Different signatures on crinacle.com and rtings

Reggaenald

Active member
Apr 23, 2022
5
1
25
Looking at signatures on crinacle.com and rtings.com for different headphones they are several different, for example looking at basically all open back Beyerdynamics the bass is way better on crinacle. How come?
Im not sure which results I’m supposed to trust ^~^*
 

nopiano

Well-known member
I’d recommend listening to headphones. Regardless of sound quality, if they aren’t comfortable on your head they’re a non-starter. I’ve not seen any ratings where they take account of my head!
 

Reggaenald

Active member
Apr 23, 2022
5
1
25
I’d recommend listening to headphones. Regardless of sound quality, if they aren’t comfortable on your head they’re a non-starter. I’ve not seen any ratings where they take account of my head!
Yeah well that I don’t really care about that in this regard. I have a pair of DT 770 and they are nice, but a major factor for why I got them is the flat detailed sound and accurate sub bass. However, the 880 or 990 are even more flat according to crinacle, while on rtings the bass rolls off like it’s “supposed to”. I want to know why that is.
 

nopiano

Well-known member
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with those websites. But if you don’t like the sound then it doesn’t really matter how anybody else rates it.

Generally, the trend in recent years is for boosted bass, which isn’t accurate - but seems to be market-led by rap and house music. A rolled off bass may therefore be truer to the recording.
 

Reggaenald

Active member
Apr 23, 2022
5
1
25
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with those websites. But if you don’t like the sound then it doesn’t really matter how anybody else rates it.

Generally, the trend in recent years is for boosted bass, which isn’t accurate - but seems to be market-led by rap and house music. A rolled off bass may therefore be truer to the recording.
I got the 770 for critical listening, that’s why I want the sound to be as flat, aka uncharacteristic, as possible. I like the sound of then a lot, that’s not what I’m worried about. 770 have been introduced in the 80s and they haven’t been changed much since. I’m not in the market for normal consumer headphones but studio and reference, Hi-Fi headphones.
The rolled if base is typical for open back headphones, which the 990 and 880 are, the 770 are closed back and therefore their bass accuracy is better, in this case impressively good.
I don’t want or need headphones that “sound good”. I want headphones that are good and reproduce the sound as naturally as possible. That’s why I’m asking why the signatures are so different on these (otherwise very well know amongst Hi-Fi interested) websites, because I want the best reference headphones I can get (within that price range).
Generally I don’t listen to new music or House music, at least not new hours music. The 770 are phenomenal for (old school) Hip Hop, Reggae as well as classical and basil lay all kinds of music. Because they are studio headphones.
 

Gray

Well-known member
I don’t want or need headphones that “sound good”. I want headphones that are good and reproduce the sound as naturally as possible.
Well do yourself a favour and try Sennheiser HD-560S.

As for different test results - depends on who's doing the tests.
As you probably know, the position on the same head (let alone different head sizes / ear shapes) can have a massive effect on sound.
Add to that the fact that not everybody even describes what they hear in the same way....and you might as well not bother with reviews.

If you match your requirements better for the price (or much higher price) than the 560S, let me know 👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvShrug

Reggaenald

Active member
Apr 23, 2022
5
1
25
Well do yourself a favour and try Sennheiser HD-560S.

As for different test results - depends on who's doing the tests.
As you probably know, the position on the same head (let alone different head sizes / ear shapes) can have a massive effect on sound.
Add to that the fact that not everybody even describes what they hear in the same way....and you might as well not bother with reviews.

If you match your requirements better for the price (or much higher price) than the 560S, let me know 👍
I’m not interested in open backs as of right now. Somewhat unfortunately.
I use my 770s as my main headphones for basically everything I do except for sport, but that includes on commutes and just doing everyday task were I appreciate their somewhat useful isolation. I’ll definitely get open backs once I’m more invested in music and music production.
Also im talking about signatures, objective measurements with high quality standardised gear. I’m not talking about subjective reviews but hard data. Both websites name their gear, and both use high quality gear. But yet the results are vastly different. All I want to know is why and which is more accurate. For now I’ll most likely stick with my Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro’s, but for future reference I’d like to know which of both sides I can “trust more”.
 

Gray

Well-known member
....but for future reference I’d like to know which of both sides I can “trust more”.
Objective testing of headphones will necessarily involve dummy heads. Positioning therefore can still be critical to the results.
With identical equipment and positioning, I wouldn't expect to see vast differences.

Best I can suggest is that you compare the objective FR plots / figures with those the manufacturer specifies and see who is most consistently closest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggaenald

Reggaenald

Active member
Apr 23, 2022
5
1
25
Objective testing of headphones will necessarily involve dummy heads. Positioning therefore can still be critical to the results.
With identical equipment and positioning, I wouldn't expect to see vast differences.

Best I can suggest is that you compare the objective FR plots / figures with those the manufacturer specifies and see who is most consistently closest.
Thanks.
Unfortunately Beyerdynamic doesn’t provide much apart from marketing slang and vague figures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gray

SteveR750

Well-known member
Mar 11, 2005
560
33
18,920
What crinacle (and others) are doing is measuring different phones frequency response, and then suggesting EQ settings to bring them as close to neutral. If you search Dr Sean Olive and Harman Curves, you'll understand the research that's been done to determine the optimum frequency response. So if you're in search of accuracy over say a flavoured pleasure, then that's what you should do. Personally I think EQ is mandatory with both headphones to eliminate any obvious shortcoming and to tailor to your preference, and for speakers for room correction. I use Roon as my streamer on my desktop system that has a good built in PEQ.
Hope this helps.
 

EvShrug

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2022
36
22
45
TLDR; it’s best not to put much stock into measurement graphs.

I’m with @Gray here… if you knew how much the graph changes just from wiggling the position while the contact point of the pads don’t move, or a different width measurement head, you would put far less faith in graphs. This is why good measurements require an averaging of several “seatings,” and dialing in a decent data set takes time.

Furthermore, whether the rig is an expensive full head and upper torso simulator, a pair of ears on a stick, or just a straight tube with a mic on one end, universally a headphone will NEVER sound the same as it is measured. It may seem to reviewers to be a method to add some objectivity and legitimacy to their opinions, but the big headphone manufacturers understand there are still some inaccuracies and variable results with the full measurement rigs that cost well above $50k. If you buy a head and torso simulator, they come with a factory measured frequency response to show how that individual sample varies from other measurement heads from the same production line. So, they are not comparable to eachother. In fact, your own ears act as a filter, which colors and “EQ’s” the sound of everything you hear, more uniquely than a fingerprint. Your “neutral” is different from someone else’s “neutral.” At best, reviewers disclose how frequencies above a certain pitch can no longer be accurately measured, but they don’t empathize this point which would decrease the perception of legitimacy that they are going for with graphs in the first place, and sometimes gaslight the reader by saying the reader won’t know how to interpret them anyway.

Many measurement aficionados apply a compensation curve that is their “best guess” on how to change a graph from what was measured to what they feel they heard. Since everyone’s guess (and target curve) is a bit different, this is one more reason measurements done by different entities aren’t comparable to eachother.

Lastly… measurements can easily be influenced and manipulated. If you put a rubber band around the head and earcups to increase the clamp pressure, they measure more linear and usually gain better bass extension. If multiple measurements are taken, they can select which ones can back up an opinion they want to make in a review. Sometimes they are tested at unrealistically high volumes in order to have the headphones function outside their intended use to show them “failing” in some way. They can also be visually misleading in comparisons, because they can choose how to overlay the two graphs to emphasize or de-emphasize differences. And reviewers who use graphs rarely give equal weight to brain burn-in… our amazing ability to get used to sounds and compensate them to sound more “natural”over time.

Don’t prostate yourself at the altar of graphs. At best, it’s an imprecise science and a crutch to try and tease apart minute differences, but at worst they are tools used to mislead and support a narrative. They only measure amplitude sensitivity at a given pitch; far too much conjecture is made from these two aspects of data. And if a reviewer is overly positive or negative, ask yourself “where does the money go?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gray

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts