Jump to content
IGNORED

Ever wondered why music sounds so different on headphones compared to loudspeakers?


Recommended Posts

Carts are transducers, just like loudspeaker drivers, just as flawed, and each will produce a different sound.

@dalethorn and or Dudley seem to be inferring that vinyl adds something to the signal which makes it "special", let's call it an effect or a set of effects.

Whether or not these effects enhance the listening experience (I won't say more realism but rather more expressiveness) seems to depend on who is listening.

And the causes for those effects could also be subjected to a more thorough investigation.

 

I am one of those which thinks it doesn't, with perhaps one exception which is the result of the poor channel separation on recordings like some of the Beatles' where you have the singer or a single instrument in one channel and the rest in another one.

But if those tracks were to be remastered for digital the problem would cease to exist.

 

R

Sadly, I've heard digital remastering of both "Sargt. Peppers" and "Abbey Road".

The first is almost exactly as you say: one half of the Fab Four literally "inside" my left Mission 767 loudspeaker and the other half in the right one. The "Abbey Road" soundstage is far better, but far from good stereo, too.

Things become worse when I listen to these two albums with headphones, 'cause the flawless in stereo imaging are more evident.

I've learned that there are different digital editions of the Beatles' body of work. I hope they are better than mine.[emoji22]

 

Sent from my LG-E430 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
Sadly, I've heard digital remastering of both "Sargt. Peppers" and "Abbey Road".

The first is almost exactly as you say: one half of the Fab Four literally "inside" my left Mission 767 loudspeaker and the other half in the right one. The "Abbey Road" soundstage is far better, but far from good stereo, too.

Things become worse when I listen to these two albums with headphones, 'cause the flawless in stereo imaging are more evident.

I've learned that there are different digital editions of the Beatles' body of work. I hope they are better than mine.[emoji22]

 

Sent from my LG-E430 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

I guess they don't want to bother with remixing, or maybe they feel that the artistic integrity would somehow be lost but in my opinion it makes sense to adjust the production to the current capabilities of hi-fi equipment...

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
Thanks I had forgotten about the often mentioned barber recording, which I have to listen.

There's one of someone knocking on a door which is startlingly real.

But I listen to the world of sounds without wearing anything on my head and ears and using headphones is a step away from that.

 

I am also not convinced that processing is fully transparent and innocuous, at least I tend to prefer minimally mic'ed recordings with little or no post processing (I listen mainly to classical) and short, minimalist signal paths in the reproduction system.

 

R

I share with you the preference for minimalism in recording proccesses.

I've mentioned both "Barber Shop" and "Amused to Death" not because musical means (impossible in the first case), but as examples that three-dimensional effect is technically possible to achieve, and far better than with binaural system (dummy head).

I also share the passion for "clasical" music (my mother was a pianist), but I enjoy other genres (jazz, good pop-rock, "symphonic" rock, etc.).

It is true that the most relistic recordings of, say, a full symphony orchestra has been achieved with minimal miking ("Mercury Living Presence", "RCA Victor Living Stereo" series, some "Telarc" recordings and an extraordinary record of Wagner's orchestral pieces played by the San Francisco Symphony recorded "direct to the master" by Sheffield Labs).

In the pop-rock, the very best translation to red-book I have comes from Mo-Fi.

 

Sent from my LG-E430 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
Agreeing with you in most of what headphone's listening is corcerned, I only can, on the contrary, disagree with you reading your quite evanescent arguments (excuse me) about turntables vs. other reproduction procedures, as far as (excuse me again) they seem to come from a dangerously similar to "placebo effect" source. Actually, you say that even removing tape hiss (present in the vynil made from that tape) and surface noise from the vynil itself, you suspect the difference between them will remain evident. Since this ideal comparison is not possible in practical terms, your statement remains a conjecture not falsable. The sound, most probably, will be different (just changing the cart, for example), but will not be neccessarily better for the turntable. We have not (nor Dudley has) an objective method to solve the dilemma. Enviado desde mi LG-E430 mediante Tapatalk

 

You say it's my argument, which is false since I gave you the Stereophile link. Then you claim that it's a vague concept when it's a proven physical property of a stylus in a groove. You're wasting your time here - argue with Art Dudley, since he's a published expert in a well-known national magazine.

Link to comment
I guess they don't want to bother with remixing, or maybe they feel that the artistic integrity would somehow be lost but in my opinion it makes sense to adjust the production to the current capabilities of hi-fi equipment...R

 

The best stereo for speakers and headphones came from 1964 on tunes like "And I Love Her", I'll Follow The Sun, Things We Said Today, etc. Both the Beatles and Rolling Stones had excellent stereo masters from 1964, then their mixes went way downhill after that. I bought 96k hires downloads of Rolling Stones albums from 1968-69 from HDTracks, and some of those tracks had obvious tape dropouts!

Link to comment
No, I am saying that they are bad purchases for me.

People who like listening to headphones aren't ignorant, they just have different objectives or can live with different shortcomings. But I don't think listening with headphones sounds natural. R

 

Natural? What are you talking about? The fictitious image presented on a recording through speakers? This is argumentum ad nauseam.

Link to comment
It look like you are giving too much credit to Dudley's opinion writing. He is a big defender of "tailored" sound and his preferences generally fall on equipment and even sources that add their own sonic signature to the signal (I have direct experience with 47labs gear). Regarding his comments on turntables, I don't think he took into account the fact that reading and even writing vinyl requires perfect speed timing and stability which in turn is only possible with the best power supplies and motors.

I think it's fair to conclude that electrical power does influence if indirectly the signal that comes out of the cartridge. R

 

None of your comments have *anything* to do with what Dudley said.

Link to comment
If money talks and number of people talks too, then there are digital gear sold for $200k and more. And I suspect this is not a criterion for comparison. Sent from my G620S-L01 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

In case you missed the point, $200k turntables are *engineered* for maximum fidelity in reproducing what's on the record. People who pay $200k are not Armchair Quarterbacks - they're players.

Link to comment
Natural? What are you talking about? The fictitious image presented on a recording through speakers? This is argumentum ad nauseam.

I am talking about live unamplified acoustic music vs. headphones and speakers.

Speakers add the room, headphones reproduce the recording inside my head; both are flawed, I prefer speakers, you prefer phones...

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
I am talking about live unamplified acoustic music vs. headphones and speakers. Speakers add the room, headphones reproduce the recording inside my head; both are flawed, I prefer speakers, you prefer phones... R

 

I reject your binary argument "I prefer this, you prefer that". I argue for headphones here because I want to help headphone users to understand that they can have a natural sound experience, and that they do not have to be cowed into believing that headphones are inherently worse as some claim here. I've published over 150 reviews here, so I'm deeply involved in the technology.

Link to comment
I have you saying it's not and Art Dudley of Stereophile, a certified vinyl god saying it is. Until someone else offers an authoritative rebuttal, Stereophile wins.

 

I can't argue that and I don't think Stereophile did either. What Art Dudley did argue was that the stylus generates its own electric signal physically, and a tape head does not.

 

Not sure that holds up -- AFAIK tape heads also generate current

 

Every text on magnetism ever published, starting with Maxwell, says a tape moving past a tape head generates a current. It's called magnetic induction. Generally speaking, a changing magnetic field will induce an electric current in a conductive loop. It is how transformers work, for instance. In a moving magnet cartridge, the stylus tracking the record groove causes a magnet to wiggle next to the coils. In a moving coil cartridge, the stylus wiggles the coils near a stationary magnet. In both cases, the coils are subjected to a varying magnetic field, and thus a current is induced. A tape head consists of a coils wound around a piece of magnetic material arranged with a narrow gap across which the moving tape passes. The varying magnetisation of the tape is carried to the coil where a current is induced. Both tape and vinyl playback work from the exact same principle of magnetic induction, only the arrangement of magnets and coils are different. In the case of tape, the medium is also the magnet, but that's hardly relevant.

 

It is of course inaccurate to say that either mechanism "generates its own signal." Both draw energy from the motor driving the turntable or tape reel.

Link to comment
None of your comments have *anything* to do with what Dudley said.

Perhaps, but they do add some context to his opinion.

The fact that he has been doing audio for decades and writing for the audio press doesn't make it more than an opinion, and one very much guided by taste at that, for a very particular tailored vintage-ist nostalgia-driven sound.

 

He's the voice of the tailors.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

While it's debated whether record companies mix mostly for speakers or mostly for headphones (it probably differs with different producers) I think we all agree on the following...

 

- in loudspeaker playback the sound from one channel reaches both ears as customary for us and our brain receives different cues... one of them is the time difference between our ears because of the delay, another cue is given by the fact that the same signal will have a different frequency response between our ears.

 

- in headphone playback the situation is completely different 'cause the sound from that same one channel is sent to one ear only

 

- another obvious difference is the fact that loudspeaker playback will add room reflections while headphones playback will not

 

Because of the existing differences when Dalethorn said that "Once the recording is made, the engineers listen on both loudspeakers and headphones, and something that's a problem on one of those gets tweaked until it passes on both. I can do that myself" it's possible that he can compromise for both situations but in doing so he will optimize for none.

 

Those interested in these subjects may find these articles interesting:

 

Under the Hood of the Stereophonic System: Phantom Sources

 

How to Make Headphones Stereo-Compatible

 

Flavio

Warning: My posts may be biased even if in good faith, I work for Dirac Research :-)

Link to comment
Every text on magnetism ever published, starting with Maxwell, says a tape moving past a tape head generates a current. It's called magnetic induction. Generally speaking, a changing magnetic field will induce an electric current in a conductive loop. It is how transformers work, for instance. In a moving magnet cartridge, the stylus tracking the record groove causes a magnet to wiggle next to the coils. In a moving coil cartridge, the stylus wiggles the coils near a stationary magnet. In both cases, the coils are subjected to a varying magnetic field, and thus a current is induced. A tape head consists of a coils wound around a piece of magnetic material arranged with a narrow gap across which the moving tape passes. The varying magnetisation of the tape is carried to the coil where a current is induced. Both tape and vinyl playback work from the exact same principle of magnetic induction, only the arrangement of magnets and coils are different. In the case of tape, the medium is also the magnet, but that's hardly relevant.

It is of course inaccurate to say that either mechanism "generates its own signal." Both draw energy from the motor driving the turntable or tape reel.

 

That's not what Dudley said. You're twisting his words.

Link to comment
While it's debated whether record companies mix mostly for speakers or mostly for headphones (it probably differs with different producers) I think we all agree on the following...

 

- in loudspeaker playback the sound from one channel reaches both ears as customary for us and our brain receives different cues... one of them is the time difference between our ears because of the delay, another cue is given by the fact that the same signal will have a different frequency response between our ears.

 

- in headphone playback the situation is completely different 'cause the sound from that same one channel is sent to one ear only

 

- another obvious difference is the fact that loudspeaker playback will add room reflections while headphones playback will not

 

Because of the existing differences when Dalethorn said that "Once the recording is made, the engineers listen on both loudspeakers and headphones, and something that's a problem on one of those gets tweaked until it passes on both. I can do that myself" it's possible that he can compromise for both situations but in doing so he will optimize for none.

 

Those interested in these subjects may find these articles interesting:

 

Under the Hood of the Stereophonic System: Phantom Sources

 

How to Make Headphones Stereo-Compatible

 

Flavio

 

Summarizing what you said: "The headphone plays the recording "as is", while the speakers smear the sound". Is that clear enough?

Link to comment
Perhaps, but they do add some context to his opinion.

The fact that he has been doing audio for decades and writing for the audio press doesn't make it more than an opinion, and one very much guided by taste at that, for a very particular tailored vintage-ist nostalgia-driven sound.

He's the voice of the tailors.

 

Dudley's claim is not an opinion. He stated a provable physical fact.

Link to comment
Although I can happily listen to music on headphones, I have never enjoyed the experience much and for me it is no substitute for listening with speakers. With speakers I feel like I am listening to music, a performance or whatever. With headphones, with any recording, it feels artificial, I simply have this sensation that the music is in my head, this limits my enjoyment, I just don't like it much!

 

 

Is it just me?

 

No, it is not you. I own a pair of Stax HP that I use when required for quietness or when I make a change to something and need to double check. I've had numerous pairs of others, and just cannot seem to warm up to them either.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
Summarizing what you said: "The headphone plays the recording "as is", while the speakers smear the sound". Is that clear enough?

 

That's your opinion, don't try to fool us forumers depicting it as mine.

 

Flavio

Warning: My posts may be biased even if in good faith, I work for Dirac Research :-)

Link to comment
Dudley's claim is not an opinion. He stated a provable physical fact.

 

I agree it's not an opinion so much as a misconception. What he stated is simply not true. Although he presented it as a physical fact, that is not how reality works. Any electronic engineer or physicist knows this. Dudley is neither.

Link to comment
I agree it's not an opinion so much as a misconception. What he stated is simply not true. Although he presented it as a physical fact, that is not how reality works. Any electronic engineer or physicist knows this. Dudley is neither.

 

If you keep throwing darts at the board, something may stick sooner or later. But not by saying it's "simply not true". Dudley still has the moral authority, so you need something better. And I'm perfectly OK to debunk Dudley, if proven.

Link to comment
I share with you the preference for minimalism in recording proccesses.

I've mentioned both "Barber Shop" and "Amused to Death" not because musical means (impossible in the first case), but as examples that three-dimensional effect is technically possible to achieve, and far better than with binaural system (dummy head).

I also share the passion for "clasical" music (my mother was a pianist), but I enjoy other genres (jazz, good pop-rock, "symphonic" rock, etc.).

It is true that the most relistic recordings of, say, a full symphony orchestra has been achieved with minimal miking ("Mercury Living Presence", "RCA Victor Living Stereo" series, some "Telarc" recordings and an extraordinary record of Wagner's orchestral pieces played by the San Francisco Symphony recorded "direct to the master" by Sheffield Labs).

In the pop-rock, the very best translation to red-book I have comes from Mo-Fi.

 

Sent from my LG-E430 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

https://www.amazon.com/XLO-Reference-Test-Burn-Recordings/dp/B0000015AL

 

Track 6 has a nice width depth presentation. I've never bothered listen to it on HP.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
I didn't try representing your opinion, just your facts, which you made clear yourself.

 

That's YOUR understanding of the facts mentioned in those documents.

Warning: My posts may be biased even if in good faith, I work for Dirac Research :-)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...