If the goal is to determine which software sounds "best" the simplest test would be to compare pink noise test tons passed through each piece of software in order to determine which one you feel sounds the flattest. What's your conclusion based on these numbers? So I find his question worth asking again, but perhaps in a different way. The end result will be an incredibly different sounding result, not only in 3d image, but in the frequency response, as this phase manipulation results in fairly extreme comb filtering (This can be seen using any binaural/immersive audio plugin or software and seeing how changing position changes the comb filtering). Binaural audio by its very nature implies there will be phase manipulation in order to achieve part of the illusion that the audio exists in a virtual room. NX is completely different in that it's intended to create a binaural illusion. Unless each company sampled the exact same set of headphones, and sampled the same number of averages they will all have slightly different curves. The stock curves are simply an average of however many models of a given headphone they sampled to arrive at the average. Measurement method aside, headphones can have pretty wide inconsistencies which is why SW offers the service where they measure your actual headphones. (For example did they use of a dummy head, and Is it the same model? Did they sample more than one pair? etc) And it's unknown whether each company used the same method to measure the frequency response of each headphone model.
So you would know in the end which company did a good job and which rather not.Ĭlick to expand.Beat's point is that no two headphones are actually identical, even if by the same manufacturer. You will hear differences relatively quickly. Do now all headphones sound the same afterwards? or at least similar? Which tool accomplishes this task best? Use pink noise for a rough impression. Let all tools equalize the headphones with the corresponding preset. Connect 3 different headphones that also sound quite different without tools (e.g. In my eyes a good test for this kind of plugims would be for example: That's why I simply asked the question about the meaning of the measurement. B) because the products are slightly different in quality one way or the other (Sonar didn't have the same headphones as Waves) C).there are more reasons. This is because the plug-in manufacturers A) hardly ever measured the headphone curves under the same conditions. However, even without measuring, it can be assumed that the results will differ among each other. Once more: You may measure as many curves as you want. TB Morphit : Beyerdynamic DT 990, 200% amount of correction, no limiterĪC-R 128 : Scale button set to "LU MOM" at "0.0" when playing the tone file.
POWERCAT WAVES NX PRO
Sonarworks : Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro 250 Ohm Average, Dry/Wet set to 100, output set to 0.0 Waves Nx : Beyerdynamic DT-990 (250 ohm), no head tracker, no room ambiance, set to eq solo playlist?list=PLzFvCAfIq7a2SIBfDhpCytfJ4RHVb_KLY Whoever has some time to waste can now create his own lab and test the flattening of his headphone. This very instructive exercise helped me to configure my DT990. Noise files also reveal their different coloration. Clearly, All Eq plugins have been boosted between range 500Hz-3000Hz. Then, each Eq plugin has been tested with successive tone files dropped onto the audio track. RTings has been used as reference to gather output values vs input amplitude of 90dB.Įach Eq plugin was dropped onto the Master track alongside with AC-R 128 and ReaEq. So I downloaded the demo versions of Waves Nx, Sonarworks and TB Morphit. Recently I wished to understand how some popular Headphones equalizer apply their flattening on my DT990.
0 kommentar(er)
