Sponsors

Headphone Measurements

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, October 2018

I measured the Elegias using a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator, a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer, a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface, and a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amp, with an Audio-gd NFB-1AMP used for distortion measurements. On the Model 43AG, I used the new KB5000 anthropomorphic simulated pinna for most measurements, and the original KB0065 pinna for certain other measurements, as noted. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed.

Frequency response

The above chart shows the Elegias’ frequency response measured with the new KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae. This is the best match I was able to achieve between the left and right channels. They match very closely in the midrange, where it counts most. There is a pretty big difference in the bass, which I have to suspect may be due to the way the earpads seal on the face of the ear/cheek simulator (which has to be turned 180 degrees when doing left-ear measurements), but the bass response you see here was very consistent as I moved the headphones around on the simulator, and I usually get a better match than this. Caveats aside, this is an unusual measurement in that the peak in the 3kHz region (which is generally considered to make headphones sound more like speakers in a room) is very mild, only about 4dB above the response at 500Hz; often, the peak is more like 12dB above the 500Hz response.

Frequency response

This chart shows the Elegias’ right-channel frequency response measured with the old KB0065 pinna (which I’ve used for years) and G.R.A.S.’s new KB5000 pinna, which I recently switched to because it more accurately reflects the structure and pliability of the human ear. This is just for sake of comparison with older measurements of mine.

Frequency response

Here you can see how the Elegias’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps. It’s a significant effect; the higher-impedance source produces a broad boost that maxes out at 2.6dB at 90Hz, enough to audibly tilt the tonal balance (and in a way I think would likely be to most people’s taste).

Frequency response

This chart shows the Elegias’ right-channel response compared with two other high-end closed-back headphones (the Audeze LCD-XCs and the MrSpeakers Æon Flows with their two-hole white filter installed), as well as the Sony MDR-7506es, a standard fixture in audio production work that generally conform to the “Harman curve,” shown in research by Harman International to be the preferred over-ear headphone response for most listeners. These measurements use the older KB0065 pinna, because that’s the only measurement I have for the LCD-XCs. You can see how unusually flat the Elegias’ response is here.

Waterfall

The Elegias’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart shows a fairly strong resonance at 3.2kHz, which doesn’t seem to correspond to any particular feature of the frequency response. It’s well-damped, though, and nearly gone after about 5ms.

THD

Measured total harmonic distortion (THD) of the Elegias is almost non-existent above 150Hz, and barely breaches 2% in the bass even at the extremely loud level of 100dBA.

Isolation

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The Elegias’ isolation is very good for a passive closed-back model, generally beating the MrSpeakers Æon Flows and easily beating the smaller NAD Viso HP50s. I threw in the Focal Clear isolation measurement to show the advantage in isolation gained by the closed-back design of the Elegias.

Impedance

The Elegias’ impedance response is typical for closed-back, dynamic-driver headphones, with the impedance generally hovering close to the rated 35 ohms and rising to 57 ohms peak at the 70Hz system resonance. The phase response is fairly flat for large dynamic-driver headphones.

The sensitivity of the Elegias, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz with the leatherette pads using a 1mW signal calculated for 35 ohms impedance, is 102.9dB. That’s quite high for audiophile-oriented headphones, and it should be enough to get loud volumes from almost any source device.

. . . Brent Butterworth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, December 2019

I measured the M570 headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

Frequency response

The above chart shows the M570s’ frequency response, which is not unusual for open-back planar-magnetic headphones. The main anomaly I see is that a lot of planar-magnetics have bass that’s flat down to 20Hz or even lower, but the M570s are definitely rolled-off in the bass -- yet that’s not how they sounded to us. If the mid- and upper treble were rolled off, that would explain the M570s’ full sound, but they’re not rolled off. Also, there are a lot of peaks and dips between 500Hz and 2kHz; I don’t see this a lot so it’s hard to say what it means subjectively, but neither I nor my panelists complained of midrange colorations.

Frequency response

This chart shows how the M570s’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps, or some exotic tube amps. There’s effectively no difference at all.

Frequency response

This chart shows the M570s’ right-channel response compared with several other relatively inexpensive planar-magnetic headphones. It’s in the ballpark with most in terms of the general shape of the curve, but it has more bass roll-off and its 3kHz peak is lower in magnitude.

Waterfall

Wow. I’m so used to saying “nothing to see here, move along” on this chart, but the M570s do show a very strong resonance at 800Hz, which corresponds with the distortion peak noted below as well as the zig-zag in frequency response seen above. I can’t say for sure how this affected our subjective perceptions of the headphones’ sound, but it’s hard for me to imagine that this resonance didn’t affect our perceptions of this headphone in some way. It also has a collection of very high-Q (narrow) resonances between about 1.8 and 4kHz; I’m told these are due to reflections between the large, flat planar driver and the flat cheek plate of the G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator.

THD

Except for a high-Q peak at 800Hz, the total harmonic distortion of the M570 headphones is close to zero at all frequencies, even at extremely high listening levels.

Isolation

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. The isolation of the M570s is actually less than average even for open-back models, but that’s probably some of the reason they sound spacious despite their unexaggerated treble. I added the Monoprice M565C headphones so you could see how a closed-back planar-magnetic model fares in this test.

Impedance

The impedance magnitude of the M570s is almost flat at 33.5 ohms, and the phase response is very flat.

Sensitivity of the M570s, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 32 ohms rated impedance, is 95.0dB. That suggests they’ll work OK with mass-market source devices like phones and tablets, but they really need an external amp or DAC-amp to sound their best.

. . . Brent Butterworth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, December 2019

I measured the LCD-1 headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

Frequency response

The above chart shows the LCD-1s’ frequency response, which is pretty typical for open-back planar-magnetic headphones. As usual, the response is basically flat from about 100Hz to 1kHz, then rises to a big peak at 3kHz (which corresponds with the primary human ear canal resonance). What’s perhaps a little atypical is that there’s less energy above 5kHz, relative to the 3kHz peak, than we often see with planar-magnetics, which suggests that the LCD-1s won’t be fatiguing but they might not be the airiest-sounding headphones you’ve heard.

Frequency response

This chart shows how the LCD-1s’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps, or some exotic tube amps. There’s almost no difference, just an increase in the bass of about 0.5dB below 50Hz when a high-impedance source is used.

Frequency response

This chart shows the LCD-1s’ right-channel response compared with several other relatively inexpensive planar-magnetic headphones. You can see that except above 5kHz, the LCD-1s are in the ballpark with most of the rest of them.

Waterfall

The LCD-1s’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart is typical for planar-magnetic headphones, with a lot of very high-Q (i.e., narrow) resonances between 2 and 5kHz. I’m told this is due to reflections between the large, flat driver and the cheek plate of the G.R.A.S. 43AG; the resonances are too narrow and too numerous to be individually discernible.

THD

The total harmonic distortion of the LCD-1s is extremely low: only 1% at 20Hz even when the headphones are cranked up to excessively loud levels.

Isolation

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The lower the lines, the better the isolation. The isolation of the LCD-1s is negligible, as with the other open-back models shown in the chart; I included the LCD-2 Closed Backs so you can see the difference in isolation with open-back and closed-back designs.

Impedance

The impedance magnitude of the LCD-1s is almost dead-flat at 14 ohms, and the phase response is similarly flat.

Sensitivity of the LCD-1s, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 16-ohms rated impedance, is 99.5dB. That’s lower than you’ll get from mass-market headphones, and even lower than some planar-magnetics, but not so low that the LCD-1s are difficult for most devices to drive.

. . . Brent Butterworth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, November 2019

I measured the K371 headphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

Frequency response

The above chart shows the K371s’ frequency response, which definitely shows the influence of the Harman curve -- specifically in that it has a broad rise between 2 and 8kHz instead of two distinct bumps, and in that it has a squarish rise in the bass response below 100Hz.

Frequency response

This chart shows how the K371s’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps, or some exotic tube amps. There’s a difference, but it’s very subtle: about 0.5dB boost below 60Hz when the high-impedance source device is used.

Frequency response

This chart shows the K371s’ right-channel response compared with two pro models (the Status Audio CB-1s, which are the headphones I use for mixing and monitoring home recordings, and the iconic Sony MDR-7506 headphones) and one consumer model (the widely praised NAD Viso HP50 headphones). The K371s lie right in the middle of the pack, with a generally flattish response that’s similar to the NAD Viso HP50s.

Waterfall

The K371s’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart is fairly clean; we can start to see a little bit of resonance developing around 200Hz, probably some “spillover” from that rise in the bass below 100Hz.

THD

The total harmonic distortion of the K371s is negligible. Even at the extremely loud level of 100dBA, it’s not really measurable until you get below 100Hz, and even at that, it’s only 5% at 20Hz; distortion at such a low frequency typically isn’t audible below about 10%.

Isolation

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The isolation of the K371s is about the same as you get from similar professional and consumer headphones.

Impedance

The impedance magnitude of the K371s is fairly flat for dynamic headphones, running between 35 and 41Hz, and the phase response is generally flat, too.

Sensitivity of the K371s, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 32 ohms rated impedance, is 106.7dB. That’s several dB below AKG’s rating, but still plenty enough that the K371s will play very loud from any source.

. . . Brent Butterworth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, November 2019

I measured the Frees using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 10 FW to the earphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that because of the latency introduced by Bluetooth, I wasn’t able to do a spectral-decay measurement, and of course my usual impedance and sensitivity measurements are irrelevant for wireless earphones. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

Frequency response

The above chart shows the Frees’ frequency response measured with the RA0402 ear simulator (I wasn’t able to get an adequate seal using the KB5000 and KB5001 simulated pinnae). This is pretty much a “by the book” response for good-sounding earphones, and it’s the first time I’ve seen this in a set of true wireless earphones.

The impulse response shows that the latency with the MEE Connect is 283ms. This is typical for true wireless earphones, and it means you will almost certainly notice lip-sync errors when you watch videos using the Frees. Best to stick to music and podcasts with these.

Frequency response

This chart shows the Frees’ right-channel response compared with two other true wireless earphones (HiFiMan TWS600s and Sennheiser Momentum True Wirelesses), as well as with the AKG N5005s, the earphones said to best reflect the Harman curve. The Frees are at least in the ballpark of the Harman curve; they’re likely to sound a little softer than the AKG N5005s, and because their bass resonance is centered at a higher frequency of 80Hz, they’re likely to sound a tad soft, at least relative to the AKGs.

THD

Because of the latency of the Bluetooth connection, I could not use Clio’s sine-sweep function to measure total harmonic distortion (THD) versus frequency, so I did discrete THD measurements of sine tones in one-octave steps. While distortion is very low at all frequencies and levels, note that I couldn’t get the Frees to play loud enough (at least when fed by the MEE Connect transmitter) to do a measurement at 100dBA.

Isolation

This chart shows the Frees’ isolation versus a couple of other true wireless models (1More E1026BT-1 Stylish and Sennheiser Momentum True Wireless earphones) and a passive (wired) model with a foam tip (Campfire Comet earphones). The Frees’ isolation is excellent for a true wireless earphone without active noise canceling, and it actually comes pretty close to the isolation of some models with active noise canceling.

. . . Brent Butterworth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, October 2019

I measured the Simgot EK3 earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

Frequency response

The above chart shows the EK3s’ frequency response measured in Strong Bass mode (the generally preferred mode of our listening panelists) with the Balanced eartips. This is a fairly ordinary result except for a couple of things. First, there are separate response peaks at 1.8 and 3kHz; normally we’d expect to see a single peak centered at about 2.8kHz. But that’s probably no big deal. The peak centered at about 6.8kHz is pretty common, although a little higher than typical. The only real issue here is the channel imbalance, with the right channel measuring about 2dB louder than the left from 150Hz to 4kHz. This result held up when I switched to using the cylindrical coupler that comes with the RA0402 instead of the full ear/cheek simulator. There’s a certain amount of uncertainty in earphone channel-balance measurements because of the slightly different response you see every time you remove and reinsert the earphone, but this is a pretty big difference, and suggests the factory QC process might stand improvement.

Frequency response

This chart shows the frequency response with in the EK3s’ different listening modes. I’ve doubled the dB resolution on this chart (to 5dB per major division rather than 10dB) so you can see the differences more easily. Note how close the Strong Bass mode is to the Bright Vocal mode, and how close the Exquisite Tone mode is to the Balanced Tuning mode. This shows that switch 2 has a large effect on the sound, but switch 1’s effect is small and perhaps could be considered superfluous.

Frequency response

The EK3s’ frequency response (shown in Strong Bass mode) changes a lot when you switch to a higher-impedance (in this case, 75 ohms) source device, such as a typical laptop or some professional headphone amps. Almost all balanced-armature earphones show some difference in response when switching from low- to high-impedance sources, but this is one of the biggest differences I can remember measuring. I’d strongly recommend using these earphones with a source device (preferably a portable music player or DAC-headphone amp) with output impedance of 5 ohms or lower.

Frequency response

This chart shows the EK3s’ right-channel response in Strong Bass mode compared with the Simgot EN700 Pros, Campfire Solarises, and AKG N5005s (the earphones said to best reflect the Harman curve) with their Reference filters installed. The similarity between the EK3s and the Solarises in this chart is interesting; the EN700 Pros are more like the AKG N5005s.

Waterfall

The EK3s’ spectral-decay (waterfall) plot shows a major, but well-damped, resonance centered at 6.5kHz. This resonance is high enough in magnitude and broad enough in bandwidth that I have to imagine it has some effect on the sound. There are also poorly damped but extremely high-Q (i.e., narrow) resonances at 6 and 12kHz, but these are so narrow and high in frequency that they’d be very unlikely to be audible. (If you’re curious, those are the fifth and sixth harmonics of the F# note at the second fret of the high E string on a guitar.)

THD

Here you can see the EK3s’ total harmonic distortion (THD) versus frequency in Strong Bass mode; it’s fairly low for a balanced-armature model.

Isolation

This chart pits the EK3s’ isolation versus several similar models, all fitted with silicone tips. Like most pinna-filling designs with over-ear cable routing, the EK3s’ isolation is pretty good, especially as the frequency rises past a couple hundred Hz, and assuming you get a good fit with whatever tips you’re using.

Impedance

The impedance of the EK3s in Strong Bass mode shows large swings in magnitude and phase, which is why the earphones’ frequency response varies so much with high- and low-impedance sources.

Impedance

This chart shows how the impedance magnitude of the EK3s changes with the different listening modes. The general shape of the impedance curve remains mostly the same, but switch 2 has a fairly large effect on the magnitude below 1.8kHz.

Sensitivity of the EK3s, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 16 ohms impedance (the rating is 14-18 ohms), is 116.2dB, one of the highest I have measured. That means the EK3s will play extremely loud from any source device, if you want them to.

. . . Brent Butterworth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, September 2019

I measured the MX4 Pros using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN. Except as noted, all measurements were made using the supplied medium-sized, single-flange silicone eartips, as these fit the ear/cheek simulator best. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

Frequency response

The above chart shows the MX4 Pros’ frequency response, which is a fairly “textbook” response except for a boost of about 4dB centered at 4kHz. This looks like a very deliberate voicing decision, and it’s the reason for the lower-treble emphasis noted in the review.

Frequency response

This chart shows how the MX4 Pros’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps, or some exotic tube amps. There’s about 1dB more bass at 20Hz and 1dB more treble above 3kHz; my guess is that using a high-impedance source will make these sound just a tad brighter overall. Note that this is much less variance than I normally see with earphones using balanced armatures.

Frequency response

This chart shows the MX4 Pros’ right-channel response compared with the Campfire Comet (single balanced armature), 1More Quad Driver (one dynamic driver with three balanced armatures), and the AKG N5005 (one dynamic driver with four balanced armatures; when used with their reference filter, these earphones are said to best conform to the so-called “Harman curve,” the response that research shows delivers what most listeners consider the most natural sound) earphones. Clearly, the MX4 Pros’ deviation from the norm is that big 4kHz peak.

Waterfall

The MX4 Pros’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart looks mostly clean, except for some well-damped resonances at about 3.2 and 11kHz.

THD

The total harmonic distortion of the MX4 Pros is fairly mild, not even breaking 2% at the extremely loud listening level of 100dBA. What’s unusual, though, is that the distortion tends to be higher in the midrange than in the bass; this is probably because the balanced armatures can’t match the power handling of the dynamic driver.

Isolation

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. I chose silicone tips for this measurement to ensure a level playing field; some of these models (especially the Campfire Comet earphones) will achieve much better isolation with foam tips. Isolation of the MX4 Pros with the silicone tips is outstanding, probably because of the ear-filling design and the over-ear cable routing.

Impedance

The impedance magnitude of the MX4 Pros is admirably flat for a hybrid model. It’s about 9 ohms when you’re in the range of the dynamic driver, and once the armatures kick in (apparently around 1kHz), the impedance rises to 19 ohms at 20kHz, measuring about 33 ohms up to 1.5kHz, with a couple of slight impedance peaks that correspond with the frequency response peaks in the treble. Impedance phase is fairly flat, as well.

Sensitivity of the MX4 Pro earphones, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 12 ohms rated impedance, is 100.7dB. That’s a little low for earphones, but still plenty enough to ensure loud volumes from almost any source device.

. . . Brent Butterworth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, September 2019

I measured the TWS600 earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 10 FW to the earphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that because of the latency introduced by Bluetooth, I wasn’t able to do a spectral decay measurement, and of course my usual impedance and sensitivity measurements are irrelevant for wireless earphones. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

Frequency response

The above chart shows the TWS600s’ frequency response measured with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae. You’ll note right away that the mids and lower treble are super-strong, and there’s not much bass. I worried that this might be an artifact due to Bluetooth latency, so I ran the same measurement using pink noise and a real-time analyzer, and compared that measurement with similar ones I’ve taken of other earphones with a subjectively flatter response, and it appears that the curve you see here is representative. Moving up from the bass, if the peaks you see in the 1.8kHz and 4kHz ranges were shifted up by about half an octave, to about 2.8 and 5.3kHz, and there were more bass, these earphones would have a “normal” response. As it is, the relatively low frequency of the 1.8kHz peak is what gives these earphones their strong midrange emphasis. Note also that output between about 5 and 12kHz is low relative to the 1.8kHz peak.

The impulse response shows that the latency with the MEE Audio Connect is 260ms. This isn’t bad for true wireless earphones; the Cambridge Audio Melomania 1 earphones measured 320ms. In my opinion, though, it’s not a low-enough figure to justify the claim of low latency that HiFiMan makes on the TWS600 web page, and it will create lip-sync problems with video content and will create lag problems when playing some video games.

Frequency response

This chart shows the TWS600s’ right-channel response compared with the 1More E1026BT-I and Sennheiser Momentum True Wireless earphones. Obviously, the response curve of the TWS600s is anomalous; the others are much flatter.

THD

Because of the latency of the Bluetooth connection, I could not use Clio’s sine sweep function to measure total harmonic distortion (THD) versus frequency, so I did discrete THD measurements of sine tones in one-octave steps. This is a little more demanding than a swept tone because the tones have to play longer and the voice coil in the driver gets a lot hotter. Note that distortion is very low at all frequencies, and that the TWS600s can easily play at 100dBA -- something not true of some true wireless models. Note also that for some reason, I wasn’t able to get a valid measurement at 32Hz/90dBA.

Isolation

In this chart, the red line indicates an external noise level of 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The TWS600s’ isolation (with the medium-size, single-flange silicone tips, which gave me the best results) is well above average compared with its true wireless competitors.

. . . Brent Butterworth
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This site is the main portal for
SoundStage!

All contents available on this website are copyrighted by SoundStage!® and Schneider Publishing Inc., unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.

This site was designed by Rocket Theme, Karen Fanas, and The SoundStage! Network.
To contact us, please e-mail info@soundstagenetwork.com