Please, I need to order asap as I don't live in the U.S. and need it to arrive in time for a relative to bring it
MDR 7506 or cal! 2?
Upvote
Upvoted
2
Downvote
Downvoted
What headphones to get?
posted in
Hardware
Please, I need to order asap as I don't live in the U.S. and need it to arrive in time for a relative to bring it
MDR 7506 or cal! 2?
MDR 7506 or cal! 2?
I can't see where you wrote that, quote please?
Also I really don't understand why that would mean that I have to explain why the mic position would cause that exact change in a closed lid, when I theorized it was open.
But here we go.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j92/udauda/HRTF.gif
Helmholtz resonance in the concha, rolloff and a peak before that. Exactly what we're looking at.
It was to show the variance, it's kind of hard to find measurements for different positions.
I'm pretty sure you can't ignore the hair.
Where did you get that number? I can't read the scale so I don't know if it's 6db.
Not sure if something got lost in translation.
Sample size is irrelevant, you heard it here first folks.
We were talking about treble, not bass.
I can't see where you wrote that, quote please?
Also I really don't understand why that would mean that I have to explain why the mic position would cause that exact change in a closed lid, when I theorized it was open.
But here we go.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j92/udauda/HRTF.gif
Helmholtz resonance in the concha, rolloff and a peak before that. Exactly what we're looking at.
It was to show the variance, it's kind of hard to find measurements for different positions.
I'm pretty sure you can't ignore the hair.
Where did you get that number? I can't read the scale so I don't know if it's 6db.
Not sure if something got lost in translation.
Sample size is irrelevant, you heard it here first folks.
We were talking about treble, not bass.
Also I really don't understand why that would mean that I have to explain why the mic position would cause that exact change in a closed lid, when I theorized it was open.
But here we go.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j92/udauda/HRTF.gif
Helmholtz resonance in the concha, rolloff and a peak before that. Exactly what we're looking at.
It was to show the variance, it's kind of hard to find measurements for different positions.
I'm pretty sure you can't ignore the hair.
Where did you get that number? I can't read the scale so I don't know if it's 6db.
Not sure if something got lost in translation.
Sample size is irrelevant, you heard it here first folks.
We were talking about treble, not bass.
>>Also that testing "methodology" won't get you consistent results anyway.
>Of course not, we have no idea how far broken-in each pair he had was.
;
Got anything up to 20khz? That's where the rolloff goes and it takes a few bands to do so, not as sharp as your image -- his scale is clearly logarithmic as well.
;
He says numbers at various points and I believe it's a 12db window. Could easily be wrong, but it's definitely more than a db or two.
;
Once or twice my mouse has suddenly jolted down 40px. Does the fact that it has only happened one or twice mean that it hasn't happened? No.
Statistical significance lets you generalize things. "These two frequency graphs happen to be different" is not a general thing. Someone making an off-handed statement and directly providing the source/reasoning for it really isn't something that you can justifiably ruin someone's help thread over. If nobody could ever get away with omitting the "might" or "can" or "sometimes" then the world would fall apart.
;
And people who talk about MDR-V6 burn-in talk about bass. Don't look so desperately for points to make at every single statement, it's embarrassing. Not everything is important.
>>Also that testing "methodology" won't get you consistent results anyway.
>Of course not, we have no idea how far broken-in each pair he had was.
;
Got anything up to 20khz? That's where the rolloff goes and it takes a few bands to do so, not as sharp as your image -- his scale is clearly logarithmic as well.
;
He says numbers at various points and I believe it's a 12db window. Could easily be wrong, but it's definitely more than a db or two.
;
Once or twice my mouse has suddenly jolted down 40px. Does the fact that it has only happened one or twice mean that it hasn't happened? No.
Statistical significance lets you generalize things. "These two frequency graphs happen to be different" is not a general thing. Someone making an off-handed statement and directly providing the source/reasoning for it really isn't something that you can justifiably ruin someone's help thread over. If nobody could ever get away with omitting the "might" or "can" or "sometimes" then the world would fall apart.
;
And people who talk about MDR-V6 burn-in talk about bass. Don't look so desperately for points to make at every single statement, it's embarrassing. Not everything is important.
>Of course not, we have no idea how far broken-in each pair he had was.
;
Got anything up to 20khz? That's where the rolloff goes and it takes a few bands to do so, not as sharp as your image -- his scale is clearly logarithmic as well.
;
He says numbers at various points and I believe it's a 12db window. Could easily be wrong, but it's definitely more than a db or two.
;
Once or twice my mouse has suddenly jolted down 40px. Does the fact that it has only happened one or twice mean that it hasn't happened? No.
Statistical significance lets you generalize things. "These two frequency graphs happen to be different" is not a general thing. Someone making an off-handed statement and directly providing the source/reasoning for it really isn't something that you can justifiably ruin someone's help thread over. If nobody could ever get away with omitting the "might" or "can" or "sometimes" then the world would fall apart.
;
And people who talk about MDR-V6 burn-in talk about bass. Don't look so desperately for points to make at every single statement, it's embarrassing. Not everything is important.
email/bbs quotes, popular in IRC and everywhere that doesn't use bbcode.
email/bbs quotes, popular in IRC and everywhere that doesn't use bbcode.
Tell me the scale so I can find something that matches the frequencies.
It also won't nearly be as sharp since he probably doesn't bury the mic in his concha, but it can easily get you a few dB difference.
That's not how statistical significance works.
You "measured" the mouse countless times. Once or twice it jumped. >99% it behaved linearly. It is reasonable to assume that you can use the mouse as if it were linear. Is it working perfectly? No, but that's not what statistic are supposed to tell us.
If you measured the headphones just as often and it showed treble rolloff only once, would you claim it has treble rolloff? I don't think so.
I'm not asking for 100 tests, just at least 2. If you get similar results you probably did it right. If one is vastly different something went wrong.
Another example: We've got one measurement of these headphones showing treble rolloff. Therefore these headphones always have treble rolloff.
Try to start a car. It doesn't start after 2 seconds. We can therefore conclude it will never start after 2 seconds.
I think you'll agree that what someone would actually do is try again. If they get the same result multiple times they'd conclude it won't start and something is wrong.
You say burn in is mostly in the bass? But you're trying to explain a difference in treble with burn in. I don't understand.
EDIT: I've overlooked something. It might actually be break-in. But not the diaphragm. I still don't believe any manufacturer worth their salt would build a driver that degrades that much that quickly.
It's the ear cushions!
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-it-is-generally-known-that.html
Everything makes sense now!
Tell me the scale so I can find something that matches the frequencies.
It also won't nearly be as sharp since he probably doesn't bury the mic in his concha, but it can easily get you a few dB difference.
That's not how statistical significance works.
You "measured" the mouse countless times. Once or twice it jumped. >99% it behaved linearly. It is reasonable to assume that you can use the mouse as if it were linear. Is it working perfectly? No, but that's not what statistic are supposed to tell us.
If you measured the headphones just as often and it showed treble rolloff only once, would you claim it has treble rolloff? I don't think so.
I'm not asking for 100 tests, just at least 2. If you get similar results you probably did it right. If one is vastly different something went wrong.
Another example: We've got one measurement of these headphones showing treble rolloff. Therefore these headphones always have treble rolloff.
Try to start a car. It doesn't start after 2 seconds. We can therefore conclude it will never start after 2 seconds.
I think you'll agree that what someone would actually do is try again. If they get the same result multiple times they'd conclude it won't start and something is wrong.
You say burn in is mostly in the bass? But you're trying to explain a difference in treble with burn in. I don't understand.
EDIT: I've overlooked something. It might actually be break-in. But not the diaphragm. I still don't believe any manufacturer worth their salt would build a driver that degrades that much that quickly.
It's the ear cushions!
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-it-is-generally-known-that.html
Everything makes sense now!
It also won't nearly be as sharp since he probably doesn't bury the mic in his concha, but it can easily get you a few dB difference.
That's not how statistical significance works.
You "measured" the mouse countless times. Once or twice it jumped. >99% it behaved linearly. It is reasonable to assume that you can use the mouse as if it were linear. Is it working perfectly? No, but that's not what statistic are supposed to tell us.
If you measured the headphones just as often and it showed treble rolloff only once, would you claim it has treble rolloff? I don't think so.
I'm not asking for 100 tests, just at least 2. If you get similar results you probably did it right. If one is vastly different something went wrong.
Another example: We've got one measurement of these headphones showing treble rolloff. Therefore these headphones always have treble rolloff.
Try to start a car. It doesn't start after 2 seconds. We can therefore conclude it will never start after 2 seconds.
I think you'll agree that what someone would actually do is try again. If they get the same result multiple times they'd conclude it won't start and something is wrong.
You say burn in is mostly in the bass? But you're trying to explain a difference in treble with burn in. I don't understand.
EDIT: I've overlooked something. It might actually be break-in. But not the diaphragm. I still don't believe any manufacturer worth their salt would build a driver that degrades that much that quickly.
It's the ear cushions!
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-it-is-generally-known-that.html
Everything makes sense now!
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.