Ever wondered why music sounds so different on headphones compared to loudspeakers?

[dalethorn]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed publication and Dudley's column is really just a monthly collection of his thoughts on various subjects.

There are no measurements or other data in his column supporting his view that the signal generated by vinyl playback is somehow different from the signal generated by other means. In other words, it is just his opinion and, in my mind, carries no more weight than your opinion or the opinions of anyone else who has posted to this thread.

 

It is true that on a one-to-one person basis writing comments here, his opinion wouldn't necessarily carry more weight than anyone else. However, he is published. He publishes in a major journal that has a great wealth of information going back many years - a journal that represents a lot of audio heavyweights. If you can equate unknown individuals writing comments in a discussion forum to a professional tester/writer for Stereophile, saying that there is no difference, then I guess you're saying that there is no value in publications such as Stereophile, i.e. I might as well read Consumer Reports.

[kumakuma]

It is true that on a one-to-one person basis writing comments here, his opinion wouldn't necessarily carry more weight than anyone else. However, he is published. He publishes in a major journal that has a great wealth of information going back many years - a journal that represents a lot of audio heavyweights. If you can equate unknown individuals writing comments in a discussion forum to a professional tester/writer for Stereophile, saying that there is no difference, then I guess you're saying that there is no value in publications such as Stereophile, i.e. I might as well read Consumer Reports.

 

I've been subscribing to Stereophile for years and have a lot of respect for the publication but I don't take everything published in the magazine as the gospel truth. Columnists like Dudley have a monthly quota of column inches they need to churn out and this means that there's going to be a lot of filler and half-baked ideas in columns like the one you referenced.

[dalethorn]

I've been subscribing to Stereophile for years and have a lot of respect for the publication but I don't take everything published in the magazine as the gospel truth. Columnists like Dudley have a monthly quota of column inches they need to churn out and this means that there's going to be a lot of filler and half-baked ideas in columns like the one you referenced.

 

"Gospel truth" is a diversion. That's not what I was suggesting. But I will suggest that there's a serious lack of curiosity here.

[kumakuma]

But I will suggest that there's a serious lack of curiosity here.

 

Probably more a lack of interest than a lack of curiosity...

[dalethorn]

Probably more a lack of interest than a lack of curiosity...

 

You've really been commenting a lot on this for having a lack of interest, now haven't you?

 

Here's your other problem. You're suggesting that Dudley merely "tossed out an opinion". But that's quite obviously not true. Dudley didn't say "Well, I get the idea that the record player is unique in offering a more significant source signal than blah blah blah...." Not by a long shot. He went out of his way to make a special point of it being the *only* medium to generate its own electrical signal, with an emphatic declaration that he knew it to be true. So if he's wrong, it wasn't merely a mistake or faulty opinion - he in fact stated it with full qualification and emphasis as absolutely true. By that standard, I'd suggest that he's either right (most likely), or you're right and he's completely ignorant about record players and electronics (unlikely).

[kumakuma]

You've really been commenting a lot on this for having a lack of interest, now haven't you?

 

Here's your other problem.

 

Thank you for the reminder that I have better things to do with my life.

[flak]

I think it lost its cool several days ago.

 

Read, signed and approved :)

 

Flavio

[semente]

Dudley's Stereophile article has a high ground on several counts. The pushback here has no ground other than x number of people say something. I supplied a link or two to something unique, so what I'd like to see with the 'pushback' are links to authoritative comparisons of the signal generated by stylii and tape heads. I didn't quote a forum member who said that stylii uniquely generate their own signal, I quoted a respected source that's been in print for 2-1/2 years.

 

You seem to imply that a) Dudley is a "respected" "authority" and b) that people here are "not knowledgeable enough" even though enough information has been put through to effectively rebute Dude's wishfull thought "theory"...

 

I have posted a link to an article on Sound on Sound which investigates possibly causes of analogue warmth.

In my opinion it is monumentally more interesting that the cheerleading opinion that Dudley wrote in favour of the audio tailors and of vinyl...

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

 

R

[4est]

You've really been commenting a lot on this for having a lack of interest, now haven't you?

 

Here's your other problem. You're suggesting that Dudley merely "tossed out an opinion". But that's quite obviously not true. Dudley didn't say "Well, I get the idea that the record player is unique in offering a more significant source signal than blah blah blah...." Not by a long shot. He went out of his way to make a special point of it being the *only* medium to generate its own electrical signal, with an emphatic declaration that he knew it to be true. So if he's wrong, it wasn't merely a mistake or faulty opinion - he in fact stated it with full qualification and emphasis as absolutely true. By that standard, I'd suggest that he's either right (most likely), or you're right and he's completely ignorant about record players and electronics (unlikely).

 

Maybe this will help you understand. Note that there is no power applied to the head.

 

[dalethorn]

You seem to imply that a) Dudley is a "respected" "authority" and b) that people here are "not knowledgeable enough" even though enough information has been put through to effectively rebute Dude's wishfull thought "theory"...

I have posted a link to an article on Sound on Sound which investigates possibly causes of analogue warmth. In my opinion it is monumentally more interesting that the cheerleading opinion that Dudley wrote in favour of the audio tailors and of vinyl...

Analogue Warmth | Sound On Sound

R

 

No, what I said was that Dudley didn't "merely toss out an opinion". He created a separate paragraph in order to pre-qualify and emphasize what he had to say. He made certain that you wouldn't misunderstand his claim as just an afterthought. What he had to say in that paragraph could just as easily have been the announcement of the discovery of the Big Bang. Based on exactly what he said and how he demanded that attention, if he is wrong, then he's the biggest fool who ever wrote for a professional audio journal. And I *very* much doubt that's the case.

[dalethorn]

Maybe this will help you understand. Note that there is no power applied to the head.

 

I am continually amazed and amused at the lavish attention that you and others give to me, a humble individual who has merely quoted Art Dudley. Would it not be better to give that attention to Art Dudley himself, to find out how such an esteemed reviewer and compatriot of John Atkinson** came to such a dramatic conclusion? It's not as though Dudley were a long-passed legend - he's still around and writing...

 

**Atkinson has so many credentials I wouldn't be able to list them, but I'd guess that he also approved Dudley's claim.

[4est]

I am continually amazed and amused at the lavish attention that you and others give to me, a humble individual who has merely quoted Art Dudley. Would it not be better to give that attention to Art Dudley himself, to find out how such an esteemed reviewer and compatriot of John Atkinson** came to such a dramatic conclusion? It's not as though Dudley were a long-passed legend - he's still around and writing...

 

**Atkinson has so many credentials I wouldn't be able to list them, but I'd guess that he also approved Dudley's claim.

Esteemed reviewer, amazed and amused? OK, I give up...

[Priaptor]

Rather than 'preaching a mantra', I was essentially stating how my own personal brain reacts to listening to headphones, with the 'music is in my head' sensation limits my enjoyment. As a point of note, when I am preaching blanket statement mantras, I tend to avoid signing off with the words 'Is it just me'. OK, so it is also obvious that I have never listened to a really good headphone system. To be fair, I do not own one, not a really good one anyway. (I do own some old Grado SR80's and some mid priced Sennheisers) After all, why would I spend lots of cash on something that I would not enjoy? Having said that, I did visit a hifi dealer earlier in the year that was having a headphone demonstration event. I spent many hours there listing to a variety of kit. My favourite set up from the day was an Aurender N10, feeding a Chord TT powering Audeze LCD 3's. This was a great set up, it sounded sublime. I fully understand the benefits, the elimination of troublesome room nodes, the level of performance that can be achieved for a fraction of the cost of a speaker based system, the fact you can play at any time or volume without annoying neighbours or family. Yet despite all these benefits, I still get limited enjoyment from headphones. Oddly enough you made a statement in you post that genuinely interests me, you state that you used to have a similar view to myself. I for one would be very interested in knowing what made you change you view, what lead to headphone enjoyment in your case. Although if it simply moving to higher quality kit, I am not sure this will work for me, I think the problem is essentially psychological, it is in my brain. But maybe I am wrong? Believe me, I am just about the most open minded person you will find and I am open to hearing peoples views and experiences, and trust me, I never preach mantras or anything else, but I will state my views, and I am interested in the views of others.

 

You do bring up some very valuable points that I now more accurately understand your POV. I think we are both enthralled with a soundstage that headphones can't reproduce relative to a good speaker system which totally immerses you in the soundfield. That has always been my biggest issue with headphones, no matter how accurate, neutral or whatever other audiophile descriptors one chooses to use. Yes my big system does recreate a soundstage that is awesome and immersive. Hence the reason why I used to use my early headphone system for those occasional times I just wanted to listen in my lounge chair in my office UNTIL

 

My GS150 went back to the shop for repairs and the can system was all I had to listen to. At the time I my cans were LCD-X with Liquid Carbon and HUGO/Mojo. As good as the LCD-X were, particularly in the lower octaves I never got a sense of fulfillment of that soundstage I crave. Serendipitously my "pre-order" for the Liquid Gold was fulfilled as was my order (return if not liked within 60 days from Crutchfield) for the Sennheiser HD800S. I had previously tried the HD800 and sent them back pretty quick, more likely because the HUGO I was using to drive them just wasn't up to the task and I found them pretty shrill from the outset and never really gave them a chance and wasn't at that time to invest in better front end.

 

Once I had the T&A, Liquid Gold and Senn HD800S hooked up and still had the LCD-X I was litterally blown away by all the audiophile jargon descriptors of the system and most of all the uncanny ability to present the venue in a manner as "you are there" with the HD800S. For me there was no comparison to the LCD-X in terms of soundstage and while it may not quite be the amazing soundfield of my big system it has some qualities that more than make up for it and has now become maybe not my preferred listening but by no means a big compromise. Never enjoyed headhphones as I now do.

 

I'm not saying I "know" what is best, etc BUT I have been doing this stuff since the early 80s, earlier on selling and listening and since the late 80s just a consumer and by now I "know" what is right for me. I have achieved that "rightness" to my tastes both on my big system and can system. With my big system I have not changed much in the last 4.5 years except for upgrading my amp from a REF75 to the GS150 and upgrading my MSB IV to V and with latest can system I am really am looking for nothing more as it truly meets all of my benchmarks that no can system before it has ever done.

 

Anyway that is just my take.

[wgscott]

A detailed article about the subject has just been published here:

How to make headphones stereo compatible

 

Flavio

 

[dalethorn]

Esteemed reviewer, amazed and amused? OK, I give up...

 

And who would you recommend as an authority on this, who has stated most emphatically in a published article, that the disc is not unique in generating its own electrical signal (sticking to exactly what Stereophile said)?

[dalethorn]

This crossfeed issue is crucial and I don't think it should get lost in this discussion. I'm accustomed to the phenomenon being referred to as crosstalk, but regardless, it's what helps the stereo image sound integrated and cohesive. It's also why most stereo speakers sound better when placed relatively close together, i.e. at approximately a 30 degree angle/spread from the listening position vs a 45 degree.

I'm not a vinyl person myself, but it's also worth noting that the crosstalk generated by the stylus and cartridge, and variable based on the equipment, the particular record, and even variable by frequency, is a major part of what makes vinyl sound different, and to many folks better, than digital.

Again, I am not a vinyl person myself, so I'm not arguing that vinyl is better or that crosstalk/crossfeed is always good. I'm just saying it's an important factor in how we perceive and often enjoy music.

 

Here's the first post where it went off track. It started out as vinyl 'crosstalk', then grew from there. Crosstalk is a not-necessarily-desirable feature of stereo, just as tape "print-through" is. Ultimately of course, and regardless of arguments for smearing the sound (or using vacuum tubes to 'soften' the sound), the endgame will be to eliminate smearing, except as an artist's vision embedded in the recording itself. Paintings and photos for example don't expect us to smear the artist's vision by viewing under bad lighting.

[tmtomh]

Here's the first post where it went off track. It started out as vinyl 'crosstalk', then grew from there. Crosstalk is a not-necessarily-desirable feature of stereo, just as tape "print-through" is. Ultimately of course, and regardless of arguments for smearing the sound (or using vacuum tubes to 'soften' the sound), the endgame will be to eliminate smearing, except as an artist's vision embedded in the recording itself. Paintings and photos for example don't expect us to smear the artist's vision by viewing under bad lighting.

I don't usually take this stuff personally, but I do get offended when someone appears unable to read simple sentences. Did you not see the two separate times where I noted that I'm not a vinyl person myself? Did you not see where I explicitly said that I am not arguing that that vinyl or crosstalk are good/superior?

 

My post argued that crosstalk is an irreducible part of listening to stereo speakers compared to listening with headphones (which is true). I used vinyl as an analogy, as crosstalk does appear to be a major factor responsible for vinyl's often-distinctive sound - REGARDLESS of whether one prefers it or not.

 

If you prefer digital because it eliminates a source of smearing, then not only do I say Good for You, but I also AGREE with you - it's one reason I prefer digital as well.

 

Man, the internet - and this forum - is just chock full of people who love to argue against the claims they WISH people made, instead of what people actually say.

[Synfreak]

@ dalethorn:

 

You know what the HRTF is?

And why the crosstalk/crossfeed @tmtomh refers to is crucial whilst listening to a stereo source?

[dalethorn]

I don't usually take this stuff personally, but I do get offended when someone appears unable to read simple sentences. Did you not see the two separate times where I noted that I'm not a vinyl person myself? Did you not see where I explicitly said that I am not arguing that that vinyl or crosstalk are good/superior?

My post argued that crosstalk is an irreducible part of listening to stereo speakers compared to listening with headphones (which is true). I used vinyl as an analogy, as crosstalk does appear to be a major factor responsible for vinyl's often-distinctive sound - REGARDLESS of whether one prefers it or not.

If you prefer digital because it eliminates a source of smearing, then not only do I say Good for You, but I also AGREE with you - it's one reason I prefer digital as well.

Man, the internet - and this forum - is just chock full of people who love to argue against the claims they WISH people made, instead of what people actually say.

 

Someone I respect once quoted Confucius, although the quote was not verified:

"To him that taketh offense, let him also take the gate."

 

I do prefer digital, but it doesn't prompt me to troll people who like vinyl - I'd love to hear music on vinyl, and if someone can make that happen in such a way that the records and other paraphernalia are self-maintaining so it's no more effort than digital, then I'm in.

 

I like music and all forms of reproduction, not to mention creating music. But I don't feel offended when someone says they prefer this or that - exploring and learning other things is good!

[dalethorn]

@ dalethorn:

You know what the HRTF is?

And why the crosstalk/crossfeed @tmtomh refers to is crucial whilst listening to a stereo source?

 

If I were a fan of Innerfidelity, I'd take that more seriously, but I have more experience than them, and better ideas. For example, they've been pumping out unreadable frequency response curves for years. We have computers today, and it would not be at all difficult to produce curves that are flat (when the actual response is neutral), by averaging all those squiggles with a smart program. If they feel the need to keep the squiggly graphs due to their own needs and biases, fine, but they could add the 'flat' curves as a public service. You do understand that the dummy head's ear canals don't change just because a new headphone gets mounted, yes?

[mansr]

And who would you recommend as an authority on this, who has stated most emphatically in a published article, that the disc is not unique in generating its own electrical signal (sticking to exactly what Stereophile said)?

I doubt you'll find many experts going out of their way to emphatically state the obvious.

[tmtomh]

Someone I respect once quoted Confucius, although the quote was not verified:

"To him that taketh offense, let him also take the gate."

 

I do prefer digital, but it doesn't prompt me to troll people who like vinyl - I'd love to hear music on vinyl, and if someone can make that happen in such a way that the records and other paraphernalia are self-maintaining so it's no more effort than digital, then I'm in.

 

I like music and all forms of reproduction, not to mention creating music. But I don't feel offended when someone says they prefer this or that - exploring and learning other things is good!

Thanks for your reply. I don't disagree with anything you write here. But for the second time in a row, I am left wondering who or what you are responding to here.

[dalethorn]

I doubt you'll find many experts going out of their way to emphatically state the obvious.

 

You're the troll who attacked this forum and me on Saturday. You're also the troll from the first two pages of this thread who stirred up the initial negativity on the vinyl signal issue. It appears that you're continuing to troll to try to start trouble - again!

[dalethorn]

Thanks for your reply. I don't disagree with anything you write here. But for the second time in a row, I am left wondering who or what you are responding to here.

 

I apologize, but with my workload I occasionally make a mistake, although I do proofread before posting. Best laid plans just fail sometimes. Generally speaking, vinyl was introduced early on here as a 'crosstalk' issue. I don't know for sure if that person intended to relate the crosstalk to crossfeed and similar headphone sound-fixers, but it seemed natural enough to me having been there a lot. Sometimes there is a direct relationship when something like crosstalk is related to crossfeed etc. (by the person relating it), and sometimes it might just be an analogy. I tend to run with it if possible.

[kumakuma]

You're the troll who attacked this forum and me on Saturday. You're also the troll from the first two pages of this thread who stirred up the initial negativity on the vinyl signal issue. It appears that you're continuing to troll to try to start trouble - again!

 

Give it a break, already.