[RichD]

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"RichD" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

If you are talking $100-130, then the answer is probably yes.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:23:43 -0700, RichD wrote
(in article ):

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich


Good headphones, like good speakers, are fairly expensive. OK headphones can
be had for a lot less but don't expect them to perform like the expensive
ones, some of which sound spectacularly real (Stax, HiFiMan, AKG, Sennheiser,
etc.)

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:23:43 +0000, RichD wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

I didn't see even one expensive one, if you want "high end" yes
you need to spend a lot more and a special amplifier too.
If you are happy with a $200 model and a normal amp that is up
to you.

Edmund

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:42:39 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:23:43 -0700, RichD wrote (in article
):

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich


Good headphones, like good speakers, are fairly expensive. OK headphones
can be had for a lot less but don't expect them to perform like the
expensive ones, some of which sound spectacularly real (Stax, HiFiMan,
AKG, Sennheiser, etc.)

I find it remarkable that even the most expensive ones have rather poor
specs. The frequency response it not flat, they have a lot of overshoot
and frequency response above 20 kHz is mostly not shown, strange!
Any suggestion for searching and finding for the best headphone?
I am not looking for the most expensive but the best sounding AND the
best specs.
I heard a 1000 Euro senheiser with disappointing specs, but it sounds really
really good.

Edmund

[Andrew Haley]

Edmund wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:42:39 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:23:43 -0700, RichD wrote (in article
):

Good headphones, like good speakers, are fairly expensive. OK headphones
can be had for a lot less but don't expect them to perform like the
expensive ones, some of which sound spectacularly real (Stax, HiFiMan,
AKG, Sennheiser, etc.)

I find it remarkable that even the most expensive ones have rather poor
specs. The frequency response it not flat, they have a lot of overshoot
and frequency response above 20 kHz is mostly not shown, strange!

See http://www.stereophile.com/features/808head

Andrew.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Oct 20, 7:34=A0am, Edmund wrote:

I find it remarkable that even the most expensive ones have rather poor
specs. The frequency response it not flat, they have a lot of overshoot
and frequency response above 20 kHz is mostly not shown, strange!

Headphone frequency response measurements are a real problem because
everyone's ears and ear canals are different. Two low cost phones
that I find excellent are the Sennheiser PX-100 and the Koss Porta
Pro. Koss will replace the latter free of charge for life no matter
how you break it. The former I found more comfortable to wear. I
like them because of a lack of obvious midrange colorations which so
many cheap phones come with. They are both well under a hundred
dollars.

My expensive $450.00 Sennheiser IE8's sound better than either of
them, I think, but certainly not $350.00 better. And IEM's require
getting used to..

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:23:43 +0000, RichD wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

I didn't see even one expensive one, if you want "high end" yes
you need to spend a lot more and a special amplifier too.
If you are happy with a $200 model and a normal amp that is up
to you.

IME, a person who can't be reasonably happy with one of the really good
$100-200 headphones or earphones is paying too much attention to price tags,
and not paying enough attention to the sound.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Edmund" wrote in message
...

I find it remarkable that even the most expensive ones have rather poor
specs. The frequency response it not flat, they have a lot of overshoot
and frequency response above 20 kHz is mostly not shown, strange!

Somehow I perceive that perhaps you are using the sort of frequency response
we obtain with amplifiers as your reference.

A more relevant standard might be that of some other electroacoustic
transducer, perhaps a loudspeaker in a real world listening room, measured
at a distance such as is typically used for listening.

Any suggestion for searching and finding for the best headphone?

Again, is this a questionable criteria? Are you really looking for the best
headphone or are you looking for a headphone that is suitable for listening
to music?

Perhaps there are a number of headphones that are suitable, but none
appreciably better than any of the others.

I am not looking for the most expensive but the best sounding AND the
best specs.

This presumes that there are reliable and representative specifications for
headphones.

The reference given by another poster, namely

http://www.stereophile.com/features/808head/index.html

is IME a good one. Among other things it explains why we don't know how to
reliably numerically specify headphone frequency response at this time.


I heard a 1000 Euro senheiser with disappointing specs, but it sounds
really
really good.

That might be a gigantic clue to the questionable status of headphone
specifications.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:34:17 -0700, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:42:39 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:23:43 -0700, RichD wrote (in article
):

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich


Good headphones, like good speakers, are fairly expensive. OK headphones
can be had for a lot less but don't expect them to perform like the
expensive ones, some of which sound spectacularly real (Stax, HiFiMan,
AKG, Sennheiser, etc.)

I find it remarkable that even the most expensive ones have rather poor
specs. The frequency response it not flat, they have a lot of overshoot
and frequency response above 20 kHz is mostly not shown, strange!
Any suggestion for searching and finding for the best headphone?
I am not looking for the most expensive but the best sounding AND the
best specs.
I heard a 1000 Euro senheiser with disappointing specs, but it sounds really
really good.

Edmund

You can't judge headphones' specs like you do speakers. A truly 'flat'
headphone transducer wouldn't sound flat when coupled to your ear.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:26:57 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:

Edmund wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:42:39 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:23:43 -0700, RichD wrote (in article
):

Good headphones, like good speakers, are fairly expensive. OK
headphones can be had for a lot less but don't expect them to perform
like the expensive ones, some of which sound spectacularly real (Stax,
HiFiMan, AKG, Sennheiser, etc.)

I find it remarkable that even the most expensive ones have rather poor
specs. The frequency response it not flat, they have a lot of overshoot
and frequency response above 20 kHz is mostly not shown, strange!

See http://www.stereophile.com/features/808head

Andrew.


OK .... Bloody hell, I didn't knew that :-)
Makes me wonder what kind of measurements are done to solve this
enigma and I how manufacturers managed to build such "weird" frequency
response in there headphones IF done on purpose!
Thank you and others for this info.

Edmund

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:09:21 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:23:43 +0000, RichD wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

I didn't see even one expensive one, if you want "high end" yes you
need to spend a lot more and a special amplifier too. If you are happy
with a $200 model and a normal amp that is up to you.

IME, a person who can't be reasonably happy with one of the really good
$100-200 headphones or earphones is paying too much attention to price
tags, and not paying enough attention to the sound.

Reasonable happy, sure.
The reason why I have my opinion is something that started with a friend of mine.
He owns a 500 Euro headphone and was "reasonable happy" with it but somehow he
had a "feeling" it should perform even better.
After a while he listened to his own headphone but trough an special build headphone-amp
and the difference is nothing less than amazing, he was absolutely flabbergasted.
He brought his own CD's and SACD's and could hardly believe his ears, long story
short, he bought the 1500 euro headphone amp and is very happy with it.
I listened to this set and the even more expensive sennheiser ( with the poor specs :-) )
and never heard anything better.

Edmund

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:13:08 -0700, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:09:21 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:23:43 +0000, RichD wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

I didn't see even one expensive one, if you want "high end" yes you
need to spend a lot more and a special amplifier too. If you are happy
with a $200 model and a normal amp that is up to you.

IME, a person who can't be reasonably happy with one of the really good
$100-200 headphones or earphones is paying too much attention to price
tags, and not paying enough attention to the sound.

Reasonable happy, sure.
The reason why I have my opinion is something that started with a friend of
mine.
He owns a 500 Euro headphone and was "reasonable happy" with it but somehow
he
had a "feeling" it should perform even better.
After a while he listened to his own headphone but trough an special build
headphone-amp
and the difference is nothing less than amazing, he was absolutely
flabbergasted.
He brought his own CD's and SACD's and could hardly believe his ears, long
story
short, he bought the 1500 euro headphone amp and is very happy with it.
I listened to this set and the even more expensive sennheiser ( with the poor

specs :-) )
and never heard anything better.

Edmund

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.

What I have is a pair of AKG K-340 electrostatic/magnetic hybrid phones from
the mid 80's. I've had them for more than 20 years and they still work and
sound great. I had to replace the bungie-cord suspension for the headband
once and replace the self-tapping screws that hold the headband suspension
together with a small machine screw and nut arrangement, but the headphones
still work well and sound great (the electrostatic element is an electret,
and so the K-340s don't need a power supply like most electrostatic
headphones. They just plug-in to any headphone jack.)

Stax makes a model sold without an amplifier called the SR-307 that's part of
their "Lambda" series and sells for less than US$500 on the street, but this
is WITHOUT amplifier, and you cannot use Stax's in a regular headphone jack.

I hope this helps you make a short list of headphones to listen to.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:13:01 -0700, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:26:57 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:

Edmund wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:42:39 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:23:43 -0700, RichD wrote (in article
):

Good headphones, like good speakers, are fairly expensive. OK
headphones can be had for a lot less but don't expect them to perform
like the expensive ones, some of which sound spectacularly real (Stax,
HiFiMan, AKG, Sennheiser, etc.)

I find it remarkable that even the most expensive ones have rather poor
specs. The frequency response it not flat, they have a lot of overshoot
and frequency response above 20 kHz is mostly not shown, strange!

See http://www.stereophile.com/features/808head

Andrew.


OK .... Bloody hell, I didn't knew that :-)
Makes me wonder what kind of measurements are done to solve this
enigma and I how manufacturers managed to build such "weird" frequency
response in there headphones IF done on purpose!
Thank you and others for this info.

Edmund



There is a "standard" ear cavity for measuring headphones. It contains an
omnidirectional microphone diaphragm where the eardrum would be and the
cavity between the headphone's transducer and the microphone's diaphragm is
the same volume and shape as the average human inner-ear. However, whether
all manufacturers use this, or how accurate it is in the real world, I don't
know, but I suspect that all headphone makers use something similar.

[Dave C]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

snip

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!

I have very fond memories of a Stax electostatic headphone and amp set from
the early eighties. On a good recording they put everything else to shame.
like putting on an auditorium. They were not mine unfortunately - not sure
of the model number any more, but they were worth more than my car at the
time!

Dave


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 07:10:46 -0700, Dave C wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

snip

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!

I have very fond memories of a Stax electostatic headphone and amp set from
the early eighties. On a good recording they put everything else to shame.
like putting on an auditorium. They were not mine unfortunately - not sure
of the model number any more, but they were worth more than my car at the
time!


The planar-magnetic style 'phones from HiFiMan are almost as good. They are
basically Magneplanar speakers for the ears and have all of the advantages of
electrostatic drivers without the need for a polarizing voltage: push-pull
for low distortion, light moving mass for fast transients, equal drive over
the entire surface are for true piston-like action without the modal breakup
common to apex or other single-point drive systems, etc.Even the He-300, the
lowest priced ones at around $300 are excellent with their huge circumaural
ear-cups and comfy leather ear pads. Were I in the market for new headphones
at this point, I think I'd go this route. As usual, I have no connection
with HiFiMan or any of their dealer of agents. I heard them once at a hi-fi
show and that convinced me that they were extremely good - right up there
with Stax.

[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 |
+--------------------------------+

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

A number of myths and assumptions and folklore are
to be found here. These may or may not be germaine
to the issues of which headphones are best in the
current context, but they're almost used as axiomatic
here and elsewhere, and should be addressed.

Audio Empire wrote:

The planar-magnetic style 'phones from HiFiMan are
almost as good. They are basically Magneplanar speakers
for the ears and have all of the advantages of
electrostatic drivers without the need for a polarizing
voltage:
push-pull for low distortion,

Electrostatics are not low distortion per se, because
the issue of linearity of mehcanical tension is as
much of an issue and more so at lower frequencies as
drive. In any case, it's not "push pull" that's
responsible for the drive, it's that when you have a
a capcitor whose physical extents (area) are much
larger than the separation between the plates, the
field strength becomes largely independent of the
relative position in the area in the gap. Further,
the direction of the field away from the edges is
nearly uniformally normal to the curface.

This is NOT so as you approach the edge of the
plates.

light moving mass for fast transients,

Sorry, but this is general hogwash for a number of
reasons. Light mass, by itself, does not ensure
fast transient. Fast transients are dependent upon
the force per unit mass, and while, in general,
electrostatics have light moving mass per unit area,
they also suffer from low available force: indeed for
electrostatic speakers with large plate areas and
kilovolt region polarization voltages and appropriate
step-up transformers, the force per unit mass is within
same order of magnitude as low-efficiency electrodynamic
speakers.

Secondly, everytime someone brings up this "low mass"
argument, they do so ignoring the radiation amss, which
is SUBSTANTIAL and is not to be ignored without peril.

Thirdly, the transient capability of any single component
of a transducer system is meaningless: that component cannot
respnd any faster than the slowest component in the system,
nor can the system do any better than the signal fed to it.
And in ssystem such as electrostatics (ESPECIALLY the kind
we're disussing here), tyhe transient response and the
frequency response are unique duals of one another: that
means the frequency repsonse tells you what the transient
response is. There's no evidence that elextrostatics
exhibit substantially wider bandwidth in situ than good
electrodynamics, therefre, regardless of WHAT the moving
mass is, their transient is no better, by definition.

equal drive over the entire surface

Simply false, as show above.

Further, equal drive only results in equal motion if
the motional impedance is also equal over the area,
most assuredly is not. Just for starters, the motion
is constrained at the edges, therefore equal motion is
simply not possible: not even close.

are for true piston-like action without the modal breakup
common to apex or other single-point drive systems,

This is completely false.

First, below the point where the effective circumference
is larger than the wavelength being produced, pretty much
ALL practically implemented transducers act like pistons,
regardless of how they are driven. And in the case of
headphones, where you are talking about dimensions on the
order of a couple of cm or so, that frequency is quite high:
indeed, below that frequency, the modal properties of the
ear and headphone chamber volumes dominate the response.

Second, the assumption that electrostatic diaphragms have
no modal breakup simply is not born out by actual measurements.
Laser velocity measurements of such diaphragms show ENORMOUS
modal patterns leading to quite non-uniform motion, even at
relatively low frequencies.

The assumption, again, that uniform drive (which is not
happening, by the way) leads to uniform motion is, while
seemingly intuitive, simply does not happen in practice.
Again, I would remind one that uniform motion can only
exist when you have a combination of uniform drive that's
uniformally normal (as in perpendicular), combined with
uniform mechanical impedance (which you don't have) and
uniform acostical impedance (which you don't have).

And lastly, the assumption that a planar magnetic system
shares the same fundamental properties as a capacitive
symmetrical polarized electrostatic system is an assumption
that is not born up at all by the actual systems themselves.

Whether that means that headphone A is absolutely superior to
headphone B or even has a better chance at it is pretty
meaningless.
--
+--------------------------------+
+ 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 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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:58:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
snip

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.

That goes without saying

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

Visible ringing (on a 'scope) and measurable added distortion is not the
result of personal bias. Whether or not these phenomenon are AUDIBLE in a
DBT, OTOH, is something attributable 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.

In another sense they can also introduce problems and make the sound worse.
In fact. if one wants to do so, one can make a great recording sound like a
telephone by attenuating everything above 4KHz and below 400 Hz. but that's
not at all what I'm talking about, as I'm sure you know 8^)

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.

Now you're just being silly, Arny and arguing for the sake of argument,


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.

Since we are talking about adjustable equalizers such as 1/3 octave, decade,
and parametric devices which would contour headphone playback to make the
headphones sound "flatter" in frequency response, and we are not talking
about simple RIAA or NAB (for tape) compensation curves, mentioning them in
this context merely obfuscates the discussion in my humble opinion.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:58:33 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
snip

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.

That goes without saying

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

Visible ringing (on a 'scope) and measurable added distortion is not the
result of personal bias.

But here's the problem. Is there in fact added ringing, when total system
response is determined? If there is, then the operator's skill is in
question.

Lots of people put square waves through equalizers on the bench, and see
waveform changes. But this is not the real world - equalizers are used to
correct systems, not make them worse.


Whether or not these phenomenon are AUDIBLE in a
DBT, OTOH, is something attributable to personal bias.

Exactly.

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.

In another sense they can also introduce problems and make the sound
worse.

That's characterstic of any effective tool. An air pump is a good tool for
inflating tires, but if I add too much air or not enough, then I suffer
with poorly inflated tires.

In fact. if one wants to do so, one can make a great recording sound like
a
telephone by attenuating everything above 4KHz and below 400 Hz. but
that's
not at all what I'm talking about, as I'm sure you know 8^)

Again, your gun, your bullet, your foot.

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.

Now you're just being silly, Arny and arguing for the sake of argument,

No sillier than judging equalizers without including the portion of the
system with the problem that we want to cure, or applying a bad cure and
making generalities about equalizers.

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.

Since we are talking about adjustable equalizers such as 1/3 octave,
decade,
and parametric devices which would contour headphone playback to make the
headphones sound "flatter" in frequency response, and we are not talking
about simple RIAA or NAB (for tape) compensation curves, mentioning them
in
this context merely obfuscates the discussion in my humble opinion.

The point is that if you listen to just the de-emphasis portion of a RIAA
equalizer pair, it sounds bad but if you use it with the matching
pre-emphasis, it sounds OK. Similarly, judging equalizers without including
the portion of system with the fault we wish to equalizer is invalid.

It is possible to have a pair of good parametric eqs, and put a peak in with
one, and take it out with the other, and have no audible faults.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

It is possible to have a pair of good parametric eqs, and put a peak in with
one, and take it out with the other, and have no audible faults.

None that is except the distortion that the equalizer adds to the circuit.

[Ambrose99]

[quote=Audio Empire;941317]On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

It is possible to have a pair of good parametric eqs, and put a peak in with
one, and take it out with the other, and have no audible faults.

Lovely new MOX6. Good pair of Roland RH-300 headphones. After several weeks of trouble free use a low background buzz has started to be audible when MOX6 is in use. Headphones are trouble free with all other sources. Only really audible when not playing as very slight. However when I disconnect the USB cable it stops and MOX6 and headphones work perfectly. Connect the USB audio/midi cable again and there it is.

[Sigullyneinly]

3fc1f2e1ae1334d2