Ultrasone PRO900 - Page 15

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

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.

Originally Posted by Acix

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).

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

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

Originally Posted by kwkarth

Dude, you're going in circles. We can, with today's technology create an astounding psychoacoustic illusion of reality. It's just an illusion, but you can't tell it's not real. I think I've discussed this subject enough.

Originally Posted by Acix

Peter, you have a point ?

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

You're right, we are going in circles but it is only because, for whatever reason, I can't seem to give you an understanding of the very basic simple idea that you can't hear audio through headphones unless that audio has been electronically reproduced.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

And, once you electronically reproduce acoustic audio, it is obviously no longer acoustic and therefore, most (if not all) aspects of that audio have changed thereby resulting in a difference from the original sound which would then come from either speakers or headphones rather than from the actual performance instruments (piano and voice in our original example) and heard in the (original) room with all of that room's acoustics. This, to me, is a point that seems so obvious and simplistic (such as "we breath air") that, after all of this explanation, it's difficult for me to understand why I can't seem to communicate this idea in such a way as to give you an understanding of it.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

"It's just an illusion, but you can't tell it's not real." I understand that this idea can be true, given the absolutely right set of circumstances, and IF you are referring to audio that was heard originally as electronically reproduced amplified audio.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

However, for what seems to me to be obvious reasons, I have trouble accepting this idea as being true if you are referring to audio that was heard originally as naturally acoustic non-amplified audio.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

If you read the link, the point should be obvious. But, here it is, once again:
The Pro 750 is not actually "flat" and neither is the Pro 650 (which is not actually mentioned in the link but the same idea follows for them as well). However, the sound produced by the Pro 750, more closely resembles the sound produced by high quality studio monitors when those monitors are adjusted "flat" in an acoustically controlled room, compared to any other headphone I've ever heard. The Pro 650's are similar but their response is not as accurate sounding (compared to the aforementioned studio monitors) as the Pro 750's. Please note here that I wrote "accurate sounding" and not "accurate". There is a difference.
With this information, if you read the information attached to the link in my previous message, it will hopefully make more sense to you.

Originally Posted by kwkarth

That's a fact jack! I wish I could demonstrate it to you! I'm sorry we've had such a hard time communicating. I appreciate the fact that you've stuck with me in pursuing this concept.

Originally Posted by kwkarth

I never said they were flat. There is no such thing as a "flat" response headphone if it's properly designed. If properly designed, it will give the hearer the psychoacoustic impression of reality/flatness/neutrality.
Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by analogbox

I'm sorry to disrupt what appears to be never ending I'm-peter-and-I-know-what-live-sound-is argument that we have seen plenty in the past in other threads. Same thing has been discussed million times in other threads, just trail peter's post history. If this is going to continue, I'd suggest opening up a separate thread about this topic. I'm eagerly waiting for news on Pro 900 but every time I come in and find out it's just another post from peter (which I can never understand), I get greatly disappointed.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

Kwkarth,
I have absolutely been reading your posts but apparently, you have experienced something which I have certainly never experienced and find it hard to believe that such a phenomenon actually exists. If I'm understanding what you've written correctly, and please, correct this if I have a misunderstanding, you are saying that an original, totally non-electronically reproduced-non-synthetically amplified, acoustically "natural" sound source can be made to sound (including all aspects of that sound such as dynamics, reverberation, echo, etc.) when reproduced electronically through headphones, absolutely 100% exactly as that sound source sounded originally as an acoustic source.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

...I've never experienced it and, keep in mind, that I've worked with some of the best microphones extant. And, there are numerous other aspects of the sound as well.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

Actually, analogbox, I have never "discussed" this particular specific topic anywhere on Head-Fi before. I could not have "discussed" it because I've never heard of such a description as Kwkarth has specifically written about.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

I am sorry that our "side issue" bothers you.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

As I wrote previously, since we are waiting anyway for Jude's comments about the Pro 900, I saw no reason why this somewhat related issue could not be written about. Apparently, kwkarth also thought it was OK for us to communicate about this topic in this thread. The one problem was that Kwkarth was conveying an idea that I am still having trouble accepting because it just doesn't seem possible to me.

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna

Actually, your most recent post and this reply to it are probably more off-topic than the communications between kwkarth and myself.

Originally Posted by kwkarth

100% exactly? No, I didn't say that, but I did say that psychoacoustically, you would not be able to tell that the reproduced sound was not real. Your brain would play tricks on you and you would perceive reality when in fact, you were hearing a recording of what you had previously heard with the unaided, bare naked ear.


The mics don't have to be perfect, just reasonable. Since we're talking psychoacoustics here, if we supply the ear/brain with enough cueues, such as reasonable FR, accurate phase response, directional queues, and familiar sounds... The brain does the rest.

Regards,

Originally Posted by MaloS

This is a very convoluted argument...

A point PeterPinna is making: we are concerned over using headphones to reproduce records made and mastered using a pair of studio monitors, which are tuned to be flat in a treated room. Thus we want to achieve this experience from headphones - we should not be too obsessed over reproduction of real performance (acoustic), because that might as well be impossible.

kwkarth says that we can reproduce the sound of an acoustic performance exactly...

kwkarth, I know the mathematical proof for how you can reproduce an acoustic performance perfectly, but such things don't hold in real life based on a few factors. The fact that 99% of the equipment uses dynamic drivers is one of the factors - these drivers are not fast enough to follow a signal precisely (or at least well enough so that the human ear would not notice the error), and you can't make it otherwise.

Originally Posted by kwkarth

100% exactly? No, I didn't say that, but I did say that psychoacoustically, you would not be able to tell that the reproduced sound was not real. Your brain would play tricks on you and you would perceive reality when in fact, you were hearing a recording of what you had previously heard with the unaided, bare naked ear.


The mics don't have to be perfect, just reasonable. Since we're talking psychoacoustics here, if we supply the ear/brain with enough cueues, such as reasonable FR, accurate phase response, directional queues, and familiar sounds... The brain does the rest.

Regards,