[Bubu1]

This is more like it! What an excellent discussion over the last few posts.  For a scientist and classically trained violinist like me, all of this data and other information is incredibly informative and useful.
Thanks and please keep up the informative posting.  

 

[kwkarth]

This looks interesting...
 
http://www.simphonics.com/products/software/vplus/Help/VPLus/OBJECTS/Objects/2054.htm
 
This will keep us busy for a while:
do a google search on "hrtf data"
 
 
More stuff:
Data
We use the following HRTF data. Note that we process the data quite heavily, so don't blame the folk below if things don't work for you!

1. The MIT KEMAR data set by Bill Gardner and Keith Martin, available at http://sound.media.mit.edu/resources/KEMAR.html.
2. The IRCAM LISTEN HRTF data set, available at http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/listen/index.html.
3. The CIAIR HRTF data set by Takanori Nishino, Shoji Kajita, Kazuya Takeda and Fumitada Itakura, available at http://www.sp.m.is.nagoya-u.ac.jp/HRTF/database.html.

 
More:
http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/listen/links.html

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

This looks interesting...
 
http://www.simphonics.com/products/software/vplus/Help/VPLus/OBJECTS/Objects/2054.htm
 
This will keep us busy for a while:
do a google search on "hrtf data"
 
 

More stuff:
Data
We use the following HRTF data. Note that we process the data quite heavily, so don't blame the folk below if things don't work for you!

1. The MIT KEMAR data set by Bill Gardner and Keith Martin, available at http://sound.media.mit.edu/resources/KEMAR.html.
2. The IRCAM LISTEN HRTF data set, available at http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/listen/index.html.
3. The CIAIR HRTF data set by Takanori Nishino, Shoji Kajita, Kazuya Takeda and Fumitada Itakura, available at http://www.sp.m.is.nagoya-u.ac.jp/HRTF/database.html.

 
More:
http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/salles/listen/links.html

Very interesting! I would be looking more by myself, but I've been awfully busy this year. Although I can't see data and not analyze it!

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

If they did an HD 800 or LCD-2 with HD 800 comfort and soundstaging, with LCD-2 imaging and bass, and compromise in the hi frequency response, I would dump all other audio related gear I had. To my ears that would be perfect.

Sorry to jump in late on this, but I think we'd all agree with Sokolov's statement above ... but I don't think we'll get there.  I think the HD800 and the LCD-2 are very fundamentally on different sides of a notional threshold:
 
The HD800 has a light diaphragm, which permits a weak motor, and a vestigial frame.  It - and others like it - could be called "microphone style" headphones.
 
The LCD-2 has a heavy diaphragm, which demands a strong motor, and a solid frame.  It - and others like it - could be called "speaker style" headphones.
 
Assuming the driver weight and the motor power are properly calculated, in either case the same power-to-weight ratio should be achieved, and I'm sure it is.  But I hear categorical differences.  In particular I think heavy drivers have a sound of their own.  They have weight, power, impact and drama, which is all good.  But - to my ears - they add a slight nasal "quack" as transient waveforms leave their surface.  This is very reminiscent - to my ears - of good midrange or mid-bass speaker drivers, such as have existed for the last 20 or 30 years.  Thus, headphones with heavy drivers sound more like "listening to speakers" ... and I bet most new planar fans are also regularly listening to decent speaker systems at least some of the time.
 
Light drivers create a sound that's basically unrelated to what we hear from speakers, and I bet most "microphone style" headphone fans listen to headphones only the vast majority of the time.
 
I doubt if the two approaches will meet in the middle in a way that satisfies both camps.  At the moment, in particular, I think the LCD-2 (and to a slightly lesser extent the HE-6) needs to solve the downside problems of "speaker style" ... which are speaker faults, basically, including cabinet (frame) resonance and smearing, and woody colorations.  To me - and admittedly I'm not a huge fan - they can include all the negatives of 30-year-old speakers, as well as all the positives.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Sorry to jump in late on this, but I think we'd all agree with Sokolov's statement above ... but I don't think we'll get there.  I think the HD800 and the LCD-2 are very fundamentally on different sides of a notional threshold:
 
The HD800 has a light diaphragm, which permits a weak motor, and a vestigial frame.  It - and others like it - could be called "microphone style" headphones.
 
The LCD-2 has a heavy diaphragm, which demands a strong motor, and a solid frame.  It - and others like it - could be called "speaker style" headphones.
 
Assuming the driver weight and the motor power are properly calculated, in either case the same power-to-weight ratio should be achieved, and I'm sure it is.  But I hear categorical differences.  In particular I think heavy drivers have a sound of their own.  They have weight, power, impact and drama, which is all good.  But - to my ears - they add a slight nasal "quack" as transient waveforms leave their surface.  This is very reminiscent - to my ears - of good midrange or mid-bass speaker drivers, such as have existed for the last 20 or 30 years.  Thus, headphones with heavy drivers sound more like "listening to speakers" ... and I bet most new planar fans are also regularly listening to decent speaker systems at least some of the time.
 
Light drivers create a sound that's basically unrelated to what we hear from speakers, and I bet most "microphone style" headphone fans listen to headphones only the vast majority of the time.
 
I doubt if the two approaches will meet in the middle in a way that satisfies both camps.  At the moment, in particular, I think the LCD-2 (and to a slightly lesser extent the HE-6) needs to solve the downside problems of "speaker style" ... which are speaker faults, basically, including cabinet (frame) resonance and smearing, and woody colorations.  To me - and admittedly I'm not a huge fan - they can include all the negatives of 30-year-old speakers, as well as all the positives.

There are a few misconceptions we need to clear up here.
 

• Since the "imaging" of the HD-800 is contrived and not accurate/realistic, While pleasant at times, I'm not sure everyone will prefer that to reality. (That which is captured in the recording process)
   
• The HD-800 driver is not a "weak motor" and the frame is neither vestigal nor weak.  The transducer of the HD-800 is a ring radiator whose diaphragm is suspended at both the the center and annulus. 
   
• The LCD-2 does not have a heavy diaphragm.  The moving mass of the LCD-2 diaphragm is less than that of the air it moves.  The frame is largely inert and does not contribute any coloration, "woody" or otherwise.
   
• Since the rest of your conclusions are based upon incorrect assumptions, your conclusions may be just as faulty as the incorrect assumptions upon which they're based.

 

[vrln]

InnerSpace: The soundstaging capabilities of the two headphones go against that line of argument though. When it comes to that, out of the two, only the HD 800 gets close to a speaker style sensation (actually the HD 800 is by far the best headphone in this regard). The LCD-2 is very two dimensional compared to the Sennheiser, the sound never really leaves the head. It definately doesn´t float in front of you like with the HD 800. Because of this, personally I felt the LCD-2 got nowhere near sounding like listening to a nice speaker setup.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

InnerSpace: The soundstaging capabilities of the two headphones go against that line of argument though. When it comes to that, out of the two, only the HD 800 gets close to a speaker style sensation (actually the HD 800 is by far the best headphone in this regard). The LCD-2 is very two dimensional compared to the Sennheiser, the sound never really leaves the head. It definately doesn´t float in front of you like with the HD 800. Because of this, personally I felt the LCD-2 got nowhere near sounding like listening to a nice speaker setup.

 

Ones perceptions are based upon ones individual taste and HRTF.  It's not the same for everybody.

 

[vrln]

The two dimensional part is certainly subjective, but I don´t feel the overall soundstaging abilities are - at least when the point is to compare the two against speaker style imaging. In general, reviews also back up this point when it comes to the HD 800.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

The two dimensional part is certainly subjective, but I don´t feel the overall soundstaging abilities are - at least when the point is to compare the two against speaker style imaging. In general, reviews also back up this point when it comes to the HD 800.

Don't confuse subjective perception of soundstage which may or may not be based on combinations of psychoacoustic affects and actual recorded soundstage.  If the 800s do it for you WRT soundstage, that's great, but not everyone perceives them the same way since psychoacoustics comes into play.

 

[dallan]

U

There are a few misconceptions we need to clear up here.
 

• Since the "imaging" of the HD-800 is contrived and not accurate/realistic, While pleasant at times, I'm not sure everyone will prefer that to reality.

As you stated above-ones perceptions are bases on individual tastes-it's not the same for everyone -so how can you make statements like these and be taken seriously?

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

What's the weight of those two diaphragms then? (Since you think one is heavy and the other one light....)
 
Quote:

The HD800 has a light diaphragm, which permits a weak motor, and a vestigial frame.  It - and others like it - could be called "microphone style" headphones.
 
The LCD-2 has a heavy diaphragm, which demands a strong motor, and a solid frame.  It - and others like it - could be called "speaker style" headphones.

 

[vrln]

Kwkarth:
 
I don´t believe this kind of soundstage a very subjective thing in headphones. Sibilance and so on, sure, but when it comes to the overall "out of head" experience, not really. The vast majority perceive the HD 800 as trying to mimic the speaker sensation (this is backed up in pretty much all reviews as well). I haven´t read a single report denying this. There´s easily enough evidence this way to back up a generalized statement like the one I made. I´m talking strictly about headphones trying to mimic the speaker style sensation though, in other words a large stage floating in the air in front of you. This is certainly what the HD 800 attempts, even though it has its own issues (in particular the treble peak and sibilance). You´re confusing my point with the question if one actually wants that kind of soundstage in a headphone. That´s an entirely different topic.

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

There are a few misconceptions we need to clear up here.
 

• Since the "imaging" of the HD-800 is contrived and not accurate/realistic, While pleasant at times, I'm not sure everyone will prefer that to reality. (That which is captured in the recording process)
   
• The HD-800 driver is not a "weak motor" and the frame is neither vestigal nor weak.  The transducer of the HD-800 is a ring radiator whose diaphragm is suspended at both the the center and annulus. 
   
• The LCD-2 does not have a heavy diaphragm.  The moving mass of the LCD-2 diaphragm is less than that of the air it moves.  The frame is largely inert and does not contribute any coloration, "woody" or otherwise.
   
• Since the rest of your conclusions are based upon incorrect assumptions, your conclusions may be just as faulty as the incorrect assumptions upon which they're based.

1) Did I mention imaging?
 
2) Two statements in your above - one unproven, the other a non sequitur.
 
3) Compared to my Jaguar S-Type, no, the LCD-2's driver is not heavy.  Compared to most headphone drivers, it is.  Based on a lifetime of listening, I judge that the wooden frame is far from inert and contributes audible coloration.
 
4) I drew no conclusions and made no assumptions.  I peppered my post with "I think" and "to my ears" ... your mileage varies, obviously, but it doesn't serve the discussion to be so bombastic.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Quote:

1) Did I mention imaging?
 
2) Two statements in your above - one unproven, the other a non sequitur.
 
3) Compared to my Jaguar S-Type, no, the LCD-2's driver is not heavy.  Compared to most headphone drivers, it is.  Based on a lifetime of listening, I judge that the wooden frame is far from inert and contributes audible coloration.
 
4) I drew no conclusions and made no assumptions.  I peppered my post with "I think" and "to my ears" ... your mileage varies, obviously, but it doesn't serve the discussion to be so bombastic.

How about the weight of the diaphragm of both headphones? Do you know it or are you just guessing? (And why are you suddenly instead writing about the weight of the whole driver? That's something else entirely.)

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

InnerSpace: The soundstaging capabilities of the two headphones go against that line of argument though. When it comes to that, out of the two, only the HD 800 gets close to a speaker style sensation (actually the HD 800 is by far the best headphone in this regard). The LCD-2 is very two dimensional compared to the Sennheiser, the sound never really leaves the head. It definately doesn´t float in front of you like with the HD 800. Because of this, personally I felt the LCD-2 got nowhere near sounding like listening to a nice speaker setup.

Not sure about that - the HD800 certainly creates a large soundstage ... but it's a "headstage" rather than a 3D bubble ten feet in front of you, like speakers.  And the LCD-2's soundstage deficiencies are typical of speakers with cabinet problems, where the sounds don't really leave the box.  Apples and oranges, obviously, but I think some meaning can be derived.