IMO, and limited experience, dollar for dollar, headphones provide a better overall listening experience than speakers.  My $220 modest HD 598 / Fiio E10K set up does so many things so much better than my $2000 Polk RT1000P / Outlaw Audio set up.  The only thing the room setup does better is lower bass extension and more bass impact.  Headphone setup kills it in terms of detail, clarity, resolution, treble smoothness, and even soundstage and imaging.

lazylistener said:

  IMO, and limited experience, dollar for dollar, headphones provide a better overall listening experience than speakers.  My $220 modest HD 598 / Fiio E10K set up does so many things so much better than my $2000 Polk RT1000P / Outlaw Audio set up.  The only thing the room setup does better is lower bass extension and more bass impact.  Headphone setup kills it in terms of detail, clarity, resolution, treble smoothness, and even soundstage and imaging.

Click to expand...

We could have different opinions on soundstage and imaging. Headphones will never be able to replicate what a good speaker setup can do. I've listened to a lof of high end headphone setups, though they do provide enjoyment and musicality, the soundstage can never be out of your head and holographic. Imaging just is as good as headphones can be as well because headphones do not have a natural crossfade  like you're listening to a pair of speakers. You get auditory cues on where the instruments are, but you can't 'see' where they are in the space in front of you.

We can argue there are albums mastered for headphones/IEMs like the Chesky Records' that provides great imaging and soundstaging, but then we're going into the realms of "Best Case Scenario". Even then, they are only attempts to simulate a pair of good loudspeaker setup in a treated room without the actual thing. SPL also has the Phonitor series amplifier that has crossfade settings allowing your headphones to emulate the sound of speakers, but then again they are emulations at best. And if we intend to get those kinds of sounds then speakers will be a better choice.
 
Different horses for different courses.

@penmarker
 
Fair enough.  I can see that.  But dollar for dollar?  What $220 speaker/amp setup can do that better than my 598/E10K?  My Polk/Outlaw Audio room setup never did soundstage and imaging particularly well.  With my 598s, I hear more precise positioning when it exists in the recording and can really nail down even subtle movements side to side.  The room is more challenging.  The sounds kind of all just melt together.  I can hear C, L, R, but not so much subtle in-between movement and precising positioning like I can with 598.  Sure the sounstage is bigger with the room setup but the imaging is not as precise. I've positioned speakers best I could but it's not the same level as the 598.
 
I'm just saying I think you have to spend a lot more money with speakers than with headphones before the speakers start doing most things better than the headphones.  Dollar for dollar, headphones rule supreme, IMO and limited experience.

 
even through youtube this soudns amazing? holy crap imagine in real life. 
 
I wish i had enough money for this and the roof. 

lazylistener said:

 
I'm just saying I think you have to spend a lot more money with speakers than with headphones before the speakers start doing most things better than the headphones.  Dollar for dollar, headphones rule supreme, IMO and limited experience.

Click to expand...

 
That all depends on how you define "better" and that's the problem with any discussion of headphones vs speakers. With headphones we have an artificially wide and close stereo image, the over presentation of some details and the under presentation of others, is this actually "better" or just more enjoyable? If by "better" we mean more accurate and closer to the intentions of those who created the recording, then probably not. If we mean more enjoyable, then obviously that's a matter of personal taste. The difficulty in such discussions (and indeed many audiophile discussions) is that many confuse "more enjoyable" with "better".
 

aertus said:

 
even through youtube this soudns amazing? holy crap imagine in real life.

Click to expand...

 
Really? The bass resonance is woolly/poorly defined, the early reflections/echoes make the vocal sound like they're in a large toilet and apart from the reflections, the whole thing sounds mono. Without access to the recording for comparison, there's no way of knowing if these problems are the fault of the recording itself or of the system/room trying to reproduce it but either way, it doesn't sound amazing to me.
 
G

Talk about a 180. I previously said that I preferred the more intimate presentation of headphones. Well, that has changed. Ever since getting JBL LSR305 active studio monitor speakers (now with Samson MS200 stands), I've pretty much lost interest in headphones. Even without doing any room treatments or EQ yet, these sound many times more realistic than any headphone I've heard. (I've owned/heard multiple five figures worth of headphones and other gear.) It often sounds like the instruments are in the room with me. I don't think headphones have more detail; they just make some details more apparent by putting everything right next to your ears. But that's not how the original performance was. Speakers reproduce far more depth and subtlety than headphones ever could. I'm hearing countless details on these speakers that I never noticed before on headphones. I only spent $250 on these and I think they are superior to headphones in every way regardless of price. Can't wait to upgrade to a serious speaker system!

gregorio said:

   
That all depends on how you define "better" and that's the problem with any discussion of headphones vs speakers. With headphones we have an artificially wide and close stereo image, the over presentation of some details and the under presentation of others, is this actually "better" or just more enjoyable? If by "better" we mean more accurate and closer to the intentions of those who created the recording, then probably not. If we mean more enjoyable, then obviously that's a matter of personal taste. The difficulty in such discussions (and indeed many audiophile discussions) is that many confuse "more enjoyable" with "better".
 
 
Really? The bass resonance is woolly/poorly defined, the early reflections/echoes make the vocal sound like they're in a large toilet and apart from the reflections, the whole thing sounds mono. Without access to the recording for comparison, there's no way of knowing if these problems are the fault of the recording itself or of the system/room trying to reproduce it but either way, it doesn't sound amazing to me.
 
G

Click to expand...

no way to really tell very limited by microphone and speaker you're using and the youtube compression im sure its sounds awesome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sRR7XqTed8

aertus said:

  no way to really tell very limited by microphone and speaker you're using and the youtube compression im sure its sounds awesome.

Click to expand...

 
Sorry, I don't understand. If there is "no way to really tell", how can you be "sure"?
 
G

gregorio said:

   
That all depends on how you define "better" and that's the problem with any discussion of headphones vs speakers. With headphones we have an artificially wide and close stereo image, the over presentation of some details and the under presentation of others, is this actually "better" or just more enjoyable? If by "better" we mean more accurate and closer to the intentions of those who created the recording, then probably not. If we mean more enjoyable, then obviously that's a matter of personal taste. The difficulty in such discussions (and indeed many audiophile discussions) is that many confuse "more enjoyable" with "better".
 
 
  G

Click to expand...

Well, I defined some aspects of my personal version of "better" in my previous posts here, but you're really good at ignoring the complete context of people's posts and prefer to cherry-pick only specific points that you want argue about.  Since I'm able to hear more details and vocal intelligibility through my headphones, than my speaker setup, that is obviously, better, no?  My headphones providing greater instrument separation than my speakers is obviously better, no?  Sure, "better" will vary by individual, but I'm only speaking for myself here.  And yes, music listening is about enjoyment ultimately.  So if product A brings me more enjoyment than product B, then it's better, end of story.  It's not a matter of confusing "more enjoyable" with "better" as both terms are purely subjective and generally go hand in hand.  Now, please don't go off about how "better" is subjective and what I may think is better, someone else may think is worse.  When I made my posts, I was talking about just my experience with my 598s and my much more expensive speaker setup.  Oh, and how exactly can we measure how close a headphone or speaker setup is to the creator's intentions?  For nearly all consumer listeners, their definition of "better" has to do with comparing consumer product A to consumer product B, NOT comparing the creator's intention to any consumer products, since they weren't in the recording/mixing studio with the creator to know what that reference baseline sounds like in the first place.

music alchemist said:

  Talk about a 180. I previously said that I preferred the more intimate presentation of headphones. Well, that has changed. Ever since getting JBL LSR305 active studio monitor speakers (now with Samson MS200 stands), I've pretty much lost interest in headphones. Even without doing any room treatments or EQ yet, these sound many times more realistic than any headphone I've heard. (I've owned/heard multiple five figures worth of headphones and other gear.) It often sounds like the instruments are in the room with me. I don't think headphones have more detail; they just make some details more apparent by putting everything right next to your ears. But that's not how the original performance was. Speakers reproduce far more depth and subtlety than headphones ever could. I'm hearing countless details on these speakers that I never noticed before on headphones. I only spent $250 on these and I think they are superior to headphones in every way regardless of price. Can't wait to upgrade to a serious speaker system!

Click to expand...

Define more realistic.
 
Well, if "putting everything right next to your ears" allows you to hear more details, then so be it - headphones win because they allow you to hear more detail.  But it's not that simple.  Depends on the headphones and the speakers.  Some are more detailed than others.
 
I personally hear more depth and easier for me to discern distance of sounds played and how layered sounds are with my 598s than with my speaker setup.  Maybe if I heard the JBLs, my thinking would change.  The huge advantage headphones have over speakers is that the headphone engineers are able to account for headphone chamber acoustics, whereas with speakers, the acoustics of the room will change the sound a lot, and engineers cannot account for the room in which their speakers will be used.  Then you have a lot more money and investment of your own to compensate for your room acoustics.

lazylistener said:

  [1] Well, I defined some aspects of my personal version of "better" in my previous posts here, but you're really good at ignoring the complete context of people's posts and prefer to cherry-pick only specific points that you want argue about. 
[2] Since I'm able to hear more details and vocal intelligibility through my headphones, than my speaker setup, that is obviously, better, no?
[3] My headphones providing greater instrument separation than my speakers is obviously better, no? 
[4] So if product A brings me more enjoyment than product B, then it's better, end of story.

Click to expand...

 
1. In a thread about headphones vs speakers, "better" is not cherry-picking, it's pretty much the central point!
2. No, it's not necessarily better and it's certainly not "obviously" better! It's likely that the creator of a recording, expects you to hear a certain amount of detail, not very significantly more or less. For example, backing vocals are often intended to have less detail and "intelligibility" and be perceived as just a quiet background wash of sound. Being able to hear those unintended details makes it worse, not better but of course it wouldn't appear that way to you if you personally enjoy hearing those unintended details. Additionally, there are of course other areas where you are not hearing more details because headphones are incapable of producing them.
3. Again, NO! If I have say a violin section in the music, I might want it to sound like a violin section rather than be separated out into say a dozen individual violinists. Or, I might want a drum kit to sound like a drum kit played by a drummer rather than a bunch of musicians individually playing a snare drum, kick drum, hi-hats, etc. Just as with the previous point, we certainly want a significant amount of separation (and detail) but not too much. As with other areas of audio reproduction, such as amount of bass for example, there maybe some or many who prefer "too much" but that doesn't make it "obviously better", except to them.
4. If for example you liked Big Macs more than cordon bleu meals, would you therefore say that MacDonals is better than Michelin starred restaurants, end of story? You might say that you liked MacDonalds better but not that MacDonalds is better, unless you actually wanted to shock or appear ignorant of course.
 
Personally, I enjoy listening to speakers and headphones, although I generally prefer a very good speaker setup to even the highest end headphones. This is logical if you think about it, as the vast majority of audio recordings are actually designed on speakers for speakers, rather than for headphones.
 
G

lazylistener said:

  Define more realistic.
 
Well, if "putting everything right next to your ears" allows you to hear more details, then so be it - headphones win because they allow you to hear more detail.  But it's not that simple.  Depends on the headphones and the speakers.  Some are more detailed than others.
 
I personally hear more depth and easier for me to discern distance of sounds played and how layered sounds are with my 598s than with my speaker setup.  Maybe if I heard the JBLs, my thinking would change.  The huge advantage headphones have over speakers is that the headphone engineers are able to account for headphone chamber acoustics, whereas with speakers, the acoustics of the room will change the sound a lot, and engineers cannot account for the room in which their speakers will be used.  Then you have a lot more money and investment of your own to compensate for your room acoustics.

Click to expand...

 
Like I mentioned: sounding like I'm listening to the actual instruments, plus having them in the room with me in this case. I never got that feeling with headphones, no matter how expensive. (Though obviously some sound a lot more realistic than others. Oh, and the curious can read through my profile to see stuff I've owned/heard.)
 
Yes, room acoustics is a crucial factor. It's possible that the way your speakers are set up is sabotaging their potential, though it's hard to say without having an expert look at things. When I got the speaker stands yesterday, I noticed how much the sound fluctuated depending on the distance, angle, height, etc. But these particular speakers are designed to sound good in any room. If I had gotten floorstanding speakers instead of nearfield monitors, I'd bet they'd sound awful in this room.
 
I've never heard any type of depth from headphones. All the sounds come from right next to your ears, after all. But if your room isn't suitable for your speakers, it's easy for headphones to beat them.

music alchemist said:

  [1] Yes, room acoustics is a crucial factor.
[2] It's possible that the way your speakers are set up is sabotaging their potential, though it's hard to say without having an expert look at things.
[3] But these particular speakers are designed to sound good in any room.

Click to expand...

 
1. Yes, absolutely crucial but for two reasons, not just one: Firstly, yes, speaker performance is defined by the room acoustics. Typically, a $1,000 set of speakers in a well treated room will out perform a $20,000+ set of speakers in an untreated room. Secondly, commercial recording/mastering studios are NOT designed to be dead (anechoic), they do typically use some absorption to reduce room reflections but they usually employ at least a fair amount of diffusion. Diffusion randomises room reflections rather than removing them, which stops the reflections from interacting and changing the perceived frequency response. This too is a crucial factor because music is mixed and mastered in these rooms (with their neutral room reverb/acoustics). In other words, the music has been designed to be listened to in a room (with room acoustics). Listening to music on headphones obviously largely eliminates room acoustics, the music therefore sounds much drier (less reverb) than intended. The result of effectively less reverb is that the music sounds more "in your head", more separated and more detailed than was intended. Some people like that, others prefer accuracy (to hear what the artists intended).
 
2. I would say that's certain rather than "possible". It's not a question of "if" the setup/room acoustics are "sabotaging" speaker performance, it's a question of "how much". Typical rooms in houses are roughly cuboid shaped which is unfortunately the absolute worst possible shape acoustically.
 
3. That's simply impossible. I'm not knocking your 305's, I've used them myself and IMHO they're about the best you can buy in their price range. There's a bit of a misconception that Nearfield monitors solve room acoustics issues, this is not true. They can significantly reduce some issues but they can also cause others; typically they're placed on a desk, which acts as a very close, big reflective surface and that's very bad acoustically.
 
 -----------------------------------------
 
There are a few photos/videos in this thread of systems which some members seem to be impressed by. I'm not impressed, quite the opposite in fact, to me they appear ridiculous. They look like the audio equivalent of someone who's just stuck a new V12 Ferrari engine into a Ford Fiesta. It might give you great "bragging rights", sound awesome and out perform a unmodified Fiesta but it won't perform anywhere near an actual supercar, it won't even perform as well as a relatively cheap stock sports saloon! Those audio systems are designed by people (and for people) whose passion is audio equipment, not those whose passion is audio performance. IE. It's for audio-equipment-philes rather than audiophiles! Here's a photo which illustrates my point above (about diffusion) and is a real audiophile "supercar". Notice that it's not about massive speakers, it's about very high quality, appropriately sized speakers and the effort put into the acoustic treatment:
 

 
G

lazylistener said:

 

gregorio said:

   
That all depends on how you define "better" and that's the problem with any discussion of headphones vs speakers. With headphones we have an artificially wide and close stereo image, the over presentation of some details and the under presentation of others, is this actually "better" or just more enjoyable? If by "better" we mean more accurate and closer to the intentions of those who created the recording, then probably not. If we mean more enjoyable, then obviously that's a matter of personal taste. The difficulty in such discussions (and indeed many audiophile discussions) is that many confuse "more enjoyable" with "better".
 
 
  G

Click to expand...

Well, I defined some aspects of my personal version of "better" in my previous posts here, but you're really good at ignoring the complete context of people's posts and prefer to cherry-pick only specific points that you want argue about.  Since I'm able to hear more details and vocal intelligibility through my headphones, than my speaker setup, that is obviously, better, no?  My headphones providing greater instrument separation than my speakers is obviously better, no?  Sure, "better" will vary by individual, but I'm only speaking for myself here.  And yes, music listening is about enjoyment ultimately.  So if product A brings me more enjoyment than product B, then it's better, end of story.  It's not a matter of confusing "more enjoyable" with "better" as both terms are purely subjective and generally go hand in hand.  Now, please don't go off about how "better" is subjective and what I may think is better, someone else may think is worse.  When I made my posts, I was talking about just my experience with my 598s and my much more expensive speaker setup.  Oh, and how exactly can we measure how close a headphone or speaker setup is to the creator's intentions?  For nearly all consumer listeners, their definition of "better" has to do with comparing consumer product A to consumer product B, NOT comparing the creator's intention to any consumer products, since they weren't in the recording/mixing studio with the creator to know what that reference baseline sounds like in the first place.

Click to expand...

but then again it's not the first time you have to explain this. maybe if you were less confusing by clearly expressing when your judgment is you personal taste, it would be clear for everybody.
you will always face people like Greg or myself who assume quantification based on objective variables. calling something better and saying I prefer it, to you it's often the same, to us it isn't.
 
 
about measurements, it's really hard, but there is a simple starting point. the album was most likely mastered on speakers, that alone means the stereo on headphones will be a mess compared to the original. 30degrees source isn't 90degrees source, and each channel reaching both ears isn't what headphones do(well there is some leakage into the other ear but way quieter and it depends on the headphone). of course there is the body feeling low freqs of real life sounds and speakers. so it's really not hard to assume that speakers can come closer to the sound heard on speakers while the mastering was done. as for the signature it's also way easier to know that we're closer to the right one because we can aim at electrically flat for speakers. for headphones if we wish to do it right we'd first need to establish the listener's own HRTF.
speakers tend to have higher distortions and maybe if everything was done for the headphone from start to finish in the recording/playback process then we could indeed come closer to the original with a pair of headphone(in fact I do believe in this). but that implies many steps that are not taken on almost all recordings, and several steps that the consumer also will not apply. so aside from personal taste, I can't see how headphones could possibly win under actual circumstances. I wasted a lot of time and efforts into trying to get something fine for headphones, even making my very own sort of crossfeed with mid and side channels and a different convolution for both to better fit my own head in delays and signature. but it's far from perfect and my brains knows better than to be completely fooled(still better than default headphone stereo though). so even subjectively I give my vote to speakers measured and a not too horrible room (not one that would sound like I'm in the toilet).

gregorio said:

  1. Yes, absolutely crucial but for two reasons, not just one: Firstly, yes, speaker performance is defined by the room acoustics. Typically, a $1,000 set of speakers in a well treated room will out perform a $20,000+ set of speakers in an untreated room. Secondly, commercial recording/mastering studios are NOT designed to be dead (anechoic), they do typically use some absorption to reduce room reflections but they usually employ at least a fair amount of diffusion. Diffusion randomises room reflections rather than removing them, which stops the reflections from interacting and changing the perceived frequency response. This too is a crucial factor because music is mixed and mastered in these rooms (with their neutral room reverb/acoustics). In other words, the music has been designed to be listened to in a room (with room acoustics). Listening to music on headphones obviously largely eliminates room acoustics, the music therefore sounds much drier (less reverb) than intended. The result of effectively less reverb is that the music sounds more "in your head", more separated and more detailed than was intended. Some people like that, others prefer accuracy (to hear what the artists intended).
 
2. I would say that's certain rather than "possible". It's not a question of "if" the setup/room acoustics are "sabotaging" speaker performance, it's a question of "how much". Typical rooms in houses are roughly cuboid shaped which is unfortunately the absolute worst possible shape acoustically.
 
3. That's simply impossible. I'm not knocking your 305's, I've used them myself and IMHO they're about the best you can buy in their price range. There's a bit of a misconception that Nearfield monitors solve room acoustics issues, this is not true. They can significantly reduce some issues but they can also cause others; typically they're placed on a desk, which acts as a very close, big reflective surface and that's very bad acoustically.
 
 -----------------------------------------
 
There are a few photos/videos in this thread of systems which some members seem to be impressed by. I'm not impressed, quite the opposite in fact, to me they appear ridiculous. They look like the audio equivalent of someone who's just stuck a new V12 Ferrari engine into a Ford Fiesta. It might give you great "bragging rights", sound awesome and out perform a unmodified Fiesta but it won't perform anywhere near an actual supercar, it won't even perform as well as a relatively cheap stock sports saloon! Those audio systems are designed by people (and for people) whose passion is audio equipment, not those whose passion is audio performance. IE. It's for audio-equipment-philes rather than audiophiles! Here's a photo which illustrates my point above (about diffusion) and is a real audiophile "supercar". Notice that it's not about massive speakers, it's about very high quality, appropriately sized speakers and the effort put into the acoustic treatment:
 
G

Click to expand...

 
Thanks for all the detailed info.
 
When I said sabotage, I meant ruin, so that would be in the "very much" category.
 
I never said room acoustics is no longer a factor. But these do already sound good in my bedroom without doing any room treatments or EQ yet. Sounding good and sounding as good as possible are two different things. They do certainly sound a lot better placed on speaker stands than on a table or desk.
 
That pic looks amazing. I wonder how much all that cost.