[eggontoast]

I have been into my Hi-Fi for many years now but have never really been into headphone setups until recently. I always liked to ‘feel’ the music as well as hear it however, due to a recent arrival I downsized my speakers and started to invest in headphones. I now realise that I have been missing out, headphones offer a level of detail that I never experienced with my speaker set ups.
 
This is great but it has highlighted to me that there are a large number of recordings that are extremely poor. I went to great lengths to rip my CD library in FLAC format without errors but listening via headphones reveals every poorly EQ’ed track or any distortion or flaws which are present. My setup is not particularly high end so surely as you climb up the high end ladder these flaws must only get exaggerated even more and ruin the listening experience. Don’t get me wrong there are a large number of recordings that sound fantastic but also a significant proportion that suck….does anyone else notice this ?

 

[Deep Funk]

Get used to it, some recordings were not made to high standards and some headphones high light that...
 
Sometimes a more forgiving set up works although in my own collection I have found one album that has so many corrections that allow you to hear cuts in the recording I am not playing that album any more. When I listened to that album, I thought: "how hard is it to make the music flow, to record it well in one session/take? Even the seventies bands knew how to do it somehow." It was a post 2000 album.   

 

[eggontoast]

 
Quote:

Get used to it, some recordings were not made to high standards and some headphones high light that...
 
Sometimes a more forgiving set up works although in my own collection I have found one album that has so many corrections that allow you to hear cuts in the recording I am not playing that album any more. When I listened to that album, I thought: "how hard is it to make the music flow, to record it well in one session/take? Even the seventies bands knew how to do it somehow." It was a post 2000 album.   

 
It is funny you should mention that most of the older music is pretty well recorded but some new/current stuff is appalling. Not sure what they do to it I think its EQ'ed to sound good on the radio.
 

 

[xnor]

No, the problem is dynamic range compression. But the way it's applied nowadays it should be called dynamics killer. 
This and deaf engineers, which don't notice clipping or high frequency noise or ...
 
Combine that with bright headphones*, you shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't sound 'nice'.
 

*) headphones are already more detailed than most speakers, unnaturally boosted treble to get more details is an improvement for the worse, imo

 

[Argyris]

Quote:

No, the problem is dynamic range compression. But the way it's applied nowadays it should be called dynamics killer. 
This and deaf engineers, which don't notice clipping or high frequency noise or ...
 
Combine that with bright headphones, you shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't sound 'nice'.

+1, especially the bright headphones part. Modern day engineers should be forced to listen to their mixes on something like a DT990 or SA5000 and should then be denied aspirin for the splitting headache they'll be receiving about three minutes after they start listening. Then they might straighten out and mix things properly.

 

[Deep Funk]

Try a Sony MDR V6, prepare for shock therapy. These days the gentle K240 DF does that job...

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Then they might straighten out and mix things properly.

 
If it sounds ok on flat studio monitors, hi-fi speakers, consumer setups etc. but the headphones give you a headache due to boosted or peak-y treble, then the logical conclusion is that the headphones don't reproduce the recording properly. 

 
But I know what you mean, some recordings are so fudged up, they even sound bright on dark headphones.

 

[darknessproz]

BUT do they sound ok on flat studio monitors, hi-fi speakers, consumer setups etc? 

 
Quote:

Quote:

Then they might straighten out and mix things properly.

 
If it sounds ok on flat studio monitors, hi-fi speakers, consumer setups etc. but the headphones give you a headache due to boosted or peak-y treble, then the logical conclusion is that the headphones don't reproduce the recording properly. 

 
But I know what you mean, some recordings are so fudged up, they even sound bright on dark headphones.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

BUT do they sound ok on flat studio monitors, hi-fi speakers, consumer setups etc? 

Some do, some don't. But generally I think that many cans are too bright/detailed/sparkly.

 

[eggontoast]

I think that it is just less noticeable whereas through cans some recordings become unpleasant to listen to....just my point of view
 
Quote:

BUT do they sound ok on flat studio monitors, hi-fi speakers, consumer setups etc? 

 
Quote:

Quote:

Then they might straighten out and mix things properly.

 
If it sounds ok on flat studio monitors, hi-fi speakers, consumer setups etc. but the headphones give you a headache due to boosted or peak-y treble, then the logical conclusion is that the headphones don't reproduce the recording properly. 

 
But I know what you mean, some recordings are so fudged up, they even sound bright on dark headphones.

 

 

 

 

[ProjectDenz]

Most consumers are proud crApple bud owners and wouldn't tell the difference anyways even if it were for the worse, so these engineers might not care because of that. Probably a stupid argument to make.

 

[Argyris]

I think a lot of older recordings sound better than the newer ones. I'm not sure if it's because the target market has changed--back then it was people with good stereos, whereas now it's people with people with Mega XXXXXtraBass Xtreme mini systems--or, as has been suggested, it's an effort to make music sound better on the radio, but a lot of modern pop/rock recordings are excessively trebly. I don't imagine they sound "right" on good stereo equipment, either--I have decent kit and some of those recordings, while not unlistenable, aren't exactly paragons of the art of mixing. Maybe they sound tolerable on a boombox or average car stereo, and of course the first thing most people notice about sound is the crispness and quantity of bass, so I can see the rationale behind it.
 
However, most people really don't care what it sounds like, anyway, and they'll listen to it on their iBuds and be happy. I guess somebody had to be the first one to release a hot, overly-compressed (read: LOUD!) production job, and everybody else has followed suit, lest their albums sound dull and quiet in comparison. Of course on decent equipment it doesn't sound dull or quiet, but let's face it: Hi-Fi isn't the status symbol or pass time it once was. HDTV and home theater have taken its place, and most people do their listening through awful-sounding equipment that wouldn't let a good recording shine.

 

[eggontoast]

 
Quote:

Most consumers are proud crApple bud owners and wouldn't tell the difference anyways even if it were for the worse, so these engineers might not care because of that. Probably a stupid argument to make.

 
Just going slightly off topic but amusing, I was having a discussion with a work colleague the other day about headphones (he wanted some cheapish replacement buds for his iPod) when another worker chimed in a said he had just brought some replacements for his iPod for £50. I asked him what they were he said "Apple ones

".........I just stared at him in disbelief

.