[stweb]

OK, for some people, headphones are their hobby and passion.
 
For others, why bother. Can spending $$$ on headphones recreate the sound of a live concert or reproduce a piece of music as the producer intended or even recreate the sound that is possible on a stereo pair of real speakers?
 
Yes, headphones are convenient and sometimes fun, but listening on headphones is not the same as being there.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stweb /img/forum/go_quote.gif

OK, for some people, headphones are their hobby and passion.

 

For others, why bother. Can spending $$$ on headphones recreate the sound of a live concert or reproduce a piece of music as the producer intended or even recreate the sound that is possible on a stereo pair of real speakers?

 

Yes, headphones are convenient and sometimes fun, but listening on headphones is not the same as being there.

 

Because people can't be "there" all the time, what do they do between the performances? I can't even fly out to Jakarta next week to watch Xandria, much less watch them all in Europe all the time. Even if people saved their money for plane and concert tickets most of your time will likely be spent listening in some other fashion, like a train with an IEM or with your feet up at home after work.

 

At the same time, as awesome as "being there" is, depending on the venue, the sound isn't. Those performances are designed to be loud enough for thousands of people in likely an open area, or a small crowd in a small bar with too many reflections, not an opera house that projects the powerful vocals far enough back. So as much as it's fun being out there, the sound really isn't as good since the place you're standing at might not have the vocals loud and clear over everything else, but it was fine where the engineers tested it before the performance.

 

In short, it's not just a manner of convenience, but that given that's what people will be doing most of the time and without the awesomeness of the band being there (that will compensate for the usual imbalanced sound that most will experience), then might as well make that system at home or in one's bag count.

 

That said, I wouldn't say people should "fuss" over the sound. There are waaaaaay too many people who actually do, but what doesn't get noticed is how many others who aren't fussing over their systems are sitting at home enjoying them.

 

[JK1]

  OK, for some people, headphones are their hobby and passion.
 
For others, why bother. Can spending $$$ on headphones recreate the sound of a live concert or reproduce a piece of music as the producer intended or even recreate the sound that is possible on a stereo pair of real speakers?
 
Yes, headphones are convenient and sometimes fun, but listening on headphones is not the same as being there.

I wouldn't want to be at a rock concert though. Aside from the high ticket price, rock concerts are much too loud. The acoustics from a good studio recording are typically much better than at a live performance. 
 
As for speakers sounding better than headphones, most recordings were made with the intention of being played back on stereo speakers, with each ear hearing both speakers, but with the further speaker from that ear being at a slight delay and at a slightly lower volume. A crossfeed circuit in a music player or headphone amp can make headphone listening sound much more like speaker listening by mixing in the opposite channel but at a reduced volume and a slight delay. The decrease in volume for the opposite channel and the delay are typically adjustable by the listener to fine tune this effect.
 
A small percentage of recordings are  binaural, using a dummy head with a microphone inside each ear. Recordings made this way are intended to be played back through headphones. 
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording

 

[12many]

No trolls allowed. 

 

[stweb]

Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

P.S. Don't feed the trolls!

 

[stweb]

ProtegeManiac wrote above that "there are waaaaaay too many people who actually do [fuss over sound], but what doesn't get noticed is how many others who aren't fussing over their systems are sitting at home enjoying them".

I am pleased to learn that there still are people who actually stop doing other things and listen to music. For many others, music is only a soundtrack to their day and most of the time they actually aren't listening. The sound quality of the headphones is less important when we are distracted.

So what's the best listening experience? I suggest (in order):

1) Live music in a concert hall with good acoustics, good sound engineering, sitting near the middle and with a quiet crowd. This is what I was referring to in "being there" and, yes, it can be impractical.
2) Well produced recordings on a good pair of stereo speakers in a quiet room with good acoustics, sitting towards the centre of the stereo pair. However, our homes are not built for listening and this can be impractical. Also beware of excessive dynamic range compression in modern recorded music (engineered to get money out of teenagers like those bass-thumping headphones).
3) A good pair of full-sized headphones in a reasonably quiet listening environment (more so for open headphones).
4) A good pair of IEM headphones. The trouble is that different IEMs often sound different and may suit different music genres and different people. IEM headphones are for convenience, when portability and sound isolation are important.
5) A good pair of ear bud headphones? No, you're wasting your time and money.

I stated in a previous post that good headphones sound (and feel) like not wearing headphones. I think a pleasant (but not necessarily perfect) listening experience can be had with lightweight, full-sized and open headphones. They don't have to be really expensive.

 

[thejewk]

The utopian ideal of having access to musicians on tap who can perform for you in a perfect environment when beckoned is exactly that: utopian; ie not possible.
 
Speaking from a personal perspective, I have a lot of factors which impair my access to ideal listening.  I have ME/CFS which seriously affects my ability to access live music.  I used to help with a music promotion night linked to a band I played sax with, and I would scout around venues every week to look for interesting new live acts to put on.  Now I can't even book tickets for a concert with any certainty that when the night comes around I will be able to go.  I have lost hundreds of pounds in unused tickets over the last few years.  When I am having a crash, like now, I am housebound.
 
Secondly, I live in a terraced house where space is fairly tight and sound travels very easily.  Some of my neighbors are obnoxious morons who insist on sharing their musical tastes with me at various hours, but I don't think it's fair to share my admittedly eccentric, or at least expansive, tastes with those around me.
 
I also share my home with a wonderful wife who loves music, but not necessarily in the same way that I do.
 
Everything in life is a compromise, so making the best of these situations has led me to headphone listening as my primary avenue, and I find that I much prefer headphones for recorded media over any other option because I find that I can very easily become absorbed.  I also find it can help relieve the symptoms of my ME by isolating me entirely from any other stimuli.
 
I can't speak for anyone else, and I have very limited experience with audiophile devices and a definite end point in how far I am willing to upgrade/spend (cost/improvement ratio, etc), but as in any hobby field different people will pursue different paths to what ever degree they may wish to.

 

[stweb]

Nice answer.