|
About our testing:
When we test headphones, we use really, really expensive equipment that manufacturers themselves use for tweaking how their products sound. On the hardware end we have HATS, our head and torso simulator. HATS is a creepy-looking robot mannequin with precision microphones for ears. This way we can test audio quality without relying on our own fallible auditory system. On the software end we have SoundCheck, developed by our pals at ListenInc. SoundCheck lets us perform the identical battery of tests on each set of headphones, and analyzes the data that HATs collects. HATs and SoundCheck let us standardize our tests to allow for directly-comparable reviews that don't hinge on the reviewer having perfectly impartial ears. Truly we are turning the world of online headphone reviews on its ear (we are not 100% sure if that is a pun, since headphones and ears are only tangentially related, but we figured we'd try it out anyway – email us your opinion). For more information on our tests, read this article.
Frequency Response (2.88) 
How the test works:
To test frequency response, we first play the frequencies through the headphones, have HATS listen, then determine what effect the headphones have on each frequency. The ideal score here is for a 100% true representation of what was piped into the headphones. Of course, since some people like dynamic headphones, we give a bit of leeway, represented below by our upper and lower limits. Typically if the line strays too far out of those limits, it means the headphones are giving a bit too much emphasis or adding too much deemphasis. Of course, many of these decisions are up to the user, so simply take the following graph as a guide meant to help you determine whether these headphones would be good for you, personally.
What we found:
The frequency response here wasn't great. It started out fine, with an even response. At about 3kHz, however, the graph falls off a bit. This wasn't too bad, but the left channel's plummet at about 10kHz was what really hurt the ATH-ESW9s' score. It was especially troubling because the left and right channels were playing at such different decibel levels. This little blip is really too bad, because otherwise the headphones performed ok. The main problem you'll run into is any instrument that uses the 10kHz range might sound dull.
How the Audio-Technica ATH-ESW9 compares:
Despite a low-ish score, the ATH-ESW9 actually manged to fall in the top half of the below sample of comparison headphones. It managed to do better than the Denon AH-NC732s, which also had a big downward spike in the same areas. They also beat out their brothers, the ATH-A700s. The Bose QC3s are pretty bad in terms of frequency response, so we're really not surprised to see the ATH-ESW9s snatch a victory here.
The Grado SR60s had a similar deemphasis towards the high end, but not quite as extreme as the ATH-ESW9s. The DT 990 Pros were flat the whole way, and got just about the best score we give. The ATH-A700s had a really inconsistent frequency response. Hopefully the ATH-ESW9s' superior frequency response won't cause a sibling rivalry between them and the ATH-A700s.
Distortion (13.30)
How the test works:
For our distortion test, we again play a frequency sweep through HATS. This time, we compare the headphones' performance to the original sound wave, noting any differences between the two. These differences are distortion, which simply indicates the sounds you're hearing aren't exactly what you're supposed to be hearing. In the graph below, the level of distortion is measured as a percentage. Anything over 3% is noticeable. Again, the green and red lines represent the left and right channels respectively. Also, like all our graphs, the extreme left and right sides aren't totally accurate and therefore aren't scored. We show this data anyway, since they're good indicators of trend. For more information on this or any other test, click the orange information buttons.
What we found:
The ATH-ESW9s did exceptionally well on this test, showing almost no distortion. It never rose above 0.5%, which is remarkably good. These headphones are definitely a good pick for audiophiles who are looking for pristine sound quality.
How the Audio-Technica ATH-ESW9 compares:
We put the ATH-ESW9s in good company here, which is why they might not seem as stellar as they actually are. Really, anything that scores above a 10 is going to sound equally distortion-free to just about everyone. To everyone but a particularly finnicky audiophile, the ATH-ESW9s, AH-NC732s, QC3s, DT 990 PROs, and ATH-A700s will all sound great.
Tracking (6.85)
How the test works:
Tracking refers to the relative volume of each ear cup. Ideally, if your playback intends for each channel to be outputting the same decibel level, then they really should be doing so. Of course, no headphones are perfectly balanced, hence the need for this test. On the graph below, when the blue line raises above zero, the left channel is playing that many decibels louder than the right; when the blue line heads below zero, the right channel is louder.
What we found:
The ATH-ESW9s had good tracking overall. They start out slightly loud in the left channel, but 2 decibels isn't a noticeable amount. After that it dips down to favor the right channel by 2 decibels, making a 4-decibel shift that also won't be noticed by the average user. After this it levels out a bit, before getting a little wonky towards the high end. This is typical, so it's nothing to worry about. Overall, the ATH-ESW9s did a great job here.
How the Audio-Technica ATH-ESW9 compares:
The ATH-ESW9s clinch victory in the field of tracking, besting all oncomers. If you'll look at the graphs below, it might not always be obvious to see why the ATH-ESW9s got a better score, so allow us to clear that up for you. One thing to keep in mind: we don't score the extreme high and low ends, since the testing procedure isn't 100% accurate for those frequencies.
The Grado SR60s look like they have a flatter line overall, but that part towards the end where they get a little scribbly happens at a lower frequency than the ATH-ESW9s' does. While its not a huge dip, it is a steep one, meaning an instrument that uses frequencies in that range might seem like it's dodging slightly towards the right every time it plays. The DT 990 PRO also looks flatter overall, but that bump towards the higher end is very steep and more severe than the ATH-ESW9s' performance.
Maximum Usable Volume (9.37)
How the test works:
This test is actually a battery of distortion tests. What we're looking for is the maximum volume level we can get out of the headphone before its distortion level reaches 3%, which is enough to be noticeable.
What we found:
The ATH-ESW9s were capable of 117.37 decibels, which is really close to the 120dB cap we put on this section. Anything above 120dB is going to seriously hurt your ears, so something like the ATH-ESW9s should be fine. If you're feeling dangerous, check out something like the Grado SR60s, which were capapble of a dangerous 123.13dB. We trust you'll only listen to them at safe decibel levels.
Isolation (2.34)
How the test works:
To test isolation, we bombard HATS with pink noise and see how much of it the headphones can block out. For those who don't know a lot about noise, the pink variety plays each frequency at an inversely proportional decibel level: high frequencies are played more quietly than low frequencies. Therefore, every frequency is played at roughly the same power. If you'd like a more exact definition, check out the Wikipedia article, but we wouldn't recommend that since it's stupidly obtuse.
If the headphones don't have active cancellation, then what we're measuring is how well they plug up your ear canals, block off your ears, or otherwise physically obstruct external noise from your ears.
What we found:
The ATH-ESW9s did about average for a pair of closed-back on-ear headphones, which is to say they didn't isolate much noise at all. Like all passive-cancellers, they mainly block out high-frequency sound and don't do anything to lower frequencies. Really, these headphones aren't the best option if you're looking to leave your house, since the outside noise will make you bump your volume, which could result in damage to your poor ear drums. While they're more portable than a giant set of over-ears, if you're going anywhere then in-ears are your best bet, with active noise cancellers being a distant second.
How the Audio-Technica ATH-ESW9 compares:
The ATH-ESW9s did better than open-backed headphones, like the DT 990 PRO, and on-ears with foam padding, like the Grado SR60s. They didn't perform better than either active noise canceller (not a surprise), and also didn't perform as well as a set of over-ears that were also closed-backed. We're guessing that, since the over-ears totally encompass the entire ear, they're capable of creating a better seal. Since on-ears simply smush your ear, the cups are still a crumpled ear's width away from totally blocking off your ear canal.
Leakage (3.38)
How the test works:
To test leakage, we put a microphone a set distance from the headphones (which are on HATS). We then play pink noise through the headphones at a set decibel level. The microphone picks any of the noise that leaks out of the headphones.
What we found:
The ATH-ESW9s didn't perform all that well on this test. It did better than the DT 990 PROs and Grado SR60s, both of which are open-backed headphones. It did the worst out of all the closed-back headphones, however. We're not sure if the ATH-ESW9s' subpar leakage control can be attributed to the wood panneling, the on-ear design, or a weak seal with the ear, but we're guessing it's mainly due to the first two factors. Overall, nothing soundly bested the ATH-ESW9 in terms of leakage control, although the Denons has the largest lead with a score of 5.88.
Overall, we wouldn't recommend using the ATH-ESW9s in a public, quiet place, like a museum or library. For in-home use, however, they should be just fine.
|
