A More Accurate Determination of Headphones Neutrality from Frequency Response Graphs




This is my current way of studying headphones Frequency Response Graphs.

The first picture shows a comparison (from Headphone.com) of the AKG K712 vs the K702. In that picture, we look at the zero line to determine the neutrality of the headphones, and the predominance of one frequency range over another, IN Relation to the zero line and IN Relation to each other.
Is that accurate? Is there are a more accurate way of determining the quality of a headphones? I've been considering this for a while....

Hence, now I'm considering determining the quality or neutrality (neutral sound without anything being too emphasised) of headphones IN Relation to a resituated zero-line that is placed 3-4 dbr down from the highest point or plateau of the bass-midrange curve on the left. And then, from there, we see the relation of the rest of the frequencies TO the plateau. I illustrate it in the latter two pictures with my own 'zero' line.

Of course, in this, we may not even need a zero-line and can just pay attention to how the frequencies stand in relation to each other. But resituating the zero-line to the 'ideal' below the highest plateau of the bass-midrange, and then looking at the rest of the frequency might give us a clearer picture of the degree to which the headphones might be warm vs bright.

In the latter two pictures, it appears that the AKG K712 is the more 'neutral' of the two.


NOTE: treble should roll-off after 1k so as to not be too prominent. If it is maintained at the zero-line, it will stand out too much as the human ear is very sensitive to that range. Hence, the need for the treble to be rolled off after 1k.

The K702 is slightly on the 'bright' side as the as it does not roll-off (downward) after 1k (1,000) and maintains its roughly treble-prominence throughout till 10k (10,000). Mastering with such headphones might see one toning down the trebles, thinking its enough, where actually, when you play it in normal headphones that has a treble roll-off, it will not be enough.


The K712's only problem is that the treble rolls-off a bit to early at 600hz. However, the rest of the treble range thereafter is quite ideal.

Hence, the AKG K712 is quite the significant improvement over the K702.



ed






The Con in Product-Model Variances




So AKG has just released another pro headphones - before you click away because you might not be interested in headphones, this is about more than that, and applicable to just about most products you buy these days.

Ok. First we have 'studio', then 'reference', then 'superior', now 'master' reference headphones.
What next? 'Premium', 'emperor', 'king of the world', 'guardians of the galaxy', headphones. I really marvel at this sort of sales strategy as it is a monumental con.
Whenever improvements are made, the new headphones should just replace the older model, and sold for the SAME price as the older model.

You know what I think. This is just a whole load of concrap. Like I was saying to a friend a couple of weeks ago - yes, I actually talk about such stuff in my offline life too now and then - when it comes to professional headphones, there is no need for higher and higher level or entry-level models. All you need is one model for open-back, and another for closed-back headphones as they serve different purposes.

Whenever improvements are made, the new headphones should just replace the older model, and sold for the SAME price as the older model. 'Choice' in this area is just a con as it enables them to put out improved models as models of another category altogether, and from that, they can justify a higher price. And AKG also states that these 'top of the line' models are made in austria so as to further justify the price hike. No man. All 'made in China' ones should see a price drop and 'made in austria' ones should maintain their old prices.

'Choice' in this area is just a con as it enables them to put out improved models as models of another category altogether, and from that, they can justify a higher price.

And people just fall for this ploy all the time. They'll come up with advice like, 'get an entry-level model first, then in a few years time, you will be able to save up for a better one.' No no no. You should not confuse 'the latest model' with 'top end'. That's just a con from all corporations for many products these days. The 'top end' model should be the 'latest model' of the 'old model'. In other words, and in this context, the k812 should replace the k712 just as the k712 should replace all earlier models and so on. And the k872 should be sold for the same price as earlier professional closed-back models whilst all those older models should be discontinued.

What this sort of strategy, or scam, allows them to do is to always hold back existing technology and produce current headphones with lower technology, split them up into different level models, and sell them all for different prices, when what ought to be done is that they should be sold for the same price as the lower end models as replacements of these.

What we are seeing here folks, is another instance of corporate piracy.  Through these scam strategies, they're just trying to model a new perspective in you so that you deem nothing amiss in these variances in their models.


ed




Capitalism, Scams and Headphones


What you see in the picture illustrates a scam.  You may not be interested in Headphones, or  Frequency Response Graphs, but the principle here is cross applicable.  So just consider the following.

Let me keep it simple. AKG produced the k601 some years ago, with an MSRP of $300usd. Then, after a while, it discontinued it. You know why? Because the quality of these phones is similar to high end models now being sold at more than a thousand US dollars (click image above for a clearer view of the similarity between the $300usd k601 and the $2000usd Audeze LCD X).


So AKG realised that they were selling us real quality at a relatively low price with the K601. Now, even for the best AKG headphones, like the K712 or K812, the latter of which costs more than a thousand dollars (approx: $1500usd), you can't get the quality of the k601 in terms of frequency response curves. (click image below.  The $1500usd K812 is only slightly better only at the 1-3khz region.  But in the rest, of the curve, the $300usd k601 produces a more neutral professional response)

They've decided to hold back technology that they produced a few years ago and for which they made a profit selling for as low as 300usd, SO they could sell us 'higher end' models at 3 or more times the price with LOWER quality. So in future, to get the same quality as the k601, we'll have to pay much more.

capitalism isn't about innovation, but holding it back so much much more money can be made from selling lower quality presented as higher quality, and even higher quality can thus be sold at much much more. And that also means that the price of truly low quality stuff can be sold at a higher price.


You see folks, capitalism isn't about innovation, but holding it back so much much more money can be made from selling lower quality presented as higher quality, and even higher quality can thus be sold at much much more. And that also means that the price of truly low quality stuff can be sold at a higher price.

I've checked out the net on this, and haven't seen anyone realising this scam.  However, some sellers on Amazon US must have realise this as they are selling the k601 for a higher price than its original MSRP.  That is strange as older products are sold at a lower price, unless they realise its good quality and the manufacturer has discontinued it for that reason.  Even Apple sells its small-storage mp3 players at a higher price per gb than its discontinued Apple Classic ipod.  It goes on everywhere. 



ed



'Terrorism' and respecting the right to retaliate


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentOnline/posts/10153490303806636


Simon Sammut: How's that latest wave of cultural diversity working out for you Germany

Ed: Before more guys go all 'terminator' on refugees, etc, take a look at your own history books to see who started the ball-rolling.

Cranston Greg: Oh that makes it ok then

Jonny Knight: That's right. Ignore the current problem because we should still be feeling guilty for the actions of our ancestors.

Riley Nichols: Another self hating leftist

Ben Hawes: We aren't allowed to defend ourselves against Islamic terrorists today because history? Seems legit

Chris Austin:
Ottoman empire anyone?

Ed: Cranston Greg, is retaliation ok? Or do you think like your colonial predecessors that those who throw a spear in the face of musket fire are 'savages'?



If you thought it was ok to ‘retaliate’ after 9/11, so why begrudge them a similar right in the face of your actions in the middle east?  I’m just using your own standards - except that it wasn’t the middle east that has been bullying and oppressing you like you have them for decades.  



You sound like your colonial ancestors who actually saw people as savages if they threw spears in the face of musket fire.  You obviously think you have the right to shoot without the other side having the right to be pissed off about it.  That’s white supremacism for you.



When we respect others' right to retaliate, then we'll be more circumspect in our efforts to offend in the first place. The evil, my friend, starts with the one who threw the first blow, and in the case of the west, it went on and on for quite a long time didn't it.

Ed: Jonny Knight. 'Ancestors'? The people who did what they did are still doing as they did.

And I suppose you also think that half a million children killed via US and UK embargoes in Iraq in the course of ten years prior to 9/11 is a non-event too.

But its ok, you probably think that white lives matter more.

Ed: Ben Hawes. No. Not repeating your history would be a good place to start.


When we respect others' right to retaliate, then we'll be more circumspect in our efforts to offend in the first place.



ed


Teenage Anorexia, Selfies, and Narcissism




The rise of eating disorders such as anorexia among teenagers is a sign of "narcissism" in society, broadcaster Baroness Joan Bakewell has said.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Baroness Bakewell, who is chairing the Wellcome book prize panel, said she was "alarmed" by the illness.

"No one has anorexia in societies where there is not enough food," she said.
It was "a sign of the overindulgence of our society, over-introspection, narcissism really," she added. - bbc

Well, are you surprised.

Just look at the nonsense the west keeps promoting in their fashions, celeb-worship, lax sexual attitudes, movies, music, pop culture.....

Freedom for such a breed (of narcissists) is not wanting to aspire to more than the worse you can legally do.  In other cultures, the effort to curtail our worse impulses in search for our greater potentials is viewed as freedom - freedom to be more than our first impulses and the appetites of the day dictate.


It is the epitome of a cultureless 'culture' which reduces the mind and spirit to mere commodity and hedonistic self-worship.  Religion, respect for elders, consideration of difference, appreciation of other cultures and identities, all cast aside for mutual validation amongst the young via being contantly 'connected' via children and teen sit-coms, movies, Facebook, pop culture.......

Freedom for such a breed is not wanting to aspire to more than the worse you can legally do.  In other cultures, the effort to curtail our worse impulses in search for our greater potentials is viewed as freedom - freedom to be more than our first impulses and the appetites of the day dictate.

I'll stick to traditional religions that incite critical introspection. And I'm sure many of the ancestors of the present west would agree with me too.

As for parents in both the western and non-western world.......don't wean your kids off their pacifiers only to replace it with a mobile device, as these 'mobile devices' are generally an intravenous drip that keeps them sedated and oblivious to the art of critical introspection.



ed






Music Production with Consumer Headphones - Sony MDR1a




Just a short 1min 48sec tune i put together and mastered with the Sony MDR1a Headphones to see how it would turn out without doing it on my 'professional' monitors or studio headphones. I then cross-checked the sound on my Macbook Pro speakers.

Didn't spend much time on it, just about half an hour composing and 15 mins mastering to see if the Sony can deliver ok masters with minimal effort and non-'professional' headphones.





produced by: ed
genre: Techno Jazz (work in progress)

Way Too Much Eurocentric Ado About David Bowie



All of the following were published as comments on the Facebook pages on the British, The Guardian, and BBC.  They received rave insults and swearing by a large number of English readers.  One of it, probably due to complains by readers and perhaps The Guardian themselves, led to the a2ed's post being deleted and access temporarily blocked for 24 hours.

The white man, and the God he's made in his likeness, cannot be challenged I suppose. 😉

Whatever the creativity of Bowie, he certainly didn't do much to ease the affliction of gross Eurocentrism in the west.  If anything, and if the response to his demise is anything to go by, it both revealed and reinforced the affliction.


*******



OK OK.   So he was the messiah.  A godsend. A demigod.  The answer to all of humankind's woes.  Forget the produce of the cultures of more than 5 billion people which the west know nothing about, he's the best, and were going to get everyone in the world to think as such with a combo of downplaying all other cultures and saturating the global media with what we valuse in our finite wisdom....and you better not vocalise otherwise.  That's what makes this pro-white propaganda, albeit unwitting.

I like Bowie.  He's on my Walkman.  But I'm also exposed to other cultures.  And hence, I'm not fooled into thinking all of the above.  But I do know that in the west, pop culture comprises a significant bulk in the bulge of their culture.  And so I think I know why all this fuss and news after news after news after news about it.

Methinks, all this indicates, not the existence of a culture, but what people get fixated on when they don't have much of one.

Let's just forget that he made millions and millions from it at the same time whilst people keep begging each other for pennies to end poverty to finding a cure for diseases.  So, in effect, these 'star' worshippers are actually sacrificing their lives and the lives of their loved ones to maintain these 'stars' over themselves.  What a bunch of dimwits.  I suppose this is what we end up with when we passover traditional saints for singers, etc.  I dare say there is far more fuss over this than there was when half a million kids were killed by US-UK embargoes in Iraq not too long ago.

Many in the UK criticise and ridicule the religious and religion.  In truth, their criteria of religion is based on what traditional religion is.  By doing thus, they leave out the evolving faces of religion which would include their religion of popstar/celeb/royalty/wealth/materialistic worship.  They do not realise that fans and consumers comprise the congregation of their uniquely western religion.  And the problem with all that is that they replace traditional saints of virtue and humility for mere wealthy singers and etc.

Methinks, all this indicates, not the existence of a culture, but what people get fixated on when they don't have much of one.

Sometimes, I think,  people in the west are just, well, the very definition of weird.

P.s. the above critique is actually a challenge to my own biases; a reprimand to myself to reconsider my views which are like quite a few in the west.


*******



The following article was deleted by Facebook from the news site it was published in, and Facebook blocked facebook/according2ed for 24 hours.


David Bowie, like many of his ilk, is an ineffective rebuttal of the deficiencies in the west's socio-cultural-economic milieu, and hence became one of its enduring deficiencies as well as people confused it for an effective one.  He is an icon of how the people have been led to, and underdeveloped by the vision of just one person, or clan of popstars.  They are an opiate, or sedative, that serves a cathartic function of stress-relief to leading people to think that they can change society with a pied piper at the helm.

There is only so much a singer can do to change a society.  After all, the lyrical form is limited by its structure and can only go so far in supplying people a map out of the mess they've made out of their society.  And so, with the ascendence of western popstars as cultural icons, the potentials of the people, and especially the young, to be more than fans and consumers, was severely narrowed.

So many in the west confuse Bowie for a great artist.  They forget that he's more like a small sticky plaster on a gaping wound of western civilisation.  Pretty much insignificant and shallow when it comes to civilisations that had yet to adopt the ways of the white man.

You need to have western 'civilisation' before anything from Angry Birds to Bowie or the Beatles can be confused for adult fare or even make sense or be entertaining.

You need to have western 'civilisation' before anything from Angry Birds to Bowie or the Beatles can be confused for adult fare or even make sense or be entertaining.  For instance,  if you love in Utopia, the idea of the rebel would not make sense.  Same thing here.  Much of western music makes sense only because it helps one make sense of western civilisation.  But it's intrinsic worth is another matter. (I realised thus upon analysing myself as to why I like western pop as much as I do, or why his death did indeed bother me)

That is why the BBC televised report I just saw showed a guy telling the reporter that this fella Bowie was proof that the UK was the 'most creative' in the world.  Man, the arrogance and cultural inbreeding of the white man is mind-boggling.   Childish fellas.

The death of the philosopher went in tandem with the reduction of the citizen to a mere and diminutive corporate and celeb-led consumer and fanboy/girl.


*******



Funny.

When Charlie Hebdo came out with their ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad, people in the west stood up for the freedom of expression.  (I) Analyse this mass breast-beating mourning about some popstar (David Bowie), and the volley of insults and hatred.

Amusing indeed.  And some people say the white man is Godless.


*******



No. Bowie wasn't a 'shape-shifter'.

He just shifted shape within a western mould.  It is only multicultural people whom are the true shape-shifters.

In fact, the Japanese are greater 'shape-shifters' given how they shifted from tradition to Western modernism, and even grew, or underdeveloped enough, to appreciate western popstars like Bowie etc.  It is within the post-colonial context of the psychological and culturally-hegemonic hold of the West that one can understand the popularity of Bowie.  To confuse it as evidence of Bowie's intrinsic worth is self-serving, unintelligent, and pro-Western propaganda.

It is within the post-colonial context of the psychological and culturally-hegemonic hold of the West that one can understand the popularity of Bowie.  To confuse it as evidence of Bowie's intrinsic worth is self-serving, unintelligent, and pro-Western propaganda.

Basically, the Japanese, along with much of the rest of the world were thrust into westernised civilisation and forced to discard much of their own cultures.  Western music then stepped in to serve as an interpretational filter through which sense could be made of being interned within western modernism.  This, together with the self-esteem loss at being overwhelmed by the west, along with the association of all that was western as good, served as the foundation via which much of the tripe that flowed from the west was confused for cordon bleu.

David Bowie, like most western allegedly 'avant-garde' western popstars did what he did on the basis of the little that he knew, based on the much that was made of western culture, and the next to nothing that was and is known about the rest of the 80+% of the planet.

Compared to the produce of quite a few ancient regions of the world, David Bowie, amongst others, are pretty much shallow and juvenile...though there is an aspect of my persona that likes him much.


Ed

'The world'?
Shakespeare to Ballad is 'the World'? 



The World?


BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU POST ANYTHING CRITICAL OF THE WEST ON FACEBOOK



Click to see the censored post on David Bowie



"Interesting isn't it.  When it comes to Charlie Hebdo, the west is all 'likes' for freedom of speech.  But when it comes to systematic and rational critique of the West, you'll have to tread on eggshells around western appetites and their media powerhouses.  Especially if you stand out, in appearance or views, and aren’t white, or a Jew.


THE CENSURED ARTICLE

"David Bowie, like many of his ilk, is an ineffective rebuttal of the deficiencies in the west's socio-cultural-economic milieu, and hence became one of its enduring deficiencies as well as people confused it for an effective one.  He is an icon of how the people have been led to, and underdeveloped by the vision of just one person, or clan of popstars.  They are an opiate, or sedative, that serves a cathartic function of stress-relief to leading people to think that they can change society with a pied piper at the helm.

There is only so much a singer can do to change a society.  After all, the lyrical form is limited by its structure and can only go so far in supplying people a map out of the mess they've made out of their society.  And so, with the ascendence of western popstars as cultural icons, the potentials of the people, and especially the young, to be more than fans and consumers, was severely narrowed.

So many in the west confuse Bowie for a great artist.  They forget that he's more like a small sticky plaster on a gaping wound of western civilisation.  Pretty much insignificant and shallow when it comes to civilisations that had yet to adopt the ways of the white man.

You need to have western 'civilisation' before anything from Angry Birds to Bowie or the Beatles can be confused for adult fare or even make sense or be entertaining.  For instance,  if you love in Utopia, the idea of the rebel would not make sense.  Same thing here.  Much of western music makes sense only because it helps one make sense of western civilisation.  But it's intrinsic worth is another matter. (I realised thus upon analysing myself as to why I like western pop as much as I do, or why his death did indeed bother me)

That is why the BBC televised report I just saw showed a guy telling the reporter that this fella Bowie was proof that the UK was the 'most creative' in the world.  Man, the arrogance and cultural inbreeding of the white man is mind-boggling.   Childish fellas.

The death of the philosopher went in tandem with the reduction of the citizen to a mere and diminutive corporate and celeb-led consumer and fanboy/girl."

_____________________________________________________________


Facebook frowns upon any efforts to undermine western cultural hegemony.  Any efforts to insinuate that there is anything wrong, or biased about western trends and fashions, and especially if it is with regards to that which is popular in the west, might result in temporary blocks or permanent disabling of your account.

That, is one of the hidden manifestations of western Racism.

This is the 2nd time this has happened. The first time was when I had argued with some English posters on the English penchant for dog-walking as a compensation for not having warm and close relationships with people.   I had attempted to show that there are other forms of social relationships pursued in other cultures.  After quite a few vicious insults had been directed at my comments and person, with implications that they know better and hence need not consider how other cultures operated, I had put this reaction forth as a result of 'cultural inbreeding', which was logically and historically true.  Facebook stepped in at that point and removed the comment in The Guardian's Facebook page.  And, now a second time round, probably from my post on The Guardian

(I’m suspecting that it might actually be The Guardian newspaper themselves whom are initiating these removals and censures from Facebook.  This makes me recall another incident a couple of years back when I posted a comment beneath an article on The Guardian website itself by a Jewish woman who stated that Israel can not be a two nation state.  I had commented that there shouldn’t be any reason why the Jews and the Palestinians could not live together, and perhaps form a coalition government.  This comment was promptly removed by The Guardian because it went against the guidelines according to the Guardian.  I’m seeing a trend here.)

There are a few reasons for the need of critiques of the West from non-whites or/and people from other cultures.  One, people from any culture would always be accustomed to particular deficiencies within their culture that they have already compensated for.  Generally, only people from other cultures that do not share such deficiencies,  or whom have yet to compensate for it, will be able to identify these.

Secondly, for non-western people to see another non-western person critiquing the west would go some way in addressing whatever cultural self-esteem issues they suffer arising from the post-colonial psychological aftermath.  You can call it Post-Colonial Self-Diminutive Syndrome. ;)  And by ‘critique’, I mean ‘critique’, and not just some pointless insults or swearing.  That does nothing for the self-esteem of non-white peoples or inspire intelligent respect for their own cultures or potentials as intelligent human beings of as much or more cultural worth in quite a few respects.

Finally, if the west has positioned itself as the cultural determiner for the entire planet,  surely the people have a goddamn right to criticise the content of that which it puts out, or even racistly presents as the best that humanity can come up with.  I think Facebook, amongst others, are highly averse to both raw insults and highly analytical and effective critique of the west,  especially where it goes right down to the very core of that which the west presents as incontrovertible truth.  They may allow it some of the time, but not too often.  There may be some justification for censuring just gross insults without analysis, but to treat analysis in a similar manner because people find it ‘offensive’ is censorship in favour appetite, and in this post-colonial day and age, simply presents all that is western as immutable truth.

Interesting isn't it.  When it comes to Charlie Hebdo, the west is all 'likes' for freedom of speech.  But when it comes to systematic and rational critique of the West, you'll have to tread on eggshells around western appetites and their media powerhouses.  Especially if you stand out, in appearance or views, and aren’t white, or a Jew.

That’s racism.


Ed



Blogger Template by Clairvo