Cita Iniciado por Altaram
Según su teoría unos PX100 se deben escuchar igual que unos HD800, sencillamente porque sus gráficas son muy parecidas. Las diferencias fisicas entre ambos auriculares no importan nada
Pues yo también creo que si las gráficas son muy similares, deberían sonar muy parecidos, aunque no puedo asegurarlo, pero parece lo más lógico. Otra cosa es que los HD800 presenten una menor distorsión a volúmenes elevados, que no creo que nadie niegue. También es cierto que es un ejemplo extremo, ya que los auriculares supraaurales son mucho más propensos a no colocarse de manera "perfecta" sobre el oído que los circumaurales, lo cual puede dar lugar a una baja correlación entre la respuesta en frecuencia medida (para hacer la medición el auricular supraaural se colocará perfectamente en su sitio, supongo) y el balance tonal percibido.

Entre auriculares circumaurales, sin embargo, creo que si se eliminan los sesgos de tacto, peso, comodidad ... y se igualan niveles y respuesta en frecuencia, podría ser imposible distinguir entre unos Superlux y los HD800, por ejemplo. Quedaría la posibilidad de diferenciarlos por la escena sonora, como se comenta, pero si bien por ahora no estoy convencido de que esta solo dependa de la respuesta en frecuencia, tampoco he visto que aportéis ningún dato que demuestre lo contrario, aparte del "como todo el mundo sabe".

Este interesantísimo artículo (no sé si ya se ha puesto) en el que se resumen 3 de los últimos papers de algunos de los principales investigadores de Harman, apunta en la dirección de que efectivamente es posible clonar la respuesta de los auriculares, aunque ni mucho menos es definitivo debido a lo difícil que es clonar la respuesta por encima de 10KHz y a que con auriculares no todo el mundo escucha exactamente el mismo balance tonal debido a las diferencias de sus canales auditivos.

Harman Researchers Make Important Headway in Understanding Headphone Response | InnerFidelity

Resumen para los vagos:

1- Encontrar la curva de respuesta preferida:

For this paper double-blind tests were performed on six popular circumaural headphones (AKG K701 and K550; Audeze LCD-2 v2; Beats by Dre Studio; Bose Quiet Comfort 15; and V-Moda Crossfade LP). Test subjects were unable to see the headphones being placed on their head by the test administrator, and small handles were installed on the headphones so the subject could adjust the headphones on their head without any tactile cues as to which cans they were wearing. This was a two part test where subjects were asked to provide responses on various sound quality attributes (spectral, spatial, dynamics, and distortions) in the first part, and perceived spectral balance and comfort in the second.
Six conclusions were drawn from the experiment:

- Subjects perceived significant differences between the headphone's in the areas of comfort, preferred attributes of sound quality, and spectral balance.

- The most preferred headphones had the least deviation from flat and neutral in spectral balance rating.

- Sound quality attribute preferences and overall spectral balance ratings occurred in separate parts of this two-part test, but there was a strong correlation between perceptions of poor spectral balance and comments associated with low preference rating.

- The more preferred headphones had measurements showing flatter, smoother amplitude response, and better extended bass. The measured amplitude response was generally a good predictor of perceived spectral balance and preference rating.

- The most preferred headphone did not have the 12dB peak at 3kHz which exists in the diffuse field standard curve. Two headphones which did have this peak were judged to be too thin and bright.

- In-ear measurements showed significant variations in amplitude response depending upon the listener and model headphone used. Some headphones varied more than others. How these headphone/listener variations effect the accuracy, reliability, and validity of subjective testing will be explored in future work.
2- Auriculares virtuales (vamos, clonar la respuesta)

In this last paper I'll report on here, the Harman team take the Sennheiser HD 518, measure it, create an inverse filter, and then apply it to the headphone to make it flat. They then take measurements of the six headphones in the first paper, and create filters that represent their response. These new filters are then applied to the flattened HD 518 so as to mimic the sound of the other headphones. Basically, the researchers are making the HD 518 sound like the other headphones in the test. The paper includes a series of graphs comparing the amplitude response of the real and virtual headphones...and the similarity is remarkable in all but the top octave.

Above 10kHz, there are significant difficulties getting reliable and stable amplitude response measurements as even very small positional changes on the measurement coupler causes wild swings in measured response. The researchers chose to not apply any filters above 10kHz.
A number of results were observed:

- Overall, the preference ratings of virtual headphones were lower than with the real headphones, but the distribution of preference was wider with the virtual cans than the real ones. It's a little complicated, so you'd have to read the paper to understand the justifications, but it is thought that subjects having the ability to select from all six headphones at the touch of a button allowed listeners to give a wider and more stable scaling of their headphone preferences.

- Broadly, there was good agreement between the headphone preference ratings in the standard and virtual test (correlation coefficient r=0.85).

- There was also very good agreement on the perceived spectral balance of four of the six headphones. Listeners were essentially asked to draw a frequency response curves while listening to both the real and virtual headphones. These perceived curves were compared and correlation coefficients werevery good at: r=0.98; 0.91; 0.83; and 0.80.

- Two of the headphones had poor correlation coefficients (r=0.05 and 0.69). The AKG K550 is known to have fit problems, and the heavy weight and higher clamping force of the Audeze LCD-2 v2 may have made it identifiable in the standard test. These physical and comfort issues are thought to have skewed the listening test results.
Vamos, que en general hay buena correlación entre las preferencias mostradas con los auriculares reales y con los virtuales. Por supuesto no es definitivo ni mucho menos, habrá que esperar a nuevas investigaciones.

Saludos.