Request For Reviews Here

dang

1768832858250.png
 
Sebastian B said:
dang

View attachment 1965
Click to expand...
it makes you wonder why no one ever fact checked harman research

Screenshot 2026-01-19 083411.png
Ahriman back down but still sat its beating harman lol
graph.png
Not gonna lie it doesn't sound that bad, lol. Kinda sounds like a in-ear microphone recording a speaker somewhere randomly placed in a room. It does sound colored and annoying tho but interesting. Really thumpy bass, lol.
 
Last edited:
It might mean that these A/B test shootouts are not a good way to arrive at a preferred target frequency response. Ahriman's target is extremely bright and sub-bass heavy. Perhaps it's meant to impress upon first impression. Perfect for getting it off the shelves and into consumer hands. However, in longer listening sessions, a listener might prefer a warmer, less sub-heavy sound. The sub bass boost on this target can be very fatiguing quite quickly. Maybe that's not really much of an issue for a lot of consumers though, as most people aren't spending lots of time listening to music.

That's not me though, as I spend many hours a day doing critical listening work, so to be honest, I actually like the stock tuning on the Audeze LCD-5's, Focal Utopia's, Sennheiser HD 650's, Etymotic IEMs, and Neumann HD 30 headphones.

I don't know where the comment went, but someone on one of "he-who-cannot-be-named's" videos mentioned that he actually preferred the Harman target over longer listening sessions.
 
Sebastian B said:
It might mean that these A/B test shootouts are not a good way to arrive at a preferred target frequency response. Ahriman's target is extremely bright and sub-bass heavy. Perhaps it's meant to impress upon first impression. Perfect for getting it off the shelves and into consumer hands. However, in longer listening sessions, a listener might prefer a warmer, less sub-heavy sound. The sub bass boost on this target can be very fatiguing quite quickly. Maybe that's not really much of an issue for a lot of consumers though, as most people aren't spending lots of time listening to music.

That's not me though, as I spend many hours a day doing critical listening work, so to be honest, I actually like the stock tuning on the Audeze LCD-5's, Focal Utopia's, Sennheiser HD 650's, Etymotic IEMs, and Neumann HD 30 headphones.

I don't know where the comment went, but someone on one of "he-who-cannot-be-named's" videos mentioned that he actually preferred the Harman target over longer listening sessions.
Click to expand...
audio is subjective i guess. the whole hobby is ruined because of that. the endgame is headphones reddit. where people showcase pictures of their headphones and amps all day.
 
HiFiASMR said:
audio is subjective i guess. the whole hobby is ruined because of that. the endgame is headphones reddit. where people showcase pictures of their headphones and amps all day.
Click to expand...
Haha, I don’t know. I think you can still say which FR is objectively the best. I’m just saying that the quick A/B test approach might not be valid. In my own extended listening tests, the Ahriman target performs the worst. ****** said that you’re supposed to base your decisions in the shootout on how you feel, but that isn’t what critical listening is all about. Critical listening is about what you hear, not what you feel. When you listen to vocals through the stock LCD-5 FR, you can objectively hear the details in the high end if you close your eyes and focus. The presentation is balanced, but when you compare it to a target with a 9 dB bass and treble boost, it will naturally sound "muddy" or less exciting. ****** also talks about wanting IEMs and headphones to replicate loudspeakers in a room, but that will never be possible. Loudspeakers produce bass that you can feel, but no amount of sub-bass boost will cause IEMs or headphones to recreate that experience. You’ll end up giving yourself listening fatigue. Also, cutting midrange information (especially low mids) has always been a strategy to increase headroom and perceived loudness (loudness wars). Mixing and mastering engineers must always be cognizant of this fact so that they prioritize a balanced frequency response over perceived loudness. The volume knob can always be turned up, and when you adjust for perceived volume differences, a balanced mix will always win.
 
Last edited:
HiFiASMR said:
audio is subjective i guess. the whole hobby is ruined because of that. the endgame is headphones reddit. where people showcase pictures of their headphones and amps all day.
Click to expand...
I think it also about the music preferences of people. I subscribe to the endgame target because I like the musicality and it sound like real life. Some people like bass-heavy shit and they look for that in their gears.

The average people just want to "listen" to music that they like but not critically listening to what's "important". It's a loophole because the "important" preferences of people very very subjective.

The tests should have a proper criteria that is well balanced throughout the human hearing (also subjective) range. In order to push the boundaries of audio, we need experts who care about the same thing. Not some random people with retarded hearing in the internet.
 
The preference bounds imo is genius. Its the best approach to tackle the problem.

The next step should be strictly refining/tightening these bounds and allow people to adjust incrementaly with more controls.

Either way, normies dont care. We are wasting time. Xd
 
KnKn said:
The preference bounds imo is genius. Its the best approach to tackle the problem.

The next step should be strictly refining/tightening these bounds and allow people to adjust incrementaly with more controls.

Either way, normies dont care. We are wasting time. Xd
Click to expand...
I changed the term preference to tolerance. Its more about how bad it deviate from the target and still be acceptable aka tolerance rather than actually being adjusted to taste aka preference. Tolerance is used by manufacturers like red dots shown in this image lol.u87uni.gif
 
I grabbed the ath-r50x and find them absolutely wonderful headphones, would like to know your take/review
 
1769109832322.png


I tuned my Simgot EM6L IEMs by ear, and the frequency response that most closely matches my preferred tuning is the Meze Empyrean II, as measured by SuperReviews.
 
Preamp: -0.2 dB
Filter 1: ON LSC Fc 74 Hz Gain -11.03 dB Q 0.412
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 532 Hz Gain -2.02 dB Q 0.963
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 812 Hz Gain 3.55 dB Q 0.515
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1007 Hz Gain -2.30 dB Q 1.414
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1476 Hz Gain -4.31 dB Q 1.414
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1798 Hz Gain -3.41 dB Q 0.788
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3029 Hz Gain 3.00 dB Q 1.169
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5360 Hz Gain -2.80 dB Q 0.963
 
Last edited:
@HiFiASMR Yeah, it's fairly similar to the HiFiman Edition XS. Super* Reviews says that the main problem with the Edition XS, though, is it's lack of weight, which is probably true.
 
1769117534584.png

I added the 100 Hz bump, and it actually seems to help a lot. For a long time, I wondered why headphones tend to have a bump there. I assumed it had something to do with sub-bass being a major source of distortion, but it turns out it simply sounds better that way. The 100 Hz bump adds weight to vocals in a way that a sub-bass boost doesn’t. Sub-bass on IEMs and headphones doesn’t sound particularly good anyway.

I also shifted the high-mid peak to 3.5 kHz, which happens to be where Beyerdynamic places it on the DT 990. I ended up leaving the treble alone, since it’s extremely difficult to tune correctly. I initially reduced the 6 kHz region by 3 dB due to a tonality issue, but that issue seemed to disappear after increasing 3.5 kHz by 3 dB. Anyway, I’m very pleased with this tuning.
 
Last edited:
There does seem to be a tonality issue between 5 kHz and 6 kHz, though.
 
Here are the updated filters:

Preamp: -0.6 dB
Filter 1: ON LSC Fc 74 Hz Gain -11.03 dB Q 0.412
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 532 Hz Gain -2.02 dB Q 0.963
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 812 Hz Gain 3.55 dB Q 0.515
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1476 Hz Gain -4.00 dB Q 1.169
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1798 Hz Gain -3.41 dB Q 0.788
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2896 Hz Gain -2.52 dB Q 2.972
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3641 Hz Gain 3.68 dB Q 1.707
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5360 Hz Gain -2.00 dB Q 0.963
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 7610 Hz Gain -0.07 dB Q 2.473
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom