[Scott Dorsey]

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

This is certainly common sense, because most headphones don't interact
strongly with the pinnae, and therefore the pinnae's "coloration" would
be
reduced or removed. But this doesn't seem to be true in practice. If you
ask
listeners which headphones they consider the most-accurate, there is a
broad
consensus. (For example, you and I would agree that the 580 is a
relatively
neutral reproducer.) In other words, most listeners "hear" headphones
much
as they hear sounds in the space surrounding them. *

It's not the pinnae, it's the ear canal volume forming a resonant pole.

Unless I'm mistaken, the pinnae are considered to have a meaningful effect
on the "energy balance" of the sounds entering the canal.

They do, but it's not the most significant effect that causes the headphone
response to differ from the standard ear.

It is measurable, though. And when the headphone alters the shape of the
earlobe that causes measurable response changes too.
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message


I tested the M40 and the SRH-440 in store and could not
tolerate the fit or the sound of the M40s for more than
half a track! My SRH-440s, HD-280s, and 7506 all sound
more like each other than the ATH-M40 sounds like ANY of
them. Hence my question - is the m40 a diffused?


If memory serves I picked up a pair of M40s for someone who was looking for
a cheaper solution. I was not overly impressed but the ultimate end user who
is generally inexperienced with high quality headphones was, so no harm
done.

I suspect that the M40s primarily differ in that they use a smaller and
different driver. 40mm for the M40 and 45 mm for the M50s.

[John Williamson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
On May 8, 12:40=A0pm, John Williamson
wrote:

What *I'd* like is a pair that reproduce in my ears exactly what I would
hear if my head were to be in the same position as the microphones.

Try the Neumann kunstkopf with the cheaper Etymotic headphones.

Or even try the Neumann kunstkopf with a pair of crappy earbuds from
the five and dime.

You'll find the limiting factor here isn't the headphones.

If I could afford the whole chain, then I'd be happy. Maybe...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[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

[ChrisCoaster]

On May 8, 1:44*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message

I suspect that the M40s primarily differ in that they use a smaller and
different driver. 40mm for the M40 and 45 mm for the M50s.
________________

Hmm, if I recall I read *somewhere* that the HD-280 has 30mm drivers
and still sounds lightyears better than the m40. That dimension did
not come from the Sennheiser site, where it is suspiciously absent.
It could also depend on how the m40's transducers are aimed compared
to the aim of the HD-280s.

-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.

[William Sommerwerck]

Unless I'm mistaken, the pinnae are considered to have a meaningful
effect on the "energy balance" of the sounds entering the canal.

They do, but it's not the most significant effect that causes the
headphone response to differ from the standard ear.

It is measurable, though. And when the headphone alters the
shape of the earlobe that causes measurable response changes too.

No argument. So why do we generally agree on the relative quality of
headphones?

[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]

"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.

[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.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, the pinnae are considered to have a meaningful
effect on the "energy balance" of the sounds entering the canal.

They do, but it's not the most significant effect that causes the
headphone response to differ from the standard ear.

It is measurable, though. And when the headphone alters the
shape of the earlobe that causes measurable response changes too.

No argument. So why do we generally agree on the relative quality of
headphones?

I'm not sure that people overall really do. There are a lot of people with
very strong opposing views about headphones.

Then again, the same can be said about speakers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[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."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, the pinnae are considered to have a meaningful
effect on the "energy balance" of the sounds entering the canal.

They do, but it's not the most significant effect that causes the
headphone response to differ from the standard ear.

It is measurable, though. And when the headphone alters the
shape of the earlobe that causes measurable response changes too.

No argument. So why do we generally agree on the relative quality of
headphones?

I'm not sure that people overall really do. There are a lot of people with
very strong opposing views about headphones.

This thread has been fascinating, and surprising.

I am startled by those who've indicated that imaging is poor to non-existent on
phones.

Some of the studios I worked in decades ago had poor room treatment and speaker
imaging was terrible. Hit the mono switch for the monitors and not much really
changed. Yikes! This when you should have gotten an pencil-thin vertical line of
sound or spot of sound between the speakers that didn't seem to be part of the
speakers.

(The mono switch is your best pal for getting a sense of whether you'll be able to
get image cues from your monitor system.)

Now (and back then), in phones, I always got that perfect verticle sliver of sound
in mono. Pop back to stereo and I was able to do very fine resolution placement of
sound sources (pan-potted pop music stuff).

The results generally sounded pretty good, so much so that I even once had a member
of the general public track me down and write asking how I'd gotten such an amazing
"sound picture" with a group he knew that I'd recorded.

I eventually figured out he was talking about the pan scheme I'd used; in that mix
phones had allowed me to find a nice L/R location for everything, and that task
would have been impossible on the monitors of the day.

It was this rather than plain old thoughtless left, center, right. (This was 1970-75
or so; pan pots were relatively new, as most consoles of the previous generation
only had L-C-R placement options via switches.)

So let's see a show of hands: how many folks find headphone imaging "incorrect" or
non-existent?

And if so, I wonder why this is the case. With some people, are their two ears
different enough from each other in their response characteristics that bringing in
room sound (speakers in a modestly reverberant space) helps their brains do a
cross-correction/matching thing for their hearing? And in phones, with no "room
reverb assist", perhaps their cueing doesn't work optimally?

What do you hear with a mono source equally driving both the L and R elements of
your phones? A sound blob left and a sound blob right? Something vaguely in the
middle? Razor sharp in the middle? Just a big puddle?

(we're assuming reasonably well-matched drivers in the phones and upstream signal
path as well.)

Yours in Curiousity

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

What do you hear with a mono source equally driving both the L and R elements of
your phones? A sound blob left and a sound blob right? Something vaguely in the
middle? Razor sharp in the middle? Just a big puddle?

In the center, it sounds like it's in the center, but as soon as you pan to
the side a little it moves way to the side. It's very much got a "hole in
the center" kind of effect for me.

For stuff that is stereo miked with appreciable phase imaging, the effect is
even more pronounced.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

Unless I'm mistaken, the pinnae are considered to have a meaningful
effect on the "energy balance" of the sounds entering the canal.

They do, but it's not the most significant effect that causes the
headphone response to differ from the standard ear.

It is measurable, though. And when the headphone alters the
shape of the earlobe that causes measurable response changes too.

No argument. So why do we generally agree on the relative
quality of headphones?

I'm not sure that people overall really do. There are a lot of people with
very strong opposing views about headphones.
Then again, the same can be said about speakers.

I don't think that's generally true of people who listen to acoustic music.

We disagree on many things, but I'm certain Arny and I would strongly agree
on which headphones were "better" or "worse", and why.

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 6 May 2011 11:59:54 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
):

I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

Nate,

Please define terrible?

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 6 May 2011 22:46:26 -0400, geoff wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nate Najar" wrote in message


what are decent headphones for tracking with minimal
bleed but very comfortable with good sound? I have a
pair of sony mdr7506 and they sound terrible.

Sennheiser HD 280s are IMO smoother and provide better isolation, in a
similar price range.

... but are like having your head in a vice. ATH-M50 are far more
comfortable, sound better, but have slightly higher leakage.

geoff

I like 'the M50, but have not been able to feel really comfortable tracking
for accuracy because I have bonded so long with the MDR7506.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Arny Krueger]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET
On Fri, 6 May 2011 11:59:54 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
):

I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

Nate,

Please define terrible?

Rough high end, mid-bass accentuation, no real deep bass. Poor isolation.

[Nate Najar]

On May 9, 5:50*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Ty Ford" wrote in message

al.NET

On Fri, 6 May 2011 11:59:54 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
):

I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

Nate,

Please define terrible?

Rough high end, mid-bass accentuation, no real deep bass. Poor isolation.

bingo.....

they're very thin, harsh and distorted. not fuzzy distorted, just
nasty sounding. I want something full, clear and clean. and good
isolation would be very useful so what's in the headphones doesn't
bleed into tracking microphones. and preferably I could use the same
headphone for setting up stereo location recording. but if there's no
one size fits all, I'll get two different ones.

but that's what I'm looking for.

N

[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.....

[Frank Stearns]

"Arny Krueger" writes:

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
ual.NET
On Fri, 6 May 2011 11:59:54 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
):

I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

Nate,

Please define terrible?

Rough high end, mid-bass accentuation, no real deep bass. Poor isolation.

Between 2000 (I that's when I think Nate said he got his) and 2004 (when I got mine)
they perhaps changed some things. My 7506s have a reasonably smooth top end (perhaps
tipped up slightly but not much), mid bass seems about where it should be, and some
exaggeration in the 40-80 hz range.

But I also wonder about the fill material in the cups that seat around your head. If
this became stiffer with age rather than nicely squishy when new, you'd indeed lose
low end.

One stupid thing that happens with these phones: the wire leading into the driver
can get caught in the yoke, cause the cup not to seat all the way. The mid bass does
then rise, and the very low end goes away. Top can get apparently harsher too,
because the bottom half of the spectrum has been so screwed up.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

What do you hear with a mono source equally driving both the L and R elements of
your phones? A sound blob left and a sound blob right? Something vaguely in the
middle? Razor sharp in the middle? Just a big puddle?

In the center, it sounds like it's in the center, but as soon as you pan to
the side a little it moves way to the side. It's very much got a "hole in
the center" kind of effect for me.

So this isn't the difference in how the pan circuit or software is implemented,
you're saying this happens consistently with phones for you?

And to clarify - are you saying that it's just about impossible to get, say,
something placed center left or center right with phones, that things tend to snap
way out left or right?

I get a bit of that, but it seems to vary with the pan circuit.

IIRC the pan circuits in the ancient Quad-8 consoles I used last century had a low Z
input source (50 ohm? 100? don't remember) feeding a 5K linear pot with the source
feeding the wiper and the legs feeding the inputs of the summers (20K inputs).

The behavior was not even -- that is, you got a lot of "fine" control of the
"middle" 20 degrees of space spread over the middle 70 degrees of pot rotation, then
things tended to shoot out more rapidly at the extremes.

The pan circuits in my old Soundcraft 200B use dual gang pots (probably log taper),
two variable dividers wired so that one goes up while the other goes down as you
turn it. Seems to provide pretty even panning left through right. The little tiny
Yamaha consoles I carry for field monitoring are much the same, but I don't know how
their pan is wired.

Protools uses a numerical pan scale, 100-0 for full left to center, and also 0-100
for center to full right.

Whatever they've done -- whether or not that scale is truely linear when you compare
the numbers to some sort of spatial construct -- I don't now. But it seems quite
even left through right. Depending on the context, sometimes I can detect "movement"
when the pan value changes by 1, but typically a change by 2 or 3 is required to
sense movement. So this is good; there's a nicely fine resolution available for pan
positioning all the way through.

And while my monitoring is good (LEDE room with soffit-mounted Tannoy SGM10Bs, known
for great imaging because of the dual-concentric point source), I still find it
easier to clearly identify precise pan placement with phones.


For stuff that is stereo miked with appreciable phase imaging, the effect is
even more pronounced.

I'm not sure I follow this... Do you mean that with a stereo image source on phones,
say a proper ORTF or perhaps the Jecklin, you really don't get a center image like
you do on speakers?

When I first started playing with the KM183s spaced at 50cm with the diffraction
spheres, I was taken with how eerily accurate the sound field seemed to be -- but
the effect was most dramatic on phones.

During editing, I'd occasionally listen to people moving around while the recorder
had been running just prior to the gig. You swore you were right back in the
room. Sure, on the monitors you had a good left/right & front/back sense of where
things were, but on the phones it was just spooky as hell.

Anyway. Highly interesting discussion. I'd never realized there seemed to be this
much variability with how phones were perceived. My biggest gripes with most of them
had always been an awful, awful "plastic-like" high mid, with I attributed to driver
resonance with crap materials. I still sense that from many phones, though my
particular Sonys much less so.

The best tonality I'd heard from phones came from a pair of Stax loaned by a friend.
They were like mini-kleenex boxes strapped onto your head. Comfortable -- and
completely impractical for field use, but they provided a wonderful speaker-like
experience.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[geoff]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Between 2000 (I that's when I think Nate said he got his) and 2004
(when I got mine) they perhaps changed some things. My 7506s have a
reasonably smooth top end (perhaps tipped up slightly but not much),
mid bass seems about where it should be, and some exaggeration in the
40-80 hz range.

Maybe they are broken, or have zapped your ears' HF response ;-)

geoff

[John Williamson]

geoff wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:
This thread has been fascinating, and surprising.

I am startled by those who've indicated that imaging is poor to
non-existent on phones.

Yes, that's bizarre. "Exaggerated" would be my description !


So let's see a show of hands: how many folks find headphone imaging
"incorrect" or non-existent?

Not me. As bove !

I get a good miniature image of the sound stage that fits nicely between
my ears, except on binaural recordings.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 9 May 2011 19:53:28 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
):

On May 9, 5:50*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Ty Ford" wrote in message

al.NET

On Fri, 6 May 2011 11:59:54 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
):

I have a pair of sony mdr7506 and they
sound terrible.

Nate,

Please define terrible?

Rough high end, mid-bass accentuation, no real deep bass. Poor isolation.

bingo.....

they're very thin, harsh and distorted. not fuzzy distorted, just
nasty sounding. I want something full, clear and clean. and good
isolation would be very useful so what's in the headphones doesn't
bleed into tracking microphones. and preferably I could use the same
headphone for setting up stereo location recording. but if there's no
one size fits all, I'll get two different ones.

but that's what I'm looking for.

N

That's majorly inconsistant with my experience. The MDR7506 are smiley faced
EQed, but they are clean. If you're hearing distortion, it's probably what's
in the system. A lot of Chinese LD and SD mics have a lot of trash.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

What do you hear with a mono source equally driving both the L and R elements of
your phones? A sound blob left and a sound blob right? Something vaguely in the
middle? Razor sharp in the middle? Just a big puddle?

In the center, it sounds like it's in the center, but as soon as you pan to
the side a little it moves way to the side. It's very much got a "hole in
the center" kind of effect for me.

So this isn't the difference in how the pan circuit or software is implemented,
you're saying this happens consistently with phones for you?

Right. I hear a hole in the center with the phones.

And to clarify - are you saying that it's just about impossible to get, say,
something placed center left or center right with phones, that things tend to snap
way out left or right?

Yes.

I get a bit of that, but it seems to vary with the pan circuit.

If a recording has been panned so it gives a realistic image on speakers, it
will have a hole in the center with the headphones.

The issue is the difference between speakers and headphones, not necessarily
the pan law.

And while my monitoring is good (LEDE room with soffit-mounted Tannoy SGM10Bs, known
for great imaging because of the dual-concentric point source), I still find it
easier to clearly identify precise pan placement with phones.

It's different with phones than speakers, though.


For stuff that is stereo miked with appreciable phase imaging, the effect is
even more pronounced.

I'm not sure I follow this... Do you mean that with a stereo image source on phones,
say a proper ORTF or perhaps the Jecklin, you really don't get a center image like
you do on speakers?

No, with a stereo image source where there is phase imaging going on (and
therefore you get imaging of lower frequencies, like you do with ORTF or
Jecklin but not with XY or widely spaced omni triads), that low frequency
imaging is even more wildly exaggerated on headphones.

Anyway. Highly interesting discussion. I'd never realized there seemed to be this
much variability with how phones were perceived. My biggest gripes with most of them
had always been an awful, awful "plastic-like" high mid, with I attributed to driver
resonance with crap materials. I still sense that from many phones, though my
particular Sonys much less so.

I have head headphones with good tonality (and that includes the Staxes),
but the hole in the middle and the lack of added room ambience changes the
overall presentation completely for me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Frank Stearns wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

What do you hear with a mono source equally driving both the
L and R elements of your phones? A sound blob left and a sound
blob right? Something vaguely in the middle? Razor sharp in the
middle? Just a big puddle?

In the center, it sounds like it's in the center, but as soon as you
pan tothe side a little it moves way to the side. It's very much got
a "hole in the center" kind of effect for me.

So this isn't the difference in how the pan circuit or software is
implemented, you're saying this happens consistently with
phones for you?

Right. I hear a hole in the center with the phones.

Assuming I understand what you mean by "a hole in the center", that would
occur if the channels had opposite polarity.

[Frank Stearns]

"geoff" writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

Between 2000 (I that's when I think Nate said he got his) and 2004
(when I got mine) they perhaps changed some things. My 7506s have a
reasonably smooth top end (perhaps tipped up slightly but not much),
mid bass seems about where it should be, and some exaggeration in the
40-80 hz range.

Maybe they are broken, or have zapped your ears' HF response ;-)

Eh? What? Speak into the ear-trumpet, sonny, I can't hear you otherwise. g

Seriously, could be that for phones, I don't expect all that much, given how much
I hate that plastic high-mid signature of so many phones. When I do need
them, I keep them pretty low in volume, though, maybe that helps.

If you want to talk ugly and shrill in the very top end, I do have some cheaper
Sennheisers of old and new vintage. You could play, oh, say, solo violin at 80 dB,
hold one of the cups near a wall, and use it in place of a painter's heat gun to
remove old wall paper. Just about. w

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

Ty Ford writes:

snips

That's majorly inconsistant with my experience. The MDR7506 are smiley faced
EQed, but they are clean. If you're hearing distortion, it's probably what's
in the system. A lot of Chinese LD and SD mics have a lot of trash.

Ty's probably hit it on the head with these phones -- they will alert you to
distortion elsewhere in the system; they might even exaggerate such distortion if
they themselves are already at the threshold of audible distortion. Doesn't take
much more to make distortion clearly audible.

Though perhaps a nuisance in some settings, this could be a useful trait in others.

For years I've been running some higher-end end gear (Grace, Gefell, Neumann), so
system distorsion is pretty low. But before I tweaked the old Soundcraft in 2005-6,
I do seem to recall some nasty sound from those phones that "went away" as the
electronics got upgraded.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

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

What do you hear with a mono source equally driving both the
L and R elements of your phones? A sound blob left and a sound
blob right? Something vaguely in the middle? Razor sharp in the
middle? Just a big puddle?

In the center, it sounds like it's in the center, but as soon as you
pan tothe side a little it moves way to the side. It's very much got
a "hole in the center" kind of effect for me.

So this isn't the difference in how the pan circuit or software is
implemented, you're saying this happens consistently with
phones for you?

Right. I hear a hole in the center with the phones.

Assuming I understand what you mean by "a hole in the center", that would
occur if the channels had opposite polarity.

No, it's not THAT dramatic. But I guess it is a step in that direction
compared with the speaker playback.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

Nate Najar writes:

snips

hmmm... maybe my headphones are problematic then. The trashiest mic i
own is a 414. Most stuff gets the schoeps and dpa.....

Nate, I still wonder about how well your Sonys are seating on your head.

Is the gel material in the cups still pleasantly squishy, or has it gotten stiff?

If you apply varying amounts of pressure with your palms on the driver bodies to
more firmly seat the phones on your head, do find some amount of external push that
improves how they sound, particularly in flattening out the low and mid-bass
regions?

If it's improved with a moderate amount of push, perhaps all you need to do is get
those new seating rings (assuming they're replacable and available for a reasonable
price).

Hope it's something simple,

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Right. I hear a hole in the center with the phones.

Maybe that's in your head ?!!!

;-)

geoff
(please don't miuss the smiley !)

[Frank Stearns]

Frank Stearns writes:

Nate Najar writes:

snips

hmmm... maybe my headphones are problematic then. The trashiest mic i
own is a 414. Most stuff gets the schoeps and dpa.....

Nate, I still wonder about how well your Sonys are seating on your head.

Is the gel material in the cups still pleasantly squishy, or has it gotten stiff?

==

Follow-up to my own post: the MDR7506 cup pads don't seem to be gel, but rather
something akin to that bed foam stuff that feels like gel -- that's the way I
remembered these phones for quite a whilw. But I checked mine, and after
7 years it's now more like plain old sponge rubber rather than gel. I suspect that
if it loses much more compliance, I will start noticing messed up LF response. I
have, come to think of it, noticed some loss of isolation.

Next step is to see how readily & cheaply one can replace those pads. They do slip
on/off with ease.

Nate, the following might still be an interesting test for you:
==

If you apply varying amounts of pressure with your palms on the driver bodies to
more firmly seat the phones on your head, do you find some amount of external push that
improves how they sound, particularly in flattening out the low and mid-bass
regions?

If it's improved with a moderate amount of push, perhaps all you need to do is get
those new seating rings (assuming they're replacable and available for a reasonable
price).

Hope it's something simple,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Nate Najar]

On May 10, 5:13*pm, Frank Stearns
wrote:
Frank Stearns writes:
Nate Najar writes:
snips
hmmm... maybe my headphones are problematic then. *The trashiest mic i
own is a 414. *Most stuff gets the schoeps and dpa.....
Nate, I still wonder about how well your Sonys are seating on your head.
Is the gel material in the cups still pleasantly squishy, or has it gotten stiff?

==

Follow-up to my own post: the MDR7506 cup pads don't seem to be gel, but rather
something akin to that bed foam stuff that feels like gel -- that's the way I
remembered these phones for quite a whilw. But I checked mine, and after
7 years it's now more like plain old sponge rubber rather than gel. I suspect that
if it loses much more compliance, I will start noticing messed up LF response. I
have, come to think of it, noticed some loss of isolation.

Next step is to see how readily & cheaply one can replace those pads. They do slip
on/off with ease.

Nate, the following might still be an interesting test for you:
==

If you apply varying amounts of pressure with your palms on the driver bodies to
more firmly seat the phones on your head, do you find some amount of external push that
improves how they sound, particularly in flattening out the low and mid-bass
regions?
If it's improved with a moderate amount of push, perhaps all you need to do is get
those new seating rings (assuming they're replacable and available for a reasonable
price).
Hope it's something simple,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
*.

thanks-

this must be what's happening. They get significantly more full
sounding if I put pressure on them toward my ears. The HF are still
harsh, but the whole experience is much improved.

I guess I just need new ear cups....

N

[Trevor]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...
Ty's probably hit it on the head with these phones -- they will alert you
to
distortion elsewhere in the system; they might even exaggerate such
distortion if
they themselves are already at the threshold of audible distortion.
Doesn't take
much more to make distortion clearly audible.

I'd prefer to know I've got a distortion problem I can fix, rather than a
distortion problem in the headphones that I can't fix though. Combining the
two simply makes the job harder IMO.

Trevor.