[Hikaru Ichijyo]

About a month ago, circumstances forced me to stay away from music for
awhile, and I ended up not doing any mixing or recording for awhile. I
had a very good sense of EQ, or thought I did.

Now, about a month later, I'm returning to work on projects again, and
while my monitor speakers sound about the same to me, my Audio-Technica
ATH-M50 headphones sound very scooped to me, and seem to have a really
shrill treble emphasis around 5-10kHz. I don't know if they really do;
it's just the way they sound to me. Also, the mids seem a little
vacant. Before, the ATH-M50's seemed the most balanced-sounding
headphones I'd ever had, but now I'm just hearing too much treble and
not enough mids.

I've been trying to come up with all sorts of theories to account for
why things sound different now, but the closest I think I've come is
that perhaps before, my treble hearing was constantly being beaten into
submission by so much listening on bright playback devices, and now,
perhaps it has recovered. It is interesting that I'm not experiencing
this with speakers -- they all sound like they did before.

I've ordered a pair of Sennheiser HD-650's. I don't know if they'll do
anything about this issue, but by all accounts, they're cans that
everyone says I will not regret having around. They are said to have
very nice midrange and very unhyped treble, so that would be nice.

I'd be interested in hearing any comments on this type of experience if
anyone has any. Have you ever had this experience of "EQ
disorientation," for want of a better way of putting it? Perhaps you've
gone away from an often used monitoring device for awhile, only to come
back to it weeks or months later, and find that it's doesn't sound at
all the way you remember it?

If you do mixing, this can be quite alarming, because we like to think
of our ears as the ultimate reference to judge if what we're hearing is
right or wrong. It can be very disorienting to find that our hearing
may actually be adjusting to the equipment to the point that we don't
know what's really going on.

--
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent
that will reach to himself.
--Thomas Paine

[PStamler]

had a similar though not identical experience. I was recording old-time music at a dance weekend, and before one evening's performances I ate in the camp's dining hall. Well, for some reason everybody in the hall was talking at a loud yell (deafness from the music -- they run loud), and the dining hall was very live -- sound bouncing off a bare ceiling and walls. When I went to record everything I heard from my monitors sounded like it had a smile-EQ, with no midrange, so it sounded like it was all bass & treble. I wasn't aware of what had happened to my ears, so I EQd the recording to sound flat...and, when I recovered, had to remove the EQ in post-production. It was embarrassing, to say the least. People talk about loud music screwing up their hearing, and it does, but I'm hear to tell you that dinner talk can, too.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

I had a similar though not identical experience. I was recording old-time music at a dance weekend, and before one evening's performances I ate in the camp's dining hall. Well, for some reason everybody in the hall was talking at a loud yell (perhaps deafness from the music -- they run loud), and the dining hall was very live -- sound bouncing off a bare ceiling and walls. When I went to record everything I heard from my monitors sounded like it had a smile-EQ, with no midrange, so it sounded like it was all bass & treble. I wasn't aware of what had happened to my ears, so I EQd the recording to sound flat...and, when I recovered, had to remove the EQ in post-production. It was embarrassing, to say the least. People talk about loud music screwing up their hearing, and it does, but I'm hear to tell you that dinner talk can, too.

Peace,
Paul

[Jay Ts[_3_]]

My attitude about both speakers and headphones is that as long as you get
above a certain level of quality, they are all the audio equivalent of
wearing tinted glasses. There are different colors and densities, but if
you wear a pair you like long enough, you get used to them. After that,
it's when you take them off or change to a different pair that you really
notice.

I don't know if any studies in psychoacoustics have ever been done on
this.

I've had the same kind of experience as you. I used to love my AKG 240DM
headphones and Event 20/20 speakers. Now I have ATH-M50s and different
speakers. After getting used to those for about a year, I tried going
back to my old headphones and speakers, and I couldn't stand to listen to
them! More than that, I was unable to believe that I ever liked them.

This might be due to upgrading to better equipment, but I think it is
also due to something more. I actually did not upgrade the speakers, but
changed to listening to music on computer speakers instead because it was
more convenient. Now if I have a choice, I will still prefer the Creative
computer speakers to the Event studio monitors, even though techncially,
they are far inferior.

On Tue, 27 May 2014 04:32:38 +0000, Hikaru Ichijyo wrote:

Now, about a month later, [...] my Audio-Technica
ATH-M50 headphones sound very scooped to me, and seem to have a really
shrill treble emphasis around 5-10kHz. I don't know if they really do;
it's just the way they sound to me. Also, the mids seem a little
vacant.

Well, the ATH-M50s do have a dip in the midrange. When I got them, I was
concerned that they might be a little too forgiving as monitors. I think
they are good at making things sound good, and are a little lacking at
revealing faults in the midrange.

I've ordered a pair of Sennheiser HD-650's.

If I were unhappy with my ATH-M50's, that would be my next step up, too.
Good luck.

If you do mixing, this can be quite alarming, because we like to think
of our ears as the ultimate reference to judge if what we're hearing is
right or wrong.

Human hearing is inconsistent and very fallible, and is nothing like what
we assume it to be. This effect is typical of perception in general, and
is what magicians take advantage of to create their illusions.

When mixing, it's always a good idea to walk away from your "perfect mix"
and come back later or the next day to listen to it again. Nothing I
record ever sounds the same to me the next day.

[William Sommerwerck]

The brain seems to respond differently to headphones than speakers. The brain
quickly adjusts to (thereby ignoring) headphone colorations, whereas it takes
a long time for this to happen with speakers. The result -- particularly when
reviewing headphones -- is that listening to (say) a bright-sounding pair for
an extended period will make the next pair you audition sound duller than it
should.

When reviewing for "Stereophile", I had two unusual headphone experiences.

The first was with the ED-1 Monitor diffuse-field equalizer for STAX
headphones. (The ear's response to free-field sources is different from its
response to diffuse fields.)

I listened with the ED-1 many times, not hearing much of a change, and the
change I heard was merely a change -- it didn't seem to improve the subjective
accuracy of the reproduction. I was about to pack it up and send it back, when
I gave it one more try. Bingo. The effect was not only plainly audible, but
judged as an improvement.

Something similar happened when auditioning the AKG K1000 headphones. They had
no bass. The sound was thin and lightweight. AKG couldn't explain it, and
suggested I remove the resistors in the headphones. No change.

A Famous Designer visited during my review, and I asked him to listen to see
what he thought. I set them up and put them on -- and there was the bass. Go
figure.

[Scott Dorsey]

Hikaru Ichijyo wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing any comments on this type of experience if
anyone has any. Have you ever had this experience of "EQ
disorientation," for want of a better way of putting it? Perhaps you've
gone away from an often used monitoring device for awhile, only to come
back to it weeks or months later, and find that it's doesn't sound at
all the way you remember it?

This is normal nad it's why you need to listen to some reference material
(maybe a real instrument) before going into doing a mix. And it's why you
need to stop during the mix now and then and take a break and listen to
something else for a little while.

If you do mixing, this can be quite alarming, because we like to think
of our ears as the ultimate reference to judge if what we're hearing is
right or wrong. It can be very disorienting to find that our hearing
may actually be adjusting to the equipment to the point that we don't
know what's really going on.

Absolutely!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Hikaru Ichijyo wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing any comments on this type of experience if
anyone has any. Have you ever had this experience of "EQ
disorientation," for want of a better way of putting it? Perhaps you've
gone away from an often used monitoring device for awhile, only to come
back to it weeks or months later, and find that it's doesn't sound at
all the way you remember it?

This is normal nad it's why you need to listen to some reference material
(maybe a real instrument) before going into doing a mix. And it's why you
need to stop during the mix now and then and take a break and listen to
something else for a little while.

If you do mixing, this can be quite alarming, because we like to think
of our ears as the ultimate reference to judge if what we're hearing is
right or wrong. It can be very disorienting to find that our hearing
may actually be adjusting to the equipment to the point that we don't
know what's really going on.

Absolutely!

+1. For a long time I've advocated that anyone doing audio needs a periodic (once a
week or month) "calibration" or "re-centering" of their hearing by going to
something live and COMPLETELY acoustic -- chamber music, choral music, recitals, et
al, and in a nice room.

Problem is, it's getting harder and harder to find such things. Even "classical"
events often have reinforcement in place, and often it's simply not needed. But
it's there, and skews the sound.

Other alternatives are to play something acoustic (even if badly); and during
tracking sessions be sure to spend a little time out on the floor listening. At
least get a sense of how things change sonically once having gone through
your system.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 27 May 2014 13:35:56 -0500, Frank Stearns
wrote:

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Hikaru Ichijyo wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing any comments on this type of experience if
anyone has any. Have you ever had this experience of "EQ
disorientation," for want of a better way of putting it? Perhaps you've
gone away from an often used monitoring device for awhile, only to come
back to it weeks or months later, and find that it's doesn't sound at
all the way you remember it?

This is normal nad it's why you need to listen to some reference material
(maybe a real instrument) before going into doing a mix. And it's why you
need to stop during the mix now and then and take a break and listen to
something else for a little while.

If you do mixing, this can be quite alarming, because we like to think
of our ears as the ultimate reference to judge if what we're hearing is
right or wrong. It can be very disorienting to find that our hearing
may actually be adjusting to the equipment to the point that we don't
know what's really going on.

Absolutely!

+1. For a long time I've advocated that anyone doing audio needs a periodic (once a
week or month) "calibration" or "re-centering" of their hearing by going to
something live and COMPLETELY acoustic -- chamber music, choral music, recitals, et
al, and in a nice room.

Problem is, it's getting harder and harder to find such things. Even "classical"
events often have reinforcement in place, and often it's simply not needed. But
it's there, and skews the sound.

Other alternatives are to play something acoustic (even if badly); and during
tracking sessions be sure to spend a little time out on the floor listening. At
least get a sense of how things change sonically once having gone through
your system.

Frank
Mobile Audio

I wish people would do this, but I think it is a lost cause. Every
recording these days is required to have top end fizz. Sounds just
horrible to someone brought up on the real thing.

d

[geoff]

On 27/05/2014 5:22 p.m., PStamler wrote:
had a similar though not identical experience. I was recording old-time music at a dance weekend, and before one evening's performances I ate in the camp's dining hall. Well, for some reason everybody in the hall was talking at a loud yell (deafness from the music -- they run loud), and the dining hall was very live -- sound bouncing off a bare ceiling and walls. When I went to record everything I heard from my monitors sounded like it had a smile-EQ, with no midrange, so it sounded like it was all bass & treble. I wasn't aware of what had happened to my ears, so I EQd the recording to sound flat...and, when I recovered, had to remove the EQ in post-production. It was embarrassing, to say the least. People talk about loud music screwing up their hearing, and it does, but I'm hear to tell you that dinner talk can, too.

Peace,
Paul



Possibly a case of hyper-acusis, or freq-specific hearing loss leading
to 'recruitment' (adjacent frequency-tuned hairs stepping in to help the
damaged ones) - it is very disturbing and makes things sound very glary.

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 27 May 2014 23:57:05 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article isition,
Frank Stearns wrote:
For a long time I've advocated that anyone doing audio needs a periodic
(once a week or month) "calibration" or "re-centering" of their hearing
by going to something live and COMPLETELY acoustic -- chamber music,
choral music, recitals, et al, and in a nice room.

Male speech is a pretty good test of a speaker, etc. And you can hear that
anywhere.

I'd say it is the best test there is. Very seldom have I heard a
speaker that could fool me into thinking I was hearing an actual
person.

d

[hinz]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Something similar happened when auditioning the AKG K1000 headphones.
They had no bass. The sound was thin and lightweight. AKG couldn't
explain it, and suggested I remove the resistors in the headphones. No
change.

How much bass you get from headphones is largely due to how close they
get to your eardrum. Try in-ear 'noise isolating' ones like Creative
EP-630, they give amazing bass when shoved right in

[Trevor]

"Hikaru Ichijyo" wrote in message
eb.com...
If you do mixing, this can be quite alarming, because we like to think
of our ears as the ultimate reference to judge if what we're hearing is
right or wrong.

Since everyones auditory system is different, and reacts to different
environments as well as equipment, the idea that it can ever be the
"ultimate judge" has always puzzled me.


It can be very disorienting to find that our hearing
may actually be adjusting to the equipment to the point that we don't
know what's really going on.

Anybody who has ever understood what is really happening when all those HiFi
writers claim how equipment sounds *so much better* after a "burn in
period", already realises their limitations, and attempts to minimise them.

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Male speech is a pretty good test of a speaker, etc. And you can hear
that anywhere.

I'd say it is the best test there is. Very seldom have I heard a
speaker that could fool me into thinking I was hearing an actual
person.

Nearest I heard in a blind test was a Quad ELS 57 and an STC 4038 mic. ;-)
So you can guess how long ago that was. So much for progress.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , hinz wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Something similar happened when auditioning the AKG K1000 headphones.
They had no bass. The sound was thin and lightweight. AKG couldn't
explain it, and suggested I remove the resistors in the headphones. No
change.

How much bass you get from headphones is largely due to how close they
get to your eardrum. Try in-ear 'noise isolating' ones like Creative
EP-630, they give amazing bass when shoved right in

No, not really.
Consider the sealed-ear headphone as part of a system, it's an impedance
tube with a driver on one end and your eardrum on the other. The length
of the tube and the volume inside the tube will change the response, but
it's easy to compensate for any of those changes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

Since everyones auditory system is different, and reacts to different
environments as well as equipment, the idea that it can ever be the
"ultimate judge" has always puzzled me.

The argument is that the errors in our hearing apply both to the live sound
and its reproduction.


Anybody who has ever understood what is really happening when all
those HiFi writers claim how equipment sounds *so much better* after
a "burn in period", already realises their limitations, and attempts to
minimise them.

Some equipment does. But the period is hours -- in rare cases a few days --
not the weeks or months some reviewers claim.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 28 May 2014 11:27:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Male speech is a pretty good test of a speaker, etc. And you can hear
that anywhere.

I'd say it is the best test there is. Very seldom have I heard a
speaker that could fool me into thinking I was hearing an actual
person.

Nearest I heard in a blind test was a Quad ELS 57 and an STC 4038 mic. ;-)
So you can guess how long ago that was. So much for progress.

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed - no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

d

[hinz]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
How much bass you get from headphones is largely due to how close they
get to your eardrum. Try in-ear 'noise isolating' ones like Creative
EP-630, they give amazing bass when shoved right in

No, not really.
Consider the sealed-ear headphone as part of a system, it's an impedance
tube with a driver on one end and your eardrum on the other. The length
of the tube and the volume inside the tube will change the response, but
it's easy to compensate for any of those changes.

You're assuming a perfect seal, which is not there. Any pair of
headphones will produce massive bass if you push them closer on your
ears, and lose it completely when you pull them away.

You increase the bass coupling to your eardrums by improving the seal or
going closer. That's why in-ears work even though they only have a tiny
transducer.

For bass, this mechanism is much more efficient than equalization.

[geoff]

On 29/05/2014 7:36 p.m., hinz wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
How much bass you get from headphones is largely due to how close they
get to your eardrum. Try in-ear 'noise isolating' ones like Creative
EP-630, they give amazing bass when shoved right in

No, not really.
Consider the sealed-ear headphone as part of a system, it's an impedance
tube with a driver on one end and your eardrum on the other. The length
of the tube and the volume inside the tube will change the response, but
it's easy to compensate for any of those changes.

You're assuming a perfect seal, which is not there. Any pair of
headphones will produce massive bass if you push them closer on your
ears, and lose it completely when you pull them away.

You increase the bass coupling to your eardrums by improving the seal or
going closer. That's why in-ears work even though they only have a tiny
transducer.

For bass, this mechanism is much more efficient than equalization.

So... you do what you can (no pun intended), with what you have, and
what you hopefully know how they translate to recording. Or listen
without cans, if the source is a sensible level.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , hinz wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
How much bass you get from headphones is largely due to how close they
get to your eardrum. Try in-ear 'noise isolating' ones like Creative
EP-630, they give amazing bass when shoved right in

No, not really.
Consider the sealed-ear headphone as part of a system, it's an impedance
tube with a driver on one end and your eardrum on the other. The length
of the tube and the volume inside the tube will change the response, but
it's easy to compensate for any of those changes.

You're assuming a perfect seal, which is not there. Any pair of
headphones will produce massive bass if you push them closer on your
ears, and lose it completely when you pull them away.

Yes, I am! And that's why the seal is a very important part of the system
and needs to be designed to be as loss-free as possible. On the other hand,
people also want it to be comfortable.

You increase the bass coupling to your eardrums by improving the seal or
going closer. That's why in-ears work even though they only have a tiny
transducer.

I think having a very good seal is expected for any pair of closed-ear
headphones.

For bass, this mechanism is much more efficient than equalization.

That's true. More efficency beats brute force any way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed - no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power of
a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW factor if
and when your speakers can do that?

Gary Eickmeier

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 29 May 2014 22:19:01 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed - no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power of
a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW factor if
and when your speakers can do that?

Gary Eickmeier


No. If speakers make you go "wow" they are wrong.

d

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed - no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power
of a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW factor
if and when your speakers can do that?

I think there are two different issues here. The 57's are good for
classical/acoustical music. Pretty poor indeed for electric bands. I assume
you mean the latter when you say "a live band". The 57's certainly have no
wow factor there.

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:
I think there are two different issues here. The 57's are good for
classical/acoustical music. Pretty poor indeed for electric bands. I
assume you mean the latter when you say "a live band". The 57's
certainly have no wow factor there.

Eh? They're fine for everything. Provided you are happy with their maximum
SPL. That's a feature of a good speaker.

--
*IF A TURTLE DOESN'T HAVE A SHELL, IS HE HOMELESS OR NAKED?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Frank Stearns]

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Thu, 29 May 2014 22:19:01 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed - no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power of
a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW factor if
and when your speakers can do that?

Gary Eickmeier


No. If speakers make you go "wow" they are wrong.

This discussion is missing something, IMO.

If you were in the room at the time of the recording and the performance made you go
wow, then yes, the speakers too should re-create that wow factor.

If it's a synthetic and quickly tiring omnipresent "wow" (kinda like shoving up
all the way the brightness, contrast, and sharpness on your television) then no,
those are lousy speakers (thud-squawkers or thud-shriekers we used to call them).

Here's the no-man's land, however, and where nuanced arguments can begin. Given the
inherent failings of even the best microphones and speakers, a small, tasteful halo
of "wow" to counterbalance those inherent failings might be useful, the idea being
"net out to realism" -- if such a thing is possible.

However, if I were a speaker designer intending to build accurate monitor systems,
any intentionally added "wow-ness" would be down the list below getting minimal IM
distortion, and excellent phase and frequency linearity. (And, also, understanding
that speaker design is really a long list of compromises.)

Of course, this is why we typically have more than one set of monitor speakers and
listen on different systems when doing production work.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed - no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power
of a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW factor
if and when your speakers can do that?

I think there are two different issues here. The 57's are good for
classical/acoustical music. Pretty poor indeed for electric bands. I assume
you mean the latter when you say "a live band". The 57's certainly have no
wow factor there.

What makes you say the ESLs are bad for electric bands? I have loved them
for that. They are limited in low end headroom, but that just means you keep
the volume down.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed -- no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they [have] none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power
of a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW factor
if and when your speakers can do that?

Uh-oh.

Some listeners don't care for electrostatic speakers, because they find them
overly "polite", even insipid. (This is true, to a lesser extent, of
planar-magnetic speakers.) But those who've listened over an extended period
know just how accurate they are. When I say that, on my Apogees, "every
recording sounds different", I often get puzzled responses. But planar
speakers reveal the subtleties of a recording better than "cone-type"
speakers.

The "live bands" Gary talks about aren't "live" at all -- they use
electronically amplified instruments, heard through cone-ventional drivers.
That a pair of ESL-57s can't reproduce that is hardly a surprise.

Those familiar with live acoustic sound know that it is strikingly lacking in
"Wow"! A large orchestra might be exciting to hear, but it doesn't knock you
over, even close-up -- not even "Scheherazade". (Heard up-close, a full
orchestra a full volume is more irritatingly loud than exciting.)

When I worked for Barclay Recording, we sold a pair of Dayton-Wright
electrostatic speakers to a man with a large, dead basement. The speakers were
driven with Crown industrial amps, and they could blow you out of the room.
All with quite a bit of refinement.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed - no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power of
a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW factor if
and when your speakers can do that?

Gary Eickmeier



There are always exceptions but all you have to do is troll YouTube for
endless examples of just how bad live sound can be.

Not being a consumer of live music, I can't say why anybody puts up
with this. It's not just the bands; everybody has that Internet jukebox
with a bandpass box by Bose. Those are so distorted that I've actually
been halfway through a song listening to it before I even recognized
the song.

--
Les Cargill

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed -- no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they [have] none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power
of a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW
factor
if and when your speakers can do that?

Uh-oh.

Some listeners don't care for electrostatic speakers, because they find
them overly "polite", even insipid. (This is true, to a lesser extent, of
planar-magnetic speakers.) But those who've listened over an extended
period know just how accurate they are. When I say that, on my Apogees,
"every recording sounds different", I often get puzzled responses. But
planar speakers reveal the subtleties of a recording better than
"cone-type" speakers.

The "live bands" Gary talks about aren't "live" at all -- they use
electronically amplified instruments, heard through cone-ventional
drivers. That a pair of ESL-57s can't reproduce that is hardly a surprise.

William, this is a recording engineers group. I'm pretty sure that when we
go out to record a live band, they are not going to be amplified and on
speakers.

Those familiar with live acoustic sound know that it is strikingly lacking
in "Wow"! A large orchestra might be exciting to hear, but it doesn't
knock you over, even close-up -- not even "Scheherazade". (Heard up-close,
a full orchestra a full volume is more irritatingly loud than exciting.)

When I was a young officer in Sacramento, California the base invited the
Count Basie orchestrra to the O' Club. There were so many of them they
spilled over the stage onto the dance floor. I want to tell you, the sound
was not "polite" or "self-effacing." That was the most sensational sound I
think I have ever heard - well, aside from the first time I heard live
acoustic instruments demo'ing in the gym during lunch in High School and my
first concert hall experience. Oh, and Ella Fitzgerald at the Ford
Auditorium the evening of my High School graduation in '62 at her prime.
Front row center.

When I worked for Barclay Recording, we sold a pair of Dayton-Wright
electrostatic speakers to a man with a large, dead basement. The speakers
were driven with Crown industrial amps, and they could blow you out of the
room. All with quite a bit of refinement.

Possibly, I dunno, but what I am saying is that one of the AUDIBLE
characteristics of live sound is POWER. This should also be one of the
characteristics of reproduced sound.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

The "live bands" Gary talks about aren't "live" at all -- they use
electronically amplified instruments, heard through cone-ventional
drivers. That a pair of ESL-57s can't reproduce that is hardly a surprise.

William, this is a recording engineers group. I'm pretty sure that when we
go out to record a live band, they are not going to be amplified and on
speakers.

Their //instruments// are.

[John Williamson]

On 30/05/2014 20:57, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck"
wrote in message
...

The "live bands" Gary talks about aren't "live" at all -- they use
electronically amplified instruments, heard through cone-ventional
drivers. That a pair of ESL-57s can't reproduce that is hardly a
surprise.

William, this is a recording engineers group. I'm pretty sure that
when we
go out to record a live band, they are not going to be amplified and on
speakers.

Their //instruments// are.

And in many cases, the amplifiers and speakers used on stage are an
integral part of the sound of the instruments. Just ask any guitarist.

Then ask the recording engineer how to reproduce the closest
approximation to the sound the band thinks the audience hears.
Microphone positioning is even more critical than with some acoustic
sources, IME, with a couple of inches in any direction making a
noticeable difference. Now, for even more fun, try to get a fussy
guitarist or vocalist to agree with you on the "best" sound.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Hikaru Ichijyo]

It's enough of a digression from the original subject of EQ perception
that I've started a new subthread...but...

I did say I had HD-650's coming...and I've got them now...so:

I got these mostly because I felt that while my Audio-Technica ATH-M50's
were fairly balanced, they seemed to have a loud spike to them around
5-10kHz that just gets annoying. Almost every song seems to excite
it...the loud fizz on top. Granted, to a certain extent, people
actually EQ that way in produced music, but it doesn't seem nearly as
bad on speakers. I set out to try and find darker headphones with a
more neutral overall EQ.

Much I read online lead me to believe the HD-650's were the way to go.
In fact, google for "dark headphones" and they never cease turning up in
search results. Some people even posted various mods for removing foam
from the backs of the drivers to try and coax more treble out of the
HD-650's. Apparently it's a common perception that they're *too* dark.

Well, either I have the hearing of a dolphin, or these headphones are
definitely *not* dark. In fact, if I had to sum up what I'm hearing
briefly I'd say:

They're like Sony MDR-7506's, but musical and pleasant instead
of brash and pins and needles. They hype the treble to the sky so you
can hear everything perfectly, but totally unrealistic. Great for
editing, horrible for mixing. Yet, unlike MDR-7506's, it's an enjoyable
thing...it doesn't hurt your ears, and it's quite beautiful.

And I'm rather shocked by that. It's completely the opposite of all the
"dark, dark, dark...needs more treble" reviews I've heard. In fact, the
ATH-M50's seem much warmer -- whereas they seemed to have a spike in the
5-10kHz zone, the Sennheisers seem to hype everything from about 2kHz on
up. Smoothly, musically, and in ways that don't hurt your ears...but
definitely hyped...like Beyer Dynamic DT880's on steroids.

I don't know how to account for this disparity. I will definitely keep
them, since they're letting me hear some things in recordings I'd never
noticed before, but I can't see them giving my monitor speakers any help
or advice in the mixing department.

Anybody have any observations on this, or know any headphone that really
are dark and neutral? Or maybe all that drumming really did less harm
than I thought, and I really do have dolphin ears after all, because I'm
definitely hearing the treble just fine in these "dark" cans....

--
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent
that will reach to himself.
--Thomas Paine

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Doesn't surprise me. I remember when I first heard a pair of 57s. I
was disappointed - no wow factor at all. It was about half an hour
later that I realised what I had just discovered. Great speakers have
no wow factor, they none of anything. They are completely
self-effacing.

OMG disagree. The WOW factor of great speakers is the same as for live
sound. This is a group of mostly recording engineers. You know the power of
a live band. You know the sound of a live band. Isn't that a WOW factor if
and when your speakers can do that?

There are always exceptions but all you have to do is troll YouTube for
endless examples of just how bad live sound can be.

And, sadly this is often true even when there is no PA system involved..
I have heard some bands playing in rooms with big, big problems before.
But, by the same token, I don't think it's relevant to the original point.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 30/05/2014 9:09 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor wrote:
I think there are two different issues here. The 57's are good for
classical/acoustical music. Pretty poor indeed for electric bands. I
assume you mean the latter when you say "a live band". The 57's
certainly have no wow factor there.

Eh? They're fine for everything. Provided you are happy with their maximum
SPL. That's a feature of a good speaker.



Mine weren't good for anything with significant or percussive bass. But
the light show was good.

My ELS-63s are better in all respects , apart from the light-show !

geoff

[geoff]

On 31/05/2014 2:35 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

The "live bands" Gary talks about aren't "live" at all -- they use
electronically amplified instruments, heard through cone-ventional
drivers. That a pair of ESL-57s can't reproduce that is hardly a surprise.

A bit like relatively 'high-inertia' dynamic microphones, versus
electrostatic microphones ;-)

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/2014 2:35 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

The "live bands" Gary talks about aren't "live" at all -- they use
electronically amplified instruments, heard through cone-ventional
drivers. That a pair of ESL-57s can't reproduce that is hardly a surprise.

A bit like relatively 'high-inertia' dynamic microphones, versus
electrostatic microphones ;-)

Correct. A point many people refuse to accept.

Some people even believe that planar speakers "sound better" because they're
dipoles. This is easily disproved by listening to "open-air" headphones --
dynamic, orthodynamic, and electrostatic.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

And, sadly this is often true even when there is no PA system involved..
I have heard some bands playing in rooms with big, big problems before.
But, by the same token, I don't think it's relevant to the original point.
--scott

True. But my simple point about recording engineers being familiar with live
music and keeping our ears "tuned up" is that we are constantly going from
the live music to the reproduction, and so we know what live sounds like. I
didn't say anything about electric bands or pop music.

On the variable nature of our hearing, just a couple of thoughts. I think we
have all experienced that sometimes our systems sound great, sometimes not,
and we haven't touched a thing. The first thing I usually turn to is my
hearing. Clean out the wax, blow out those Eustacean tubes, pop your ears
and make sure they are both working right. If you have been in a noisy
environment, I know that the ears can compress the sound if it goes above a
certain level. Then when you get away from there, things are a lot quieter
until they recover. And finally if you have just been flying, your ears need
to come down from the 8000 ft cabin altitude and pop a few times if they
haven't already.

Of course another factor is fatigue. If you have ever gone into a store with
a wall of speakers and tried to compare them, you soon have no idea which
one is better than another and have to just give up. This is similar to
trying headphones, I would imagine.

We never question the "accuracy" of live sound despite any of the above
possible hearing problems, for obvious reasons. But for reproduced sound,
the equipment is always the first suspect, rather than our hearing.

Gary Eickmeier

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Trevor wrote:
I think there are two different issues here. The 57's are good for
classical/acoustical music. Pretty poor indeed for electric bands. I
assume you mean the latter when you say "a live band". The 57's
certainly have no wow factor there.

Eh? They're fine for everything. Provided you are happy with their maximum
SPL. That's a feature of a good speaker.

Yep, as long as you are happy with their low maximum SPL and lack of bass.
I'm not when it comes to rock music that's for sure!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
What makes you say the ESLs are bad for electric bands? I have loved them
for that. They are limited in low end headroom,

Definitely!

but that just means you keep the volume down.

Which is fine if that's all you want I guess. Won't suit too many into hard
rock or heavy metal though, that's for sure! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
There are always exceptions but all you have to do is troll YouTube for
endless examples of just how bad live sound can be.

While I don't disagree live sound can be BAD, using crappy Youtube clips to
judge what it was like at the venue is simply nonsense.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Trevor wrote:
I think there are two different issues here. The 57's are good for
classical/acoustical music. Pretty poor indeed for electric bands. I
assume you mean the latter when you say "a live band". The 57's
certainly have no wow factor there.

Eh? They're fine for everything. Provided you are happy with their maximum
SPL. That's a feature of a good speaker.

Yep, as long as you are happy with their low maximum SPL and lack of bass.
I'm not when it comes to rock music that's for sure!

You should hear them set up properly in a small room. They have plenty,
plenty of bass, and it reaches down very low. The low maximum SPL is very
true, though.

People try and use those Quads in rooms they aren't suited for, but with
proper setup in the right room they are fine performers.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."