[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:13:08 -0700, Edmund wrote

I've heard a lot of headphones in my time. They all sound different (much
like speakers, how about that!). The best I've ever heard were the Stax
SR-007 MKII with the matching Stax amplifier. But at almost US$5000, that
ensemble ought to sound good! Next best were the HiFiMan HE-6 for
US$1200.
But again, for that money they should sound good. really good headphones
from
Denon, Audio Technica, Sennheiser, and AKG can be had for less than US$500
though and I'm especially fond of both the AKG-701s (US$350) and the
Sennheiser HK-650s (~US$400) even though I own neither.

If you understand how headphones work, the technical justification for
the use of electrostatic drive as compared to electrodynamic drive is
even weaker than it is for loudspeakers.

While the Stax electrostatic headphones are legendary, expensive,
heavy and bulky, there is plenty of evidence that these distractions
are unnecessary. I've compared Stax electrostatics to the better
Sennheiser headphones, and find their sonics to be comparable, albeit
a little different.

A friend of mine who worked for a leading electroacoustic measurement
company tells me that in laboratory tests and in controlled listening
tests, preferences among the better headphones are mixed. No doubt the
Stax are fine performers, but so are many others.

The leading problem with the best-performing headphones is the issue
of tailoring the response of the headphones to the particular
listener's ears. There is a wealth of positive experience with various
technical approaches to this problem that come out of the business of
fitting hearing aids.

If the listener is somehow able to use an equalizer to tailor the
response of a pair of some of the better headphones to suit his ears
and preferences, then he no doubt is way ahead of those who spend far
more time and money on random solutions. A major problem is that
proper use of equalizers is a learned skill that may take years of
experience to raise to a sufficient level of competency to provide
satisfactory results.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:16:08 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:13:08 -0700, Edmund wrote
=20
I've heard a lot of headphones in my time. They all sound different
(much like speakers, how about that!). The best I've ever heard were
the Stax SR-007 MKII with the matching Stax amplifier. But at almost
US$5000, that ensemble ought to sound good! Next best were the HiFiMa=
n
HE-6 for US$1200.
But again, for that money they should sound good. really good
headphones from
Denon, Audio Technica, Sennheiser, and AKG can be had for less than
US$500 though and I'm especially fond of both the AKG-701s (US$350) an=
d
the Sennheiser HK-650s (~US$400) even though I own neither.
=20
If you understand how headphones work, the technical justification for
the use of electrostatic drive as compared to electrodynamic drive is
even weaker than it is for loudspeakers.
=20
While the Stax electrostatic headphones are legendary, expensive, heavy
and bulky, there is plenty of evidence that these distractions are
unnecessary. I've compared Stax electrostatics to the better Sennheiser
headphones, and find their sonics to be comparable, albeit a little
different.
=20
A friend of mine who worked for a leading electroacoustic measurement
company tells me that in laboratory tests and in controlled listening
tests, preferences among the better headphones are mixed. No doubt the
Stax are fine performers, but so are many others.
=20
The leading problem with the best-performing headphones is the issue of
tailoring the response of the headphones to the particular listener's
ears. There is a wealth of positive experience with various technical
approaches to this problem that come out of the business of fitting
hearing aids.
=20
If the listener is somehow able to use an equalizer to tailor the
response of a pair of some of the better headphones to suit his ears an=
d
preferences, then he no doubt is way ahead of those who spend far more
time and money on random solutions. A major problem is that proper use
of equalizers is a learned skill that may take years of experience to
raise to a sufficient level of competency to provide satisfactory
results.

I am not interested in (d)equalizing or adjusting for my personal=20
hearing imperfections, I am interested in sound reproduction as=20
real as can be.
When I am listening to a singer I have to do with my hearing imperfection=
s=20
too, and when I listen to the same singer from a recording and a headphon=
e=20
a just want to hear the exact same thing.

I have no doubt (d)equalizers can change the sound to make it pleasurable
for many different listeners, but I wonder if such adjustments represent
a true reproduction of what is recorded. As a matter of fact, I don't bel=
ieve
that at all.

Understanding now a little bit more about the difficulties with headphone=
measurements
I think a solution in rather simple, all it takes is a living person from=
we must=20
remove his eardrum and place a perfect microphone.
Next we play a whit noise and measure it close to his ear on the outside.
Next we record the sound with the mike IN his ear, and we must compensate
for the difference of these two, simple isn't it? :-)


Edmund

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Edmund wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:16:08 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:
If the listener is somehow able to use an equalizer to tailor the
response of a pair of some of the better headphones to suit his ears and
preferences, then he no doubt is way ahead of those who spend far more
time and money on random solutions. A major problem is that proper use
of equalizers is a learned skill that may take years of experience to
raise to a sufficient level of competency to provide satisfactory
results.

I am not interested in (d)equalizing or adjusting for my personal
hearing imperfections, I am interested in sound reproduction as
real as can be.
When I am listening to a singer I have to do with my hearing imperfections
too, and when I listen to the same singer from a recording and a headphone
a just want to hear the exact same thing.

With headphones, it's somewhat different.

Whether you are listening to speakers playing a reproduction
of an instrument or the instrument itself, to a great extent
you are dealing with the full array of your own, personal
"hearing imperfections." There's actually a technical term for
this, it's called the "head related transfer function" or HRTF.
Not only does it include the properties of the ear itself,
more importantly, it includes the effects on the total response
caused by the your outer ear structure and your the whole of your
head. There are shading effects and all sorts of physical
phenomenon that contribute to how you hear stuff around you.

The problem with headphones, ANY headphone, is that it bypasses
a major portion of these effects. Those speakers and those
instruments are far away: you're listening to them in their
far field, and they are in your far field. Headphones are
quite the opposite: they are very much VERY near field
transducers, and because of their extreme proximity, they
CANNOT exploit your HRTF in a way that even crudely mimics
listening to sources in the far field. Thus there CAN be
a legitimate role for properly implemented equalization
in attempting to make headphones sound more realistic when
playing back acoustic sources.

As well, while you may not be aware of it, when you
are listening to acoustic sources, be they instruments or
speakers, you are moving your head around very subtly
physically sampling the sound field around your by different
tilts, positions and so on, of your head relative to that
sound field. With headphones, obviously you are robbed of
this tool.

If you ever have the opportunity, partake in an experiment
where accurate but very small microphones are placed at
the entrance to you ear canal and you use your own head
and ears (and, thus, YOUR HRTF) to record acoustic sources.
Then playback those recordings through good close-proximity
headphones, even good in-ear monitors.

The result is, even considering the imperfections in the
transducers, stunningly realistic. In fact, having partaken
in such, you almost have to listen with your eyes closed,
because what you ears are telling you conflicts with what
your eyes are telling you, and shutting your eyes helps make
the conflict go away: you HEAR that violinist over THERE, and
you hear the chamber around you, yet your eyes only see the
glowing lights of your stereo and Grandpa Jebidia's portrait
over the fireplace.

You can approximate, to some extent, the missing portions
of your HRTF through equalization, but it's an approximation,
to be sure.

But this is very different than the kind of equalization that
you are, to a great extent, legitimately complaining about.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Oct 25, 3:37=A0am, Edmund wrote:
I am not interested in (d)equalizing or adjusting for my personal
hearing imperfections, I am interested in sound reproduction as
real as can be.

Then you shouldn't be interested in any headphones at all, since they
distort the sound field so that it appears between your ears with a
mono source being in the middle of your head between your ears.
There is nothing "realistic" about that and no headphone to date has
solved the problem.

Now I use and enjoy various headphones and the musical experience can
be excellent, but never ever do they approach realism, even on a
binaural recording. There are just too many confounding variables
that no headphone can ever be expected to reproduce.

Occasionally I have heard sonic images well off to the left and right
of my head, but never any imaging out front or out back.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:31:05 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 3:37=A0am, Edmund wrote:
I am not interested in (d)equalizing or adjusting for my personal
hearing imperfections, I am interested in sound reproduction as
real as can be.

Then you shouldn't be interested in any headphones at all, since they
distort the sound field so that it appears between your ears with a
mono source being in the middle of your head between your ears.
There is nothing "realistic" about that and no headphone to date has
solved the problem.

The only way to get even close to "real" from headphones is via binaural
sources, which are few and far between. Even then, binaural sources have a
tough time dealing with sound sources BEHIND the surrogate head.

Now I use and enjoy various headphones and the musical experience can
be excellent, but never ever do they approach realism, even on a
binaural recording. There are just too many confounding variables
that no headphone can ever be expected to reproduce.

Occasionally I have heard sonic images well off to the left and right
of my head, but never any imaging out front or out back.

Front works OK, but sources behind the binaural head tend to be vague,
sometimes sounding completely amorphous and other times seemingly inside
one's head, but, in my experience, never from behind.

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

Front works OK, but sources behind the binaural head tend to be vague,
sometimes sounding completely amorphous and other times seemingly inside
one's head, but, in my experience, never from behind.

I've got a binaural version of a Cowboy Junkies concert and for the
first few listens it had me turning around to look at my front door when
someone slammed a door at the back of the hall.

The audience noises come from all around, front, back and side.

My headphone amp does have a crossfeed circuit that is designed to
partially compensate for HRTF. I can't remember whether I like it in or
out for this recording. My headphones are only for travel.

Greg

[Rockinghorse Winner[_8_]]

Ed Seedhouse writes:

On Oct 25, 3:37=A0am, Edmund wrote:
I am not interested in (d)equalizing or adjusting for my personal
hearing imperfections, I am interested in sound reproduction as
real as can be.

Then you shouldn't be interested in any headphones at all, since they
distort the sound field so that it appears between your ears with a
mono source being in the middle of your head between your ears.
There is nothing "realistic" about that and no headphone to date has
solved the problem.

Now I use and enjoy various headphones and the musical experience can
be excellent, but never ever do they approach realism, even on a
binaural recording. There are just too many confounding variables
that no headphone can ever be expected to reproduce.

Occasionally I have heard sonic images well off to the left and right
of my head, but never any imaging out front or out back.

I once tried on a pair of 'high-end' headphones, and was disappointed. They
sounded like crap compared with my 'mid-fi' system. I think headphone
listening is an acquired taste. I would only take it up if for some reason I
couldn't listen to my home system at levels that I enjoy (say, a complaining
neighbor or family member). So far I haven't run into that situation.

Terry

--
Gaudium mundi, nova stella cæli,
procreans solem, pariens parentem,
da manum lapsis, fer opem caducis,
virgo Maria.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Edmund wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:16:08 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

The leading problem with the best-performing headphones is the issue of
tailoring the response of the headphones to the particular listener's
ears. There is a wealth of positive experience with various technical
approaches to this problem that come out of the business of fitting
hearing aids.

If the listener is somehow able to use an equalizer to tailor the
response of a pair of some of the better headphones to suit his ears and
preferences, then he no doubt is way ahead of those who spend far more
time and money on random solutions. A major problem is that proper use
of equalizers is a learned skill that may take years of experience to
raise to a sufficient level of competency to provide satisfactory
results.

I am not interested in (d)equalizing or adjusting for my personal
hearing imperfections, I am interested in sound reproduction as
real as can be.
When I am listening to a singer I have to do with my hearing imperfections
too, and when I listen to the same singer from a recording and a headphone
a just want to hear the exact same thing.

But when you're listening via headphones it's not just your hearing
imperfections you're listtening through, it's also interaction of
headphone itself with ear, its individual features etc.

Itreactions of headphone and ear-on-the-head are sigificant and
moreover significantly differ among persons.

I have no doubt (d)equalizers can change the sound to make it pleasurable
for many different listeners, but I wonder if such adjustments represent
a true reproduction of what is recorded. As a matter of fact, I don't believe
that at all.

Understanding now a little bit more about the difficulties with headphone measurements
I think a solution in rather simple, all it takes is a living person from we must
remove his eardrum and place a perfect microphone.
Next we play a whit noise and measure it close to his ear on the outside.
Next we record the sound with the mike IN his ear, and we must compensate
for the difference of these two, simple isn't it? :-)

The "only" problem is that it would work just for that person -- if
only that poor person has not just lost its eardrum.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Edmund" wrote in message
...

I am not interested in (d)equalizing or adjusting for my personal
hearing imperfections, I am interested in sound reproduction as
real as can be.

I suspect your comments misses an important point. The types of
differences I have been talking about are not imperfections, they are
naturally-varying characteristics. Similar logic would say that the
Matterhorn is imperfect because it does not look exactly like Everest. All
natural diamonds are different because they have varying imperfections. What
you are saying is that a diamond with an imperfection on one side is
imperfect because some other diamond has a similar imperfection on its left
side.

These differences in hearing are just naturally-occuring variations. You
unwisely can demand that products be mass-produced to suit them which will
of course never happen. Or, you can somehow contrive to customize
mass-produced products to be more ideal for your particular set of
naturally-occuring variations. These differences are partially due to the
fact that listening with headphones or earphones is a basically unnatural
act, as is listening with speakers.

One approach to tailoring earphones to exactly your own set of
naturally-occurring hearing and ear varitions is to simply buy a hearing
aid. Even a mediocre pair of hearing aids will cost you far more than the
highest-end headphones that we have been talking about. Your next problem
will be interfacing your new hearing aid to the rest of your audio system.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:16:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:13:08 -0700, Edmund wrote

I've heard a lot of headphones in my time. They all sound different (much
like speakers, how about that!). The best I've ever heard were the Stax
SR-007 MKII with the matching Stax amplifier. But at almost US$5000, that
ensemble ought to sound good! Next best were the HiFiMan HE-6 for
US$1200.
But again, for that money they should sound good. really good headphones
from
Denon, Audio Technica, Sennheiser, and AKG can be had for less than US$500
though and I'm especially fond of both the AKG-701s (US$350) and the
Sennheiser HK-650s (~US$400) even though I own neither.

If you understand how headphones work, the technical justification for
the use of electrostatic drive as compared to electrodynamic drive is
even weaker than it is for loudspeakers.

In the case of the better electrostatic headphones like the Stax, I suspect
their superiority is an example of execution over drive method.

While the Stax electrostatic headphones are legendary, expensive,
heavy and bulky, there is plenty of evidence that these distractions
are unnecessary. I've compared Stax electrostatics to the better
Sennheiser headphones, and find their sonics to be comparable, albeit
a little different.

Mostly Stax sound so good (I suspect) because their push-pull drive coupled
with the uniform drive over the driver diaphragm's surface results in lower
distortion than is usual with most dynamic designs.

A friend of mine who worked for a leading electroacoustic measurement
company tells me that in laboratory tests and in controlled listening
tests, preferences among the better headphones are mixed. No doubt the
Stax are fine performers, but so are many others.

That's a reasonable assumption to make. Certainly the AKG K-750 and the
Sennheiser HD-800 and HD-650 are excellent. But, in my opinion, there is
something about the Stax (low distortion?) that lets you hear into complex
musical events in a way that these others simply don't allow for. That
doesn't disqualify everything else, you understand, but if I considered
headphones as my primary mode of listening to music instead of my beloved
Martin-Logan Vistas, I would certainly not hesitate to buy a pair of Stax
SR-007 MkIIs and the matching Stax amplifier.

The leading problem with the best-performing headphones is the issue
of tailoring the response of the headphones to the particular
listener's ears. There is a wealth of positive experience with various
technical approaches to this problem that come out of the business of
fitting hearing aids.

Sure, this could be done, I have no doubt. But I don't know of any headphone
manufacturer that does this. It certainly could yield excellent results were
it done digitally.

If the listener is somehow able to use an equalizer to tailor the
response of a pair of some of the better headphones to suit his ears
and preferences, then he no doubt is way ahead of those who spend far
more time and money on random solutions. A major problem is that
proper use of equalizers is a learned skill that may take years of
experience to raise to a sufficient level of competency to provide
satisfactory results.

Analog 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers introduce so much "insertion"
coloration into a system that would think that the improvement in the
frequency domain would be more than offset by the distortion introduced.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Analog 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers introduce so much "insertion"
coloration into a system that would think that the improvement in the
frequency domain would be more than offset by the distortion introduced.

What form does this insertion coloration take, when does it happen, and is
it always there?

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:47:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Analog 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers introduce so much "insertion"
coloration into a system that would think that the improvement in the
frequency domain would be more than offset by the distortion introduced.

What form does this insertion coloration take, when does it happen, and is
it always there?


You know as well as I do that the insertion distortion of which I speak is
caused by the ringing of active filters and yes, it's there as long as the
filter is in the circuit. It's not there if the filter is bypassed
(obviously).

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:47:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Analog 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers introduce so much "insertion"
coloration into a system that would think that the improvement in the
frequency domain would be more than offset by the distortion introduced.

What form does this insertion coloration take, when does it happen, and
is
it always there?

You know as well as I do that the insertion distortion of which I speak is
caused by the ringing of active filters and yes, it's there as long as the
filter is in the circuit. It's not there if the filter is bypassed
(obviously).

Not all ringing is necessarily bad. If a filter is carefully applied in
appropriate circumstances, it can truly compensate for errors that were
previously causing problems. This means that while the compensating filter
may ring, its ringing is either not audible or it actually compensates for
the ringing that is already there, and thus leads to a system that overall,
has reduced or no ringing.

The purpose of an equalizer is to produce audible changes. Faulting an
equalizer for having audible effects all by itself is like faulting a bird
for flying. The real question is whether or not the filter compensates for
the error that it is designed to correct.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:58:22 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:47:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Analog 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers introduce so much "insertion"
coloration into a system that would think that the improvement in the
frequency domain would be more than offset by the distortion introduced.

What form does this insertion coloration take, when does it happen, and
is
it always there?

You know as well as I do that the insertion distortion of which I speak is
caused by the ringing of active filters and yes, it's there as long as the
filter is in the circuit. It's not there if the filter is bypassed
(obviously).

Not all ringing is necessarily bad. If a filter is carefully applied in
appropriate circumstances, it can truly compensate for errors that were
previously causing problems. This means that while the compensating filter
may ring, its ringing is either not audible or it actually compensates for
the ringing that is already there, and thus leads to a system that overall,
has reduced or no ringing.

The purpose of an equalizer is to produce audible changes. Faulting an
equalizer for having audible effects all by itself is like faulting a bird
for flying. The real question is whether or not the filter compensates for
the error that it is designed to correct.



Say what you will but my experience with 1/3 octave, decade, and parametric
equalizers is that they usually do more harm than good. I've never heard one
yet that didn't sound better switched OUT of the system than in it. Sure,
they can fix a lot of problems in the frequency domain, I'm not saying that
they don't, but if you want the cleanest signal path possible, I feel that
one is better off not using them at all unless the original audio signal is
pretty bad to begin with (like EQing an old acoustic or early electrical
transcription).

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:58:22 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:47:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

Analog 1/3 octave or parametric equalizers introduce so much
"insertion"
coloration into a system that would think that the improvement in the
frequency domain would be more than offset by the distortion
introduced.

What form does this insertion coloration take, when does it happen, and
is
it always there?

You know as well as I do that the insertion distortion of which I speak
is
caused by the ringing of active filters and yes, it's there as long as
the
filter is in the circuit. It's not there if the filter is bypassed
(obviously).

Not all ringing is necessarily bad. If a filter is carefully applied in
appropriate circumstances, it can truly compensate for errors that were
previously causing problems. This means that while the compensating
filter
may ring, its ringing is either not audible or it actually compensates
for
the ringing that is already there, and thus leads to a system that
overall,
has reduced or no ringing.

The purpose of an equalizer is to produce audible changes. Faulting an
equalizer for having audible effects all by itself is like faulting a
bird
for flying. The real question is whether or not the filter compensates
for
the error that it is designed to correct.



Say what you will but my experience with 1/3 octave, decade, and
parametric
equalizers is that they usually do more harm than good.

What I will say is that there is no debate over the idea that the effect of
an equalizer is highly dependent on its operator.

Since no bias-controlled evaluations have been mentioned, any results given
can easily be attributed to personal bias.

I've never heard one
yet that didn't sound better switched OUT of the system than in it.

In the real world, YMMV. It is possible that an equalizer will introduce
some small variations even when its controls are centered. It is certain
that any equalizer with a gain control or non-unity gain will change levels
unless it has been set up with test equipment.

Sure, they can fix a lot of problems in the frequency domain,

In a sense you just contradicted yourself. If they fix problems, then they
make the sytsem sound better when switched in.

but if you want the cleanest signal path possible, I feel that
one is better off not using them at all unless the original audio signal
is
pretty bad to begin with (like EQing an old acoustic or early electrical
transcription).

If you want the cleanest path possible, you avoid the use of microphones,
speakers and other similar electroacoustic transducers and rooms. Since that
is practically impossible at this time, we are stuck with signal paths that
audible problems. Equalizers obviously work advantageously in some cases
such as LP and tape equalization. The rather extreme equalization that has
been used with LPs for over 60 years completely negates any claims that
equalization has to cause problems.