[ChrisCoaster]

On May 8, 1:23*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message

...
On May 8, 12:25 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

ChrisCoaster wrote:
Measuring flat is more important to me than "sounding" flat.
Perhaps it is my wording that is confusing you. Our last president
had the same problem(!)
Measure flat how? Flat response on your head? Flat response on my
head? Flat response in free air? Flat response on the IEC standard
ear? Or do you want non-flat response that approximates flat response
of a sound in front of you? Or maybe you want non-flat response that
approximates flat response of a sound to the side of you?

I can measure it fifty different ways. Which way would you like to be
flat?

** sigh **

Why must it be so complicated, Charlie Brown?

Because human hearing is complicated.
_______________________
And is probably the reason why "critical" listening should be done
over a good set of loudspeakers instead.

-CC

[William Sommerwerck]

Why must it be so complicated, Charlie Brown?

Because human hearing is complicated.

And is probably the reason why "critical" listening should
be done over a good set of loudspeakers instead.

It depends on what you're listening for.

Though one would expect a pair of really good electrostatic headphones to be
superior to any speaker, this is not necessarily true. WHY, I don't know.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Why must it be so complicated, Charlie Brown?
Because human hearing is complicated.

And is probably the reason why "critical" listening should
be done over a good set of loudspeakers instead.

It depends on what you're listening for.

Though one would expect a pair of really good electrostatic headphones to be
superior to any speaker, this is not necessarily true. WHY, I don't know.

Why?

Because recordings that are miked and mixed for stereo are done so
with the intention of playing them back in a room with speakers. So
there are room effects and crosstalk (well, crosstalk is a horribly
oversimplified way of thinking about it) created, rather than each
channel directly going into individual ears.

If you could simulate those effects (and there are devices out there
like the Sennheiser Lucas and its successors which do some of that),
then you would be able to get more realistic playback of stereo
recordings through headphones.

Most of the time when we use headphones in the studio, though, it is
precisely to get that unnatural, focussed, room-free sound.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-08 (ScottDorsey) said:
Though one would expect a pair of really good electrostatic
headphones to be superior to any speaker, this is not necessarily
true. WHY, I don't know.
Why?
Because recordings that are miked and mixed for stereo are done so
with the intention of playing them back in a room with speakers. So
there are room effects and crosstalk (well, crosstalk is a horribly
oversimplified way of thinking about it) created, rather than each
channel directly going into individual ears.
If you could simulate those effects (and there are devices out there
like the Sennheiser Lucas and its successors which do some of that),
then you would be able to get more realistic playback of stereo
recordings through headphones.

RIght, and then the "emulations" present their own issues.
THis is also why, for forms of music William doesn't
normally listen to, where the recording process is another
major creative element it's difficult as well to mix on
phones. EFfects such as artificial reverbs, etc. are more
difficult to judge. YOu think the signal is too wet on
phones, and then find that it could be "wetter" whence
listening on your chosen playback system. As with speakers
one learns to judge using a given set of phones after
awhile.

Most of the time when we use headphones in the studio, though, it is
precisely to get that unnatural, focussed, room-free sound.

INdeed, and some performers never quite catch on to using
them. Iirc I provided some anecdotes recently on the
pro-audio list regarding players who weren't necessarily
experts and their troubles in the studio during the overdub
session. MOst of those problems were directly traceable to
the performer having difficulty getting comfortable with
listening to himself and others through headphones. ONe
tried to combat the problem by "more me" always more me. IT
took me the longest time to get him to quit agonizing over
his headphone mix, relax and let me handle that for him. I
was often a better judge of what he needed in his phones by
how well he was following along, but I"d worked with him by
then for a couple years recording a lot of his original
songs for demos that he shipped here and there. LIttle cash
changed hands between us, but he did a lot of other work for
me via barter grin.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message
...

On 2011-05-08 (ScottDorsey) said:
Though one would expect a pair of really good electrostatic
headphones to be superior to any speaker, this is not necessarily
true. WHY, I don't know.
Why?
Because recordings that are miked and mixed for stereo are done so
with the intention of playing them back in a room with speakers. So
there are room effects and crosstalk (well, crosstalk is a horribly
oversimplified way of thinking about it) created, rather than each
channel directly going into individual ears.
If you could simulate those effects (and there are devices out there
like the Sennheiser Lucas and its successors which do some of that),
then you would be able to get more realistic playback of stereo
recordings through headphones.

RIght, and then the "emulations" present their own issues.
THis is also why, for forms of music William doesn't
normally listen to, where the recording process is another
major creative element it's difficult as well to mix on
phones. EFfects such as artificial reverbs, etc. are more
difficult to judge. You think the signal is too wet on
phones, and then find that it could be "wetter" whence
listening on your chosen playback system. As with speakers
one learns to judge using a given set of phones after
awhile.

Actually, the same thing occurs with the kinds of music I do listen to. As
an amateur recordist, I quickly learned that headphone listening produces a
much more spacious effect than speakers (this is /inherent/ in headphone
listening), and made sure I miked for exaggerated ambience.

This is but one example of why headphone listening is not the same as
speaker listening.

Many years ago, I built the Ben what's-his-name crosstalk generator for
headphone listening. It worked pretty well. As far as I know, no one
currently makes such a product.

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-08 said:
THis is also why, for forms of music William doesn't
normally listen to, where the recording process is another
major creative element it's difficult as well to mix on
phones. EFfects such as artificial reverbs, etc. are more
difficult to judge. You think the signal is too wet on
phones, and then find that it could be "wetter" whence
listening on your chosen playback system. As with speakers
one learns to judge using a given set of phones after
awhile.
Actually, the same thing occurs with the kinds of music I do listen
to. As an amateur recordist, I quickly learned that headphone
listening produces a much more spacious effect than speakers (this
is /inherent/ in headphone listening), and made sure I miked for
exaggerated ambience.

true as well, which is why if possible I would rather record
a rehearsal and then have a listen before we get the one for
the money if I *must use headphones only during the capture.
Again, isn't always possible.

Many years ago, I built the Ben what's-his-name crosstalk generator
for headphone listening. It worked pretty well. As far as I know,
no one currently makes such a product.

ISn't that software MIke Rivers reviewed recently supposed
to be operating on a similar principle? I would rather just
fight with the headphones I learn and endeavor to find
another way to judge even if I can't justify the use of the
truck, such as set up in a back room where I can at least
listen to a piece of the recording on speakers and adjust
before we go for the money take. There would be times with
such a system that I'd want to put it in bypass and just
listen to what the phones tell me, or listen on a different
set of cans for different reasons.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Many years ago, I built the Ben what's-his-name crosstalk
generator for headphone listening. It worked pretty well.
As far as I know, no one currently makes such a product.

http://gilmore2.chem.northwestern.ed..._art.htm#cross

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Many years ago, I built the Ben Bauer crosstalk
generator for headphone listening. It worked pretty well.
As far as I know, no one currently makes such a product.

http://gilmore2.chem.northwestern.ed..._art.htm#cross

Lots of good stuff here. Thanks.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Many years ago, I built the Ben Bauer crosstalk
generator for headphone listening. It worked pretty well.
As far as I know, no one currently makes such a product.

http://gilmore2.chem.northwestern.ed..._art.htm#cross

Lots of good stuff here. Thanks.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Why must it be so complicated, Charlie Brown?
Because human hearing is complicated.

And is probably the reason why "critical" listening should
be done over a good set of loudspeakers instead.

It depends on what you're listening for.

Though one would expect a pair of really good electrostatic headphones to
be
superior to any speaker, this is not necessarily true. WHY, I don't know.

Because recordings that are miked and mixed for stereo are done so
with the intention of playing them back in a room with speakers. So
there are room effects and crosstalk (well, crosstalk is a horribly
oversimplified way of thinking about it) created, rather than each
channel directly going into individual ears.

I'm talking about basic sound quality.

Many years ago, when I owned Acoustat Sixes, I was much surprised to find
that -- to these ears -- their basic sound quality was somewhat superior to
my STAX Lambda Signature headphones, which sounded slightly "mechanical" in
comparison. This made little sense, because the STAXes were driven directly
from a STAX transformerless amplifier.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Because recordings that are miked and mixed for stereo are done so
with the intention of playing them back in a room with speakers. So
there are room effects and crosstalk (well, crosstalk is a horribly
oversimplified way of thinking about it) created, rather than each
channel directly going into individual ears.

I'm talking about basic sound quality.

Many years ago, when I owned Acoustat Sixes, I was much surprised to find
that -- to these ears -- their basic sound quality was somewhat superior to
my STAX Lambda Signature headphones, which sounded slightly "mechanical" in
comparison. This made little sense, because the STAXes were driven directly
from a STAX transformerless amplifier.

The thing is, though, because the presentation is so totally different, you
really can't make comparisons between speakers and headphones. And if you
can't do that, you can't really make comparisons between headphones and
the original source (unless you are talking about binaural recordings). And
if that's the case then you're pretty much up in the air.
--scott

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

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Why must it be so complicated, Charlie Brown?
Because human hearing is complicated.

And is probably the reason why "critical" listening should
be done over a good set of loudspeakers instead.

It depends on what you're listening for.

Though one would expect a pair of really good electrostatic
headphones to be superior to any speaker, this is not necessarily
true. WHY, I don't know.

Why?

Because recordings that are miked and mixed for stereo are done so
with the intention of playing them back in a room with speakers. So
there are room effects and crosstalk (well, crosstalk is a horribly
oversimplified way of thinking about it) created, rather than each
channel directly going into individual ears.

If you could simulate those effects (and there are devices out there
like the Sennheiser Lucas and its successors which do some of that),
then you would be able to get more realistic playback of stereo
recordings through headphones.

Most of the time when we use headphones in the studio, though, it is
precisely to get that unnatural, focussed, room-free sound.
--scott

When you hear real sounds, you hear some of the same material (with a slight
phase difference) in both ears. Headphones feed each ear different program
material, so the effect is artificial in some respects, part of the time,
and very artificial some of the time. Your brain senses this and tells you
about it.....