Have you ever heard sound coming from the front with headphones.
May 3, 2015 at 7:10 PM Post #46 of 230
but head tracking might just be 50% of the effect. any small head movement we do when trying to locate a sound(even if we're not conscious about it) are tricks used by the brain and if they don't echo a change in audio, ou brain can't be completelly fooled. 
 
the only thing stopping me is that IMO, there is no way the smyth realiser A8 is worth the price proposed. when the "elite" stuff for head tracking costs 150$(trackir, but you can find much cheaper and still pretty good), I have a hard time thinking I should pay 20times more for what could be 100% software.
 
still as tracking companies don't realy see the point of headtracking for sound alone or looking at a movie in 2D, nobody seems to care about working on it and you can only have fun with that in games :frowning2:
which is sad because as other mentioned, the technology has been around for years. in my head I imagine 2015 with a trackir clipped onto our headphone, something to play foobar or some videos using fraunhofer cingo 3D stuff (that has sound following head tracking in it from what I've read) and that stuff could sell for 300$ and still make a crazy huge benefit margin. at the moment the only reason that justified the Realiser to be this expensive is that it's a rare combination of 2 very generic techs.
 
May 3, 2015 at 7:40 PM Post #47 of 230
Never heard sounds emanate from the front of a headphone.  But no headphone sounds very real, so does it matter? 
 
May 3, 2015 at 7:45 PM Post #48 of 230
Never heard sounds emanate from the front of a headphone.  But no headphone sounds very real, so does it matter? 



They don't sound real. Still they are their own animal and can make music better than real life.

OP wants the sound in another place than between his ears, outside the ears, read the thread.
 
May 3, 2015 at 9:24 PM Post #49 of 230
  Never heard sounds emanate from the front of a headphone.  But no headphone sounds very real, so does it matter? 

Please see my post just above. AKG K-1000/BAP-1000 came to that goal around 1990.
 
K-1000 is fantastic with anything not requiring extremely low (<50 or so Hz), extremely loud, or - god forbid - combination of the two - but that can be overcome by the use of the subwoofer(s) and appropriate crossover.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/2753/akg-k1000-with-subwoofer.
 
As they are completely open "headphones" (absolutely nothing touches the ear),
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
it allows the sound from the surround totally unobstructed ( any effects of this start to be audible around 15 kHz ).
 
Although I have not tried K-1000 with subwoofer(s) - yet, together with personalized HRTF loaded to BAP-1000 I have absolutely no doubt that these "headphones" - the correct term for this is earspeakers -  should be the first system in the world actually capable of the realism that could fool one into thinking the sound heard is the sound being played live - if fed with a good binaural recording.  With the localization cues accurate both in horizontal and vertical plane - yes, with a really good recording and said processing, K-1000 is capable of reproducing height - like in cases a choir, singers or instrumentalists are spatialized in any combination of possible positioning in any given location. (balconies in concert halls, the proper localization of the church organ and choir in a (catholic) church - behind and above - etc, etc.)
 
This kind of realism is achievable with loudspeakers - in a large building ( some 2 stories high of  acoustic open space ) with heavy processing and speakers/amplifiers of at least one, if not two orders of magnitude greater price than the K-1000 "all inclusive" package.
 
Above proposed system is not inexpensive - yet it is a small fraction of the price for a speaker based system ( remember - for this kind of realism, one needs to have a LARGE  room, > 50 square metres, high ceiling, etc - before even considering the audio system ).
 
I know and use K-1000 for a long time. I have only recently been able to hear it paired with the BAP-1000. And the realism this combo is capable of can take one's breath away. Relieving the drivers of the K-1000 to reproduce the low bass at loud volumes ( it IS capable of around + - 2 to 3  millimetres diaphragm excursions - clearly visible while reproducing loud bass if viewed from an appropriated angle ) should appreciably cut on the distortion ( both THD and IMD ) , while allowing for better dynamic range and adding yet two octaves of the bass AND palpable visceral bass no headphone on its own can reproduce.
 
This proposed system should be capable of even MUCH greater than already highest degree of realism any headphone ( or loudspeaker ) has ever achieved.
 
May 3, 2015 at 9:25 PM Post #50 of 230
They don't sound real. Still they are their own animal and can make music better than real life.

OP wants the sound in another place than between his ears, outside the ears, read the threaAd.


>>  read the threaAd [sic].

How do you know if I have read the thread?

>> Still they are their own animal and can make music better than real life
 
Now I know.  Thanks!
 
May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM Post #51 of 230
  Please see my post just above. AKG K-1000/BAP-1000 came to that goal around 1990.
 
K-1000 is fantastic with anything not requiring extremely low (<50 or so Hz), extremely loud, or - god forbid - combination of the two - but that can be overcome by the use of the subwoofer(s) and appropriate crossover.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/2753/akg-k1000-with-subwoofer....
 
 

 
Brilliant summary.  Thank you.

I wanted to suggest this earlier - your post provides a motivation: Forward and realistic sounding headphones may be orthogonal. And neither may be very accurate given that they will have to add information to fool our brain into believing it is not listening to a pair of transducers positioned around our heads.

Right now, no headphone will win even the simplest blind test against a live event. Forward sounding headphones may introduce other artifacts that hurt the overall experience. Most of us expect that better transparency will mean more a forward perception. It may not turn out that way. 25 year of experimentation, as you have partially documented, hasn't necessarily produced a product headed uniformly toward forward or accurate.  But frankly it is more encouraging than much of the crap I read in some of these forums.   
 
 
May 4, 2015 at 2:54 AM Post #52 of 230
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose /img/forum/go_quote.gif


They don't sound real. Still they are their own animal and can make music better than real life.
Hi and exactly ! a simple blind test can confirm.  With very good stereo a feeling to be in front of the real thing can be achieve.  With HPs is just impossible. And this is for me their biggest drawback
Still i am using them a lot, drawback or not. Because i need them.
OP wants the sound in another place than between his ears, outside the ears, read the thread.
Well ... the dream still is alive. The dream to perceive one day also the sound coming from the front.
In the meantime i would be satisfied not to get sonic congestion in my head ... with sound outside the skull.   I understand that with the right placement of drivers this can be achieved quite easily.
Thanks a lot again,   gino

 
May 4, 2015 at 3:09 AM Post #53 of 230
   
Brilliant summary.  Thank you.

I wanted to suggest this earlier - your post provides a motivation: Forward and realistic sounding headphones may be orthogonal. And neither may be very accurate given that they will have to add information to fool our brain into believing it is not listening to a pair of transducers positioned around our heads.

Right now, no headphone will win even the simplest blind test against a live event. Forward sounding headphones may introduce other artifacts that hurt the overall experience. Most of us expect that better transparency will mean more a forward perception. It may not turn out that way. 25 year of experimentation, as you have partially documented, hasn't necessarily produced a product headed uniformly toward forward or accurate.  But frankly it is more encouraging than much of the crap I read in some of these forums.   
 

 
Hi and this is indeed the point.   Live event still represents the reference. A realistic reproduction of this event is the challenge.
And to get a very realistic sonic visualization the frontal sound is absolutely needed.
But still i am optimistic ... i am sure that some kind of dsp and cross-feeding will give a very interesting compromise
Pretty soon
And i do not think it must be very expensive either.
Just mix a little of the L signal with R maybe adding some delay, and viceversa.
Just to decrease listening fatigue.
That's all i'm asking.
For now i will do with the sound out of the head.  I am reading the reviews about HPs with angled drivers.  Very interesting.
And i have already the k701 that is not that bad at that, even if the drivers are not angled at all.
Maybe just different earpads (asymmetrical) could do the trick ?
Thanks again,  gino
 
May 4, 2015 at 3:26 AM Post #54 of 230
  Please see my post just above. AKG K-1000/BAP-1000 came to that goal around 1990.
K-1000 is fantastic with anything not requiring extremely low (<50 or so Hz), extremely loud, or - god forbid - combination of the two - but that can be overcome by the use of the subwoofer(s) and appropriate crossover.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/2753/akg-k1000-with-subwoofer.
As they are completely open "headphones" (absolutely nothing touches the ear),
it allows the sound from the surround totally unobstructed ( any effects of this start to be audible around 15 kHz ).
Although I have not tried K-1000 with subwoofer(s) - yet, together with personalized HRTF loaded to BAP-1000 I have absolutely no doubt that these "headphones" - the correct term for this is earspeakers -  should be the first system in the world actually capable of the realism that could fool one into thinking the sound heard is the sound being played live - if fed with a good binaural recording.  With the localization cues accurate both in horizontal and vertical plane - yes, with a really good recording and said processing, K-1000 is capable of reproducing height - like in cases a choir, singers or instrumentalists are spatialized in any combination of possible positioning in any given location. (balconies in concert halls, the proper localization of the church organ and choir in a (catholic) church - behind and above - etc, etc.)
This kind of realism is achievable with loudspeakers - in a large building ( some 2 stories high of  acoustic open space ) with heavy processing and speakers/amplifiers of at least one, if not two orders of magnitude greater price than the K-1000 "all inclusive" package.
Above proposed system is not inexpensive - yet it is a small fraction of the price for a speaker based system ( remember - for this kind of realism, one needs to have a LARGE  room, > 50 square metres, high ceiling, etc - before even considering the audio system ).
I  know and use K-1000 for a long time. I have only recently been able to hear it paired with the BAP-1000. And the realism this combo is capable of can take one's breath away. Relieving the drivers of the K-1000 to reproduce the low bass at loud volumes ( it IS capable of around + - 2 to 3  millimetres diaphragm excursions - clearly visible while reproducing loud bass if viewed from an appropriated angle ) should appreciably cut on the distortion ( both THD and IMD ) , while allowing for better dynamic range and adding yet two octaves of the bass AND palpable visceral bass no headphone on its own can reproduce.
This proposed system should be capable of even MUCH greater than already highest degree of realism any headphone ( or loudspeaker ) has ever achieved.

 
 
Hi thanks a lot for the very interesting advice.
Just one world about binaural recordings.
I have tried some of those on Youtube.   While the lateral movements are scaring for realism when the sound should come from the front the perspective collapses in the head.
There is absolutely no depth of field frontally.
Measured from above the head the dispersion is like this one here ...
 
http://www.posthorn.com/Images/Schoeps/S_mk6_plr8.jpg
 
with the 270 degrees being the front direction and the 90 degrees the rear direction (head facing 270 i mean)
The image is quite good when the source of sound is lateral but collapses dramatically when the source is frontal or behind the head
Obviously the target is a complete 360 degrees perception.
A very good way to assess this is to record with a good stereo mic a person talking and coming forward.
with the HPs this effect of the speaker coming forward is completely lost.
Instead with a good speakers stereo system the effect can be scaring ... especially if the person arrives very close to the mic and then shouts " What are you doing stupid ? "
with the voice being that one of my mother, for instance ...
Seriously this is by a long shot the biggest drawback with headphones.
If they will be able to reproduce this simple experiment in a realistic way ... well you will see headphones everywhere.  I am sure of that.
Thanks again,  gino
 
May 4, 2015 at 4:25 AM Post #55 of 230
   
 
Hi thanks a lot for the very interesting advice.
Just one world about binaural recordings.
I have tried some of those on Youtube.   While the lateral movements are scaring for realism when the sound should come from the front the perspective collapses in the head.
There is absolutely no depth of field frontally.
Measured from above the head the dispersion is like this one here ...
 
http://www.posthorn.com/Images/Schoeps/S_mk6_plr8.jpg
 
with the 270 degrees being the front direction and the 90 degrees the rear direction (head facing 270 i mean)
The image is quite good when the source of sound is lateral but collapses dramatically when the source is frontal or behind the head
Obviously the target is a complete 360 degrees perception.
A very good way to assess this is to record with a good stereo mic a person talking and coming forward.
with the HPs this effect of the speaker coming forward is completely lost.
Instead with a good speakers stereo system the effect can be scaring ... especially if the person arrives very close to the mic and then shouts " What are you doing stupid ? "
with the voice being that one of my mother, for instance ...
Seriously this is by a long shot the biggest drawback with headphones.
If they will be able to reproduce this simple experiment in a realistic way ... well you will see headphones everywhere.  I am sure of that.
Thanks again,  gino

Yes, you have more accurately described , with polar pattern "shifted for 90 degrees" - my description "stretched from beyond the ear to beyond the ear in a plane". This is what is achieved by AKG K-1000 used without BAP-1000. Enter the BAP-1000 (and with K-1000)  - voila, you do get frontal positioning, just like the music heard live. As said, with my own binaural recordings of events I recorded with headworn mics, which do not change our natural hearing in any way. And the result is almost 1:1 representation of the real thing. Should the BAP-1000 be loaded with my personal HRTF, I expect the result to be much better yet.
 
Add the subwoofer(s), blah, blah, blah.... -
atsmile.gif
 !
 
The only problem is you are not going to see the "headphones" like AKG -K1000 w/processing and w/subwoofer(s) - everywhere. K-1000 is long out of production, and even the designers ( we have one of them on head-fi, Mr. Heinz aka @hrklg01 in http://www.head-fi.org/t/57805/history-of-the-akg-k1000/240 ) were not completely aware of the fact that this is NOT a headphone - yet it is still very much designed as one. It is an earspeaker . Other manufacturers never even attempted the true earspeaker theme (Stax is that in name only, by implying it produces similar result as speakers - which, although better than most, is only partially true) -
(if we disregard the Sony PFR-V1 ) -
 

 
 
and are therefore even less aware what went wrong with the K-1000. The real potential of this design does provide for even better results - by meticulous attention to detail.
 
There IS a real life problem of using headphones with subwoofers. Other members of the household would not be pleased to be bombarded by the prodigious amount of - to them - totally unrelated bass rumble from the subwoofers. Those familiar with the K-1000 know that ANY noise in the room is audible trough the K-1000 - they do absolutely not block any outside noise (except starting above around 15 kHz). Furthermore, it is entirely possible to listen to say the news on the TV trough the K-1000 - across the large room ! That is to say, it will be heard by others and may well be found disturbing. In reality, this necessitates a -
 headphone listening room - where the listener will not be disturbed and will not disturb the others.
 
May 4, 2015 at 6:01 AM Post #56 of 230
  Yes, you have more accurately described , with polar pattern "shifted for 90 degrees" - my description "stretched from beyond the ear to beyond the ear in a plane". This is what is achieved by AKG K-1000 used without BAP-1000. 
Enter the BAP-1000 (and with K-1000)  - voila, you do get frontal positioning, just like the music heard live. ....

 
Hi thanks a lot for the very interesting advice.
So this tells me that the star fo the show is indeed the processor and not the headphone.
For instance it would be nice to try it with other HPs already famous for their intrinsic out of the head sound, lihe the hd800.
But this is very interesting in general
What i do not understand is wht kg has abandoned the unit and not offered an evolution, maybe able to process direct digital sound.
If i understand well there is a further AD and DA process inside the unit ?
 
For the moment my main goal is to place the sound outside the head.
And a specific positioning of the drivers could provided that.  I am confident of this.
Then i will wait for some not too expensive but nice solutions.
I cannot afford very expensive units.  Usually with digital solutions can be also made cheap.
Thanks a lot again for the very valuable advice.   The secret is then in the processor.  I would like to add that i suspected this
Kind regards,  gino
 
May 4, 2015 at 6:14 AM Post #57 of 230
   
Hi thanks a lot for the very interesting advice.
So this tells me that the star fo the show is indeed the processor and not the headphone.
For instance it would be nice to try it with other HPs already famous for their intrinsic out of the head sound, lihe the hd800.
But this is very interesting in general
What i do not understand is wht kg has abandoned the unit and not offered an evolution, maybe able to process direct digital sound.
If i understand well there is a further AD and DA process inside the unit ?
 
For the moment my main goal is to place the sound outside the head.
And a specific positioning of the drivers could provided that.  I am confident of this.
Then i will wait for some not too expensive but nice solutions.
I cannot afford very expensive units.  Usually with digital solutions can be also made cheap.
Thanks a lot again for the very valuable advice.   The secret is then in the processor.  I would like to add that i suspected this
Kind regards,  gino

To be direct and blunt - the headphone - or more appropriate THE EARSPEAKER is the STAR OF THE SHOW. 
 
But it still needs processing for "outside head" lifelike soundstage.
 
The moment ANYTHING touches our ears, like on ear pads or circumaural pads, it changes our own natural hearing - we have learned to listen with it. And even if we do away with  any pads, like it has been done almost 40 years ago ba Jecklin Float ( here the original floats on the head of its inventor, Jurg Jecklin ) :
 

 
there is still too large panel driver with too low acousticallly transparent characteristics ( max electrostatic can achieve in theory is 50% acoustically open, but inevitable edges reduce that further ) AND therefore also presenting large reflective surface in the close vicinity of the pinna/ear ( shared with all electrostatic and orthodynamic drivers ) - leading to all sorts of trouble that 79% acoustically open AKG K-1000 is inherently free of. If there is anything in this world truly worth describing as the best, AKG K-1000 is the best approximation actually deserving such a title I can possibly think of.
 
In other words - K-1000 has such a tremendous head start compared to anything ( except Sony PRF-V1 - sometimes refered to as baby K-1000 - which I have yet to hear ) when it comes to correct imaging/soundstage that - it is scary. Any pads - and your dream girl is still ( at the very best ) in one piece bathing suit.
 
With K-1000 - naked. That kind of difference.
 
HD-800 is a good compromise - between bass response and imaging. But it is a compromise - and compromise never is the best.
 
The K-1000/BAP-1000 approach requires the following :
1. $$$$$$$$$$$$ ( original cost was DEM 4000 or so for the set, an equivalent of $ 2000 in cca 1990 - corrected for the inflation that would amount today to FAR more )
2. GOOD recordings. Like it or not - those truly deserving such a setup are probably fewer than 2% of all available recordings. Period
3. For best result, personal calibration for your HRTF ( or more, for other users of the same set - or, for a truly dedicated monitoring by two or more people simultaneously, two or more K/BAP-1000 combos, each loaded with personal HRTF )
4. K-1000 was a very manual labour intensive product. It can NOT be automated. (You do not want to know what AKG charges as pauschal whenever the set is sent for the repair... - but given the difficulties involved, among which is a very high degree of probability the driver gets damaged/destroyed in the process, it is *gulp* - justified...)
5. K-1000 is an all time low efficiency "headphone" - 73 dB/mW (!), 120 ohm impedance - requiring drive from the loudspeaker terminals or a very dedicated "headamp". Normal headphone amplifiers are hopelessly underpowered. 
6. It is prone to random resonances - which can be one day completely absent, the other day ( when you need it most, like the demonstration of the quality of your recording, for example ...) - it can rattle like a rattlesnake. Usually returning to "perfect" condiition some 15 minutes AFTER the customer alredy left and had to be explained that "btzzz" is NOT in the recording , but an artefact that rears its ugly head at random. Usually I back up K-1000 with Stax Lambda Pro - just to assure the customer there is everything OK with the recording.
7. It needs processing - either BAP-1000 or some modern day equivalent, specifically made for the K-1000, personal HRTF included - not some generic stuff.
8. For best results, the use of dedicated subwoofer(s) and crossover.
 
You can sum 1. trough 7. something like this : too expensive for most listeners, requiring too much involvement, truly capable of displaying its indisputable superiority only with about 2% of all available recordings - and this percentage is VERY generous from my part. 
 
In other words - not exactly a greatly profitable proposition, due to (too?) low sales expected.
 
But I would like to have being proven wrong, I would like to see the K-1000 II.
 
May 4, 2015 at 6:39 AM Post #58 of 230
  To be direct and blunt - the headphone - or more appropriate THE EARSPEAKER is the STAR OF THE SHOW. 
But it still needs processing for "outside head" lifelike soundstage.
The moment ANYTHING touches our ears, like on ear pads or circumaural pads, it changes our own natural hearing - we have learned to listen with it. And even if we do away with  any pads, like it has been done almost 40 years ago ba Jecklin Float ( here the original floats on the head of its inventor, Jurg Jecklin ) :

 
Hi and i would challenge this statement
For instance i would like very much to listen the Akg processor on the HD800 ... i am quite sure that result will be spectacular at least on par of that one with the k1000.
Maybe even better because i rate the HD800 superior HPs compared to the k1000.
A test not easy to perform.
But i also believe in angled drivers.  A thing easily achievable even with just earpads designed for the purpose.  Asymmetrical earpads thicker on the back of the ear and thinner on the front of the ear.
Not a big issue i think.
Thanks again,  gino
 
May 4, 2015 at 7:23 AM Post #59 of 230
   
Hi and i would challenge this statement
For instance i would like very much to listen the Akg processor on the HD800 ... i am quite sure that result will be spectacular at least on par of that one with the k1000.
Maybe even better because i rate the HD800 superior HPs compared to the k1000.
A test not easy to perform.
But i also believe in angled drivers.  A thing easily achievable even with just earpads designed for the purpose.  Asymmetrical earpads thicker on the back of the ear and thinner on the front of the ear.
Not a big issue i think.
Thanks again,  gino

Will try to arrange for this K-1000 vs HD-800 comparison using the BAP-1000 processor. Trouble is connectivity - BAP-1000 my friend has is XLR only ( I have seen RCA equipped ones in pics ) - and K-1000 can only be connected via 4 pin XLR. That means I will have to use adaptors to drive the amp for HD-800s ( IIRC a friend has Lehmann ) out of line level XLR outputs of BAP-1000. 
 
But it will not be soon. Getting two very busy guys - even if I sacrifice myself 100% - together (although we live within say 10 km of each other ) for at least an afternoon required for such a comparison will not be easy. One is usually free after 21:00 PM, the other is then normally on the stage - playing music.
 
May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM Post #60 of 230
  Will try to arrange for this K-1000 vs HD-800 comparison using the BAP-1000 processor. Trouble is connectivity - BAP-1000 my friend has is XLR only ( I have seen RCA equipped ones in pics ) - and K-1000 can only be connected via 4 pin XLR.
That means I will have to use adaptors to drive the amp for HD-800s ( IIRC a friend has Lehmann ) out of line level XLR outputs of BAP-1000.
But it will not be soon. Getting two very busy guys - even if I sacrifice myself 100% - together (although we live within say 10 km of each other ) for at least an afternoon required for such a comparison will not be easy.
One is usually free after 21:00 PM, the other is then normally on the stage - playing music.

 
Hi and that would be a very telling test for sure.  But i understand not easy to carry-out.  I said hd800 because lately i have become obsessed with this thing of the "angled driver"
But any other good quality HPs good at playback the sound out of the head would do fine.
As i said i am quite sure that is a processor issue.  Some kind of crossfeeding between L and R is essential to give a virtual sound coming from the front.
Please keep me informed on any findings because i am very intersted in this aspect
Thanks a lot again.
Kindest regards,  gino
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top