[RRod]

   
Not really. Just trying to learn all I can about audio equipment in general. At the moment, I am researching what people like about the HD 800 more than the SR-009.
 
 
Yes, I am aware. No one who talks about soundstage in the context of headphones is referring to a speaker soundstage. Some headphones have angled drivers which can give a little more than just that straight line and make it sound more like the sound is coming from in front of you.
 
The only reason I posted that last quote was because he said certain IEMs have a type of holographic imaging with electronic music that speakers can't do. (Not my claim, anyway.)

 
What is "holographic imaging" exactly, and why can't a 5.1 setup do it?

 

[Music Alchemist]

  What is "holographic imaging" exactly, and why can't a 5.1 setup do it?

 
Ask the person who said it. I can't tell you.
 
By the way, since you're an HD 800 owner, did you compare it with any other headphones in its price range? (I'm particularly interested in comparisons with the AKG K812.)

 

[RRod]

   
Ask the person who said it. I can't tell you.
 
By the way, since you're an HD 800 owner, did you compare it with any other headphones in its price range? (I'm particularly interested in comparisons with the AKG K812.)

 
I'm guessing I wouldn't like the answer anyway.
 
I wish I had the scratch lying around to compare phones in that range! 

 I'm bad at subjective comparison lingo anyway. All I can say about my 800s versus my 700s is that the 800s sound more clearer and opener.

 

[miceblue]

I keep seeing this thread pop up under the "recent discussions" list. I have no idea what's going on in here at the moment but I thought I'd drop this off.
Tyll's preferred HRTF response from Innerfidelity:
www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-two


I didn't actually read the article yet but he's posted that multiple times.

He measured my STAX SR-207 electrostatic earspeaker.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/StaxSR207SB2217.pdf



I roughly plotted his HRTF curves on his measurements of the SR-207:



Looks, and sounds, pretty darn good to me!

 

[bigshot]

  Yes, I am aware. No one who talks about soundstage in the context of headphones is referring to a speaker soundstage. Some headphones have angled drivers which can give a little more than just that straight line and make it sound more like the sound is coming from in front of you.

 
That's like calling a molehill a mountain. And electronic music *by definition* doesn't have sound stage. It isn't a recording of music that takes place in space. The entire mix is a synthetic blend of sound that takes place entirely within the electronic realm, not natural soundstage recreating performers in real space in front of you.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  That's like calling a molehill a mountain. And electronic music *by definition* doesn't have sound stage. It isn't a recording of music that takes place in space. The entire mix is a synthetic blend of sound that takes place entirely within the electronic realm, not natural soundstage recreating performers in real space in front of you.

 
Yes, and we all know how electronic music sounds like it takes place in only one precise location, with nothing else in any other location.

 

The term soundstage refers to the depth and richness of an audio recording and usually relates to the playback process. According to audiophiles, the quality of the playback is very much dependent upon how one is able to pick out different instruments, voices, vocal parts, and such exactly where they are located on an imaginary 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional field. The quality of this soundstage can enhance not only the listener's involvement in the recording, but also their overall perception of the stage.

 
It doesn't matter whether it's acoustic or electronic, or headphones or speakers, for that matter. The instruments, etc. still have different positions. With electronic music, it's an emulated soundstage, if you will. The exact same phenomenon occurs regardless of how the recording was originally made. The "headstage" from a headphone and the "speakerstage" from speakers are just two different types of soundstage. Nearly everyone on this site calls it soundstage, even with headphones, so get used to it.

 

[jcx]

but for most listeners with headphones it is more like a 1D position on a line inside your head between your ears - speakers in a room give can and usually do give a much better illusion since virtually all music is mastered for speaker playback - binaural recordings are rare

 

[Music Alchemist]

  but for most listeners with headphones it is more like a 1D position on a line inside your head between your ears - speakers in a room give can and usually do give a much better illusion since virtually all music is mastered for speaker playback - binaural recordings are rare

 
Of course, but they are both illusions attempting three-dimensional positional sound (which is essentially what a soundstage is, in my opinion) -- one pulling it off better than the other. Headphones do all sorts of things to give a sense of sound coming from all directions; they just do a poor job compared to speakers.

 

[cel4145]

Yes, and we all know how electronic music sounds like it takes place in only one precise location, with nothing else in any other location. :rolleyes:


It doesn't matter whether it's acoustic or electronic, or headphones or speakers, for that matter. The instruments, etc. still have different positions. With electronic music, it's an emulated soundstage, if you will. The exact same phenomenon occurs regardless of how the recording was originally made. The "headstage" from a headphone and the "speakerstage" from speakers are just two different types of soundstage. Nearly everyone on this site calls it soundstage, even with headphones, so get used to it.

I agree. Plus, this idea that headphones don't have "true" soundstage or electronic music doesn't is a load of bunk for another reason: stereo does not produce accurate sound stage. In stereo theory, they have talked for decades about how to get an accurate 2D soundstage you need three channels/three speakers: left, right, and center. Our brains tend to try to fill it in. But regardless, speakers nor headphones are accurately producing 2D soundstage with stereo recordings. It's all illusion.

BTW: The best soundstage effect I've ever listened to on my home stereo and desktop is The State of Union by Thievery Corporation from Babylon Rewound (not the original version of the song on Babylon). It wraps on around out on the left in a way I've never heard from other music. So just say "yes" to electronic music soundstage

 

[bigshot]

   
Yes, and we all know how electronic music sounds like it takes place in only one precise location, with nothing else in any other location.

It doesn't matter whether it's acoustic or electronic, or headphones or speakers, for that matter. The instruments, etc. still have different positions. With electronic music, it's an emulated soundstage, if you will. The exact same phenomenon occurs regardless of how the recording was originally made. The "headstage" from a headphone and the "speakerstage" from speakers are just two different types of soundstage. Nearly everyone on this site calls it soundstage, even with headphones, so get used to it.

 
It does matter. With Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence recordings, they set the orchestra up on a stage and put a spread of two or three mikes in front of the  band. Nothing else. Those mikes captured not only the left/right but the secondary depth cues with perfect naturalness. When you hear that on a well designed two channel speaker system, you can close your eyes and precisely locate each instrument in space. It's not like Pink Floyd where stuff is moving in and out of phase and shifting all over the place. Perhaps it's something you have to hear to understand.

 

[bigshot]

   
Of course, but they are both illusions attempting three-dimensional positional sound (which is essentially what a soundstage is, in my opinion)

 
Soundstage is not three dimensional, at least with a two channel system. It's a flat plane in front of you. The secondary depth cues will give an illusion of depth, but to actually get true three dimensional depth, you need multichannel.

 

[Greenears]

   
What am I supposed to look at? Doof doof?

The link, ABX logs.  I'm serious. Seems legit on the surface.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/573974/lossless-vs-mp3-abx-results-among-other-abxs
 
I think you've been vocal in saying MP3 320 is inaudible to lossless.  I believe you, but this says otherwise.  I think I'm still waiting to hear if it is VBR or CBR but can that really be a major issue?

 

[prot]

Not really. Just trying to learn all I can about audio equipment in general. At the moment, I am researching what people like about the HD 800 more than the SR-009.

I tried both side by side and find it very hard to believe that anyone will put the 800 in front of 009 in terms of SQ. However, if we include price/performance, portability, compatibility, etc the 800 wins pretty easily.

 

[RRod]

 
The link, ABX logs.  I'm serious. Seems legit on the surface.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/573974/lossless-vs-mp3-abx-results-among-other-abxs
 
I think you've been vocal in saying MP3 320 is inaudible to lossless.  I believe you, but this says otherwise.  I think I'm still waiting to hear if it is VBR or CBR but can that really be a major issue?

 
The only thing that makes me fishy there is quotes like this:
"No compression artifact giveaways here, I had to fight to the death by locking onto the vocals. Same thing with the other tracks, it seems that the loss of some treble information gives female vocals less attack and focus."
 
So basically, the stuff that actually gets cut by these algorithms he/she couldn't hear. Instead it's something ethereal; I was almost waiting for the term "air" to come up. Still, all the stuff dropped is in the audible band so I'm willing to believe some young stud with perfect ears can eek out differences. Though I must say as I've gotten more experience with all the pitfalls of doing proper ABX, I almost want to just avoid the concept entirely in online conversations ^_^

 

[limpidglitch]

   
The only thing that makes me fishy there is quotes like this:
"No compression artifact giveaways here, I had to fight to the death by locking onto the vocals. Same thing with the other tracks, it seems that the loss of some treble information gives female vocals less attack and focus."
 
So basically, the stuff that actually gets cut by these algorithms he/she couldn't hear. Instead it's something ethereal; I was almost waiting for the term "air" to come up. Still, all the stuff dropped is in the audible band so I'm willing to believe some young stud with perfect ears can eek out differences. Though I must say as I've gotten more experience with all the pitfalls of doing proper ABX, I almost want to just avoid the concept entirely in online conversations ^_^

 
Well, the word "presence" did come up.

I remember a while back on HydrogenAudio when a guy showed up and claimed to be able to detect lossy encodes that didn't suffer from the regular more well-defined artefacts. I seem to remember it had something to do with the stereo image. As you might expect, the HA regulars were mighty skeptical, and prodded him at length to see if there was any truth in his claims. In the end they finally concluded that there was, and he just had to be an extreme outlier, and a potentially valuable resource for developers of lossy codecs.
 
All that said, you're completely right that it's usually stuff like warbling and pre-echo artefacts that reveals the lossy file when the properly golden eared takes the test. Personally I've only managed to do this once, and I'm not totally convinced that it even was an entirely fair trial.