Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › how is spacial imaging increased for iems?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

how is spacial imaging increased for iems? - Page 3

post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamijoIsMyHero View Post
 

I also thought that to be the case as well but if you compare 4R/W40 against the UM3X/PR030

 

 

 

The frequency response is quite similar but with the 4R exhibiting even more boosted bass-mid region. By your conclusion, the vocals should be even more boosted but many people say the vocals sound wide apart and far less up front on the 4R and the UM3X has vocals quite close together and up front....

 

The blue line is 'flatter' than the red line up to 1khz.  I believe 'flatness' in this region followed by a dip brings out the vocals.

post #32 of 51

Uh, take a look at the scale on the left hand side there. The difference is no more than 2dB. That may be audible, but it isn't enough to make a huge difference. People make up descriptions of headphones. You just have to get used to that.

 

Also, "flatter" is relative. Most of the rest of the response curve is boosted by about 2dB too. That makes it pretty much the same when it comes to frequency response, just a little louder.


Edited by bigshot - 3/6/14 at 10:21pm
post #33 of 51

I beg to differ...its broadband 2db, easily audible.  I'd take into account the surface area of the difference.  Its enough to change subjective experiences to a very noticeable degree.  Now you assume way too much.  I am very good with EQ thankyou.


Edited by SP Wild - 3/6/14 at 11:36pm
post #34 of 51

Wide swaths of boost becomes just an increase in volume across a large area. 2 dB is very small. Even two copies of the same brand and model headphone might have that much deviation.

post #35 of 51

Yeah but the graph also indicated a very noticeable difference in the very critical upper midrange/lower treble...just these two factors alone will make a big difference in the subjective assessment between the headphones on that graph.  Changing treble affects bass and midrange perception, like wise changing bass affects the midrange and treble perceptions.

post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

It's easy to see how narrow notches or peaks in the frequency response affect positioning.

 

Try adding peaks or valleys at ~1500 Hz, ~4000 Hz, ~500 Hz and hear the 'soundstage' changing right before your ears.

I am limited to Foobars stock EQ, I boosted at the closes freq possible. Firstly, decreasing them, didn't do much in terms of vocals, maybe just a slightly different sound.

 

1.5kHz (1.2kHz)  this made the vocals sound different, hollow sounding but also craps on the rest of the instruments making them unnatural

 

4kHz (3.5kHz) sounds like an added artifacts, very distracting

 

0.5kHz (0.44kHz) every thing sounds like a winded tunnel

 

(1.2kHz + 3.5 kHz)  slightly hollows the vocal and make the treble sparkly

 

(0.44kHz + 1.2kHz) this makes everything unlistenable

 

(0.44kHz + 3.5 kHz)  slightly more listenable but its too obvious sounding EQed

 

I don't think positioning changed to the listenable ones at least. I only did quickly though.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferday View Post
 

THE ONLY THING a transducer can do is move air.  it can't do anything else, it can't move stuff around, it can't decide what to do with spatial cues, it can't place a sound into a certain spot, or even pick the amplitude of a particular frequency to play.  all of that information is encoded into the music.  

 

If the natural FR response of said transducer is heightened upper midrange/lower treble, it is more likely to accentuate vocals but i wouldn't call it a rule by any stretch (graphs are graphs, ears are ears).  The tilt of the above graphs is pretty different which will give a different sound than just the peaks/valleys.

Acoustic transducers yes

post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Uh, take a look at the scale on the left hand side there. The difference is no more than 2dB. That may be audible, but it isn't enough to make a huge difference. People make up descriptions of headphones. You just have to get used to that.

 

Also, "flatter" is relative. Most of the rest of the response curve is boosted by about 2dB too. That makes it pretty much the same when it comes to frequency response, just a little louder.

Have you tried any of the newer IEMs though. My auditioning of the Westone line is illuminating as I get to hear the differences from the lowest model to their highest ones, pre 50/60s models. Even though people make up descriptions, it is hard to argue with the observations when there is many of them and are similarly trying to convey the same thing but without a standardized way of descriptions instilled unto reviews/impressions, of course it would just seem nonsense.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

 

The blue line is 'flatter' than the red line up to 1khz.  I believe 'flatness' in this region followed by a dip brings out the vocals.

I kind of agree but I think it has a lot to do with the tuning of the rest of the frequencies as well. My test earlier had me trying out 1.2kHz and 1.8kHz boosts, I honestly didn't like any of them and preferred them decreased but that affected the rest of the treble as well.

post #38 of 51

I've been experimenting with altering and improving sound stage with my 5:1 speaker setup. I've figured out some pretty useful tricks, but none of them would apply to headphones or IEMs. I have a really good set of cans that I am auditioning right now and they're the best I've ever heard, but there's no way they'll ever come close to the three dimensional depth I get with speakers.

post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamijoIsMyHero View Post
 

I am limited to Foobars stock EQ, I boosted at the closes freq possible. Firstly, decreasing them, didn't do much in terms of vocals, maybe just a slightly different sound.

 

1.5kHz (1.2kHz)  this made the vocals sound different, hollow sounding but also craps on the rest of the instruments making them unnatural

 

4kHz (3.5kHz) sounds like an added artifacts, very distracting

 

0.5kHz (0.44kHz) every thing sounds like a winded tunnel

 

(1.2kHz + 3.5 kHz)  slightly hollows the vocal and make the treble sparkly

 

(0.44kHz + 1.2kHz) this makes everything unlistenable

 

(0.44kHz + 3.5 kHz)  slightly more listenable but its too obvious sounding EQed

 

I don't think positioning changed to the listenable ones at least. I only did quickly though.

You need a parametric EQ - graphical EQ bandwidth is too wide and the centre frequencies aren't in the right place. Also, the specific frequencies depend on the shape of your ear so you'll need to experiment a bit, with boosting and cutting.

 

You'd be surprised ad how much real sounds are 'distorted' depending on just the direction the sound comes from: http://www.springerimages.com/Images/RSS/1-10.1007_b13253_7-0

 

Despite this, these sounds still seem 'normal'.


Edited by higbvuyb - 3/7/14 at 5:31pm
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

I've been experimenting with altering and improving sound stage with my 5:1 speaker setup. I've figured out some pretty useful tricks, but none of them would apply to headphones or IEMs. I have a really good set of cans that I am auditioning right now and they're the best I've ever heard, but there's no way they'll ever come close to the three dimensional depth I get with speakers.

 

Agreed.  Headphones do not and cannot stage and image like speakers without employing DSP over conventional 2 channel recordings.  Any perceived 'speaker-like' staging claimed by 'brand name whores' is not at all like real-life staging, let alone speaker like.  Any attempts at this failed solution has always resulted in an untrue representation of 'neutral'.

 

Having said that.  Speakers can never compete with headphones with true-to-life staging, once the appropriate technologies are employed in the recording process.

 

http://lenardaudio.com/education/10_mics_2.html

post #41 of 51

5:1 and 7:1 square the ability to create dimensional sound far beyond 2 channel. The difference between even the best two channel and 5:1 is huge. If ceilings in living rooms were higher, they could probably raise the vertical axis and square it again.


Edited by bigshot - 3/8/14 at 10:55am
post #42 of 51

Gets kinda expensive though and in today's socio-economic environment?

 

You just need to check out those haircut binaural recordings. 

 

There has always been more potential with headphones. 

 

The kids are already cyborgs...the inevitable has already happened.

 

Scary no?

post #43 of 51

5:1 isn't expensive. Speakers are expensive. But you can EQ even midrange speakers into doing things you wouldn't think they were capable of.

 

I've heard those haircut binaural recordings. Like I said, I am auditioning some first class headphones right now, and that is the first thing I checked. The problem is that while the effect makes the hair on your neck stand up, my brain (and perhaps it is only my brain that does this) keeps switching back and forth between the clippers being in front of me and being behind me. I never lock onto them. Especially as they pan left and right. Binaural music sounds good. But there isn't much recorded in true binaural.

 

I've heard really good binaural on really good headphones, and I've heard really good 5:1 on really good speakers. 5:1 wins hands down for music. Also, it gives you a lot more flexibility with DSP than simple cross feed. Even stereo sounds better in 5:1. On my AV receiver, I have a DSP that translates normal 2 channel soundstage into a wider surround stage. And it doesn't alter the perspective of the sound from the mains. I listen to everything that way now, and when friends come over, I hit the bypass button to show them the difference. Their jaws hit the floor when they hear how much a DSP can improve 2 channel.

 

When I put on a really good orchestral recording, the spread in front of me is exactly scaled to about 15th row center in a concert hall. The ambience around me replicates the rest of the hall acoustics perfectly. I can shut my eyes and point to the location of each instrument in space, exactly as if I was at a concert hall. It's not just a parlor trick. It's the way orchestral music is intended to be presented. It's the same with acoustic jazz too. Everything sounds better in 5:1.


Edited by bigshot - 3/8/14 at 4:58pm
post #44 of 51

I do agree with you in all aspects of what you say, the haircut recordings and others seem to image great behind my head...but not so great in front.  But the potential is obviously there to perfect upon.

 

I really enjoyed the flexibility of my 5.1 system.  I was never able to set my speakers up and have a good seat right in the middle in the little space I had, but the amazingly inexpensive Yammie receiver I had was able to alter the delay of left and right channels, not just the balance...I got 'perfect' stage like imaging using the internal DSP...something I could never do with two channel in that environment.

 

Edit:  I don't think headphones are the future either...I think IEMS will be where it's at later on, then, whatever crazy technology they conjure up.


Edited by SP Wild - 3/8/14 at 8:20pm
post #45 of 51

There are several hurdles for getting good 5:1 sound. First and foremost is achieving a flat frequency response. Most home theater type installations are goosed for dialogue and low end booms in explosions. All that needs to be rebalanced for music. Second, you need to balance the relative volumes of the six channels so it creates a coherent sound stage left to right and front to back. A sound needs to be able to move through the room without changing volume or timbre. When you get that right, you've probably messed up the frequency response, so back to one.

 

Getting it all to work is a delicate balancing act of speaker placement, room acoustics and settings. But once you find the sweet spot, just about every recording you play sounds much better.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › how is spacial imaging increased for iems?