Interesting Bit from Audio Precision Regarding Headphones

[Frank Stearns]

This is a promo from Audio Precision, but it touches on some interesting aspects of
headphones.

Yes, you'll have to "sign up" to watch the vid, but the AP folks are reasonable
and if you don't like what they send later, simply unsubscribe.

Here's their email:

Learn About Headphone Testing

Audio Precision

Learn headphone test from the audio experts.
View the web version:
http://clients.gcs-email.com/vm2/9292d90d15c6b0ef/25552/4068690b0b3621713947229f28c3afba

HEADPHONES ARE JUST LITTLE SPEAKERS ON YOUR HEAD. REALLY?

NOT REALLY

Headphones and loudspeakers are both electro-acoustic transducers, but that is where
the similarities end. Understanding the important distinctions that make headphone
test unique can help you to avoid costly mistakes in design and production.

LEARN FROM THE EXPERTS
In this 10-minute video, you'll learn:

* The definition of Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) A demonstration of hRTF
using a KEMAR head & torso simulator
* The relationship between free-field and HRTF measurements
* Why understanding HRTF is critical to proper headphone design and test

WATCH THE VIDEO
http://opt-in.ap.com/Headphone-Test/?s=Email


--

[[email protected]]

Frank:

According to some on here who shall
remain nameless, HRTF does NOT
apply to headphone usage or
design.

I'll let those individuals explain.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 9:30:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Frank:
>
> According to some on here who shall
> remain nameless, HRTF does NOT
> apply to headphone usage or
> design.
>
> I'll let those individuals explain.

You stand a better chance of surviving Isis than the regulars here!!

Jack :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Frank:
>
>According to some on here who shall
>remain nameless, HRTF does NOT
>apply to headphone usage or
>design.
>
>I'll let those individuals explain.

It does apply to headphone usage and design!

Okay, let's explain this again. When you listen through a pair of speakers,
sound comes through the free air, and it strikes your head and your shoulders
and your earlobes before it goes into your inner ear. The HRTF is the
transform that is created by this process, it is a function of the shape of
your head and outer ear and shoulders.

When you put headphones on, the sound goes directly into your middle ear,
so the whole process that is involved with the HRTF is bypassed.

The reason _why_ the HRTF applies to headphone usage is specifically
_because_ you are used to listening through the HRTF, and the headphones
eliminate it.

This is the second time...
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 8:57:59 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
> >Frank:
> >
> >According to some on here who shall
> >remain nameless, HRTF does NOT
> >apply to headphone usage or
> >design.
> >
> >I'll let those individuals explain.
>
> It does apply to headphone usage and design!
>
> Okay, let's explain this again. When you listen through a pair of speakers,
> sound comes through the free air, and it strikes your head and your shoulders
> and your earlobes before it goes into your inner ear. The HRTF is the
> transform that is created by this process, it is a function of the shape of
> your head and outer ear and shoulders.
>
> When you put headphones on, the sound goes directly into your middle ear,
> so the whole process that is involved with the HRTF is bypassed.
>
> The reason _why_ the HRTF applies to headphone usage is specifically
> _because_ you are used to listening through the HRTF, and the headphones
> eliminate it.
>
> This is the second time...
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues with headphones!!

Jack

[geoff]

On 13/02/2015 4:35 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> with headphones!!


So you know this, but you don't know what "sound-on-sound" is/was.

Yeah right.

geoff

[JackA]

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 3:24:59 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 13/02/2015 4:35 a.m., JackA wrote:
>
> >
> > Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> > through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> > with headphones!!
>
>
> So you know this, but you don't know what "sound-on-sound" is/was.
>
> Yeah right.

I love you, too!!!

Jack :)

>
> geoff

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
"The reason _why_ the HRTF applies to
headphone usage is specifically
_because_ you are used to listening
through the HRTF, and the headphones
eliminate it."

?????

Above = clear as mud! First you
say that HRTF has everything to do
with headphone design, then in your
last paragraph you state headphone
listening BYPASSES it. Well which
shall it be???

[John Williamson]

On 13/02/2015 11:27, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> "The reason _why_ the HRTF applies to
> headphone usage is specifically
> _because_ you are used to listening
> through the HRTF, and the headphones
> eliminate it."
>
> ?????
>
> Above = clear as mud! First you
> say that HRTF has everything to do
> with headphone design, then in your
> last paragraph you state headphone
> listening BYPASSES it. Well which
> shall it be???
>
To get an apparently flat response when listening to headphones, they
need to have the inverse response engineered in.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
To get an apparently flat response when
listening to headphones, they need to have
the inverse response engineered in. "

This I understand perfectly!

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>On 13/02/2015 11:27, wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> "The reason _why_ the HRTF applies to
>> headphone usage is specifically
>> _because_ you are used to listening
>> through the HRTF, and the headphones
>> eliminate it."
>>
>> ?????
>>
>> Above = clear as mud! First you
>> say that HRTF has everything to do
>> with headphone design, then in your
>> last paragraph you state headphone
>> listening BYPASSES it. Well which
>> shall it be???
>
>To get an apparently flat response when listening to headphones, they
>need to have the inverse response engineered in.

Except that no people have the same response! Which is why it gets so
exciting!
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 7:08:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
> To get an apparently flat response when
> listening to headphones, they need to have
> the inverse response engineered in. "
>
> This I understand perfectly!

I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or speakers with a "flat" response.

Just my two cents! :-)

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or
speakers with a "flat" response.

Just my two cents! :-)

Jack "

Ruler-flat transducers? Of course not. Flat is generally held to
be within plus-minus 3dB of reference, so some "wrinkles" are
to be accepted.

[John Williamson]

On 13/02/2015 12:56, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>> On 13/02/2015 11:27, wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> "The reason _why_ the HRTF applies to
>>> headphone usage is specifically
>>> _because_ you are used to listening
>>> through the HRTF, and the headphones
>>> eliminate it."
>>>
>>> ?????
>>>
>>> Above = clear as mud! First you
>>> say that HRTF has everything to do
>>> with headphone design, then in your
>>> last paragraph you state headphone
>>> listening BYPASSES it. Well which
>>> shall it be???
>>
>> To get an apparently flat response when listening to headphones, they
>> need to have the inverse response engineered in.
>
> Except that no people have the same response! Which is why it gets so
> exciting!
>
I know. Fun, isn't it?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 1:44:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or
> speakers with a "flat" response.
>
> Just my two cents! :-)
>
> Jack "
>
> Ruler-flat transducers? Of course not. Flat is generally held to
> be within plus-minus 3dB of reference, so some "wrinkles" are
> to be accepted.

Maybe you can achieve a flat response with a flat-top waveform!! :-)

Then, once you think everything is flat, this comes along!!..
http://www.swee****er.com/insync/effects-of-temperature-humidity-live-sound/

Jack

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:35:56 -0800 (PST), JackA
> wrote:

>On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 1:44:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
>> I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or
>> speakers with a "flat" response.
>>
>> Just my two cents! :-)
>>
>> Jack "
>>
>> Ruler-flat transducers? Of course not. Flat is generally held to
>> be within plus-minus 3dB of reference, so some "wrinkles" are
>> to be accepted.
>
>Maybe you can achieve a flat response with a flat-top waveform!! :-)
>
>Then, once you think everything is flat, this comes along!!..
>http://www.swee****er.com/insync/effects-of-temperature-humidity-live-sound/
>
>Jack

That is of course only a small part of the story. The main reason you
hear the rumble and not the crack at a distance is because low
frequencies (long waves) diffract round solid objects much more
successfully than short waves. Thunder is usually associated with very
humid conditions in which the differential frequency effect is
relatively small.

The humidity problem is very real though. Attenuation of high
frequencies is greatest at about 20% RH. The literature gives an
attenuation of 0.084 per metre at 12.5kHz. That's about 0.4dB per
metre. So thirty feet away, you are going to be about 4dB down at
12.5kHz compared to 1 to 2 kHz.

Once you get up into more normal humidities of about 50%, that
discrepancy is halved.

d

[JackA]

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:08:24 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:35:56 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > wrote:
>
> >On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 1:44:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> >> I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or
> >> speakers with a "flat" response.
> >>
> >> Just my two cents! :-)
> >>
> >> Jack "
> >>
> >> Ruler-flat transducers? Of course not. Flat is generally held to
> >> be within plus-minus 3dB of reference, so some "wrinkles" are
> >> to be accepted.
> >
> >Maybe you can achieve a flat response with a flat-top waveform!! :-)
> >
> >Then, once you think everything is flat, this comes along!!..
> >http://www.swee****er.com/insync/effects-of-temperature-humidity-live-sound/
> >
> >Jack
>
> That is of course only a small part of the story. The main reason you
> hear the rumble and not the crack at a distance is because low
> frequencies (long waves) diffract round solid objects much more
> successfully than short waves. Thunder is usually associated with very
> humid conditions in which the differential frequency effect is
> relatively small.
>
> The humidity problem is very real though. Attenuation of high
> frequencies is greatest at about 20% RH. The literature gives an
> attenuation of 0.084 per metre at 12.5kHz. That's about 0.4dB per
> metre. So thirty feet away, you are going to be about 4dB down at
> 12.5kHz compared to 1 to 2 kHz.
>
> Once you get up into more normal humidities of about 50%, that
> discrepancy is halved.

Yeah, Don, who wants soggy woofer syndrome?! :-)

Jack
>
> d

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/13/2015 4:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:35:56 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 1:44:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
>>> I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or
>>> speakers with a "flat" response.
>>>
>>> Just my two cents! :-)
>>>
>>> Jack "
>>>
>>> Ruler-flat transducers? Of course not. Flat is generally held to
>>> be within plus-minus 3dB of reference, so some "wrinkles" are
>>> to be accepted.
>>
>> Maybe you can achieve a flat response with a flat-top waveform!! :-)
>>
>> Then, once you think everything is flat, this comes along!!..
>> http://www.swee****er.com/insync/effects-of-temperature-humidity-live-sound/
>>
>> Jack
>
> That is of course only a small part of the story. The main reason you
> hear the rumble and not the crack at a distance is because low
> frequencies (long waves) diffract round solid objects much more
> successfully than short waves. Thunder is usually associated with very
> humid conditions in which the differential frequency effect is
> relatively small.
>
> The humidity problem is very real though. Attenuation of high
> frequencies is greatest at about 20% RH. The literature gives an
> attenuation of 0.084 per metre at 12.5kHz. That's about 0.4dB per
> metre. So thirty feet away, you are going to be about 4dB down at
> 12.5kHz compared to 1 to 2 kHz.
>
> Once you get up into more normal humidities of about 50%, that
> discrepancy is halved.
>
> d
>

For what it's worth, the Swee****er article seems to have
the effects right but the physics wrong. Erroneously suggesting
that that speed of sound is a function of density is a pet peeve
of mine. The same gas mixture, at the same temperature will
have the same sound speed at 1 Atm., 10 Atm., or 0.1 Atm.
It's not a matter of density /per se/.

Yes, it's counter intuitive.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Trevor]

On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> with headphones!!

You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
speakers anyway. With so many people listening to more of their music on
headphones than speakers these days, it amazes me that some
mixing/mastering engineers still don't.
Watching TV shows and movies late at night with headphones though makes
me realise the problem is even worse there as they apparently still
don't expect people to ever listen via headphones. :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 14/02/2015 4:58 AM, JackA wrote:
> I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or
> speakers with a "flat" response.

It's not that hard to produce headphones with a nominally flat response
when measured. What is not so easy is getting anyone to agree to whether
a simple near field measurement bears any resemblance to what is heard
by most listeners. So as usual you must first define how you want that
flat response to be measured (good luck with that) rather than making
simple statements that have no real life meaning.

Speakers are another matter as it is not only extremely difficult to
produce a flat speaker response in an anechoic chamber, but impossible
to produce one with a flat response in different environments.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 14/02/2015 5:44 AM, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
> I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or
> speakers with a "flat" response.
>
> Just my two cents! :-)
>
> Ruler-flat transducers? Of course not. Flat is generally held to
> be within plus-minus 3dB of reference, so some "wrinkles" are
> to be accepted.

Those wrinkles are often as much to do with
transducer/environment/measurement interactions, as actual energy
conversion issues.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:31:39 -0500, Ron C > wrote:

>On 2/13/2015 4:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:35:56 -0800 (PST), JackA
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 1:44:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>> JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
>>>> I do not. I mean, I do not believe man can produce headphones or
>>>> speakers with a "flat" response.
>>>>
>>>> Just my two cents! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Jack "
>>>>
>>>> Ruler-flat transducers? Of course not. Flat is generally held to
>>>> be within plus-minus 3dB of reference, so some "wrinkles" are
>>>> to be accepted.
>>>
>>> Maybe you can achieve a flat response with a flat-top waveform!! :-)
>>>
>>> Then, once you think everything is flat, this comes along!!..
>>> http://www.swee****er.com/insync/effects-of-temperature-humidity-live-sound/
>>>
>>> Jack
>>
>> That is of course only a small part of the story. The main reason you
>> hear the rumble and not the crack at a distance is because low
>> frequencies (long waves) diffract round solid objects much more
>> successfully than short waves. Thunder is usually associated with very
>> humid conditions in which the differential frequency effect is
>> relatively small.
>>
>> The humidity problem is very real though. Attenuation of high
>> frequencies is greatest at about 20% RH. The literature gives an
>> attenuation of 0.084 per metre at 12.5kHz. That's about 0.4dB per
>> metre. So thirty feet away, you are going to be about 4dB down at
>> 12.5kHz compared to 1 to 2 kHz.
>>
>> Once you get up into more normal humidities of about 50%, that
>> discrepancy is halved.
>>
>> d
>>
>
>For what it's worth, the Swee****er article seems to have
> the effects right but the physics wrong. Erroneously suggesting
>that that speed of sound is a function of density is a pet peeve
>of mine. The same gas mixture, at the same temperature will
>have the same sound speed at 1 Atm., 10 Atm., or 0.1 Atm.
>It's not a matter of density /per se/.
>
>Yes, it's counter intuitive.
>
>==
>Later...
>Ron Capik

Quite right. It is a function of air temperature, not density.

d

[Frank Stearns]

Trevor > writes:

>On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
>> with headphones!!

>You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
>with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
>speakers anyway. With so many people listening to more of their music on
>headphones than speakers these days, it amazes me that some
>mixing/mastering engineers still don't.
>Watching TV shows and movies late at night with headphones though makes
>me realise the problem is even worse there as they apparently still
>don't expect people to ever listen via headphones. :-(

Yes, I was curious about that statement too. In general, headphones can reveal some
interesting things that speakers sometimes don't.

However, much also depends on the room/speaker and the headphones.

A properly-treated room free of early reflections can reveal much about phase issues
and confirm what the headphones found (or the phones can lead you to listening more
carefully in the room). OTHO, lesser headphones, afflicted with that awful plastic
resonance sound, can mask such details.

It's good to use both and in your environment know which one is likely to tell you
what.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[JackA]

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
> > Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> > through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> > with headphones!!
>
> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
> speakers anyway.

I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm dead serious.

With so many people listening to more of their music on
> headphones than speakers these days, it amazes me that some
> mixing/mastering engineers still don't.
> Watching TV shows and movies late at night with headphones though makes
> me realise the problem is even worse there as they apparently still
> don't expect people to ever listen via headphones. :-(

I enjoy mixing with headphones, but I always check any mixing with speakers.
I'm not your ordinary mastering engineer!! :-)

Jack
>
> Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
>> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
>> > Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
>> > through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
>> > with headphones!!
>>
>> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
>> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
>> speakers anyway.
>
>I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm dead serious.

Reversed polarity should be very easy to detect on either headphones or
speakers. It's not exactly subtle.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
> >> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
> >> > Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> >> > through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> >> > with headphones!!
> >>
> >> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
> >> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
> >> speakers anyway.
> >
> >I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm dead serious.
>
> Reversed polarity should be very easy to detect on either headphones or
> speakers. It's not exactly subtle.

I say both you and Trevor have never experience an out of phase condition and you're both guessing you can detect it with something you never heard before with headphones.

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

[Trevor]

On 14/02/2015 11:49 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Trevor > writes:
>> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
>>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
>>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
>>> with headphones!!
>
>> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
>> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
>> speakers anyway. With so many people listening to more of their music on
>> headphones than speakers these days, it amazes me that some
>> mixing/mastering engineers still don't.
>> Watching TV shows and movies late at night with headphones though makes
>> me realise the problem is even worse there as they apparently still
>> don't expect people to ever listen via headphones. :-(
>
> Yes, I was curious about that statement too. In general, headphones can reveal some
> interesting things that speakers sometimes don't.
>
> However, much also depends on the room/speaker and the headphones.
>
> A properly-treated room free of early reflections can reveal much about phase issues
> and confirm what the headphones found (or the phones can lead you to listening more
> carefully in the room). OTHO, lesser headphones, afflicted with that awful plastic
> resonance sound, can mask such details.

Well using "lesser phones" that have such problems for critical
evaluation is simply asking for trouble. Even great headphones are far
cheaper than average speakers, and usually cheaper than room treatment
for that matter.


> It's good to use both and in your environment know which one is likely to tell you
> what.

Right.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/02/2015 11:54 AM, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
>> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
>>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
>>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
>>> with headphones!!
>>
>> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
>> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
>> speakers anyway.
>
> I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm dead serious.

OK, you should have added "In your experience", not in mine anyway.


Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/02/2015 1:05 PM, JackA wrote:
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey
>> JackA > wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
>>>>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any
>>>>> alterations through speakers, because it's difficult to
>>>>> detect phasing issues with headphones!!
>>>>
>>>> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing
>>>> issues with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both
>>>> headphones and speakers anyway.
>>>
>>> I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding,
>>> I'm dead serious.
>>
>> Reversed polarity should be very easy to detect on either
>> headphones or speakers. It's not exactly subtle.
>
> I say both you and Trevor have never experience an out of phase
> condition and you're both guessing you can detect it with something
> you never heard before with headphones.

Now you really prove just how stupid you are !
As they say, stupid people just don't know what it is they don't know! :-)

Trevor.

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

JackA > wrote:
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> JackA > wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
>>>>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
>>>>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
>>>>> with headphones!!
>>>>
>>>> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
>>>> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
>>>> speakers anyway.
>>>
>>> I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm dead serious.
>>
>> Reversed polarity should be very easy to detect on either headphones or
>> speakers. It's not exactly subtle.
>
> I say both you and Trevor have never experience an out of phase condition
> and you're both guessing you can detect it with something you never heard
> before with headphones.
>
> Jack
>> --scott
>>
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Are you even remotely aware of how stupid you sound?

[JackA]

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 7:50:04 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Trevor > writes:
>
> >On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
> >> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> >> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> >> with headphones!!
>
> >You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
> >with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
> >speakers anyway. With so many people listening to more of their music on
> >headphones than speakers these days, it amazes me that some
> >mixing/mastering engineers still don't.
> >Watching TV shows and movies late at night with headphones though makes
> >me realise the problem is even worse there as they apparently still
> >don't expect people to ever listen via headphones. :-(
>
> Yes, I was curious about that statement too. In general, headphones can reveal some
> interesting things that speakers sometimes don't.
>
> However, much also depends on the room/speaker and the headphones.
>
> A properly-treated room free of early reflections can reveal much about phase issues
> and confirm what the headphones found (or the phones can lead you to listening more
> carefully in the room). OTHO, lesser headphones, afflicted with that awful plastic
> resonance sound, can mask such details.
>
> It's good to use both and in your environment know which one is likely to tell you
> what.


Even though it's subtle, I can generally hear tape hiss noise better with speakers. But I'm strictly talking computer audio; i.e. two different monsters.

Jack

>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
> --
> .

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 9:44:00 PM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> JackA > wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
> >>>> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
> >>>>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> >>>>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> >>>>> with headphones!!
> >>>>
> >>>> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
> >>>> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
> >>>> speakers anyway.
> >>>
> >>> I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm dead serious.
> >>
> >> Reversed polarity should be very easy to detect on either headphones or
> >> speakers. It's not exactly subtle.
> >
> > I say both you and Trevor have never experience an out of phase condition
> > and you're both guessing you can detect it with something you never heard
> > before with headphones.
> >
> > Jack
> >> --scott
> >>
> >> --
> >> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> Are you even remotely aware of how stupid you sound?

Do you make it a habit to reply to stupid people?

Jack :)

[hank alrich]

JackA > wrote:

> the blitherings of a idiot snipped

I say you're sufficiently full of **** that you have no idea what you
are talking about.


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Ralph Barone > wrote:

> JackA > wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:07:15 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> JackA > wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
> >>>> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
> >>>>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> >>>>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> >>>>> with headphones!!
> >>>>
> >>>> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
> >>>> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
> >>>> speakers anyway.
> >>>
> >>> I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm
> >>>dead serious.
> >>
> >> Reversed polarity should be very easy to detect on either headphones or
> >> speakers. It's not exactly subtle.
> >
> > I say both you and Trevor have never experience an out of phase condition
> > and you're both guessing you can detect it with something you never heard
> > before with headphones.
> >
> > Jack
> >> --scott
> >>
> >> --
> >> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> Are you even remotely aware of how stupid you sound?

Obviously, it is not. These bots have limited grasp.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

JackA > wrote:

> Do you make it a habit to reply to stupid people?
>
> Jack :)

A lot, since you shwoed up.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[John Williamson]

On 16/02/2015 00:54, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
>> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
>>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
>>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
>>> with headphones!!
>>
>> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
>> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
>> speakers anyway.
>
> I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm dead serious.
>
If you have problems detecting out of phase channels with headphones,
you really need to practice more.

> With so many people listening to more of their music on
>> headphones than speakers these days, it amazes me that some
>> mixing/mastering engineers still don't.
>> Watching TV shows and movies late at night with headphones though makes
>> me realise the problem is even worse there as they apparently still
>> don't expect people to ever listen via headphones. :-(
>
> I enjoy mixing with headphones, but I always check any mixing with speakers.
> I'm not your ordinary mastering engineer!! :-)
>
After listening to some of your mixes, you got that right.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:15:26 -0800 (PST), JackA
> wrote:
>
>Even though it's subtle, I can generally hear tape hiss noise better with speakers. But I'm strictly talking computer audio; i.e. two different monsters.
>
>Jack

Tape hiss on a computer? How did that happen? Is wow and flutter a
problem too?

[geoff]

On 16/02/2015 1:54 p.m., JackA wrote:

> I'm not your ordinary mastering engineer!! :-)

You certainly aren't, You are a self-usually-wrongly-opinionated rank
amateur who has played with a little re-mixing and mastering, usually
with crap source media.


I have done a heap (probably tens-to-hundreds of times) more mastering
than you, for paying clients, and I would not dare presume to even call
myself a 'mastering engineer'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/02/2015 5:15 p.m., JackA wrote:

>
> Even though it's subtle, I can generally hear tape hiss noise better
> with speakers. But I'm strictly talking computer audio; i.e. two
> different monsters.

???!!!

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 16/02/2015 00:54, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
> >> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
> >>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> >>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> >>> with headphones!!
> >>
> >> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
> >> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
> >> speakers anyway.
> >
> > I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm dead serious.
> >
> If you have problems detecting out of phase channels with headphones,
> you really need to practice more.
>
> > With so many people listening to more of their music on
> >> headphones than speakers these days, it amazes me that some
> >> mixing/mastering engineers still don't.
> >> Watching TV shows and movies late at night with headphones though makes
> >> me realise the problem is even worse there as they apparently still
> >> don't expect people to ever listen via headphones. :-(
> >
> > I enjoy mixing with headphones, but I always check any mixing with speakers.
> > I'm not your ordinary mastering engineer!! :-)
> >
> After listening to some of your mixes, you got that right.

You only wish you were 1/4 a good as I am!!!

Jack

Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>
>I say both you and Trevor have never experience an out of phase condition and you're both guessing you can detect it with something you never heard before with headphones.

Please don't call it "out of phase" when you mean "out of polarity."

If you listen to a recording on headphones with the polarity swapped, sounds
in the center, instead of imaging to the center at all, sound like they are
directly on either side of the your head. It is, as I said, not a subtle
effect.

It turns out that this actually improves vocal intelligibility; communication
headsets for pilots and radio operators are frequently wired with reversed
polarity.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 8:00:52 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >
> >I say both you and Trevor have never experience an out of phase condition and you're both guessing you can detect it with something you never heard before with headphones.
>
> Please don't call it "out of phase" when you mean "out of polarity."

I stand corrected! Thank you!
>
> If you listen to a recording on headphones with the polarity swapped, sounds
> in the center, instead of imaging to the center at all, sound like they are
> directly on either side of the your head. It is, as I said, not a subtle
> effect.

My point is, if you never heard the [polarity swapped] song before, how would you even know? I stumbled across it.

>
> It turns out that this actually improves vocal intelligibility; communication
> headsets for pilots and radio operators are frequently wired with reversed
> polarity.

Okay!!

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

[hank alrich]

Gray_Wolf > wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:15:26 -0800 (PST), JackA
> > wrote:
> >
> >Even though it's subtle, I can generally hear tape hiss noise better with
> >speakers. But I'm strictly talking computer audio; i.e. two different
> >monsters.
> >
> >Jack
>
> Tape hiss on a computer? How did that happen? Is wow and flutter a
> problem too?

It's the marbles. They rattle around. Some folks say the litle ones
sound like tape hiss.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> On 16/02/2015 5:15 p.m., JackA wrote:
>
> >
> > Even though it's subtle, I can generally hear tape hiss noise better
> > with speakers. But I'm strictly talking computer audio; i.e. two
> > different monsters.
>
> ???!!!
>
> geoff

"computer audio"

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

JackA > wrote:

> On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 16/02/2015 00:54, JackA wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:26:11 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
> > >> On 13/02/2015 2:35 AM, JackA wrote:
> > >>> Why I always suggest, after mastering, you listen to any alterations
> > >>> through speakers, because it's difficult to detect phasing issues
> > >>> with headphones!!
> > >>
> > >> You are kidding right? I find it far easier to detect phasing issues
> > >> with headphones, and always listen to mixes with both headphones and
> > >> speakers anyway.
> > > > I'm talking stereo channels being out of phase. I'm not kidding, I'm
> > dead serious. > If you have problems detecting out of phase channels
> > with headphones,
> > you really need to practice more.
> >
> > > With so many people listening to more of their music on > headphones
> > >than speakers these days, it amazes me that some > mixing/mastering
> > >engineers still don't. > Watching TV shows and movies late at night
> > >with headphones though makes > me realise the problem is even worse
> > >there as they apparently still > don't expect people to ever listen via
> > >headphones. :-(
> > >
> > > I enjoy mixing with headphones, but I always check any mixing with
> > > Ispeakers. 'm not your ordinary mastering engineer!! :-)
> > >
> > After listening to some of your mixes, you got that right.
>
> You only wish you were 1/4 a good as I am!!!

Most of us have 1/4" plugs that mix better than you do


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA > wrote:
>On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 8:00:52 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> JackA > wrote:
>> >
>> If you listen to a recording on headphones with the polarity swapped, sounds
>> in the center, instead of imaging to the center at all, sound like they are
>> directly on either side of the your head. It is, as I said, not a subtle
>> effect.
>
>My point is, if you never heard the [polarity swapped] song before, how would you even know? I stumbled across it.

Because the vocal is coming from the sides and not from the center. It is
very obvious (and makes LP cutting damn near impossible).
--scott

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

[Luxey]

понедељак, 16. фебруар 2015. 18.07.14 UTC+1, hank alrich је написао/ла:

> > You only wish you were 1/4 a good as I am!!!
>
> Most of us have 1/4" plugs that mix better than you do

He, he, good one. LOL!

[Gray_Wolf]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:07:09 -0600, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:15:26 -0800 (PST), JackA
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >Even though it's subtle, I can generally hear tape hiss noise better with
>> >speakers. But I'm strictly talking computer audio; i.e. two different
>> >monsters.
>> >
>> >Jack
>>
>> Tape hiss on a computer? How did that happen? Is wow and flutter a
>> problem too?
>
>It's the marbles. They rattle around. Some folks say the litle ones
>sound like tape hiss.

ROFLMAO!!