GMG Classical Music Forum

An oldie, but a goodie. ;)

For me, headphones 90%-95% of the time. I enjoy the more intimate experience of having the music right inside my head. Plus, I rarely get chance to sit and listen through speakers.

You?


NB: Anyone who says 'ears' will get a virtual clip round theirs.  $:) ;D

Probably headphones, but only because I can't use speakers at work.  If I had my druthers, I'd always listen through my main speakers.

As an apartment dweller, I end up using headphones probably 75% of the time, especially since some of my listening is late at night.   I prefer the more natural soundstage of speakers, but with good headphones (e.g., Sennheisers, at my house  :D) one can't really complain.  I have 4-5 pairs of headphones of various types (e.g., collapsible, noise-reducing, etc.) and I'm getting ready to splurge on a pair of Sennheiser 580s:

(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/319A3P26VQL._AA250_.jpg)

--Bruce

As speakers would annoy my housemates, headphones.

Quote from: The Mad Hatter on May 29, 2007, 09:04:49 AM
As speakers would annoy my housemates, headphones.

Well, and you might have posted:

As speakers would annoy my housemates, speakers.

8)

My friends, don't use headphones for too long at once. (Take breaks between Mahler symphonies
!) because it can really cause permanent damage to your hearing. Experts suggest that one should never have their headsets louder than 80dB, or higher than 75% of the device's max volume.

Quote from: bhodges on May 29, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
As an apartment dweller, I end up using headphones probably 75% of the time, especially since some of my listening is late at night.   I prefer the more natural soundstage of speakers, but with good headphones (e.g., Sennheisers, at my house  :D) one can't really complain.  I have 4-5 pairs of headphones of various types (e.g., collapsible, noise-reducing, etc.) and I'm getting ready to splurge on a pair of Sennheiser 580s:

(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/319A3P26VQL._AA250_.jpg)

--Bruce

Do it Bruce!!!!  I got in some in the fall and love them.  They are what I listen to at home in Cleveland.  When I'm in Toledo I listen to Senn 280's. 

Allan

Quote from: bhodges on May 29, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
As an apartment dweller, I end up using headphones probably 75% of the time, especially since some of my listening is late at night.   I prefer the more natural soundstage of speakers, but with good headphones (e.g., Sennheisers, at my house  :D) one can't really complain.  I have 4-5 pairs of headphones of various types (e.g., collapsible, noise-reducing, etc.) and I'm getting ready to splurge on a pair of Sennheiser 580s:

(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/319A3P26VQL._AA250_.jpg)

--Bruce

Excellent choice, been listening thru these babies about 12 years, no complaints, send them back to senn every few years for a good cleaning replacing the pads and whatever needs replacing...as long as your going this route you might as well go for a headphone amp.....

Quote from: toledobass on May 29, 2007, 09:19:16 AM
Do it Bruce!!!!  I got in some in the fall and love them.

Allan

They're all but on the way.  I absolutely love Sennheisers, mostly because you can listen for extended periods (and noting Bonehelm's comment, at reasonable volume levels!) and they are amazingly comfortable.  They are the first headphones I've found that don't squash your ears; they fit around them.  It's a simple concept, but a surprising number of headphones basically put a mild, vise-like squeeze your head, rather than resting on it.  Big difference!

--Bruce

I prefer speakers, but use headphones late at night and always with the ipod.  I've picked headphones that don't need an amp to drive them as I hate carrying an amp around with me, but I may break down one of these days and get something from Ray Samuels if I'm making a long trip again.  These are what I use with my ipods: Sensaphonic Prophonic 2x; Ultimate Ears Superfi 5 pro; Westone UM 2 (the most comfortable IEMs ever made).

(http://www.sensaphonics.com/images/banner_image_a.jpg)  (http://www.ultimateears.com/superfi/upload/prod/Superfi-UE-SF5Pro_1.jpg)  (http://www.westone.com/music/image_um2_new_st.jpg)

Here's what I'm considering from Ray Samuels:

The Emmeline Tomahawk (you have to like a guy who names his products after his daughter :) ) designed for IEMs. The first picture shows the Tomahawk next to an Emeline Hornet (his newest amp).  The second picture shows the hornet next to a quarter so you can see how small it is.  They are really beautifully constructed, and compact enough not to be a bother on the road. 

(http://www.raysamuelsaudio.com/images/products/tomahawk/DSC_0021.jpg) (http://www.raysamuelsaudio.com/images/products/hornet/DSC_0005.jpg)

100% speakers Young master Mark. ;D

Always speakers as long as my neighbours don't complain.

headphones

Headphones 95% of the time (HD650 - just superb)

Speakers would only be used if I want the music as background entertainment.


Papy

Recently, iPod headphones.

Historically, speakers all the way, baby ........

Quote from: D Minor on May 29, 2007, 12:22:52 PM
Recently, iPod headphones.

Historically, speakers all the way, baby ........

Please, in the name of all things decent, please say you're not using those white trash earbuds that the iPod comes bundled with (presumably, as a sick joke?). Be kind to your ears and replace those buds with headphones that don't suck. ;D

Quote from: Mark on May 29, 2007, 12:30:14 PM
Please, in the name of all things decent, please say you're not using those white trash earbuds that the iPod comes bundled with (presumably, as a sick joke?). Be kind to your ears and replace those buds with headphones that don't suck. ;D

Fret not, mon ami ........ I absolutely detest earbuds ......... loathe them with every fiber ..........

And my heart rate returns to normal ... :D

Quote from: D Minor on May 29, 2007, 12:22:52 PM
Recently, iPod headphones.

Historically, speakers all the way, baby ........

Please don't tell me you are using the iPod earbuds...oh god I can't stress enough how horrible they are  :(

Speakers.

I used to use headphones when the house was more 'family' orientated but these days theres no complaining teenagers so... ;)

I will get a decent set of Senn's though...one day...

I find that that speakers produce a more ideal listening environment. Regardless of the advancements made in headphone technology over the past decades, I remain partial to the quality surround sound. That being said, I can't always be at home, listening, so headphones are a must too.

At the present I have two pairs of headphones (well one 'headphone' and another 'earphone/moniter')

I have an AKG 601 set, that has given me great pleasure over the years. The sound reprouduction is simply unparrelled. They are incredibly dynamic and durable. In short, the're an easy reccomendation.

I also own a set of in-ear-moniters from Shure for mobile use.

Headphones:

etymotic er6 are great for the noisy commute on public transportation...

(http://www.wickeddigital.com.au/images/D/er6-ol.jpg)

and Grado SR60 work for home if you replace the stock pads.

(http://www.streettech.com/storypics/grado60.jpg)

Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2007, 08:44:33 AM
Probably headphones, but only because I can't use speakers at work.  If I had my druthers, I'd always listen through my main speakers.

Me too.

Quote from: bhodges on May 29, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
As an apartment dweller, I end up using headphones probably 75% of the time, especially since some of my listening is late at night.   I prefer the more natural soundstage of speakers, but with good headphones (e.g., Sennheisers, at my house  :D) one can't really complain.  I have 4-5 pairs of headphones of various types (e.g., collapsible, noise-reducing, etc.) and I'm getting ready to splurge on a pair of Sennheiser 580s:

(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/319A3P26VQL._AA250_.jpg)

--Bruce

I am sooooooo happy with mine. JandR has them pretty cheap.  :)

Quote from: rubio on May 29, 2007, 10:58:27 AM
Always speakers as long as my neighbours don't complain.

Then you crank it all the more, right?  >:D

I've been meaning to try a pair of Sennheiser....

It seems as if that brand enjoys particular popularity here..

Well if I use headphones which is rare I use these Stax headphones, the same as BIS records is using while recording the music.

I could not find a suitable picture, from the head phone amp, but there is a link
I have the SRM 006 t II.


http://www.stax.co.jp/Export/SRM006tII.html (http://www.stax.co.jp/Export/SRM006tII.html)

I'd still like to upgrade to AKG 701s, but I'm very happy with my AKG 501s.  I also use Etymotic 4s.  I use a Creek headphone amp or the headphone jack on my Bryston B-60.

Speakers @ home
Beyerdynamic DT 880 @ work

Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2007, 11:24:54 PM
I've been meaning to try a pair of Sennheiser....

It seems as if that brand enjoys particular popularity here..

I seem to remember that they are particularly recommmended by HP buffs for those who listen to a lot of classical music.

Quote from: bhodges on May 29, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
As an apartment dweller, I end up using headphones probably 75% of the time, especially since some of my listening is late at night.   

As an apartment dweller, I end up using headphones probably 95% of the time, especially since most of my listening is late at night.   :)

Quote from: Florestan on May 30, 2007, 07:26:49 AM
As an apartment dweller, I end up using headphones probably 95% of the time, especially since most of my listening is late at night.   :)

Then take good care of your ears my friend.
I could advise you a pair of Stax headphones.
It is proven beyond a doubt that electro magnetic headphones are significantly less harmful for your ears as dynamic ones.

Quote from: Harry on May 30, 2007, 07:37:25 AM
Then take good care of your ears my friend.

I never listen more than one hour and the volume is set to a middle level.

Quote from: Harry on May 30, 2007, 07:37:25 AMIt is proven beyond a doubt that electro magnetic headphones are significantly less harmful for your ears as dynamic ones.

The difference between them being... ?

Quote from: Florestan on May 30, 2007, 07:42:44 AM
I never listen more than one hour and the volume is set to a middle level.

The difference between them being... ?

No sound level pressure Andrei!

Quote from: Harry on May 30, 2007, 07:51:49 AM
No sound level pressure Andrei!

Sorry, I don't get it. The sound sensation in the ear is caused by air vibrations, that is, by pressure upon the ear's membrane, correct? No pressure, no sound, then.

Headphones (Grado SR225's, to be exact) but of necessity rather than choice.  I am in the midst of building a pair of speakers and at the moment have nothing else to listen thru.  Even when the speakers are done, I'll probably still use the cans a fair bit, as a lot of my listening is in the early AM or late evening, when the kids are asleep.

I use this DIY amplifier for the Grado's:

http://tangentsoft.net/audio/cmoy-tutorial/

More comments on headphone volume: I've been using headphones for over 25 years, with no problems whatsoever, and no hearing problems at all.  However, a quick poll of friends and listening habits recently told me that some (many?) people listen at a much, MUCH higher volume than I do. 

If you imagine the volume control as a clock face, I usually listen at about "9" or "10" -- sometimes "11" if it's Shostakovich  ;D -- but never any louder than that.  One friend said his control is usually turned to "2" or "3", which to me is unimaginable!  But if that is "normal" then I agree, some damage will probably occur.

--Bruce

I am shortly getting my first ipod and have a number of considerations to make. They are as follows:

1. I am stone deaf in one ear, so I need to look after what I have
2. I will be using the tube a lot in London so I need good noise cancellers (especailly as I won't want it too loud with the above fact)
3. I want something that will also be nice for the home

I want to spend absolutely no more than £100, preferably closer to £50.

Suggestions?

There are some "noise cancellers" here:

http://www.iheadphones.co.uk/sennheiser/35/Noise+Cancelling+Headphones.htm

EDIT: I am really worried about potential ear damage - does anyone have any good medical links on this? (or govt regulatory recommendations?)

A (literal) rule of thumb I read in an audio magazine re: listening volume.  Hold your hand near your ear and rub your thumb and first two fingers together (ie. in the "It's about the money" gesture).  If you can't hear the rubbing sound, you're listening too loud.  I find this works with open-back headphones as well as speakers, though it might not work with closed headphones.

Quote from: Michel on May 30, 2007, 08:24:50 AM
I am shortly getting my first ipod and have a number of considerations to make. They are as follows:

1. I am stone deaf in one ear, so I need to look after what I have
2. I will be using the tube a lot in London so I need good noise cancellers (especailly as I won't want it too loud with the above fact)
3. I want something that will also be nice for the home

I want to spend absolutely no more than £100, preferably closer to £50.

Suggestions?

There are some "noise cancellers" here:

http://www.iheadphones.co.uk/sennheiser/35/Noise+Cancelling+Headphones.htm

EDIT: I am really worried about potential ear damage - does anyone have any good medical links on this? (or govt regulatory recommendations?)

I don't have any information for you regarding ear health, so I can't comment on that. I do enjoy the inner ear canal, passive noise canceling buds like the Shure SE210's on the second page of that list you linked. You might be able to find a decent price on some Etymotic ER6's or if you're willing to spend a little more for improved sound, the ER-4 model is nice.

It does take a day or two to get used to the feel of the flange in your ear. Some have said it even feels painful the first day... it was mildly uncomfortable for me, but after a couple of days it felt very natural. The foam buds are even more comfortable--Etymotics come packaged with a variety of buds so you can find one that works best for you. Once you're used to them, you don't really have to worry about headphone fatigue either as they are absolutely not cumbersome like around the ear cans are.

The advantages to these are that you can keep a lower volume level... on public transportation, I can turn my iPod to less than 20% of max volume (not very loud at all) and enjoy all the details my music without hearing engine noise or other conversation. Actually, with the iPod off and my ER-6's inserted, I cannot even hear conversations others are having. Additionally, you won't require another power source like some of the active cancelers require, so less cargo to worry about. The sound is great even without a discrete headphone amp too.

Again tho', I can speak to the potential damage any headphone type might cause your ears. I listen on a very low volume and have been doing the same thing for a few years daily on my commute to work every Monday through Friday with no loss of hearing.... the only ear trouble I have comes from the nasty central Texas allergens I have to deal with.. but they don't make a headphone that cures sinus congestion, AFAIK. :)

Quote from: Florestan on May 30, 2007, 07:58:13 AM
Sorry, I don't get it. The sound sensation in the ear is caused by air vibrations, that is, by pressure upon the ear's membrane, correct? No pressure, no sound, then.

Electrostatic membranes work differently, best surf on internet how that works Andrei.
For my English is not good enough to explain this! :)

Quote from: Harry on May 30, 2007, 07:37:25 AMIt is proven beyond a doubt that electro magnetic headphones are significantly less harmful for your ears as dynamic ones.

I would like to see any study that would support this claim. Generally, studies focus on volume and time and their impact on ear health... both electrostatic and dynamic headphones generate sound by the vibration of a diaphragm just through different means. Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

Quote from: bhodges on May 30, 2007, 08:14:40 AM
If you imagine the volume control as a clock face, I usually listen at about "9" or "10" -- sometimes "11" if it's Shostakovich  ;D -- but never any louder than that.  One friend said his control is usually turned to "2" or "3", which to me is unimaginable!  But if that is "normal" then I agree, some damage will probably occur.

--Bruce

That's where I play mine at too, Bruce. I guess that it depends upon the strength of your amplifier as to where the knob is set, but I agree that many play too loud. I feel that its best to start with a low volume and slowly increase until it seems loud enough. That way not as much volume is needed IMO. Of course, if I find myself needing to crank something to get more intensity, it's usually because the performance lacks the punch I desire.  :)

I've been using headphones since long ago and never had any problems. I think that as long as you keep the volume at a middle-to-low level and limit the time of listening to an hour at most everything's just fine.

But in the streets or subways I often come across teenagers wearing headphones through wich I can distinctly hear the music (mostly heavy metal) although I am a meter away from them. IMO they are certainly candidates for deafness in a few years.

To say nothing about the drivers of cars through the closed windows of which I can hear the music from my apartment at the third floor. That's certainly madness.

BTW, I've never been able to listen to classical music while driving. It distracts me from the road traffic. :)

Quote from: beclemund on May 30, 2007, 08:51:03 AM
I don't have any information for you regarding ear health, so I can't comment on that. I do enjoy the inner ear canal, passive noise canceling buds like the Shure SE210's on the second page of that list you linked. You might be able to find a decent price on some Etymotic ER6's or if you're willing to spend a little more for improved sound, the ER-4 model is nice.

It does take a day or two to get used to the feel of the flange in your ear. Some have said it even feels painful the first day... it was mildly uncomfortable for me, but after a couple of days it felt very natural. The foam buds are even more comfortable--Etymotics come packaged with a variety of buds so you can find one that works best for you. Once you're used to them, you don't really have to worry about headphone fatigue either as they are absolutely not cumbersome like around the ear cans are.

The advantages to these are that you can keep a lower volume level... on public transportation, I can turn my iPod to less than 20% of max volume (not very loud at all) and enjoy all the details my music without hearing engine noise or other conversation. Actually, with the iPod off and my ER-6's inserted, I cannot even hear conversations others are having. Additionally, you won't require another power source like some of the active cancelers require, so less cargo to worry about. The sound is great even without a discrete headphone amp too.

Again tho', I can speak to the potential damage any headphone type might cause your ears. I listen on a very low volume and have been doing the same thing for a few years daily on my commute to work every Monday through Friday with no loss of hearing.... the only ear trouble I have comes from the nasty central Texas allergens I have to deal with.. but they don't make a headphone that cures sinus congestion, AFAIK. :)

I have had a pair of er-4's for about five years. no problem. I just have to change the filter and the flanges or foam a couple of times a year. Its best to try and keep you ears as clean as possible to avoid the wax buildup.  My best reason for having them is they are fabulous on airplanes...I also listen thru a headphone amp.....most of the time without the cross-feed....

This is one poll which I had a feeling would result in an even split between speakers and headphones.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed so far. :)

Quote from: Mark on May 30, 2007, 03:05:48 PM
This is one poll which I had a feeling would result in an even split between speakers and headphones.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed so far. :)

Mark,
I did not state which I prefer.  It depends on the situation. I have a pair of KLH9's Electrostats for  35 years. I only needed a velodyne subwoofer because of the lack of bass on the speakers, but I never thought of changing speakers.there that good.........

Quote from: Harry on May 29, 2007, 10:48:17 AM
100% speakers Young master Mark. ;D

Mark - I'll have to vote w/ Harry - I prefer loudspeakers; not sure that I can judge the 'quality' of the disc's sound production as well w/ headphones; also, my wife does not enjoy continuous 'loud' music played in the house, much to my distress -  ::)  So, most recently I picked up the Sennheiser R120 'wireless' headphones shown below - pretty happy w/ their performance - work well in the same room but w/ occasional RF interference - I'm pleased w/ the purchase & she's happy, esp. on the weekends!  ;) :D

(http://www.mrgadget.com.au/catalog/images/sennheiser_rs120_rs_120_wireless_headphones.gif)

Speakers exclusively now. I haven't used headphones since the early 90s. We bought a house that has good sound insulation, heavy doors between all the rooms, double paned windows with Rolladen (rolling shutters). The master bedroom is far enough away from the main listening room that I can crank up the volume late at night and Mrs. Rock's sleep isn't disturbed. The neighbors can't hear the music either. Not one complaint in 16 years. Ideal digs for Mahler and Bruckner and Wagner  8)

Sarge

So what exactly do headphone amps do? 

Quote from: 12tone. on May 30, 2007, 04:53:43 PM
So what exactly do headphone amps do? 

They essentially function in the same manner as a power amp, only instead of driving loudspeakers, they drive headphones.  If your preamp or receiver already has a headphone jack, you won't need an amp, strictly speaking.  However, such jacks are usually an afterthought without much thought or expense put into them.  Therefore, you might realize better performance by using a dedicated headphone amp.

Quote from: Harry on May 30, 2007, 08:51:10 AM
Electrostatic membranes work differently, best surf on internet how that works Andrei.
For my English is not good enough to explain this! :)

Your english is not the problem, the fact that your claim violates the laws of physics is the crux of it.

Quote from: SonicMan on May 30, 2007, 04:03:51 PM
Mark - I'll have to vote w/ Harry - I prefer loudspeakers; not sure that I can judge the 'quality' of the disc's sound production as well w/ headphones; also, my wife does not enjoy continuous 'loud' music played in the house, much to my distress -  ::)  So, most recently I picked up the Sennheiser R120 'wireless' headphones shown below - pretty happy w/ their performance - work well in the same room but w/ occasional RF interference - I'm pleased w/ the purchase & she's happy, esp. on the weekends!  ;) :D

(http://www.mrgadget.com.au/catalog/images/sennheiser_rs120_rs_120_wireless_headphones.gif)

I've long considered picking up a pair of wireless headphones. Any problems with signal quality or disruption? I'd love to make a purchase.

Quote from: Steve on May 31, 2007, 10:37:17 AM
I've long considered picking up a pair of wireless headphones. Any problems with signal quality or disruption? I'd love to make a purchase.

Steve - I was using those 'wireless' headphones today - in the same room, the sound is excellent, however, there is occasional 'interference' presumably from other signals being picked up by the unit - not a big problem, but one that has to be 'accepted' if you want to go this route.  The system can be 'tuned' to 3 different channels if you will, but does not seem to make a big difference relative to the occasonal distortion.  Years ago, I had a wireless set (probably was infrared transmission?) that was pretty much useless, this newer technology is acceptable, but certainly does not compare w/ a 'wired' set of headphones.  Bottom line - sound quality is excellent, but occasional static from extraneous signals.  Hope this helps - Dave  :)

I have some FM wireless Sony cans for TV/DVD listening. The interference is such that I wouldn't dream of using them for music. Fine for occasional use, IMO.

I've used headphones for a long, long time!

(http://th164.photobucket.com/albums/u3/national_girl09/th_298002493_eb20dc15bb_o.jpg)

Quote from: SonicMan on May 31, 2007, 02:29:33 PM
Steve - I was using those 'wireless' headphones today - in the same room, the sound is excellent, however, there is occasional 'interference' presumably from other signals being picked up by the unit - not a big problem, but one that has to be 'accepted' if you want to go this route.  The system can be 'tuned' to 3 different channels if you will, but does not seem to make a big difference relative to the occasonal distortion.  Years ago, I had a wireless set (probably was infrared transmission?) that was pretty much useless, this newer technology is acceptable, but certainly does not compare w/ a 'wired' set of headphones.  Bottom line - sound quality is excellent, but occasional static from extraneous signals.  Hope this helps - Dave  :)

Thanks for the advice, Dave. In my dorm room at college, I wouldn't really be able to make much use of wireless headphones, but when I'm at home, I like to be able to be able to read by my fireplace while listening. I had a nice, long conversation with a good friend who made it very clear to me that, while the technology has certainly seen great improvement, it could not be expected to replace the primary, wired set, for the serious listener.

I was hoping from your previous post, that you the distoritions/interruptions were tolerable, and I gather that they are.

Anyway, I'll be looking into these in the near future. I've discovered that a single set of headphones (my wonderful AKGs) just won't cut it.

Thanks, again.  :)

You have the K601s, right Steve? I have the K501s (the 'Classical music cans', if marketing hype can be believed), and find them very clean and precise. Some say these lack bass weight, which apparently AKG fixed on the K601s and K701s. How do you find the bass response on your set?

Quote from: Mark on May 31, 2007, 02:47:29 PM
You have the K601s, right Steve? I have the K501s (the 'Classical music cans', if marketing hype can be believed), and find them very clean and precise. Some say these lack bass weight, which apparently AKG fixed on the K601s and K701s. How do you find the bass response on your set?

Yes, I have the 601s. My father owns the classic 501s as well as the new 701s.

There is definately a bass problem on the K501s, and having listened to all three models, I can say with certainty that the problem is gone in the newer models. The difference between the 501s and 601s can't be overstated. It's not just the bass- overall response is better - warmer lows, more poignant highs.. it's worth the upgrade.

Glad to hear another AKGer on this forum. No Sennheiser for me.  :)

Quote from: bhodges on May 29, 2007, 09:26:05 AM
They're all but on the way.  I absolutely love Sennheisers, mostly because you can listen for extended periods (and noting Bonehelm's comment, at reasonable volume levels!) and they are amazingly comfortable.  They are the first headphones I've found that don't squash your ears; they fit around them.  It's a simple concept, but a surprising number of headphones basically put a mild, vise-like squeeze your head, rather than resting on it.  Big difference!

--Bruce

It's interesting that you find the 580's so comfortable.  When I first purchased these, I felt like they had a vise grip on my head after about 30 minutes of a listening session.  I actually put them around a basketball for a few days to stretch out the headband -- and that worked very well, as they are now very comfortable for extended periods.  I subsequently purchased a pair of the Senn 595's.  They are even more comfortable than the 580's.  I first purchased the 595's because I was not thrilled with the sound of the 580's out of my portable players (Rio, Creative MP3 and iRiver CD).  However, I later found that the 580's sound fabulous out of my PC's Audigy 2 sound card.  I also own a pair of the subsequently mentioned Sensaphonic 2X-S IEM's, which have a beautifully balanced sound (and they better, for the price).  Previously I owned the Ety ER-4 and ER-6 IEM's, neither of which satisfied me for classical music.  I also just purchased a pair of noice cancelling headphones from Audio Technica (ATHNC7), which is my first pair of closed and/or noise cancelling phones. 

BTW, I still greatly prefer speakers for listening to music, especially Mahler!  I was forced to take up the headphone habit because I have young children at home. 

Quote from: sperlsco on June 01, 2007, 07:45:38 AM
It's interesting that you find the 580's so comfortable.  When I first purchased these, I felt like they had a vise grip on my head after about 30 minutes of a listening session.  I actually put them around a basketball for a few days to stretch out the headband -- and that worked very well, as they are now very comfortable for extended periods. 

No, no...I had "committed to purchase" the 580s, but haven't actually bought them yet, so there's still time to turn back!  ;D  I have been using a pair of 570s, which were about as comfortable as one could ask for, and thought I'd upgrade to the 580s after hearing and reading very complimentary reviews.  But having to stretch them around a basketball doesn't speak well for comfort!  And now I'm hearing more good comments about the 595s, so I'll definitely try them out as well.  Thanks for the comments.

--Bruce

Quote from: Steve on May 31, 2007, 09:49:35 PM
Yes, I have the 601s. My father owns the classic 501s as well as the new 701s.

There is definately a bass problem on the K501s, and having listened to all three models, I can say with certainty that the problem is gone in the newer models. The difference between the 501s and 601s can't be overstated. It's not just the bass- overall response is better - warmer lows, more poignant highs.. it's worth the upgrade.

Glad to hear another AKGer on this forum. No Sennheiser for me.  :)

Thanks for that, Steve.

I have to confess that I'm starting to 'see the light' where Sennheiser are concerned. I've owned a few pairs of AKGs (the K501s being the most top-end of these), and while I like the laidback presentation and crystal clear highs, I do feel that these cans can be guilty of colouring sound a tad more than their Sennheiser counterparts. Of course, I've not tried every pair from both makers, so I'm just generalising based on limited experience. But I do think my next purchase will be the HD 280 Pros (64 oHm). Sorry if that disappoints. We can still be AKGers on GMG, though: I shan't be discarding my K501s anytime soon. ;D

Well, right now HeadRoom (http://www.headphone.com/guide/by-manufacturer/sennheiser/) is having a massive sale on the HD595 ($200) and HD 650 ($350).

I am a headphone man myself, but only out of necessity.  I live in an apartment and work in an office.  Both of these environments require a different headphone.  For home I have the HD590's, which do me fine, but with the price of the HD595's so low, I might take them up on the offer.  For work, I have the HD280 Pro cans which are some of the best closed headphones you can buy.  They are great because I can turn my music up pretty loud and no one can hear it.

Those prices on the 595 and 650 are pretty amazing. You can't even find a decent set of used 595s for 200 clams... It may be time to add some more cans to the collection. :)

I guess Sennheiser is planning a new update to the Audiophile line soon as there have been more than a few rebate offers popping up lately.

Quote from: Mark on June 01, 2007, 04:30:24 PM
Thanks for that, Steve.

I have to confess that I'm starting to 'see the light' where Sennheiser are concerned. I've owned a few pairs of AKGs (the K501s being the most top-end of these), and while I like the laidback presentation and crystal clear highs, I do feel that these cans can be guilty of colouring sound a tad more than their Sennheiser counterparts. Of course, I've not tried every pair from both makers, so I'm just generalising based on limited experience. But I do think my next purchase will be the HD 280 Pros (64 oHm). Sorry if that disappoints. We can still be AKGers on GMG, though: I shan't be discarding my K501s anytime soon. ;D

I just finished listening to Mahler's 3rd on my father's kingly K701s. You must have a listen some time.  :)

As a side note, AKGers needn't be exclusive. Just make sure those K501 keep getting good use.  ;D

$4,000 for this if you apparently want the best sound ever. 



(http://www.audioadvancements.com/headphones/sony.jpg)




"Sony MDR-R10 (half way down the page) (http://www.exoticaudio.org/PAGE20.html) for just $4,000. When buying...say the magic words "king of headphones" and haggle it down to $3999.99."


More information (http://www.themegifts.com/audiophile/products/audsonr1O.htm)

Quote from: 12tone. on June 01, 2007, 10:55:15 PM
$4,000 for this if you apparently want the best sound ever.

Finding a set of those R10s would be the tricky part, of course.

You could certainly best that price--and some would probably argue performance--with Stax Omega or Sennheiser Orpheus electrostatics since they are paired with a required Amp. But then, who really wants to spend upwards of $10K on cans when you can come close to that quality of sound reproduction with a judicious combination of headphone amp + HD600, CD3000, ER4S, K701, DT990, RS1 etc. for around $2K. :)

Quote from: head-case on May 31, 2007, 10:20:11 AM
Your english is not the problem, the fact that your claim violates the laws of physics is the crux of it.

He, back off, its not my claim, go on the internet and find out about electro statics instead of falling over me dude! :P

Quote from: Catison on June 01, 2007, 05:06:58 PM
Well, right now HeadRoom (http://www.headphone.com/guide/by-manufacturer/sennheiser/) is having a massive sale on the HD595 ($200) and HD 650 ($350).

Brett, a big thank-you for posting this.  I was going to venture down to a store here, but instead, ordered the HD595s from HeadRoom -- that's a pretty amazing price.

--Bruce

Quote from: Harry on June 01, 2007, 11:54:10 PMHe, back off, its not my claim, go on the internet and find out about electro statics instead of falling over me dude!

I did some searching through the internet and through some journal indexes and I could not find any study that stated an advantage (or even tested) in ear safety with electrostatic over electromagnetic (dynamic) headphones. Almost universally, studies focus on the appropriate volume level (regardless of headphone type) and time. Most recommend steady listening at 10-50% maximum volume and no more than a few minutes at volume levels higher than that to insure ear health. Most headphone resellers (and product information if my Grados are any indication) suggest the same.

Though just because I am coming up blank does not mean there might be some information out there that does confirm Harry's claim. It is just proving very difficult to find. Fortunately, I work in a major academic library, so I can spend a little time investigating still. I will certainly post if anything comes up. But so far, aside from using different methods to vibrate a diaphragm, electrostatic and dynamic headphones appear to have the same impact on ear health. Do yourself a favor and keep the volume on the lower half of the knob when listening by headphones--and do you neighbors a favor by doing the same with your loudspeakers. :)

Quote from: Harry on June 01, 2007, 11:54:10 PM
He, back off, its not my claim, go on the internet and find out about electro statics instead of falling over me dude! :P

Harry, how does an electro static headphone preserve hearing?  I can't find very much about it on the internet and I can't understand why high volume sound reproduced by an electro magnetic headphone will be less harmful to the ears than any other high volume sound produced any other way.  Isn't it the actual sound wave that does the damage, not the instrument producing the sound?  Does it really matter if the wave is produced by an electro magnetic headphone, a conventional headphone or a speaker that is too close to your ear played at too high a volume?  For that matter, I went to a brass band concert in a hall with excellent accoustics and the sound was so loud that I had to keep my fingers in my ears for most of the time.  Afterwards I was afraid that my ears had been damaged because they were ringing for hours afterwards.

Quote from: Bunny on June 02, 2007, 10:02:05 PM
Harry, how does an electro static headphone preserve hearing?  I can't find very much about it on the internet and I can't understand why high volume sound reproduced by an electro magnetic headphone will be less harmful to the ears than any other high volume sound produced any other way.  Isn't it the actual sound wave that does the damage, not the instrument producing the sound?  Does it really matter if the wave is produced by an electro magnetic headphone, a conventional headphone or a speaker that is too close to your ear played at too high a volume?  For that matter, I went to a brass band concert in a hall with excellent accoustics and the sound was so loud that I had to keep my fingers in my ears for most of the time.  Afterwards I was afraid that my ears had been damaged because they were ringing for hours afterwards.

I am busy finding this article back, but you know if you badly want it...............
What I can remember is that it came from a engineer from BIS. He is using Stax as their recording and edit headphones. These headphones, and that is my experience also, because in the past I used the same headgear, produce less dynamic pressure.
Had something to do with the membrane, and the way the music is push out of it.
It was a printed article, but I can find it right now, and internet does not help. But I am on to it. Give me some time.
All will be well! :)

95% of the time it is through speakers.  The other 5% through my BOSE noise reduction headphones.  I know they are not the preferred here, but they work very nicely for me.....especially with the kiddos running amok from time to time.  :)

Quote from: Harry on June 02, 2007, 11:12:20 PM
I am busy finding this article back, but you know if you badly want it...............
What I can remember is that it came from a engineer from BIS. He is using Stax as their recording and edit headphones. These headphones, and that is my experience also, because in the past I used the same headgear, produce less dynamic pressure.
Had something to do with the membrane, and the way the music is push out of it.
It was a printed article, but I can find it right no, and internet does not help. But I am on to it. Give me some time.
All will be well! :)

Thanks!  I wouldn't even know where to start looking. :)

Quote from: Bogey on June 02, 2007, 11:17:16 PM
95% of the time it is through speakers.  The other 5% through my BOSE noise reduction headphones.  I know they are not the preferred here, but they work very nicely for me.....especially with the kiddos running amok from time to time.  :)

Lucky you!  My chicks have grown and flown so I do get nostalgic for the days when they were constantly underfoot.

Quote from: Bunny on June 03, 2007, 05:30:22 AM
Lucky you!  My chicks have grown and flown so I do get nostalgic for the days when they were constantly underfoot.

:)

Just listened to this CD through my AKG K501s:

(http://shop.castleclassics.co.uk/acatalog/553696.gif)

I'd forgotten that a) it's a superb disc (the Invocation for Cello & Orchestra is particularly fine); and b) the K501s have a superbly natural quality to them. Nothing felt forced, delicate textures were pin-sharp, and I really felt as though I was sat in a concert hall. A tweak of the tone controls on my hifi (such as it is) brought out a touch more bass response, rounding out the sound nicely. A very enjoyable hour spent. :)

Quote from: Mark on June 03, 2007, 08:56:11 AM
Just listened to this CD through my AKG K501s:

(http://shop.castleclassics.co.uk/acatalog/553696.gif)

I'd forgotten that a) it's a superb disc (the Invocation for Cello & Orchestra is particularly fine); and b) the K501s have a superbly natural quality to them. Nothing felt forced, delicate textures were pin-sharp, and I really felt as though I was sat in a concert hall. A tweak of the tone controls on my hifi (such as it is) brought out a touch more bass response, rounding out the sound nicely. A very enjoyable hour spent. :)

Quote from: Mark on June 03, 2007, 08:56:11 AM


Another Naxos reccomendation.  ;D

Don't knock it till you've heard it, Steve. ;)

I am forced to use headphones now, because my neighbours hear the music. For me speakers are really preferable. I try to listen with headphones now, but I really enjoy the music less. When I listen to speakers I always imagine my room is a lot bigger, like a concert hall, which makes it even more natural and big.
I really feel I need that space to enjoy music. Hopefully I get used to headphones and will enjoy music as much as I enjoy it with using speakers and having the space. Otherwise I have a problem and am forced to listen music much less. I just bought some better headphones I have now, hopefully that will work better.

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2008, 07:33:01 AM
I am forced to use headphones now, because my neighbours hear the music. For me speakers are really preferable. I try to listen with headphones now, but I really enjoy the music less. When I listen to speakers I always imagine my room is a lot bigger, like a concert hall, which makes it even more natural and big.
I really feel I need that space to enjoy music. Hopefully I get used to headphones and will enjoy music as much as I enjoy it with using speakers and having the space. Otherwise I have a problem and am forced to listen music much less. I just bought some better headphones I have now, hopefully that will work better.

I wish you good luck as you listen more to music on headphones.  Personally, I'm equally happy with headphones and speakers.  With speakers, the music does "expand" greatly, but with headphones there is a more intimate soundstage and musical details are more readily heard. 

Quote from: Don on August 14, 2008, 07:38:21 AM
I wish you good luck as you listen more to music on headphones.  Personally, I'm equally happy with headphones and speakers.  With speakers, the music does "expand" greatly, but with headphones there is a more intimate soundstage and musical details are more readily heard. 

Thanks, Don. Hopefully I just have to get used to it and appreciate it.

Henk, if you use a media player or hifi component (i.e. headphone amplifier) that has a crossfeed function, you'll enjoy listening through headphones a lot more. It retains the intimate soundstage of which Don speaks, but increases the sense of space ... while decreasing listening fatigue. Some say the effects are subtle. All I know is that it puts more 'air' around the music.

I hope those work out well for you, Henk.  In addition to the virtue of privacy, headphones offer terrific value:  you can get a very good set of cans together with a very good headphone amp for well under $1000 US, the combination offering accuracy of tone, transparency, detail, and full-range frequency response that cannot be equalled for anywhere near the price by loudspeakers and the electronics to drive them.  

In general, except for near disposable utility when used for travel or exercise, I would not recommend cheap headphones--the reason being that very good headphones cost only a couple of hundred bucks more than cheap ones (unless your cheap ones are made by Bose, in which case they might cost more than good ones!), and will give you years of satisfaction, whereas the cheap ones will be a disappointment that will only cost you more in the long run as you'll eventually replace them with something better.

Quote from: Mark on August 14, 2008, 07:45:34 AM
Henk, if you use a media player or hifi component (i.e. headphone amplifier) that has a crossfeed function, you'll enjoy listening through headphones a lot more. It retains the intimate soundstage of which Don speaks, but increases the sense of space ... while decreasing listening fatigue. Some say the effects are subtle. All I know is that it puts more 'air' around the music.

The sense of space also expands significantly with headphones when listening to an SACD disc, assuming you use an SACD player.

Thanks for advicing, Mark and David.

I don't want to spend a lot of money only for headphones. Because the quality of listening may increase a little but I don't expect wonders. I think it's more important that I will get used to headphones. I think I just listened to music I didn't really like at that moment, which made me think the headphones were the reason for it. I'm glad I listen now to some music with headphones and enjoy it. Nevertheless I prefer speakers.

Henk, just wanted to mention these Sennheiser 595 headphones, which are fantastic.  The sound has great space, depth and realism, and they are incredibly comfortable, with velvet earpads and a cushioned headpiece.  They rest on your head, rather than "squeezing" your head: I have worn them for 3-4 hours at a time, easily.  At www.headphone.com they sell for just under $200 (they list them for $259, but IIRC you call and they e-mail you the lower price).

I listen through speakers as well, but I have to confess that the sound from these is just as satisfying.

--Bruce 

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2008, 08:25:13 AM
Thanks for advicing, Mark and David.

I don't want to spend a lot of money only for headphones. Because the quality of listening may increase a little but I don't expect wonders. I think it's more important that I will get used to headphones. I think I just listened to music I didn't really like at that moment, which made me think the headphones were the reason for it. I'm glad I listen now to some music with headphones and enjoy it. Nevertheless I prefer speakers.

You don't understand what Mark is saying.  One reason headphones sound artificial is that the left channel is heard only by the left ear, and visa versa.  When listening with speakers your left preferentially hears the left channel, and visa versa, but each ear also hears the opposite channel, with some delay and attenuation.  A headphone amp with cross-feed will duplicate this effect electronically, and make the experience of listening with headphones more similar to listening with speakers.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 14, 2008, 07:54:19 AM
I hope those work out well for you, Henk.  In addition to the virtue of privacy, headphones offer terrific value:  you can get a very good set of cans together with a very good headphone amp for well under $1000 US, the combination offering accuracy of tone, transparency, detail, and full-range frequency response that cannot be equalled for anywhere near the price by loudspeakers and the electronics to drive them. 

In general, except for near disposable utility when used for travel or exercise, I would not recommend cheap headphones--the reason being that very good headphones cost only a couple of hundred bucks more than cheap ones (unless your cheap ones are made by Bose, in which case they might cost more than good ones!), and will give you years of satisfaction, whereas the cheap ones will be a disappointment that will only cost you more in the long run as you'll eventually replace them with something better.

Which are prefered by you?

Quote from: scarpia on August 14, 2008, 08:41:31 AM
You don't understand what Mark is saying.  One reason headphones sound artificial is that the left channel is heard only by the left ear, and visa versa.  When listening with speakers your left preferentially hears the left channel, and visa versa, but each ear also hears the opposite channel, with some delay and attenuation.  A headphone amp with cross-feed will duplicate this effect electronically, and make the experience of listening with headphones more similar to listening with speakers.

Thanks for explaining. But I can't offerd to spend 1000 bucks more. I'm curious about the effect, but probably this is something for later. But I hope I can listen to speakers then again. If there was a good hifi store here, I would have tried it.

     

Quote from: scarpia on August 14, 2008, 08:41:31 AM
You don't understand what Mark is saying.  One reason headphones sound artificial is that the left channel is heard only by the left ear, and visa versa.  When listening with speakers your left preferentially hears the left channel, and visa versa, but each ear also hears the opposite channel, with some delay and attenuation.  A headphone amp with cross-feed will duplicate this effect electronically, and make the experience of listening with headphones more similar to listening with speakers.

      The same principle was used as long ago as the '70s by Bob Carver to increase the ambiance for speakers (it was called Sonic Holography). He designed such a circuit into the Phase Linear preamp. It also featured a "peak unlimiter/downward expander" to increase dynamic range. I don't know how well these features worked.

Quote from: bhodges on August 14, 2008, 08:40:48 AM
Henk, just wanted to mention these Sennheiser 595 headphones, which are fantastic.  The sound has great space, depth and realism, and they are incredibly comfortable, with velvet earpads and a cushioned headpiece.  They rest on your head, rather than "squeezing" your head: I have worn them for 3-4 hours at a time, easily.  At www.headphone.com they sell for just under $200 (they list them for $259, but IIRC you call and they e-mail you the lower price).

I listen through speakers as well, but I have to confess that the sound from these is just as satisfying.

--Bruce 

Bruce I hope the headphones I just ordered are just a good. Some reviewers, who also have listened with different Sennheisers, told the sound was different, less warm, but more transparent and also has great space. They prefered the Philips to the Sennheiser. I think in comfort it's not overclassed by the Sennheiser. They look quite the same:
(http://images.kieskeurig.nl/images/product_big/F7E30A4600E16E50C12571E90052E8AE_big.jpg)

This one costs $100. I may also buy a Sennheiser later or an AKG.

Well, those look good, too.  (I haven't tried them so I don't know what they sound like.)

--Bruce

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2008, 08:54:46 AM
Thanks for explaining. But I can't offerd to spend 1000 bucks more. I'm curious about the effect, but probably this is something for later. But I hope I can listen to speakers then again. If there was a good hifi store here, I would have tried it.

You won't need to spend $1000 to get this feature.  Headroom makes a small amplifier with crossfeed that costs $100 (plus $15 more if you want to use AC power).   For $160 you can get a version which can also receive audio from a USB port.  I don't have this model, but have another rather inexpensive amp from this same company (nla) that works very nicely.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphone-amps/the-mobile-line/

Of course you can spend a lot more if you want something more impressive looking.

Quote from: scarpia on August 14, 2008, 09:05:41 AM
You won't need to spend $1000 to get this feature.  Headroom makes a small amplifier with crossfeed that costs $100 (plus $15 more if you want to use AC power).   For $160 you can get a version which can also receive audio from a USB port.  I don't have this model, but have another rather inexpensive amp from this same company (nla) that works very nicely.

http://www.headphone.com/products/headphone-amps/the-mobile-line/

Of course you can spend a lot more if you want something more impressive looking.

This makes it more interesting for me! What's your experience with it? Do you hear big differences? Does the sound really improve much? Isn't it just a gadget for audiophiles? Your explanation makes it reasonable why it will work and makes a real difference but how is it in practice?
Another question. Does it only work for portable players? Or can you just plug it in the cd-player in the headphones output and plug the headphones into this amp?

Quote from: scarpia on August 14, 2008, 08:41:31 AM
You don't understand what Mark is saying.  One reason headphones sound artificial is that the left channel is heard only by the left ear, and visa versa.  When listening with speakers your left preferentially hears the left channel, and visa versa, but each ear also hears the opposite channel, with some delay and attenuation.  A headphone amp with cross-feed will duplicate this effect electronically, and make the experience of listening with headphones more similar to listening with speakers.

Thanks for explaining in more detail. :)

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2008, 09:13:47 AM
This makes it more interesting for me! What's your experience with it? Do you hear big differences? Does the sound really improve much? Isn't it just a gadget for audiophiles?

It is not a dramatic effect, but it makes the sound more natural.

Here is something to try.  Listen to a mono recording (or use the mono setting on your amp) and put only one earphone on your head instead of two.  When you brain receives a signal from one ear only it doesn't know what to do with it.  I perceive it as somehow hollow and nonlocalized.  That's what can happen with headphones if the stereo separation is too strong and individual instruments are coming from only one side.  On some recordings that have a lot of reverberation and cross-feed built into the mix the improvement from the cross-feed feature is negligible.  But for particularly dry, close miked recordings, the cross-feed amplifier can make an unlistenable recording listenable.

Quote from: scarpia on August 14, 2008, 09:29:19 AM
It is not a dramatic effect, but it makes the sound more natural.

Here is something to try.  Listen to a mono recording (or use the mono setting on your amp) and put only one earphone on your head instead of two.  When you brain receives a signal from one ear only it doesn't know what to do with it.  I perceive it as somehow hollow and nonlocalized.  That's what can happen with headphones if the stereo separation is too strong and individual instruments are coming from only one side.  On some recordings that have a lot of reverberation and cross-feed built into the mix the improvement from the cross-feed feature is negligible.  But for particularly dry, close miked recordings, the cross-feed amplifier can make an unlistenable recording listenable.

I can imagine it. But doesn't make this amp just a mono stereo from a stereo record? The delay must be very little.
Is the sound also not transferred through the skull, which makes the sound "more natural".

Last question. Does it only work for portable players? Or can you just plug it in the cd-player in the headphones output and plug the headphones into this amp?

Henk, search for, download and install foobar2000. Then search for and add in its crossfeed component. Set it up, plug in your headphones and give it a try. I guarantee you'll hear a more natural sound from some recordings, as scarpia rightly says.

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2008, 09:40:21 AM
I can imagine it. But doesn't make this amp just a mono stereo from a stereo record? The delay must be very little.
Is the sound also not transferred through the skull, which makes the sound "more natural".

The delay is small but significant.  Your brain uses the small time delays between your ears to localize sounds.

Quote
Last question. Does it only work for portable players? Or can you just plug it in the cd-player in the headphones output and plug the headphones into this amp?

The model I have connects to line-out on a CD player or preamplifier.  The one for portable probably runs off of the headphone output of the player, but I assume it could just as well be driven by the headphone output of a CD player or amplifier.

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2008, 08:46:15 AM
Which are prefered by you?

Headphones?  My best set for home use is the AKG-701 driven by a Channel Islands amp.  The crossfeed idea that Mark raised is an effort to simulate aural cues that fool your brain into hearing a more natural acoustic space, rather than the usual headphone effect of sound originating inside your head. 

Headphones roughly 98.2% of the time.

The last time I've listened to classical over speakers was when the laundromat played the local classical station.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 14, 2008, 10:44:20 AM
Headphones?  My best set for home use is the AKG-701 driven by a Channel Islands amp.  The crossfeed idea that Mark raised is an effort to simulate aural cues that fool your brain into hearing a more natural acoustic space, rather than the usual headphone effect of sound originating inside your head. 

Why do you use an amp then after all (if you don't use crossfeed), and why an amp for headphones specifically?

Quote from: Mark on August 14, 2008, 10:13:25 AM
Henk, search for, download and install foobar2000. Then search for and add in its crossfeed component. Set it up, plug in your headphones and give it a try. I guarantee you'll hear a more natural sound from some recordings, as scarpia rightly says.

Great tip. I did it, but I hardly noticed any difference.

Quote from: Henk on August 15, 2008, 02:22:29 AM
Great tip. I did it, but I hardly noticed any difference.

Lucky man. You'll probably enjoy any pair of cans ...

Quote from: Henk on August 14, 2008, 11:41:19 AM
Why do you use an amp then after all (if you don't use crossfeed), and why an amp for headphones specifically?

I need something to amplify the signal from the source sufficiently to drive them.  Since I had to buy something to power my cans, I preferred spending less to get something that's designed for the job, rather than spending more for something that's not.

Speakers. Classical recordings are optimized for the use of speakers, headphone-optimized recordings need a completely different technology.

Regular A-B, Faulkner-AB, Decca Tree, XY, MS microphone setups (and the infinite varieties in between) were ALL developed for (stereo) speaker use.

A microphone system developed for headphone use is the Neumann "Kunstkopf"

(http://www.studerundrevox.de/images/content/neumann/neumann-ku100.jpg)

For the use of speakers, this setup is useless, which is why this type of "binaural" recording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording)) is hardly ever employed.

Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 15, 2008, 05:58:26 AM
... headphone-optimized recordings ...

Care to cite an example of such a recording? I'm aware of none. ???

Me neither. But the setup is listed in every textbook on stereo recordings, so someone must have used it.

Last year when I made my first classical recording I dug into the literature a bit and opted for an A-B setup with additional mics for every instrument (in a string quartet).

Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 15, 2008, 06:57:25 AM
Me neither. But the setup is listed in every textbook on stereo recordings, so someone must have used it.

Last year when I made my first classical recording I dug into the literature a bit and opted for an A-B setup with additional mics for every instrument (in a string quartet).

Gosh...I'd have taken you for a purist!

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 15, 2008, 07:02:06 AM
Gosh...I'd have taken you for a purist!

Additional mics are almost always used. In a string quartet e.g. a pure AB-setup wouldn't work because you need to pick up the cellist separately. So you can use either AB with one additional mic for the cello, or one for each instrument.

This is a small section of one of the pieces we recorded (final mix): http://www.bluenote-musik.de/ohne_hall.mp3 (http://www.bluenote-musik.de/ohne_hall.mp3)

Even the famous Decca Tree, a triangle setup of identical microphones developed by Kenneth Wilkinson and others was routinely augmented by placing various supporting mics among the the orchestra.

A 2-mics only approach for chamber/orchestral performances is great in theory, but because of the unpredictability of recording venues it is uncommon. Denon was a company that proposed using a single microphone pair (e.g. for the Inbal Mahler).

Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 15, 2008, 07:29:07 AM
Additional mics are almost always used. In a string quartet e.g. a pure AB-setup wouldn't work because you need to pick up the cellist separately. So you can use either AB with one additional mic for the cello, or one for each instrument.

This is a small section of one of the pieces we recorded (final mix): http://www.bluenote-musik.de/ohne_hall.mp3 (http://www.bluenote-musik.de/ohne_hall.mp3)

Even the famous Decca Tree, a triangle setup of identical microphones developed by Kenneth Wilkinson and others was routinely augmented by placing various supporting mics among the the orchestra.

A 2-mics only approach for chamber/orchestral performances is great in theory, but because of the unpredictability of recording venues it is uncommon. Denon was a company that proposed using a single microphone pair (e.g. for the Inbal Mahler).

Thomas

Decca only supplanted their tree, first with two "out-riggers" then with multiple spot mikes, later on.  Minimal miking was also used by RCA, Mercury, Sony, Telarc, BIS, with great results.  Of course it depends on an appropriate recording venue and great attention to the placement of the microphones.
 

can't hear the phone with headphones.  ???

Quote from: Frankler on August 15, 2008, 11:24:53 AM
can't hear the phone with headphones.  ???

Sounds like a plus to me!

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 15, 2008, 12:11:30 PM
Sounds like a plus to me!

It would also be easier for someone to sneek up on you with a knife!

(http://sp1.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com/image/25/f11/102291821)

Quote from: Frankler on August 15, 2008, 12:25:35 PM
It would also be easier for someone to sneek up on you with a knife!

A sense of humor is always welcome 'round here!

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2053/1683172155_58bf9f3354.jpg)

Quote from: Mark on August 15, 2008, 06:26:28 AM
Care to cite an example of such a recording? I'm aware of none. ???

An interesting notion in that some CM recordings I have seem to have a better balance when heard on headphones. Also I have photos of CM producers in the studio seemingly directing matters whilst listening through headphones. If so I think this is a mistake. Maybe it explains so many unnatural things in recordings, for example the impossibly vast dynamic range one often hears.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on August 16, 2008, 03:08:02 AM
An interesting notion in that some CM recordings I have seem to have a better balance when heard on headphones. Also I have photos of CM producers in the studio seemingly directing matters whilst listening through headphones. If so I think this is a mistake. Maybe it explains so many unnatural things in recordings, for example the impossibly vast dynamic range one often hears.

(a) Recording engineers listening through headphones are attending to attributes other than "imaging" (the apparent distribution of sound in space).
(b) Dynamic range of a CD = 96dB.  Dynamic range of an orchestra or rock band > 115dB.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 16, 2008, 03:51:44 AM
Dynamic range of an orchestra or rock band > 115dB.

Really? You forget the background noise. The audience of a rock concert makes easily 70 dB noise. 115 dB - 70 dB = 45 dB is the usable dynamic range.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2008, 04:55:53 AM
Really? You forget the background noise. The audience of a rock concert makes easily 70 dB noise. 115 dB - 70 dB = 45 dB is the usable dynamic range.

That observation--correct in principle though not in particulars--is not relevant to the issue.

      I think some of the Stereophile discs were recorded with a Blumlein pair supplemented with outriggers (probably for bass response).

     (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Blumlein_-Stereo.png/618px-Blumlein_-Stereo.png)

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 16, 2008, 03:51:44 AM
(a) Recording engineers listening through headphones are attending to attributes other than "imaging" (the apparent distribution of sound in space).
(b) Dynamic range of a CD = 96dB.  Dynamic range of an orchestra or rock band > 115dB.

Who is talking about an orchestra or rock band?? I'm taking largely about string quartets, harpsichords etc. You get a range from barely audible to speaker distorting levels at the same amp volume setting on some of the CDs I've got. I can't say I've ever heard anything like this live from a quartet. But even which orchestral music the instrumental balance is often not realistic. Really sometimes these guys haven't got a clue, the sound is completely fake.

Quote from: Rod Corkin on August 16, 2008, 12:10:11 PM
Who is talking about an orchestra or rock band?? I'm taking largely about string quartets, harpsichords etc. You get a range from barely audible to speaker distorting levels at the same amp volume setting on some of the CDs I've got. I can't say I've ever heard anything like this live from a quartet. But even which orchestral music the instrumental balance is often not realistic. Really sometimes these guys haven't got a clue, the sound is completely fake.

Ever heard the expression, "the pot calling the kettle black?"

Maximum sound pressure levels of various sources, including musical instruments (http://www.peppermanagement.net/Safety/Hearing/Hearing%20Chart.doc)

Quote from: Rod Corkin on August 16, 2008, 12:10:11 PMYou get a range from barely audible to speaker distorting levels at the same amp volume setting on some of the CDs I've got.

There are some classical recordings (one I readily remember is Järvi's La Mer/Roussel 4th etc on Chandos) where you'll find it difficult to adjust the volume only once during playback because of the huge dynamic range. Actually I don't think this is "fake" at all. On the contrary, this dynamic range may just be too close to reality for the speakers to cope. But I never ever experienced this with string quartets or harpsichords.

Usually, limiters and compressors are used to keep the dynamic range within the limits that most speakers can handle. Whether that's an entirely good thing is open to question (especially in this day and age of "living-room-friendly" miniature speakers - so aptly called Brüllwürfel in German), since that is clearly a distortion of reality.

Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 17, 2008, 12:18:51 AM
There are some classical recordings (one I readily remember is Järvi's La Mer/Roussel 4th etc on Chandos) where you'll find it difficult to adjust the volume only once during playback because of the huge dynamic range. Actually I don't think this is "fake" at all. On the contrary, this dynamic range may just be too close to reality for the speakers to cope. But I never ever experienced this with string quartets or harpsichords.

Usually, limiters and compressors are used to keep the dynamic range within the limits that most speakers can handle. Whether that's an entirely good thing is open to question (especially in this day and age of "living-room-friendly" miniature speakers - so aptly called Brüllwürfel in German), since that is clearly a distortion of reality.

Thomas

Well I have looked around on other forums and the issue of unrealistic dynamic range has been mentioned by others, I'm not just making this up. But there are worse things - mix issues (eg solo vocalists too prominent in the mix) and inconsistent recording levels between movements (I presume the result or different recording sessions) are other things I find annoying even on the most modern recordings.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 16, 2008, 05:10:09 AM
That observation--correct in principle though not in particulars--is not relevant to the issue.

Sorry, what is the issue? The title is "Headphones or speakers" and people are talking about dynamic ranges and decibels. I made a correct observation. Why is it not relevant? I am confused. 

Quote from: 71 dB on August 17, 2008, 01:23:35 AM
Sorry, what is the issue? The title is "Headphones or speakers" and people are talking about dynamic ranges and decibels. I made a correct observation. Why is it not relevant? I am confused. 

(a) A raucous crowd fueled by booze, narcotics, and testosterone is not usually present at recording sessions (except, of course, when Celine Dion is in the studio).
(b) The recording engineer's challenge in capturing low-level information masked by a high noise floor does not change the dynamic range of the music itself.

At least you know you're confused, which is great, since knowing you don't know makes learning possible.  Alas, poor Corkin! 

Though he has the particulars backwards, it is true that more attention is getting focused on the issue of unrealistic dynamic range in digital recordings these days.  I don't believe that severe compression making ultra "hot" recordings has much infected the classical music industry (though wouldn't be surprised to see it with those "crossover" records aimed at a general audience, i.e. Renee Fleming Sings Radiohead), but it is an increasingly common practice with pop music that has gotten so out of hand that the range on a typical pop record these days is something like 6dB.  See, for instance, this site (http://www.cutestudio.net/data/products/audio/CD%20clipping/index.php), for a clear explanation of what's being called "the loudness war." 

I suspect that among the main reasons the masses seem to prefer music recorded at unrealistically high levels with severe dynamic compression are (a) unfamiliarity with real music, having been exposed almost exclusively to recordings (and of amplified, not "acoustic" music) and (b) listening to (or hearing, at least!) music against a noisy background environment, i.e. in the car or at the gym or on a busy street or playground.  The more nearly realistic range of properly recorded classical music in such environments makes it almost impossible to hear because one must constantly turn the volume down and up to accommodate loud and quiet passages in the music.  (Ever try listening to a BIS CD in your car?  Impossible!).  Even at home, with inadequate playback gear, if one turns up gain to hear very soft pianissimos, the following tutti fortissimos are likely to drive the amplifier into clipping and/or cause speaker breakup or congestion.

I've never heard a recording with different levels between movements.  Perhaps Mr. Corkin is equally confused on this point and thinks that the loudness difference between the fortissimo tutti ending of movement one and the delicate pianissimo solo flute beginning of movement two is due to the recording and not to the music itself.  However, he is certainly right about some of the other choices made by recording engineers (or, more accurately, made by their business masters but executed by the engineers!)--particularly the practice of "spotlighting" a featured performer by boosting her levels relative to the orchestra or ensemble accompanying her. 

This practice seems particularly widespread in recordings featuring one of the current crop of "sweet young thing" violinists or sopranos, the decision driven by marketing, not technical considerations.  Even this, however, is not necessarily unrealistic, since what the listener hears in real life depends largely upon his position in the acoustic space relative to the performers.  For instance, a couple of years ago we attended a series of violin concerto performances, for which we chose seats in center front.  The loudness of the soloists relative to the rest of the orchestra in that spot differed significantly from the balance one hears, say, two-thirds of the way back, or in the dress circle.

Great post David.  Just out of curiousity, and your recent spins of vinyl, how do you compare the two sounds (vinyl v. cd) when it comes to different music genres and keeping your above comments in mind?  Hope you caught my earlier post on this.

Also, can we toss in the notion of the boom of portable players making this "loudness" ingrediant a factor?

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 16, 2008, 03:51:44 AM
(b) Dynamic range of a CD = 96dB.  Dynamic range of an orchestra or rock band > 115dB.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2008, 04:55:53 AM
Really? You forget the background noise. The audience of a rock concert makes easily 70 dB noise. 115 dB - 70 dB = 45 dB is the usable dynamic range.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 16, 2008, 05:10:09 AM
That observation--correct in principle though not in particulars--is not relevant to the issue.

Mr. Ross, it was your observation which was irrelevant.  The number you cite (apparent from the link you later posted) is not "dynamic range" but "loudness"  Dynamic range is the ratio between the intensity of the loudest and softest passages in a sound source.  Loudness is the ratio of the intensity to a standard intensity (supposed to be the lowest intensity that is perceptible).  The source for your 115dB is quoting intensity, how loud the rock band is with respect to the standard sound level.   There is no limitation on how intense a sound can be recorded on a CD, you just turn the gain down.  There is a limitation on dynamic range, since the softest sound that a CD can reproduce is 96 dB below the loudest sound.  71dB is correct that a rock band doesn't require much dynamic range, since it is uniformly loud and does not vary in intensity much (as evidenced by the fact that it is typically heard against a large amount of background noise.
 

Quote from: scarpia on August 18, 2008, 04:38:54 AM
Mr. Ross, it was your observation which was irrelevant.  The number you cite (apparent from the link you later posted) is not "dynamic range" but "loudness"  Dynamic range is the ratio between the intensity of the loudest and softest passages in a sound source.  Loudness is the ratio of the intensity to a standard intensity (supposed to be the lowest intensity that is perceptible).  The source for your 115dB is quoting intensity, how loud the rock band is with respect to the standard sound level.   There is no limitation on how intense a sound can be recorded on a CD, you just turn the gain down.  There is a limitation on dynamic range, since the softest sound that a CD can reproduce is 96 dB below the loudest sound.  71dB is correct that a rock band doesn't require much dynamic range, since it is uniformly loud and does not vary in intensity much (as evidenced by the fact that it is typically heard against a large amount of background noise.

Dynamic range is the difference, expressed in decibels, between peak sound pressure level (i.e. the loudest tutti passage) and minimum spl (ideally 0 dB in the case of a rest sufficiently long for reverberation to cease in a perfectly quiet environment).  Per the source I cited, the maximum spl for an orchestra is ~137 dB, and for a rock band it's ~150 dB.  The dynamic range of either is the same (you have heard of rests, haven't you?).  What 71dB refers to as the "usable dynamic range"--i.e. the difference between peak spl and the noise floor—is somewhat less: under typical recording conditions the noise floor is, say, ~30 dB, making a usable dynamic range of >100 dB.

The condition you describe involving a rock band playing at a near uniform spl within a very limited dynamic range is hardly representative of music in general and has virtually no relevance in discussing the ability of CDs to adequately represent the dynamic range inherent in all kinds of music...and it has no relevance whatsoever to the issue raised by Mr. Corkin and addressed in my foregoing posts.

Quote from: Bogey on August 17, 2008, 12:57:46 PM
...how do you compare the two sounds (vinyl v. cd) when it comes to different music genres and keeping your above comments in mind?  Hope you caught my earlier post on this.

Also, can we toss in the notion of the boom of portable players making this "loudness" ingrediant a factor?

To me, Bill, vinyl playback just generally sounds more like real music--slightly richer, fuller, a bit more relaxed and more liquid--in comparison to CD, somewhat like the comparison between tubes and transistors.  What one hears will, of course, vary tremendously depending upon playback equipment and conditions.  CD mastering and Digital to Analog Conversion have come a long way since the '80s, when the original CDs were lifeless and so shrill they were painful to hear.  Upsampling, oversampling, and high-resolution have significantly improved digital sound as well.

Insofar as the difference among genres, I would say that a much greater percentage of classical recordings are made with a concern for musical fidelity, with some labels specializing in such "audiophile" virtue, whereas the overwhelming majority of pop recordings are engineered as hot and highly compressed as possible.  And, yes, I think it's no coincidence that the death of high fidelity has gone hand in glove with the spread of "mp3s" and portable digital music players.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 18, 2008, 06:06:10 AM
To me, Bill, vinyl playback just generally sounds more like real music--slightly richer, fuller, a bit more relaxed and more liquid--in comparison to CD, somewhat like the comparison between tubes and transistors. 

Both I think are myths. The LP has a reduced dynamic, as have tubes in comparison to transistors, not to mention those lovely pops. Most of the tall tales about either hark back to the CD mastering, or transistor-amp technology,  :D. The tube issue e.g. is raised here: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Digital technology is cold and analytic, while analogue is warm and cozy. Yeah, right. I tried several tube amps (and tube CDPs) myself. Only badly designed amps sound warm and cozy.  ;D

The real problem is that people no longer want properly sized speakers in their living rooms. All these mini-cube 5.1 / 6.1 / 7.1 sets, independent of the price, are just incapable of delivering a true hifi-sound over the whole dynamic spectrum.

Thomas

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 18, 2008, 06:06:10 AM
To me, Bill, vinyl playback just generally sounds more like real music--slightly richer, fuller, a bit more relaxed and more liquid--

One sales pitch I heard recently for some high end equipment was that "with this set-up, your cds will sound like vinyl."   :D

Yeah. I'm waiting for the day they come up with something like "Buy this internet radio, and it will sound like a Volksempfänger"  ;D

Someties, it does.

Thomas

Quote from: Bogey on August 18, 2008, 08:28:48 PM
One sales pitch I heard recently for some high end equipment was that "with this set-up, your cds will sound like vinyl."   :D

Might be some good stuff, eh?  "New and improved" ain't necessarily so.  My ears aren't particularly golden--especially in middle age!--but I'd rather trust my own hearing than the pet theory of some arrogant jerk with an ax to grind.  Interesting that vinyl is making a comeback.  Of course, according to those who consider themselves our betters, only idiots would prefer the virtues of analog over those of digital.  If they enjoy wrapping themselves in their comforting blankets of smug superiority, let them; we "idiots" will just have to content ourselves with enjoying superior sound.

Incidentally, I listened to Lloyd-Jones's Naxos CD of Alwyn's Lyra Angelica last night for the first time in a year or so--astonishingly good sound!

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 19, 2008, 10:11:37 AM
but I'd rather trust my own hearing than the pet theory of some arrogant jerk with an ax to grind.  Interesting that vinyl is making a comeback.  Of course, according to those who consider themselves our betters, only idiots would prefer the virtues of analog over those of digital.  If they enjoy wrapping themselves in their comforting blankets of smug superiority, let them; we "idiots" will just have to content ourselves with enjoying superior sound.

They are the ones that are arrogant?  $:)

QuoteDetermining the accuracy of audio reproduction is a completely objective process. Evaluating aesthetic satisfaction derived from audio reproduction is, on the other hand, totally subjective. Critics who confuse or conflate the two are doing the consumer a great disservice and are responsible for most of the grotesque misinformation that blights today's audio journalism. We believe in measuring and we believe in listening but we don't believe in measuring with our ears.

(from the Audio Critic hp)

QuoteIncidentally, I listened to Lloyd-Jones's Naxos CD of Alwyn's Lyra Angelica last night for the first time in a year or so--astonishingly good sound!

And it's not even on vinyl.

Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 20, 2008, 01:20:25 AM
They are the ones that are arrogant?  $:)

Yes.  See the following quote (which you conveniently reproduced above):

QuoteDetermining the accuracy of audio reproduction is a completely objective process. Evaluating aesthetic satisfaction derived from audio reproduction is, on the other hand, totally subjective. Critics who confuse or conflate the two are doing the consumer a great disservice and are responsible for most of the grotesque misinformation that blights today's audio journalism. We believe in measuring and we believe in listening but we don't believe in measuring with our ears.

(from the Audio Critic hp)

Having only part of the story is just ignorance.  Having only part of the story but insisting that you know it all is arrogance.  Having only part of the story, insisting that you know it all, and attacking anyone who disputes your omniscience as either an idiot or an unscrupulous huckster (or both) indicates a far more serious personality disorder than mere arrogance.

Quote from: sound67 on August 20, 2008, 01:20:25 AMAnd it's not even on vinyl.

That's correct.  The recording engineer has far more to do with preserving or distorting sound quality than the recording's storage medium.  If the source is good, then your downstream playback equipment has a shot at reproducing good sound.  If the source is crappy, then good equalization or digital-to-analog conversion, clean signal amplification, and even the best, most neutral, full-range loudspeakers will deliver crappy sound.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 17, 2008, 05:46:01 AM
(a) A raucous crowd fueled by booze, narcotics, and testosterone is not usually present at recording sessions (except, of course, when Celine Dion is in the studio).
(b) The recording engineer's challenge in capturing low-level information masked by a high noise floor does not change the dynamic range of the music itself.

At least you know you're confused, which is great, since knowing you don't know makes learning possible.  Alas, poor Corkin!

I know what I'm talking about but I don't know what you are talking about. It's clear that in studio the background noise level is very low (or the studio sucks) but I was talking about live concert were fans make noise and also levels of music are much higher than in studio.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 17, 2008, 05:46:01 AMThough he has the particulars backwards, it is true that more attention is getting focused on the issue of unrealistic dynamic range in digital recordings these days.  I don't believe that severe compression making ultra "hot" recordings has much infected the classical music industry (though wouldn't be surprised to see it with those "crossover" records aimed at a general audience, i.e. Renee Fleming Sings Radiohead), but it is an increasingly common practice with pop music that has gotten so out of hand that the range on a typical pop record these days is something like 6dB.  See, for instance, this site (http://www.cutestudio.net/data/products/audio/CD%20clipping/index.php), for a clear explanation of what's being called "the loudness war."

I know the loudness war, I am an acoustics engineer for heaven's sake!

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 17, 2008, 05:46:01 AMI suspect that among the main reasons the masses seem to prefer music recorded at unrealistically high levels with severe dynamic compression are (a) unfamiliarity with real music, having been exposed almost exclusively to recordings (and of amplified, not "acoustic" music) and (b) listening to (or hearing, at least!) music against a noisy background environment, i.e. in the car or at the gym or on a busy street or playground.  The more nearly realistic range of properly recorded classical music in such environments makes it almost impossible to hear because one must constantly turn the volume down and up to accommodate loud and quiet passages in the music.  (Ever try listening to a BIS CD in your car?  Impossible!).  Even at home, with inadequate playback gear, if one turns up gain to hear very soft pianissimos, the following tutti fortissimos are likely to drive the amplifier into clipping and/or cause speaker breakup or congestion.

Agreed.

Portable players should have build-in dynamic compression that can be turned off. I also recommend dramatic reduction of channel separation below 500 Hz in headphone listening. Perhaps even the headphones themselves could have this feature? CDs should have "original" dynamics, of course.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 20, 2008, 05:17:31 AM
I know what I'm talking about but I don't know what you are talking about. It's clear that in studio the background noise level is very low (or the studio sucks) but I was talking about live concert were fans make noise and also levels of music are much higher than in studio.

Yes.  We were discussing the ability of CDs to reproduce realistic dynamic range of music.  You observed that there is a relatively narrow effective dynamic range of live rock music played against an environmental noise floor of ~70dB.  I responded that your observation was not relevant to the matter under discussion:  recorded music, with a very low background noise level rather than the loud background noise level caused by thousands of noisy fans at a rock concert.

I must say, chaps, that I've been thoroughly enjoying this unfolding discussion. And FWIW, I agree about the 'vinyl nostalgia' that blinds some to the virtues of CD sound. Yes, early CDs may have been engineered in too clinical a way that meant some of the 'warmth' so often referred to by vinyl fanboys was lost. But can this still be said to be true? No, it can't. There are now so many top-end players and amplifiers able to deliver superb highs and lows that really, this whole debate should be something of a non-starter.

As I see it, Mark, in relation to vinyl the issue under discussion is not whether CDs can sound good, but whether analog LPs sound good.  For some, the fact that CDs are superior according to a certain set of parameters decides the issue in favor of CDs.  Others doubt that a subset of conveniently measurable characteristics captures the whole story and prefer to trust the evidence of their senses.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 20, 2008, 06:10:51 AM
Others doubt that a subset of conveniently measurable characteristics captures the whole story and prefer to trust the evidence of their senses.

Their imagination, not their senses. And certainly not the common one.  ;)

Thomas

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 20, 2008, 06:10:51 AM
As I see it, Mark, in relation to vinyl the issue under discussion is not whether CDs can sound good, but whether analog LPs sound good.  For some, the fact that CDs are superior according to a certain set of parameters decides the issue in favor of CDs.  Others doubt that a subset of conveniently measurable characteristics captures the whole story and prefer to trust the evidence of their senses.

As I hear it, David, analog LPs do sound 'good'. And given the right playback equipment chain, they can sound very good. But do they sound better than CDs? That's a highly subjective area. As you say, it's down to some trusting the 'evidence' of their senses. If we bear in mind that we can't all agree on which interpretations we enjoy of any given work, then it has to be admitted that many of us will equally differ in our opinions about the sound quality of the media we choose to use for playback of any given work. I, for example, love that CDs are blessedly free of pops and clicks. Some, however, say they don't hear such extraneous noises on their vinyl pressings ... even when I'm in the same room, listening to the same LP, hearing those very noises! ;D

Quote from: sound67 on August 20, 2008, 06:14:27 AM
Their imagination, not their senses. And certainly not the common one.  ;)

Thank you for that ironic demonstration (surely intentional  ;) ) of the arrogance mentioned earlier...and perfectly coupled with that painfully smug sense of personal superiority so often manifested by attacking others as deluded idiots!  You clearly have keen insight into the psyches of those poor, benighted souls who confuse their thimbleful of learning for omniscience and seek to impose their beliefs on others with a totalitarian fervor rarely seen outside of political dictators, religious zealots, and football fans.

Oh, I see David, you also have the pleasure to meet sound67's character in action. Welcome to the club.

Quote from: Mark on August 20, 2008, 06:24:21 AM
As I hear it, David, analog LPs do sound 'good'. And given the right playback equipment chain, they can sound very good. But do they sound better than CDs? That's a highly subjective area. As you say, it's down to some trusting the 'evidence' of their senses. If we bear in mind that we can't all agree on which interpretations we enjoy of any given work, then it has to be admitted that many of us will equally differ in our opinions about the sound quality of the media we choose to use for playback of any given work. I, for example, love that CDs are blessedly free of pops and clicks. Some, however, say they don't hear such extraneous noises on their vinyl pressings ... even when I'm in the same room, listening to the same LP, hearing those very noises! ;D

David is right on with his take Mark.  That is exactly why I switched to having both again.  Of course this leads to bit of a storage issue, and resources (money) get dispersed over a wider field, however, I am enjoying both.  And that is the point of either, or both.  ;)  And, if you did not catch my post here, Mark:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5870.380.html

And just think of all those "used" shops you haunt and that $1/lp rack whispering in your left ear as you try to sleep tonight, haunting you.  :D

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 20, 2008, 07:04:06 AM
Thank you for that ironic demonstration (surely intentional  ;) ) of the arrogance mentioned earlier...and perfectly coupled with that painfully smug sense of personal superiority so often manifested by attacking others as deluded idiots!  You clearly have keen insight into the psyches of those poor, benighted souls who confuse their thimbleful of learning for omniscience and seek to impose their beliefs on others with a totalitarian fervor rarely seen outside of political dictators, religious zealots, and football fans.

Now, come off it, David. I merely pointed out that all acoustic measurements clearly point towards the superiority of the CD, and that cannot be denied. As the "audio critic" above says that "aesthetic satisfaction" is subjective - and that that's ok, but has no place - or should have no place - in the reviewer's evaluation of an audio device.

SACD then is technically superior to CD, and again, there's no denying it. Many people say that can hear that difference very clearly. I can't. No difference at all, provided the playback is stereo and the mastering of the albums of the same standard. The SACDs advantages in frequency range and dynamics are evident, but they are at a level the human ear cannot perceive. Humans can't hear above 20kHz, and that's what regular CDs deliver. SACDs can deliver up to 100KHz, but why?

Apart from all those glorious pops and clicks on LPs, their dynamics are severaly limited and well below the "performance" of the human ear. The advantage of the CD is simply there.

I myself went for the "tube lie" - and even though I know it's a lie (as a result not of reading, but of extensive comparisons between tube and "mosfet"-driven equipment), I enjoy listening (and "looking at") music delivered through a tube amplifier. But I do not go around saying that the sound is "analogue" or "warm" - because the only "warm" thing about a tube amp are the tubes themselves. And they simply cannot reproduce music with the same degree of accuracy that a transistor amp can, even with best of electronic design - that's what "hifi" means. The tubes, like vinyl, are a technology of the past that the present has improved upon. The only reason they're not obsolete is that we derive "aesthetic satisfaction" from them - you from the vinyl, me, from the tubes (the glimming, to be precise). But to go around saying that EITHER delivers "superior"(!) sound is just preposterous.

The real reason there is a renaissance of tubes and vinyl is bare and simple: The industry want you to buy new equipment. If someone doesn't go for SACD or DVD-Audio (or BlueRay-HD), he might go for tubes and/or vinyl. If people stick with their perfectly acceptable CD technology, companies will go broke.

And the industry are using the "audio magazines" as their propaganda machine - and people buy the story, as well as the equipment.

Thomas

My responses are embedded in the quoted post below:

Quote from: sound67 on August 20, 2008, 10:33:34 PM
Now, come off it, David. I merely pointed out [False] that all acoustic measurements clearly point towards the superiority of the CD [False] and that cannot be denied [False]. As the "audio critic" above says that "aesthetic satisfaction" is subjective - and that that's ok, but has no place - or should have no place - in the reviewer's evaluation of an audio device [False, but debatable.  The entire role of the "audio critic" is to present an informed listener's evaluation of the net effect of not just objective measurements of a few convenient parameters but also the sound.  Clearly, you think that "sound" refers to the physical propogation of waves of varying frequencies.  Others recognize this as a very significant contributor to sound, but consider "sound" itself as what happens when those waves interact with the physical components of human hearing (outer ear, inner ear, eardrum, fine bones, brain, etc.--which vary among listeners), and the software component of human hearing, the mind (which varies even more among different listeners).  In other words, you are certain that a tree falling in a depopulated forest makes a sound; others think there's a bit more to the matter than that.] .

SACD then is technically superior to CD, and again, there's no denying it. Many people say that can hear that difference very clearly. I can't. [And yet you subsequently conclude that since YOU don't hear the difference, there is no difference to be heard.]  No difference at all, provided the playback is stereo and the mastering of the albums of the same standard. The SACDs advantages in frequency range and dynamics are evident, but they are at a level the human ear cannot perceive. Humans can't hear above 20kHz, and that's what regular CDs deliver. SACDs can deliver up to 100KHz, but why? [More distinguishes CD and SACD than this, which you almost certainly know...right?]

Apart from all those glorious pops and clicks on LPs, their dynamics are severaly limited and well below the "performance" of the human ear. The advantage of the CD is simply there. ["Pops and clicks" are not intrinsic to LPs, just a function of ill-cared-for vinyl and substandard playback equipment.  Insofar as the dynamics of LPs goes, see this (http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html).]

I myself went for the "tube lie" - and even though I know it's a lie (as a result not of reading, but of extensive comparisons between tube and "mosfet"-driven equipment), I enjoy listening (and "looking at") music delivered through a tube amplifier. But I do not go around saying that the sound is "analogue" or "warm" - because the only "warm" thing about a tube amp are the tubes themselves. And they simply cannot reproduce music with the same degree of accuracy that a transistor amp can, even with best of electronic design - that's what "hifi" means. The tubes, like vinyl, are a technology of the past that the present has improved upon. The only reason they're not obsolete is that we derive "aesthetic satisfaction" from them - you from the vinyl, me, from the tubes (the glimming, to be precise). But to go around saying that EITHER delivers "superior"(!) sound is just preposterous.  [Correct!  Neither is inherently superior.  Why then did you say, just two sentences above, that transistors are necessarily more accurate?]

The real reason there is a renaissance of tubes and vinyl is bare and simple: The industry want you to buy new equipment. If someone doesn't go for SACD or DVD-Audio (or BlueRay-HD), he might go for tubes and/or vinyl. If people stick with their perfectly acceptable CD technology, companies will go broke. [Certainly a contributing factor, but hardly the entire story, and to insist that it is again is just another attack on others who don't share your exalted opinion of your opinions.]

And the industry are using the "audio magazines" as their propaganda machine - and people buy the story, as well as the equipment. [Same as above.]

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 22, 2008, 07:00:03 AM
My responses are embedded in the quoted post below:

Lazy bum.

I said "more accurate" because I meant "more accurate". And it's a reality.

Thomas

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 20, 2008, 05:28:03 AM
Yes.  We were discussing the ability of CDs to reproduce realistic dynamic range of music.  You observed that there is a relatively narrow effective dynamic range of live rock music played against an environmental noise floor of ~70dB.  I responded that your observation was not relevant to the matter under discussion:  recorded music, with a very low background noise level rather than the loud background noise level caused by thousands of noisy fans at a rock concert.

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. Typical home stereo systems can produce sound pressure level peaks of about 100-110 dB. The background noise of the listening room is perhaps 30 dB. This means the dynamic range of CD is "just" enough. If CD is not enough there is always SACD.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2008, 11:08:17 AMIf CD is not enough there is always SACD.

Neither of which matters, because the ear (the human ear, as opposed to the bat's ear) isn't up to it.

Yes, David, I know, 100 kHz vs 20 kZh is not the whole story. It's also 24 bit vs. 16 bit. And you know? Neither of them matters.

Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 22, 2008, 11:51:25 AM
Yes, David, I know, 100 kHz vs 20 kZh is not the whole story. It's also 24 bit vs. 16 bit. And you know? Neither of them matters.

Not to you, who cannot hear the difference, but to those who can, it may.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 22, 2008, 12:58:44 PM
Not to you, who cannot hear the difference, but to those who can, it may.

So you hear the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit, but not the one between 20 KHz and 100 KHz. Fine. Neither matters.

ANY of those is beyond the capacity of human hearing.

Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 22, 2008, 11:51:25 AM
Neither of which matters, because the ear (the human ear, as opposed to the bat's ear) isn't up to it.

Yes, David, I know, 100 kHz vs 20 kZh is not the whole story. It's also 24 bit vs. 16 bit. And you know? Neither of them matters.

Thomas

The only significant benefit of SACD is multichannel sound. Better dynamics is a minor benefit. Wider frequency range is a microscopic benefit. This benefit comes from the fact that with CD we are "forced" to use steep brickwall filters at 20 kHz in order to prevent frequencies higher than 22.05 kHz from folding into lower frequencies. Steep filters ring. Theoretically non-linearity in the system can modulate this ringing into lower frequencies. For well-made equipment this problem is extremely small.

In HDCD format the shape of the brickwall filter is controlled by the music signal making the result "more musical". I have HDCD decoding in my amplifier and I find HDCD discs to have excellent sonics. Part of it is probably placebo effect. The technically perfect disc would be a hybrid SACD/HDCD disc. I wonder if these exists.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2008, 02:19:39 AM
The only significant benefit of SACD is multichannel sound.

True, but it also introduces new problems: speaker placement, bass management, balance ...

And the need to purchase five or six identical speakers, if multichannel is to make sense at all.  ;D

Maybe that's why there are so many stereo-only SACD players are out there. They should be completely useless.  $:)

In a little while all of these appliances will become obsolete as we're moving into the age of network multimedia and music players.

(http://www.soundgarden.ch/images/logitech-squeezebox-duet.jpg)


Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 23, 2008, 02:45:54 AM
True, but it also introduces new problems: speaker placement, bass management, balance ...

And the need to purchase five or six identical speakers, if multichannel is to make sense at all.  ;D

Well, I have solved these "problems". Multichannel sound is awesome when it works.

I think Elgar didn't even envision multichannel sound.  ;D

Personally, I've stopped at stereo, which allowed me to buy two very high grade specimen instead of six decent ones. IMHO that improves sound more significantly than multichannel sound ever would.  ;)

Thomas

Quote from: sound67 on August 23, 2008, 03:38:23 AM
I think Elgar didn't even envision multichannel sound.  ;D

Personally, I've stopped at stereo, which allowed me to buy two very high grade specimen instead of six decent ones. IMHO that improves sound more significantly than multichannel sound ever would.  ;)

Thomas

Well, Elgar was enthusiastic about the advances in audio technology but multichannel sound was decades away in his lifetime.

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. I have a home theater system that works well with music too. Since I have 5 speakers anyway, why not use them with multichannel SACDs? Most stereo material I listen to in stereo mode but many classical CDs sound excellent in dematrix modes.

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. You need to hear to understand.

Theoretically the more audio channels the better but it gets impractical fast. Stereo can be very good in it own ways but it is not the only way to go. 

    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.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2008, 06:57:49 AM
Well, Elgar was enthusiastic about the advances in audio technology but multichannel sound was decades away in his lifetime.

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. I have a home theater system that works well with music too. Since I have 5 speakers anyway, why not use them with multichannel SACDs? Most stereo material I listen to in stereo mode but many classical CDs sound excellent in dematrix modes.

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. You need to hear to understand.

Theoretically the more audio channels the better but it gets impractical fast. Stereo can be very good in it own ways but it is not the only way to go. 

     Good post. 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. This means usually that your sub will not be blasting for DVDs, and actually the balance will be better once you adjust to it. Also, your receiver/processor will probably have level adjustments by channel and/or format (DD, DTS, PCM) which will allow you to set up different balances for music and films.

That's the way it should be. At least that's the way it is in the cinema. On which those 5.1 home systems are modelled, at least in principle.
A subwoofer plays two roles: it can have its own dedicated channel, as in the digital formats, when it is typically referred to as LFE (Low Frequency Effects) channel. At least that's the Dolby terminology. DTS always simply called it the subwoofer, sometimes the digital subwoofer. The digital subwoofer or LFE level should not be set with an SPL meter, but an audio spectrum analyzer and pink noise played through the system. The average band of the subwoofer spectrum should be 10dB higher than the average band of the center channel.

The other role the subwoofer can play is that it simply supports the front channels, as it does in matrixed ProLogic which does not have a dedicated subwoofer or LFE channel but where a low-pass filter is applied to the sum of L-C-R which sends the passing frequencies to the subwoofer. The cutoff frequency setting of the low-pass filter depends on how well the front speakers perform in the lower part of the spectrum. Theoretically, if you have speakers which perform well all the way down to the lowest parts of the the spectrum, you do not need a subwoofer here. If used, the average band of the subwoofer spectrum should be exactly the same as the average band of the center channel spectrum. This application is usually referred to as the "analog subwoofer".

With digital sound formats, the subwoofer can in addition to playing back the LFE channel also be used in the same way, to support the front speakers. In that case, there have to be separate filter and level settings for that role, too.

A good system should have separate level settings for digital and analog subwoofer functions, and there should also be a parametric equalizer available as the subwoofer spectrum typically has one or two sharp peaks.

Additionally, it is important to make sure that front speakers and subwoofer are in phase. That means while it is not so critical where exactly the subwoofer is placed from left to right, its driver should line up vertically with the low frequency drives of the main channels to avoid phase shifts.

Quote from: drogulus on August 23, 2008, 03:49:04 PM
    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.

Quote from: drogulus on August 23, 2008, 03:49:04 PMIf 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.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2008, 06:57:49 AM
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.

QuoteThe 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

Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2008, 11:08:17 AMIt 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.

Quote from: sound67 on August 24, 2008, 01:48:41 AM
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.

Quote from: sound67 on August 24, 2008, 01:48:41 AMSince 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.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2008, 11:58:57 PM
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.

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. 

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.

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

Henk

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. ;D 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! :o)

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.

Quote from: jochanaan on July 13, 2009, 06:50:18 AM
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.

Quote from: DavidW on July 13, 2009, 08:19:25 AM
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. 8) I've found that even most musicians don't know this, but tuners have to deal with it constantly.

Alright thanks dude. :)

No problem, dude. :D

Quote from: jochanaan on July 13, 2009, 06:50:18 AM
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.

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.

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

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.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 17, 2009, 01:11:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 17, 2009, 01:11:48 PM
...headphones are...sometimes preferable because of the heightened transparency and clarity.

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

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.

Quote from: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 04:52:42 PM
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.

I find good  headphones give a satisfying enough bass for chamber music, it is the thud of a bass drum or thwack of a timpani, maybe the rumble of the pedel ranks of a large organ, where the kick-in-the-gut feeling is missing.  I use a simple headphone amp that has a cross-feed feature (left channel is fed to the left with slight temporal delay, and visa versa) which gives the headphones a more realistic sound stage.  Still, I prefer listening with speakers when at all possible.

Oh do you have a headroom amp?  I have the Total Airhead and it has that cross-feed feature.

Quote from: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 09:10:32 PM
Oh do you have a headroom amp?  I have the Total Airhead and it has that cross-feed feature.

I have an older amp from the same company (called the "headroom little" or something like that) probably comparable the current "Headroom Micro." 

Quote from: bhodges on May 29, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
As an apartment dweller, I end up using headphones probably 75% of the time, especially since some of my listening is late at night.   I prefer the more natural soundstage of speakers, but with good headphones (e.g., Sennheisers, at my house  :D) one can't really complain.  I have 4-5 pairs of headphones of various types (e.g., collapsible, noise-reducing, etc.) and I'm getting ready to splurge on a pair of Sennheiser 580s:

(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/319A3P26VQL._AA250_.jpg)

--Bruce

Please excuse me going to the beginning and bringing this up but I have the same headphones 580 precision, they are the best that I have ever had and will last me out, but I do prefer Speakers, I have KEF 104 reference and a dedicated room it is nearly as good as being at the original venue.

Quote from: Andante on July 19, 2009, 05:19:35 PM
Please excuse me going to the beginning and bringing this up but I have the same headphones 580 precision, they are the best that I have ever had and will last me out, but I do prefer Speakers, I have KEF 104 reference and a dedicated room it is nearly as good as being at the original venue.

I love those headphones, but sold them when I was inbetween jobs and they don't make them anymore. :'(  Their mids are too recessed imo, but they were still very nice headphones.  The Sennheiser 600 is still made though, with a higher price tag of course.

Right now my favorite brand is Audio-Technica and I use open air headphones of theirs while in the office, and it's bright, transparent in sound. 0:)