[PeterR]

Quote:

Originally posted by bootman 54 pages of scrolling to be exact. (I'm removing the wordwrap in word now so that I can print this)

http://home.no/rettweiler/OmegaII.pdf

 

[edstrelow]

Fascinating and obviously a lot of work was put into this review. I appreciate your analysis of depth cues and like the comparisons with what experimental psychologists (which I once was) call moncular depth cues (since they don't require 2 eyes unlike stereoscopy). Your observations are very insightful and I agree that we need an adequate description of the dimensions of the listening experience. Interestingly such analyses can be used to provide hypotheses for later more scientific, objective studies if one is inclined that way.

I have owned about a dozen stats, mostly Stax and currently my best set-up is a set of 404's from a SRM-3 amplifier.

If I read you correctly you are saying that you hear sonic images within a "miniature space" located between the ears and somewhat tightly linked to the head. However, I am not sure that the sonic images always remain so limited. For example I sometimes find that I cannot tell if the sound is coming from the phones or if I have left my speakers on. If I am in fact listening to phones, this tells me that the headphone image is fooling my brain into thinking that I am hearing sounds located well out in space, not just between my ears or some limited distance in space.. i.e. the not a "miniature space."

I tend to find this projection more with my old Stax Sigma's, less with Sigma pros' and less again, but still occassionally with the 404's.

Any thoughts about this?

 

[KR...]

Way to make a comeback but that was more of a novel than a mere review

Absolutely brilliant!

 

[nately]

Thanks for hosting the PDF Peter. Too bad I read the damn thing before I saw your link! I need to get a wheel mouse at home...

That was a great essay, thanks Darth Nut! I don't know what else to say. Every time I question occurred to me you'd answer it in the next paragraph. What about people who hear a 1-d soundstage? What about crossfeed? What about artificial reverb? What about all the other stuff we're used to reading about in reviews? All answered - as if... no... Jedi Mind Trick?? Or just well written, structured and persuasive?

I don't know if it's possible to cause a sudden change in the way the community writes and communicates about headphones. But I think your thoughts can potentially influence the way some people think, and listen. I know I'll be keeping an ear open for a few of my takeaways.

 

[bifcake]

Holy Poop, Batman! What a terrific essay! I wonder how many people out there would truly appreciate the (dare I say) genius of this article? A lot of time and a hell of a lot of thought must have gone into this analysis and even more time and effort must have gone into putting it in words.

I take my hat off to you. You've done an incredible job. Obviously, you have way too much time on your hands, but I won't complain.

Great job!!!

 

[Jon L]

got to be a closet reviewer lurking. Jeez Louiz, man. Of note, Stereophile on-line archives now has the review of the same headphone.

 

[Wmcmanus]

I nominate you, sir, as the world's first Professor of Headphones!

Extraordinary review and a very workable platform for all serious reviews to follow!

Might we use the term "perceived air" rather than "perspectival air"? It may lead to a more common understanding - especially among folks who may not have read this brilliant review.

Now what will undoubedly follow from Darth Nut is a long list of 'newbie' questions... notice that his post count is only 6, so obviously he cannot know much about headphones!

 

[AdamZuf]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hirsch A small implication of this is that there may need to be a Fifth Depth cue, relating to the expectation of depth. The perception of depth may depend as much, if not more, on top-down processing (the actions of the brain) than the actual physical stimulus. Another problem then arises, since the brain does indeed affect perception at a level much farther down the line than just interpretation of the sensory signal, to what degree to our expectations of what something sounds like actually alter our perceptions and mold it to that image? In creating a language to describe the sensory experience, are we communicating a common experience, or actually limiting the experience to the dimensions of the language we have assigned to it?

i understand how this is a process we can't ignore (and is a part why we all hear things differently), but this is a factor that comes down to a personal level, and is more about us & how each individual hears, i think it's getting away from the purpose of the "cues" Darth talks about - understanding the nature of headphone listening (ok, and maybe beyond) to... evaluate headphones.
maybe i don't understand correctly..how can you integrate your cue into Darths' first 4?

 

[gbeard]

Mr. Darth-you-are-not-a-nut Sir,

As a newcomer to the wonderous ways of the headphone, I was unfamiliar with your previous work. I have only just begun to understand your concepts. However, I do have a few comments:

As a person with an undying love for music and audio, who also enjoys writing about my own experiences, I am humbled by your expertise in melding scientific theory and prose into a coherent review. I know how difficult it is to put a short piece together, so you have clearly worked very, very hard on your "review". In doing so, it seems clear that you have created the standard descriptive language for headphon-o-philes. You sir, are a real pro. (My reviews pale in comparison for a myriad reasons, however, I will not be using your terms in my reviews, since I can't explain them!)

Also, I noted that in the beginning of your "Book of Headphones", you describe the difference between the actual "Headstage" and the perceptual "Soundstage". As, I read along, I began to realize the concept is not limited to headphones.

While the term "Headstage" might need to change to "roomstage" or "Speakerstage", the concept is similar with speakers. When I lose myself in the music, the spatial cues that create the illusion of depth and width come clearly into focus, creating the soundstage. When my concentration--or lack of it-- is broken, I realize that the tympani is not behind my bedroom wall, or that the back up singers are not five feet beyond my speaker stage right. There are certainly differences, especially in light of room reflections and the obvious fact that the drivers are not next to your ears but out in the room, still the conceptual ideas are similar.

The brain can fool your ears into a "seeing" the event which is completely at odds with the actual reproduction of the music. If during a musical passage, I hear a cue that seems to be far outside of the physical boundries of the room, it is helping my brain to create this illusion of a great orchestra on stage. Then if I go back and try to focus on locating the instument or voice associated with that cue, I usually surmise that its true location is much closer to the speaker than my brain originally calculated in "listening mode". Don't misunderstand me, none of what I am saying is revelation or unknown to the all of the modern world, but your insights help me understand the similarities between headphones and speakers, not just their obvious and real differences.

I am just beginning to understand the joy (and pain) of high quality headphone listening. When I am able to sit back, close my eyes and lose myself in the music, the fact that I am not hearing a more "realistic" (speakers are unrealistic too) recreation of the stage is unimportant, in fact everything is unimportant--except the music.

Kudos, and thanks,
gb

 

[cat222]

Headphone-users: blessed are those madmen who hear 'true' voices in their head --for they and their wallets would be unhappy otherwise.

Hello everyone!

I haven't auditioned to any of the STAX earspeakers. Now I'm inclined to be a future member of Team Madmen.

Wow, indeed a fine essay, eminently thorough and fairly individual, about what almost seems to be the headphone's metaphysics.

The STAX SR-007 undeniably is a superbly detailed phone, lofty, head and shoulders above all other dynamic cones for a good reason: its laser-thin diaphragm is ifself the moving 'voice-coil', almost 'zero' in weight and thickness in comparison with the latter's much thicker diaphragms glued to the bulkier voice-coils.. Technically the STAX is far more competent for disclosing the subtlest, if not all, details in the recordings. It is these 'details' that make the slightest nuances 'visible', adding an extra dimension to the reproduced sounds: the fourth dimension, realism.

It is the SR-007's perculiarly presented details that bring about Darth Nut's creatively created terminologies --Four Depth Cues, Textural Range and Perspectival Air.

For these terminologies show themselves more clearly when more details in the recordings are retrieved and brought out. This renders the reproduced sound truer, or closer to the natural sound which our ears are accustomed to hearing. Our ears can 'see' a whole lot more than our eyes and minds' eyes. Our ears not only can 'see' the quantities and qualities of the presented 'notes' in the recordings and spaces before, behind, and between these notes, but also inside each note itself, in all the uppers and lowers of its frequency ranges and everything in between, and between these 'betweens'.., all in just a fraction of a second... Everything can be heard yet not everything can be recognized. However, the unrecognized details could be 'sensed'...

The lack of details emaciates the sound and makes it 'look' flat and blank like the characters in the Simpsons. Yet every sound, natural or reproduced, is three-dimensional. A sound cannot be heard if it is one-or two-dimensional, for it ought to travel through air to reach one's eardrums. I think the sonic images of any pair of headphones therefore are three-dimensional, and the forth dimension --realism, which is more prominently produced by superior equipments- helps to fool the listener's brain into hearing a 'live' performance, for this dimension 'kind of' reminds the brain of the magical 'depth' of live sounds. The brain is so naive in such a way sometimes, like when one's seeing a movie or a play, if the actors and actresses are good one would tend to forget their 'unrealness' and pretense and be completely absorbed in their story. Or when one keeps repeating this to oneself :"I am handsome and I am smart," or "My ears are unique, and my headphone and amp are the best..."

The photograph is a two-dimensional image, and its illusory depth obviously is called forth by the five depth cues as Darth Nut carefully enumerates. The clearness, or details, of each object in the photo pervades the five cues --the clearness of the clearness and unclearness (as for the nearer and further moutains). In the photos, one might ask, in which all the five visual depth cues are absent, what would be the 'depth' informants? For examples, a picture consists of only one flat object in front of a blue wall, and .. a picture of yours, yourself in your 'driver's licence', to be exact. In the former case, the depth is communicated through the 'color' cue, that the blue in the background tends to push the flat object towards the viewer's eyes, and in the latter, the details of your face (assuming the background's color is white). However, your face looks 'kinda' flat, does it not? If your picture is more detailed, i.e more details in your features and tones, it would perhaps be more 3-D and thereby more like you, would it not? This picture of yours is analogous to the recording of a solo piano or voice or any other instruments. The properly reproduced details of each note --its high, mid and low frequencies, its reverberation/ambience, decay, texuture...-, and of the silent background give rise the illusive fourth dimension. Yes, the 'silence' or 'blackness' in the background is also one form of 'detail': there's always plenty of recorded 'silence' in the well-recorded recordings. The quieter or blacker background is like the blue wall in the aforementioned photo, pushing the notes forwards and causing them floating in the air...

Details call forth memories, which determine whether or not the reproduced sounds sound more 'live' to one's ears. Some memories are so subtle that they completely lie beyond the grasp of one's thoughts and words. This is why one's conclusions usually come first and one's explications later.

I think the SR-007 is probably the only headphone that's capable of producing and presenting the kind of details closest to the live sounds. Detail-wise, the SR-007 is like, say, a 32 inch plasma TV, whereas other headphones are more or less ordinary, tradional TVs.

 

[bifcake]

I wish someone would write a comprehensive review comparing the Stax 007/t to the Orpheus. I wonder if at 3 times the price, the Orpheus delivers better performance thanj the Stax.

 

[spritzer]

I really doubt that the Orpheus is much better than the Omega II's. I think it is more down to personal preference than the Orpheus being better.

The price for the Orpheus is so high because it was a statement product produced in limited numbers. Also this was Sennheisers first electrostatic headphone so they had to start from the beginning and that costs alot. But Stax has been making electrostatic headphones since 1960 so they have great experience in making them.

 

[Tomcat]

darth nut,

Many feel, and I do too, that listening to an electrostatic headphone provides an experience that's intellectually stimulating at times, but that's rarely emotionally rewarding. You're essay seems to suggest that we, the Stax sceptics, are at least partly right. The Stax Omega II seems to be intellectually stimulating like no other headphone out there! Your essay proves it.

You took great care to define and differentiate the terms headstage and soundstage, and to show why listening to the Omega II is such a joy because of its strengths in the area of spatial reproduction. My primary question is this: How important are headstage and soundstage perception when the general goal is music reproduction? How important are spatial issues for our real-life musical experience? Aren't we aware that all headphones are naturally limited in that regard because the effects of head-related transfer functions are largely suspended when we listen with headphones? Isn't music listening through headphones enjoyable in spite of this limitation? Aren't headphones enjoyable in their own right because they possess strengths that are far more meaningful for music reproduction? Outstanding low-level resolution and the harmonic and rhythmic cohesion only a full-range transducer can offer, for example.

Obviously, I don't share your interest in soundstage or headstage considerations. I believe audiophiles love discussing soundstages because they are easily perceived and they lend themselves to an analytical listening approach. However, perceiving soundstage information is nothing that seems important when we listen in a real-life concert. In a real concert, we can see the instruments of the symphonic orchestra, we can see the string quartet. I believe the audiophile's preoccupation with spatial clues is, in fact, a preoccupation with visual clues that are so obviously missing in reproduced music. Where a musician and his instrument are on the stage is far less important than what is played, how it is played, and when. Getting the harmonic, rhythmic and dynamic relationships within a musical piece and within an orchestra right, to me, that's the task of music reproduction. I want the recreation of music, not space. In order to be emotionally affected by music, in order to recreate the musical experience, I don't have to see it - I want to hear it.

And when it comes to hearing - and feeling - music, I prefer dynamic headphones. To me, even the Omega II is artificially detailed, analytical, bass-shy, unforgiving and, in the end, simply annoying. Obviously, you feel very different about it. I wonder whether our strikingly different perception can be explained by different listening habits, by the different emphasis we put on spatial clues.

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by cat222 I think the SR-007 is probably the only headphone that's capable of producing and presenting the kind of details closest to the live sounds. Detail-wise, the SR-007 is like, say, a 32 inch plasma TV, whereas other headphones are more or less ordinary, traditional TVs.

I could not agree more, cat222. I've been listening to the SR-007 in relation to a myriad of dynamic phones for almost three years. My reference continues to be the Omega II's.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat Many feel, and I do too, that listening to an electrostatic headphone provides an experience that's intellectually stimulating at times, but that's rarely emotionally rewarding. You're essay seems to suggest that we, the Stax skeptics, are at least partly right.

...and this "many" consist of? I find the 007's to be the most emotionally "stimulating" cans I've ever heard simply because they are the most "revealing" of the recording. Just my opinion...


Quote:

Originally posted by Tomcat My primary question is this: How important are headstage and soundstage perception when the general goal is music reproduction? How important are spatial issues for our real-life musical experience? Aren't we aware that all headphones are naturally limited in that regard because the effects of head-related transfer functions are largely suspended when we listen with headphones? Isn't music listening through headphones enjoyable in spite of this limitation? And when it comes to hearing - and feeling - music, I prefer dynamic headphones. To me, even the Omega II is artificially detailed, analytical, bass-shy, unforgiving and, in the end, simply annoying. Obviously, you feel very different about it. I wonder whether our strikingly different perception can be explained by different listening habits, by the different emphasis we put on spatial clues.

In regard to detail retrieval relative to spatial cues, which, IMHO, define the "realism" of a live performance (studio or concert), I'll take the electrostatics against the selective, artificial "coloration" of most dynamic phones I've heard. The exception is, (as Darth pointed to), closed mike commercial rock/pop/cool jazz, etc. in which spacial information means very little in comparison. Even with this type of material, I prefer the electrostatics.

"simply annoying"?...ouch!!

Vert, where are you man?

 

[Vertigo-1]

*shrug* Different strokes for different folks.