Headphones vs Speakers -- I'm MAD

[Samuel T Cogley]

Not discussed in this thread so far is the idea that headphones are great for people without the luxury of a dedicated listening space.

 

Personally, I gave up on trying to make a livable room into a listening room. In my case, they seem to be mutually exclusive. A combination of nearfield monitors and headphones allowed me to reclaim livable space.

[GUTB]

Well last night I tried some EQ. After boosting the upper mids through to the high end (giving it +6dB past 10k) the sound is no longer such a disaster -- but still unresolving, and still lacks dynamic force, poor imaging and basically no completion with my headphones.

 

I emailed Chane about the God-awful performance, and was told that FR plot shows that the A1.4 doesn't have any issues in the high end. Okay fine but why do I need to boost it to high heaven to get it to sound like something besides bad? He also suggested my ICE based amp is not great in the highs. Okay, I agree that thing is as basic as it gets, so I ordered an Emotiva A-300, which is a class a/b design with a lot more power output. So let's see if it makes any difference.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[semente]

I'd suggest that how they resolve, or the impression of same, can be addressed to a large degree by positioning, and by how much damping of highs occurs in the room. I'm thinking if the OP started out facing those tweeters directly at close range, and they still sounded dull, then something is just plain defective there.

 

What does "dull" mean?

Is it a high frequency roll-off?

A relaxation in the presence region?

Dynamic compression?

 

Until there's a common language and we all know what each adjective means, it's very difficult to discuss each other's impressions...

 

 

In my opinion resolution is not a frequency response issue and I don't think you can change the speaker's ability to retrieve low level detail or transient response by toeing in or out.

 

Frequency response deals primarily with tonal balance, but exaggeration or attenuation in particular bands will indeed give way to specific subjective effects.

This interactive chart overlays some instruments with the audible frequency range and also allocates some subjective terms to specific frequency bands:

 

Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network

 

If you move the mouse pointer over it some info will pop up in the top right corner describing the subjective effects of changes in that band.

 

 

 

Some speakers do exaggerate the top octaves to trick the untrained listener into thinking that they are very resolving, some people associate the effects of breakup resonance in hard midrange cones with "detail", and a ragged frequency response is often perceived as more "lively" sounding...

 

R

[GUTB]

When you call the HD600/650 "garbage, veiled and boring mid-fi", you have every right to do so. But IMHO, that means either you have never heard live music in a concert hall, or you can't hear high frequencies any more. Or both. 4000 dollar flagship or not.

When I was trying the HD600, I admit it wasn't with the best gear in the world. But, in spite of its mid-fi technical merits I found myself extremely bored of them, to the point that I didn't feel like putting them to listen to my favorite music. When I picked up the TH900, and using the same gear, the difference was virtually night-and-day. Not only was a thick veil lifted, excitement with my favorite music was rekindled instantly. Direct comparisons between a mid-fi product like the HD600 and a hi-fi product like the TH900 isn't completely fair, but regardless of price point and technical capability, no headphones should kill my enjoyment of music.

[KDinsmore]

Headphones gave me back all my listening time. Even with listening space there was something going on with family in house.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[dalethorn]

What does "dull" mean? Is it a high frequency roll-off? A relaxation in the presence region? Dynamic compression? Until there's a common language and we all know what each adjective means, it's very difficult to discuss each other's impressions... In my opinion resolution is not a frequency response issue and I don't think you can change the speaker's ability to retrieve low level detail or transient response by toeing in or out. Frequency response deals primarily with tonal balance, but exaggeration or attenuation in particular bands will indeed give way to specific subjective effects. This interactive chart overlays some instruments with the audible frequency range and also allocates some subjective terms to specific frequency bands: If you move the mouse pointer over it some info will pop up in the top right corner describing the subjective effects of changes in that band. Some speakers do exaggerate the top octaves to trick the untrained listener into thinking that they are very resolving, some people associate the effects of breakup resonance in hard midrange cones with "detail", and a ragged frequency response is often perceived as more "lively" sounding...R

 

Frequency response isn't everything, but it's 98 percent of everything *if* everything else is reasonable and not downright poor quality. Any decent $500 speaker system or $300 headphone should have quality drivers and well-damped housings, so that proper frequency response adjustments should be able to push the sound quality up to near hi-fi standards. There's a lot of room in 'decent' for bad things to slip in, but that's the general idea. A headphone like the Focal Elear, and possibly the Utopia, can be top-fi if the frequency response is adjusted to be a little flatter, because the quality of the build is excellent and the extremely open design does great things for detail.

 

I had the little Rogers LS3/5a speakers once, and they were excellent. Today there are speakers that sell for a fraction of their price that are about as good. What the OP described originally sounded like defects, not merely a lack of fidelity. If you're facing ribbon tweeters at a fairly close range, I don't think they'd sound so bad unless they were defective, the system somewhere were defective, or they were of extremely poor quality to begin with.

 

I've had numerous other speakers, chosen either by listening or by a particularly good review, and other than grappling with room anomalies and damping, and getting the positioning optimal, I've never experienced "dull" or a really bad soundstage.

[dalethorn]

Well last night I tried some EQ. After boosting the upper mids through to the high end (giving it +6dB past 10k) the sound is no longer such a disaster -- but still unresolving, and still lacks dynamic force, poor imaging and basically no completion with my headphones. I emailed Chane about the God-awful performance, and was told that FR plot shows that the A1.4 doesn't have any issues in the high end. Okay fine but why do I need to boost it to high heaven to get it to sound like something besides bad? He also suggested my ICE based amp is not great in the highs. Okay, I agree that thing is as basic as it gets, so I ordered an Emotiva A-300, which is a class a/b design with a lot more power output. So let's see if it makes any difference.

 

I got a headphone from Brainwavz a couple of years ago that sounded very dull, although the sound was the same in both stereo channels, and there was nothing about the sound other than the dullness that would indicate a defect. Then they sent me a new cable, and that fixed it. I was amazed. A cable fixed it, and it was the same cable, not a special cable.

[dalethorn]

When I was trying the HD600, I admit it wasn't with the best gear in the world. But, in spite of its mid-fi technical merits I found myself extremely bored of them, to the point that I didn't feel like putting them to listen to my favorite music. When I picked up the TH900, and using the same gear, the difference was virtually night-and-day. Not only was a thick veil lifted, excitement with my favorite music was rekindled instantly. Direct comparisons between a mid-fi product like the HD600 and a hi-fi product like the TH900 isn't completely fair, but regardless of price point and technical capability, no headphones should kill my enjoyment of music.

 

I had the HD565, 580, 600, original 650, and 800. The closest thing I heard to a significant 'veil' was the somewhat distant perspective of the HD580. If you have strange impedance or capacitance issues that negatively affect the HD600 but not the TH900, then that's something to investigate.

[Kal Rubinson]

Most people say that after a certain point, high end headphones stop making sense and money is better spent on speakers.

 

But the hard truth to face is -- speakers aren't nearly as resolving as high end headphones, and getting more than the center image from loudspeakers takes an optimal room geometry that most people don't have. My speakers sound like veiled trash next to my HE-6, TH900 and Utopia.

 

Well I've spent over $500 on carpeting and acoustic panels. My entire living room was made into a listening room.

 

I got a pair of those new Chane 1.4s (bookshelves) and a Teac integrated (which claims to use an ICEPower amp so it shouldn't be garbage) to power them.

 

Veiled, rolled off, BORING, unresolving. It's true that the soundstage is wide, but it's basically center, left and right.

 

It's like, I'm listening to THIS instead of my Utopias? I'm feeding this trash with THOUSANDS of dollars worth of source gear, tweaks and AC products.

 

So what's going on? Are my speakers just entry level junk and I'm being taught a lesson for listening to avsforum?

Haven't we already thrashed this to death in this forum (and elsewhere)?

1. The listening paradigms are different. Some of us (myself included) cannot tolerate headphones because they cannot reproduce a believable soundstage with normal recordings (regardless of how low their distortion is or how flat their response is) and also because they are uncomfortable. The advocates of headphone listening have different priorities and tolerances.

2. Your speaker-listening setup is substantially inferior, as such, to your headphone-listening setup. The conclusions you draw from that comparison are not surprising but neither are they generalizable.

[GUTB]

Haven't we already thrashed this to death in this forum (and elsewhere)?

1. The listening paradigms are different. Some of us (myself included) cannot tolerate headphones because they cannot reproduce a believable soundstage with normal recordings (regardless of how low their distortion is or how flat their response is) and also because they are uncomfortable. The advocates of headphone listening have different priorities and tolerances.

2. Your speaker-listening setup is substantially inferior, as such, to your headphone-listening setup. The conclusions you draw from that comparison are not surprising but neither are they generalizable.

I'm exploring speakers right now because with my latest headphone purchase (Focal Utopia), I plunked down 4k so I have to wonder if I'm not better served going the speaker route. The Chanes are not even on the same planet as my Utopias in terms of resolution, dynamic force and FR. The FR problems, I am sure, are largely thanks to my room dynamics -- but there's no excuse for ribbon tweeters just 80 inches from my head to be so rolled off and requiring a 6-9 dB boost from 10k up just to sound more fleshed out.

 

But, if consumer-grade speakers are lo-fi junk and don't hit entry-level hi-fi until around 10k, I'll have no choice but to stick with headphones.

 

I'll take other users' suggestion and visit a local audio dealer so I can listen to something that better fits my expectations / desires. I guess for now I won't limit myself on cost that much and keep an open mind on what I'm willing to bear financially.

[dalethorn]

Haven't we already thrashed this to death in this forum (and elsewhere)?

1. The listening paradigms are different. Some of us (myself included) cannot tolerate headphones because they cannot reproduce a believable soundstage with normal recordings (regardless of how low their distortion is or how flat their response is) and also because they are uncomfortable. The advocates of headphone listening have different priorities and tolerances.

2. Your speaker-listening setup is substantially inferior, as such, to your headphone-listening setup. The conclusions you draw from that comparison are not surprising but neither are they generalizable.

 

I think you mistook this for a headphone-bashing thread like another recent topic. But here the OP had a genuine problem (based on his description) where the speaker reproduction was so far off from reasonable that it strongly suggested a defect in his system. If the OP does discover at least one fatal flaw in his system, this thread will not have been in vain.

[Kal Rubinson]

I think you mistook this for a headphone-bashing thread like another recent topic. But here the OP had a genuine problem (based on his description) where the speaker reproduction was so far off from reasonable that it strongly suggested a defect in his system. If the OP does discover at least one fatal flaw in his system, this thread will not have been in vain.

 

You are probably right. But here's the good part. As he is aware of the differences and is committed to resolving them, as far as is possible, he has the tools to audition better speaker setups, even as he references them to his headphones.

[Kal Rubinson]

But, if consumer-grade speakers are lo-fi junk and don't hit entry-level hi-fi until around 10k, I'll have no choice but to stick with headphones.

You have many good options for half that or even less. Take a look at Revel Performa, Aerial, Monitor Audio, KEF, etc. who do great stuff in the $2500-$5000 range for floor-standers. Mebbe a pair of KEF LS-50s with a well-integrated sub.

[mfalcon]

I will tell you that's KEF LS-50s knocked my socks off and with some subs would probably please me as much as my current speakers at less than half the price. You can save money and space with nearfield listening but many speakers aren't made for it.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[GUTB]

Will the LS-50s really be able to fill my space? I really would like to experience the expansive holographic field speakers are supposed to be able to provide. The current A1.4s and Teac integrated only give me a center image with a broad left and right. On my very best tracks, such as the DSD128 version of Jazz at the Pawnshop, there is SOME imaging going on, but well short of what I get on my headphones.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[mfalcon]

What size is your space. I mean 12 by 14' in a near field configuration, Golden triangle type configuration. Sure. Bigger than that and not near field then IDK

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[TubeLover]

Not discussed in this thread so far is the idea that headphones are great for people without the luxury of a dedicated listening space.

Personally, I gave up on trying to make a livable room into a listening room. In my case, they seem to be mutually exclusive. A combination of nearfield monitors and headphones allowed me to reclaim livable space.

 

I completely agree. If you have severe space limitations, as I once did, a good headphone based system is the only way to go.

 

JC

[GUTB]

So I visited a local high end audio dealer. I didn't listen to much, just a few snippets from a CD I didn't recognize. First was a Rega setup with that 1k Rega integrated and some compact Rega floorstanders that go for around 3k. No model was offered by the sales rep and I didn't bother asking. The other system was around 17k that included some ProAc floorstanders that cost 7k and a Simaudio source and amp.

 

The results were better than my Chane + Teac in that the sound was much more balanced and richer in harmonic detail. But HONESTLY the imaging capabilities of these 2 systems were only marginally better than the Chanes! The speakers didn't disappear, including the ProAcs. Sound stage was no wider. I spotted very large speaker cables and a power conditioner back there so I assume this system had all the cabling and power benefits they could give them.

 

I felt rushed by the millennial salesman so needless to say I won't bother going back there.

 

Sent from my LG-H820 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[dalethorn]

So I visited a local high end audio dealer. I didn't listen to much, just a few snippets from a CD I didn't recognize. First was a Rega setup with that 1k Rega integrated and some compact Rega floorstanders that go for around 3k. No model was offered by the sales rep and I didn't bother asking. The other system was around 17k that included some ProAc floorstanders that cost 7k and a Simaudio source and amp. The results were better than my Chane + Teac in that the sound was much more balanced and richer in harmonic detail. But HONESTLY the imaging capabilities of these 2 systems were only marginally better than the Chanes! The speakers didn't disappear, including the ProAcs. Sound stage was no wider. I spotted very large speaker cables and a power conditioner back there so I assume this system had all the cabling and power benefits they could give them. I felt rushed by the millennial salesman so needless to say I won't bother going back there.

 

Why would you listen to high-end systems without recordings you're familiar with? It's easy to copy a bunch of FLAC tracks onto a flash drive and carry that with you.

[skyline]

You're comparing $250 speakers to a pair of $4000 headphones?

 

Pit the Focal Utopias against the Raidho D-1.1s and see if you still feel that way. Both the ribbon tweeter and the diamond woofers will have significantly faster speed of sound than that beryllium driver used by the Focal Utopias.

 

Those Raido D-1.1s are expensive. Better stick to the Utopias.

 

I have the Utopias in a high end headphone setup and they are utopia.

[stuck limo]

On 1/15/2017 at 11:35 AM, GUTB said:

The HD600/650 is garbage. Veiled and boring mid-fi.

 

I literally can't even.

[stuck limo]

On 1/16/2017 at 4:34 PM, GUTB said:

But, if consumer-grade speakers are lo-fi junk and don't hit entry-level hi-fi until around 10k, I'll have no choice but to stick with headphones.

 

 

No. No. This is so off-base or your expectations are just out in la-la land. I just....what are considering "consumer-grade"?

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, stuck limo said:

 

I literally can't even.

 

Have you actually listened to hi-fi headphones?

 

If you can buy it from Amazon from it's consumer-grade.

[stuck limo]

15 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Have you actually listened to hi-fi headphones?

 

If you can buy it from Amazon from it's consumer-grade.

 

Um, The 600 was top of Sennheiser's line and cost about $450 when it came out 20 years ago. Define "consumer". BTW, here's a pair of $4,000 "consumer grade" phones on Amazon: 

https://www.amazon.com/Focal-Utopia-High-Fidelity-Circumaural-Headphones/dp/B01LX4RNQB/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1494011172&sr=8-10&keywords=headphones

 

At this point you're just trolling.

[GUTB]

32 minutes ago, stuck limo said:

 

Um, The 600 was top of Sennheiser's line and cost about $450 when it came out 20 years ago. Define "consumer". BTW, here's a pair of $4,000 "consumer grade" phones on Amazon: 

https://www.amazon.com/Focal-Utopia-High-Fidelity-Circumaural-Headphones/dp/B01LX4RNQB/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1494011172&sr=8-10&keywords=headphones

 

At this point you're just trolling.

 

Headphone technology and market range has moved forward a great deal. The Utopia is being sold by a hifi dealer who has an Amazon store. The Utopia also completely embarrasses the HD600.