[gregorio]

[1] there are two types of science, theoritical and experimental science. ... my experiment is the later science.
[2] it may sound BS but unlikely to be totally wrong unless proven with like an equation otherwise.
[3] the phone example is kinda extreme so lets go on into bluetooth speakers. do bluetooth speakers have stereo imaging?
[4] i think it does but probably not as good as the state of the art stereo imaging in some fancy studio.
[5] can you explain to me the difference between a real calibrated studio and the smyth realizer in terms of sound stage and imaging?

1. OK, so that proves you don't know what science is. AGAIN, it's foolish (though unfortunately not uncommon) that people demonstrate their ignorance of what science is by making up nonsense definitions of science on public forums, but to go to a forum actually called a science forum and do it, how crazy is that? Obviously you've chosen the first of the two options I mentioned, which means you must like making yourself look like an ignorant fool and must want to get yourself banned from this forum?!

2. Both! It sounds like bullsh*t AND is proven wrong by equations. What do you think HRTFs are? AND, why do certain headphone products (such as the Smyth Realiser you quoted) contain them?

3. A cell phone with two speakers does have stereo imaging, even a cell phone with just one speaker can reproduce certain aspects of sound stage, same with bluetooth or any other type of speakers, including all types of headphones and IEMs. The question isn't about whether they have any sound stage but of how accurate that sound stage is. Have you even read the title of the thread to which you're posting?

4. We're not talking about "good", we're talking about accurate and fidelity of reproduction. A point you seem to be completely missing because you don't know what stereo, imaging or fidelity actually mean. To compensate for this, you simply make up your own facts and then argue your nonsense against the science and, you've chosen to do that in a science forum, way to go!

5. Yes, if you get me a Smyth Realiser I could do that in some detail.

G

 

[gunwale]

1. OK, so that proves you don't know what science is. AGAIN, it's foolish (though unfortunately not uncommon) that people demonstrate their ignorance of what science is by making up nonsense definitions of science on public forums, but to go to a forum actually called a science forum and do it, how crazy is that? Obviously you've chosen the first of the two options I mentioned, which means you must like making yourself look like an ignorant fool and must want to get yourself banned from this forum?!

2. Both! It sounds like bullsh*t AND is proven wrong by equations. What do you think HRTFs are? AND, why do certain headphone products (such as the Smyth Realiser you quoted) contain them?

3. A cell phone with two speakers does have stereo imaging, even a cell phone with just one speaker can reproduce certain aspects of sound stage, same with bluetooth or any other type of speakers, including all types of headphones and IEMs. The question isn't about whether they have any sound stage but of how accurate that sound stage is. Have you even read the title of the thread to which you're posting?

4. We're not talking about "good", we're talking about accurate and fidelity of reproduction. A point you seem to be completely missing because you don't know what stereo, imaging or fidelity actually mean. To compensate for this, you simply make up your own facts and then argue your nonsense against the science and, you've chosen to do that in a science forum, way to go!

5. Yes, if you get me a Smyth Realiser I could do that in some detail.

G

The title of the thread says "How do you differentiate between soundstage width and depth and accurate imaging?"

Is it wrong for me to give my own observation which I think no one has "ever" heard of to the OP so that he can judge by him/herself whether it is valid or not?

As a hobbyist i like to share my own experience and discovery to a fellow hobbyist.

You guys are probably professionals and with all due respect I agree with whatever you guys said but i disagree on the fact that "Headphone does not reproduced the recorded sound stage" or "Better Headphones doesn't have better sound stage and imaging".

I do not know what is the definition of hi-fi for a pro like you but as a consumer and hobbyist, I think with a consumer grade player + dac + amp, electrostatic driver have very low distortion and hybrid or multi speakers reduced the intermodulation distortion because the speakers are just handling a certain range of frequencies. Same goes for electrostatic headphones, a electro-dynamic headphone or a multiple BA + hybrid dynamic drivers iem. All this will contribute to the realism of the playback given that the speakers are well positioned and the room is also designed for maximum compatibility with the speaker system.

I quoted this from the landing page of the forum :

The purpose of science is not to analyse or describe but to make useful models of the world. A model is useful if it allows us to get use out of it.
Edward De Bono

What i am trying to point out is headphone can actually reproduce the actual sound stage of the recording given that if we record using something like the smyth realizer.

Better headphone or high fidelity headphone should produce a more realistic playback that has better imaging and sound stage.

Looking into the present and future, most people use earphone compared to the old school speaker system (I have nothing against them and I always prefer the sound of a proper speaker setup) so why not the producers mix using headphone for headphone / iem users if a speaker mix actually causes distortion to the sound stage?

Sound stage has always been a "scandal like" topic because it is something we cant measure or equate. It depends on our very own brain and perception.

I apologize to all of you guys (except pinnahertz) for expressing my own observation in this forum and it caused all sorts negativity.

 

[gregorio]

[1] and how is my observation not scientific? i am not prof. but i do know the basics of a experimental science. (https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method)
[2] i dislike personal attacks ...

1. Huh, you seem to be arguing against yourself, again! You quote the "steps of the scientific method", do something completely different to the steps which YOU have quoted and then ask how is your observation not scientific ... are you joking?
2. That's just an outright lie, because you have used personal attacks against others!

[1] Is it wrong for me to give my own observation which I think no one has "ever" heard of to the OP so that he can judge by himself whether it is valid or not?
[2] As a hobbyist i like to share my own experience and discovery to a fellow hobbyist?
[3] ... I disagree on the fact that "Headphone does not reproduced the recorded sound stage" or "Better Headphones doesn't have better sound stage and imaging" or "Headphone doesn't have sound stage".
[4] I do not know what is the definition of hi-fi for a pro like you but as a consumer and hobbyist, I think with a consumer grade player + dac + amp, electrostatic driver have very low distortion and hybrid or multi speakers reduced the intermodulation distortion because the speakers are just handling a certain range of frequencies. Same goes for electrostatic headphones, a electro-dynamic headphone or a multiple BA + hybrid dynamic drivers iem.
[5] What i am trying to point out is headphone can actually reproduce the actual sound stage of the recording given that if we record using something like the smyth realizer.
[6] Looking into the present and future, most people use earphone compared to the old school speaker system ...
[7] so why not the producers mix using headphone for headphone / iem users if a speaker mix actually causes distortion to the sound stage?
[8] Sound stage has always been a "scandal like" topic because it is something we cant measure or equate. It depends on our very own brain and perception.
[9] I apologize to all of you guys for expressing my own observation in this forum and it caused all sorts negativity.

1. Again, you must be joking right? How many times do you need to be told that this is the SOUND SCIENCE forum, not the "Here's My Personal Nonsense" Forum?! Did you even read the "steps of the scientific method" you posted, did you not understand any of them?
2. Your "discovery" is nonsense, a sound science forum is the last place you should be sharing/presenting nonsense as fact!
3. The facts do not depend on your personal agreement or disagreement, that's why we have science in the first place!!!
4. You yourself have quoted that "When these mixes are played through headphones, these sound stages appear completely distorted.". So by your own quote, headphones are NOT hifi, at least as far as sound stage is concerned!
5. And how many commercial recordings are available in a Smyth Realiser version for headphones, what percentage?
6. Being as this is the science forum, I take it you have some scientific data/evidence to back up that claim? Or is this just another of your made up facts?
7. You've even got that backwards! A speaker mix does not cause distortion to the sound stage, a speaker mix creates the sound stage, it's headphones trying to playback a speaker mix which causes distortion of the sound stage.
8. Yes, we can measure and equate it, that's something I do every day of my working life, so do tens of thousands of others around the world and have done for several decades! However, we can only subjectively measure and equate it.
9. Expressing your own observations isn't the problem, the problem is you have invented theories to explain them, theories which you have stated as facts, theories which disagree with the actual science and facts, theories for which you have absolutely no evidence except your own observation and, you have shown no knowledge of or interest in the science/actual facts, only in arguing that your nonsense theories are correct. That's what you need to apologise for (and stop doing)!

G

 

[gunwale]

1. Huh, you seem to be arguing against yourself, again! You quote the "steps of the scientific method", do something completely different to the steps which YOU have quoted and then ask how is your observation not scientific ... are you joking?
2. That's just an outright lie, because you have used personal attacks against others!



1. Again, you must be joking right? How many times do you need to be told that this is the SOUND SCIENCE forum, not the "Here's My Personal Nonsense" Forum?! Did you even read the "steps of the scientific method" you posted, did you not understand any of them?
2. Your "discovery" is nonsense, a sound science forum is the last place you should be sharing/presenting nonsense as fact!
3. The facts do not depend on your personal agreement or disagreement, that's why we have science in the first place!!!
4. You yourself have quoted that "When these mixes are played through headphones, these sound stages appear completely distorted.". So by your own quote, headphones are NOT hifi, at least as far as sound stage is concerned!
5. And how many commercial recordings are available in a Smyth Realiser version for headphones, what percentage?
6. Being as this is the science forum, I take it you have some scientific data/evidence to back up that claim? Or is this just another of your made up facts?
7. You've even got that backwards! A speaker mix does not cause distortion to the sound stage, a speaker mix creates the sound stage, it's headphones trying to playback a speaker mix which causes distortion of the sound stage.
8. Yes, we can measure and equate it, that's something I do every day of my working life, so do tens of thousands of others around the world and have done for several decades! However, we can only subjectively measure and equate it.
9. Expressing your own observations isn't the problem, the problem is you have invented theories to explain them, theories which you have stated as facts, theories which disagree with the actual science and facts, theories for which you have absolutely no evidence except your own observation and, you have shown no knowledge of or interest in the science/actual facts, only in arguing that your nonsense theories are correct. That's what you need to apologise for (and stop doing)!

G

i do have interest in actual facts and science.

I did quoted that the sound stage reproduced by headphone when mixed by a speakers is distorted and the next paragraph suggested that maybe we can have two sources so that the headphone can also reproduce the correct sound stage. (you misinterpreted me)

The smyth realizer is something new and i personally believe that it has the potential to reduce the cost of future recordings.

Technologies are born out of science and it is meant to make our lives easier so why not embrace rather than resist it?

When I say sound stage cannot be measured, what i really meant was we cannot measure the sound stage of headphone or a speaker in a non standard environment.

I can't really describe it as good as you do but sound stage is subjectively measured.

About the scientific method, how am I wrong?

I asked myself what is a soundstage in headphone. (ask a question)

I read forum and reviews too look for a headphone which people tends to say it has good sound stage. (background research)

I have my own observations. (construct a hypothesis)

I tested it myself and try to understand what I feel. I ask my friends to try. (experiment)

I think it works for me but not everyone so i ask for consensus (procedure working?)

Guessing by the response i think it's BS (troubleshoot and etc)

How is this not following the process?

 

[gregorio]

[1] i do have interest in actual facts and science.
[2] I did quoted that the sound stage reproduced by headphone when mixed by a speakers is distorted and the next paragraph suggested that maybe we can have two sources so that the headphone can also reproduce the correct sound stage. (you misinterpreted me)
[3] The smyth realizer is something new and i personally believe that it has the potential to reduce the cost of future recordings.
[4] Technologies are born out of science and it is meant to make our lives easier so why not embrace rather than resist it?
[5] About the scientific method, how am I wrong? (a) I asked myself what is a soundstage in headphone. (ask a question). (b) I read forum and reviews too look for a headphone which people tends to say it has good sound stage. (background research). (c) I have my own observations. (construct a hypothesis). (d) I tested it myself and try to understand what I feel. I ask my friends to try. (experiment)
[6] I think it works for me but not everyone so i ask for consensus (procedure working?)
[7] How is this not following the process?

1. Then how come you don't know any and have to make up your own?
2. But in the real world, how many commercial recordings have two such versions?
3. No, it's not. I heard it at least 5 year ago and it had already been available for 3 or so years before that!
4. It costs time and money and there is a tiny user base out there, even after nearly a decade.
5. So, you did actually read the steps but unfortunately that's as far as you got, you apparently didn't read what the steps actually mean and therefore didn't understand them:
5a. OK.
5b. Oh dear! Background research for the scientific method obviously means background research of the science, NOT background research of only marketing BS, superstition, myths and anecdotes!!!!
5c. Due to 5b, your hypothesis is based on nonsense.
5d. So a sample size of what, 5 or so? And, yourself and few mates is not an acceptable sample, you are biased and have given absolutely no indication of having addressed bias, which is about as unscientific as it gets!
5e. You've given no details of your experiments, so no way of independently evaluating if your procedure was valid/worked.
5f. There is no 5f, no reliable data or reliable analysis of that data has even been mentioned. Therefore, NO science!
5g. You've drawn partial conclusions, conclusions which disagree with existing science, are not based on unbiased data or data analysis and is therefore completely unscientific!
5h. No 5h, no communication of results. Only communication that your conclusions are correct and everyone else is wrong.
6. It works well enough so that you believe it but AGAIN (and hopefully for the last time), that's NOT science. Your belief is irrelelvant, science was invented specifically to separate belief from fact!
7. You're joking again? I don't know what process you're talking about but it's certainly not the scientific process. Apart from the first step (Ask a Question) you've either just ignored the other steps or got them terribly wrong!

G

 

[gunwale]

1. Then how come you don't know any and have to make up your own?
2. But in the real world, how many commercial recordings have two such versions?
3. No, it's not. I heard it at least 5 year ago and it had already been available for 3 or so years before that!
4. It costs time and money and there is a tiny user base out there, even after nearly a decade.
5. So, you did actually read the steps but unfortunately that's as far as you got, you apparently didn't read what the steps actually mean and therefore didn't understand them:
5a. OK.
5b. Oh dear! Background research for the scientific method obviously means background research of the science, NOT background research of only marketing BS, superstition, myths and anecdotes!!!!
5c. Due to 5b, your hypothesis is based on nonsense.
5d. So a sample size of what, 5 or so? And, yourself and few mates is not an acceptable sample, you are biased and have given absolutely no indication of having addressed bias, which is about as unscientific as it gets!
5e. You've given no details of your experiments, so no way of independently evaluating if your procedure was valid/worked.
5f. There is no 5f, no reliable data or reliable analysis of that data has even been mentioned. Therefore, NO science!
5g. You've drawn partial conclusions, conclusions which disagree with existing science, are not based on unbiased data or data analysis and is therefore completely unscientific!
5h. No 5h, no communication of results. Only communication that your conclusions are correct and everyone else is wrong.
6. It works well enough so that you believe it but AGAIN (and hopefully for the last time), that's NOT science. Your belief is irrelelvant, science was invented specifically to separate belief from fact!
7. You're joking again? I don't know what process you're talking about but it's certainly not the scientific process. Apart from the first step (Ask a Question) you've either just ignored the other steps or got them terribly wrong!

G

I think you listened to the older version.

The latest one is A16.

I do not have any obligation to convince any of you guys.

I think there is only a fine line between marketing gimmick and science.

if not why scientific facts tend to always proven wrong?

Well i guess only time can tell.

Enjoy yourself in your little forum .

Cheers and bye.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I do not have any obligation to convince any of you guys.
[2] Enjoy yourself in your little forum . Cheers and bye.

1. If you're going to peddle ideas you've made up and call them scientific, then yes you do have an obligation to convince us and not just us but a consensus of scientists. Of course, you could just lie about it, say that your ideas are scientific when in fact they're just complete nonsense, that's what many in the audiophile community do and why audio pros and the scientific community think the audiophile community is a just small group of nutters.

2. Yep, that's what I thought. Your statement that "i do have interest in actual facts and science" was a boldfaced lie and now that you've been challenged that you don't even know what science is, let alone that your nonsense ideas in any way qualify as scientific, you're going to run away! That's better than staying, continuing to try peddle your nonsense as scientific and then unavoidably degenerating into personal attacks but no where near as good than if you were telling the truth, did actually have an interest in the facts/science and stuck around to actually learn some!

G

 

[pinnahertz]

and how is my observation not scientific? i am not a prof. but i do know the basics of a experimental science. (https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method)

If you read the link...that's not what you have done.

i was also replying a thread from G and why do G needs you to answer his questions? (because he says he will answer my questions if i ask politely. Unlike you...)

i am also not going to reply you anymore to feed your 55 years of ego.

so cheers and i hope you have a good life.

G doesn't "need" me to respond for him. I wasn't doing that. He's more than capable of responding himself, as he has done.

This is a public forum, anyone can read everything and respond to anything. If you don't want a response from someone then you can PM the desired person and keep the exchange private, or just ignore responses from people you choose not to read.

The ego is much older than that, and I feed it myself, thanks. Eats me out of house and home sometimes. I apologize if it seems to you to have gotten out of hand. But point of view does change things, and to me, it's a "pot calling the kettle black" scenario.

Thanks, I do have a good life!

 

[pinnahertz]

You guys are probably professionals and with all due respect I agree with whatever you guys said but i disagree on the fact that "Headphone does not reproduced the recorded sound stage" or "Better Headphones doesn't have better sound stage and imaging".

...because you know better?

What i am trying to point out is headphone can actually reproduce the actual sound stage of the recording given that if we record using something like the smyth realizer.

You have pointed that out, but it's wrong. The Realizer does one thing: produce a virtualization of a specific listening environment. That's not going to be the original, in the case of stereo music, so "reproduce the actual sound stage of the recording" is something it cannot do.

Better headphone or high fidelity headphone should produce a more realistic playback that has better imaging and sound stage.

...and then you have to define what "better" means you to.

Looking into the present and future, most people use earphone compared to the old school speaker system (I have nothing against them and I always prefer the sound of a proper speaker setup) so why not the producers mix using headphone for headphone / iem users if a speaker mix actually causes distortion to the sound stage?

Already explained...a speaker-based mix will be acceptable on headphones, a headphone-based mix will not be acceptable on speakers. If a producer is not going to do both (and they haven't yet in all the years of recorded music), then they'll opt for the speaker-based mix.

Sound stage has always been a "scandal like" topic because it is something we cant measure or equate. It depends on our very own brain and perception.

That's because it has not yet been clearly defined, and remains vague.

I apologize to all of you guys (except pinnahertz) for expressing my own observation in this forum and it caused all sorts negativity.

I normally like being exceptional, but this is ridiculous.

 

[bigshot]

I like how everyone tears everyone else's sentences into shred then formats the little out of context bits differently. Each meaningless bit is followed by a few irrelevant words indicating that the writer didn't really read the torn up little bits anyway. Science is a lot easier than language I guess.

 

[castleofargh]

the reply is to you.

as the forum moderate you arrogantly said that all headphone and iem regardless of design does not improve imaging and soundstage or perhaps i misinterpreted you?

my theory may be BS it could be headstage and etc.

yeah I'd appreciate if you could keep me out of your made up nonsense.

for the 5 masochists out there who haven't given up on this topic yet, here is my take on this all mess:
the all idea here is that @gunwale tries 2 headphones, notices that they sound different(wow) and one feels to him as if it has a good/realistic/whatever imaging. like how a hd800 feels as if the sound is further away for most people. his conclusion is that a good headphone has good soundstage. of course that is a wrong conclusion, and he should have stopped at different headphones have different sound and more or less fidelity. because the idea of good soundstage on headphones in genenral is nonsense.
panning of almost all stereo albums were created to sound a certain way on speakers. headphones do not provide that sort of stereo, and that's the end of it. debating different degrees of wrongness and calling the ones he likes, good, is really just rhetorical struggle.

talking about the Realiser A16 which is a custom calibration trying to mimic speakers on headphones, only serves to show how nonsensical this all got. headphone soundstage! can be so good and realistic that we can't wait to make it sound more like speakers. ^_^ I indeed can't wait to get my A16 at night when I can't use my speakers, but somehow it doesn't convince me that good headphones have a good soundstage.


the rest is more or less about assuming that @pinnahertz never tried 2 pairs of headphone. the thread is dead, long live the thread.

 

[ev13wt]

there are two types of science, theoritical and experimental science.

my experiment is the later science. it may sound BS but unlikely to be totally wrong unless proven with like an equation otherwise.

the phone example is kinda extreme so lets go on into bluetooth speakers. do bluetooth speakers have stereo imaging?

i think it does but probably not as good as the state of the art stereo imaging in some fancy studio.

can you explain to me the difference between a real calibrated studio and the smyth realizer in terms of sound stage and imaging?

You read "soundstage" and "imaging" everywhere in reviews of headphones.
So you think it exists.
This is only marketing.

Welcome to audio. There is much to explore and learn.

You have never heard a good stereo setup.

Please try to. First learning step.

 

[KLK2A1]

Ah, another zealot put through the meat grinder of Sound Science. As always, highly entertaining AND informative. Thank you, gentlemen.

 

[ev13wt]

Gunwale, while I see you wrote you are leaving us to our little uninformed world of boring sound, I do have fun suggestion for you!

David Chesky Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disk. Buy this. Learn about HRTF while listening to this disk. It is available on Tidal, if you have it.
Chesky has another one for speakers: The Ultimate Demonstration Disc (Chesky Records' Guide To Critical Listening)

Buy both. Listen to both 3 times. Come back to discuss soundstage and realizer again. I am trying to help, because you have passion for good audio!

 

[ev13wt]

I remember when I was 20, had all the answers to life and got banned on a philosophy debate forum for not following debating rules.

I did not understand What they where talking about and got a bit sad. Until I educated myself on how certain communication works.