Headphone Imaging

Spacial imaging with headphones is a funny business. I think it has to do with how your brain is wired. Some will experience it, others won't. Those who seem to be able to mentally lay out a global network and place every voice and instrument neatly and precisely in their proper places strike me as being very analytical in general; probably left brain dominant (as most people tend to be) and know how to keep a tidy desk.

I'm the opposite. I'm a musician, left-handed, and right brain dominant. My desk is a perpetual clutter (I call it organic!) and I want to enjoy music. I seem to be particularly aware of dynamics. I've noticed most of my favorite albums tend to have wider dynamic range than others. (They were my favorites before I even knew about the Dynamic Range Database.) To me, that gives a recording a sense of realism. Live sound is very dynamic; poor recordings are not. Liveliness and impact are a big part of the overall sound picture for me.

Back to the 3D sound placement: My current listening setup (physical and mental) makes me feel like I'm sitting on the edge of the stage, or maybe even the conductor's podium, where the sound is just gelling. I feel like I'm there. The room is live, the sound washes over me, but I still can't tell you how deep the stage is, nor can I tell how far back each component is... and I don't care. I couldn't close my eyes at a live concert and tell you where everything is coming from either. It all mixes together, with the room reverb acting as the mixer. About the closest I get is on the Alan Parsons Project album 'Gaudi'. The track 'Inside Looking Out' has a wonderful mix of the actual music, with all sorts of ambient noise in the background. Children playing, cars and trucks, church bells, conversations, etc... This is all happening in a surreal space around my head, BUT, I couldn't tell you where a single sound is actually coming from. All I know is, it's absolutely my favorite track on the album.

As far as volume goes, I've found, personally, that I tend to balance a fine line of maximum dynamics and comfort. I tend to turn down the volume if it makes me even think about wincing, but keep it high enough to get as much bass and rhythmic impact as I can without damaging my hearing. I often find myself turning down the volume ever-so-slightly as time goes on.

Maybe I'm just listening too loud!

I'm left handed, "organic" desk, not a musician but I did play a bit of bass when I was in high school.
Like Rabbit said, no problem with left to right. But almost everything is placed on a line going straight through my head. Sometimes a bit back, but never really at the front.

Regarding DSD and master files - I worked with graphics for 10 years, and it's quite similar to music in some regards. We also have source files, in some crazy 24 bit RGB which cannot be reproduced in print nor on a monitor. Many times they look pretty crappy compared to ordinary sRGB jpeg, just because monitors cannot really handle this much information. The real benefit is that it allows for crazy manipulation. You can for example bump levels in darkness a lot just because you have a bunch of information hiding there. I imagine it's the same in the studio - you can for example slow down hi-res signal far more and still retain proper resolution.

Funny you should mention images tupisac. I've been making some hd films recently with the source material at 50fps and hvchd s which gives enormous files for clips. In editing, you probably know that a film is put together and then rendered in whatever format you want to watch.

I rendered down for tv to just MP4 but quite a large bitrate and what I don't get is that I can see slight differences in quality if the source is avchd or avchd s. Especially in movement smoothness. But both renders are using the same source.

I sometimes also wonder whether this kind of thing is the same as audio. Get a master as high resolution as possible, even though it's going to be rendered for MP3.

With my videos, the differences are very small and you'd have to be looking very closely at diagonal lines and movement. Even then, it also depends on the speed of the movement.

Today, I tested it again with my daughter dancing out on the lawn, shooting with 180 degree shutter at all times to retain image smoothness, which meant using an ND filter in the bright sun and the resulting rendered MP4 file looks as good as broadcast hd to me. Definitely way better than standard tv and yet, it's been contained in an MP4 carrier. I guess that tv streaming on freeview has been compressed to hell which totally destroys sharpness.

I'd love to get better depth from a headphone and tbh, it's one of the things that really stops me buying premium headphones. I have a th900 but depth is still very limited to me; even with DSD files, which when played on speakers become almost holographic.

I was using some very good proac floor standing speakers and noticed that the dynamic range seemed a bit more obvious. Whether it was due to mastering or the format, I don't know. Might well be to do with the remastering because I also noticed some that were no different. I was comparing with 320 MP3 using the same tracks. I find Imaging with speakers much easier although MP3 isn't always the best perhaps for that.

Maybe placing the drivers much more forward on the head, facing your ears would help Imaging? A bit like earspeakers rather than headphones. I've often thought about the idea of having a huge earcup with the speaker placed right in the front section of each cup facing back at your ears at 45 degrees. Maybe the sound would then seem to come from the front?

Having the headphone drivers fire straight into your ears at 90 degrees isn't the best. It's not for speakers which I always tried to place in a decent triangle formation for Imaging. Even cheap little Mission speakers imaged well set up like this.

I don't hear the 3D imaging, at least not projecting sounds forward.

What I do get is wider soundstaging or narrower.
Also better instrument placement is something I can hear.
Somerthing I think some people mean by 'depth' is about the same as 'sitting X rows back' or 'front seat'.
This seems top have a really high correlation to frequency response.
The less 'presence/clarity' the 'further back' the sound is evaluated.
Similar to sitting in a venue.
The closer you are to the band the more upper mids/treble you can hear.
All the way in the back there is more massive lows and less clarity.

Perhaps that is meant by 'depth' ?

Maybe some peoples brains can actually make up a 3D 'map' in their heads based on the amount of treble or relative amount of echo/reverb which should say something about the distance.
With studio recordings this is all artificial as music is mostly recorded in a 'dry' studio and reverb and 'tone' is altered /added in the mixing stadium.

Large orchestra's usually are recorded with lots of overhead mics which also pick up echo's from the ground.

So 3D imaging may only be 'partly' recorded with 2 mic or dummyhead recordings, everything else is studio manipulated.

Thus we arrive at binaural. I have listened to many recordings, mostly 'effect' things though. Even though it is more spatial and the 'barber' is almost around my head I still have trouble hearing in front of me.
The artificial 'out of your head' kind of spatializers don't work for me either. Makes instrument placement really weird and affects more than desirable for me.
Same goes for crossfeed. With HD800 this kind of works in the sense that the sometimes fatiguing stereo width of studio albums is removed.
No... I don't get in front of me sounds but it is 'easier' on the brain with longer sessions.

Next up headphones. The stereo width and instrument separation is easily heard when swapping headphones. Once you 'accommodated' to a headphone (I call this brain-in) the stereo width often slightly improves as well. As if the brain can make more heads and tails out of the received info and is less ocupied with compensating for 'off' tonality issues.

One of the narrowest soundstages (using quality headphones) is the HD650 for me.. While tonally correct (with Kameleon) the width leaves something to be desired when comparing directly.
The 'widest' one I have with the clearest instrument separation is the HD800 on Kameleon. It is the most 'holographic' but still no sounds coming from in front of me.
But instruments are easy to pin point and place and easier to pick out. It is better in this aspect than a TH-X00 which in itself is close to a TH900 except it has less bass and less treble.

Difficult to 'rank' them in stereo width though.

Very sensible. I gave up on speakers a few years back after I came home from work to discover a pen protruding from one of my speaker cones...never quite worked the same after that.

In reality I much prefer to listen to headphones nowadays anyway and wouldn't go back. I can listen when and as late as I want without p***ing off other family members or the next door neighbours and that's worth the admission price alone. I've given up on trying to find a headphone that sounds like a pair of good speakers though and just enjoy them for what they are. 

--

In terms of imaging I tend to hear left and right very clearly but on the left side it often feels like like their is less 'spread' to the sound (only really hear at 9 o'clock whereas on the right I hear approx. 1:30-4:30). Think my hearing in that ear is just not so good on that side.

With headphones I have never head sound coming from in front of me but sometimes it does feel like sound is coming from the back. If I watch the virtual barbershop Dolby Headphone demo the electric razor feels very real when it goes round the back to cut and I involuntarily flinch every time much like I'd do at the barbers.

I've also had the rare headphone now and again where I feel that sound comes from over the top of my head. Pandora Hope VI was very good at that which made for an interesting and unusual presentation. With that headphone the imaging on well recorded material felt very precise.

Don't tend to have much depth perception with music but do sometimes with movies or games but I imagine the audio has been mixed heighten that perception e.g. subtle reverb or echo effects.

And imho headphones never have 'huge' or 'expansive' soundstages like some owners claim. If a headphone can project sound more than a few inches out of my head then it's not too shabby. I agree with Frans about the HD650 feeling particularly small. Not that it ever feels boxy, just small.

Yes, the hd650 does seem to put you in a 'smaller' room. Funnily enough, for me that's one of its real weaknesses. I don't mind the lower bass roll off as much tbh. The AKG headphones sound wide, but actually, sometimes to wide with a lack of depth.

I have never really understood the depth of Imaging that some talk about. It's not coming from the front in any case and I can't fool my ears into thinking it is. Binaural does sound better for me but still takes a lot of concentration. It's the acoustic clues that sometimes become aware of. Especially orchestral. I get it more clearly at lower volumes on the whole as well. I think the acoustic just gets boosted along with the sound so that the proportions aren't quite right. I noticed this last year listening to the Proms from the Albert Hall. If you boost the volume, the awful hall acoustic kind of swamps thins sometimes; especially smaller stuff. Large scale stuff seems to get compressed but that's probably the wonders of dab.

I've always been curious about the hd800 but the cost just stops me dead!!