[vb1]

Gee Mike, you certainly are being treated rather shabbily here. I’ve got to hand it too you, you take it like a gentleman.

My hats off to you.

Cheers.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Walker When the emperor is "butt-naked" guys, somebody needs to say so.

Mike, you're butt naked.
Quote:

Stereo Review, and more importantly (as a serious scientific journal, the best of them all) Audio are gone. They would have said "this is just silly". Now they can't. But I can! Deal with it.

To equate Stereo Review, Stereophile, or any other audio equipment mag, with a serious scientific journal is roughly the equivalent of equating the National Enquirer with the New York Times.

Feel free to say "this is just silly" all you want. You can also call the Earth flat if you want to. That won't make it any less round.

 

[Mike Walker]

I DON'T call Stereo Review a "serious scientific journal". It was a mass appeal mag, perhaps the most mass appeal mag dealing with audio equipment ever. But they did some testing that I thought had real scientific merit.

However, I DO call Audio Magazine, particularly in it's heyday, a "serious scientific journal", fully up to the standards of journals dealing with other sciences. The late Richard Heyser's articles exploring in tremendous, beyond college-level depth issues of how we hear what we hear, and why, stand among the finest I've ever read by anyone. When an issue gave the tease "Heyser On..........." (as in "Heyser on phase", "Heyser on digital sampling", "Heyser on Moon-Pies"

), you knew you were going to be treated to in-depth coverage of an issue affecting the recording and reproduction of audio well beyond anything else in the press, popular or otherwise. Because of this depth, Audio sold far fewer copies than other mags such as Stereo Review. But no matter.

The design of quality audio gear IS a science (as well as an art), which I respect as much as any science. The level of scientific research that made the cd possible, (as well as the lp, and nearly a century earlier the first phonographs) represents raw scientific research at it's FINEST. Much of the science which makes cd and other digital reproduction possible comes from the space program...particularly the error correction schemes, originally designed to replace data lost in transit from deep space, without which digital audio and video would be pretty much useless. Without the ability to correct for errors in the bit-stream, they would be impractical at best, and unusable at worst. That IS science. And no publication explored the SCIENCE of audio as well as "Audio".

From Bert White to Len Feldman, Dick Heyser to Ed Canby, no other publication dedicated to combined intellect with humor, or science with art as well as Audio.

Frankly, if you don't recognize the names above, you're not really qualified to have an opinion on the subject. As surely as there are scientific journals for the sciences of medicine, astronomy, and chemistry, there once was one for the science of audio. In fact it began life as an official publication of the Audio Engineering Society. "Audio" was the best of it's class, rivaled only (before it was taken over by the Flat-Earth subjectivists) by the British Magazine "Hi-Fi News and Record Review". Until the mid-80s this magazine also offered serious examinations of the SCIENCE of audio reproduction.

Hey, if you're going to dismiss my ideas, at least understand them first. I certainly never called Stereophile (which I lovingly refer to as "Stereofool"...perhaps you'll note!) as a "scientific journal". I find much of what they write to be indicative of what's wrong with the audio community today, and why the market for SERIOUS High-End gear is smaller now than it has ever been in my lifetime. But AUDIO was in a class by itself. In this home theater/multimedia/digital convergence world, I sincerely doubt there will ever be anything comparable again. And I hope I'm wrong!

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally posted by Commander What is accurate? To me it simply means that what I record is what I hear on TV/Radio/Cinema when it is transmitted. The signal path in my studio is as pure as possible, and I never use bass boost or any eq with either the Koss KSC-35 or the Sennheiser HD280. The Sennheiser HD25's sound lovely in comparison, much closer to the Koss! BTW I am not a Bass Head (!) but I do like to hear the whole picture! I have some old AKG K280's that run rings around the Sennheiser HD280's, but they are an open design and create spill when used in a recording environment.

Okay, this is a bit insulting. My particular Koss KSC-35's now sound crap compared to many of my other headphones (but still leagues above other cheap headphones). I took mine to work today, and all I hear is somewhat boomy, muddy, bloated bass with slightly weak mids and fairly harsh treble.

 

[Mike Walker]

As for Bobby Fischer, that is fascinating (about his ability to remember exact syntax of a conversation in a language he didn't speak). But that's hardly what we're talking about. I am talking about TIMBRE! It's TIMBRE that humans are AWFUL at remembering. Timbre, the acoustic equivalent of frequency response. And, distortion being sufficiently low, TIMBRAL differences between audio equipment account, in my opinion, for most perceived differences in, and preferences for, audio equipment.

Example: I listen to my Sony 7506 headphones for hours per day. But could I tomorrow hear another pair of headphones whose sonic signature was EXACTLY THE same as my Sonys and be able to tell that they were identical? Probably not. And you probably couldn't either. I COULD, in my studio, compare the two side by side, and conclude that they sounded identical. But with my 'phones at home, and me miles away listening to another brand/pair? I most likely could not. And regardless of what you think, neither could you! For when I describe the sound of my Sonys, which I think I do very well, I am describing how they sounded in comparison to other known headphones, in side-by-side comparisons done at the time I bought them. I can remember the exact words I used to describe that sound years ago. But confronted with the sound itself tomorrow, absent a comparison with my Sonys, I likely could not recognize it.

Our ability to remember exactly HOW THINGS SOUND TIMBRALLY is bloody awful. This I can demonstrate! This ANYONE can demonstrate.

I can remember exact conversations that I had with my Dad as a child, more than 35 years ago. But can I remember the exact timbre of my Dad's voice (who died 14 years ago?) No. In fact I, just like others others who have lost loved ones, struggle sometimes to remember the voice of my late father (big and booming as it was).

 

[Mike Walker]

As for "What is Accurate?" Commander, NO headphones are really accurate, at least in comparison to purely electronic devices. But accuracy has a definite definition in electronics, and can be either proven or disproven using what's called a "null"test.

Run the same mono signal through a preamp (for instance), and (through a Y adapter) straight to another amplifier (into which you plug your headphones) through another Y adapter to combine the signal having passed through the preamp with the one which didn't). If the preamp didn't invert the phase (as many do), slice open either the cable going to the preamp, or the one bypassing it, reverse the polarity of the wires, and solder it back together. Now, with headphones plugged into the amp into which the combined signal is being fed, adjust the volume control on the preamp until the sound begins to "null" (at "unity gain" the two indentical signals, one with inverted phase, will begin to cancel one another out). If it's possible to COMPLETELY null the sound (and you hear nothing through your headphones), then the preamp is nearly completely "accurate". It isn't changing the signal passing through it AT ALL! Most of the better solid state preamps and power amps on the market now pass this test with flying colors, allowing a very deep, sometimes seemingly perfect "null".

In the absence of a perfect null (at unity gain), anything which is left behind, and can be heard, is distortion...it's what was added, or subtracted, by the preamp. The "null" test allows you to hear ONLY the "difference" signal. This test can be performed with ALL amplifiers! You see, with electronics anyway, accuracy can be PROVEN!

Audio IS a science, guys...if one bothers to apply scientific procedures to it!

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Walker So what will my punishment be?

Just a couple of ideas:
- you should not be allowed to use the exclamation point;
- you should not be allowed to use more than one cap per sentence;
- you should have your personal title changed to "Master Debater".

 

[carlo]

as a casual observer (who agrees with *some* of mike's views btw) i gotta wonder, why the hell is this massive debate still going?

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Walker I went on to say that soundstage is PERCEIVED, not real. It's actually created by our ears/brains! This doesn't mean that it SEEMS any less real. As I pointed out, it can be manipulated in ways that are well known to engineers. But the real work is taking place between our ears, not our speakers!

What I was saying was that I disagree with this. Just because I did not agree with you, does not mean that I do not understand you. I understand you perfectly, I just disagree with you.

That's like saying life is not real. All matter is made up of electrons, neutrons, and protons. The complex interplay of carbon molecules, etc. can be resolved by pure chemistry.

Obviously, this is a crock, and I say that's about where we stand today. We are trying to understand life, and all we have to go on is Chemistry 101. Sure, pure audio can be reduced to its elements like that, but if you try to design an audio component based on such a tunnel-visioned focus, you will be laughed out of the industry faster than you can make a prototype.

I know you know this, if nothing else, at least intuitively, but it's not what you're saying.

Take compression, for example. All links in the audio chain (both playback and recording) perform some amount of compression on the audio signal. The ones that do not deliberately do so (I.E. anything that is not a compressor), do so in a very complex, frequency dependant and load dependant manner (albeit to a significantly lesser degree). There has to be a way to measure this (if we can compress a signal, and we have access to both the input and output signal of a component, then we should be able to figure out what that compression is). We just haven't figured it out yet. I think that similar things should be possible with imaging and soundstage, too (it's probably just a combination of frequency and phase accuracy, but it would be nice to know exactly what it was). Quote:

I agree that "other observable phenomenon....exist". But, as I pointed out, just because these phenomena are observable, doesn't make them real!

I understand what I think you mean (especially with all those examples that you cited about the stereo image), but look at what you are saying. If a producer can manipulate it (a stereo image), and different listeners can perceive it portrayed accurately or inaccurately, then for all practical purposes, it is real. And just because we haven't yet figured out a way to measure it (and I'm not saying my above example is the way to measure it, it's just a thought, it could be wrong, but my point is, it will take thinking like that to figure out what the right way to measure it is)...yet...doesn't mean that it is not measurable. Quote:

There is no "magic" going on with your system! The true magic happens in the studio, and (most importantly) BETWEEN YOUR EARS! The brain can be fooled into seeing and hearing "images" which aren't really there. Thank God! Otherwise audio and video systems would be of very little value!

I completely agree with this (that quote about "...sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic..." comes to mind). But I think you're taking things a bit too far when you say "they are not real, therefore they are not measurable". (And if that's not what you're saying, then what are you saying?)

 

[ai0tron]

Actually Mike, I should have mentioned that the person judging cables using the Omega2's had a buddy along to swap the cables out for him...

Should have mentioned that sorry.

Anyhow, yeah, we aren't laboratory instruments, but in some ways, our imperfections allow us to reach further and deeper than machines can. We are capable of measuring all variables at ONCE and combining the complete result into one thought. A MACHINE, can only do one variable at a time, which we have specifically chosen it to measure. Often times the effect these variables play on the actual sound is called into question and the variables even go through periods of acceptance and rejection by engineers.

So any individual human can be given an auditory signal, process it holistically, taking note of every aspect of it, and some aspects that I am sure we don't really understand well enough to tell a machine to listen for...

Thus, maybe we are better than laboratory instruments?

 

[ai0tron]

Also Mike, I mentioned the Bobby Fischer example because of his memory of inflections and pronunciation, aspects of language that move it closer to music.

Also, timbrally, we are very inneficient devices... We cannot, with our meager voice boxes, reproduce varying timbres well at all... If we can't reproduce timbres then it follows that the mind would not necessarily seek to remember them.

However, I have on occasion concieved of states of being when making art that defy logical perception. As in, I have no words, I was not taught words with which to define the exact quality of my emotion. Thus with art, I sought to create a SYMBOL for it. The same is true with audio... Once you are given a vocabulary, the problem of understanding what to listen for becomes significantly easier. Learning, in our minds, to percieve Timbre, and to assign, our own abstracted symbol, or emotional quality to it, is how we learn to objectively percieve it.

Then, as we move forward, some group of like thinking individuals seeks to create a definition for what they hear. And perhaps they create a new word for it. And then they teach others to hear and to use the new word to describe what they hear. And then suddenly, our minds do percieve timbre, and perhaps, we begin to evolve a vocal box that is more accurate timbrally than our previous ones? If it is seen as pleasing to reproduce timbre that is...

So, maybe it is then, that some people, in their minds, have created a vocabulary with which only they are familiar, that they use to store timbral information, but, because they cannot express what they have invented to others, then the idea dies with them. And perhaps, they don't even really comprehend the vocabulary per se so that when they are driven by a test to express logically what it was they heard, there minds cannot make the transition into words. Rather they are left kind of dumbfounded, feeling that something was 'different' but they couldnt put their finger on it... WHY?? because the word is not available for inter-personal communication.

 

[Mike Walker]

Aiotron, far from "measuring all variables at once", we only sample certain variables at a time. Otherwise techniques such as lossy data compression wouldn't work (and regardless of whether you consider them "high fidelity", they DO work!) A loud sound masks (to inaudibility) a soft sound of similar frequency...as if the soft sound wasn't there. So the soft sound can be removed, with no audible consequence. This works precisely because our ears don't measure ANYTHING. They preceive!

As for "compression", Dusty...no it isn't true that each component compresses to come degree. Some EXPAND! A given component is just as likely to expand as to compress. Example: Some cd players have a low level linearity figure that's minus 5db at a level of -85db. In other words, when the signal on the cd is encoded at a digital level of -85db below 0dbfs, the cd player actually reproduces it at -90db below 0dbfs. In this case, it isn't COMPRESSING, it's EXPANDING! But it's just as likely that a player, selected at random, would reproduce said signal at -81db. In which case it would indeed be COMPRESSING!

I would point out Dusty that while the moving images on a tv screen or movie screen can, just as the stereo image, be manipulated in any number of ingenius ways by those involved in production, that doesn't make them real! NOTHING on a "movie screen" is actually moving! The image is as fake as a politicians smile when, after losing an election, he says "I fully support my former opponent". Yeah right! It IS the same with a stereo "image". When a sound appears to come mid-way between two speakers, as happens more often than not with stereo recordings, "center stage" is where the most important parts of a mix always reside, it is no more coming from there than a "movie" is moving. It is an illusion made possible by the gaping holes in our powers of observation. And I, for one, am glad these powers exist! A stereo image would be "real" only if the entire space between left and right were taken up by one huge, continuous transducer element, which could actually produce sound from any point between left and right. As impractical as it is unnecessary (thanks to the limitations in human hearing!) But THAT would be a "real" image. It would not, however, be stereo.

YAWN! It's 6:30am on Sunday morning. I'm going back to sleep. Where undoubtedly I will see moving images and hear sounds...none of which are real. They're called DREAMS

 

[Mike Walker]

So Aiotron, I think your point is that we are capable of experiencing events and emotions which defy description? Yup. I'll buy that

 

[Atomicarnage]

OMG arghue argue argue, but isn't that what these forums are for? Listne everybody, the point of this forum is to discuss stuff, and we are doing just that. At some point in time people have to understand that Mr. Walker is not going to back down, and will always remain the devil's advocate because that is what he does best. So why don't we devote our efforts to solving this HD-280 snaffu.

 

[Atomicarnage]

Commander, I beleive that the HD-280's you and many others received are a faulty pair. After reading everyone's complaints, that seems to be the ONLY explaination. I do remember hearing about a review a while back. I can't remember the reviewer, but I do remember that it was last year. The reveiwer gave the Senns a very poor review. I also remember hearing something (rumors or truth I cannot remember) about sennheiser discontinuing these phones so that they could 'fix' them, and then bringing them out again sounding as they should. So it's very possible that those who received the older batches, got "shafted."

I think the best way to solve your problems, is to return your headphones, and buy them from a different source, because any headphone that sounds like a transistor radio is clearly not up to Head-fi standard.