[pinnahertz]

so a replica sound from a headphone is a replica and the sound replicated by a speaker setup is not a replica?

Backwards, if anything. Hard to make sense of the above. If a recording was mixed on speakers (and nearly all are), you cannot achieve a "replica" of the original sound heard by the mixer by using headphones. You have to use speakers, and in a setup as near to the original monitoring system as possible.

i do agree that you cant produce a sound stage that doesnt exist on headphones but headphones can actually reproduced the recorded sound stage and i did not say that it does it better than a speaker is just that there are lesser variables to deal with on a headphone.

You still have not defined "soundstage". The headphone perspective is unique to itself. It doesn't exist anywhere else, so it cannot be "reproducing" any other perspective.

i also think that people actually mix using iem or headphones... i have seen like DJ, youtube videos or behind the scene vidoes that people are actually wearing headphone while mixing?

They aren't mixing for commercial release, if anything, they're mixing for a live event because they aren't in the main listening area. It's a huge compromise, but is sometimes the only way to get even a little isolation to hear a balance. Records are not made that way! A DJ's job is just pre-auditioning the next track, beat-matching it, and monitoring his transitions. He's not "mixing" anything.

I always love it when somebody thinks what they just happened to see on a YouTube video becomes the absolute authority vs the guys who have actually worked in audio for many decades. Yeah. YouTube is always definitely the way to go. Have fun going down that garden path.

 

[bigshot]

as for headphone, i believe that it actually does a better job replicating the sound of the recording. i think audiophiles actually wants to hear the actual recording and not then sound produced by the current speaker setup.

I think that may be true of dyed in the wool audiophiles... it is a lot easier to achieve balanced response and inaudible levels of distortion with headphones as opposed to speakers, and you don't have any added acoustics from the room. This will bring out detail. But "detailed" isn't necessarily "better sounding". A person who wants to listen to music rather than to listen to details might feel differently. A string quartet in a dry recording booth would certainly sound more accurate and detailed, but it would sound a lot better in a chamber music hall where the acoustics of the room allow the sound to bloom. Speakers also introduce the aspect of physical space and soundstage. It's more accurate and it sounds better to have sound in front of you, not in the middle of your head. And speakers have a kinesthetic quality to the bass that is totally natural and accurate, yet headphones are completely incapable of that. So while headphones may have some aspects that are accurate, in other aspects speakers are better.

Accuracy is a goal, not a destination. There are always tradeoffs. Each tool has its uses. I use headphones when I'm doing restoration of old records because headphones present detail better. But for just listening to music, speakers provide the most natural and visceral experience. That overall impression is more important to me than detail. Someone else may feel differently, but I think most people when given the choice will choose speakers over headphones. Otherwise when we go to concerts, they would have a headphone jack at each seat.

i think the sound stage in headphone is still at it's infancy. it maybe virtual but nowadays i can see like there is this trend where companies like sennheiser trying to replicate the virtual surround sound better.

I have a great interest in multichannel audio. I think it is as big a leap forward over stereo as stereo was over mono. I've heard gaming headsets that simulate surround and recordings in binaural and 3D audio. I've never heard anything with headphones that comes close to the sound of my 5.1 system. I haven't been able to try the Smyth Realizer, but I suspect that there is more to it than just head tracking. There is a peculiar aspect to the directionality of sound, and just like physical soundstage, I don't think it can be synthesized without physical space for it to inhabit.

when i say sound stage it is refering to the recorded sound stage which bigshot calls the secondary depth cues or something.

I suspected that there was a problem with definitions in there somewhere... Soundstage and secondary depth cues aren't the same thing. You have primary depth cues that dictate soundstage... those are physical differences... the space between the listener and the sound source. The distance makes it primary. Then you have secondary depth cues- These are part of the recording... a slight reverberation, or a difference in volume or EQ. The secondary depth cues were primary depth cues at the recording session, but they are recorded into the master and played back, making them secondary.

So therefore, a speaker setup is a combination of both primary and secondary depth cues- the distance from the listener to the speaker and the effect of the room is primary, and the subtle reverberation and differences in volume recorded into the music is secondary. And headphones are just secondary with no primary depth cues, because the speakers are stuck to your ears.

That's why speakers are capable of true soundstage... a flat plane of sound situated 8 to 10 feet in front of you in physical space; while headphones are not. All they can do is reproduce secondary depth cues.

Is that clearer?

so a replica sound from a headphone is a replica and the sound replicated by a speaker setup is not a replica?

Actually, yes. Most music is mixed in the studio using speakers as the reference, not headphones. If you want the most accurate representation of the recording, you would want to hear it as close as possible to the way the people making the recording heard it. That would be a properly set up speaker system.

 

[pinnahertz]

i think the sound stage in headphone is still at it's infancy.

Yes, if something you can't define clearly, and relates to a listening experience at least 65 years old can be in it's infancy.

it maybe virtual but nowadays i can see like there is this trend where companies like sennheiser trying to replicate the virtual surround sound better.

I don't see Sennheiser doing any of that. Link? The Smyth Realizer virtualizes a speaker surround setup. That's a unique function unrelated to this discussion.

 

[pinnahertz]

it is based on my own experience . one day i will probably write a thesis on it.

Better get started on that research. ASAP, please!!!

i fully agree with you on how a speaker produces sound stage. it is just that a headphone also produce some sort of sound stage. it is almost like comparing the american sushi with the japanese sushi.

No, it's like comparing Japanese sushi with a grapefruit.

From the Department of Redundancy Department: The Headphone experience is unique to the headphone experience. It does not replicate anything else, it does not present the recording in perspective, and presents acoustic events in a space that cannot possibly exist: inside your skull.

 

[bigshot]

I have never understood why people like this mic setup. No one from the audience sits up there, and with a bunch of violins play there is a lot mor high freq content being picked up making them sound too bright without a bunch of eqing?

The proof is in the pudding. Decca consistently produced the best sounding classical recordings. They must have had a process for translating the input from the mic tree to make it work, because it certainly did work. Miking from above makes sense for an orchestra because on the ground the musicians' bodies would be blocking the sound, and if you get too far away from the band, you're miking the hall, not the orchestra.

 

[pinnahertz]

I have never understood why people like this mic setup. No one from the audience sits up there, and with a bunch of violins play there is a lot mor high freq content being picked up making them sound too bright without a bunch of eqing?

So, "Never understood" = "can't possibly be right"?

How about some effort in understanding first?

Decca Tree

Decca Tree - Not just for stereo...

Perhaps an understanding of the goal and purpose of recorded sound....

from "Sound Reproduction" by Floyd E. Toole, pg 6:

The “copy” is sufficiently similar to the “original"
that our perceptual processes are gratifi ed, up to a point, but the “copy” is not
the same as the “original.” Sterne (2003) explains that “at a very basic, functional
level, sound-reproduction technologies need a great deal of human assistance
if they are to work, that is, to ‘reproduce’ sound”.

 

[gunwale]

the positon of the instrument is created pretty much from scratch by a sound engineer using mono tracks and making a stereo record that sounds the way he likes on speakers. no mater the process, chances are the final master was for speakers using speakers. of course some people use headphones to do everything, amateurs, pros too poor to rent a studio or leaving in mum's basement and forbiden to use speakers. and a few DJs. but 1/ what percentage of your library do you imagine that is? and 2/ it's hard to magine that the most realistic experience will come from those guys. it's not like you'll think "I'm in the studio with the band" when listening to electro ^_^. there will be position cues, but not much to do with how some real artists where placed on a scene.
so now for everything else, which is almost all albums ever created, you have an music made to be played on speakers:
left speaker reaches left and right ear with only the attenuation of your head and some small phase delay for your head size hearing something at 30°.
right speaker reaches left and right ear...

when you take that album and listen to it on headphones you get:
left driver reaches almost only left ear, and whatever reaches the other ear will be very massively attenuated. and as it comes from a different direction the phase delay is always bigger than it should and the impact of your head on the sound will be different anyway. so you're likely to hear nothing, but what little you may get to the other side will be wrong stereo.
right driver reaches almost only right ear...

so expecting the headphone experience to have anything to do with what happened in the studio or the original sound is an absolute delusion. that's what everybody is trying to tell you. it's not that we hate headphones or that headphones couldn't do great things. it's simply that music has been done a certain way for a certain purpose all those years. binaural recording is a special case and not exactly the most used method of recording albums(and even that has problems if you're really looking for the experience of sitting in front of the band). you're just looking to match your experience to your expectations, and we all did that or keep doing it. dishonest marketing about the sound like the artist intended keeps most people believing that's something they can and should achieve. but for almost all albums ever made, headphone stereo is wrong stereo. not saying my speakers in my room give me the sound of some fancy studio, but at least I use the right stereo mechanism. and my own body changing the sound isn't partially bypassed, which greatly help thinking the sound source is at a real place in the room.

i totally agree with you.

The above makes my point: we haven't actually clearly defined "soundstage"! You can't even define it clearly.
You've already said it's both constant and changes. Which is it?
Not at all. Volume itself is not a localization cue. Localization works by the ear/brain system analyzing many cues, such as ratio of direct vs reflected, spectral characteristics of direct vs reflected, timing of direct vs reflected, left vs right ear arrival time and azimuth-related spectral difference….it's far, far more complex than just a change in volume!

It doesn't matter where or how the recording was made. Localization cues can be present to some degree, even accidentally, in any recording, but that doesn't change the fact that the headphone spacial presentation is unique to headphones. There is only one type of recording that, by itself, presents even a vague representation of the spacial aspects of the original event, and that's binaural. And even that doesn't work consistently across a large listener base!

Your stated concepts of spacial localization are not even partially correct.

i agree with you on the reflection thing. so when record something in a staged environment, you actually also record the sound being reflected around in the room hence that is the sound stage that you get from listening to a headphone.

volume is just one of the factor to increase the clarity of the sound so that we can actually distingush how the sound is reflected.

have you seen 3d drawings on youtube? i guess it works the same way. artists draw them based on how the light gets reflect from and to the drawn object so it looks real.

basically it all depends on the recording and i agree that maybe 90% of the album does not have like a proper recorded sound stage but youtube videos and live recordings does.

 

[gunwale]

Backwards, if anything. Hard to make sense of the above. If a recording was mixed on speakers (and nearly all are), you cannot achieve a "replica" of the original sound heard by the mixer by using headphones. You have to use speakers, and in a setup as near to the original monitoring system as possible.
You still have not defined "soundstage". The headphone perspective is unique to itself. It doesn't exist anywhere else, so it cannot be "reproducing" any other perspective.

They aren't mixing for commercial release, if anything, they're mixing for a live event because they aren't in the main listening area. It's a huge compromise, but is sometimes the only way to get even a little isolation to hear a balance. Records are not made that way! A DJ's job is just pre-auditioning the next track, beat-matching it, and monitoring his transitions. He's not "mixing" anything.

I always love it when somebody thinks what they just happened to see on a YouTube video becomes the absolute authority vs the guys who have actually worked in audio for many decades. Yeah. YouTube is always definitely the way to go. Have fun going down that garden path.

i am only debating on the fact that you actually get the feel of the actual recorded sound stage on the headphone and it has nothing to do with whether the sound quality of the recording or to proper studio mix with youtube mix.

i only started to listen to headphone like 1 year ago and i was listen to speaker all the time. all the recording sounded weird and yes there wasnt any sound stage or depth.

it is just sad stereo and even weider binaural ablums.

after a year trying to figure what is this sound stage thing in headphone, i finally concluded the only thing that is closed to a sound stage in a headphone is the sound stage of the recording.

it is not headstage and it has nothing to do with open or closed or iem.

imagining to me is the separation on individual source of sound in the recording. i use a stadium recording as an example because the live stadium is a good example of confined space with properly positioned recorders.

sound stage of the recording varies depending on the type of headphone or iem. (different speakers produces different sound stage too)

the sound stage should not change on the same headphone setup on different volumes what changes is virtual location of the headphone listener in the recording enviroment which causes the separation of the source of sound(imaging) to change.

so the actual recorded sound stage should be constant and what changes is imaging.

 

[gunwale]

Yes, if something you can't define clearly, and relates to a listening experience at least 65 years old can be in it's infancy.

I don't see Sennheiser doing any of that. Link? The Smyth Realizer virtualizes a speaker surround setup. That's a unique function unrelated to this discussion.

it is the smyth realizer.

if you sit in the middle of the room with your eyes closed and listen the play back of the real speaker and headphone and both sounded exactly the same, so what happen to sound stage?

are you telling me that you can only feel the sound stage when you move around? (headphone have head tracking) or are you saying you need the bass to vibrate your lungs to feel the sound stage?

why is the smyth realizer not related to this discussion? if i record your exact speaker setup with it and play it on a headphone, i should be able to hear the exact thing that you hear and yet recorded sound stage doesnt exist?

i never once said that headphone can create a non existing sound stage.

 

[pinnahertz]

volume is just one of the factor to increase the clarity of the sound so that we can actually distingush how the sound is reflected.

Volume has very little to do with how we localize sound in a reflective environment.

have you seen 3d drawings on youtube? i guess it works the same way. artists draw them based on how the light gets reflect from and to the drawn object so it looks real.

Nope, entirely different, and irrelevant.

basically it all depends on the recording and i agree that maybe 90% of the album does not have like a proper recorded sound stage but youtube videos and live recordings does.

Again...and again...it is IMPOSSIBLE for headphones to present tne proper recorded sound stage. Impossible, because most if the presentation is in a space that sound cannot possibly be: inside your skull.

 

[gunwale]

Volume has very little to do with how we localize sound in a reflective environment.
Nope, entirely different, and irrelevant.

Again...and again...it is IMPOSSIBLE for headphones to present tne proper recorded sound stage. Impossible, because most if the presentation is in a space that sound cannot possibly be: inside your skull.

you are just in denial... both sound and lights are particle and they do share similar properties.

proper soundstage or not, it is just the quality that differs. my arguement is that headphone can reproduce the recorded sounstage.

you should go and try the smyth realizer before posting more comments.

 

[pinnahertz]

i am only debating on the fact that you actually get the feel of the actual recorded sound stage on the headphone and it has nothing to do with whether the sound quality of the recording or to proper studio mix with youtube mix.

YOU might get a feel YOU like but it is not that of the actual recording. It's the recording presented on headphones, and that's unique to headphones only. YouTube has nothing to do with anything, its just a storage/transmission medium..

i only started to listen to headphone like 1 year ago and i was listen to speaker all the time. all the recording sounded weird and yes there wasnt any sound stage or depth.
it is just sad stereo and even weider binaural ablums.
after a year trying to figure what is this sound stage thing in headphone, i finally concluded the only thing that is closed to a sound stage in a headphone is the sound stage of the recording.

If you don't like the stereo width and depth you get from speakers, work on your speakers and room. With proper speaker and room design it is entirely possible to produce a sense of width, depth, even talk yourself into height. A well designed stereo listening environment can actually image sounds outside of the speakers, behind them, in front of them, and everywhere between them. You may even think you hear something behind you! But just slapping a pair of generic speakers anywhere in a room won't do that. Excellent imaging can only be obtained from speakers when they are positioned properly, and all early reflections have been controlled. Then, however, magic can happen.

Binaural recordings do not work at all on speakers. They're not intended to.

it is not headstage and it has nothing to do with open or closed or iem.

Yeah, they all image inside your head.

imagining to me is the separation on individual source of sound in the recording.

You have created your own definition of imaging, outside of the generally accepted one.

i use a stadium recording as an example because the live stadium is a good example of confined space with properly positioned recorders.

sound stage of the recording varies depending on the type of headphone or iem. (different speakers produces different sound stage too)

The presentation changes very slightly with different headphones, a bit more so with speakers. When people comment on a different "soundstage" with different headphones it's mostly due to the radically different frequency response, and to an extent, the position of the transducer. But all headphones and IEMs place the bulk of the stereo spread between the ears, in the middle of the skull. The primary difference in speaker imaging has to do with dispersion and off axis response. But you're not including the acoustic space the speakers are in. Any speaker can image much better if the acoustics are correct.

the sound stage should not change on the same headphone setup on different volumes what changes is virtual location of the headphone listener in the recording enviroment which causes the separation of the source of sound(imagining) to change.

Incorrect! Volume does not change localization!! That's a concept you have imagined for yourself. It's not universal for everyone, and specifically, volume is an extremely ineffective localization cue.

so the actual recorded sound stage should be constant and what changes is imagining.

I'm sorry, I can't even begin to discuss terms you have invented your own definitions for.

You have some very strong opinions! The are apparently based on extremely limited experience (1 year of headphone listening) and even less research. You're spouting opinion, including your own invented terminology, as if it's fact carved in stone. Your concepts are flawed by lack of experience and knowledge. You are arguing with people with many decades of experience in all parts of professional audio, some have spent a lifetime researching psychoacoustics, and aspects of hearing as well as sound reproduction and recording, acoustics and electronics.

I don't mind a discussion, or questions if someone is here to learn, but throwing around inaccurate statements like they are solid fact won't be tolerated much in Sound Science.

 

[pinnahertz]

it is the smyth realizer.

if you sit in the middle of the room with your eyes closed and listen the play back of the real speaker and headphone and both sounded exactly the same, so what happen to sound stage?

Yes, that's what the thing does.

are you telling me that you can only feel the sound stage when you move around? (headphone have head tracking) or are you saying you need the bass to vibrate your lungs to feel the sound stage?

Read my posts. Did I say any of those things?

why is the smyth realizer not related to this discussion? if i record your exact speaker setup with it and play it on a headphone, i should be able to hear the exact thing that you hear and yet recorded sound stage doesnt exist?

The Realizer is a special case, a processor designed for one purpose: to replicate a surround audio system while listening to headphones only. Yes, it does that. That has nothing to do with how a stereo recording sounds on headphones. Nothing.

i never once said that headphone can create a non existing sound stage.

I did, though, many many times. They image inside your skull where no sound should ever be. That's a nonexistent (sigh!) soundstage!

 

[pinnahertz]

you are just in denial... both sound and lights are particle and they do share similar properties.

Sound and light may share a few principles, but their properties and wavelengths are vastly different. More importantly, our ability to perceive dimension and localize the source for each is radically different and unrelated.

proper soundstage or not, it is just the quality that differs. my arguement is that headphone can reproduce the recorded sounstage.

No, they present their own unique (argh!) "soundstage" that doesn't exist in any other situation, most importantly the creative environment AND the actual acoustic event.

you should go and try the smyth realizer before posting more comments.

And exactly why do you think I haven't?

 

[gunwale]

YOU might get a feel YOU like but it is not that of the actual recording. It's the recording presented on headphones, and that's unique to headphones only. YouTube has nothing to do with anything, its just a storage/transmission medium..
If you don't like the stereo width and depth you get from speakers, work on your speakers and room. With proper speaker and room design it is entirely possible to produce a sense of width, depth, even talk yourself into height. A well designed stereo listening environment can actually image sounds outside of the speakers, behind them, in front of them, and everywhere between them. You may even think you hear something behind you! But just slapping a pair of generic speakers anywhere in a room won't do that. Excellent imaging can only be obtained from speakers when they are positioned properly, and all early reflections have been controlled. Then, however, magic can happen.

Binaural recordings do not work at all on speakers. They're not intended to.
Yeah, they all image inside your head.
You have created your own definition of imaging, outside of the generally accepted one.
The presentation changes very slightly with different headphones, a bit more so with speakers. When people comment on a different "soundstage" with different headphones it's mostly due to the radically different frequency response, and to an extent, the position of the transducer. But all headphones and IEMs place the bulk of the stereo spread between the ears, in the middle of the skull. The primary difference in speaker imaging has to do with dispersion and off axis response. But you're not including the acoustic space the speakers are in. Any speaker can image much better if the acoustics are correct.
Incorrect! Volume does not change localization!! That's a concept you have imagined for yourself. It's not universal for everyone, and specifically, volume is an extremely ineffective localization cue.

I'm sorry, I can't even begin to discuss terms you have invented your own definitions for.

You have some very strong opinions! The are apparently based on extremely limited experience (1 year of headphone listening) and even less research. You're spouting opinion, including your own invented terminology, as if it's fact carved in stone. Your concepts are flawed by lack of experience and knowledge. You are arguing with people with many decades of experience in all parts of professional audio, some have spent a lifetime researching psychoacoustics, and aspects of hearing as well as sound reproduction and recording, acoustics and electronics.

I don't mind a discussion, or questions if someone is here to learn, but throwing around inaccurate statements like they are solid fact won't be tolerated much in Sound Science.

again i never once said anything like my speakers have imaging problem.

why do you always assume i have those problems? it is general knowledge that speakers can produce sounds that feels like coming from the back of the speaker, between and all the way behind the listener.

you can also produce similar effect using headphone. have you heard a sound coming from behind using headphones?

i never once said anything about speakers and i agree on everything you said about speakers. i am refering to headphone.

do you even have a proper headphone setup?