Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Aug 28, 2016 8:27:28 GMT
I've been seeing many people saying things on other sites about how a certain headphone suits a certain 'genre' which I find a little 'quirky'. I was reading the amazingly long thread on the m-100 and some are saying that they don't work well with rock or pop. My own feelings are different, but it has got me wondering why people that say these kinds of things very often seem dead against equalisers. So on the one hand, they're being kind of 'purist' in their approach to audio but in effect, using headphones to equalise the sound. Generally, I find the better headphones just sound good with most things and there isn't really the need to change for a genre for me. I tend to change headphone more according to what I'm doing or how long a lead I want at the time. If neutrality or at least a flat kind of response (whatever that is) is wanted from headphones, then they should work with all recordings, good or bad. The fact that a recording sounds bad due to poor recording/mastering isn't the headphone's fault if it shows it. To me, that's a good headphone. To change headphone in order to 'mask' faults means that you're not really using all that great a headphone perhaps? Translated to speaker listening, imagine a room full of speakers so that you could switch to different boxes for different genres? We tend to accept the sound of our speakers more and live with it. Rather than change headphone, I play around with volume. For me, that's enough. I really don't think that we take enough notice of the volume control and turn to certain volume levels by habit without actually listening properly. This can affect very much how we perceive recordings. I noticed this yesterday when a friend came round for a listening session with me. I instantly noticed that he automatically adjusted volume for 'deafening' so that to him, it felt live. Then he gave the usual 'opinions' on the sound of each headphone that I have. Interestingly, he consistently went for lesser headphones with big bass. I suggested (after a lot of talking) that he tried listening much more for clarity and space, and not go for volume, but for mids presence and then slightly tweak. Out of the blue, he became very confused because suddenly, the brilliant headphones that he'd put to the side were no longer brilliant since they lacked 'clarity' and he started to see the benefits of better headphones. All done through volume adjustment with no eq and forgetting about which headphone works with which genre. In the end, he got down to a few headphones and found that most stuff sounded pretty good with them ....... as long as he adjusted the volume for each genre, not the headphone change that I've seen so often suggested on many sites. We tend to adjust volume by habit. Try being precious with the old volume knob and you might just find out how good your headphone actually is, rather than play at an inappropriate volume for that particular headphone and then pronounce it a dud!! I always try to find an optimum for each headphone before describing its sound and then test at the extremes of volume. Some need to breathe with lower volumes. Others need to pump out volume before they snap into focus. We don't seem to notice though. Then again ..... I'm talking to expert listeners on here and you all know that....... or do your opinions of headphones change like underpants? The headphones never changed, you changed the volume!! Probably due to ear fatigue, playing too loud at the start?  |
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,872
|
Post by solderdude on Aug 28, 2016 10:22:04 GMT
That's why I have the 'recording and playback' level covered extensively in the 'neutrality' article.
A headphone that is neutral only sound neutral at a specific volume with specific types of recordings.
I don't think it's a genre thing at all.
You are right, all genres should (and DO) sound good on good headphones at the proper volume.
I do understand where the 'genre' thing comes from though.
It has to do with 'DR' ratings as well and with the effort studios put in recordings regarding the target audience.
Let's face it... those that listen to classic, jazz, and blues recordings will probably know that the bass levels on these recordings seem to be higher than those of rock and certain 'popular' music recordings.
Rock music is (generally) recorded for those that like (live ?) rock music which is generally listened to out louder levels. The target audience in, general, is less concerned with how long their ears will last and crave 'live levels' on their headphones.
Rock concerts are always LOUD in reality, ear damaging levels are 'normal'.
For this to sound right a either a 'neutralish' headphones (or one with a dip around 3kHz to tone down screachy sounds at higher volumes) a higher volume level is needed. At lower volume a raised bass will make this sound better. At soft volumes it needs even more raised bass, bass-head types of headphones are needed.
A DR between 2 and 7 is quite common. The tonal balance usually is 'clarity' and fast/tight but not too loud bass.
Highly compressed pop music has the bass levels compressed a bit (Fletcher Munson) in order for it to sound 'loud' on radios (compared to the annoying adds whith which the loudness wars took off) and played in cars and while travelling but NOT at loud volumes but rather at moderate levels.
It needs boosted bass to compensate for the dynamic compression at moderate volumes to sound 'more realistic/fuller'. At louder levels a dip around 3kHz, some roll-off at higher frequencies and some basss boost will sound good. At softer levels 'bass-head' type of headphones are needed.
Pop music, just like rock music in live stages is usually played loud so compressed music will sound 'bassy' with tight bass in that case. Feel the bass on the chest type of loudeness. a DR of 4 to 10 is normal here. The tonal balance usually (not always) is that of punchy but not raised bass (because of compression) but still 'feels' like it has bass.
Blues bands in bars usually play louder than the rumour the crowd makes in the venue they are plaing in but less loud than rock musicians.
Bass is slightly elevated and the music sounds high quality and dynamic and with a louder volume that is loud but can be listened to for a while.
The target audience thus listens at 'realistic' levels to 'normal levels'. A DR between 7 and 15 is normal.
Tonal balance is usually 'flat' to 'somewhat raised in the bass'.
Reggae music is not played very loud as well and is bass oriented. It has a very bassy/warm tonal balance by itself and the target audience likes to play it on boomboxes (which don't so low bass that well) and is not listened to at higher levels in general but more as a relaxed background music. a DR of 5 to 12 is normal here. Tonal balance is quite bassy and with softe treble.
Jazz music generally is a bit softer in volume levels compared to the other genres and may not even be amplified (that much).
The target audience thus listens to that music at home at normal to soft volumes.
So the recording will have higher bass levels in order to sound real. a DR between 7 and 15 is normal. The tonal balance is 'flat'
Classical music usually is not amplified that much if at all. It is being played dynamically between soft and loud. How loud the volume is also depends on where you sit in the concert hall.
The target audience at home likes to play at normal to soft levels, rarely at real concert levels which would be very loud and very dynamic (because of high DR)
The tonal balance usually is between flat and sometimes needing some treble lift.
So different 'genres' have different target audiences that generally play at different volumes at home and also have 'preferences' in bass levels because of this.
This requires different listening levels to have a 'live-like' experience and also different tonal demands at other volume levels.
This means the headphone tonal balance and volume play a different role for different genres.
A more bassy recording on a bassy headphone (Vmoda M100 for instance) at a louder volume sounds bloated/fat
A more bassy recording on a neutral headphone at a louder volume sounds just bassy
A more bassy recording on a bass-shy headphone (K701, DT880 as an example) at a louder volume sounds just right
A neutral recording on a bassy headphone at a moderate volume it sounds bassy/full
A neutral recording on a neutral headphone at a moderate volume sounds just right
A neutral recording on a bass-shy headphone at a modurate volume sounds snappy/tight but wanting in the bass levels
Loudly recorded (compressed) music on a bassy headphone at a softer volume sounds about just right
Loudly recorded (compressed) music on a neutral headphone at a softer volume sounds a bit thin/bright
Loudly recorded (compressed) music on a bass-shy headphone at a softer volume sounds deprived of bass/cold like 5#it
One could also write it down as:
A more bassy recording on a bassy headphone (Vmoda M100 for instance) at a soft volume sounds goodfull
A neutral recording on a bassy headphone at a moderate volume sounds good/full
Loudly recorded (or compressed) music on a bassy headphone at a 'normal' volume sounds good/full
A more bassy recording on a neutral headphone at a soft volume sounds good
A neutral recording on a neutral headphone at a moderate volume sounds good
Loudly recorded (or compressed) music on a neutral headphone at a higher volume sounds good/full
A more bassy recording on a bass-shy headphone at a soft volume sounds lacking in body and warmth
A neutral recording on a bass-shy headphone at a moderate volume sounds decent but lacking 'foundation'
Loudly recorded (or compressed) music on a bass-shy headphone at a higher volume sounds thin/lacking fullness
The above examples show that recording 'quality' and audience target will yield different 'tonal balance' effects with differently tuned headphones at different volume levels (SPL).
So it would appear that different genres may or do require different tonal balanced headphones when listened to at other than intended volume levels.
You can thus use different tonally balanced headphones to suit genres/personal taste at different average volume levels.
But also different genres can sound good on a single headphone (with a specific tonal balance) but will sound 'right' at different volume levels.
Genre, taste and volume levels are thus essential ingredients to what one finds 'realistic' at their preferred listening level (volume).
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Aug 28, 2016 10:40:25 GMT
It is quite complex Frans. Volume is never mentioned in reviews other than on graphs with the 1khz mark set at a certain level.
I wonder whether 3 level graphs might be useful if it were possible to compensate for 'heard' differences, so we have three volume levels for data.
Low level say in one colour, mid at another and thigh volume in another in order to give an idea how headphones react on the head at different volumes.
Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to it, but for me, it makes or breaks a headphone. Of course some, never really snap into focus anywhere or when they do, the treble or bass is relatively poor. Then you want to turn up to improve it and they can turn quite harsh, so there's no happy medium, indicating a poor headphone.
You are absolutely right about the m-100 playing bassy Rock well at lower levels. I suspect that people who say that they're awful for rock, listen loud.
DR is such a complex issue because during recording, each sound or instrument is adjusted individually or else some sounds just get lost in the mix and then the whole lot is re done for the medium. IE; pretty awful for LP with longer playing sides (even depending on where it was going to be pressed on the record) and a bit better for cd.
Without DR, we would have problems getting a happy medium for volume. They sound so quiet until something loud happens!!
Interestingly, on bass shy headphones, I often find low volume sounds spookily realistic and much less 'electronic' although bass is missing. A bit like hearing someone in the distance, where bass seems to go but treble sounds remain.
I also agree that a flatter headphone does better all round. They go up with no problem and still sound correct at lower volume, although for me, a tad more in the bass helps; especially for lower volumes.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,872
|
Post by solderdude on Aug 28, 2016 11:00:16 GMT
It is quite complex Frans. Volume is never mentioned in reviews other than on graphs with the 1khz mark set at a certain level. I wonder whether 3 level graphs might be useful if it were possible to compensate for 'heard' differences, so we have three volume levels for data. The graphs would be exactly the same for all 3 volume levels as the headphone doesn't change at different levels. I actually measured a headphone at different levels to check distortion and S/N ratio of the measurement system. The hearing (perception) is what changes (Fletcher-Munson) What one could do is plot different 'perceived tonal balance' plots for different SPL levels in one plot wth different color traces. It would have to be with quite some smoothing applied and normalized to 1kHz for instance. Would be really easy to calculate using Phon curves (Fletcher -Munson) and would show how that headphone would be perceived when played soft, normal and loud. Then again.. genre/recording quality and the idea of what 'soft, normal and loud' means to someone. I mean those that usually listen to loud levels will find them 'normal' and those that listen at soft volume levels late in the evening only will find 'normal' levels loud. You are absolutely correct on the DR. A recording with a DR of 20 or higher would ONLY sound good at quite high peak level volumes. A highly dynamic classical recording could not be 'faithfully' reproduced in a living room at normal and background levels at all. DR HAS to be applied, just wish it would be done more delicately. |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Aug 28, 2016 11:34:57 GMT
Absolutely, with DR. It's a necessity but a question of how much should be applied. Might be very different for headphones too. That's possibly why we have problems with speaker mixed recordings and notice it more on a headphone.
A difference in DR is the first thing I noticed with some hi res files I listened to which had me instantly wondering whether I was hearing a different master. I mentioned it to Javier who checked and found that there was indeed a difference in DR between the hi res version and CD versions.
You'd think that the compression would be pretty noticeable on small, close range monitors commonly used in studios as well. I think the problem is with radio. They're too lazy or cheapskates with paying for time in order to make a radio mix as opposed to CD with a good range. Then radio companies just buy CDs for broadcast which makes life simple for them.
They tend to mix at very high volumes too,
Sorry, with regard to response graphs at different volumes, I did also mean to apply something like Fletcher-Munson curves. Graphs in particular do need some translating and for someone like me, I prefer to just use them to compare say two or three headphones and then I can see relative differences very easily, but often, the graph doesn't really represent what I hear if I look at them on their own. (Although FR isn't the only element that's important)
Another important aspect to headphone sound for me is the treble 'quality'. I can't easily spot that in graphs. Some headphones sound quite 'steely' in the treble while others are 'silky'. That has a big effect on string sound. For instance, the Denon D600 has a fat bass and is great with films, but the treble can be hard sounding so for orchestral, strings can sound off.
We all need lessons in how to accurately read graphs and the effect of different ranges boosted or reduced on the head!!! Quite an art.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,872
|
Post by solderdude on Aug 28, 2016 13:01:37 GMT
I have a lesson HERE but it doesn't say anything about treble quality. You can't always tell from plots how the treble will sound, the quality that it is. FR doesn't tell it all nor squarewaves nor CSD. There are headphones that measure quite decent in the treble but still aren't excellent. DT150 (with DT100 pads), The DT250/250, Teufel Aureol etc all would indicate treble would be of good quality and extended yet they don't sound that way. Part of this is that plots you see only says something about a single tone (or sweep) and only looks at peak levels. More tones simultaniously at different levels could tell more but will contain so many different extra frequencies that it will be difficult to discern on different types of analysis. There is no 'easy to read and understand' short tutorial for this to be written. Fortunately we can easily tell if a headphone sounds O.K. to us (not particularly to others as well) If it does, and FR is good, we are talking of an excellent headphone. FR graphs differ from source to source (innerfidelity, GE, Rtings, headroom, Jude's. mine, SBAF) they all differ in how they 'look'. Some compare better than others but all differ. In the end I think a graph should show how we PERCEIVE the tonal balance on a well made recording at around 80 Phon. I think GE, Rtings, Jude's and mine are clostest to that. Tyll's is way too far off. So to be able to 'read' plots you would also have to know what the guys measuring it had in mind when making the plots. |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Aug 28, 2016 14:00:01 GMT
I like the Rtings site. The way that they dissect the fr into bass mid and treble with separate descriptions is rather nice. Great idea. Scoring is pretty close though and the range isn't very wide ....
Beyer dt990 gets something like 7.9
Senn hd800s gets 8.4
Makes the Beyer look good!!
Thanks Frans. Really nice article.
|
|
fanda
contributing
Posts: 61 
|
Post by fanda on Sept 24, 2017 16:40:26 GMT
Very interesting observations. Never thought of headphone/genre pairing this way before. The reasons make sense to me.
I would also point out the following, based on my experience:
1. Fatigue is a major factor and this varies by genre. For eg: I can enjoy jazz without fatigue from pretty much any headphone. On the other hand something like hard rock/metal is almost immediately unbearable unless the headphones are well balanced or even dark tilted (i.e treble level <= midrange level).
2. "V shaped" headphones are immediately impressive (Fostex TH and DT 990 comes to mind) across most genres but quickly become fatiguing at normal listening levels (for pretty much any genre). They do have their place (i.e. a quick album listen). Also work reasonably well for low volume listening sessions.
3. Neutral(ish) headphones start out 'boring' but my brain adjusts a after a few minutes. They generally work well across the board.
4. Sometimes, I multitask and listen for long periods - in these cases, even at low volume the only headphones I find non-fatiguing are the HD 650 - I suspect it is a function of how "smooth" the treble response is (without many peaks/dips) as well as treble level not being greater than midrange level.
|
|
fanda
contributing
Posts: 61
|
Post by fanda on Sept 24, 2017 16:52:10 GMT
Rtings is interesting. The rating scale doesn't seem to have lower score values. Their scores seem to get revised though - they are rating DT 990 pro as an 8.4 currently, ahead of HD 650 (8.0), but behind HD800S (8.5) and hifiman edition X (8.5) - seems like an odd set of results.
Although, just using numbers doesn't make a system objectively comparable even though that seems to be their intent. I would just look at their data and make my own conclusions.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 24, 2017 16:54:45 GMT
Unfortunately, it can also be the source recording. Common practice in studios to over-hype the extremes and compress for volume in order to achieve an instantly 'impressive' result.
Problem then is that so called 'impressive' source material is enhanced a second time by something like a 'v' shape which can become way too much and exhausting on the ears. If the source is recorded well, sometimes an 'enhancement' via headphones can help like having an eq adjustment.
I very much like the th900 and it's V shape - much more than the dt990, because it's more refined sounding and on flattish recordings, it livens things up beautifully. On a harsh feel ording though, I swap straight over to the hd650. Still not a flat recording, but more bearable.
I think the Senn plays most stuff acceptably really which is possibly why it's loved so much. Believe me, on a Kameleon, it will show up harsh recordings!!
|
|
fanda
contributing
Posts: 61
|
Post by fanda on Sept 24, 2017 17:13:18 GMT
Source recording quality is a good point as well. I suspect the variance is due to a mix of the subjective tastes of the mastering engineer as well as pressure from the recording studios. I do remember that the success of ipod/itunes encouraged the studios to master in a way that would "sound good" on those devices. Recall that the original itunes store offered 128k AAC files (and most common mp3 compression was also at 128k in the early 2000s) - this basically encouraged even more dynamic compression.
In fact, today, one big consequence of the streaming industry is the massive individual data collection possible and correlating that to listening preferences. We are talking about billions of data points (plays, likes/dislikes) across millions of files. If anything, future recording quality (at least the big studios) will play out based on statistical analyses of this data - but not necessarily a recording quality improvement, more likely changes in the direction which makes it (more) profitable.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 24, 2017 20:17:15 GMT
You're spot about the profit aspect of the business. The other problem is that the majority of let's say, 'more normal' people that don't obsess like some of us wouldn't ever consider spending more than £30 on a headphone. Unfortunately, I think we are the minority as far as listener profile goes and so most stuff is put out to be impressive and loud. Let's hope that cheaper memory will lead to better digital files which puts pressure on the source people to produce better quality recordings since we might be more aware. Of problems once the data improves for the majority. (And pigs might fly too I think) |
|
fanda
contributing
Posts: 61
|
Post by fanda on Sept 26, 2017 16:25:32 GMT
I would use the term 'less knowledgeable' than 'more normal', since IMO the intersection between those who love music and those who realize the benefit of good audio equipment is still very small. It doesn't help that a large % of those who do have good equipment, keep chasing after 'better' stuff to the point that their hobbies are considered very expensive and abnormal by others. I find that gifting good (and cheap) gear to friends/family/acquaintances helps to 'convert' some of these people - more ideas welcome.
Back to my previous post regarding the industry and data (and why there may actually be some hope) - A few things I didn't clarify previously:
During itunes boom, the compression codecs were sub-optimal (in addition to the low bitrates used), and while the ipod device itself had good sound quality, the earbuds that came with it were poor (very bad extension at both extremes). In order to "sound good" given these limitations, i suspect most publishers had to bake in a V-shape in the mastering process process itself.
Nowadays, the codecs are much better, and it is pretty much impossible to distinguish lossless and lossy if you rip them yourself (ensuring that the source is the same) with the latest codecs. What this also means is the lossy tracks now do a great job preserving the dynamic range of the original recording (and don't arbitrarily throw low volume/masked sound samples away).
Now, all this is good but how does that help? This is where streaming services come in. Spotify and apple include a variant of replaygain algorithm applied at playback time by default - what this basically does is pre-adjust the volume so that all recordings play at the same approximate level. This completely negates any advantage from "loudness wars", as the tracks with larger dynamic range play at the same level as dynamically compressed ones and sound better due to the additional dynamics possible - you can check this yourself by playing the same track from an older album and a "remastered for loudness wars" version, after applying replaygain to both of them using foobar.
If someone could just analyze that massive data and look for the relationship between listener preferences (like/dislike/skip/repeat) and track attributes like (dynamic range, bitrate, codec version, genre, recording date, and so on), and preferably show that profit is to be gained from all this, there is very good chance of recording quality improvements happening.
Edit: Forgot to mention that most modern digital audio devices don't include earbuds anymore (they may include average quality iems, but they are significantly less horrible than those old ipod earbuds) - this negates the requirement for a V-shape in the recording itself. This is, however, much more difficult to show with the streaming data. Perhaps common sense will prevail at some point.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 26, 2017 18:03:37 GMT
The loudness thing is funny in that I 'normalise' a great deal of my audio when producing videos. That doesn't mean that every clip is at the same volume although they all hit -3dB for TV stuff and 0dB for internet as their maximum.
The average volume can be less in one clip than another so the perceived volume is quieter. That's where I start using compression and limiting in order to get the perceived sounds to line up.
So the compression stuff (and therefore the dynamic range) is squashed in production so whatever is streamed won't really change it. If anything, it might compress more. I'm not sure how 'replay gain' works but if it's another name for 'normalise' then the dynamic range would stay the same and peaks would be the same. However, the average volume for each track may differ even with 'replay gain' undies it's some kind of compressor?
Trouble is that most people aren't overly bothered and as you say, unless they're shown differences, they don't hear them.
Funny thing is that I'm retired now and ended up as a teacher although I spent most of my working life as a performer. Got extremely fed up with touring. But what amazed me was how poor my workmates listening gear was. I found that loads of them were perfectly happy with transistor radios and the only way that I can account for this is that they must 'recreate' the real sound in their heads because the gear certainly wasn't producing the goods.
Even many of them wouldn't pay more than £30 or so for a headphone!!
While I'm not elitist about gear and what I profess to hear, they seem to be relatively unbothered!!!
|
|
fanda
contributing
Posts: 61
|
Post by fanda on Sept 26, 2017 19:46:31 GMT
Replaygain doesn't alter the track or compression at all. It is not peak normalization either. It is basically an individual preamp setting for each track (which the algorithm calculates by analysing the track for perceived loudness), such that, when actually applied that way (as a preamp before playback), the loudness of the track matches a prespecified target loudness level (like -14 DBFS). For the most part, the end result is that louder records are played back at softer levels, records that are already at 'quiet' volume levels are mostly unaffected, while very quiet recordings (usually classical) are played louder. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayGain for an intro. For a full specification (warning: requires signal processing knowledge to read) --> wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=ReplayGain_1.0_specificationA way to think about it is looking at the problem it solves: If you use replaygain, and play a mixed selection of tracks (from different recordings, for example), then you do not need to reach for the volume knob for each different track that plays - they will all play be at approximately the same level. In other words, it functions like an automated volume knob in practice. What replaygain effectively does in the context of spotify/apple is that it puts all recordings (old or new, poorly compressed or not) on a level playing field as far as volume is concerned, allowing dynamic range to become more noticeable. Even better, when the same tracks from different time periods are played (eg: Led Zeppelin original version and their remasters from early 2000s), the effect is immediately noticeable (not as a volume difference, but as a difference in dynamic range). |
|
