Ultrasone PRO900 - Page 14

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make Pete.

A good recording engineer thinks acoustically all the time! That's their job!

Perhaps you've never heard a performance properly recorded and played back through headphones that sounds like the real thing. I have, I do it all the time. A proper recording sounds so real that you instinctively turn your head to look in the direction of sound queues, and the distinction between reality and recording become quite blurred. You literally cannot tell the difference without looking.

Kwkarth:
I edited my post and apparently it was during the time that you were writing your last post. There is an additional paragraph where my point is made more (hopefully) clear.

Peter, I must be stupid or something because I just don't understand what you're driving at. To reiterate, my point is all about the standard of reproduction that I strive for is absolute realism.

Another reply to kwkarth

Most recording engineers think about and attempt to anticipate how an audio source will sound once it is recorded. Their thinking usually revolves around such ideas as microphone placement (which is acoustical) and mixing, among other ideas. Rarely, does a recording engineer, in this day and age, attempt to make a recording sound exactly as it sounded acoustically when it was originally performed (if there was no amplification involved in the original performance). Sometimes, such as in amplified "live" performances, they will attempt to make the recorded audio sound as it sounded amplified in the original performance.

I have been involved in productions in recording studios and have definitely heard recordings properly recorded and then played back through what are supposed to be high quality headphones and monitors. And, I have had the experience where I've turned my head when listening (this has been especially the case when listening via the Proline 750's).
The best way I think I will be able to answer what you've written in this post is to quote part of my previous post:

"Among other reasons, because the playback of that recording is not the sound as it was originally heard coming directly from the pianist, because the playback of that recording is heard through speakers, instead of directly from the pianist, because the sound of the speakers affects the acoustics of the recording as it is heard in the room (no matter what quality level these speakers and sound reproduction device may be), the electronically reproduced recording of the pianist playing and singing will sound different than the original acoustic performance at the time that it was heard originally in it's original acoustic "presence". Perhaps that difference, in certain situations where there would be specific (difficult to "adjust") acoustical allowances, would be difficult to hear by some people, but, there is a difference between the sound of the original acoustic performance (as it was heard at the time it was originally performed) vs. the sound of that same performance electronically reproduced, none the less."


In the above quote, replace (or add to) the word "speakers" with the word "headphone" to make this quote more specifically address your comments.

Hopefully, this will explain, Kwkarth:

You're far from being stupid. This concept, as I indicated previously, is challenging to "grasp" (even though it is a very simple concept), because we are so accustomed to hearing music amplified rather than being heard acoustically.
The last paragraph of one of my previous posts, (hopefully) "ties this all toghther" (this was the added paragraph when I edited the post):

"Therefore, it isn't truly practical to compare the sound of the performance as it is electronically reproduced and then played through headphones to the sound of the performance as it was originally performed and heard only acoustically. The better comparison would be between the playback of the recording of the pianist's performance via "flat" high quality monitors in an acoustically controlled room to the playback of that same recording heard through headphones. By A/Bing the recording as it is heard via the monitors vs. the recording as it is heard via the headphones will give, IMO, a much better audio comparison and analysis of the perceived accuracy (not graphed accuracy) of the headphones."

The reason that this would be a better comparison has to do with the idea that the comparison is between two playback devices of electronically reproduced sound instead of a comparison between a device (headphones) that produces electronically reproduced sound vs. sound as it is perceived in a solely acoustical environment.

I've got to catch a plane tonight so I'll jot this and split, but I don't buy the compromise. Particularly if you're making a biphonic recording. Playback on speakers would not image properly. Axiomatically, your playback transducers should be about the same distance apart as the microphones were which were used to establish the psychacoustic image originally.

So I would use a completely different mic technique depending upon if I were doing a biphonic recording or a more conventional stereophonic or multichannel recording. Gotta go. I'll get on line at my destination.

Cheers!

Peter Pinna and Kwkarth,
Different recording companies have different approaches. If you look at sheffield labs or chesky records, they attempt to make things sound as if you were there in the room of the recording. If you go for a sony studios or most big studios, the focus is more on getting something mixed with lots of effects, overdubs, etc... It all really depends on the studios.

About headphone performance compared to the real thing, it is hard to know what the real thing sounds like when we are dealing with highly mixed/ overdubbed albums. I would want a headphone that sounds closest to the original sound in the chesky records room for example if I were to play back a chesky cd. I dont want extra special effects in the sound. Since we have no perfectly neutral/natural headphone that yet exists then I guess we have to pick the one with colorations we can most live with. To some, boosted bass is fine as long as the treble is there. Some want great mids, and some want soundstage first. Some want it all! but no one can really get it all yet in todays technology. We deal with diminishing returns when we pay for an orpheus system for example because even those are not close to being perfect

Wow this argument is getting wild...

You guys should concentrate on the stereo recordings, since that is 99.9% of the personal music listening done on this planet...especially seeing how we are in a thread where we are considering headphones that have a presentation claiming to be speaker-like (specifically stereo equilateral triangle set-up).

Donunus - on the case of concentrating on reproduction much like live vs layering effects and overdubs: that is definitely true, but wouldn't we want to keep the records that are made mostly electronically out of this argument, since that definitely has not much to do with reproduction of a performance, rather than production of musical coherent and pleasing sounds. (Much of goa/psy music I listen to for example does not have anything to gain from being listened to on a speaker setup as opposed to a headphone setup).

Thats true MaloS but wouldn't you agree that it is easier to base a headphones performance in "naturalness" when listening to "natural" recordings? It is cool to listen to bass depth capability with electronica, and other aspects of a headphones performance from different recording styles but when we speak about realism and naturalness in other words transparency... I believe the easiest way to find this out is to listen with well recorded classical or jazz with natural instruments preferably done by a well know company dedicated to natural sonics.

I can't agree more with you.

That's exactly the point I am trying to make, we are only concerned with recordings of acoustic performance here really. =)

Tofu Headphones

Using the example of a binaural recording where the microphones are placed on a dummy head during the making of the recording, in playback, while the perceived acoustic distances might be the same as one would actually hear them, there would still be a difference between the sound of the original acoustic sound vs. the sound of the electronically reproduced sound regardless of which listening device (speakers or headphones) is used.

Sound coming from a speaker or a headphone does not sound exactly like that same sound as one would hear it acoustically with one's ears. It is impossible to hear audio from headphones the way one hears that same audio in it's natural acoustic state (with one's ears and nothing else) because in order to hear audio from headphones, that audio must first be reproduced electronically (either analog or digital). And, when that audio has been reproduced electronically, it is thereby altered and no longer sounds, in every respect, exactly as the original acoustic audio sounded. All of this has to do with the way we perceive sounds.
Hypothetically, in order for an electronically reproduced audio to sound exactly to us as the original acoustic audio sounded, among much other criteria, here is some criteria that would have to be in place:

- We would need two microphones that "hear" exactly as our ears hear;
- The sound reproduction device must "interpret" and then reproduce the sound exactly the way our brain does;
- If listening through headphones, those headphones must not have a signature sound but instead must take on the overall acoustical sound of the original recording room to an absolutely exacting degree. (These might be called "Tofu Headphones".) Or, theoretically speaking, if the way we hear naturally through our ears (in daily life) has a signature sound that we are unaware of because that "signature sound" is all that we know, these hypothetical headphones must also have that same "signature sound".

(There would be more necessary criteria but I think you understand my reasoning here.)

No microphone has ever been made the "hears" sound exactly as our ears do.
No sound reproduction device has ever been made which interprets and then reproduces sound exactly the way our brain does.
All headphones,AFAIK, have some degree of a signature sound.

While it is true that electronic sound reproduction can be excellent when utilizing the best audio equipment extant, it has never been made to sound exactly as the original acoustic audio sounded. It (electronic sound reproduction) has, however, been made to sound to an extreme degree much more similar to the original amplified audio sound.

Your theory doesn't really work for me and I'm not sure if it works at all. I'll explain how it works in my experience . Let's say I'm using the Ultrasone PL650 to master a project for a client. First, I'm going to push and extend the frequency as much as I can, to the point before distortion occurs and it begins to crack. All this on the PL650, which are considered flat response from Ultrasone.

If I switch the same results on the PL750 or PL2500 and now it will sound boomy to me, but you may say that it's cool with this bass. Classical and Jazz, can benefit from this extended bass, can add some nice low frequency response to the natural recording, like an updated version of an old recording. This why you will see on some old CDs that have been reprinted, that they are "remastered". It means that this old CD went through a new mastering process with extend frequencies (natural sonics).

Reply to Acix

Acix,
In the thread attached to the following link, please read post #35 and post #37.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/loo...25/index4.html