[tom hankins]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha Lol - I agree, but matey, how is this source "first"? Best, -Jason

The original question is which will affect the sound quality more. (source or phones) I think no matter what phones you may decide on....there quality (not house sound) is dependent on the source.
Find the house sound you like and then if you really want to hear what they can do, get a good source.

 

[kartik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot It's really very simple... which one of those two options would provide the most stark difference in sound quality? It's not a trick question... it seems obvious to me that the differences between cheap electronics and expensive electronics are MUCH smaller than the differences between cheap headphones (or speakers) and expensive headphones (or speakers). The fact that people are dancing all around the issue without being able to address it simply and directly just shows how far audio talk has strayed from reality. Here is a rant to get you thinking... The problem with audio today is that it has no sense of scale... People spend all their time worrying about frequencies only bats can hear and dynamic ranges that no one can ever hope to listen to without incurring major hearing damage. Basic physics is completely thrown out the window and it's replaced by glittering generalities like "transparancy" and "texture" that are attempts to translate visual analogies to sound that just don't apply. Here's a scientific puzzle I've been pondering lately... Everyone talks about how low their headphones go... It's a matter of pride to participate in the low frequency limbo. Headphones are rated down into the 20s... Wow! Isn't that great! Well, what exactly does that mean? Here is the formula for calculating the length of sound waves... SPEED OF SOUND (1,130 feet per second) divided by the FREQUENCY (in hz) = LENGTH OF THE WAVE (in feet) Got that? ...At 25hz the length of a single sound wave is around 45 feet long. That means that a single wave 45 feet long has to come out of the speaker in one second to reproduce that sound into the air. That's the length of a semi-truck coming out of your speakers every second. Assuming you have speakers that are even capable of reproducing sound that low, you would need a room with a length of 45 feet to be able to even be able to fit that entire frequency in the room. But half that wave bounced off a wall of the room would create an entire wave, so that cuts it in half. If you set a speaker in the middle of a 22 foot long room, you'll be able to hear 25 hz. If you put the speaker up against the wall, you can cut that in half to 11 feet... in a corner, 5.5 feet... lower the roof, 2.5 feet... set it on the floor, 1.25 feet. (At this point, you have essentially created a horn that pushes low frequencies into a smaller space.) In theory, you could move in the sixth wall and cut that down to about .75 feet. OK... here's my question... What kind of fifth dimensional physics does it require to be able to hear 25 hz when it's not .75 feet away, but pushed up a couple of milimeters from your ears? The headphones may put out that frequency, but even with the most golden ears, you aren't going to be able to hear it because there is no room for the wave to exist in the tiny gap between your headphone drivers and your noggin! Do the math, and you'll quickly find out that the lowest frequencies that you can hear up close against your head like that is somewhere around 100hz. Guess what? Most home stereo speakers, even good ones, don't really reproduce much below 100 hz at normal volume levels. In order to push the cones back and forth fast enough to reproduce 25hz, the speaker cones have to be flapping back and forth 25 times a second. If you want to raise that to a volume where you can hear it, you are going to need a pretty powerful amp and pretty flexible speakers, because that's going to be enough to create a strong breeze! Most speakers are MUCH too rigid to be able to do that. That rigidity rolls the low frequencies off... usually at around 100 hz. Now physics and mathematics weren't my strong suit in college, but I can use a calculator and figure things out close enough to know that the golden ears that claim to hear super low frequencies out of their headphones are claiming to hear stuff that they just plain can't hear or can't be perceived the way they are listening. Once you wrap your head around a concept like this, you start wondering what other claims about high end sound are full of horse pucky... Do we really need SACDs capable of reproducing 2Mhz when our hearing at best only extends to 20hz? Is there an advantage to having a dynamic range of 120 db over having just 95 db, when 120db is the equivalent of putting your ear up next to a jackhammer? Do measurable, but minute differences in the conductivity of a power cable make any difference when the walls of your house are wired with plain old zip cord? What about interconnects... Is it possible to REALLY hear the difference? I don't know of a single A/B blind comparison where they anyone has been able to tell the difference... yet there are several published in magazines that proved the opposite is true... Hmmm... Makes you think, doesn't it? OK... I've just dismissed most of the sacred cows around here. What exactly DOES matter? 1) Speakers or headphones that reproduce as close to 20hz to 20khz as possible BUT IN A BALANCED WAY. It doesn't matter if speakers or headphones put out extreme frequencies if they are unbalanced. Wolf tones, or spikes in certain frequencies, can be to your ears like the difference between lying on a bed of nails all of the same length, and lying on one with nails of a variety of lengths... OUCH! The louder you turn up the volume, the more that wolf tone digs into your eardrums. Very few speakers are really flat, but better ones get close. A slight EQ tweak can pull them into line. More expensive speakers are usually able to reproduce a wider range of sound than cheaper speakers, but there is no point in putting top end speakers in a 10 by 10 room. The space has to be large enough to encompass the longer wave lengths. The dirty truth is, we humans are MUCH more sensitive to frequencies between 100 hz and 10 khz than we are the frequencies beyond that. Most people aren't going to hear a heck of a lot of difference if a system only extends 10 to 10. And a balanced 10 to 10 system will always sound better than an unbalanced 20 to 20. 2) Source components that conform to our ability to hear... We can hear 20hz to 20khz, a dynamic range of 70db is as much as we really need and the threshold of detectability of distortion is somewhere around .7%. Just about every single CD player made meets those specs! You can get equipment that has better specs, but only your dog will appreciate it, because humans flat out can't hear what they can't hear. 3) Amplifying power sufficient to push the speakers or headphones adequately. This can vary from speaker to speaker and headphone to headphone, but most systems are capable of driving speakers or headphones to the edge of their rating with power levels WAY below the peak nowadays. Most good amps are overpowered by as much as four or five times. You just don't need that much headroom. 4) Well recorded, mixed and mastered music. Garbage in... garbage out. That's it. See ya Steve

You accuse others of being verbose and circumspect, yet your own posts still seem to be circling in the air. What is your point? Make it. Stop trying to talk for the sake of it and SAY something you mean. Adding pointless homilies like "garbage in ... garbage out." don't clarify anything. If you're trying to reach an audience, I can tell you for sure, you aren't reaching me.

 

[bigshot]

Wow! This is really interesting... Do you really not understand what I'm saying, or do you not like my conclusions?

If it's the former, I'd be happy to post some links to websites with info on the limits of human hearing and the physics of low frequency sound waves. I'd also be happy to talk more about equalization, because I really think that's the most important and most overlooked aspect of sound reproduction.

If it's the latter, I'm afraid I don't know what I can do.

See ya
Steve

 

[Edwood]

Depending on the Headphones, I place Headphones first.

Sources Next.

Amps Next.

Everything else After.

-Ed

 

[bahamaman]

Agree, disagree, on the fence - it doesn't matter. Post numbers 42 and 72 from bigshot are two of the most articulate and insightful I've read in some time, maybe ever, and ought be required reading before joining head-fi.

Only problem, bigshot? I love this stuff too much to avoid the itch to upgrade. Now, thanks to you, I know what an idiot I am.

 

[bigshot]

The best thing to upgrade is your music!

I have well over 10,000 records- both 78s and LPs, about 5,000 CDs and a terrabyte of MP3s. I still find exciting new music to listen to every day. Every time I think I've heard it all, something else comes around that I missed before.

The past 100 years was one of the richest periods for music in history. The most amazing thing is that IT WAS ALL RECORDED so we can listen to it years after the musicians are dead. No other people in history have been so lucky. The sad thing is that most current music listeners have very little concept of what music was like before the Beatles. They're missing out big time, and they don't even know it. A whole world of great music is sitting at their local public library just waiting for them to seek it out.

The quest for the ultimate listening experience is a musical journey, not a technological one.

See ya
Steve

 

[agile_one]

Woah - hasn't this turned into quite the interesting thread?

bigshot - your posts are pretty much in agreement with my thoughts on the matter, most significantly this most recent re: the music itself - bravo.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman Post numbers 42 and 72 from bigshot are two of the most articulate and insightful I've read in some time, maybe ever, and ought be required reading before joining head-fi.

Oh my God, I've fallen down the rabbit hole.

 

[lan]

>>>It's really very simple... which one of those two options would provide the most stark difference in sound quality?

The most difference, the better speakers.
The most difference in quality, the better source.

For me I just cannot listen to the likes of Orpheus, Qualia, K1000, etc. headphones on lesser refined digital gear. The treble becomes irritating.

>>>The problem with audio today is that it has no sense of scale... People spend all their time worrying about frequencies only bats can hear and dynamic ranges that no one can ever hope to listen to without incurring major hearing damage.

I do not know any end users who worry about those things. Are you talking about the manufacturers?

>>>Basic physics is completely thrown out the window and it's replaced by glittering generalities like "transparancy" and "texture" that are attempts to translate visual analogies to sound that just don't apply.

Most normal people don't care about the physics of things. There's nothing wrong with using some adjectives to describe how you hear sound. Why don't these particular analogies apply? How does physics describe sound?

>>>Everyone talks about how low their headphones go...

I don't hear everyone talking about that and I agree on the physics part.

>>>The dirty truth is, we humans are MUCH more sensitive to frequencies between 100 hz and 10 khz than we are the frequencies beyond that. Most people aren't going to hear a heck of a lot of difference if a system only extends 10 to 10. And a balanced 10 to 10 system will always sound better than an unbalanced 20 to 20.

The sounds we hear in nature may not always sounds "balanced". You walk into different spaces and the sound interacts with all the objects in there in such a way that my voice sounds different in the bathroom compared to the living room. So it's natural to have some kind of variance in that frequency way. It's also natural to have depth in the sound and it's always smooth.

In your "balanced" reproduction system, it will match and be correct to the recording. But on a cheaper digital source, it won't have the depth and it will not be smooth but more grainy. For me, that's why the source is most important because reality can never be harsh/grainy/etchy. And it's okay that other headphones or speakers maybe a little off in some frequency sort of way because there's that variance in the normal experience. In order to achieve a balanced reproduction, you should equalize your speakers and your ears. And what happens if you get a stuffy nose, drank too much alcohol, etc.?

>>>The best sounding music... the stuff that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up... is natural sounding. When you put on a CD, and suddenly its as if the musician is right there in the room with you.

I agree. My reference is reality.

I find a better source (and various other tweaks) help in that regard. Cheaper sources are just not as cohesive and not as invisible as better ones in my experience. All those harmonics and overtones which make up nuances in sound require components with more precision.

>>>>No matter how well your system reproduces sound, it doesn't matter if the sound isn't in the music. A recording with a low end roll off at 400hz is going to sound thin, no matter how good the bass response of your speakers is.

True. Conversly, components without high enough precision, something that smears sound, etc. can create things which weren't in the music. To me it's worst offenders are bloated bass and harsh treble.

You seem to be basing quality largely on frequency response which I think is too simplistic. I think it's nice to have an accurate sound but ultimately more precision is important to me.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The fact that people are dancing all around the issue without being able to address it simply and directly just shows how far audio talk has strayed from reality.

Well said!

Regards,

L.

 

[bigshot]

Re: The lack of attention to scale when it comes to technological advances in audio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan Are you talking about the manufacturers?

Yes. Most specifically, the whole concept behind digital audio with high sampling rates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan How does physics describe sound?

Frequency, amplitude, dynamic range, level of distortion, psycho acoustic principles like masking, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan The sounds we hear in nature may not always sounds "balanced". You walk into different spaces and the sound interacts with all the objects in there in such a way that my voice sounds different in the bathroom compared to the living room.

That's actually a very interesting aspect of psycho acoustics... One of the reasons I've noticed why antique acoustic phonographs sound so startlingly present is because early recordings had very little reverberation to them. They were recorded dry because the recording horns couldn't pick up much sound beyond 15 or 20 feet. The manufacturers of acoustic gramophones recommended putting them in the corner of a large room, facing towards the center. This used the walls, floor and ceiling of the room to act as a horn to extend frequency response, but it also made the sound very directional, and any sound produced by the phonograph took on the natural reverberation of the room. Since many rooms back then had hardwood floors and high ceilings, the sound had room to bounce around, creating a very sophisticated set of echoes all around the listener. Combined with the 1:1 dynamics of the acoustic recording process (there's no volume control... soft is always soft and loud is always loud), and the projection effect focusing the sound a few feet in front of the player, it creates a very lifelike sound picture.

Our ability to discern presence in recordings uses an almost unconscious process of comparing the sound of the recording to the sound of our own voice in that particular ambience. When a dry recording is played back in a live room, using the natural acoustics of the room to create a natural reverberation, the recording sounds more "real" and present to us. A recording of a singer singing in a huge cathedral played back in a small, acoustically dead environment can sound good, but it doesn't have the same lifelike presence as the dead recording in the acoustically live room.

This is why synthesized digital delays always sound best with settings that mimic ambiences that are close in scale to the expected natural reverberation of the actual listening room. More exaggerated ones that synthesize large halls or arenas always sound "phoney" to us.

The reasons that bathrooms sound different than living rooms also has a lot to do with the sorts of surfaces the sound bounces off of. Hard surfaces will tend to reflect certain frequencies, just like a mirror reflects light. It's possible through equalization to balance for this, and produce a balanced frequency response, even if there is a lot of natural reverberation.

My friend showed me an interesting installation of his system a few months ago... It was a party with a live band in a totally empty warehouse space with very low ceilings. Standing in the room, you were instantly aware of the echoey sound of the place, but by the time he had placed the speakers and balanced the frequency response in the room, the sound was amazingly good. The sound sounded different in different parts of the room, but the differences matched the way everything sounded in those parts, so the ear read the differences and being "natural".

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan In your "balanced" reproduction system, it will match and be correct to the recording. But on a cheaper digital source, it won't have the depth and it will not be smooth but more grainy.

What you are reading as grainy is actually unbalanced high mids. If you boost the sound around 3khz, even just a little bit, the ear will hear that as harshness. Components that aren't designed as well might be more unbalanced, but the digital medium offers a broad latitude for adjustment to correct for this sort of thing. When the balance of frequencies is correct, there is an amazing way that the sound "pops" into a lifelike depth and presence. It's something that people with equalizers find out quickly... a balance can be just a couple of decibels off in the wrong place, and it can sound totally flat or harsh.

I'm betting you don't use an equalizer in your system, because without the ability to correct individual frequency bands, it is all up to the balance designed into the system. High end equipment is liable to be adjusted by the manufacturer to have a flatter response than medium range equipment. That's what makes you think that the better sound is exclusive to high end equipment... But that doesn't mean that medium grade equipment can't be tweaked with an equalizer to sound just as good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan I agree. My reference is reality.

Reality is the *ONLY* useful reference. "Realistic sound" is hardwired into our brains. When we hear it, we know it. We don't have to think about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan Components without high enough precision, something that smears sound, etc. can create things which weren't in the music. To me it's worst offenders are bloated bass and harsh treble.

I agree with that 100%... but bloated bass and harsh treble are exactly the sorts of problems that a simple EQ tweak can correct. The problem isn't precision or distortion. Most reasonably good stereo components are capable of high resolution and clean sound way beyond our ability to hear. The problem is frequency inbalances, and every single system has an imbalance to one degree or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan You seem to be basing quality largely on frequency response which I think is too simplistic. I think it's nice to have an accurate sound but ultimately more precision is important to me.

I think it's just a matter of semantics... I could just as well describe harsh treble as "grain" and bloated bass as "sloppiness". But those words are misleading... they don't point to the real problem.

Last week I had the opportunity to spend the day listening to a pro rig that has been tweaked to provide perfectly flat response from 26 hz to 20 khz. Not only that, it uses drivers that are capable of remaining balanced and flat at any volume level. Not many people get a chance to hear what that sounds like... It was a real "ear opener"!

I had a pretty good idea of what flat response sounded like in the core frequencies... but the bass and treble were very surprising to me. The treble was very restrained, it was clear to hear over the rest of the sound, but it didn't have that aggressive, up front sort of sound most systems have in the upper mids and low highs. It could hold back when there was no high frequencies to reproduce, and then come back with each cymbal hit. This gave the high frequencies a great deal of smoothness and depth.

The bass wasn't subtle at all... it was huge and powerful, slamming the floorboards like a hammer on big kick drum hits. Again, it didn't overpower or mask other frequencies, but it felt tight and had a completely smooth continuum all the way from the lowest lows up to the lower mid range. The midrange pluck of the acoustic bass sounded connected all the way down to the lowest rumble of the bass note. Most other systems I've heard have gaps between the lowest lows and the low mids. They sound like "firebreaks" in the sound. This can be even more exaggerated in satillite systems with subwoofers.

I plan to borrow my engineer friend's expertise to see what can be done with a tone generator on my system. I doubt it will get anywhere close in the low bass extension, but I think I can get it to sound much better by flattening it out a bit.

See ya
Steve

 

[White Fox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot OK... here's my question... What kind of fifth dimensional physics does it require to be able to hear 25 hz when it's not .75 feet away, but pushed up a couple of milimeters from your ears? The headphones may put out that frequency, but even with the most golden ears, you aren't going to be able to hear it because there is no room for the wave to exist in the tiny gap between your headphone drivers and your noggin! Do the math, and you'll quickly find out that the lowest frequencies that you can hear up close against your head like that is somewhere around 100hz...

Wow, this is interesting. I truly hope that we can hear sounds well below 100 hz coming out of our headphones, or I'll be pissed. Anyone want to argue that we can? I'll leave it to the 'experts'...

 

[kartik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan The headphone imparts the greatest characteristics to the sound but the source makes it all the more better so I'm a part of source first. I consider source everything before the amp though including all cables . Since I like headphones with a lot of treble energy, I need to have refinement upstream or it gets out of control. Give then choice, I rather have a decent headphone and a nice source. I've tried something like Koss PortaPro out of some crazy gear. It was still very good.

You should come over and hear my new Koss ESPs, they have treble energy and then some. But I agree with having a happy medium between the headphone and the source. I'd rather have a 2K source with a $500 headphone than a 3K source with a $200 headphone.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kartik I'd rather have a 2K source with a $500 headphone than a 3K source with a $200 headphone.

..mmm...

(

)

I clearly voted the third option .
But I must say I'm team source [size=xx-small]probably for my story ( I was quite stuck in headphones change till i went for a nice source , then I can say things became more clear/easy on head-fi) [/size] and mainly because it's source the core of a system , the headphones are the ending of it .

this said , I don't know if i would prefer a 2k source paired with a 500$ heaphones or a 2k headphones paired with a 500$ source .

mmm..
let's say a nice source get you "out of troubles" when you are upgrading other system' gears

 

[kartik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boodi ..mmm... ( ) I clearly voted the third option . But I must say I'm team source [size=xx-small]probably for my story ( I was quite stuck in headphones change till i went for a nice source , then I can say things became more clear/easy on head-fi ) [/size] and mainly because it's source the core of a system , the headphones are the ending of it . this said , I don't know if i would prefer a 2k source paired with a 500$ heaphones or a 2k headphones paired with a 500$ source . mmm.. let's say a nice source get you "out of troubles" when you are upgrading other system' gears

No confusion here! For 2K headphones, I'll want a Sondek or an Esoteric X-50 firing through a custom electrostatic amplifier.