[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl This argument makes no sense at all. You want to argue that comparing headphones *isn't* valid? What should we compare them to, daffodils?

Headphones should be compared to *known sound*, not each other. The ideal would be to compare to a live source. Anyone who has attended a number of chamber music or orchestral concerts is very familiar with what a real quartet or orchestra sounds like. Since the sound is not amped or processed in any way, it's a fair reference. If you aren't familiar with the sound of acoustic instruments, a high quality set of reference speakers will have to suffice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl I'll type slow so you can follow...

Ohhh... kayyy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl OK, let's talk speakers first. I have some very good speakers in my system right now. I've had numerous speakers from $200-$2500 per pair at various times in my rig in the last 20 years. The veiling isn't there on the speakers, it's only there on the Senns.

Here is what you do... Set up a listening position in the optimal listening position in front of your speakers. Place your preamp there, so you can quickly switch from speakers to phones and vice versa. Patch in a graphic or parametric equalizer to the headphone amp only... leave the speakers flat.

Adjust the volume of your headphone amp and the speakers to a relatively quiet listening level. It's absolutely vital that the volume level be exactly the same. Do an A/B comparison, balance matching your cans by adjusting the equalization band by band until they appear to precisely match. Make a note of the EQ offset for each frequency. Do the dynamics (loud to soft) sound the same between the two?

Then turn the volume up to the maximum listening level and do the same. I guarantee you that the EQ offset isn't the same at the different volume levels. Do this with several sets of cans and compare the offset numbers for each.

I've done this, and I've also done even more detailed tests involving precisely equalizing a recording using cans and then playing it back on a variety of speakers from boom box all the way up to high end systems. I found that many cans have humps and dips in the frequency response, particularly in the bass and high mids. (Ranges that can fool the ear into thinking sound is "better" when it is actually more imbalanced...) These inbalances became immediately apparent when I played back the equalized recording through a variety of speakers.

For instance, one set of cans had a pronounced high midrange boost. This inaccuracy caused me to cut the midrange too far when I was EQing. When I played back the recording on a variety of stereos, it sounded extremely muffled. Other cans tended to swallow the bass at loud volumes. This caused me to equalize the recording in a way that made it sound boomy on speakers.

These are relatively precise ways of analyzing the response of headphones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl It's the difference between looking out at the backyard through a foggy window pane and no window at all. It's a veiling and hazy-ness that happens throughout the entire presentation... Also, this isn't about frequency response, as I've said consistently... I don't know how to make it any more clear to you.

Yes you can... Which of these aspects do you hear as part of the veil?

Perception of distance involves...

1) Reduction of overall volume
2) Reduction of bass and treble
3) Alteration of the directionality of the sound
4) Increased reverberation and reflection off of the room walls
5) Reduction of the difference between left and right ears
6) Reduction of dynamic range

Perception of muffled sound involves...

1) Reduction of overall volume
2) Reduction of treble and mids
3) Alteration of the directionality of the sound
4) Reduced reverberation
5) Smearing of transients
6) Reduction of dynamic range

If you can pinpoint the effect the veil is having on the sound in more precise ways, we can analyze it and try to figure out what you're hearing.

See ya
Steve

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Headphones should be compared to *known sound*, not each other. The ideal would be to compare to a live source. Anyone who has attended a number of chamber music or orchestral concerts is very familiar with what a real quartet or orchestra sounds like. Since the sound is not amped or processed in any way, it's a fair reference. If you aren't familiar with the sound of acoustic instruments, a high quality set of reference speakers will have to suffice.

I couldn't disagree more. There is no ideal, no reference. There is simply sound you like and sound you don't. For those trying to achieve live instruments in specific conditions (orchestral halls, studio settings, etc.), more power to them. But not everyone is striving for this end result, nor would such a system necessarily sound good with all types of music.

Headphones should be compared to one another.

 

[PhilS]

Never mind.

 

[rodbac]

Len, he's saying that if you're going to claim that headphone 'S' has a "veil" on its sound, that's an objective shortcoming that can only be confirmed or dispelled by comparing it to what you're actually trying to reproduce- the live music.

They should only be compared to other phones if those other phones are what you're trying to mimic.

 

[Len]

Who's to say people reporting the "veil" aren't describing it in relation to other headphones? Who's to say they aren't comparing Sennheiser to Grado, AT, AKT, etc.?

I'm saying the following statement is incorrect:
"comparing it to what you're actually trying to reproduce- the live music"
Who says we're all trying to reproduce "live" music .... not to mention "live" music is an ambigious, ill-defined idea.

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Len I'm saying the following statement is incorrect: "comparing it to what you're actually trying to reproduce- the live music" Who says we're all trying to reproduce "live" music .... not to mention "live" music is an ambigious, ill-defined idea .

(emphasis added).

But it's the best we've got.

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Len I'm saying the following statement is incorrect: "comparing it to what you're actually trying to reproduce- the live music" Who says we're all trying to reproduce "live" music .... not to mention "live" music is an ambigious, ill-defined idea.

(emphasis also added =)

The best way to test whether one reproduction system is functioning properly is to compare the copy with the original, be it audio, video or whatever. It's as simple as that.

 

[GlowWorm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nak Man (emphasis also added =) The best way to test whether one reproduction system is functioning properly is to compare the copy with the original, be it audio, video or whatever. It's as simple as that.

(emphasis added thrice)

Thank you Nak Man and acs236, and exellent point.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Headphones should be compared to *known sound*, not each other. The ideal would be to compare to a live source. Anyone who has attended a number of chamber music or orchestral concerts is very familiar with what a real quartet or orchestra sounds like. Since the sound is not amped or processed in any way, it's a fair reference.

Of course you are comparing the sound of the headphones to sounds in real life. But if you want to conclude which headphone is closer to real life, you have to compare them *against each other*. Get it?

Quote:

If you aren't familiar with the sound of acoustic instruments, a high quality set of reference speakers will have to suffice.

How about my PSB Stratus Goldi's, are those acceptable to you?

Quote:

Here is what you do... Set up a listening position in the optimal listening position in front of your speakers. Place your preamp there, so you can quickly switch from speakers to phones and vice versa. Patch in a graphic or parametric equalizer to the headphone amp only... leave the speakers flat. Adjust the volume of your headphone amp and the speakers to a relatively quiet listening level. It's absolutely vital that the volume level be exactly the same. Do an A/B comparison, balance matching your cans by adjusting the equalization band by band until they appear to precisely match. Make a note of the EQ offset for each frequency. Do the dynamics (loud to soft) sound the same between the two? Then turn the volume up to the maximum listening level and do the same. I guarantee you that the EQ offset isn't the same at the different volume levels. Do this with several sets of cans and compare the offset numbers for each. I've done this, and I've also done even more detailed tests involving precisely equalizing a recording using cans and then playing it back on a variety of speakers from boom box all the way up to high end systems. I found that many cans have humps and dips in the frequency response, particularly in the bass and high mids. (Ranges that can fool the ear into thinking sound is "better" when it is actually more imbalanced...) These inbalances became immediately apparent when I played back the equalized recording through a variety of speakers.

Ha ha ha! I'll get right on it!

I don't need to take measurements, I've been listening daily to the PSBs for 5 years now, I had the Senn 580 and HD600 together for 6 years, and I've now had my R10s for 3 years. I know what they sound like. Intimately! The Senns are veiled, that's my considered opinion after all these years of listening. Get over it!

Quote:

For instance, one set of cans had a pronounced high midrange boost. This inaccuracy caused me to cut the midrange too far when I was EQing. When I played back the recording on a variety of stereos, it sounded extremely muffled. Other cans tended to swallow the bass at loud volumes. This caused me to equalize the recording in a way that made it sound boomy on speakers.

I guess I didn't type slow enough the first time...

I'll simply cut and paste to save time:

Quote:

Also, this isn't about frequency response, as I've said consistently. It's not about a dip in the frequency response in one confined area. It's a veiling and hazy-ness that happens throughout the entire presentation, combined with an extra distancing of the sound from the listener and collapsing the soundstage. The veil is an inherent facet of the sound presentation of the cans, a characteristic, an overall coloration, a fundamental aspect of it's sound, take your pick, I don't know how to make it any more clear to you.

One more thing. Headphones do NOT have a "flat" frequency response. They are deliberately designed with the peaks and valleys you will see if you bother to go to the Headroom site, where they have the world's best facilities for measuring headphones. Look at the graphs, thrill to their ragged uneven response, marvel at the dips and peaks, gape in appalled amazement at how far they deviate from a flat response-- if they were speakers, they'd be laughed out of the high-end showroom. When Sennheiser was designing the HD650, they made a prototype with a flat frequency response as an experiment. When they listened to it, they thought it sounded like crap, so they then spent a great deal of time tweaking the driver to restore the standard non-flat frequency response of their other headphones. Yes, even your beloved Senns are NOT flat and not flat BY DESIGN. The illusion of their flat frequency response that you are *subjectively* experiencing is a result of psycho-acoustics and the interaction with your ear canal.

There are all kinds of technical explanations about why an uneven frequency response is desireable in a headphone (typically with dips and peaks in roughly the same areas), Headroom has this info somwehere on their site.

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl One more thing. Headphones do NOT have a "flat" frequency response. They are deliberately designed with the peaks and valleys you will see if you bother to go to the Headroom site, where they have the world's best facilities for measuring headphones. Look at the graphs, thrill to their ragged uneven response, marvel at the dips and peaks, gape in appalled amazement at how far they deviate from a flat response-- if they were speakers, they'd be laughed out of the high-end showroom. When Sennheiser was designing the HD650, they made a prototype with a flat frequency response as an experiment. When they listened to it, they thought it sounded like crap, so they then spent a great deal of time tweaking the driver to restore the standard non-flat frequency response of their other headphones. Yes, even your beloved Senns are NOT flat and not flat BY DESIGN. The illusion of their flat frequency response that you are *subjectively* experiencing is a result of psycho-acoustics and the interaction with your ear canal.

Markl, I believe Steve meant sounding flat with reference to live performance or good speakers, not 'flat' FR chart. Like you said, this has been taken care of by Senn's dips and peaks therefore need not much more EQ (i.e. 'flat') to sound relatively like live performance / reference speakers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl There are all kinds of technical explanations about why an uneven frequency response is desireable in a headphone (typically with dips and peaks in roughly the same areas), Headroom has this info somwehere on their site.

BTW I'll quote the one from Linkwitz site, which is very similar to Steve's methodology explained above:

Quote:

When evaluating the accuracy of sound reproduction I rely on my own recordings and also on commercially available CDs. I have a mental memory and written notes from the live event that I recorded and I compare those to what I hear when I play back the recording over loudspeakers. There is no equalization applied to my own DAT recordings, unlike with almost all commercial CDs, and I use a very simple head-related microphone arrangement similar to a sphere microphone. When I purchase a CD I have no clear trail to any acoustic reference and I must rely on the judgments of the recording engineer, the mastering engineer and the producer for giving me a sonic experience that is traceable to familiar acoustic sounds. If there is a clear trace with a minimum of equalization and compression, then the recorded material can also be used to make judgments about the reproducing loudspeaker. The problem lies in not knowing enough about the recording. If it sounds poorly over speakers, is it the recording's fault or the speaker's? To sort this out it is necessary to have a trustworthy reference sound reproducer. Headphones are often used, but have their own idiosyncrasies. They eliminate the effects of the listening room, but their frequency response is not necessarily flat or even smooth, and they heavily distort the distance of the auditory event. They also eliminate bone conducted sound and "chest pounding" bass. In the Seventies Russ Riley introduced me to the equalization of headphones. At that time he had found the Sennheiser HD 414 open-air, or supra-aural headphones to be sufficiently well behaved for equalization of their frequency response, unlike then popular sealed, circum-aural phones. We used an audio signal generator that was smoothly tunable by hand to sweep the frequency range. It was not too difficult to hear where the headphone response had peaks, though we were not able to quantify their magnitudes. The next step was to build an equalizer that would notch the peaks and we continued adjusting it until we were satisfied with the smoothness of auditory response. The voltage across the transducers ended up with the following magnitude:

 

[Mastergill]

So, marios_mar, if you still following your thread, as you can see there's different opinion about the Sennheiser "veil". Most of actual HD600 and 650 users don't know what it means, otherwise i think these phones would not be so popular amongst Head-fiers, the average Joe, but also most of the pro recordist. Because who want a "veiled" sound? Not me. To achieve sonic perfection you need extreme transparency.

You better try for yourself like with all audio stuff. But i can assure you that if you like them with entry to mid-level gears, these things will only improve beyond your wildest dream with THE high-end gear.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Len not to mention "live" music is an ambigious, ill-defined idea.

Not to those of us who regularly attend live symphonic performances!

I think the difference of opinion here is the difference between a person who listens to their cans for pleasure and a person who listens to them for a living. I master CDs using Sennheiser HD-590s. Flatness is very important to me. I'm sure if Sennheiser could actually manufacture a totally flat set of headphones, they would do it, and amongst engineers, it would sell like hotcakes. But I don't think with the limitations of size and weight, they can do that.

The Sennheisers aren't perfectly flat, but they are as close to that as I've found. If you prefer a more brightly colored sound with psychoacoustic boosts to make the sound more pleasant that's fine. That wouldn't work for me, but it's great for you. The mistake is calling the Sennheisers colored because you're comparing them to a baseline source that's even more colored.

I guess it's impossible for folks who hear the veil to define it in precise enough terms to be able to figure out what it is. That tells me that it's more an issue of aesthetic taste than it is a measurable effect.

See ya
Steve

 

[markl]

Quote:

Most of actual HD600 and 650 users don't know what it means

Just doing a simple search here on "Sennheiser veil" yields 6 *pages* of results. This is hardly some isolated phenomenon. In fact, I think I'll start a poll just to test the waters here....

EDIT: Here is a link to the poll...

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=94200

 

[bigshot]

Try searching for "alien abduction" and "demonic possession" and see how many pages you get! heheh

Seriously, if someone could actually define the veil according to the sorts of criteria I outlined before for perception of distance and perception of muffling, it would be a lot more useful than just doing a head count.

See ya
Steve

 

[rodbac]

A quick search on Google points to complaints about "Sennheiser veil" being almost exclusive to Head-Fi. In the first couple pages of hits, I only see one person talk about it that isn't either tied to Head-Fi or read about it here (he links to Head-Fi in the same post).

In fact, I seem to count as many people saying it's bunk than not.

Personally, I couldn't characterize the 650s sound as "veiled" any more than I could call the MS2s sound as "needled". They just sound different, as we'd expect.

It's easy to fall into the 'science of small numbers' fallacy around here...