Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 21, 2013 20:56:38 GMT
My modded T40 is quite the stunning headphone and you really get some surprises with it. Frans modified it for me using his engenious 'FR Measuring Machine' so it's as close to flat as near as dammit.
Frans was concerned at the start that I may not like it since it really doesn't paint a 'rosy' picture of a bad recording. You get what's there and that's it. No enhanced bass or treble. Sounds great, until in real life, you find those situations where engineers really have made a mess of things. Something like a Senn HD650 will kind of help to mask the problems but the T40 will show them relentlessly.
Now here's the opposite:
I met frank Zappa years ago when he was in the UK. I think he was a genius in many ways but we did talk about recording and some of his 'taste' in humour and music, which was quite intense but interesting.
Anyway, I have quite a lot of his recordings and I have always found them lacking in the bass. it's there, but not a lot of impact but plenty of 'smack'. ie the top sound was registering but not the actual bass of bass drums - it was 'thin'.
I've accepted this for years as part of Zappa's freaky recording habits. he was a techno person and into hi fi sound so i never understood why I felt the bass to be recorded badly.
Now I'm using these T40's quite extensively, I've actually discovered that the bass IS there. The body of sound is very deep and the initial attack is also there but for some reason, the T40 reproduces real weight in the bass where most other headphones don't seem to do this as well. Curious, since the HD650 tries to accentuate bass, but it's mostly MID bass. these Zappa recordings have deep bass on them and less in the mid bass. the result is a very clearly defined sound - which is more in line with what he was describing when I met him.
Playing 'Shut and Play yer Guitar' reveals quite a different sound on the T40. much more natural sounding.
I have to say, there is no substitute for getting the headphone/speaker to be as flat as possible since the sound that you get is honest; even to the point of making some recordings sound piss poor, but a well recorded album is spot on.
It does make me wonder when I see these threads where guys ask about what is the best headphone and so often, the reply is, 'what do you listen to?' the recommendations then follow whatever genres the poor victim has mentioned.
I'm becoming more and more convinced in my old age, that headphones shouldn't be matched to genres like this. It plants a 'colour' on top of the sound just to enhance whatever people think is right for the genre. A flat headphone just reproduces what is on there from the engineers.
So ..... I listen to Shpongle, Ozzy, Black Sabbath, Spock's Beard, Tangent, Guy Manning, the Enid, Ozric Tentacles, Bach, Stravinsky, Mahler, Fairport Convention, Eddie daniels, EST .... whatever. The headphone that reproduces them all pretty well is the T40.
Why? Because it's pretty flat .... and that is about it. I know people go on about imaging etc, but for me, imaging is pretty difficult on a headphone so I have never made it a priority.
Thanks to the T40, Zappa has jumped to life on headphones and he was right ..... he had indeed recorded them with great love and care!! I doubted him at the time, but listening now, he was right.
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 987
|
Post by Javier on Jun 22, 2013 9:20:48 GMT
I believe what you call "real" sound is mono only if you listen to it in an perfect anechoic chamber. The instrument or sound source may be "mono" itself but in real life we also get to hear all reflections from surrounding walls/objects and those are full stereo, even in a live performance.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 22, 2013 9:35:24 GMT
Engineers generally get a very good impression of what is heard, Chong. I know hi fi guys bash them incessantly but they really do know what they're doing most of the time. As hi fi people, we are a minority and they are not concerned with us on the whole. They cater for most people.
Most people say things along the lines of: (This is a quote from yesterday to me) -
Kid: 'I've got these earbuds, and they were quite expensive'. Me 'How much were they?' Kid: '£10'
That attitude is typical of most. Adults will go as far as £50 perhaps.
So no surprise in a commercial world where we are the minority that the STUDIO (not engineers) require the music to be compressed so that it's loud on the radio. (Hence the term 'radio mix') So the engineers do their job well in that respect. They aren't in charge of the recording in spite of what people think, unless they own their own studio. Of course there are also gems like Barry in the USA who strives for audiophile requirements in his work. Not as easily done with rock music though. (Which often contains less dynamic range than many think)
Rock is loud for sure, but that it not dynamic range. I have measured levels in a live situation and honestly, many groups stay around quite a limited level for most songs.
So the engineers get the sound recorded as best as they can in each situation and type of group they're recording and I think most do a brilliant job tbh.
The processing might be another matter.
However, we then mangle what was recorded by sticking coloured headphones on the end of our players in order to produce what many 'think' is a live sound.
Live sound is dreadful. Use a single mic in a hall and record a band live and you end up with a big mess of sound. The reason being that our brains switch off to reflections and bass emphasis caused by hall shape and even audience noise around us. Our brains translate the sound in a room and turn off distraction. It does it all of the time.
Because a microphone has no brain, it picks up everything equally and for some reason, hi fi peoples' brains no longer switch out the distractions that were there in the hall. With hi fi, we actually tune in to the distractions in the sound.
In order to try to reproduce what we 'perceive' at a concert, we get headphones that emphasise certain aspects of the music in order to get (as you say) closer to live. However, that is a coloured headphone. You may well like it, but it isn't what was captured.
Years back, some manufacturers produced processors for hi fi where you superimposed a 'hall' acoustic on top of a CD. Some liked it since in their opinion, it was more like a live recording. (albeit in an empty hall with no audience) However, that was most definitely not a hi fi sound!!
You can't produce a live situation in a headphone in any case. Or in your front room. For a start, it's not big enough for proper bass and it's full of reflections. A front room is an awful environment for speakers really. Near field monitors work better for me. I like the Yamaha close monitors actually.
Nothing sounds live to me. The closest I ever got to 'live' was on a system that cost a stupid amount of money with big speakers and I sat in a hot spot. Then, I felt that the music was in the room. I could pinpoint where people were, I could hear them breathing in the room and point at them and I can honestly say that it was a hologram. Once the band grows into a rock band which wouldn't physically fit in your room, how can it sound live? The answer is that it's all a compromise and is an approximation.
So I would never kid myself that anything sounds like live. It's just an image.
It is a tough one to work out what is best. Live imperfect sound, with (very often) limited dynamics. (In fact - I'll let you into a secret - bands compress their sound themselves individually!!! If I want to cut through the band with a synth solo - switch in some compression so that the average volume stays right up there and lo and behold, it cuts through. Limiting is also used in live situations, so even if the engineers used no compression, you might find the band themselves are using it anyway!! It's just another way of controlling sound.
So if live sound is 'messy', then to a great extent, recorded sound cleans up that mess and makes it much cleaner to the ears. When I hear myself played back, I often think it sounds different to what I heard. However, it often sounds better than what I think I heard as well. For a start, it's more in context with the rest of the band since I hear a monitored version in an earpiece with my part turned up for me to hear what I'm doing better. The record playback has me more integrated with the band and I am surprised sometimes how well it is captured, although not really what I heard.
Having said that, the 70's and 80's remixes of stuff that I did are horrible, ticky, cleaned up things that don't really do justice to the type of music that it was. It sounds clinical and has lost the original anologue type guts that we would hear live so it communicates a lot less to me. I'm sad about that since it no longer has relevance but I know that the originals did contain that guts and companies get their mits on the stuff and produce what the £10 earbud generation might want.
BTW, I wouldn't mind a compression device on my hi fi, so I could actually control the compression in my front room so the music fits more easily. Small stuff would need less perhaps and big rock stuff, more. That way I could get a good overall average for my particular room and set up. (That's what happens in concerts) What I don't like is that someone has decided how much compression I should have before it's reached my room!!!
To me, 'flat' should be the reference sound.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Jun 22, 2013 10:03:32 GMT
Live sound is comprised of many point sources each having a unique pattern in which it emits sound that pattern is also frequency dependent. Live sound is thus closer to holographic as it is to mono, stereo or even 7.2 surround. It cannot be recorded/replicated faithfully with the current techniques.
a recording simply is a recording from a single point (or with a dummy head 2 mics) in a single point somewhere in the sphere around the instruments. The distance from the centre of that (those) sphere(s) is also of importance as is the acoustics as this to has a relation of the point(s) of origin from the original sound(s) On reproduction of that single point in that sphere all the holographic info is literally NOT stored BUT the reflections ARE stored in the signal albeit all the reflections that were present at the point of the mic(s)
The reproduction of the 2 electrical signals follows a different dispersion pattern as the original dispersion was. Also frequency, timing (multiple way speakers) and acoustics (listening room in case of speakers) are added.
It thus isn't as black and white as sound being mono but being holographic which is NOT recorded, only some spatial clues are.
2 mic recordings where the mics are placed in the path to the listener (thus the position speakers are located, meaning angle and distance) would yield good results albeit be a noisy recording as are those with artificial heads which are only suited for headphones.
Thus to get the closest glimp of live different techniques should be used for headphone and LS reproduction.
As 2 mic recordings are VERY difficult to get right most recordings are multi-mic (live) or multi-track and mixed afterwards as are effects and EQ applied. The recordings themselves thus depend on, mic placement (in the sphere), recording gear quality, and the acoustics (in studios how well studios are damped or deliberately made echoic on certain spots. After the recording the final mix down depends on the SQ of the used monitors, the guy doing the mixing/console operations and those that help in the production (band members, producers sometimes even a cleaning lady who makes a good point). Finally the target group and commercial aspects are 'mixed in' with the end result the album. In some cases different mixes are made for different types of reproduction medium.
All in all still pretty amazing how well reproduction equipment still can give a good experience under specific (different) circumstances and taste in music.
For the best reproduction of WELL MADE recordings a flat reproduction will give the best results. With poor quality recordings 'EQ'ed' reproduction may give better audible results.
Flat WITH added harmonics can still sound different from flat WITHOUT added harmonics, mood and taste are important in this case.
Remember NOT a single headphone on this planet is perfectly flat with 0.5dB over the audible range where it needs to be flat in (30Hz to 16kHz roughly) Speakers could be 'flatter' than headphones but ONLY when listened to at 1m in an an-echoic room. If that is not the case (100% of all household circumstances) peaks and dips may be present in the FR amounting over 20dB !
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Jun 22, 2013 10:04:15 GMT
hmm.. seems we were all typing away around the same time...
perhaps move this part to perception ?
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 22, 2013 10:47:19 GMT
hmm.. seems we were all typing away around the same time... perhaps move this part to perception ? Yes, OK Frans. It seems to have developed into perception!!
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 22, 2013 10:57:09 GMT
You've basically said what I think I hear, Frans. The one thing that you really pointed out to me is the fact that I hear a 'hologram' of sound in live situations which is missing in recordings.
I think that's why I don't try to reproduce 'live' in a headphone. It won't happen. However, it's the one thing said by so many hi fi guys that their gear sounds so 'live'.
The curious thing is that in headphones especially, many people love a top orientated sound which I really don't hear in live performance. Sure, it's loud, but not toppy.
I would say that the treble has a more 'clattery' sound rather than 'tizzy' and I rarely pick that up from hi fi. I think it is often mistaken for 'detail' when in fact, something with les tizz can have just as much detail with less treble and in fact, contain more in the case of sounds like cymbals which also contain that 'gong' type of sound that many recordings don't reproduce.
Funnily enough, on the posh set up I heard, that 'gong' sound was in fact there, very much so, so it's obviously captured in the recording process but not reproduced by a lot of our gear.
I am beginning to think that equalisers are not the 'evil' that so many portray them as and in fact, the benefits of seeing a headphone response and eq'ing it to as flat as possible is a sensible way to go.
I have no idea though, of what a good home eq unit is. Something that doesn't introduce too many other artifacts, but it is something I'm considering - it is quite normal to have eq used in studios after all. (But they use decent units)
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Jun 22, 2013 11:36:24 GMT
Good EQ means expensive in the analog world and can be achieved cheaper in the digital realm (DSP Digital Signal Processing) The reason for this is a good EQ (to compensate for deficiencies in transducers such as headphones and speakers IN normal rooms) needs to be parametric.
graphic EQ (the ones with < 10 sliders) are more suitable as a fancy tone control.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 22, 2013 13:14:34 GMT
What gives the location of the 'ting' away is the attack, Chong. The rest of the sound bounces all over the place.
Electronic music isn't distorted though!! We are careful to avoid distortion in fact since having a lot of synths play at the same time would compound the distortion and it would be a mess.
The wall of sound or 'fat mono' happens very often as a result of the band basically playing too loud for the space it's inside. Sound bounces like a banshee all over the place and then some poor devils get an enormous fat bloated bass in some areas while others have their ears shattered by the accentuated treble.
They are massive differences too. If you play a single note and move around the room with a meter (as I sometimes do) you find real hotspots where the dial shoots up at certain frequencies. If this happens at different places all over the room with different frequencies (as it does) you wonder how on earth people are able to make out what is happening.
That's where the brain does the translation and switches out as much as it can of the delayed reflections especially. It doesn't seem to be able to determine what is a boosted bass or not though so that would remain.
Put a mono mic where you are and the resulting recording is disgusting and often (in rock) dominated by the bass due to these reflections so there is absolutely no fidelity whatsoever.
So, to get around these problems, engineers use close mic techniques or even DI so that they get the sound from the source as clean as possible and electronically manipulate the stereo placing and reverb since it's way cleaner than taking a live room feed.
It is very complex but I know the best way to get even a cheap stereo to sound better ....
Test your front room for hotspots and reflections and try to dampen them out. It helps the speakers enormously if you do it properly, but can make the room look nasty.
One way to look for reflections is to use a mirror. Place it on on the side wall. Sit in the listening position and move the mirror until you can see the speaker. Once you see it, you have the first reflection point. Also nice if you are able to get the wife to hold a mirror on the ceiling!!!!
So if you have the left and right primary reflection points (and even better, the ceiling too), place dampening material (acoustic foam) on those spots. I also like the corners dampened.
Also, try the floor.
As an experiment, place pillows at the wall reflection points. Looks dreadful but it can give you an idea of differences.
Try to fire the speakers down the longer part of the room but not at patio or glass doors behind you. (Or draw the curtains)
If you take a line at the same (opposite) angle from the mirror and follow it to where the line hits the opposite wall, you will then have a secondary reflection point. You could dampen that too if money allows.
Too much dampening and the room becomes dry sounding and too little and it will have hotspots.
Get it right (not too overdone) will improve the speakers quite a bit but the wife might moan.
There are firms that make materials for this purpose. They're not cheap but it does surprise me that serious hi fi people don't like to do this and prefer to just alter the speakers to suit their taste and superficially overcome these problems. Similar to what headphone people do with tweaking the sound through 'recolouring' it with the 'flavour' of the headphone.
That's why I prefer to get it as flat as possible and hear what the engineers have done properly rather than mask it.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Jun 22, 2013 13:46:09 GMT
Acoustics can be a B with the capital B.
In an electronic magazine there once was a funny circuit. It produced a tone of around 6kHz but a soft one. It also had a light sensor on it so ONLY when it was dark it would start to 'beep' continuously. Similar to a mosquito. The fun part was as soon as the light went on it stopped thus one had to 'look' for it in the dark to find it. Needless to say that is really difficult !
reconstruction of placement happens in the brain by temporal clues (differences in L and R phase but most of all flank of the first tone) as mentioned by Ian the harmonics that occur when hitting the instrument. They decay fast and the fundamental decays slower.
Indeed EXCELLENT sounding equipment does not have to cost that much. What's important is that you are HAPPY/CONTENT with that gear and stop questioning its quality otherwise the never ending search is never ending. No harm in pursuing the best possible sound but for the absolute top a minimal investment is required.
I don't like to spend obscene amounts of money on equipment but some may not have that limitation. Not having(or wanting) a funds limit is good news for all the high-end manufacturers though, they will be glad to take it from you promising the world in SQ.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 22, 2013 14:25:20 GMT
I once lost my watch, Frans. Couldn't find it until I listened for ticks. Once I found the tick, I turned my head left and right until I could determine a straight line to it.
I walked to the sofa. It was then down ......
Under the sofa!!
Just shows that we can locate things from ticks, not necessarily sustained sound.
Indeed EXCELLENT sounding equipment does not have to cost that much.
Absolutely. The trouble is to believe that, you need to make a journey which is a costly ticket!! Curiosity is a human pain in the neck. Humans constantly wonder about improvements and expectations that come with laying out money are raised and (virtually always) realised in the new piece of gear.
For speakers, the improvements can come (although you chase your tail) from room manipulation. Very crude but effective. One set of floorstanders I once had benefited from a rug placed in front of them on the floor. (At the position where I could see the speaker in a mirror from the listening position) I tested it with the wife and she could tell when the rugs were removed or replaced. That's how I convinced her about the walls.
For headphones, as you've done Frans, stiffening baffles, filling cavities to stop resonances, foam etc, placed correctly and in the right amounts gives a headphone that many wouldn't believe because of the lack of cost!!
The two guys that do it for a living charge somewhere in the region of £400 for virtually the same headphone and the sound is accepted as worth that much.
We all need a measuring kit for headphones and a sound meter for our speakers and try to get them set up correctly before we condemn all that old gear as no good!!
Actually, TV's benefit from it too. Especially flat ones. I have this 55" or 60" TV (not sure) but the sound was dreadful at first. Found a nasty reflection on one side because the speaker was closer to the wall than I thought, so I hung a cloth-like decoration there which really helped. In the end though, I just attached some Roland near field active monitors to it. (I gave up with the TV speakers) I can't be bothered with surround on a TV.
I wonder whether you remember quadrophonic, Frans? Great idea. In practice, adding speakers caused unbelievable room resonances. Even then, striving for that 'hologram'
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Jun 22, 2013 22:34:43 GMT
Quadrophonic needed a decoder and was only available on some records (vinyl). You also needed a needle/cartridge that could reach 40kHz.
It was also possible on special CD's and reel to reel (4 track) and 8 track and even available with special receivers and detectors
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 23, 2013 10:15:22 GMT
I found the same with Quadrophonic sound. I think a lot of it was to do with the mix where it placed things in extreme places so there was no real soundstage. It was a recording that Stokowski made with the Chicago Symphony, I think it was. His real name sadly, was Leonard Stokes. So from now on, I will be known as Ivanoswski. A sound that oftem impresses me is the sound created in cinemas. (good ones)
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,882
|
Post by solderdude on Jun 30, 2013 13:43:35 GMT
Most portable players only have sound 'presets' or a simple 5 band equalizer on board. Such an equalizer should be considered more of a fancy tone control than to correct headphones. Certain players, however, can be ' Rockboxed'. This involves some technical prowess and careful reading as you will be tinkering with the players firmware (Operating system). What Rockbox offers is a less nice graphical interface BUT in return you get more audiophile options and a configurable (as in parametric) equalizer with preset possibilities. A good alternative to GE's 'accudio' correction which isn't possible on a lot of players.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Jun 30, 2013 17:27:59 GMT
I'm a bit scared of Rockbox tbh. One mess up and you end up with a brick. I know quite a few use it with Ipods don't they?
GE's compensations for headphones only work via the Itunes player so if you use MP3 or wav files, or you have to use another player, the GE headphone compensator doesn't work.
It's a pity that they didn't make a free standing programme, but possibly, it's not something that can be devised I guess.
|
|