How do you differentiate between soundstage width and depth and accurate imaging?

[castleofargh]

@gunwale the very job of the Realiser is to repeal and replace obamacare the impact of your headphone with something else. so basically you're saying that a good headphone can have great soundstage once we've tweaked the sound so much that it feels like speakers. see the issue with your argument? ^_^ that's like saying that a warm bassy signature is bright because it will be once we've EQed to roll off the bass and boost the treble.
sorry but I have a hard time not siding with @pinnahertz on this one. you don't credit a headphone for every processes that can be applied to the signal beforehand. it's a convenient way to pretend being right about anything we wish to say, but it's not rational.

 

[gunwale]

I know most recordings are done with studio speakers but is it not unfair for headphone users just because the recordings were originally mixed and calibrated just for speakers?

it is almost like saying that mixing for speaker doesn't change the original recorded sound but mixing with headphone for headphone actually changes the original recorded sound just because the headphone can reproduce the original sound.

I use smyth realizer as an example because this is the probably the exact opposite of what the so called "industrial standard".

I have no idea how will it sound like on speakers but it probably will sound better on headphones compared to the "industrial standard" mix .

I don't think you need a smyth realizer to get a good virtual sound but i think you can actually feel the existence of the recorded sound stage if it was mixed and calibrated using the smyth realizer.

For example :

iPods and other personal players

While it would be impractical to carry a Realiser around, the output of the Realiser can be recorded into a device such as an iPod. For the optimum effect, the listener can make a one-time measurement through the ear buds to correct for the bud/ear interaction and to improve the earbud response. Then the mobile listener can enjoy the full dimensionality, and much of the quality, of a good surround speaker system while mobile. Since there is no picture and the listener is constantly changing direction, head tracking is unnecessary.

http://www.smyth-research.com/technology.html

What if the smyth realizer AX actually works for both headphones and speakers and it became the new industrial standard for recording?

Even back in like 2012 :

Mixing engineers work hard to create sound stages in mixes using speakers. When these mixes are played through headphones, these sound stages appear completely distorted. While this does not seem to bother most listeners, most serious music buffs insist that listening to music via speakers is far more pleasing, largely due to the lack of spatial sense when using headphones.

The dominance of speaker mixes was never questioned until recently, when portable MP3 players and their integration with cellular phones became so widespread. It is a valid question to ask why we still mix using (and for) speakers when so many people nowadays listen via headphones. There is an unexploited opportunity here for record labels to produce ‘speaker’ and ‘headphone’ versions. This would make sense not only from a mixing point of view but also from mastering, consumer and label revenue points of view.

http://audioundone.com/headphones-mixing

My point is very simple.

Headphone can reproduced the stage sound and imaging of the recording.

Generally speaking, better headphone should be able enhance the existence of the sound stage and project proper imaging compared to cheaper headphones.

Phone speakers do not have proper sound stage projection.

Do down firing (mono) speakers in a mall have a proper sound stage (recorded sound stage)?

One of the way to proof my hypothesis is to get an open back headphone with a set of speakers and do a A/B testing on different genre and test if the test subject can identify which track is played through the headphone or which track is played through the speakers.

If what @pinnahertz is true then the test subject should be able to tell which is which.

I have tried this several times and sometimes i couldn't really tell the difference.

 

[gregorio]

[1] My point is very simple. .. Headphone can reproduced the stage sound and imaging of the recording.
[2] Generally speaking, better headphone should be able enhance the existence of the sound stage and project proper imaging compared to cheaper headphones.
[3] Phone speakers do not have proper sound stage projection.
[4] Do down firing (mono) speakers in a mall have a proper sound stage (recorded sound stage)?
[5] One of the way to proof my hypothesis is to get an open back headphone with a set of speakers and do a A/B testing on different genre and test if the test subject can identify which track is played through the headphone or which track is played through the speakers.

What a bizarre post?!

1. On the one hand you quote "Mixing engineers work hard to create sound stages in mixes using speakers. When these mixes are played through headphones, these sound stages appear completely distorted." but then you state the exact opposite to what you've quoted?!
2. Who told you that? You've just quoted that "these sound stages appear completely distorted" and they do. "Enhancing" the sound stage IS distorting the sound stage, for high fidelity you want the sound stage as intended on the recording, NOT some sort of "enhanced" sound stage!!
3. Phone speakers are typically mono.
4. No, do you even know what stereo is or anything at all about stereo imaging?
5. You don't have a hypothesis, what you have is a bunch of nonsense you've made up, which is already completely disproved by the existing, decades old science!

G

 

[ev13wt]

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”.

Ahh. Toole. Page 6. I understand, ok check this out; same book, pages 14 and 15:

"Microphones hanging above the string section of an orchestra inevitably pick up a spectrum that has a high-frequency bias; the sound is strident compared to what is heard in the audience due to the directional radiation behavior of violins (Meyer, 1972, 1978, 1993; see Figure 3.3)."


Maybe you like this bias. Certainly sounds very "revealing" and "airy".

The art of sound.

 

[bigshot]

If you're defining soundstage as secondary depth cues, then both headphones and speakers are just as good as rendering it. But I define soundstage as the physical distance between the listener and the sound source, so only speakers can render it. And even with a Smyth Realizer, you still can tell the difference between speakers and headphones, because speakers are able to make you feel bass in your chest and headphones aren't.

I have good headphones (Oppo PM-1), but they don't hold a candle to my speaker setup. Good speakers are always better than headphones, but good headphones are less expensive and require less room so for some people they are more convenient.

so you knew about it and that's the reason why you keep running away from the facts?
so my arguement is that headphone can actually reproduced the recorded sound stage.
is that true or false or are you still in denial

That's a very good impression. Can you do an impression of me too?

 

[bigshot]

"Microphones hanging above the string section of an orchestra inevitably pick up a spectrum that has a high-frequency bias; the sound is strident compared to what is heard in the audience due to the directional radiation behavior of violins (Meyer, 1972, 1978, 1993; see Figure 3.3)."

Wouldn't it be great if there was a tool to correct high frequency biases?! If someone invented one, they could put it in the mixing board on every channel right above the volume pot!

 

[SilverEars]

All this back and forth talk is just a matter of how one sees sound stage should mean.

 

[ev13wt]

Wouldn't it be great if there was a tool to correct high frequency biases?! If someone invented one, they could put it in the mixing board on every channel right above the volume pot!

Shhhh. For the sake of the argument.


"Well how can anyone remember those 1000000 knobs and what they do?" She said.

I responded: "Ask me!"
"Whats this one do?"
"Adjusts the bass."
"Ok, smartass, what about this one?"
"Also bass"
I kinda lost her there. But I did f4ck her on that console an hour later.

 

[pinnahertz]

Ahh. Toole. Page 6. I understand, ok check this out; same book, pages 14 and 15:

"Microphones hanging above the string section of an orchestra inevitably pick up a spectrum that has a high-frequency bias; the sound is strident compared to what is heard in the audience due to the directional radiation behavior of violins (Meyer, 1972, 1978, 1993; see Figure 3.3)."


Maybe you like this bias. Certainly sounds very "revealing" and "airy".

It doesn't matter what I like. The Tree, and subtle variations thereof, has been used ubiquitously for more than a half century. Yet we have recordings that don't sound particularly strident in the strings.

Could there be more to it? (hint: yes!)

Every heard a recording made from the audience? It sounds dull and lifeless. Hmmm!

 

[pinnahertz]

I know most recordings are done with studio speakers but is it not unfair for headphone users just because the recordings were originally mixed and calibrated just for speakers?

You're asking for our own custom version of every recording, then. Recordings mixed on speakers play well on headphones, even if the perspective is wrong. But binaural recordings made specifically for headphones don't play at all well on speakers, sounding dull, distorted, and practically mono. Even a cursory study of hearing localization would tell you why.

There have been very few recordings released both ways, but they are very few, and actually very odd recordings.

So, the choice is to satisfy most listeners most of the time, and that means mixing on speakers.

it is almost like saying that mixing for speaker doesn't change the original recorded sound but mixing with headphone for headphone actually changes the original recorded sound just because the headphone can reproduce the original sound.

No, nothing like that at all! Mixing on speakers in a well designed acoustic environment lets the creator build a presentation that, while not replicating the original, provides a good enough mix that the listener can suspend disbelief, and fill in the missing bits for a satisfying experience. Mixing on speakers presents an entirely new thing, not a replication of the original acoustic event. In fact, that event may not actually have existed at all other than in the final mix! But playing that mix on headphones doesn't present either the intended perspective or the original acoustic even (if it existed at all). It's not faithful to anything except the presentation on another pair of headphones.

I use smyth realizer as an example because this is the probably the exact opposite of what the so called "industrial standard".

It can't be an opposite, it's just not a standard, and isn't going to be any time soon. The Realizer is just a packaged device that performs what's known as "auralization", and has been done in software for years. Auralization has never become a standard for anything, there's no reason the Realizer would either.

I have no idea how will it sound like on speakers but it probably will sound better on headphones compared to the "industrial standard" mix .
It will sound dreadful on speakers. It's virtualized speakers presented binaurally then feed to another pair of real speakers in a real room. Binaural on speakers doesn't work!

I don't think you need a smyth realizer to get a good virtual sound but i think you can actually feel the existence of the recorded sound stage if it was mixed and calibrated using the smyth realizer.

You are living in dreamland.

For example :

iPods and other personal players

While it would be impractical to carry a Realiser around, the output of the Realiser can be recorded into a device such as an iPod. For the optimum effect, the listener can make a one-time measurement through the ear buds to correct for the bud/ear interaction and to improve the earbud response. Then the mobile listener can enjoy the full dimensionality, and much of the quality, of a good surround speaker system while mobile. Since there is no picture and the listener is constantly changing direction, head tracking is unnecessary.

http://www.smyth-research.com/technology.html

More marketing hype? SOOO many problems here. The simple act of measuring earbud response makes this impractical for any user. And then, creating a custom personalized version of every track you own...come on! This is just silly now.

What if the smyth realizer AX actually works for both headphones and speakers and it became the new industrial standard for recording?

It can't!

Even back in like 2012 :

Mixing engineers work hard to create sound stages in mixes using speakers. When these mixes are played through headphones, these sound stages appear completely distorted. While this does not seem to bother most listeners, most serious music buffs insist that listening to music via speakers is far more pleasing, largely due to the lack of spatial sense when using headphones.

The dominance of speaker mixes was never questioned until recently, when portable MP3 players and their integration with cellular phones became so widespread. It is a valid question to ask why we still mix using (and for) speakers when so many people nowadays listen via headphones. There is an unexploited opportunity here for record labels to produce ‘speaker’ and ‘headphone’ versions. This would make sense not only from a mixing point of view but also from mastering, consumer and label revenue points of view.

http://audioundone.com/headphones-mixing

More marketing hype...this is NOT science or reality!

My point is very simple.

Headphone can reproduced the stage sound and imaging of the recording.

And my point is also simple. You are wrong, and your concept is not based in anything scientific at all, just your personal opinion.

Generally speaking, better headphone should be able enhance the existence of the sound stage and project proper imaging compared to cheaper headphones.

Better doesn't track cost, but "better" is a parameter with many vectors, many subjective. That makes the above statement nonsense.

Phone speakers do not have proper sound stage projection.

You think?

Do down firing (mono) speakers in a mall have a proper sound stage (recorded sound stage)?

No, but that's irrelevant. The purpose of a distributed sound system is not to present any sort of image, it's to cover an area with sound evenly. Totally different, and irrelevant.

One of the way to proof my hypothesis is to get an open back headphone with a set of speakers and do a A/B testing on different genre and test if the test subject can identify which track is played through the headphone or which track is played through the speakers.

If what @pinnahertz is true then the test subject should be able to tell which is which.

I have tried this several times and sometimes i couldn't really tell the difference.

And that's all we needed to hear. The comparison between open back headphones and a set of speakers is obvious to anyone, unless the listener is somehow hearing deficient or the setup is horribly defective. There's no way that comparison could be anything but slap-in-the-face obvious! However, your statement frames the entire argument, so thanks for that.

 

[castleofargh]

I know most recordings are done with studio speakers but is it not unfair for headphone users just because the recordings were originally mixed and calibrated just for speakers?

it is almost like saying that mixing for speaker doesn't change the original recorded sound but mixing with headphone for headphone actually changes the original recorded sound just because the headphone can reproduce the original sound.

I use smyth realizer as an example because this is the probably the exact opposite of what the so called "industrial standard".

I have no idea how will it sound like on speakers but it probably will sound better on headphones compared to the "industrial standard" mix .

I don't think you need a smyth realizer to get a good virtual sound but i think you can actually feel the existence of the recorded sound stage if it was mixed and calibrated using the smyth realizer.

For example :

iPods and other personal players

While it would be impractical to carry a Realiser around, the output of the Realiser can be recorded into a device such as an iPod. For the optimum effect, the listener can make a one-time measurement through the ear buds to correct for the bud/ear interaction and to improve the earbud response. Then the mobile listener can enjoy the full dimensionality, and much of the quality, of a good surround speaker system while mobile. Since there is no picture and the listener is constantly changing direction, head tracking is unnecessary.

http://www.smyth-research.com/technology.html

What if the smyth realizer AX actually works for both headphones and speakers and it became the new industrial standard for recording?

Even back in like 2012 :

Mixing engineers work hard to create sound stages in mixes using speakers. When these mixes are played through headphones, these sound stages appear completely distorted. While this does not seem to bother most listeners, most serious music buffs insist that listening to music via speakers is far more pleasing, largely due to the lack of spatial sense when using headphones.

The dominance of speaker mixes was never questioned until recently, when portable MP3 players and their integration with cellular phones became so widespread. It is a valid question to ask why we still mix using (and for) speakers when so many people nowadays listen via headphones. There is an unexploited opportunity here for record labels to produce ‘speaker’ and ‘headphone’ versions. This would make sense not only from a mixing point of view but also from mastering, consumer and label revenue points of view.

http://audioundone.com/headphones-mixing

My point is very simple.

Headphone can reproduced the stage sound and imaging of the recording.

Generally speaking, better headphone should be able enhance the existence of the sound stage and project proper imaging compared to cheaper headphones.

Phone speakers do not have proper sound stage projection.

Do down firing (mono) speakers in a mall have a proper sound stage (recorded sound stage)?

One of the way to proof my hypothesis is to get an open back headphone with a set of speakers and do a A/B testing on different genre and test if the test subject can identify which track is played through the headphone or which track is played through the speakers.

If what @pinnahertz is true then the test subject should be able to tell which is which.

I have tried this several times and sometimes i couldn't really tell the difference.

let me help you. here is what I get in the end from all your posts:
some headphones have good enough fidelity for subjective simulations.

if that is indeed your very simple point(bolded part of your post), let's stop with the fishing trips and trying to win the internet. then you'll see that many people will agree, as in some respects it's easier to control a headphone than speakers. headphones do need customization for a given listener, so good headphones have good soundstage is still very much BS and IMO you should admit that much for the sake of the discussion. but past that, headphones can for example offer lower distortions than most speakers, and we don't have to treat a room. so a headphone can be a good tool for sound reproduction(as long as we're not asking for really high fidelity).
you see now we're talking about real stuff, the headphone is only a transducer and fidelity is the important and objective aspect. people can understand and discuss that. no forcing a strange concept of soundstage onto the headphone itself for no reason, no reinventing the recording industry just to be right about something. instead now it's a matter of fidelity for a playback component. a simple and rational conversation. ^_^

 

[bigshot]

Balanced response is much more common in headphones than speakers too. Headphones are definitely easier to make sound good. But speakers do things headphones can't.

 

[SilverEars]

Headphones are definitely easier to make sound good.

This is why I like headphones. They do well for monitoring for sound precision. Also, sound isolation, transportable, portable, overall convenience. With the speakers, to get great sound is more difficult(takes a bit of work) with room treatment, reflections, etc.. For this reason, a precise headphones do well for precise sound monitoring. To me, sound differences based on various sources are much more apparent with IEMs, and gets less and less as more open the sound outputs get. Over the ear headphones to speakers.

Low points are imaging, skew'd, being further alway from true, etc.., but the precision of the sound is different.

 

[gunwale]

What a bizarre post?!

1. On the one hand you quote "Mixing engineers work hard to create sound stages in mixes using speakers. When these mixes are played through headphones, these sound stages appear completely distorted." but then you state the exact opposite to what you've quoted?!
2. Who told you that? You've just quoted that "these sound stages appear completely distorted" and they do. "Enhancing" the sound stage IS distorting the sound stage, for high fidelity you want the sound stage as intended on the recording, NOT some sort of "enhanced" sound stage!!
3. Phone speakers are typically mono.
4. No, do you even know what stereo is or anything at all about stereo imaging?
5. You don't have a hypothesis, what you have is a bunch of nonsense you've made up, which is already completely disproved by the existing, decades old science!

G

phone speakers are not mono. there are many phone with stereo speakers.

read the next paragraph. it says that people should mix with speakers or speakers users and headphone for headphone users since nowadays there are more and more headphone users.

i never once said that i can hear the sound stage that is mixed specially for speakers.

My example is based on an auditorium recording of agt on youtube which i believe that is has a more neutral profile which doesnt specifically bias to speakers or headphone.

 

[gunwale]

You're asking for our own custom version of every recording, then. Recordings mixed on speakers play well on headphones, even if the perspective is wrong. But binaural recordings made specifically for headphones don't play at all well on speakers, sounding dull, distorted, and practically mono. Even a cursory study of hearing localization would tell you why.

There have been very few recordings released both ways, but they are very few, and actually very odd recordings.

So, the choice is to satisfy most listeners most of the time, and that means mixing on speakers.
No, nothing like that at all! Mixing on speakers in a well designed acoustic environment lets the creator build a presentation that, while not replicating the original, provides a good enough mix that the listener can suspend disbelief, and fill in the missing bits for a satisfying experience. Mixing on speakers presents an entirely new thing, not a replication of the original acoustic event. In fact, that event may not actually have existed at all other than in the final mix! But playing that mix on headphones doesn't present either the intended perspective or the original acoustic even (if it existed at all). It's not faithful to anything except the presentation on another pair of headphones.
It can't be an opposite, it's just not a standard, and isn't going to be any time soon. The Realizer is just a packaged device that performs what's known as "auralization", and has been done in software for years. Auralization has never become a standard for anything, there's no reason the Realizer would either.

And that's all we needed to hear. The comparison between open back headphones and a set of speakers is obvious to anyone, unless the listener is somehow hearing deficient or the setup is horribly defective. There's no way that comparison could be anything but slap-in-the-face obvious! However, your statement frames the entire argument, so thanks for that.

if you read my screenshots it says that the smyth realizer can replicate environment and it can place up till 16 speakers around the virtual environment.

it may be slap in the face obvious but are you certain that every single person on earth have the same kind of superhuman hearing like you?

how confident are you to score a perfect score?

i dont think i can ever meet u up in person but i am looking forward to perform the experiment on you.