[Shike]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

But DF equalization is only a rough estimate. And then there is the problem with bass impact of headphones. => Different strokes for different folks.

 
DF maybe rough, but it's also the best available considering.

 
Trying to emulate bass impact with headphones is one of the most amusing and infuriating concepts to me.  There is none, it's inherent to headphones.  Why, why are you trying to fix something that can't possibly be fixed!
 
*pulls out hair*

The JVC FX500 and FX700 in-ears laughs at you However they have birchwood shells and a birchwood based driver.

That's an attempt at emulating it still.  Read the post directly above yours.

 

[xnor]

A bottom-shaker, really? I thought such things bring a load of additional problems with them and without tweaking you'd be far away from quality bass - which headphones can produce (without the shaking of course).

 

[Shike]

Quote:

A bottom-shaker, really? I thought such things bring a load of additional problems with them
 
Such as?  I've had few issues with mine.
 
and without tweaking you'd be far away from quality bass
 
Not sure what to make of this.  If by tweaking you mean adjusting levels then yes.  Beyond this most quality tactile transducers produce bass just fine.  That's what they're made for, and used in quite a few studio applications for drummers.
 
- which headphones can produce (without the shaking of course).
 
Which gets back into the catch 22, do you want real impact or the shadow of it emulated changing tonal balance of the headphones entirely?

 
Responses in bold of course.  I don't use mine 24/7 though, but when I feel that I need impact with my music that's the only way I go about "fixing" the issue.

 

[xnor]

Such as: inefficiency, non-flat frequency response, strong resonance peaks, insufficient damping ... that's what I heard anyway
 
How are they useful in studios and could you post a link to a quality unit?
 
 
Yes, there's a catch, but you don't have to change the tonal balance entirely. For me a slight bass boost often is enough, and if EQ'd properly you won't get muddy, dark or distorted sound (provided that drivers can handle it).
And if I want real stereo imaging and visceral impact I use my stereo instead.

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

Such as: inefficiency, non-flat frequency response, strong resonance peaks, insufficient damping ... that's what I heard anyway
 
Inefficiency I'd agree with, they need a pretty powerful amp to work right.  As for non-flat FR, that applies to about everything (some are better than others).  Not sure about the resonant peaks, you're going to have to source to which designs that applies.  Damping also is heavily design dependent.
 
How are they useful in studios and could you post a link to a quality unit?
 
Mainly for those that use monitors.  If you can't get auditory feedback you need at least tactile feedback (usually from the drums or bass).  Guitammer has buttkicker products specifically for the purpose that are modified to place emphasis in 40-80Hz for musicians.  Clark Synthesis has also supplied a lot of tactile transducers to bands.
 
For quality units I'd think Guitammer or Clark Synthesis would be best.
 
http://www.thebuttkicker.com/index.htm
http://www.clarksynthesis.com/
 
Yes, there's a catch, but you don't have to change the tonal balance entirely. For me a slight bass boost often is enough, and if EQ'd properly you won't get muddy, dark or distorted sound (provided that drivers can handle it).
 
You're still getting more bass then what's in the signal though.  To me that's an issue.  Tactile transducers really aren't that audible, it's just the sensation mostly so it doesn't feel like it's throwing the balance off.
 
And if I want real stereo imaging and visceral impact I use my stereo instead.
 
For the longest time I lived in apartments that complained at the drop of a hat.  This was the solution at the time.

Bold again

 

[xnor]

"You're still getting more bass then what's in the signal though."
 
Right, but a bit more is better than far too little, which would be an issue to me.
In other words, headphones don't give you (exactly) what's in the signal in the first place. And with decent EQ usage you're closer to the signal than without, my experience anyway.
 
edit: after some googling I found that even with pro units you need to EQ those shakers a lot in some cases, 20 dB peaks don't seem to be a rarity and 40 Hz is about the lowest they can reproduce properly :|

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

"You're still getting more bass then what's in the signal though."
 
Right, but a bit more is better than far too little, which would be an issue to me.
In other words, headphones don't give you (exactly) what's in the signal in the first place. And with decent EQ usage you're closer to the signal than without, my experience anyway.
 
edit: after some googling I found that even with pro units you need to EQ those shakers a lot in some cases, 20 dB peaks don't seem to be a rarity and 40 Hz is about the lowest they can reproduce properly :|

Better than nothing IMO though, then again we each have our own choice of compromise at this point.
 
Can you link to the page which was talking about EQing the shakers?  My curiosity is now piqued.

 

[xnor]

"then again we each have our own choice of compromise at this point"
Precisely!
 
Hmm, here's one I could dig up in the history: tactile_faq

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

"then again we each have our own choice of compromise at this point"
Precisely!
 
Hmm, here's one I could dig up in the history: tactile_faq

Yeah, I saw that link too.  Unfortunately I went to their test page and saw nothing on the buttkicker measurements, but they do note better (improved) transient response with the design.  I'd really like to see some measurements though, because while I have solid anecdotes from quite a few people that really isn't sufficient as evidence.  I also have to wonder how the performed their testing though, as you can't really measure SPL on these effectively either.
 
In other news, I'm currently waiting on a buttkicker LFE to go with my HT/Stereo system.  Seems everywhere is backordered till February.

 

[xnor]

I'd also like to see some measurements. And I could use some massage functionality in my chair. 2" xmax sounds like fun.

 

[JerryLove]

Quote:

Putting your head inches away from a guitar string, mouth etc would sound very unnatural, if you want my opinion.

Your opinion is that reality sounds unreal?
 
I assume what you mean is that the sound with your ear inches from a guitar body (you know the strings don't really make the noise, right?) would create a different experience than your ear 10ft back in the audience.
 
I agree, and this is signifigant when the mic recording the guitar is on the guitar... something the sound engineer should correct for.
 
But let's take another scenerio. Let's imagine that I place a pair of microphones right next to where my ears would be in a listening position. They are not recording all the sounds an inch away from my ears. Now I have a headphone right where those mikes where. Would not reproducing those exactly be the most accurate?
 
If I sat in the audience with pretend headphones just letting the sound pass though them: should I add a 10KHz hump to the real noise to make it more natural?
 
If this is to adjust for ear shape, and if every ear shape is a bit different, don't I want to do this in software instead?

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

Quote:

Putting your head inches away from a guitar string, mouth etc would sound very unnatural, if you want my opinion.

Your opinion is that reality sounds unreal?
 
I assume what you mean is that the sound with your ear inches from a guitar body (you know the strings don't really make the noise, right?) would create a different experience than your ear 10ft back in the audience.
 
I agree, and this is signifigant when the mic recording the guitar is on the guitar... something the sound engineer should correct for.
 
But let's take another scenerio. Let's imagine that I place a pair of microphones right next to where my ears would be in a listening position. They are not recording all the sounds an inch away from my ears. Now I have a headphone right where those mikes where. Would not reproducing those exactly be the most accurate?
 
If I sat in the audience with pretend headphones just letting the sound pass though them: should I add a 10KHz hump to the real noise to make it more natural?
 
If this is to adjust for ear shape, and if every ear shape is a bit different, don't I want to do this in software instead?

This is exactly what I am saying, not even 10 feet back, the normal strumming postion would sound different to holding the guitar up inches from your head and strumming.  Some headphones are so rvealing that its quite obvious how the guitars are mic'd.  I do agree with you...that is why I believe binaural reacordings are the most accurate kinds, when played via headphones will shame any speaker in staging and imaging...do I have to remind people to play those face tube haircut recordings again.  We need to explore HRTF.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

...that is why I believe binaural reacordings are the most accurate kinds, when played via headphones will shame any speaker in staging and imaging...do I have to remind people to play those face tube haircut recordings again.  We need to explore HRTF.

 
Binaural recording definitely also has its problem areas. Guess I don't need to mention that everyone's HRTF is different and those differences are not marginal.
 
I also think you want to do all of this in software, like Jerry mentioned. There already exist a lot of crossfeeding or room simulation DSPs. If you spend some time tweaking and tuning knob positions (to compensate for your HRTF quirks) you can get really great results.

 

[JerryLove]

Quote:

This is exactly what I am saying, not even 10 feet back, the normal strumming postion would sound different to holding the guitar up inches from your head and strumming.  Some headphones are so rvealing that its quite obvious how the guitars are mic'd.  I do agree with you...that is why I believe binaural reacordings are the most accurate kinds, when played via headphones will shame any speaker in staging and imaging...do I have to remind people to play those face tube haircut recordings again.  We need to explore HRTF.

That's really a problem with the original recording: not the idea of headphones.
 
It's also a matter of expectations. I play an instrument. The sound is different playing than sitting 10 ft from. I wouldn't mind a recording that sounded right next to as it would sound natural (as a player). One 10ft back would sound natural (as a listener). I don't see that the problem lies anywhere than with the recording engineer.