Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Plain vs. angled drivers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Plain vs. angled drivers - Page 4

post #46 of 60
yes, their flat drivers try to fool the brain into believing that the SS is X/Z based...which is pretty darn hard to achieve by not angling the drivers but simply decentralizing them IMO.



a DT770 gives a boring X SS(even the Manufaktur yada yada), Z is simply inexistent...some opamps also kill Z.

majkel explained here that AD797B is the best opamp for XZ SS: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f6/aud...-v-2-a-397691/
Quote:
The readability of the furthest plans is great, without going into image sharpening effect which makes you see the details more but lose the feeling of perspective at the same time. [..] The soundstage is nowhere limited and the sound image of whatever possible shape.
and RS agrees too, as he puts them in his top-end amps: http://www.raysamuelsaudio.com/products/hr-2
Quote:
The HR-2 is a high resolution headphone amplifier. It incorporates two state of the art AD797 audio IC’s—the best ever made.
post #47 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
yes, their flat drivers try to fool the brain into believing that the SS is X/Z based...which is pretty darn hard to achieve by not angling the drivers but simply decentralizing them IMO.
Okay, so if the trick that other headphones use is angled drivers, what trick does S-Logic use?
post #48 of 60
anyway, talking about SS w/o audio samples is pretty pointless..so, this is one of the most amazing binaural demo I've heard(together w/ the barber shop): mediafire.com: thunder.mp3

and that's how I downmix all my 5.1 movies to stereo in ffdshow w/ Ozone4 and a custom downmixing matrix: mediafire.com: tornado.zip

it's a 2 mins sample, you should be able to feel the hard rain slamming the car windows
Quote:
Originally Posted by froasier View Post
so if the trick that other headphones use is angled drivers, what trick does S-Logic use?
they prolly do extensive abuse of phase inversion, etc etc...if you're interested in binaural audio and such, this is the mecca: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/
post #49 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
anyway, talking about SS w/o audio samples is pretty pointless..so, this is one of the most amazing binaural demo I've heard(together w/ the barber shop): mediafire.com: thunder.mp3

and that's how I downmix all my 5.1 movies to stereo in ffdshow w/ Ozone4 and a custom downmixing matrix: mediafire.com: tornado.zip

it's a 2 mins sample, you should be able to feel the hard rain slamming the car windows

they prolly do extensive abuse of phase inversion, etc etc...if you're interested in binaural audio and such, this is the mecca: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller View Post
Guys I just want to clear one thing, the binaural recordings are not the ones best suited to try the S-Logic sound. Very simple, the main reason of the existence of the S-Logic, cross-feed, bleeding processors, etc... is because the recordings are not binaural, though the problems that need to be addressed and corrected by those kind of artificial processors or featires...those are features to correct the non binaural recordings...Witch the strong normal channel separation...

If you listen to a binaural recording, any headphone will do the same, they are done just for headphone listening, and they took already into consideration the limitations of the regular standard headphones, doing the proper natural bleeding, and time delays naturally, even better than any artificial effect...The problem is that the majority of the recordings are not binaural...
Nevertheless, I had downloaded that file from when you posted it earlier and just got a chance to listen to it now. It's actually 7:39 in length, and isn't the most impressive on my Ultrasones. It also doesn't sound like it was recorded in a car. I also tried it with a pair of Sony MDR-EX51 in-ears I rarely use, and the cheap Samsung in-ears that came with my phone (all just straight from my laptop). As I suspected, while it sounds better overall through the Ultrasones (mainly, way fuller and louder than the Sonys, and clearer than the Samsungs), the apparent size of the soundstage is about the same, and it sounds a little more natural spatially through the in-ears. Conversely, with well-made stereo (non-binaural) content, the Ultrasones have a more spacious and natural SS than the in-ears.

I have never heard or read anything about Ultrasone using phase inversion, but at this point I think the argument as far as "tricks" are concerned is moot. And that website appears so disorganized that it could barely be useful.
post #50 of 60
maybe your source is to blame? you're only as strong as your weakest link.

you prolly only downloaded the mp3...but the zip file includes two files, one AC3/one FLAC and they're both 2 mins, and yes they were recorded in a car, it's actually the tornado scene from the "The Lucky Ones" movie....well, headphones use psychoacoustics tricks, it's not exactly rocket science here...I could provide many more links, but it seems like m00t at this point as you said

and the ultrasone are supposed to be fantastic for binaural, as they even provide a full CD of it w/ their phones.
post #51 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
maybe your source is to blame? you're only as strong as your weakest link.

you prolly only downloaded the mp3...but the zip file includes two files, one AC3/one FLAC and they're both 2 mins, and yes they were recorded in a car, it's actually the tornado scene from the "The Lucky Ones" movie....well, headphones use psychoacoustics tricks, it's not exactly rocket science here...I could provide many more links, but it seems like m00t at this point as you said

and the ultrasone are supposed to be fantastic for binaural, as they even provide a full CD of it w/ their phones.
OHHH... I thought the zip file was your custom downmixing matrix and you were still talking about the mp3. Giving the FLAC a listen, though, I get approximately the same results--it sounds more real spatially through the in-ears than the Ultrasones.

It's quite possible Ultrasone's CD is recorded/processed specifically to work with their headphones. I tried it when I got mine and was impressed with the effect. Through my friend's HDJ-1000s the effect wasn't as good--most noticeably, things in the middle sounded relatively diffuse. I don't know what happened to the CD though, so I can't do further testing now.
post #52 of 60
well, please don't take it bad...but your soundcard and amp don't exactly seem to be high end...to get a good headstage, you need a good source and pretty high end phones. and your berhinger amp is prolly a huge bottleneck.

the Ultrasone CD is just binaural, not processed in any special way for their gear AFAIK...I've owned a Proline750 for one day
post #53 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
well, please don't take it bad...but your soundcard and amp don't exactly seem to be high end...to get a good headstage, you need a good source and pretty high end phones. and your berhinger amp is prolly a huge bottleneck.

the Ultrasone CD is just binaural, not processed in any special way for their gear AFAIK...I've owned a Proline750 for one day
Perhaps, but it doesn't really make sense since the Ultrasone CD sounded so great and these don't. I've also read that amping doesn't improve my headphones a lot, compared to other models. But when I get the chance I'll assemble my best gear and try these again (and try to find that CD).
post #54 of 60
thunder.mp3 is as binaural as can get, and sounds amazing on my cd1k...and the more I improve my rig, the better it gets

tornado.flac is not binaural, it's just 5.1 downmixed to stereo using psychoacoustics "tricks".

you can download the ultrasone CD here on the forum, there's no copyright.
post #55 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
well, please don't take it bad...but your soundcard and amp don't exactly seem to be high end...to get a good headstage, you need a good source and pretty high end phones. and your berhinger amp is prolly a huge bottleneck.
The best soundstage I ever heard from a head/ear-phone was using $19 earbuds and onboard sound on a cheap Dell computer. No amp. It was the Sensaura 3D-sound demo. It only sounded 3D with one particular ear profile. The other profiles sounded totally crap.

I think your custom matrix happens to match your HRTF, like that one Sensaura profile happened to match mine. So don't be too surprised if it doesn't work as well for others. Just depends on how similar their HRTF is to yours.
post #56 of 60
there's no HRTF involved whatsoever in my FLAC downmix, but crappy opamps can kill the Z SS IME.

and I'm not impressed by the DH/Sensaura stuff tbh...way too hollow and reverbed to my taste.

talking about "best" SS on $19 headphones + onboard chip....leaves me dubious
post #57 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by froasier View Post
Nevertheless, I had downloaded that file from when you posted it earlier and just got a chance to listen to it now. It's actually 7:39 in length, and isn't the most impressive on my Ultrasones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
well, please don't take it bad...but your soundcard and amp don't exactly seem to be high end...to get a good headstage, you need a good source and pretty high end phones. and your berhinger amp is prolly a huge bottleneck.
I just listened to thunder.mp3 again, with the same setup (not even using the Behringer), and this time it sounded awesome through the Ultrasones. With tornado.flac, I could hear each distinct sound effect as it was sampled or recorded in the foley pit, and the separate acoustics of the room the voices were recorded in, all positioned as well spatially as they would be with a good 5.1 system (other than forward localization). I'm pretty sure I can even hear an improvement in my DAW when switching from 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz right now and the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps mp3 files is quite obvious.

I think the lesson learned here is that there are many varying factors that contribute to each listening experience, and most of them don't reside in your gear.
post #58 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by froasier View Post
I just listened to thunder.mp3 again [..] and this time it sounded awesome
so what did you change? got high?
Quote:
Originally Posted by froasier View Post
With tornado.flac, I could hear each distinct sound effect as it was sampled or recorded in the foley pit, and the separate acoustics of the room the voices were recorded in, all positioned as well spatially as they would be with a good 5.1 system (other than forward localization).
you would get a sense of "forward localization" w/ angled drivers
post #59 of 60
If you're trying to understand s-logic, use it to watch movies or play games with spatial sounds, much easier than in music. I think Belinda Carlisle songs demonstrate s-logic pretty well though, her voice sounds better hitting your outer ear rather than eardrum.
post #60 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
so what did you change? got high?
Haha let's see... ambient noise, ear fatigue, perhaps the position of the phones on my head (plus I got a haircut).

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
you would get a sense of "forward localization" w/ angled drivers
I meant it wasn't as forward as with speakers. But I can't say it wouldn't be better with a good pair of angled-driver phones (as I haven't tried them).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Plain vs. angled drivers