Is there a reason you used the 3PPO 5128 DF HRTF as measured by B&K instead of the Diffuse Field for the same head calculated by Oratory1990 from the relatively much more precise 12PPO Free Field data supplied by B&K?

Sean Olive from Harman, Linus Media Group, and Headphones.com are all using the latter for the baseline DF response, so I’m just curious if there’s a particular reason you chose the former. Thanks!

Truly one of the Hifiman moments of all time.

Apr 23, 2023 12:43 AM By Anonymous212

230

A lot of these things feel like tuner/tweaker options that 99% of the public, looking for quality headphones based on review data, likely wouldn’t invest in. I think what’s most important to remember is that Rtings is a limited staff with a limited amount of time and money, so what time they do spend should be spent on things that bring the most benefit to the most people.

The first point alone is the most important as it would allow any of us—power user or not—to do the titular untangling of the spaghetti necessary to actually compare data between two headphones.

If they want to just do that, fine. That’s an improvement and it’s one that would be worth it even if they didn’t do the other things.

However, I assume as a firm with a vested interest in the continued clicks of people who care about headphone measurements, they’d likely want to maximise that potential and even have a chance of taking clicks away from their competitors.

Who knows what their goals are here though, yk? Not me, that’s for sure :D

Are there any other measurements other than sound profiles that you would value that could benefits from improved comparison options?

Honestly, frequency response is by far the most important for comparability, as it has the most robust correlation with preference. Focus on that and we’re good :D

Mar 21, 2022 05:20 PM By thomaslmusic55

280

Hi, I guess I’ll agree to disagree since I find measurements of consistency/variance to be useful. I will admit that 5 measurements is an extremely small sample size for FRC and that in and of itself may not make the tests that useful as a metric. As someone said in your other thread, . one can always define their own personalized score and just use the information that they think is most relevant. I personally use one that just looks at bass/mid/treble/imaging/FRC/dips+peaks and ignore soundstage completely. Finally, one could also say that “neutral” is not the right term for this score anyhow. There isn’t anything “neutral” per se about their Harman derived target. There are plenty of folks who would say the bass shelf increase e.g. is not neutral. In the end, Rtings has to decide what they mean by this overall score and come up with a satisfying term/definition for it. :) cheers, –tom

To be perfectly clear, I find the measurements of all of these things incredibly useful. RTings is arguably the best when it comes to having a diverse set of data points. It’s just problematic that they use these things to determine a score for Neutral Sound when they have no bearing on such a metric.

While yes, anyone can make their own rating, most people won’t. Most just take the numbers on the screen at face value, and because of that, the Neutral Sound score as calculated by the site is incredibly important for people’s decision making.

I’m one of those who think that Harman is mostly neutral aside from the bass boost being a touch too big, however because of bass SPL only happening around the ears instead of firing at the body, many feel like a flat signature from 300Hz-5Hz sounds bass light because you’re not getting the tactility of air moving and hitting your body… and that’s to say nothing of equal loudness contours’ effects on perceived SPL of bass frequencies.

Mar 21, 2022 08:19 AM By thomaslmusic55

280

Hi, These are all good points. I would say the FRC and peaks/dips should play a bit larger role since how much a headphone may vary from the average measures as well as how much it varies from its own curve gives one a better idea of whether one will hear something similar to the average measured response. Cheers, Tom

Peaks and Dips is literally just FR with a weight matrix. I understand why it’s a metric, but it really doesn’t matter; anything with good Bass/Mid/Treble accuracy scores will also have good Peaks & Dips scores.

Mar 06, 2021 04:13 PM By aroundthebend99

34

I’m a lot less knowledgeable, frankly, but insofar as FRC is more a matter of taste than are “technicals,” I think there’s a lot in these suggestions that sounds right to me. GriffinSilver216: Would your recommendations be the same for in-ear truly wireless as well as for other types of products?

Well, with in-ears, FRC becomes a lot more negligible so the same applies but even moreso. Imaging should still be upgraded in importance in place of Distortion, and Soundstage (as measured on RTINGS) should have no bearing on scores for an in-ear, as it bypasses the pinnae. As far as Treble Accuracy being nerfed, as described in the end of the OP, I still think that’s a good idea due to individual anatomy of the inner ear playing a potentially huge part in causing personalized deviations, though it’s possible treble deviations would be minimized due to lack of interaction with the pinnae.

Jan 11, 2021 04:38 AM By ernzo

110

If it’s called “Frequency Response Consistency”, shouldn’t it be labelled FRC? Besides, you can create your own Rating with the factor Percentages that you prefer, it’s right there in “My Ratings” section in your profile menu..

Thanks for the info; edited.