Headphones or speakers?

[71 dB]

    My classical CDs top out in the low 90's, but most are at or near the ideal of 89 dB. My pop CDs, especially the recent masters, go all the way up to the high 90's. At that level there's no room for dynamics at all. No wonder they sound like shit. The best discs are the HDCD decodes, which tend to be in the mid to high 80s, with all the dynamic spikes intact. You don't need HDCD to do this, it's just that this way you can satisfy both groups, with a ruined version for regular folks and a good version for a small group that can decode them. The music companies could just make the CD correctly, but then they couldn't play the loudness game.

Are these low 90's and high 80's figures given by a playback software you use? When you give dB values for the dynamics you need to tell how it is calculated from then signal. What ideal 89 dB? The "full" signal in CD is at 0 dB so that the quantization noise level is somewhere at -94 dB. Histogram of the signal shows nicely the dynamics.

Yes, due to the loudness war pop CDs have very small dynamic variation. However, this unfortunate trend started mid 90's so the pop CDs from 80's and early 90's have good dynamics but be sure to get the original issue instead of "digitally remastered" re-releases.

If you have a multichannel (or even a 2.1 setup like mine) you should optimize speaker placement and sub setup for music and not films. A perfectly set up music system will sound great for movies, while a movie-optimized system may be way off for music.

Yes, "music first" approach is healthy.

[sound67]

Stereo is the "default" set-up because it was possible to do in vinyl. It's also cost-effective way to create a sound image but by no means the right one or the only way.

Who said it's the only one? I just pointed out that with some extra bucks spent on two speakers, the single most important piece of audio equipment - and by a WIDE margin, too, one might end up with a more satisfactory listening experience than with five or six lower quality ones. Don't you agree?

Since DD there's been a trend to go for combined music/home theatre audio chains, and that development doesn't always result in better sound. That's why not so few people are now returning to stereo.

The strength of multichannel sound is that it kind of "renders away" the acoustics of your listening room allowing the space of the recording take a stronger part. The sound image is also more relaxed and breathing than with stereo.

Quite right. But again, this requires careful planning and the few extra bucks. Quite a few extra bucks.

I understand it you're an engineer, but when I visit homes that have a multichannel system installed, in most cases the conjunction of music and home theatre is working to the detriment of music reproduction.

Thomas

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

It is possible to have so large dynamic variation in a studio that CD can't handle it all. However, most people can't really benefit from dynamic range bigger than provided by CD.

People who can typically benefit (who claim they benefit) are people with the most money for audio gear which are most likely the older people which have most likely the deafer ears. Who condemn everything digital (I can understand the psychology of Angst of the grand daddies though). Who claim distortion systems (Tube amps, Vinyl) are the way to go. Rotfl.
The sad fact is, stereo audio reproduction is a simple task today and if you don't go too wrong there's room for increasing quality somewhere between 95 and 99% of perfection.
IMO only the visual side of the audio gear is useful for showing virility.

[71 dB]

Who said it's the only one? I just pointed out that with some extra bucks spent on two speakers, the single most important piece of audio equipment - and by a WIDE margin, too, one might end up with a more satisfactory listening experience than with five or six lower quality ones. Don't you agree?

Well, some people want multichannel sound for movies and multichannel music. Above certain price level the sound quality of loudspeakers do not increase much. In a home theater system you can use smaller (cheaper) speaker since there is also subwoofer. So, the quality isn't that much lower.

Anyway this question is very complex and depends on million things so there is not one correct answer.

Since DD there's been a trend to go for combined music/home theatre audio chains, and that development doesn't always result in better sound. That's why not so few people are now returning to stereo.

I understand it you're an engineer, but when I visit homes that have a multichannel system installed, in most cases the conjunction of music and home theatre is working to the detriment of music reproduction.

Thomas

Stereo is much easier. Two speakers and that's it. Multichannel is DIFFICULT but when done properly works well. Most people make lots of compromises in their multichannel system and it's no wonder the result is so-so. Those people might do better with stereo. If you do multichannel do it right.

[drogulus]

Are these low 90's and high 80's figures given by a playback software you use? When you give dB values for the dynamics you need to tell how it is calculated from then signal. What ideal 89 dB? The "full" signal in CD is at 0 dB so that the quantization noise level is somewhere at -94 dB. Histogram of the signal shows nicely the dynamics.

    I think 0=100 here (guess), so 89 comes in at -11. ?? I don't know how the averaging is done to derive this.

    I don't think it matters, but if I open a super compressed (98 dB) CD in Audacity it looks like there's at most 2 dB before clipping. So....

   Anyway, the figure of 89 dB seems to be a common one for calculating replaygain and other chores, so it's useful and seems about right.

    I have a Bob Dylan disc (old master) that comes in around 84 dB and it's very low (replaygain adds 4.5 dB). 89 dB really seems to work across many kinds of music.

[12tone.]

I thought this was a new thread until I came upon a post I wrote...noticing the 2007 year!   Wow.

I have the Sennheiser HD 590s and they seem pretty good.  I don't have an amp but oh well...

As for speakers vs. headphones?  That's a tough call as I'd rather listen to Mahler's 9th over my speakers than through headphones... but then headphones are great too.  It almost depends on the peice. 

[anasazi]

Headphones are more personable and I like the sound, but I like to share the music with my wife so we can discuss it later. I also like the freedom to not be attached to a cord.  So speakers it is.

[Henk]

Completely used to headphones now and prefer it above speakers. Listened to speakers last days, but it just didn't feel good anymore.

Henk

[jochanaan]

In my college and young-adult days, I did a lot of headphone listening--perforce, since I had roommates who needed to do homework or other chores. But more and more as I grow older I use the speakers.  I can't even remember the last time I picked up the 'phones.

As for the discussion about recording levels, vinyl vs. digital, etc., I have yet to hear anyone seriously suggest that we go back to acoustic recordings where NOTHING was electronic!  And even that is a cold, mechanical process involving a needle slicing a wax cylinder or disc.  The difference is that a digital "needle" is far more precise and sensitive.

There were good reasons to make the jump from tape masters to digit streams; analog recordings had just about reached their dynamic limits.  I can still remember the sensation the first digital recordings made, even though they were actually issued on vinyl.  Yes, they were a little cold, but boy, those dynamics were awesome to our jaded ears!

The noise floor is a very important point.  Our world is generally too noisy unless we artificially seal out the noise; that's why so many rooms have carpet on the floor and acoustical tiles on the ceiling.  And even the quietest car still makes a lot of noise.  So a dynamic range that's realistic for home listening is completely unmanageable in a car, or on an iPod in a bus.  (And I've heard horror stories about dynamic and even frequency loss on downloadable recorded media! )

Yet, most importantly, what we hear is far too colored by what we feel or believe for there to be any sort of objective standard in recording that suits everybody.  As a piano tuner, I know this: If you tune a piano to an electronic tuner that's mathematically precise, it often sounds out of tune to most human ears, especially in the high and low ranges.  So I, like most tuners, use no electronics to tune.  And orchestral and other musicians are so accustomed to adjusting our tuning as we play that we mostly don't even notice that's what we're doing.  That's true of dynamics, too.  When playing flute or oboe with a bunch of rock musicians, I generally don't use my pianissimo even if I'm playing into a microphone; in chamber or solo music I use my whole dynamic range with a special emphasis on the extreme pianissimos that I seldom get to use otherwise.  After years of doing both, the adjustment is almost automatic.

Context is nearly everything in music.

[DavidW]

If you tune a piano to an electronic tuner that's mathematically precise, it often sounds out of tune to most human ears, especially in the high and low ranges. 

I don't know if that's a problem with the tuner, or simply misusing it.  On one hand it can be too elaborate for most people to use, but provide enough waveform information to do it precisely, on the other it could be dumbed down enough for everyone to use but simply not detailed enough to be that helpful.  Could you elaborate?

I wouldn't necessarily be impressed if Joe Six Pack thinks it would be out of tune, in the video calibration realm an accurate color temperature is perceived by the average joe blow off the street as too red.  I would not be surprised if the average person perceives something to be out of tune, when it's not.  Especially since listening perceptions are usually biased.

[jochanaan]

I don't know if that's a problem with the tuner, or simply misusing it.  On one hand it can be too elaborate for most people to use, but provide enough waveform information to do it precisely, on the other it could be dumbed down enough for everyone to use but simply not detailed enough to be that helpful.  Could you elaborate?

I wouldn't necessarily be impressed if Joe Six Pack thinks it would be out of tune, in the video calibration realm an accurate color temperature is perceived by the average joe blow off the street as too red.  I would not be surprised if the average person perceives something to be out of tune, when it's not.  Especially since listening perceptions are usually biased.

No, this particular effect is well-known among tuners, and apparently well-researched, and seems to be nearly universal.  Human ears mostly hear the lower notes as sharp, and the upper notes as flat, when you tune something to a tuner.  You can check it yourself the next time you're near an electronic keyboard, since their tuning is set at the factory and "mathematically in tune."  So we've developed a method for compensating: the "pure fifth" method.  That is, instead of the octaves being perfectly in tune, we tune so that all the fifths are in tune.  This makes the octaves just a little wide, but not enough to result in an audible "wowowow" effect, and it brings the upper and lower notes to where they sound in tune to the average listener and musician.  It has the additional effect of making the lower notes sound more resonant and the higher notes more brilliant. I've found that even most musicians don't know this, but tuners have to deal with it constantly.

[DavidW]

Alright thanks dude.

[jochanaan]

No problem, dude.

[Daverz]

As for the discussion about recording levels, vinyl vs. digital, etc., I have yet to hear anyone seriously suggest that we go back to acoustic recordings where NOTHING was electronic! 

Ohhh!  I've got to use that one the next time some vinyl supremacist gives me some bafflegab about analog being more natural than digital.

[The new erato]

Though headphones can give supremely good sound for a reasonable amount of money unmatched by any speaker, for long term listening I always miss the room ambience that a pair of good speakers and a listening room provides. Over time, headphones feel claustrophobic to me.

[elivejonz]

speakers, i want it out loud..very loud...
well basically its just depends on my mood and the environment where i am into

[Scarpia]

I think my headphones and speakers are comparable in their capability.  Which is better depends largely on low frequency content.  Although good headphones can produce low frequencies just fine, a human doesn't not hear low frequency entirely with the ears.  To some extent low frequency vibration is perceived with the entire body, and probably through resonant vibration of the entire skull.  Just imposing the low frequency on the ears is not sufficient.  So for string quartets, etc or anything for which low frequency energy is not particularly important, headphones are an acceptable substitute, and sometimes preferable because of the heightened transparency and clarity.  Otherwise speakers are much more satisfying.

[drogulus]

I think my headphones and speakers are comparable in their capability.  Which is better depends largely on low frequency content.  Although good headphones can produce low frequencies just fine, a human doesn't not hear low frequency entirely with the ears.  To some extent low frequency vibration is perceived with the entire body, and probably through resonant vibration of the entire skull.  Just imposing the low frequency on the ears is not sufficient.  So for string quartets, etc or anything for which low frequency energy is not particularly important, headphones are an acceptable substitute, and sometimes preferable because of the heightened transparency and clarity.  Otherwise speakers are much more satisfying.

     I think you're right about the way low frequencies are perceived. In my case the "ears-only" portrayal of deep bass works well with my current headphones (Senn HD 280).

     I no longer use speakers for anything more than monitoring when doing ripping/transcoding chores or other computer related stuff. My situation simply doesn't make it easy to use speakers at the level I would need for serious listening. Fortunately headphones do sound quite good to me, though they are a second choice.

[DavidRoss]

...headphones are...sometimes preferable because of the heightened transparency and clarity.

  Are you referring to quality cans vs mid-fi speakers/amps? 

[DavidW]

I think that quality bass is needed even for chamber music, and add a piano and it's required.  And the feeling of depth, the soundstage, is such an important part of the music and headphones rob you of it.