[bigshot]

Loudspeakers are quite different than headphones. A 15 inch woofer is going to have error on a completely different scale than a 2 1/2 inch driver in a headphone. The volume produced is completely different too. I think a lot of the aspects of loudspeakers that people try to apply to headphones are hooey.

 

[castleofargh]

I googled this, it seems a well known non trivial issue:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...xoKHRlABuEQ4dUDCAs&uact=5&safe=active&ssui=on

This sums it up pretty well in my opinion:
https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/KLIPPEL_Cone_Vibration_Poster_01.pdf

I will look for some more specific to cans and IEM

My answer was really to take you away from the idea that we had perfect stiffness, but you're already way beyond that. And my main comment is that indeed I don't have the engineering knowledge to discuss it ^_^. The only time I saw fancy 3D airflow modelization for headphone drivers was I think from Sennheiser about the HD800. I remember that it had nothing to do with a steady homogeneous wave front. And that's on a driver famous for being really good.

@jagwap and a few others probably can answer some specific questions if you have them. Don't let my ignorance stop your curiosity.

 

[SupperTime]

What is the warmest headphone, most detailed headphone with no treble peaks, sharp, and sibilant

 

[Blackwoof]

3a. Define "better". All else being equal (which isn't really the case), speakers in a room would have more distortion/less accuracy and therefore sound worse. On the other hand, the mix/master would have been created with speakers in a room, therefore speaker/room distortion has been accounted for in the distributed recording and reproducing the intended speaker/room distortion would sound "better".

Reminds me of how vinyl/Tape needed special masters to take account of limits/issues. Because my issue with his point is, Say a master was made for a good planar or BA HP with low distortion. I highly doubt it gonna sound good on dynamic speakers with poor speed and a distortion as high as 12%.

There also the fact that speakers use a crossover system which like with Multi BA in ears, Cue artifacts/flaws with coherency. Which won't be any issue with a HD600, There no point on bringing up full range loudspeakers which suck at doing both ends. Even then most near fields still groan while the HD600 run along fine with only 40mm drivers. Because i highly doubt the avg speaker fan gonna use a 2 way set up with a woofer with room treatment too.

 

[bigshot]

Speakers have worse specs than headphones, but they clearly sound more real than headphones. Headphones can do some things better, but not the most important things. The key to great sound quality isn't smaller distortion figures. It's directionality. With a speaker system, the room is as important as the speakers, because space for the sound waves to exist and interact with is as important as the waves themselves. At some point, specs become good enough for human ears and improving them doesn't gain you much. You can always optimize the space around the sound and make significant improvements.

Headphones are a fine compromise if you don't have the ability to put together a decent speaker system, but headphones are no replacement for good speakers. They're just cheaper and more compact.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Reminds me of how vinyl/Tape needed special masters to take account of limits/issues.
[2] Because my issue with his point is, Say a master was made for a good planar or BA HP with low distortion. I highly doubt it gonna sound good on dynamic speakers with poor speed and a distortion as high as 12%. ...
There also the fact that speakers use a crossover system which like with Multi BA in ears, Cue artifacts/flaws with coherency.

1. Sort of, but not really, there's a crucial difference. In the case of vinyl or tape, the mix and master are created/optimised according to how good they sound to the engineers/producer/musicians in the studio. Once they are finalised, the RIAA curve (or noise reduction in the case of tape) are then applied which change the master, so that it doesn't sound as good but hopefully will, when the reverse process is applied on playback. In the case of room acoustics, there's no process that has to occur one the master is finalised. It's effectively applied automatically and sub-consciously by the engineers/producer/musicians because the creation of the recording occurred with the studios' acoustics already present. It's like the loudness contour/s, there's no need to compensate for the loudness contour because the mix has been created by engineers/producer/musicians who themselves are subject to the loudness contour/s.

2. If that situation occurred, then your statement would be correct, however, that situation does not occur. Commercial music mixes are pretty much always made on speakers and usually on several extremely different sets of speakers/monitors: Large main monitors, small near-field monitors and a pair of reference (very crappy) speakers. The mix is usually checked with HPs and sometimes tweaked a bit. The final mix then goes off to the mastering studio/engineer, also usually with several extremely different sets of monitors but different monitors and obviously different room acoustics to the studio where the mix was created. Of course, the mix/master will sound significantly different on the different speakers/monitors and almost always, making the mix/master sound better on poor quality speakers compromises how good it sounds on very good speakers (and vice versa). This is the "art" of mastering, getting the master to still sound subjectively "good" on a range of consumer playback equipment/environments, even though it will sound different. Additionally, the compromises made, depend on the target consumer. So, popular music would be primarily aimed at average consumer equipment/environments, which somewhat compromises the playback on higher-end systems/environments. While say orchestral music is primarily aimed a decent/good consumer equipment/environments, which somewhat compromises playback on poorer systems/environments. A master would pretty much never be made specifically for a good planar HP, because that consumer group (of planar HP owners) is too tiny to justify compromising the master for everyone else.

A similar situation exists at the opposite end of the process, the initial recording, but with a very different approach. We have similar mic types to HP types: Dynamic, condenser (like electrostatic HPs), ribbon mics, etc. However, we don't employ the different types on the basis of price and commonly, not even on the basis of accuracy. We choose a mic type according to our subjective judgement of what will end-up as a pleasing result and commonly, that means a mic type that is specifically NOT accurate. For example, some instruments with the biggest/fastest transients, kick and snare drums for instance, are usually recorded with dynamic mics (and cheap ones at that!), the mic type with the slowest transient and poorest HF response!

G

 

[Blackwoof]

If that situation occurred, then your statement would be correct, however, that situation does not occur. Commercial music mixes are pretty much always made on speakers and usually on several extremely different sets of speakers/monitors: Large main monitors, small near-field monitors and a pair of reference (very crappy) speakers. The mix is usually checked with HPs and sometimes tweaked a bit. The final mix then goes off to the mastering studio/engineer, also usually with several extremely different sets of monitors but different monitors and obviously different room acoustics to the studio where the mix was created. Of course, the mix/master will sound significantly different on the different speakers/monitors and almost always, making the mix/master sound better on poor quality speakers compromises how good it sounds on very good speakers (and vice versa). This is the "art" of mastering, getting the master to still sound subjectively "good" on a range of consumer playback equipment/environments, even though it will sound different. Additionally, the compromises made, depend on the target consumer. So, popular music would be primarily aimed at average consumer equipment/environments, which somewhat compromises the playback on higher-end systems/environments. While say orchestral music is primarily aimed a decent/good consumer equipment/environments, which somewhat compromises playback on poorer systems/environments. A master would pretty much never be made specifically for a good planar HP, because that consumer group (of planar HP owners) is too tiny to justify compromising the master for everyone else.

Electronic trio Noisa master there music on the audeze LCD X.

 

[gregorio]

Electronic trio Noisa master there music on the audeze LCD X.

Not unless they're complete amateurs they don't!

G
Edit: I've just looked up their facilities, they use ATC 110s, mid-field studio monitors!

 

[bigshot]

The only thing I've ever done with headphones is certain kinds of noise reduction.

 

[Blackwoof]

Not unless they're complete amateurs they don't!

G
Edit: I've just looked up their facilities, they use ATC 110s, mid-field studio monitors!

What are you on about?, Skrillex's Scary monsters was done only headphones and so were many others by other artists. I'm not getting how a artist is a amateur if they want to use headphones if they so wish. Pretty ignorant too when DAW's now have advanced settings to make headphone use even easier by using binaural DSP's, It's 2020 not 1999 when headphones were still niche. I've made few demo avant stuff for fun my only tool was the ER4SR for everything since, I can't use speakers in my area. I guess I'm not a artist by that logic. lol

I was meaning more of the fact they were basing the albums on the detail of the LCDX, Which those 3 way monitors would be on par with. There albums will sound weak on standard DD stuff like HD6xx, DT1990 and some speakers.

 

[bigshot]

Gregorio is right. I've supervised a lot of mixes myself, and they are always monitored on speakers. There are home-brew studios that use headphones, but they aren't the mainstream. In the studio, headphones are used for isolation while tracking, not for judging the balance in mixes. They aren't consistent enough for that. Speaker systems in studios are calibrated for consistency.

 

[gregorio]

[1] What are you on about?,
[1a] Skrillex's Scary monsters was done only headphones and so were many others by other artists.
[2] I'm not getting how a artist is a amateur if they want to use headphones if they so wish.
[2a] Pretty ignorant too [2b] when DAW's now have advanced settings to make headphone use even easier by using binaural DSP's, It's 2020 not 1999 when headphones were still niche.
[3] I've made few demo avant stuff for fun my only tool was the ER4SR for everything since, I can't use speakers in my area. I guess I'm not a artist by that logic. lol
[4] I was meaning more of the fact they were basing the albums on the detail of the LCDX, Which those 3 way monitors would be on par with.

1. I'm on about the truth and the facts, what are you on about?
1a. Skrillex's Scary Monsters was mastered at "Masterpiece Mastering", who use PMC mid-field and Dynaudio near-field studio monitors! That's two examples you've now provided BOTH of which are FALSE, as just a few minutes on google would have revealed (as it did for me). So, I refer you back to #1, What are YOU on about?!

2. So clearly, the problem here is what you are "not getting". Don't you think you should find out BEFORE arguing about it?!
2a. Hey, you're the one "not getting" it. You think because YOU don't "get it", then no-one does and/or it doesn't exist?
2b. And there's the problem you're "not getting", it is indeed 2020 and not 2050! Clearly you don't know what the issues are with binaural DSPs in DAWs and about "translation".

3. What logic would that be, the logic of arguing with an assertion that you've completely changed? You YOURSELF just stated "... how an artist is an amateur.." and my assertion was that an artist would be an amateur, NOT that they wouldn't be an artist! And OBVIOUSLY, "demo stuff for fun" is pretty much the definition of amateur! LOL!!!

4. You're joking right? A mid-field monitor with large dynamic drivers is about as different as it gets to planar magnetic HPs, the difference in mass of the coils/diaphragms is absolutely huge! ATCs are very good and detailed compared to not so good monitors, I owned some myself for several years, but by the laws of physics they can't get anywhere near the transient response of good planar magnetic HPs.

Of course though, I originally stated "Commercial music mixes are pretty much always made on speakers", so there are some exceptions. There are some commercial mixes/masters specifically made for headphones though relatively, extremely few and some DJ and underground electronic genres are sometimes created in someone's bedroom on a laptop and HPs but the problem is "translation" to other systems, so the professional (rather than amateur) approach will therefore be sending their mix to be mastered. If commercial music mixes/masters could all be "done only [on] headphones" in someone's bedroom, why do commercial music studios even exist (in 2020!), why do they spend so much on monitors/acoustics and why don't EVEN YOUR OWN two examples do it "only on headphones"? Where's your "logic. lol"?

G

 

[SilverEars]

I mentioned this in the past and started a thread on this matter. What I found is, quality of how sound is heard coupled to the transducers (headphones/iems) depends on physical condition. It's interesting how our physical condition really changes the aspect of sounds, such as resolution, dynamics, and frequency response perceived. For me, when I've exercised with decent intensity to get my heart rate going for a duration (or cardio), quality of what I hear through the equipment is enhanced. This goes to show why sometimes our equipment sounds better than other times.

Even by the fact that perception of bass and treble can be varied at times, should tell you something about sound perception and our condition at the time of listening.

So, if you want to really enjoy sound, investment in equipment or money is not the only way, but also in keeping in good physical condition to hear better. After all, if our ears suck, the sound will suck.

So, reduce ear fitigue with sound that isn't too taxing on the auditory system by using balanced sounding equipment, and keep in good physical condition. This should pro-long and enhance the listening enjoyment.

 

[SilverEars]

What is the warmest headphone, most detailed headphone with no treble peaks, sharp, and sibilant

I don't know if that combination can be achieved (or at least easily). I think sound being warm and wet (or there's certain level of reverberations inside the cups) will mask upper-frequencies to certain degree and thus sound less detailed. For some ears, peaks in random places may align to their hearing due to some miracle, and appreciate it. If we consider headphones that people say are detailed and resolution, they tend to have fitiguiging qualities with recordings that reveal such qualities of the headphones. This is partially due to recording mastering variations, and not consistant due to usage of various types of equipment used by audio engineers. Also, certain genres do not put out certain sounds can reveal annoyance of the sound coming out a particular headphone.

I think what you are looking for is a warm tilted headphone, but not wet with ample amount of upper-frequencies that do not sound peaky in anyway.

 

[SupperTime]

Have any examples of hps? Or amps that do this