In the late 80's/early 90's I was a Denon dealer and they were one of the top names in CD players back then. For some reason there was a top of the line unit we were throwing in the trash [because it had fallen from a shelf and had a bashed in corner, making it toast, for example].  Out of curiosity I dismantled the remains and discovered hidden away from view, completely obscured by the main internal circuit board, was a very thick metal slab of steel, a metal plate, much heavier than almost all other brands' entire CD design, heck it was even heavier than some of their own receivers. It wasn't attached to anything and served no electrical or heat dissipation purpose. I'm confident the sole purpose was to make the entire product's heft and "bulid quality" seem greater and served no other function.

[I think it was the DCD-3300 or DCD-3000, IIRC, but I'm not 100% sure at this point.]

Plus think of how many forum reviews of amps and receivers we've all read where they felt it to be useful to describe the unit's heft, which they note with some pride, as if that should convey to us something about its quality.

Quote from: mzil on 2014-08-19 04:28:57

Never said "strong".

So? You implied how weight may have skewed the results.

Not just weight. Headphone comfort, cushion size, shape [some contenders are circular and others are ovals of differing shapes and sizes], air seal, headband size, foam thickness, width, configuration [for example rigid/soft/cloth strap/contact area and shape], head clamp pressure,

room noise attenuation curve

and in some instances noise canceling electronic's background hiss [which Olive acknowledges was a problem which needed to be overcome and implies he was confident he successfully did].

In some headphone measurements the inward clamping pressure or contact pressure isn't even accomplished with the headband at all, which will of course vary due to the size setting selected and the user's head size, so instead it is completely bypassed and achieved by a more repeatedly uniform means set to a specific value often expressed in N, newtons:

There seems to be much less focus on how this variable pressure alters the sound these days, compared to the headphone research before the 90's.

Exaggerated contact pressure usually ensures a better seal, true, but also increases level and bass response which is why images of people adding addition force, by hand, is not uncommon in this random collection them wearing headphones

Quote from: mzil on 2014-08-19 20:09:28

Not just weight. Headphone comfort, cushion size, shape [some contenders are circular and others are ovals of differing shapes and sizes], air seal, headband size, foam thickness, width, configuration [for example rigid/soft/cloth strap/contact area and shape], head clamp pressure,

But the LCD is not the most comfortable headphone out of the bunch ... not by far. For me personally, the weight alone would be reason enough not to buy it.

So, how well do the weight and feel of each DUT correlate to this ranking?

But the LCD is not the most comfortable headphone out of the bunch ... not by far. For me personally, the weight alone would be reason enough not to buy it.

So you just admitted in this quote that at least some people, and you seem to include yourself, can discern differences between headphones they are wearing based on head comfort/feel, independently of seeing with their eyes which brand they are currently wearing, or listening to the sound it produces.

We don't need to ponder as to how, exactly, comfort/feel may influence people positively or negatively towards one headphone or another in a "blind" test, any more than we need to ponder how in a blind taste test of Coke versus Pepsi using a paper cup for one versus using a glass for the other might influence the test results. We must serve them the same way, regardless of the test results falling neatly into our preconceived notions of how they "should", based on some other factor(s) we can measure.

I can't for the life of me understand why you don't think head feel needs to be controlled for, regardless of the test results falling neatly into a pattern which matches "flatness of response", considering Olive himself went to great lengths to eliminate any influence from touch via fingers, not head, by his clever use of additional handles being added to each pair of 'phones so users could fiddle with their positioning and ear seal without sensing the headphone cup shape/size...via their fingers.

I've sold headphones professionally for over 20 years and can assure you comfort is subjective. Some customers I've dealt with may like one design yet others may dislike the exact same pair.

Yes, of course you can discern headphones by comfort alone. But the research was not to detect if people can distinguish an LCD from a Bose ... it wasn't an ABX test (which would be trivial considering the 10 dB frequency response differences) ... but which sound signature they preferred. They still tried to reduce influence from comfort (see below).

I've sold headphones professionally for over 20 years and can assure you comfort is subjective. Some customers I've dealt with may like one design yet others may dislike the exact same pair.

Here's a 'best guess' at the headphone  ranking, from the other thread on HA :

HP1 - LCD-2 (Audeze)
HP2 - K701
HP3 - Bose
HP4 - K550
HP5 - Beats
HP6 - Crossfade (v-moda)

So, how well do the weight and feel of each DUT correlate to this ranking?

An ABX test is a subset of another kind of test: a double blind test.

The fact that Olive put plastic handles on the headphones proves he agrees with me that the identity of the headphones' shape or size should be obscured as best possible and he admits that in terms of tactile sensation, short of anesthetizing the listeners' skin from the neck up [ha-ha], he couldn't come up with a way to make the test truly blind.

His headphone preference test wasn't truly blind. To me that's important and worthy of discussion, but if you disagree, whatever.

His headphones preference test wasn't truly blind. To me that's important and worthy of discussion, but if you disagree, whatever.

I also have an independent gripe about the very concept of what "level matching" means when we have grossly differing response curves, as we often do with headphones and speakers.

These are two separate distinct problems in headphone research, IMHO.

I also don't know why ITU BS. 1770 was chosen over other standards, say A-weighting or ISO 226, as examples, which clearly more closely reflect Fletcher Munson equal loudness contours:

c) BS.1770 deals with loudness monitoring, so out of the family of weighting filers above its "K" filter is the only one that actually fits your purpose.

Isn't it interesting that in examining the inflexsion point of the K-weighting, it just so happens to occur at exactly 1000 Hz.

If one didn't know any better they might think it was selected for convenience as an easy to remember ballpark figure rather than measured via precise audiometric accuracy! Wouldn't that be absurd. [ sarcasm]

"Fits my purpose"? Not at all, in fact it seems rotten.

"It may come as a surprise that the ITU uses such basic filtering to define the difference between RMS and loudness, but as they put it, "for typical monophonic broadcast material, a simple energy-based loudness measure is similarly robust compared to more complex measures that may include detailed perceptual models”. The ITU calls such a filter 'K-weighting',

I'll take the "complex methods which involves perceptual models" any day

"NOTE 1 – Users should be aware that measured loudness is an estimation of subjective loudness and involves some degree of discrepancy depending on listeners, audio material and listening conditions."

WHAT!? "Estimation"!?..."Discrepancy"?! "Varies by listener, conditions, and material"?! But, but, but I thought this new fangled method was guaranteed to play everything at the same level, no?! ITU, you are admitting there are scenarios where that might not be true? Then since I know any two divergent frequency response curves have to be able to be precisely level matched, because that is important for my blind studies, then I'll just keep on shopping for a better weighting system which promises me it has no flaws, since I've concocted in my mind that there must be one. Bye-bye ITU BS.1770 .

ITU word document

Until you stop being a moron I will also say bye-bye.