Headphones vs Speakers -- an Inconvenient Truth
Jan 25, 2017 at 11:39 PM Post #48 of 350
Really?
 
You have to get used to 85 - 90 dB. That's where I get my head banging and thumping. Music and beats just throbs through your chest and it's a great sensation IMO.
 
Jan 27, 2017 at 9:08 AM Post #50 of 350
Well I've spent over $500 on carpeting and acoustic panels. My entire living room was made into a listening room.

I got a pair of those new Chane 1.4s (bookshelves) and a Teac integrated (which claims to use an ICEPower amp so it shouldn't be garbage) to power them.

Veiled, rolled off, BORING, unresolving. It's true that the soundstage is wide, but it's basically center, left and right.

It's like, I'm listening to THIS instead of my Utopias?

So what's going on? Are my speakers just entry level junk and I'm being taught a lesson for listening to avsforum?

How was your room treatment done? There's a-lot of science (and other variables such as speaker angle, placement, etc.) that go into setting up a room for good acoustic performance. Placing some panels on the walls and calling it a day isn't going to do the best job.
 
I agree with what a member mentioned earlier, you picked the wrong speakers. If you want bookshelf/desk speakers that rival headphones in terms of soundstage, detail, etc... you're in the market for near-field monitors, like the ones used in music studios. These are specifically designed to reproduce sound as accurate as possible with soundstage definition and separation in mind, within a short listening distance.
 
By far headphones are easier to setup and use: Source, DAC, amp, PLAY. You don't have to treat a room, decouple the speakers from your desk, angle and place them properly, find the optimal listening position, and then hope you don't bother any neighbors (if you're in an apartment of course). That being said, a well set up room with a good pair of monitors will leave headphones in the dust.
 
Jan 29, 2017 at 2:28 PM Post #51 of 350
In terms of presenting music accurately, the best speakers typically have a much flatter frequency response than the best headphones. +/-2 dB from 20 Hz to 20kHz is a common benchmark for reference speaker systems, and, in a good room, this will sound very realistic.

If you check out the frequency responses of even the best headphones, they cannot achieve this linear response. Here are some measurements of some high-end cans: http://graphs.headphone.com/index.php?graphID%5B0%5D=4061&graphID%5B1%5D=2621&graphID%5B2%5D=2241&graphID%5B3%5D=3631&scale=30&graphType=0&buttonSelection=Update+Graph

Nowhere near linearity! Speaker systems have a huge advantage by using multiple drivers with crossover networks to feed each driver only the frequencies it delivers best. Commonly a large woofer or even subwoofer covers the bass, while a smaller cone covers the midrange, and a tweeter hits the highs. In a headphone, generally one driver must do everything. Most headphones fail to reproduce real sub bass in music because their drivers simply aren't large enough to push much air at those frequencies without distortion. While they often excel in the midrange, which is sort of the sweet spot due to driver diameter, the the treble is often "peaky" because the headphone drivers are also forced to produce frequencies above this region, where they suffer from breakup due to resonant modes, usually along with high-end roll off, this time because the driver is too big for the task!

This is not to say that headphones sound bad. I still really enjoy them. But in my experience, they do not present music with the same degree of neutrality and realism as speakers.
 
Jan 29, 2017 at 7:22 PM Post #52 of 350
I fully agree with others about near filed listening, was a very engaging experience. Once I had my speakers, Tannoy Turnberry just placed on the each side of listening chair, about only a feet, that acted like a pair of giants headphones, love the sound! But unfortunately, i have kids at home that I can't have my speaker permanently placed like that.
 
Jan 29, 2017 at 9:24 PM Post #55 of 350
I went the other way around and transitioned to speakers from headphones as I can blast them 24/7. No headphones without the insane price tag (TOTL) beats the listening pleasure that I get from nearfield speaker IMO. I'm not looking to spend 4 digits on a headphone which is far too above the diminishing returns already.
 
Jan 29, 2017 at 11:10 PM Post #58 of 350
Not to mention the woofer cones too if your woofer has one.

 
What do you mean? All woofers have a cone, because if you looked at a speaker from the side, it's like a cone. If you think about it in ice cream terms it's just that the mouth is as wide as a waffle bowl than an ice cream cone. 

 
A tweeter by contrast is usually referred to as a dome because the diaphragm is inverted, but some tweeters do come with a concave surface, like some Focals.


 
 
 
 
If by "cone" you mean the alternate style dust cap that kinda looks like a 20mm rifle bullet, that's a wave guide, which I mentioned before the tweeters in my post. And that's what children poke and all the more if they look like these.
 
Child's perspective taken into account in this photo...

 
 
...although they can look down and find this in some car doors too.

 
Jan 30, 2017 at 12:23 AM Post #59 of 350
I just used a broad term. I'll refer to it as "membrane" which some speakers have a dome shaped membrane style or a concave style like this:
 

 
Here's a dome-shaped membrane dust cap:
 

 
Then again, you can always put speaker covers, but kids eventually poke holes through them.
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 2:55 AM Post #60 of 350
  I just used a broad term. I'll refer to it as "membrane" which some speakers have a dome shaped membrane style or a concave style like this:
---
Here's a dome-shaped membrane dust cap:

 
 
The membrane is basically the dust cap, which is normally a separate piece from the actual sound producing diaphragm which is referred to as the cone (and hence why I said they all have cones). The way speakers are traditionally fabricated is a lot like a cone, except you don't get a sharp point on the bottom. In ice cream terms, it's like if you didn't have to bite the bottom first, it came that way from the factory. Then they have to cover that hole with a dust cap, which in some cases can be just a simple falt cover (as current entry level JL subs, like the W0v2 and W1v2), a dome like the sub you posted, or can integrate a wave guide like a whizzer on a fullrange driver or a bullet-shaped guide.
 
Newer fabrication methods however allowed for single piece inverted domes/bowls that are a lot shallower, like that ///////Alpine Type R subwoofer, the JL W7, W6v2, W3v3, and midwoofers like the DLS MS6 and on Mission's M3x series. While generally more costly to produce, the benefits are a stronger single piece cone (since you won't have the glued-on or stick on stress point from a separate dust cap) and more surface area, which are great for subwoofers that need a lot of surface area and excursion to go lower and louder. One downside I think is that the lack of a wave guide complicated dispersion patterns on some designs, which, on top of costs, is why it isn't as popular on midwoofers. DLS dropped it when they updated the MS6 into the MS6 Pro (the dispersion pattern probably wasn't picked up in their lab with the basketball grills in use, even in show/competition cars; with most other users however the grill isn't used as the midwoofer is mounted behind a stock door panel) and Mission hasn't used it on any other series.
 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top