Home > Reviews > Pioneer > Over-ear
Pioneer SE-A1000 Headphones Review - Performance |
||||||||
|
Published on May 19, 2008 Comment on this |
General Audio Testing Information Our tests are conducted using a high-end electroacoustic analysis system. On the hardware side, we use a head and torso simulator (HATS). HATS is a plastic replica of the top half of a person, only instead of an actual auditory system, it's outfitted with precision microphones. We collect and analyze the data using SoundCheck, a professional audio analysis program developed by Listen, inc. Using both HATS and SoundCheck in tandem, we are able to procure objective, precise results that allow us to directly compare the units we review. For more information on our audio testing, see this article. Frequency Response (7.93) How the test works: In this test, we play a spectrum of sounds through the headphones, from the highest frequency we can hear to the lowest. Each pitch is the same volume. We then use HATS to record how loudly the headphones actually emphasize each frequency. In the graph below, the green line represents the left ear cup, or channel, and the red is the right. If the headphones perfectly emphasize each frequency at the same decibel level, the green and red should be on top of each other and perfectly horizontal. Since some people like extra bass or extra treble, however, we don't look for a flat line: slow rises and falls are perfectly fine, they just mean the headphone manufacturer wanted to stress a certain frequency range. What we do look for is steep lines. A steep line, either up or down, means that two nearby frequencies could be stressed very differently. The result of this would be certain notes in a song sounding either overly loud or more muted than surrounding pitches. What we found:
As you can see in the graph to the right, both the left and right channels perform within the limits, for the most part. There seems to be a very small bass boost, as those frequencies are emphasized ever-so-slightly more than the middle tones. The curves are a bit sharp throughout, but until the first big spike in the high-end, these spikes only represent a handful of decibels -- nothing you'd notice. The bit spike in the high half of the graph is a bit more substantial, spanning about eight decibels, but it's still nothing that would ruin a listening experience. After the limits drop off, the graph gets a bit erratic and the decibel level assigned to those frequencies drops off considerably. This area to the right of the limits isn't the most accurate line, which is partially why our limits stop before the end of the graph. It is, however, valuable in that it depicts a general trend: high pitches tend to be underemphasized. Overall, however, these headphones do a great job.
Distortion (2.75) How the test works: For the distortion test, we play a series of sounds at frequencies ranging from 100 Hz to 10 kHz. These tones are all sent to the headphones with the same decibel level. We then record what the headphones output, and measure this sound wave against the original one. The differences between the original and the one the headphones produce is called the total harmonic distortion. In the below graph, both channels are graphed separately (left is green, right is red); the left side represents the percentage of distortion, and the bottom is the frequency range we tested. What we found:
The biggest problem we found with distortion was with some bass frequencies. The graph starts out at almost 2% (3% is a noticeable level), but once the distortion leveled off it stayed very minimal for the rest of the graph. Towards the high mid-range, the right channel peeked up slightly, but it wasn't much. Overall, these headphones performed well; it was just the poor bass response that really killed its score.
Tracking (6.54) How the test works: Since the headphones have two channels, left and right, we test each one to make sure they're outputting the same decibel levels. Of course, since no set of headphones is perfect, there are often slight differences between the two channels. When the graph creeps up above zero, it means the left channel is louder, and when it falls into negatives, it means the right channel is louder. Ideally, the line would hover at zero. Again, the bottom represents the frequency range we tested, with lower frequencies to the left and higher ones to the right. What we found:
These headphones showcase fairly stable tracking for the low and middle frequencies, albeit a few decibels too loud in the left ear. Toward the higher end, the line gets a bit more erratic. The difference here isn't very dramatic, however; it might sound like a cymbal keeps moving two feet to the left every once in a while. Beyond the 10 kHz mark we don't score, but we leave it on the graph to show a general trend. In this case, the sound seems to jump very dramatically from left to right.
Maximum Usable Volume (7.71) How the test works: This test is an easy one. We simply play back a series of frequencies at gradually ascending decibel levels. As the tones get louder, distortion gets more pronounced. We then see how far we can boost the volume before the distortion level gets to be above 3 percent, which is when it becomes noticeable. What we found: We were able to squeeze out about 110.39 dBSPL (sound presure level) from the Pioneer SE-A1000s before we reached that magic 3 percent distortion figure. This is about 10 decibels short of what we'd prefer to see, but then again, once you get above 120 dBSPL, you run the risk of damaging your hearing. The A1000s and their 110 dBSPL level should be fine for most users, or those who like their headphones to limit their risk of hearing loss. Isolation (0.53) How the test works: To test isolation, we play back some pink noise (like regular noise, but every octave is played back at the same power), and see what frequencies -- if any -- the headphones block out. Unless the headphones feature active noise cancellation, this simply tests how well the headphones physically obstruct the sound waves from reaching your ears. What we found:
These headphones aren't the best at blocking out external noise. We typically find low isolation scores in headphones with cloth-covered padding, because cloth doesn't form a good seal against skin. Poor seals allow more external sound to shimmy into your ear canal. As such, most low frequency sounds are getting through unhindered. The only sounds that these headphones block out are higher-end ones, and only about 18 decibels worth. These headphones should be great for allowing ambient sounds in, but not so good if you plan on walking down a busy street with your media player.
Leakage (2.02) How the test works: For leakage, we place a microphone a set distance away from the headphones, and play some pink noise through the headphones (again, pink noise is a bunch of frequencies playing at once, where every octave receives the same power). We then measure how much of this pink noise escapes the confines of the headphones and makes it to the microphone. What we found: As we said in isolation, cloth padding does not make for a good seal with your head. As such, a great deal of your music is going to spill out and onto the world around you. If you were listening to music at a normal 78 dBSPL, someone next to you on the bus would probably be able to hear every note. If you like your music louder, then your sphere of annoyance will only grow. These headphones actually manage to do worse than the open-backed headphones we've tested, like the Grado SR60 or Sennheiser HD 555. Considering these headphones do have a back to them, this score really points out just how bad the A1000s are at establishing a seal with your head. For the sake of other commuters, keep your A1000s at home. |
| <- Previous Next -> | ||||
|
||||
