Headphone Measurements Explained - Square Wave Response

Read about square waves and the most common thing you'll hear is they are made of a fundamental and an infinite set of odd harmonic tones in a very particular amplitude and phase relationship. That's true, of course, but in the real world and with regard to testing headphones, it may not be the best way to think about them. It's a decent place to start though.

Viewing Square Waves as Made of a Fundamental and Odd Harmonic Series
Science_InterpretingSquareWaves_Illustration_HowSquareWavesWorkTo show you how square waves are built from a fundamental tone and its odd harmonics, I created a little Excel spreadsheet. In the spreadsheet (you can download the Excel file here). I used some simple math to create a series of columns holding data that represented the appropriate sine waves that I could then add together to form the square wave. The formulas used also had some variables with which I could control the relative amplitude and phase of the odd harmonics.

The top plot to the left shows the fundamental tone and the first four odd harmonics. The next plot shows the result of simply adding together the amplitude of the signals at each point in time. You can see clearly that the result begins to look quite like a square wave. The third plot shows the result using the first 11 odd harmonics, and you can see does a better job of making a facsimile of a perfect square wave. As more and more odd harmonics are used, the square wave gets closer and closer to the ideal. In band width limited systems--like a DAC that might have a limit of 22kHz for 16/44 CD playback--only a limited amount of odd harmonics available, and square wave reproduction will look quite like the third plot.

There are two other things that can misshape the square wave response: phase and relative amplitude errors between the fundamental and harmonics. In the fourth plot, the phase (time relationship) of the odd harmonics is advanced as the frequency gets higher. In audio electronics gear, all frequencies are delayed a little, but high frequencies typically move through the circuits a little more quickly than low frequencies. The words "group delay" are used to identify this phenomenon. Group delay creates phase error in the timing relationship of all the odd harmonics of a square wave. In the fourth plot to the left, I've introduced some phase error, and you can see how it changed the shape of the square wave some and introduced an overshoot on the leading edge.

Errors in the amplitude relationship of all the odd harmonics can occur if the system's frequency response is not flat. In the second to last plot at the left, I've simulated a tipped-up frequency response (less bass, more treble), and in the last plot I've simulated the opposite with more bass and less treble.

This is a valid way to look at square waves for some applications, but it makes some assumptions about the sine waves being continuous forever that make it a little misleading in terms of the type of square wave testing I do on headphones. For example, in the third plot down, you can see little spikes before the transitions. This is called "pre-ringing." How could an analog system know the signal is about to change and create the pre-ring? Answer: it can't. That's one of the reasons why it's better to look at square wave response as a series of step responses.

Step Response and Square Wave Response
Step response is simply measuring how the device under test responds to an instantaneous shift in level. From 0Volts to 1Volt, for example. As long as the frequency of the square wave used is longer than the lowest frequency of interest, a square wave is simply a series of step responses.

Step response is used broadly in audio electronics and electronics in general to indicate a variety of performance characteristics in the time domain, such as rise time, overshoot, settling time, and ringing. But step response also contains phase and frequency response information. For example, it is one of the speaker characteristics John Atkinson measures to look at the phase coherence of a multi-driver speaker. (His very interesting explanation is here.)

You can also think of step response as a measure of frequency response where the leading edge slew rate indicates the high-frequency limit, and the length of time it can keep the step at the new level an indication of its low-frequency limit. At every point between, you can think of the level of the top of the step response as related to the frequency response at the frequency whose quarter wavelength is equal to the elapsed time since the leading edge of the step/square wave.

Another way to look at it is similar to the summation of a series of odd harmonics we talked about above. You can think of a step response as the amplitude response of a continuous series of equal amplitude narrow-band pulses.


This graphic illustrates the idea that the step response can, in part, be thought of as the plot of amplitude maxima of a series of narrow band pulses swept through the frequency range of interest.

This isn't the whole picture, though, as superimposed on the frequency component of the step response are time domain artifacts like ringing and phase information. The bugaboo about measurements is that if you test for information in one domain to make it perfectly clear, the information in the other domains disappear from view. You can't see time information in the frequency response plot, but it's there and you can calculate it. And you can't see frequency response in the impulse response, but again, it's there. The cool thing about step and square wave response is that you get a nice, albeit hazy and sometimes difficult to interpret, mix of both time and frequency information that, for me, feels a bit more naturally accessible and rich.

Now let's look at the special case of 30Hz and 300Hz square wave testing of headphones, and how to interpret the results.


dalethorn's picture

Reading page 2 here brought tears to my eyes in a couple places, but when I got to the PS-1000 - yikes! Glad I didn't buy that one.

Jazz Casual's picture

So the PS1000's square wave response isn't up to snuff. And it has an abundance of treble, a slightly recessed midrange compared to the Prestige and Reference series Grados and a mid-bass hump. But the PS1000's treble is not at all sharp and nor is it bass lite to my ears. I've read criticisms of this phone for having too much bass. Having heard the Fostex TH900, which has a measurably better square wave response, I found it suffered from a noticeably recessed midrange and overpowering bass. So let's not make the mistake of judging a headphone on how well it measures alone. Imagine if you had judged your Grado PS500 on that basis. You would have denied yourself the opportunity of hearing a headphone, that compelled you to share your positive experience in a forum thread at this very site.  

Alondite's picture

The problem with your ears is that perception differs from person to person, and even within one person's perception as they "adapt" to a particular signature. I occasionally have to check to make sure I don't have the bass boost turned on on my amp with my AD900s, but they certainly have light bass. My GR07s are much closer to neutral in terms of quantity, but when I go to them from my AD900s they sound like nothing but bass. The opposite is true when I do it in reverse. 

These graphs show the objective qualities of the cans. That is, they show how they actually sound regardless of perception. Now even Tyll has said that they don't tell the whole story, but they can give you an idea of the sound characterisitcs of any given headphone. Unless your ears and personal preferences are identical to mine, we are likely going to percieve headphones differently. Such is the problem with subjective experience: it is only valuable to you as an individual. The same is true for any subjective experience. 

However, perceived relativism can still be valuable. You may not find the PS1000 treble to be piercing, but I'm sure you will still find cans that measure as having less treble presence than the PS1000 to, in fact, have less treble. For example, you experience with the TH900 as being recessed in the midrange is likely relative to your own experience rather than to neutral (though there is a bit of a notch in the midrange). 

dalethorn's picture

Now here's a thought Sir Jazz - I just picked up a Sennheiser Amperior at the Apple store in Akron Ohio, where the manager and asst. manager were curious about the headphone business. I pointed them here. But back to the Amperior - very rich sound - the sort of sound I would expect of a Grado PS1000. My wife tried them and remarked "Wow - the bass is great, the highs are rich, and you can hear every detail in the mids. So I was thinking, if you could borrow these for 2 or 3 days and give them a thorough shakedown, how the PS1000 might sound after that.

At $350 USD you wouldn't expect a lot of refinement, but there's still a lot to like...

Jazz Casual's picture

I'd be happy to audition it Mr Thorn. I'll see what I can do. However, being a closed design I wouldn't expect it to have the clarity, airiness and grand soundstage of the PS1000.  

dalethorn's picture

Definitely not the soundstage. No comparison there. But since these properties are interrelated (soundstage does affect perception of clarity and airiness too), that might make the suggestion moot.

Jazz Casual's picture

I've found that closed-back headphones lack the openness and clarity of open-backed models, which I suppose isn't all that surprising. Grados excel at conveying this and the PS1000 even more so.  

frenchbat's picture

Great piece Tyll. Is it your "As I see it" piece ?

Anyway I surely do understand your methodology much better now. Thanks a lot.

Phos's picture

I half suspect if you were to fully dissasemble the XB500 you'd find an inductor in the signal path somewhere.  


Take apart the solo HD and you'd probably find a talking action figure in each cup.  

Tyll Hertsens's picture

"Take apart the solo HD and you'd probably find a gold tooth and a 40 of Old English 800 in each cup."

yuriv's picture

Sounds pretty good too. Better than the UE700 IMO. Time for a proper review?

Also, almost all cheapo IEMs have that extreme elevated bass response with the peaky treble, like you have in the last graph for the Turbines and Beats. For example, JVC, Panasonic, and Philips IEMs. A notable exception is the Monoprice MEP-933.

In some cases, there's an easy mod that fixes the response: Make the vent hole bigger until you get the bass response you want. But if you do only that, you get more noticeable treble peaks, which sound harsh. For that, place a tiny amount of acoustic dampener material in front of the nozzle opening. Tips like Comply TX400 have a wax guard that can hold the absorber in place. (Actually the TX400 by itself helps a lot.)

The result is a much, much better sounding cheap IEM. It works for the Panasonic HJE120 and the Philips 3580. I wonder what the square waves will look like? Maybe we can send you some modded ones for measurements?


Tyll Hertsens's picture

I've measured some of the UEs and heard more at RMAF last year.  I thought they were remarkable good.

Sure, If you want me to send some modded cans, I'm always ready to run them through. Contact me at tyll(at)tyllhertsens.com.

donunus's picture

very cool article, among the best and most informative I've seen!

dalethorn's picture

Yes, this is the best presentation I've seen so far for interpreting square waves etc.

ClieOS's picture

Fully agree. Another excellent writeup, Tyll!

Willakan's picture

Wonderful article! I would be very interested to hear more about your rationale behind links between blips on the edges of the waveform and imaging ability.

Tyll Hertsens's picture

The primary mechanism that contributes to our ability to create and aural image is interaural time difference (ITD). The ITD is the arrival time difference between ears for an off-axis signal. For a 30 degree off-axis speaker to the right, the left ear hears the audio 400 micro seconds after the right. You brain listens for arrival ITDs by listening to the "edges" in the sound, typically in the upper midrange and low treble.  But if your headphone is adding a second edge to each feature at about the normal ITD, it's likely going to confuse your brain as it searches for exactly where the delay is.  The second blip in the LCD-2 is about 300 micro seconds after the initial edge, so it's right in the region of ITDs needed to build an audio image between two speakers.

I'll that if you look at all the 300Hz square waves measured so far, the great majority do have significant features after the leading edge, and generally headphone imaging is fairly poor.  I'll also mention that the HD800, a headphone that has an extraordinarily clean leading edge with little secondary features, is well know to image very well.

Hope that helps.

Willakan's picture

It did indeed. I hope that the forthcoming "Headphone Measurements Explained" maintains this level of detail throughout, because this is great.

Tyll Hertsens's picture

Wouldn't have it any other way.

I took me a week to research and write though ... I learned a hell of a lot in the process too.  Unfortunately it won't do a lot for long term page views, but I think it's terribly important to improve the level of understanding among the headphone faithful. My hope with this stuff is the raise the collective wisdom of headphone enthusiast dialog, so sometime I feel like I have to do things that don't directly increase pageviews.

You'll understand though, I hope, if these types of posts aren't quite as frequent as we all might like. 

ultrabike's picture

I see visually significant differences in the 30Hz and 300Hz SW responses between the Grados and a DT770. Same could be said about the PortaPros and the Philips L1's. More importantly, the explanations and discussion in the article regarding the audio qualities assigned to each of the characterization plots are invaluable, as they seem well correlated to the real world audio experince.

That said, some SW curves are a little more difficult for me to differenciate. I was comparing the SW responses between the HD650 and the DT880-600ohm and they seem more similar than different. They sort of seem to fall between the HD800 and the DT770. Yet, the HD650 has been described as sort of dark compared to the DT880-600 and the FR seems to back this up. Same could be said when comparing the SkullcandyHesh2 and the Noontech Zoro. Similar SW responses in my opinion, yet very different distortion and FR curves.

My comments here are not geared towards nit picking. In fact, because I'm more familiar with other characterization measurements, I have learned quite a bit from this and many other articles here at IF. I'm an avid reader of them smiley. My point is that, as with any characterization tool, it is important to understand it's limitations, so as to not go out with a feeling that these and other measurements tell the whole story. Different set of measurements provide us with different views, and understanding, of a system's behaviour.

I also would like to add that I very much apreaciate your discussion regarding headphone FR phase impact.

Tyll Hertsens's picture

"My point is that, as with any characterization tool, it is important to understand it's limitations, so as to not go out with a feeling that these and other measurements tell the whole story. "

Absolutely. One really has to scan the whole page of graphs to get a reasonable picture. Even then it's missing things like CSD plots that are extremely valuable. 

I think one of the most valuable things measurements provide is something to have in mind when you do listening test. You can make observations from the data and then see if you can hear what the measurements indicate. Most times you can but sometimes you can't. Listening is such a different thing than measuring, and it can be quite disorienting to try to objectively parse a subjective experience. The measurements provide a little road map for headphone evaluation, but it's in the listening we actually travel the territory.

HammerSandwich's picture

Fantastic article, Tyll.

Think I found a typo in the LCD2 section.  When you mention "the 30Hz wave form" & it's 2nd spike, aren't you talking about the 300Hz?

Also, do you believe that imaging is more dependent on clean transients or channel matching?  And how the hell could we test that without a zillion samples?




Tyll Hertsens's picture

Man, that little zero messes me up ... a lot. 

"Also, do you believe that imaging is more dependent on clean transients or channel matching?"

I've read studies where researchers would make a left speaker a little louder but advance the right signal in time so it's signal arrived first at the ears. What they found was the interaural time difference was something like ten times more powerful than level differences in developing localization experience. So I believe clean transients are significantly more important than level matching. 

AstralStorm's picture

Not to mention that while linear effects like frequency response are easy to correct, nonlinear ones like phase issues or ringing (visible on CSD) are really hard to fix, if not impossible altogether.

ultrabike's picture

FR phase and CSD issues are linear since they are derived from the impulse response though linear operators.

However, the fact that these issues are linear, does not mean they are fixable. In the digital domain, impulse response issues due to zeros outside the unit circle cannot be corrected (requires an unstable filter) Severe notches may not be corrigible either as signal may be attenuated bellow the noise floor if not completely absent... Furthermore, the fact that headphone impulse response is a bit positional variant complicates things.

That said, a good equalizer can go a long way in fixing some FR magnitude/phase and CSD issues.

dalethorn's picture

EQ'ing small frequency response deviations may be easy when they're small and the fix is simple, but when a bigger fix is needed the simpler fixes tend to create large narrow peaks and dips between the sliders' center frequencies. So then you get to 30 or more band equalizers and a lot of tedium. I think these big equalizers were made for loudspeakers and people with sound meters where most of the process can be automated. With headphones I don't think the fixes are easy because you really have to go by your hearing and not a meter, and you're equalizing the device and your ears at the same time.

Tyll Hertsens's picture

Much better, IMHO.

HammerSandwich's picture

Meant to ask another question: why do you consider an initial overshoot to be ideal?  Is this because the electronics send that signal, so measuring it implies an accurate headphone?  Or do you believe that characteristic indicates that the whole system is more accurate overall?

Tyll Hertsens's picture

Remember that while I have HRTF curves to compensate the frequency response, I don't have compensation information to correct the time based signals. I'm thinking that the small overshoot feature is a result of sound being modified by the pinnae. But the main reason for the observation is that when I do see a headphone that has a 300Hz square wave with a nice square leading edge without overshoot, it tends not to sound fast enough to me. So it's purely an imperical thought at the moment and I have no technical justification.

HammerSandwich's picture


Can Crazy's picture

I've previously read some of your pretty tough comments on ULTRASONE headphones, about their general sound and their, in your opinion, flawed PRO-LOGIC technology. I happen to own a pair of HFI-2400s, and would be very interested to see some measurements on some ULTRASONEs and their performance, and to see if they confirm some of your previous appreciations. (Another pair of cans I've long been waiting for you to get your ears and test gear on, are the Beyerdynamic T1.)

I'm glad that my Q701s perform pretty decently and that they confirm my appreciation regarding their similitude to my recently acquired HD800s.


Tyll Hertsens's picture

I've got lots of Ultrasones measured and the T1 on this page.

Can Crazy's picture

I had no idea of the huuuge amount of Headphones you have already tested. My apologies for not having lent more time to your amazing efforts... and eyes, since I totally missed the resources part. Shame on me.

I asked about the T1, because I have had the idea of selling my Ultrasones and AKGs and find a good candidate to complement my HD800s. My first thought was the T1, but I haven't read much on them so far and no really detailed impressions. By some threads, I'm under the impression that Audeze's LCD cans are receiving much more attention, and by a recent post on this thread, someone also suggested that Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic should upgrade their flagship cans in order to catch up with Audeze and other up and coming cans.

I obviously have to give them all a proper listen, but an overall impression and orientation would certainly be welcome. 

Many thanks and respects on your fabulous work and generous sharing. It's just as fun reading your work as it is a satisfaction to learn quite a bit along the way.


burnspbesq's picture

... it brings up (at least implicitly) an interesting question about the review process.

Tyll, when you review headphones, do you measure first and then listen, or vice versa?

If the former, do you worry at all about confirmation bias affecting your subjective impressions?  After all, measurements would give you a preliminary sense of what the phones under review "ought to" sound like.  Whereas, if you listen first and measure second, the measurements would give a different and (IMO) more benign type of confirmation, a sort of "OK, that explains why I heard what I heard" confirmation.

Tyll Hertsens's picture

I always listen before measuring and kind of do a basic rundown of whether I like what I'm hearing or not.  (I also burn the headphones in for at least a couple of days before I even listen.) Then when I do the real eval, it's with the measurements in hand.  I'll add that I always look for threads on that particular headphone and read what others are thinking. So that will bias me as well. Yes, I think this puts me in a position of being biased by my own opinion, others experience, and measured data. You'll always be biased by the thoughts in your head whether they arrise from listening, or measurements. 

Maybe the most impornt thing I try to do is realize confirmation bias is lurking at the ready, and to try to stave it off I try to be rather unatached to any conclusions until they become rather obvious.

Also, and I don't know how many people have noticed this, I don't try to do extremely detailed expressions of my listening experience.  I try to keep it simple.  I feel there's enough differences between the way we all hear things that there's no need to create so much detail that it then becomes incorrect. So I focus on giving a basic feel for the cans and whether or not they're worthy, and then let people make their own mind up about the exact nature of the cans without the bias from too much information from me.

Willakan's picture

I would suggest that the whole problem with confirmation bias/similar biases is that you can't consciously alleviate it/them!

That aside, I would agree wholeheartedly with not taking the information overload approach to describing a headphone's sound. Gibbering on for ages about the deliciousness of the soundstaging/creaminess of the treble is silly on so many levels, yet many reviewers seem to think it makes them sound more authoritative.

Alondite's picture

This really is excellent work Tyll. These explainations were the whole reason I came to IF int he first place, and this does not disappoint. I was starting to come to an understanding on some things just based on your reviews, but now I really feel like I can look at these graphs and get a reasonable idea of how the headphone will sound. 

I still have a few questions though:

First, you said that the 30 hz wave dipping below zero was an indication of out-of-phase bass, but also that the "brokeback" look of the Solo's 30 hz wave was also an indicator, depsite the fact that it stays well above zero. Are there indications of out-of-phase bass other than simply dipping below the zero line? And does the point at which it dips have any significance. Is the virtual "sine wave" 30 hz SW of the Beats Studio an even more magnified example of poor bass present in the Solo?

Second: The 300 hz wave of the Stax SR-009. I'm sure I don't even need to continue for you to know what I'm asking, haha. 


Tyll Hertsens's picture

First Q: I have to say it's sort of a seat-of-the-pants type of assessment. You just gotta feel your way through it sometimes. Wish I had a better answer than that, but I don't.


Second Q: Yeah, it overshoots a lot, and it's very fast.  When I listened to them it sounded much better than I would have expected from the measurements. Here again, it's your ears that really count.  I'll be doing some more in-depth listening to the 009 in Sept, prolly a review in Oct.

Alondite's picture

There's also a pretty significant second overshoot and ringing throughout. I've never heard them myself, but even you've said at some point that they had the best treble you've ever heard. 

Something else I've noticed about the graphs: The overshoot in the 30 hz wave seems to be larger in brighter cans. I know that the leading edge of the 30 hz wave is basically what is shown in the 300 hz wave, but I thought it was worth mentioning. 

Jazz Casual's picture

There's no problem listening to a headphone with your ears Alondite. The problem arises when we try to convey what we hear to someone else, which is a different matter. However, the purpose of my post was not to revisit the objectivist/subjectivist debate, which has been done to death. I was merely reminding dalethorn that measurements alone should not overly influence his judgement of a headphone. He appears to enjoy the PS500 in spite of how it measures. It's possible that he could have a similar experience with the PS1000, if he were to listen to it for himself. He won't know how he will respond to its sound signature until he does. Tyll listens to and measures headphones before he offers his assessment of them, which seems like a sensible approach to me. Headphone measurements are useful but headphone listening is essential when judging a headphone for yourself. With regard to the TH900, the headphone frequency response graphs indicate that it is bassy with recessed mids, and that shouldn't be ignored either when assessing its performance based on the measurements.

Alondite's picture

That was more or less what I was trying to say. I apologize that it wasn't articulated well enough or if it seemed offensive. 

dalethorn's picture

When an expensive headphone isn't available to audition, and returning it after purchase isn't convenient, the screening process comes into play. In the case of the PS1000, the reports were pretty consistent on the exaggeration of bass and treble (or moreso than the PS500), and coupling that with the very high price it failed the screening. I'm surprised that Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic don't seem to be producing a headphone in the $2000 range to compete with the LCD3 etc. - a headphone that can improve on the HD800 and T1, to at least address the treble problems.

Jazz Casual's picture

I can understand your position but I hope that you have the opportunity to hear the PS1000 for yourself some day - just to be sure. I did find the treble spikes of the HD800 and T1 slightly bothersome. However, the PS1000's treble tilt doesn't bother me at all and that's because I find it smooth and quite beautiful.   

dalethorn's picture

I think I understand this. My first impression of the PS500 was "It sounds good", and following that, "The instruments seem to have more tone color", like a photograph with colors that are more 'vivid'. So even without the actual PS1000 experience I can mentally visualize the extra lushness and warmth it probably has compared to its little brother. In the end, I can't say I have feelings one way or the other about the high-end Grado sound. I find it interesting, an expensive (for most people) indulgence perhaps, but risky. I still have a good opinion of the HD800 for example, but I think it's a much better informed opinion than what I had a year ago. Same goes for the PS1000 - I appreciate the opinions of its owners, but with all of the other headphones being introduced or upgraded (LCD2 / 3 especially), I wonder if I could get my $1700's worth from it before moving on to something else. If I could make a wild guess here, I'd guess that people who like the NPR-type FM stations that play a lot of classical music, particularly string instruments, would be good candidates for a PS1000.

Jazz Casual's picture

I haven't head the PS500 so I can't comment about how it sounds compared to the PS1000. However, I do own the HF2, which I suspect shares a lot in common with the PS500. The PS1000 sounds more refined and detailed. It has an expansive soundstage, making its presentation somewhat distant compared to the intimate HF2. It also images better. Its treble is more extended, bass presentation is similar. Both phones suffer from some bass bloom, but the PS1000 is a little more defined. However, its midrange is more recessed. The HF2 is the more lush sounding headphone, whereas the PS1000 has greater clarity. So the PS1000 may not sound quite as you imagine. However, its presentation is vivid as you describe, but I could say the same for every Grado I've heard. I think that the HF2 is the more balanced headphone, but the PS1000 is majestic.

dalethorn's picture

All of that certainly confirms one thing. The reproduction of music on many of the best headphones differs in those aspects you mention and a few more besides, yet not necessarily because the manufacturers wish it so, but because they're unable so far to optimize all of those characteristics within a single practical design at an affordable price. I think our only hope is to keep learning here and keep encouraging our beloved manufacturers to get more of these factors under control. Hire better designers who read these pages and know what we want? That's a good start. But then there's Grado. Hand made and ear-tested. Is there anything that goes on here that helps Mr. Grado make a better headphone? I wonder.

Jazz Casual's picture

No offence taken Alondite. Like emails, posting at online forums can be a fraught exercise. However, I want to add that objective measurements do not influence my headphone choices. They tend to become redundant once I've heard the headphone for myself. That's because I value how a headphone sounds more than it measures. For example, I have great respect for the HD800 as a monitor. I recognise that it measures exceptionally well, but I find its presentation too dry for my taste. Call me selfish but I buy headphones to please myself and no one else. 

bobusn's picture

Tyll, this is an excellent piece. Thanks again for all the work you do to keep us informed. I, too, appreciate the brevity of your reviews! Keep up the fine work...we look forward to the next installment.

ahmed_jehanzeb's picture

Hi Tyll,   thank you for the informative article!

I had some comments regarding the Pioneer Se-a1000:

"we can expect a very bass shy headphone"

For Open Type headphones, I listened to the Pioneer and thought they had very good bass, definitely not shy on bass.

"indicates a thin sound with a stronger treble than mid-range"

Very smooth, open and clean sounding mid-range, did not sound thin to me.

"subsequent ringing make me think these will be very piercing in sound quality. I don't remember listening to these cans"

The Se-a1000 sounds warmer than say a Sennheiser PX-100 but definitely not Piercing.  Would it be possible to listen to these cans after break-in ?

I can send you my set for review.

In my experience, the graphs do not match the listening experience as I found the Se-a1000 to be the opposite of what was shown in the graphs.

Someone in Japan did a review recently and I think they also thought it was a warm sounding set: http://www.geocities.jp/ryumatsuba/se-a1000.html

Ahmed Jehanzeb.

dan.gheorghe's picture

Hey Tyll,


Thank you for the wonderful article.


I have a question though.

I have seen that the 30 square wave graph of focal spirit one

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/FocalSpiritOne2013B.pdf and it

is considered to be good and is a sign of punchy, fast and well extended bass (which I heard myself on the spirit one), and it looks similar to some other 30 hz square waves graphs from other headphones which show the same thing.


However, the spirit ones' graph looks a little like the solos', which is consider bad.

What does it make the big difference between the 2?