Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Decay Differences in Headphones: Fact or Myth? (Read 4932 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Decay Differences in Headphones: Fact or Myth?

Hi! I've recently heard the argument that cumulative spectral decay plots for headphones are inherently meaningless as their time-scale is usually within 10ms which is below the 20ms effect of temporal masking. Hence, there is no such thing as inherent differences in headphone speed and the characterization of headphones as fast or slow is simply false.

I was wondering if people here could provide any insight on this? Additional sources or literature on the topic would be helpful. Thank you!

Decay Differences in Headphones: Fact or Myth?

Reply #1
I'm not sure what you mean by spectral decay?  Do you mean the impulse response?  Or short time Fourier transform? 

If you mean impulse response it is just the Fourier transform of the frequency response.

Decay Differences in Headphones: Fact or Myth?

Reply #2
I'm not sure what you mean by spectral decay?

He means Cumulative Spectral Decay or Waterfall Plot.


Decay Differences in Headphones: Fact or Myth?

Reply #4
I'm not sure what you mean by spectral decay?

He means Cumulative Spectral Decay or Waterfall Plot.


So basically, the short time fourier transform of the impulse response?


lol that technical phrasing goes way beyond my head. I would need a more layman explanation of what you are saying. I am really just wondering if it is really possible to hear differences in decay for headphones as I've heard people characterize headphones as fast vs slow.

Decay Differences in Headphones: Fact or Myth?

Reply #5
Yes, saratoga.

@money4me247: "Speed" in the subjective sense is primarily, as far as I can explain, a matter of frequency response. In the technical sense it is how far the frequency response extends (a headphone with a roll-off at 16 kHz would be slower than one with a roll-off at 20+ kHz).
"I hear it when I see it."

Decay Differences in Headphones: Fact or Myth?

Reply #6
There's also research on this by Toole.

Resonances don't change speed.
Narrow or high Q ridges (certain bozos call them "ridges of death") are far less audible than broad or low Q ones.

You can even simulate such ridges with all pass filters and listen for yourself...
"I hear it when I see it."