Humans have a natural addiction to order. This means that speakers are
usually placed in a room in an arrangment carefully parallel with the walls.
There is usually an attempt to maintain absolute symmetry, more apparent
than real. Furniture belongs against the wall; so, too, we believe, with
speakers. For after all, aren't speakers simply furniture with a special
purpose? Regrettably, no.

Those of us familiar with the agonies (and ecstasies) of speaker placement
know that speakers demand to be unnaturally present; they demand to stick
out, to be nonparallel; the demands of acoustics conflict with the needs of
architecture and human habitability. Speaker designers know this so well
that most designs try to concede technically to the nonoptimal environment
provided by the typical user, with varying success.

Room treatments also succumb to decorative imperatives. Most of those
intended for consumers are too small, and too unobtrusive, to do more than
take the edge off a bad situation, for most home systems are, from the point
of view of acoustics, bad situations.

My main listening room is small, and due to gluttony of desire and taste,
must hold eight large amplifiers, three pairs of floor standing speakers, a
pair of bookshelf speakers, and six surround speakers. The room is small
because, being so, I can do anything I want with it, which trumps the value
of larger spaces around the house. Since I can do anything I want with it, I
have tried every placement of floorstanding speakers for which they are
actually in contact with the floor.

The Chinese art of Feng Shui is, quoting from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui, "Chinese practice of placement and
arrangement of space to attempt to achieve harmony with the environment".
Adherents to Feng Shui move the furniture of a room around to achieve
"harmony". Sometimes this involves making things nonsquare.

I mention this because I don't believe in Feng Shui at all. The suggestion
that follows has nothing at all to do with anything but physics.

I have found that, in a listening room such as mine, which is fairly
typically treated with afew yards of Sonex, has a significant amount of
clutter, and so forth, that so-called "early reflections" are still a
significant impediment to the performance of loudspeakers. Early
reflections, crudely defined, are those which hit your ear with a single
wall or ceiling bounce. The traditional method of locating early reflections
is to have a partner move a mirror around the walls. When you can see the
speaker in the mirror from your listening position, the location of the
mirror is the bounce point of an early reflection. Such reflections can be
so strong as to create phantom images, and completely destroy the stereo
illusion. I know people who bi-annually replace their speakers because of
dissatisfaction with the image. They ignorantly drop the new speakers
exactly where the old ones were, for an inevitable repetition of their
angst.

Purely as an experiment, I placed my set of NEAR 50m floorstanders
catty-corner. At first, I tried symmetric placement on the room diagonal.
This did not work; the stereo image was absent. Concentrating on the early
reflection, I completely abandoned symmetry, so that the speakers are placed
against the walls, but with relative dimensions completely unequal in every
other respect. From my chair, the speakers subtend an unusually wide angle:
90 to 120 degrees, and the stereo image is the most flawless I have ever
perceived, without a hint of a center hole.

Paradoxically, a pair of Polk LSi15 speakers, placed inside the NEARs, do
suffer from both a center whole and phantom imaging, as the two defects do
go together. But it's not the flaw of the speakers; it is simply that I ran
out of luck in placement for the third pair.

And where do the Kef Reference III's, my original "high end" pair go?
Stuffed into the corners, surrounded by Sonex, forced to suffer with
nonoptimal placement. But the Kef designers apparently anticipated such
maltreatment; the concentric Uni-Q system still provides excellent sound,
aided by homemade Sonex panels,. Although the soundstage is somewhat
restricted in width, the tonal anomalies associated with reliance on Sonex,
which is far from an optimal material, seem suppressed by the Kef design.
The NEARs and Polks cannot perform in this location.

What about the traditional panacea, of moving the speakers out from the
walls? I have tried this with a number of speakers, and the results, in this
room, have been uniformly disappointing. Apparently, other factors, such as
comb filtering from channel crosstalk, tend to dominate the manifest of
defects.

So there you have it; an experimental activity to perform when the wife is
not home. You may find something memorable, something to strive for, that
with modification or compromise may be eligible for permanent integration.
One simply has to fight the natural human impulse to square things off; to
make things "neat."

The above discussion is based on well known principles of physical
acoustics.

Robert Morein wrote:
Humans have a natural addiction to order. This means that speakers are
usually placed in a room in an arrangment carefully parallel with the walls.
There is usually an attempt to maintain absolute symmetry, more apparent
than real. Furniture belongs against the wall; so, too, we believe, with
speakers. For after all, aren't speakers simply furniture with a special
purpose? Regrettably, no.

Those of us familiar with the agonies (and ecstasies) of speaker placement
know that speakers demand to be unnaturally present; they demand to stick
out, to be nonparallel; the demands of acoustics conflict with the needs of
architecture and human habitability. Speaker designers know this so well
that most designs try to concede technically to the nonoptimal environment
provided by the typical user, with varying success.

Room treatments also succumb to decorative imperatives. Most of those
intended for consumers are too small, and too unobtrusive, to do more than
take the edge off a bad situation, for most home systems are, from the point
of view of acoustics, bad situations.

My main listening room is small, and due to gluttony of desire and taste,
must hold eight large amplifiers, three pairs of floor standing speakers, a
pair of bookshelf speakers, and six surround speakers. The room is small
because, being so, I can do anything I want with it, which trumps the value
of larger spaces around the house. Since I can do anything I want with it, I
have tried every placement of floorstanding speakers for which they are
actually in contact with the floor.

The Chinese art of Feng Shui is, quoting from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui, "Chinese practice of placement and
arrangement of space to attempt to achieve harmony with the environment".
Adherents to Feng Shui move the furniture of a room around to achieve
"harmony". Sometimes this involves making things nonsquare.

I mention this because I don't believe in Feng Shui at all. The suggestion
that follows has nothing at all to do with anything but physics.

I have found that, in a listening room such as mine, which is fairly
typically treated with afew yards of Sonex, has a significant amount of
clutter, and so forth, that so-called "early reflections" are still a
significant impediment to the performance of loudspeakers. Early
reflections, crudely defined, are those which hit your ear with a single
wall or ceiling bounce. The traditional method of locating early reflections
is to have a partner move a mirror around the walls. When you can see the
speaker in the mirror from your listening position, the location of the
mirror is the bounce point of an early reflection. Such reflections can be
so strong as to create phantom images, and completely destroy the stereo
illusion. I know people who bi-annually replace their speakers because of
dissatisfaction with the image. They ignorantly drop the new speakers
exactly where the old ones were, for an inevitable repetition of their
angst.

Purely as an experiment, I placed my set of NEAR 50m floorstanders
catty-corner. At first, I tried symmetric placement on the room diagonal.
This did not work; the stereo image was absent. Concentrating on the early
reflection, I completely abandoned symmetry, so that the speakers are placed
against the walls, but with relative dimensions completely unequal in every
other respect. From my chair, the speakers subtend an unusually wide angle:
90 to 120 degrees, and the stereo image is the most flawless I have ever
perceived, without a hint of a center hole.

Paradoxically, a pair of Polk LSi15 speakers, placed inside the NEARs, do
suffer from both a center whole and phantom imaging, as the two defects do
go together. But it's not the flaw of the speakers; it is simply that I ran
out of luck in placement for the third pair.

And where do the Kef Reference III's, my original "high end" pair go?
Stuffed into the corners, surrounded by Sonex, forced to suffer with
nonoptimal placement. But the Kef designers apparently anticipated such
maltreatment; the concentric Uni-Q system still provides excellent sound,
aided by homemade Sonex panels,. Although the soundstage is somewhat
restricted in width, the tonal anomalies associated with reliance on Sonex,
which is far from an optimal material, seem suppressed by the Kef design.
The NEARs and Polks cannot perform in this location.

What about the traditional panacea, of moving the speakers out from the
walls? I have tried this with a number of speakers, and the results, in this
room, have been uniformly disappointing. Apparently, other factors, such as
comb filtering from channel crosstalk, tend to dominate the manifest of
defects.

So there you have it; an experimental activity to perform when the wife is
not home. You may find something memorable, something to strive for, that
with modification or compromise may be eligible for permanent integration.
One simply has to fight the natural human impulse to square things off; to
make things "neat."

The above discussion is based on well known principles of physical
acoustics.

Robert, I solve all these problems every day just by putting on
headphones. That's my free tweak. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
Humans have a natural addiction to order. This means that speakers are
usually placed in a room in an arrangment carefully parallel with the
walls.
There is usually an attempt to maintain absolute symmetry, more apparent
than real. Furniture belongs against the wall; so, too, we believe, with
speakers. For after all, aren't speakers simply furniture with a special
purpose? Regrettably, no.

Those of us familiar with the agonies (and ecstasies) of speaker
placement
know that speakers demand to be unnaturally present; they demand to stick
out, to be nonparallel; the demands of acoustics conflict with the needs
of
architecture and human habitability. Speaker designers know this so well
that most designs try to concede technically to the nonoptimal
environment
provided by the typical user, with varying success.

Room treatments also succumb to decorative imperatives. Most of those
intended for consumers are too small, and too unobtrusive, to do more
than
take the edge off a bad situation, for most home systems are, from the
point
of view of acoustics, bad situations.

My main listening room is small, and due to gluttony of desire and taste,
must hold eight large amplifiers, three pairs of floor standing speakers,
a
pair of bookshelf speakers, and six surround speakers. The room is small
because, being so, I can do anything I want with it, which trumps the
value
of larger spaces around the house. Since I can do anything I want with
it, I
have tried every placement of floorstanding speakers for which they are
actually in contact with the floor.

The Chinese art of Feng Shui is, quoting from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui, "Chinese practice of placement
and
arrangement of space to attempt to achieve harmony with the environment".
Adherents to Feng Shui move the furniture of a room around to achieve
"harmony". Sometimes this involves making things nonsquare.

I mention this because I don't believe in Feng Shui at all. The
suggestion
that follows has nothing at all to do with anything but physics.

I have found that, in a listening room such as mine, which is fairly
typically treated with afew yards of Sonex, has a significant amount of
clutter, and so forth, that so-called "early reflections" are still a
significant impediment to the performance of loudspeakers. Early
reflections, crudely defined, are those which hit your ear with a single
wall or ceiling bounce. The traditional method of locating early
reflections
is to have a partner move a mirror around the walls. When you can see the
speaker in the mirror from your listening position, the location of the
mirror is the bounce point of an early reflection. Such reflections can
be
so strong as to create phantom images, and completely destroy the stereo
illusion. I know people who bi-annually replace their speakers because of
dissatisfaction with the image. They ignorantly drop the new speakers
exactly where the old ones were, for an inevitable repetition of their
angst.

Purely as an experiment, I placed my set of NEAR 50m floorstanders
catty-corner. At first, I tried symmetric placement on the room diagonal.
This did not work; the stereo image was absent. Concentrating on the
early
reflection, I completely abandoned symmetry, so that the speakers are
placed
against the walls, but with relative dimensions completely unequal in
every
other respect. From my chair, the speakers subtend an unusually wide
angle:
90 to 120 degrees, and the stereo image is the most flawless I have ever
perceived, without a hint of a center hole.

Paradoxically, a pair of Polk LSi15 speakers, placed inside the NEARs, do
suffer from both a center whole and phantom imaging, as the two defects
do
go together. But it's not the flaw of the speakers; it is simply that I
ran
out of luck in placement for the third pair.

And where do the Kef Reference III's, my original "high end" pair go?
Stuffed into the corners, surrounded by Sonex, forced to suffer with
nonoptimal placement. But the Kef designers apparently anticipated such
maltreatment; the concentric Uni-Q system still provides excellent sound,
aided by homemade Sonex panels,. Although the soundstage is somewhat
restricted in width, the tonal anomalies associated with reliance on
Sonex,
which is far from an optimal material, seem suppressed by the Kef design.
The NEARs and Polks cannot perform in this location.

What about the traditional panacea, of moving the speakers out from the
walls? I have tried this with a number of speakers, and the results, in
this
room, have been uniformly disappointing. Apparently, other factors, such
as
comb filtering from channel crosstalk, tend to dominate the manifest of
defects.

So there you have it; an experimental activity to perform when the wife
is
not home. You may find something memorable, something to strive for, that
with modification or compromise may be eligible for permanent
integration.
One simply has to fight the natural human impulse to square things off;
to
make things "neat."

The above discussion is based on well known principles of physical
acoustics.

Robert, I solve all these problems every day just by putting on
headphones. That's my free tweak. :-)

What metaphysical rubbish. Now turn in circles three times and say, "God
save the Queen."

"paul packer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
Humans have a natural addiction to order. This means that speakers are
usually placed in a room in an arrangment carefully parallel with the
walls.
There is usually an attempt to maintain absolute symmetry, more apparent
than real. Furniture belongs against the wall; so, too, we believe, with
speakers. For after all, aren't speakers simply furniture with a special
purpose? Regrettably, no.

Those of us familiar with the agonies (and ecstasies) of speaker
placement
know that speakers demand to be unnaturally present; they demand to stick
out, to be nonparallel; the demands of acoustics conflict with the needs
of
architecture and human habitability. Speaker designers know this so well
that most designs try to concede technically to the nonoptimal
environment
provided by the typical user, with varying success.

Room treatments also succumb to decorative imperatives. Most of those
intended for consumers are too small, and too unobtrusive, to do more
than
take the edge off a bad situation, for most home systems are, from the
point
of view of acoustics, bad situations.

My main listening room is small, and due to gluttony of desire and taste,
must hold eight large amplifiers, three pairs of floor standing speakers,
a
pair of bookshelf speakers, and six surround speakers. The room is small
because, being so, I can do anything I want with it, which trumps the
value
of larger spaces around the house. Since I can do anything I want with
it, I
have tried every placement of floorstanding speakers for which they are
actually in contact with the floor.

The Chinese art of Feng Shui is, quoting from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui, "Chinese practice of placement
and
arrangement of space to attempt to achieve harmony with the environment".
Adherents to Feng Shui move the furniture of a room around to achieve
"harmony". Sometimes this involves making things nonsquare.

I mention this because I don't believe in Feng Shui at all. The
suggestion
that follows has nothing at all to do with anything but physics.

I have found that, in a listening room such as mine, which is fairly
typically treated with afew yards of Sonex, has a significant amount of
clutter, and so forth, that so-called "early reflections" are still a
significant impediment to the performance of loudspeakers. Early
reflections, crudely defined, are those which hit your ear with a single
wall or ceiling bounce. The traditional method of locating early
reflections
is to have a partner move a mirror around the walls. When you can see the
speaker in the mirror from your listening position, the location of the
mirror is the bounce point of an early reflection. Such reflections can
be
so strong as to create phantom images, and completely destroy the stereo
illusion. I know people who bi-annually replace their speakers because of
dissatisfaction with the image. They ignorantly drop the new speakers
exactly where the old ones were, for an inevitable repetition of their
angst.

Purely as an experiment, I placed my set of NEAR 50m floorstanders
catty-corner. At first, I tried symmetric placement on the room diagonal.
This did not work; the stereo image was absent. Concentrating on the
early
reflection, I completely abandoned symmetry, so that the speakers are
placed
against the walls, but with relative dimensions completely unequal in
every
other respect. From my chair, the speakers subtend an unusually wide
angle:
90 to 120 degrees, and the stereo image is the most flawless I have ever
perceived, without a hint of a center hole.

Paradoxically, a pair of Polk LSi15 speakers, placed inside the NEARs, do
suffer from both a center whole and phantom imaging, as the two defects
do
go together. But it's not the flaw of the speakers; it is simply that I
ran
out of luck in placement for the third pair.

And where do the Kef Reference III's, my original "high end" pair go?
Stuffed into the corners, surrounded by Sonex, forced to suffer with
nonoptimal placement. But the Kef designers apparently anticipated such
maltreatment; the concentric Uni-Q system still provides excellent sound,
aided by homemade Sonex panels,. Although the soundstage is somewhat
restricted in width, the tonal anomalies associated with reliance on
Sonex,
which is far from an optimal material, seem suppressed by the Kef design.
The NEARs and Polks cannot perform in this location.

What about the traditional panacea, of moving the speakers out from the
walls? I have tried this with a number of speakers, and the results, in
this
room, have been uniformly disappointing. Apparently, other factors, such
as
comb filtering from channel crosstalk, tend to dominate the manifest of
defects.

So there you have it; an experimental activity to perform when the wife
is
not home. You may find something memorable, something to strive for, that
with modification or compromise may be eligible for permanent
integration.
One simply has to fight the natural human impulse to square things off;
to
make things "neat."

The above discussion is based on well known principles of physical
acoustics.

Robert, I solve all these problems every day just by putting on
headphones. That's my free tweak. :-)


Robert should know by now that simply absorbing reflected sound is not
always going to solve problems, there are other ways to and means to solve
problems through the use of diffusers.

Sorry, but to listen only through headphones seems a complete waste, since
IME they never give you the same sense of space and ambience that speakers
can.

" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip


Robert, I solve all these problems every day just by putting on
headphones. That's my free tweak. :-)


Robert should know by now that simply absorbing reflected sound is not
always going to solve problems, there are other ways to and means to solve
problems through the use of diffusers.

Sorry, but to listen only through headphones seems a complete waste, since
IME they never give you the same sense of space and ambience that speakers
can.

That's interesting. Because listening through headphones is the closest
approximation of being "live in studio" that there is. Much less acoustic
distortion, much more clarity of the sound in the live space.

So, I quess you like "pleasureable added distortion", eh? Perhaps you are
ready for LP's now, NYOB. Think about it.

Harry Lavo wrote:
" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip


Robert, I solve all these problems every day just by putting on
headphones. That's my free tweak. :-)


Robert should know by now that simply absorbing reflected sound is not
always going to solve problems, there are other ways to and means to solve
problems through the use of diffusers.

Sorry, but to listen only through headphones seems a complete waste, since
IME they never give you the same sense of space and ambience that speakers
can.

That's interesting. Because listening through headphones is the closest
approximation of being "live in studio" that there is. Much less acoustic
distortion, much more clarity of the sound in the live space.

It does remove a number of traditional problems like room interaction,
airborne vibration etc. Phones are also an easier, less reactive load
for the amp. To call listening through quality headphones "a complete
waste" is of course nonsense. And as for space and ambience, good
phones can certainly provide that. Nope, you're wrong, Mike, and
not--dare I suggest?--for the first time.

On 30 Mar 2006 05:19:56 -0800, "paul packer"
wrote:

That's interesting. Because listening through headphones is the closest
approximation of being "live in studio" that there is. Much less acoustic
distortion, much more clarity of the sound in the live space.

It does remove a number of traditional problems like room interaction,
airborne vibration etc. Phones are also an easier, less reactive load
for the amp. To call listening through quality headphones "a complete
waste" is of course nonsense. And as for space and ambience, good
phones can certainly provide that. Nope, you're wrong, Mike, and
not--dare I suggest?--for the first time.

There are a couple of reasons why I generally don't care much for
phones (and I had one of the uncontested best phones for a while - the
Stax Gammas, which I sold because I found myself rarely using them).
The main thing is that any type of phones, whether closed, open or
buds, feels "unnatural" to me. It's very difficult to ignore the
fact that I'm wearing them. Part of it is the physical contact that
they make, but part of it is the somewhat hyper-present sound that
doesn't really mimic (to me, at least) the sound that you would
normally hear being presented either live or "in the room" with
speakers.

Now, if I am trying to listen to music on the street, then I would opt
for that sort of presentation because it would be far prefereable to
either forgoing music or using a boombox or other speaker-oriented
system (obviously the sound suffers from non-boundary reinforcement
even with the "best" portable system). If I had to listen to music in
a way not to disturb others, then I would opt for headphones in lieu
of not listening to music at all. Also, there are the rare times that
music is served by the "unnaturalness" of headphones, mostly when they
are designed for that sort of presentation, i.e. electronic music,
music with wild effects, etc.

However, I can understand the appeal that headphones have for some
people, even apart from the practical considerations of using
headphones in situations where they are almost mandatory. Some people
like the upfront and detailed presentation that they offer and those
people can easily overlook/forget the physical aspects of headphones.
There is no right or wrong about the use of headphones.

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:40:23 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

either forgoing music

Or foregoing music, even...

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:40:23 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 30 Mar 2006 05:19:56 -0800, "paul packer"
wrote:

That's interesting. Because listening through headphones is the closest
approximation of being "live in studio" that there is. Much less acoustic
distortion, much more clarity of the sound in the live space.

It does remove a number of traditional problems like room interaction,
airborne vibration etc. Phones are also an easier, less reactive load
for the amp. To call listening through quality headphones "a complete
waste" is of course nonsense. And as for space and ambience, good
phones can certainly provide that. Nope, you're wrong, Mike, and
not--dare I suggest?--for the first time.

There are a couple of reasons why I generally don't care much for
phones (and I had one of the uncontested best phones for a while - the
Stax Gammas, which I sold because I found myself rarely using them).

That's not surprising. I had the Gammas, and they place the drivers a
lot way from the ears. Consequently they sound very distant and tend
to lose one's interest. I changed to the Lambdas, which use the same
drivers but placed much closer.

The main thing is that any type of phones, whether closed, open or
buds, feels "unnatural" to me. It's very difficult to ignore the
fact that I'm wearing them. Part of it is the physical contact that
they make, but part of it is the somewhat hyper-present sound that
doesn't really mimic (to me, at least) the sound that you would
normally hear being presented either live or "in the room" with
speakers.

Fair enough. These are the traditional objections to phones. Neither
point has ever been a problem for me (though I admit, you do need
really comfortable phones for long sessions!), and there are, you must
agree, huge compensations, economics being not the least of them. I
started using phones out of necessity and now would never go back to
speakers.

However, I can understand the appeal that headphones have for some
people, even apart from the practical considerations of using
headphones in situations where they are almost mandatory. Some people
like the upfront and detailed presentation that they offer and those
people can easily overlook/forget the physical aspects of headphones.
There is no right or wrong about the use of headphones.

Absolutely. When I listen to speakers now I find them impossibly
distant and dull. Last speakers I had--admittedly budget--were the
Tannoy Mercury. Just couldn't abide them.

"paul packer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:
" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip


Robert, I solve all these problems every day just by putting on
headphones. That's my free tweak. :-)


Robert should know by now that simply absorbing reflected sound is not
always going to solve problems, there are other ways to and means to
solve
problems through the use of diffusers.

Sorry, but to listen only through headphones seems a complete waste,
since
IME they never give you the same sense of space and ambience that
speakers
can.

That's interesting. Because listening through headphones is the closest
approximation of being "live in studio" that there is. Much less
acoustic
distortion, much more clarity of the sound in the live space.

It does remove a number of traditional problems like room interaction,
airborne vibration etc. Phones are also an easier, less reactive load
for the amp. To call listening through quality headphones "a complete
waste" is of course nonsense.

I said it "seems" a complete waste of time, meaning it seems so to me.
Prefernce bashing anyone?
I've done lots of listening through phones and never got anywhere near the
same joy as I get when listening through top quality speakers, and it no way
seems like listening in a studio.

And as for space and ambience, good
phones can certainly provide that. Nope, you're wrong, Mike, and
not--dare I suggest?--for the first time.

How can my opinion be wrong. It's how I feel about it and it's my
experience.

I prefer good speakers in a good room. There's no way a pair of headphones
is going to give me the sense that speakers can especially with bass
response. If it feels good for you go for it. I'm not telling you it's
wrong, only that for me it's not worth it, I like to feel bass, not just
hear it.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip


Robert, I solve all these problems every day just by putting on
headphones. That's my free tweak. :-)


Robert should know by now that simply absorbing reflected sound is not
always going to solve problems, there are other ways to and means to
solve problems through the use of diffusers.

Sorry, but to listen only through headphones seems a complete waste,
since IME they never give you the same sense of space and ambience that
speakers can.

That's interesting. Because listening through headphones is the closest
approximation of being "live in studio" that there is.

The only way you could say that is if you have never been in a live studio.
I have been and no pair of headphones will eve be able to recreate that
experience.

Much less acoustic
distortion, much more clarity of the sound in the live space.

Nonsense.

So, I quess you like "pleasureable added distortion", eh? Perhaps you are
ready for LP's now, NYOB. Think about it.
I have and they suck by comparison to a good CD.
Headphones do not provide any of the things that decent set of speakers in a
good room can.

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:14:47 -0700, "
wrote:


Headphones do not provide any of the things that decent set of speakers in a
good room can.

"Any" of the things? Now, now, Mike.....