Headphones vs Speakers -- I'm MAD

[STC]

47 minutes ago, semente said:

it's nice to have a choice. 

 

Exactly! If you have a 5.1 recordings than it should be played in a 5.1 setup to extract every possible information captured by the recordings. Whether, you like the sound of 5.1 recording with 2 speakers or 4 speakers is entirely your personal choice. But what happens if you have not listened to 5.1 recordings yet? You just do not know what you're missing or you do not know the difference.

 

@dalethorn, I am replying in general and to your earlier post. Tried rephrasing the paragraph but somehow I cannot detach the content of post from referring my earlier replies. My apologies.

 

[semente]

58 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Exactly! If you have a 5.1 recordings than it should be played in a 5.1 setup to extract every possible information captured by the recordings. Whether, you like the sound of 5.1 recording with 2 speakers or 4 speakers is entirely your personal choice. But what happens if you have not listened to 5.1 recordings yet? You just do not know what you're missing or you do not know the difference.

 

@dalethorn, I am replying in general and to your earlier post. Tried rephrasing the paragraph but somehow I cannot detach the content of post from referring my earlier replies. My apologies.

 

 

There are several reasons why I don't like listening through headphones: first and foremost the sounds seem to be generated inside my skull, but I also don't like to be cut off from the real "acoustic" world nor do I like wearing something on my head and ears when I am listening to music.

But these shortcomings don't seem to disturb a lot of listeners which seem to favour other aspects/advantages such as resolution, absence of crosstalk and freedom from room resonances; and there's the added bonus of being able to listen anywhere, on the move, at any time of the day or night.

 

I am used to listening to two channel stereo and find the experience satisfying.

As such I feel no need for multi-channel stereo, which for me has very significant downsides concerning budget (you have to spread your budget over a lot more equipment of unavoidably lower performance) and floorspace (something that will not be a problem to the average north american).

 

As for immersive sound, I wasn't impressed by the online samples I listened to (which showed a significant skewing of the tonal balance).

To be fair I would have to listen to it in a proper setup but I just don't feel the need.

For me, soundstage is just a byproduct of audio reproduction, an accessory that I don't care much for; I am more concerned with tonal balance and "clarity".

 

Like I said, the alternatives are there to take, it's a matter of taste.

 

R

[dalethorn]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

There are several reasons why I don't like listening through headphones: first and foremost the sounds seem to be generated inside my skull, but I also don't like to be cut off from the real "acoustic" world nor do I like wearing something on my head and ears when I am listening to music.

But these shortcomings don't seem to disturb a lot of listeners which seem to favour other aspects/advantages such as resolution, absence of crosstalk and freedom from room resonances; and there's the added bonus of being able to listen anywhere, on the move, at any time of the day or night.

 

I am used to listening to two channel stereo and find the experience satisfying.

As such I feel no need for multi-channel stereo, which for me has very significant downsides concerning budget (you have to spread your budget over a lot more equipment of unavoidably lower performance) and floorspace (something that will not be a problem to the average north american).

 

As for immersive sound, I wasn't impressed by the online samples I listened to (which showed a significant skewing of the tonal balance).

To be fair I would have to listen to it in a proper setup but I just don't feel the need.

For me, soundstage is just a byproduct of audio reproduction, an accessory that I don't care much for; I am more concerned with tonal balance and "clarity".

 

Like I said, the alternatives are there to take, it's a matter of taste.

 

R

The most important thing to getting natural sound is to equalize the headphone for a natural sound, rather than a "flat" sound.  Most headphones have serious deviations from neutral, and those are easy to address using test tones.  Once that's done, listening to well-known music and comparing with other headphones, or speakers, over several days or even weeks, it is possible to arrive at a natural sound that feels much less like the exaggerated "inside the head" sensation that some people report.  I am well aware of the claims that experts make that this-or-that "can't be fixed with an equalizer", but they're mostly wrong about that.  Not entirely wrong, but mostly.

[dalethorn]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

Exactly! If you have a 5.1 recordings than it should be played in a 5.1 setup to extract every possible information captured by the recordings. Whether, you like the sound of 5.1 recording with 2 speakers or 4 speakers is entirely your personal choice. But what happens if you have not listened to 5.1 recordings yet? You just do not know what you're missing or you do not know the difference.

 

Very true, but it's a general rule.  Unless a person has a large stock of high quality recordings in a specific format that matches their system setup, most of the time what they'll be listening to is a compromise.  I like to listen to a variety of things in some listening sessions, and I choose those tracks by artist and title without regard for the recording technique or other factors.  In those cases (if not all cases) my headphone has to be pretty neutral/natural sounding to be enjoyable on those random picks.  And yet there are those tracks where I have to reduce the volume, because the recording just isn't good.  Those are invariably pop records - never classical no matter how dynamic, and rarely jazz.

[semente]

11 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

The most important thing to getting natural sound is to equalize the headphone for a natural sound, rather than a "flat" sound.  Most headphones have serious deviations from neutral, and those are easy to address using test tones.  Once that's done, listening to well-known music and comparing with other headphones, or speakers, over several days or even weeks, it is possible to arrive at a natural sound that feels much less like the exaggerated "inside the head" sensation that some people report.  I am well aware of the claims that experts make that this-or-that "can't be fixed with an equalizer", but they're mostly wrong about that.  Not entirely wrong, but mostly.

 

It's not discussed much in the audiophile universe but yes changes to certain bands in the frequency range do produce particular effects that affect perception of "detail", of "speed", of "air", of "hardness", of "presence".

 

Recording engineers make good use of these effects when EQ'ing and mixing.

 

R

[dalethorn]

30 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It's not discussed much in the audiophile universe but yes changes to certain bands in the frequency range do produce particular effects that affect perception of "detail", of "speed", of "air", of "hardness", of "presence".

 

Recording engineers make good use of these effects when EQ'ing and mixing.

 

R

The point is not to create "effects", it's to adjust the headphone for the most natural sound.  In other posts I have described walking around various parts of cities and park areas, shopping areas, quiet areas - while listening to music, and then taking the headphone off and listening to the real world, and comparing that to the headphone sound.  It can give the headphone user a better perspective on what they've been listening to, and how far off from reality their headphone and recordings sound.  That technique and others is all part of research into natural sound reproduction.  The impressions a person will get will vary from recording to recording and from where they are at the time they try this, but given enough examples, a picture emerges.

[STC]

41 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It's not discussed much in the audiophile universe but yes changes to certain bands in the frequency range do produce particular effects that affect perception of "detail", of "speed", of "air", of "hardness", of "presence".

 

Recording engineers make good use of these effects when EQ'ing and mixing.

 

R

 

 

And also loudspeaker manufacturers....

[semente]

25 minutes ago, dalethorn said:

The point is not to create "effects", it's to adjust the headphone for the most natural sound.  In other posts I have described walking around various parts of cities and park areas, shopping areas, quiet areas - while listening to music, and then taking the headphone off and listening to the real world, and comparing that to the headphone sound.  It can give the headphone user a better perspective on what they've been listening to, and how far off from reality their headphone and recordings sound.  That technique and others is all part of research into natural sound reproduction.  The impressions a person will get will vary from recording to recording and from where they are at the time they try this, but given enough examples, a picture emerges.

 

Have you tried using the headphones to monitor a live mic feed?

You could use something like a Zoom portable recorder, walking around the "world" and then comparing live with input.

The BBC used to do it with voice and music when they were developing their speakers and microphones, but they had an orchestra at their disposal and the critical ears of very experienced sound engineers.

 

R

[dalethorn]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

Have you tried using the headphones to monitor a live mic feed?

You could use something like a Zoom portable recorder, walking around the "world" and then comparing live with input.

The BBC used to do it with voice and music when they were developing their speakers and microphones, but they had an orchestra at their disposal and the critical ears of very experienced sound engineers.

 

R

That is an interesting thing to do, and there were some great mic-placement techniques as far back as the late 50's.  I've found that the recording process, if the goal is something comparable to the better acoustic recordings around, is pretty complicated when you look at the whole thing from mic to mix.  I decided I didn't want a career of that kind of head-banging, especially mixing - writing software is bad enough - so when I did have the opportunity to sit in I'd move the mics and cables around, sweep the floor, and just listen to the mixes.

 

[dalethorn]

Just one thing I neglected to mention - mic directionality - the thought of grappling with that causes sleepless nights.

[semente]

4 hours ago, dalethorn said:

Just one thing I neglected to mention - mic directionality - the thought of grappling with that causes sleepless nights.

[TubeLover]

19 hours ago, semente said:

 

There are several reasons why I don't like listening through headphones: first and foremost the sounds seem to be generated inside my skull, but I also don't like to be cut off from the real "acoustic" world nor do I like wearing something on my head and ears when I am listening to music.

But these shortcomings don't seem to disturb a lot of listeners which seem to favour other aspects/advantages such as resolution, absence of crosstalk and freedom from room resonances; and there's the added bonus of being able to listen anywhere, on the move, at any time of the day or night.

 

I am used to listening to two channel stereo and find the experience satisfying.

As such I feel no need for multi-channel stereo, which for me has very significant downsides concerning budget (you have to spread your budget over a lot more equipment of unavoidably lower performance) and floorspace (something that will not be a problem to the average north american).

 

R

Semente,

 

Your description almost exactly defines the reasons that headphone enthusiasts choose that path. The sounds are intended to be generated inside your head. You are supposed to be cut off from the rest of the acoustic world. You have also accurately described the advantage of headphone listening "resolution, absence of crosstalk and freedom from room resonances; and there's the added bonus of being able to listen anywhere, on the move, at any time of the day or night.".

 

I spent may year in serious headphone audio because of limitations of space. I do not regret any of that, but, in the end, I realized I was a "speaker" guy, and, space then allowing, I moved to that. 

 

I completely agree with you on having no need for multi-channel audio and the massive associated cost. I do not have the funds to go there, and never will. I live in the world of 2 channel, for better or worse, and invest and trust in that. I do have a full blown home theater, but it's hardly optimized for the highest quality audio.

 

JC

[dalethorn]

6 hours ago, TubeLover said:

Semente,

 

Your description almost exactly defines the reasons that headphone enthusiasts choose that path. The sounds are intended to be generated inside your head. You are supposed to be cut off from the rest of the acoustic world. You have also accurately described the advantage of headphone listening "resolution, absence of crosstalk and freedom from room resonances; and there's the added bonus of being able to listen anywhere, on the move, at any time of the day or night.".

 

I spent may year in serious headphone audio because of limitations of space. I do not regret any of that, but, in the end, I realized I was a "speaker" guy, and, space then allowing, I moved to that. 

 

I completely agree with you on having no need for multi-channel audio and the massive associated cost. I do not have the funds to go there, and never will. I live in the world of 2 channel, for better or worse, and invest and trust in that. I do have a full blown home theater, but it's hardly optimized for the highest quality audio.

 

JC

Few people realize that the major irritation with "inside the head" sensations is due to aberrations in the response.  Speaker aberrations are more tolerable because of room smear and decay, but we are much more sensitive with headphones.  If you get those aberrations corrected, the soundstage just "opens up" into a natural perspective that's hard to describe, and those "inside the head" irritations subside.

[Ralph Glasgal]

I am a physicist, electrical engineer, AES member, and the author of many AES papers and two books on this subject.  I sell nothing and have no financial interest in audio.

 

The now almost 90 year old stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle is both a sonic illusion and an art form.  Like black and white photography where you can go to extremes of resolution, aspect ratio, gamma, etc. but never have color or depth, reproduction via earphones or speakers at 60 degrees can never produce a normal soundfield at the human ear.  There are well defined properties of real soundfields not duplicated by the systems Stereophile, TAS, and all the forums promote.  So let us try to describe some of them here.  For a complete picture or to go beyond standard loudspeaker/headset sound you would need to go to the Ambiophonics.org archive and be a bit technical.

 

With speakers at 60 degrees, the speakers may have perfectly flat response, but when two such speakers are operating the response at the ear is anything but flat.  Central low bass is doubled in level and there are a series of sharp peaks and dips starting at about 1500 Hz.  You may not care about stage width or localization, but your brain does.  So when a microphone records say a 700 microsecond difference for a left side instrument, what you get with 60 degree speakers is first an erroneous  220 microsecond difference cue instead of 700 followed by the correct 700 microsecond delay which is now regarded by the brain as just an early reflection, followed by a bogus 220 microsecond signal that is contradicting the recorded time delay signal.  There are similar problems with the recorded level differences delivered at the two ears when both ears hear both speakers at angle.

 

Now for the pinna and headset problems.  The outer ears are direction finders for frequencies above about 1000 Hz.  With speakers all the pinna directional cues are at the same plus and minus 30 degrees no matter where the stereo image seems to be based on the lower frequencies.  This inconsistency sensitizes the brain so that it knows the field is not real and worse makes it overly sensitive to minor things like resolution, LP ticks and pops, harmonic distortion, etc.  Now with headphones, the pinna function is decimated no matter what kind of phones are used.  The frequency response is now flat and the localization cues are correct, but the inconsistency in sound field is still there, so the brain normally internalizes the field so you have a wide stage between the ears inside your head.  If you hum or hiss to yourself while you bring a finger into each outer ear, you can hear this effect.  You can use things like the Smyth Realizer which uses your speaker set up as a model to thereafter avoid internalization with earphones.

 

Now comes the rear soundfield problem.  The brain expects that sounds in front will produce a set of reflections from the sides and rear that vary with the source position in front.  But with speakers the reflection pattern in the room is always the same directionally no matter where the phantom image is in front.  Again this results in a stage without envelopment and a brain that know something is wrong.  With earphones there are only the recorded reflections and they all come from the same direction so again realism is not possible this simple way.  So the use of rear speakers has nothing to do with 5.1 surround.  They are a necessary part of distortion free 2.0 LP, CD, SACD, Download, reproduction.

 

Many if not most audiophiles only listen to a single vocalist with a guitar or small central combo so whatever I wrote above is much less significant for those hobbyists.  If all you want is a perfect picture of a white porcelain sink, color and depth are not a paramount consideration and indeed you just need one eye to view the print.  That one eye will now more easily notice minor imperfections like any graininess, lack of detail, unnatural contrast, etc.  The same is true when one must make sense out of an unnatural (not normal binaural in AES parlance) soundfield, that is, one that could not possibly exist in nature until now.by artifice.

 

[semente]

38 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

I am a physicist, electrical engineer, AES member, and the author of many AES papers and two books on this subject.  I sell nothing and have no financial interest in audio.

 

The now almost 90 year old stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle is both a sonic illusion and an art form.  Like black and white photography where you can go to extremes of resolution, aspect ratio, gamma, etc. but never have color or depth, reproduction via earphones or speakers at 60 degrees can never produce a normal soundfield at the human ear.  There are well defined properties of real soundfields not duplicated by the systems Stereophile, TAS, and all the forums promote.  So let us try to describe some of them here.  For a complete picture or to go beyond standard loudspeaker/headset sound you would need to go to the Ambiophonics.org archive and be a bit technical.

 

With speakers at 60 degrees, the speakers may have perfectly flat response, but when two such speakers are operating the response at the ear is anything but flat.  Central low bass is doubled in level and there are a series of sharp peaks and dips starting at about 1500 Hz.  You may not care about stage width or localization, but your brain does.  So when a microphone records say a 700 microsecond difference for a left side instrument, what you get with 60 degree speakers is first an erroneous  220 microsecond difference cue instead of 700 followed by the correct 700 microsecond delay which is now regarded by the brain as just an early reflection, followed by a bogus 220 microsecond signal that is contradicting the recorded time delay signal.  There are similar problems with the recorded level differences delivered at the two ears when both ears hear both speakers at angle.

 

Now for the pinna and headset problems.  The outer ears are direction finders for frequencies above about 1000 Hz.  With speakers all the pinna directional cues are at the same plus and minus 30 degrees no matter where the stereo image seems to be based on the lower frequencies.  This inconsistency sensitizes the brain so that it knows the field is not real and worse makes it overly sensitive to minor things like resolution, LP ticks and pops, harmonic distortion, etc.  Now with headphones, the pinna function is decimated no matter what kind of phones are used.  The frequency response is now flat and the localization cues are correct, but the inconsistency in sound field is still there, so the brain normally internalizes the field so you have a wide stage between the ears inside your head.  If you hum or hiss to yourself while you bring a finger into each outer ear, you can hear this effect.  You can use things like the Smyth Realizer which uses your speaker set up as a model to thereafter avoid internalization with earphones.

 

Now comes the rear soundfield problem.  The brain expects that sounds in front will produce a set of reflections from the sides and rear that vary with the source position in front.  But with speakers the reflection pattern in the room is always the same directionally no matter where the phantom image is in front.  Again this results in a stage without envelopment and a brain that know something is wrong.  With earphones there are only the recorded reflections and they all come from the same direction so again realism is not possible this simple way.  So the use of rear speakers has nothing to do with 5.1 surround.  They are a necessary part of distortion free 2.0 LP, CD, SACD, Download, reproduction.

 

Many if not most audiophiles only listen to a single vocalist with a guitar or small central combo so whatever I wrote above is much less significant for those hobbyists.  If all you want is a perfect picture of a white porcelain sink, color and depth are not a paramount consideration and indeed you just need one eye to view the print.  That one eye will now more easily notice minor imperfections like any graininess, lack of detail, unnatural contrast, etc.  The same is true when one must make sense out of an unnatural (not normal binaural in AES parlance) soundfield, that is, one that could not possibly exist in nature until now.by artifice.

 

 

[STC]

Thanks Ralph. Actually, I made a long post about direct sound and reflected with HP and Ls but the post didn't appear.  The draft reappeared now but I am glad it didn't get posted. 

 

 

 

[esldude]

On 5/10/2017 at 6:12 AM, dalethorn said:

Few people realize that the major irritation with "inside the head" sensations is due to aberrations in the response.  Speaker aberrations are more tolerable because of room smear and decay, but we are much more sensitive with headphones.  If you get those aberrations corrected, the soundstage just "opens up" into a natural perspective that's hard to describe, and those "inside the head" irritations subside.

How do you get those aberrations corrected?

[dalethorn]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

How do you get those aberrations corrected?

Ultimately, what you get when you've achieved your "ideal" sound, is a compromise.  There is no system I know of that will play all of my tracks with great enjoyment, without at least adjusting the volume on the worst.  But I do like to have a single headphone that can play everything pretty well, given the volume adjustment I mentioned, because I like to wander semi-randomly through my music sometimes, and I don't want to be concerned with flipping switches, changing DSP's or players, or the headphones themselves, just to be able to play a cello concerto right after Sammy Hagar.

 

So when I find something I like, and possibly EQ any irritations out of it, I'll listen for a long time and eventually get a picture of what sorts of sounds might be the most problematic on the greatest number of tracks, or something like that.  Could be sibilants, soundstage issues, anything - but there are cases where I make as little as a 1/2 db adjustment on a frequency slider, and it "fixes" an issue for so much music that for the few remaining tracks where there's still some irritation, I don't feel cheated.

 

The bottom line for the gear is, you can always make what you have better, by upgrading the gear, buying better recordings, and after all of your discretionary income is spent, do your final tweaks with an equalizer or some of the earcup mods described on headphone sites. The physical mods, if they get the sound a lot closer to what you want, are usually the best first step.

[Ralph Glasgal]

This theory reminds me of the myth that if you playback a symphony orchestra through perfect speakers with infinite resolution and perfectly flat response with perfect room correction that you will have the equivalent of a live concert hall event.  It is easy to demonstrate that internalization still persists even with perfect equipment outdoors or indoors.  Just hiss or hum to yourself and bring fingers into your ear cavities without touching and you will experience the sound move into your head.  If you correct for pinna response errors induced by earphones then you get normal externalization.  The Smyth Realizer can do this for a price and it achieves externalization even if here are lots of peaks and dips in the frequency response of a particular recording.  

[STC]

2 hours ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

This theory reminds me of the myth that if you playback a symphony orchestra through perfect speakers with infinite resolution and perfectly flat response with perfect room correction that you will have the equivalent of a live concert hall event.  It is easy to demonstrate that internalization still persists even with perfect equipment outdoors or indoors.  Just hiss or hum to yourself and bring fingers into your ear cavities without touching and you will experience the sound move into your head.  If you correct for pinna response errors induced by earphones then you get normal externalization.  The Smyth Realizer can do this for a price and it achieves externalization even if here are lots of peaks and dips in the frequency response of a particular recording.  

 

I learned a long time ago by trial and error that flat room response did not sound correct to my ears so I went on to replace the measuring microphones before giving up on room measurements. Thank you so much.

[Haris Qadeer]

I've been using both, really good loud-speakers as well as low-end to high-end headphones as well as earbuds.

I think it all depends on what is the context, where you want to listen to music, what kind of setting you are in, etc.

I am totally sold on anything that performs well, whether they are headphones or speakers.

[pkane2001]

On 5/17/2017 at 9:26 PM, STC said:

 

I learned a long time ago by trial and error that flat room response did not sound correct to my ears so I went on to replace the measuring microphones before giving up on room measurements. Thank you so much.

 

Flat room response often does not sound natural. Perhaps it has to do with how close-miked recordings are done, and perhaps with some room interactions. What I do is correct to a house curve, instead. I started with one of the standard ones everyone recommends, and then adjusted it to my satisfaction. Sounds great to me, very realistic and balanced, very immersive, and seems to work really well for most of my recordings. Now I can't listen to music without it, as it sounds distorted and incomplete.

[diver110]

First of all, it sort of is apples and oranges.  Headphones and speakers give you different listening experiences.  OP is generally correct.  Everything else being equal, HPs are more resolving.  But a good component system will usually do everything else better, soundstage, bass, etc. Also, if price is no object, I suspect for, say, $100,000, you could create a component system that out-resolves the best HP system.  I'll never know unless some really rich person invites me over!  It might be true that you get more musical value for your buck with HPs.  For $12,000 you can get a great DAC, HPs, and HP amp.  $12,000 would buy you a nice component system, but not a great one.

[stuck limo]

I think 12,000 could build you a great component system, especially if you purchased used. For 2,000 you could also have a great headphone system. It depends on your definition of "great" I guess. 

[STC]

On 6/1/2017 at 7:54 AM, diver110 said:

Everything else being equal, HPs are more resolving.

 

I think that is not entirely correct. Headphones appears to be giving higher resolution because you only hear the sound from the headphone speakers minus external noise. It is like someone speaking from 2 meters away and one inch away from you. His voice resolution is the same but what reaches your ears depends so much on the external noise and loudness level.