back To The Future.
And when a co-worker of mine reported how loud the sound was at a
Garden hip-hop showdown, I marked that down as an event I will surely
never attend. He said every article of his clothing was blowing back
from the soundwaves, and both his seat, and the NOSEBLEED SECTION it
was in, were vibrating from the sound.
So regrettably John it will probably be very difficult from me to
experience a live sound performance of any genre that I can stay in
the room long enough to tolerate it to get a sense of what music is
supposed to sound like.
And I thank you for pointing this out John. It's more important to
compare music as it is heard live to the same music as it is heard
over a speaker or headphone, than to compare one headphone to another.
-CC
ChrisCoaster
And if live sound, both indoors and out, is so loud that I have to get
up and move around or leave early, then at least I know I can hear
well and don't need my ears "checked". ;) (that was not for you, JW)
-CC
hank alrich
> You have no more right to
> make comments about my ears than I do about yours.
How the hell you've gotten your panties in a bunch over this I don't
know. But you DID use the term "flat" in regards to a headphone one
primary attribute of which is its substantial deviation from flat.
That's a fact.
"Pro" is in the name of the group for a reason. Words mean things. Flat
was the wrong word for your statement and Ty called you on it. Get over
it and learn something, like what word to use where and when.
--
Neil Gould
>
> The gold standard of sound reproduction is "Does it sound exactly like
> the live preformance?"
>
having impaired hearing. ;-)
--
Neil
John Williamson
curtain, with the hi-fi being judged as the live musician? Or is my
fevered imagination playing tricks again?
I know I've heard a choir on stage with reinforcement which sounded
exactly as if they'd put a CD of the choir on, with the choir just
mouthing the words. I had heard the choir previously without
reinforcement at another venue, and they sounded a lot more realistic there.
PStamler
> And when a co-worker of mine reported how loud the sound was at a
> Garden hip-hop showdown, I marked that down as an event I will surely
> never attend. He said every article of his clothing was blowing back
> from the soundwaves, and both his seat, and the NOSEBLEED SECTION it
> was in, were vibrating from the sound.
>
> So regrettably John it will probably be very difficult from me to
> experience a live sound performance of any genre that I can stay in
> the room long enough to tolerate it to get a sense of what music is
> supposed to sound like.
Try a live concert featuring an unamplified string quartet. If you're
at least 10 feet away it won't be damagingly loud.
Peace,
Paul
ChrisCoaster
Then pray tell me how to describe headphones that, to ME, lend NOTHING
of themselves, IE do not add any timbre, to the music? If "flat to me"
is incorrect terminology then wtf is?
CC
Richard Webb
>> And when a co-worker of mine reported how loud the sound was at a
>> Garden hip-hop showdown, I marked that down as an event I will surely
>> was in, were vibrating from the sound.
>> So regrettably John it will probably be very difficult from me to
>> experience a live sound performance of any genre that I can stay in
>> the room long enough to tolerate it to get a sense of what music is
>> supposed to sound like.
> Try a live concert featuring an unamplified string quartet. If you're
> at least 10 feet away it won't be damagingly loud.
sound reinforcement of course.
Hip hop can't be done without sound reinforcement, it's all
artificially created, so if you're going to judge natural by that genre then you don't know natural. IT's all
artificially created and manipulated.
But then, most things reproduced by electronics are not
quite there when it comes to sound delivered to ears
directly from instruments sans electronics imho. sOme get
fairly close, but, big difference, which can be heard if
you've ever experienced music which doesn't require or use
sound reinforcement.
I thank the good lord that a good part of my education in my formative years was spent listening to instruments and
voices that required no sound reinforcement, I know what
they're supposed to sound like.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
soundhaspriority
"ChrisCoaster" <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:286fbf24-b5f6-40b6...@hd1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> I bought and listened to the Roland RH-300 and other headphones with
> published nearly flat frequency responses. But so far only the
> Sennheiser HD-280, my(long gone) MDR-V6 and my MDR-7506 have sounded
> truly flat TO MY EARS. Yes, I am a "sealed" headphone fan. And
> everytime I go out and buy a headphone based on its freq response
> along comes something like the Beyer DT1350 which makes me want to
> reach deeper into my retirement accounts. Uggh!!!
>
> I also noticed the "Impedance" graphs for all these cans and have to
> ask the following questions:
>
> Which is more important, chicken/egg style: Frequency Resp or
> Impedance per frequency?
>
> Secondly, does that impedance curve effect how that "flat" frequency
> diagram will sound to me, and how?(Please don't get too mathematical
> on me!).
>
> Not to mention the angle of the transducer inside the earcup - the
> Roland's is at an angle where as the Sony's and Sennie's are flat/
> straight within the cup.
>
> I'm all confused!! But I'm willing to learn how impedance/ohm affects
> the sound as well as the pretty response curves I admittedly have been
> putting too much weight on.
>
> Please folks - educate and enlighten me on what stats are really
> important and might translate to the best listening experience for me.
>
> -ChrisCoaster
>
The impedance graphs are almost irrelevant, unless you are using low power
portable devices.
It is interesting that you feel the HD280 and the MDR-V6 sound similar to
you, because, to me, they sound completely different. The HD280 sounds
extremely thin and up-tilted. The MDR-V6 has bloated bass, is a little
muddy, but a balanced tonal rendition.
There is a general problem with sealed cans. The volume enclosed at the back
of the diaphragm is of the same order of magnitude as the volume in front of
the can, which depends upon how big your pinnae (external ears) are. This
makes a sealed can sensitive to the enclosed volume around your ears, which
varies between persons. In my opinion, since I am not a headphone designer,
different people are more likely to have different opinions of sealed-back
headphones than open back.
From the design point-of-view, sealed back is a difficulty to be overcome.
It provides isolation, but in terms of every other design goal, it is a
detriment.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Frank Stearns
snips
>But then, most things reproduced by electronics are not
>quite there when it comes to sound delivered to ears
>directly from instruments sans electronics imho. sOme get
>fairly close, but, big difference, which can be heard if
>you've ever experienced music which doesn't require or use
>sound reinforcement. I thank the good lord that
>a good part of my education in my formative years was spent listening to
> instruments and voices that required no sound reinforcement,
> I know what >they're supposed to sound like.
But even at that, I'll still take a moment now and do my little soap box speech I've
done before: periodically (1-2x a month if possible) one should get to a live event
where there's not a transducer or electronics being used in ANY way for the event.
Just you, the instruments/voices, and the intervening air.
I do a "customer service" bit with my classical clients by attending their
orchestral and choral concert dress rehearsals, n/c to them.
Yes, it's nice to have a heads up on production and rep details (what they tell you
on the phone or in email typically only vaguely matches what winds up on stage), but
it's also great to get that "ear/brain sonic cleansing" from all music/no gear. And,
this is usually doubly so as I typically wander and experience the music at
different places in the hall -- near/far, left/right, high/low.
Free to roam, good PR, ear alignment, no admission charge, no audience: It's a
multiple-win situation, highly recommended if you have the opportunity. :)
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
Scott Dorsey
>I do a "customer service" bit with my classical clients by attending their
>orchestral and choral concert dress rehearsals, n/c to them.
music every written for FREE?
John Williamson
> Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>> I do a "customer service" bit with my classical clients by attending their
>> orchestral and choral concert dress rehearsals, n/c to them.
>
> WHAT? You mean you get to listen to concerts of some of the greatest
> music every written for FREE?
>
by the sound of it.
Heaven...
ChrisCoaster
wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
Not to mention passing GAS. Nothing like that slightly \off\ bass
note snuck in from within a few seats of ya...LOL!
-ChrisCoaster
Frank Stearns
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>>> I do a "customer service" bit with my classical clients by attending their
>>> orchestral and choral concert dress rehearsals, n/c to them.
>>
>> WHAT? You mean you get to listen to concerts of some of the greatest
>And without the audience chomping crisps and coughing in the quiet bits,
>by the sound of it.
>Heaven...
Ty Ford
(in article
<3ec464bb-7332-41b4...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>):
Your words speak volumes.
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
Ty Ford
(in article <j79lga$mse$1...@panix2.panix.com>):
>> Therefore that last comment about my "ears are not like anyone elses
>> you know" has in my eyes destroyed your credibility when speaking
>> about either my ears, the Sony MDR-V6/7506, or any other headphone.
>
> The MDR-V6 has such a huge gargantuan treble boost that it's hard to ignore
> it. I mean, we're talking more than a 12dB boost here, it's not a subtle
> thing. It's far more dramatic than the differences between normal ears.
> Listen to fiddle on it, and then on some calibrated reference speakers known
> to be flat
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
ChrisCoaster
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:46:18 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
> >> Therefore that last comment about my "ears are not like anyone elses
> >> you know" has in my eyes destroyed your credibility when speaking
> >> about either my ears, the Sony MDR-V6/7506, or any other headphone.
>
> > The MDR-V6 has such a huge gargantuan treble boost that it's hard to ignore
> > it. I mean, we're talking more than a 12dB boost here, it's not a subtle
> > thing. It's far more dramatic than the differences between normal ears.
> > Listen to fiddle on it, and then on some calibrated reference speakers known
> > to be flat
>
> Watch out, Scott! He'll get upset and try to hurt your feelings.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
_____________________
Not Dorsey. At least with Scottso I can reason back & forth
intelligently. And he is changing, slowly, probably with a
sledgehammer to get through my thickheadedness regardng data!, how I
evaluate speakers/headphones and sound itself. I'm learning to look
beyond the graphs.
-CC
Ty Ford
(in article
<ef4645ae-398e-469f...@f5g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>):
> According to this site's graph,
> http://www.headphone.com/headphones/sony-mdr-v6.php There is a pronounced dip
> in the V6's response, about -5dB down, just below 6kHz. From there it
> steadily rises up, about 10dB, to about
> +5dB on the graph at around 9kHz. So yes, relative to that 5.9kc trough,
> there is a 10+ db boost there. What's making that boost so apparent is the
> trough just below it in frequency, so of course it's noticeable.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
ChrisCoaster
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:58:45 -0400, ChrisCoaster wrote
> (in article
> > According to this site's graph,
> > steadily rises up, about 10dB, to about
> > +5dB on the graph at around 9kHz. So yes, relative to that 5.9kc trough,
> > there is a 10+ db boost there. What's making that boost so apparent is the
> > trough just below it in frequency, so of course it's noticeable.
>
> Ah, so, NOT FLAT. Apology accepted!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
______
BUT - and this mama's a big ol but - MY ears can tolerate that hf
anomaly better than a similar anomaly in the SRH-440. Again, ymmv!
And I can already see your response Ty: "Your ears are weird, Marcy!".
But that's just fine, considering the source. :)
-ChrisCoaster
Arny Krueger
news:lM-dnVyqq6sZeQXT...@giganews.com...
> The impedance graphs are almost irrelevant, unless you are using low power
> portable devices.
case would be the use of a resistive attenuator on the output of a power
amp, which is commonly done in consumer receivers.
> It is interesting that you feel the HD280 and the MDR-V6 sound similar to
> you, because, to me, they sound completely different. The HD280 sounds
> extremely thin and up-tilted. The MDR-V6 has bloated bass, is a little
> muddy, but a balanced tonal rendition.
dependent on the acoustics of your ears which vary by individual.
Most everybody with ears and agrees with you that the MDR 7506/V6 have
bloated mid bass and are rough in the high end. They do measure pretty good
on a standard headphone coupler.
I suspect that the HD 280s were designed to be MDR 7506 killers. Kinda sorta
similar sounding but the 280s are smoother on the top, avoid the mid-bass
bloat, and have far more extended response due to the far better sealing of
the pads. Thye also have pretty fair isolation which is important for use in
live recording, but it still isn't really good enough.
> There is a general problem with sealed cans. The volume enclosed at the
> back of the diaphragm is of the same order of magnitude as the volume in
> front of the can, which depends upon how big your pinnae (external ears)
> are. This makes a sealed can sensitive to the enclosed volume around your
> ears, which varies between persons. In my opinion, since I am not a
> headphone designer, different people are more likely to have different
> opinions of sealed-back headphones than open back.
MDR 7506s are extremely variable in how they seal against the ear, and
compared to 280s mostly they don't. I think of 7506s as being open ear
headphones or closed ear. Someplace in-between. I take the bloated mid-bass
as Sony's substitute for real bass.
> From the design point-of-view, sealed back is a difficulty to be overcome.
> It provides isolation, but in terms of every other design goal, it is a
> detriment.
generated to compenstate for what just leaks away. This makes the classic
580/600 open ear phones pretty spectactular considering that they are so
open-ear and do actually have pretty good bass for most people.
Arny Krueger
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:j745s5$9mc$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>
>>I also noticed the "Impedance" graphs for all these cans and have to
>>ask the following questions:
>>
>>Which is more important, chicken/egg style: Frequency Resp or
>>Impedance per frequency?
>
> drive headphones from relatively high-Z sources (and that means most of
> the crappy drive stages inside consoles and iPods), then you might care
> about load impedance. If you're driving from a nice big headphone amp,
> you don't care amuch.
The comment about ipods being high impedance sources differs from other
sources.
http://members.chello.nl/~m.heijligers/ipod/Performance/measurements.html
"The output impedance of the headphone jack is about 5 Ohm (measured using
white noise),"
In my book 5 ohms qualifies as being a relatively low impedance source for a
pair of headphones. To me, high impedance is in excess of 32 ohms. Several
hundred ohms are possible with consoles and consumer audio gear.
Competitive players such as the Sansa Clip/Fuze are even lower:
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/sansa-clip-measured.html
"Output Impedance: An extremely impressive 1 ohm (dedicated headphone amp
territory) "
The Clip/Fuze also use an output circuit with no coupling capacitor, which
extends its impedance down to very low frequencies.
I believe that later versions of the iPod picked up similar circuitry along
the way.
ChrisCoaster
> "soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
Now by bloated Arny do you mean "tubby" - as in the 120s-150s? Again
I'm going by what I hear and I didn't pick that up from my 7506s at
least. Mine are a year old.
-CC
ChrisCoaster
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:j745s5$9mc$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
>
> >>I also noticed the "Impedance" graphs for all these cans and have to
> >>ask the following questions:
>
> >>Which is more important, chicken/egg style: Frequency Resp or
> >>Impedance per frequency?
>
> > It depends what problem you're trying to address. If you are trying to
> > drive headphones from relatively high-Z sources (and that means most of
> > the crappy drive stages inside consoles and iPods), then you might care
> > about load impedance. If you're driving from a nice big headphone amp,
> > you don't care amuch.
>
> The comment about ipods being high impedance sources differs from other
> sources.
>
> "The output impedance of the headphone jack is about 5 Ohm (measured using
> white noise),"
>
> In my book 5 ohms qualifies as being a relatively low impedance source for a
> pair of headphones. To me, high impedance is in excess of 32 ohms. Several
> hundred ohms are possible with consoles and consumer audio gear.
>
> Competitive players such as the Sansa Clip/Fuze are even lower:
>
> http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/sansa-clip-measured.html
>
> "Output Impedance: An extremely impressive 1 ohm (dedicated headphone amp
> territory) "
>
> The Clip/Fuze also use an output circuit with no coupling capacitor, which
> extends its impedance down to very low frequencies.
>
> I believe that later versions of the iPod picked up similar circuitry along
> the way.
Sigh... If somone could just tell me in plain English!! I've seen a
few impedance graphs for cans that resemble the Verrazono(or Golden
Gate for you West Coasters!) Bridges. The left tower would be in the
100s and the right somewhere above 1kHz. At those points, would the
sound arond those frequencies be boosted or attenuated relative to the
low areas of impedance? And would this difference occur with the
phones driven from a high or low imedance output?
I'm sorry, I understand technical concepts pretty much but cannot wrap
my head around the actual math. :(
-ChrisCoaster
Arny Krueger
>
> It is very difficult for open ear headphones to have deep extended bass.
> MDR 7506s are extremely variable in how they seal against the ear, and
> compared to 280s mostly they don't. I think of 7506s as being open ear
> headphones or closed ear. Someplace in-between. I take the bloated
> mid-bass
> as Sony's substitute for real bass.
> > From the design point-of-view, sealed back is a difficulty to be
> > overcome.
> > It provides isolation, but in terms of every other design goal, it is a
> > detriment.
benefit and with no shortcomings, but closed back done right isn't all that
bad.
> Open back is just as tough if not toughter as a lot of bass has to be
> generated to compenstate for what just leaks away. This makes the classic
> 580/600 open ear phones pretty spectactular considering that they are so
> open-ear and do actually have pretty good bass for most people.
_____________________________
> Now by bloated Arny do you mean "tubby" - as in the 120s-150s?
>Again 'm going by what I hear and I didn't pick that up from my 7506s at
headphone sound being dependent on the listener, his ears and his
experiences, before even one person will understand what I have wriiten...
My 7506s are more than a decade old, but they sounded somewhat bloated and
tubby in the mid bass on the day I bought them. Not bad, but colored that
way.
I've read many others say the same thing. Some say that the tubbiness is so
bad they can't stand 'em. Play test tones through 7506s and HD 280s and
consider the differences that you hear in the bass and lower midrange.
Arny Krueger
audio without people spoon-feeding you!
> I've seen a few impedance graphs for cans that resemble the Verrazono(or
> Golden
Gate for you West Coasters!) Bridges. The left tower would be in the
100s and the right somewhere above 1kHz. At those points, would the
sound arond those frequencies be boosted or attenuated relative to the
low areas of impedance?
acoustic response, but they also represent increases in impedance that cut
the power actually delivered to the device.
Balance the two effects and you have something like flat response.
> And would this difference occur with the
phones driven from a high or low imedance output?
over all response.
>I'm sorry, I understand technical concepts pretty much but cannot wrap
my head around the actual math. :(
least it is really hard. I was a slow study on calculus, so I know trying to
learn engineering not knowing the math and also what its like to learn
engineering knowing the math. The latter is easier. The former may be
impossible, at least beyond a certain point.
-ChrisCoaster
ChrisCoaster
> "ChrisCoaster" <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
Well Arny, welcome to my brain. I'm wired the opposite way. I'm a
quick study at concepts but throw an actual formula or equation in
there and I'll just give you a blank stare. I tend to learn best by
analogies, like the water flow one used to explain impedance.
-CC
ChrisCoaster
> "ChrisCoaster" <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
And I do agree with you regarding everyone's ears being different.
But try telling that to the "flat is still flat" crowd on here.
Y'can't win!
-CCoastahhh
Ron Capik
>>
>>> I'm sorry, I understand technical concepts pretty much but
>>> cannot wrap my head around the actual math. :(
>>
>> -ChrisCoaster
> ________
> Well Arny, welcome to my brain. I'm wired the opposite way. I'm a
> quick study at concepts but throw an actual formula or equation in
> there and I'll just give you a blank stare. I tend to learn best by
> analogies, like the water flow one used to explain impedance.
>
> -CC
>
thinking of formulas as a system of symbolic analogies.
Take some time and work out your own system of analogies
for the symbols in formulas. Maybe check out some basic
control systems books. They tend to have a lot of mechanical
to electronic to symbolic analogies. You can work out a lot
of stuff with water-pipe analogs. Start small, don't try to figure
the whole thing out in one fell swoop.
Later...
Ron Capik
--