Any of you guys into headphones?

[mulester7]

......Guys, I'm embarrassed beyond recognition....I just got off the phone with a repair shop out of town, the best one locally didn't ever have time to talk much, and I have found out the better surround receivers, in fact, DO, have multiple amplifier sections....it'll never be mentioned again....please forgive....I based my opinions on having looked inside of a cheap one....at least I'll admit I was in error, I guess....long live Denon....going to go lick wounds now....pass the salve....I shutter at the private messages that must have been going around hot-and-heavy concerning the loony guy called mule....I digress....spambot fits, I guess....

 

[Vancouver]

I havent read all the posts om this topic yet so sorry if this is out of line. Just going off the tittle I thought I would share a recent headphone purchase. They are from B&O and were only about $250. Usually B&O is way out of my price range, but these werent. They sound great, and look even better

http://www.bang-olufsen.com/web2/systems/gifts.asp?section=systems&sub=gi

 

[mtrycrafts]

No offense, but if someone wasn't able to hear the difference between the headphone jacks on my various amps, they would have to have ears made of mud. I have headphone amps ranging from $500 - $5000. The differences are not psychological in any way.

You need to take Wmax very seriously. He knows what he is talking about and we don't want to hijack the thread further

 

[mtrycrafts]

If Ray Samuels shows up at a head-fi meet, Try an A/B comparator yourself.
You don't need to wait for a credible report. If you can identify the amp in a statistically significant fashion, then that's all the proof you need. You can do whatever it takes to make it fair and objective test.

If that is the case, then that headamp will measure likewise to show that difference. Not rocket science. Then one has to question the design of one of the units.

 

[mulester7]

"two amplifier sections in a surround receiver, that's it, bet your lungs on it, technology applied to stereo input, that's all, we're done, what's for supper?"


.....I only hear it when I'm awake.....

 

[mulester7]

.....Privateer, I'd consider it an honor to email some....mulester7 at hotmail.com....yeah, you gotta' start it.....

 

[mtrycrafts]

What you have to understand is that this site has a lot of back and white thinkers.

And you think in grey shades of facts???

Not all claims are snake oil.

Yep, that is correct. Sifting the snakes out is where at.

Also listening to audio equiptment is a function of the brain which would be described by any researcher in the field as vastly unknown territory.

HUH? You don't need to know zippo about the brain, yet you can certainly conduct tests what you can really hear and what you are imagining. It's done all the time. Actually, it has been ongoing for 100+ years, for your information, in case you are interested. Acoustics and psychoacoustics been around for a few days. Now that wasn't hard, was it.
So, in the end, that is a silly straw to bring up, not knowing the brain.



You can not state as fact what is possible to hear on ALL levels.

Maybe you cannot, but in fact, researchers can and do. Stop protesting; it will not change facts.

We live in a gray world people deal with it


Yep, the world may be grey, some laws are not, as are some facts.

 

[Audiosouse]

I simply pointed out that there is no way "good sound" can be defined. If you can't even define it, how are you going to tell me that a test can give a measure of what is better in any meaningful sense? You can show me all the test in the world, but I am positive that none of them has discovered what constitues "good sound' in absolute terms, simply because "good sound" is relative to the listener. I don't need to read about tests to figure that out.

I'm sorry, I thought I clearly defined what "good sound" was. If you missed it the first time...
1. Flat midrange (on-axis frequency response)
2. Smooth total energy response (wide and constant dispersion)
3. Low distortion

The breakthrough the NRC made (more than 20 years ago I might add) is that speakers (headphones included) with the above criteria will universally and repeatedly be chosen as "good" by all listeners, regardless of knowledge level or experience (musicians and golden ears alike). It doesn't get more meaningful or absolute than that.

 

[Sleestack]

I'm sorry, I thought I clearly defined what "good sound" was. If you missed it the first time...
1. Flat midrange (on-axis frequency response)
2. Smooth total energy response (wide and constant dispersion)
3. Low distortion

The breakthrough the NRC made (more than 20 years ago I might add) is that speakers (headphones included) with the above criteria will universally and repeatedly be chosen as "good" by all listeners, regardless of knowledge level or experience (musicians and golden ears alike). It doesn't get more meaningful or absolute than that.

If it were only that simple. Seriously, think about what you are saying. You are telling me that a study proved that a certain set of criteria determines what constitues "good sound" universally. If that were the case, then there would be no disagreements about what sounds good.

I asked you to give me definition of "good sound" that is meaningful. If you really think you are doing that, you need to stop reading so much and start thinking a bit more.

 

[mtrycrafts]

If it were only that simple. Seriously, think about what you are saying. You are telling me that a study proved that a certain set of criteria determines what constitues "good sound" universally. If that were the case, then there would be no disagreements about what sounds good.

I asked you to give me definition of "good sound" that is meaningful. If you really think you are doing that, you need to stop reading so much and start thinking a bit more.

Excuse me but what was it he said is so hard to understand???

If replicating this criteria produces repeatable results, what more is there to say? NRC is not a hi end fly by night outfit

Yes, there is no disagreement on what sound good when your biases are removed from decision making. I'd say, that is rather important aspect.
audiophiles tend to need to see a product, its visual aspects, name recognition, etc, and distrust their ears alone to make decisions. That is why there may be disagreement between them, certainly not between the people in the know.

Good sound can be defined as accurate and that people can agree on. You may be forgetting that bias inserts an unreliability factor in the equasion. Science eliminates it as it get in the way of progress. Reading is fundamental and is part of the thinking process, hand in hand. Otherwise, we'd be still trying to invent the wheel, over an dover again.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I love these guys who tell us what is audible based on studies.

What should it be based on, ones imaginations??? The whim of the latest craze???


How do you know I'm not part bat?

Well, we don't know as psychics are just frauds. But, we haven't seen your name in any study to show that you are, or any human are. But, if you think you are, advance science, be tested and be published. Simple.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I've been a musician all of my life and think I have a pretty good ear for music.

Well, some would say that doesn't help or give immunity to musicians:

"The Grass is Always Greener in the Outakes", Gould, Glenn, High Fidelity, Aug 75, pg 54-59.

Musicians and conductors didn't do better than anyone else



You say "good sound' can be measured and that the secret rests with the Canadians and the NRC? I studied cognitive sciences and human psychology for quite some time. If you have discovered answers to questions relating to human perceptions which nobody else has been able uncover, you should really write a paper and win yourself a nobel prize. Please enlighten us and give us a definition of "good sound" that isn't circular. I'm sorry, but any definition of "good sound" that doesn't address the role of the brain, is only a relative measurement of equipment as they relate to each other. If I say something sounds good and you disagree, how are you going to prove who is right?

Understanding the brain has nothing to do with determining good sound or testing for good sound. That is just a silly proposition.

But, good sound must be a sound that everyone can agree on is better than something else, to a statistical significance.

Maybe you should visit NRC, talk to them, visit their web site?

And, since you are so well versed in human psychology, you must be comparing components under DBT protocol, right?? What, you don't??? Perhaps you missed the biasing aspect of human nature.

 

[Sleestack]

Excuse me but what was it he said is so hard to understand???

If replicating this criteria produces repeatable results, what more is there to say? NRC is not a hi end fly by night outfit

Yes, there is no disagreement on what sound good when your biases are removed from decision making. I'd say, that is rather important aspect.
audiophiles tend to need to see a product, its visual aspects, name recognition, etc, and distrust their ears alone to make decisions. That is why there may be disagreement between them, certainly not between the people in the know.

Good sound can be defined as accurate and that people can agree on. You may be forgetting that bias inserts an unreliability factor in the equasion. Science eliminates it as it get in the way of progress. Reading is fundamental and is part of the thinking process, hand in hand. Otherwise, we'd be still trying to invent the wheel, over an dover again.

You talk about taking bias out of an equation that invloves human perception and perspective.

I'm not trying to belittle the accomplishments or findings of the NRC. Undoubtedly, they have been a great benefit to the world of audio and ultimately, me. Certainly, if you want to create an artificial standard of good sound by basing its definition on a general consensus, it can be used to establish standards that have a very real practical benefit. I'm not some extremist who believes that there won't be a general, perhaps even overwhelming, consensus on what sounds good.

Nevertheless, you and Audioswayze are taking an interesting study, and drawing from it, a conclusion that I find a bit absurd. You make the assumption that we can all agree on what sounds good. You can take every external bias out of the equation, but how are you going to eliminate one's bias for the distorted, warm, sound of a tube amp? Or are you going to write that off as an anomaly, and yet another irrational "bias."

I understand exactly what you are trying to say... I just think your conclusions are a bit premature.

 

[Sleestack]

Well, some would say that doesn't help or give immunity to musicians:

"The Grass is Always Greener in the Outakes", Gould, Glenn, High Fidelity, Aug 75, pg 54-59.

Musicians and conductors didn't do better than anyone else


I already commented on this. You like to read... read the thread.



Understanding the brain has nothing to do with determining good sound or testing for good sound. That is just a silly proposition.

But, good sound must be a sound that everyone can agree on is better than something else, to a statistical significance.

Maybe you should visit NRC, talk to them, visit their web site?

And, since you are so well versed in human psychology, you must be comparing components under DBT protocol, right?? What, you don't??? Perhaps you missed the biasing aspect of human nature.

I'm not so well versed in human psychology... just enough to understand that if you are conducting a test to determine what sounds good to people, it will necessarily involve perception. If you think human perception is affected by an organ other than the brain, please share your wisdom. Useful test results? Yes. Discovering one single standard of good sound that applies to every single person? Are you sure about that one?

 

[Audiosouse]

Nevertheless, you and Audioswayze are taking an interesting study, and drawing from it, a conclusion that I find a bit absurd. You make the assumption that we can all agree on what sounds good.

We're not the ones drawing conclusions. They are statistical facts discovered, tested, papers written and awards won by researchers...more than two decades ago! I'm talking real "original" thought man! From these "absurd conclusions", a foundation was built from which an internaitonally recognized industry was born and now leads the world.

The fact that YOU find it absurd is irrelevant, it's scientific fact. Like the world is round and not flat, like we evolved from chimps and not Eden, etc., etc.

You can take every external bias out of the equation, but how are you going to eliminate one's bias for the distorted, warm, sound of a tube amp? Or are you going to write that off as an anomaly, and yet another irrational "bias.".

You just answered your own question. When you take every external bias out of the equation, you, I and an entire room full of evaluators will choose the same "sound", every time, all the time. Unfortunately, it won't be the distored, warm sound of a tube amp because that's not the sound humans prefer or would define as "good".

If you like the IDEA of distorted, warm tube sound and have the OPINION it's superior based on and it's prestige and price, that's an entirely different matter althogether and I hope you enjoy your music through it. That's why us scientific types don't understand paying a premium for what is technically and measureably inferior. Although, as I said before, I've done it myself with other products I enjoy, RECOGNIZING (not disputing) this fact.

 

[mulester7]

.....one comment and not taking any sides in any way.....

.....someone who has been involved in making/producing music during their lifetime, whether it be a member of bands, a worker in recording studios, a member of an orchestra, a member of a vocal group, or whatever, as long as it pertains to the making/producing of LIVE music, time after time after time, will get the nod from me on which equipment reproduces "THAT", which approaches, "LIVE PRESENCE", over someone who has owned system after system, and has never graced a stage, podium, or studio, and only occassionally attended a scant few live performances.....

.....if one has BEEN THERE, time after time after time, hearing the real-deal as a part-of on a routine basis as a member of the making/producing of the real-deal, they CAN'T HELP, but have a better basis/perception to know what audio equipment SHOULD produce pertaining to it's reproductive abilities, imo....and, I'll flavor that with, in MOST cases....and, yes, "good sounds", is an individual perception......

 

[WmAx]

When you take every external bias out of the equation, you, I and an entire room full of evaluators will choose the same "sound", every time, all the time.

You lost me. Which research, in particular, are you referring to, that shows a 100% accurate prediction of personal preference? The groundbreaking loudspeaker research [1]study by Toole, for example, did not show a 100 percent coorelation. It showed that the vast majority of subjects chose the same products with similar measurable/quantifiable properties within a specific set of controlled conditions. I do not know if you intended to imply that all people will always have the same preference all of the time, but that's kind of how it sounded[to me]. Is there a study demonstrating, for example, that given the sole variable of a treble control[say +/- 6dB range], that 100% of listeners choose the same setting[+1dB for, example]?

-Chris

[1]Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2
Floyd E. Toole
JAES, May, 1986, Vol. 34, pages 227-235

 

[WmAx]

.....if one has BEEN THERE, time after time after time, hearing the real-deal as a part-of on a routine basis as a member of the making/producing of the real-deal, they CAN'T HELP, but have a better basis/perception to know what audio equipment SHOULD produce pertaining to it's reproductive abilities, imo....and, I'll flavor that with, in MOST cases....and, yes, "good sounds", is an individual perception......

This depends on the persepective of that person. Let's throw up some examples: [A]An instrument player, for example will not have the experience of the person listening to that performance. The tonal balance, imaging and soundstaging will be completely different for each aspect. Vast experience in scenario [A] will not translate to scenario . Additionally, how can you expect, say, an engineer who spends 99% of the time micing things/mixing in a studio, to know what live, distance perspective[like an actual audience perspective] sound should be like? How do you know the person in question is competant in the first place, to be able to make an accurate judgement, and not make some erroneous conclusion due to improper experimental conditions[such as visual bias]? I strongly suspect that even visual input will skew the perception of perspective....as in....the experience will be different if the associative senses do not produce the same complementary data input as the majority of experience(s) that the individual is drawing upon. Ever notice the difference that listening to the same music on the same system in the middle of the day with light flooding the room, vs. night with a pitch black room, can make? How about the difference in imaging with eyes open at a chamber orchestra[with close seats to the orchesta] vs. eyes closed? Maybe this does not affect everyone, but most people that I know of, seem to have a different experience depending on just the visual input, for example.

-Chris

 

[mulester7]

This depends on the persepective of that person. Let's throw up some examples: [A]An instrument player, for example will not have the experience of the person listening to that performance. The tonal balance, imaging and soundstaging will be completely different for each aspect. Vast experience in scenario [A] will not translate to scenario . Additionally, how can you expect, say, an engineer who spends 99% of the time micing things/mixing in a studio, to know what live, distance perspective[like an actual audience perspective] sound should be like? How do you know the person in question is competant in the first place, to be able to make an accurate judgement, and not make some erroneous conclusion due to improper experimental conditions? Also, were these experiences aquired under blinded conditions? I strongly suspect that even visual input will skew the perception....as in....the experience will be different if the associative senses do not produce the same complementary data input as the majority of experience(s) that the individual is drawing upon. Ever notice the big difference that just listening to the same music on the same system in the middle of the day with light flooding the room, vs. night with a pitch black room, makes? Or the difference in imaging with eyes open at a chamber orchestra vs. eyes closed? Maybe this does not affect everyone, but most people that I know of, seem to have a different experience depending on just the visual input, for example.

-Chris

....WmAx, while I definitely recognize your comparisons, I will continue to stand on experience/interaction, with ears wide-open, counts for repetitive reinforcement of opinion concerning that which approaches live-presence reproduced sounds....and I was careful to say, in most cases....

.....on one of your points, I suspect home systems sounding better at night is mainly due to cooler, heavier, generally settled, more-humidified air at night, having an increased damping effect compared to solar-thermal up-rising atmospherical movement during the day with the sun present.....any meteorologists in the house?, haha.....

 

[Audiosouse]

You lost me. Which research, in particular, are you referring to, that shows a 100% accurate prediction of personal preference? The groundbreaking loudspeaker research [1]study by Toole, for example, did not show a 100 percent coorelation. It showed that the vast majority of subjects chose the same products with similar measurable/quantifiable properties within a specific set of controlled conditions. I do not know if you intended to imply that all people will always have the same preference all of the time, but that's kind of how it sounded[to me]. Is there a study demonstrating, for example, that given the sole variable of a treble control[say +/- 6dB range], that 100% of listeners choose the same setting[+1dB for, example]?

-Chris

[1]Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2
Floyd E. Toole
JAES, May, 1986, Vol. 34, pages 227-235

No, I obviously didn't mean 100%, you put it better above referring to a vast majority, or statistically meaninful representation, of evaluators under controlled contidions.