Any of you guys into headphones?

[Audiosouse]

Eureka!

.....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......

In essence, perfectly reproducing live performance is the ultimate goal, and the sole purpose of audio equipment! An insightful observation! This perfect reproduction can be represented as a straight line on a frequency response graph (see attached).

So, the first and most important criteria of "good sound" (as I mentioned previously) is flat on-axis frequency response with wide wandwidth, which essentially means reproducing the original source exactly as intended (live), as naturally as possible, without adding any sonic signature of it's own.

If any deviation from flat (frequency response) is undesireable, then audiophile equipment (tubes especially) that attenuate sound (deviating from flat) is inherintly flawed, completely failing at it's intened purpose! Eureka!

 

[Audiosouse]

Excellent Article

Here's an excellent link to an ABX blind test of power cords commissioned by a golden eared audiophile...the end result, although surprising to him, I found entirely predictable.

http://www.sdinfo.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

This is a good one for all those who beleive, especially as it pertians to headphones, that interconnects and/or power cords will make a profound difference to your cans or headphone amp. Especially a headphone amp that runs perfectly off or a wall wart power supply due to it's small output.

 

[Sleestack]

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 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.

Your inability to understand the ABCs of logical reasoning astounds me. The only way your position makes sense is if you can prove that every single person will always agree on what sounds good. You can easily dismiss those who don't agree as people with irrational "opinions," but that is just artifically manipulating your definition to make sure it has to work. Seroiusly, do some critical thinking and try to understand what you are saying. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of logic or deductive reasoning knows why your argument is circular and has a big fat hole in it.

I'm sitting in a room blindfolded. All external biases hve been removed. When given a choice between what sounds better, I pick the piece that doesn't have a flat freq. resp. because it sounds good to me. Your conclusion is that I am wrong and that I chose the piece that sounds bad, even though it sounds good to me? Oh wait, but there is a study that shows 99% of people prefer the piece I didn't pick, so I must be wrong. There is an absolute truth to what constitutes good sound!!! OK. So imagine an ice age hits and the only survivors happen to be those in the 1% who picked the piece I did and 1 guy from the NRC. Mr. NRC runs his tests again and a new truth to what constittues "good sound" is discovered? I think not. I think it is more likely that "good sound" is a subjective determination. The fact that it is subjective doesn't mean the vast majority of people can't agree. After all, taste is subjective (or do you disagree on that too?), but I'm sure more than 99% of the world thinks dog feces falls into the "tastes bad" category.

 

[mulester7]

.....ok, Audiosouce, what are your feelings about the amplified signal arriving at the speakers as ruler-flat as possible, and then the speakers, in fact, having their own sonic signature?....in your opinion, in other words, should the speakers deviate from ruler-flat, or do we want ruler-flat from source to spl db's being realized?.....

 

[WmAx]

If any deviation from flat (frequency response) is undesireable, then audiophile equipment (tubes especially) that attenuate sound (deviating from flat) is inherintly flawed, completely failing at it's intened purpose! Eureka!

Note: recordings are not standardized or any other way regulated to ensure an accurate representation of the performance. If you want an accurate reproduction of the original event, an accurate playback system is not going to achieve this without the source material being accurate, as well.

Let's consider the above: If one was to find recordings to have too much treble energy, especially noticable on vocals[an obvious bi-product of the close mike techniques], for example, would using a shelf filter to reduce treble on such vocal-based works be undesirable? Basicly, this is applying a correction target function to compensate for the original error[incurred during recording production]. I realize that it's not the theoretical job of the playback hardware to apply such corrections, but since the recordings are the problem, what else can one do, in order to get a more accurate representation of the original sound source from a realistic perspective?

Personally, I can not tolerate ruler-flat loudspeaker response on most recordings into the treble band, due to the above mentioned reasons. The excessive treble on most recordings removes the experience, that much more, from a natural presentation[unless one is accustomed to the tonal balance of a vocalist singing 24" in front of him/her], for me. I can, however, tolerate[and prefer] a rather flat[but not necessarily the flattest representation possible] total spectrum on headphones, as the in-your-head effect of headphones seems to go right along with that accentuated treble found on most recordings.

-Chris

 

[mulester7]

Note: recordings are not standardized or any other way regulated to ensure an accurate representation of the performance. If you want an accurate reproduction of the original event, an accurate playback system is not going to achieve this without the source material being accurate, as well.

Let's consider the above: If one was to find recordings to have too much treble energy, especially noticable on vocals[an obvious bi-product of the close mike techniques], for example, would using a shelf filter to reduce treble on such vocal-based works be undesirable? Basicly, this is applying a correction target function to compensate for the original error[incurred during recording production]. I realize that it's not the theoretical job of the playback hardware to apply such corrections, but since the recordings are the problem, what else can one do, in order to get a more accurate representation of the original sound source from a realistic perspective?

Personally, I can not tolerate ruler-flat loudspeaker response on most recordings into the treble band, due to the above mentioned reasons. The excessive treble on most recordings removes the experience, that much more, from a natural presentation[unless one is accustomed to the tonal balance of a vocalist singing 24" in front of him/her], for me. I can, however, tolerate[and prefer] a rather flat[but not necessarily the flattest representation possible] total spectrum on headphones, as the in-your-head effect of headphones seems to go right along with that accentuated treble found on most recordings.

-Chris

.....very good, WmAx....our systems can only attempt to produce what they are given to work with....that fact makes me lean toward and seek certain labels....TELARC is one for sure that makes efforts for realism and natural ambiance added....anyone care to vouch for some other labels they lean toward?.....

 

[Audiosouse]

Your inability to understand the ABCs of logical reasoning astounds me. The only way your position makes sense is if you can prove that every single person will always agree on what sounds good. You can easily dismiss those who don't agree as people with irrational "opinions," but that is just artifically manipulating your definition to make sure it has to work. Seroiusly, do some critical thinking and try to understand what you are saying. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of logic or deductive reasoning knows why your argument is circular and has a big fat hole in it.

I'm sitting in a room blindfolded. All external biases hve been removed. When given a choice between what sounds better, I pick the piece that doesn't have a flat freq. resp. because it sounds good to me. Your conclusion is that I am wrong and that I chose the piece that sounds bad, even though it sounds good to me? Oh wait, but there is a study that shows 99% of people prefer the piece I didn't pick, so I must be wrong. There is an absolute truth to what constitutes good sound!!! OK. So imagine an ice age hits and the only survivors happen to be those in the 1% who picked the piece I did and 1 guy from the NRC. Mr. NRC runs his tests again and a new truth to what constittues "good sound" is discovered? I think not. I think it is more likely that "good sound" is a subjective determination. The fact that it is subjective doesn't mean the vast majority of people can't agree. After all, taste is subjective (or do you disagree on that too?), but I'm sure more than 99% of the world thinks dog feces falls into the "tastes bad" category.

See Post #100 for clarification.

 

[Audiosouse]

.....ok, Audiosouce, what are your feelings about the amplified signal arriving at the speakers as ruler-flat as possible, and then the speakers, in fact, having their own sonic signature?....in your opinion, in other words, should the speakers deviate from ruler-flat, or do we want ruler-flat from source to spl db's being realized?.....

I believe the ultimate goal is ruler-flat from source to listener, allowing the recording, however good or bad, to sound as it was intended, without anything being added or taken away by the equipment playing it back.

 

[Audiosouse]

Note: recordings are not standardized or any other way regulated to ensure an accurate representation of the performance. If you want an accurate reproduction of the original event, an accurate playback system is not going to achieve this without the source material being accurate, as well.-Chris

It's unfortunate more care is not taken in that regard.

 

[Sleestack]

I believe the ultimate goal is ruler-flat from source to listener, allowing the recording, however good or bad, to sound as it was intended, without anything being added or taken away by the equipment playing it back.

Can you articulate your position a bit more clearly? By referring to post #100, you are saying that the meaning of "good sound" is determined by what an overwhelming majority of people can agree constiutes "good sound"? Great argument. You are definitely a master debator.

Your signature should read, "My tastes are simple -- I am always satisfied with what everyone tells me is the best... I hope they don't change their minds."

 

[Audiosouse]

Sleestack, I don't know what other facts to provide you. You're happy with the world being flat so take care booking your next cruise lest if fall off the planet.

I'm certianly not going to start insulting you for your opinions, not matter how misinformed they might be. Although I don't find agreeing with proven science illogical, I do find strong words agains another who's done thier homework a little silly. So stick a shakty stone on your CD tansport and enjoy the newfound inner detail of all your recordings!

Myself and others have laid out some useful (I think mandatory) reading and it's up to you whether the science (not voodoo) behind this hobby is of interest.

I do regret having a conscience however, otherwise I'd be rich selling your type GLOB cables, burn in CDs, bad mojo sound absorbers and other "valuable" audio devices.

 

[Sleestack]

Sleestack, I don't know what other facts to provide you. You're happy with the world being flat so take care booking your next cruise lest if fall off the planet.

I'm certianly not going to start insulting you for your opinions, not matter how misinformed they might be. Although I don't find agreeing with proven science illogical, I do find strong words agains another who's done thier homework a little silly. So stick a shakty stone on your CD tansport and enjoy the newfound inner detail of all your recordings!

Myself and others have laid out some useful (I think mandatory) reading and it's up to you whether the science (not voodoo) behind this hobby is of interest.

I do regret having a conscience however, otherwise I'd be rich selling your type GLOB cables, burn in CDs, bad mojo sound absorbers and other "valuable" audio devices.

All of your reading has not helped you understand things that involve matters of common sense and basic logic. I clearly understand why the NRC tests are important and, if you can comprehend what I have been saying, agree that a standard of "good sound" that is based on a flat freq. response makes sense for many purposes. Nevertheless, that is very different from saying that the NRC has discovered the meaning of "good sound." You haven't responded to anything I have said with an articulate answer. Instead, you fall back to quoting and referring to sources without even adressing the basic question presented to you.

Despite all of your "required reading", am I supposed to be hesitant in questioning your position when you haven't even shown the ability to follow a simple path of reasoning? I think not. I have suspicion that "flat frequency response" is more descriptive of you than your aural preferences. Live a little. You don't need to understand "good sound" to know "good sound."

 

[Audiosouse]

...Nevertheless, that is very different from saying that the NRC has discovered the meaning of "good sound."

When you discover the meaning of life, I'll let you know what the "meaning" of good sound is! I don't even think GDS or Clint can answer that one!

If you mean what music do I like, Indie Alt. Rock, Triphop, Jazz, Old School Gangster Rap, Classical...thanks for asking.

Is that you Dubbya?

 

[mulester7]

.....Audiosouse, I'll say this....every article written, performance graph viewed, or opinion noted, from anyone on the face of Planet Earth, might guide me to a certain piece of audio equipment to audibly audition, but that's where it would stop, period....the articles, graphs, and opinions would mean absolutely nothing the instant music started flowing, and I emphasize, nothing....

.....I have been led to believe, by someone who I know for sure is far above me in this audio thing, that it is virtually impossible to record any live performance perfectly flat....and, it's virtually impossible to reproduce any recording perfectly flat once the signal leaves the source....and, that to produce speakers ruler-flat is a mistake....once again, we come back, and always will come back, imo, to beauty, is in the "ears" of the beholder, when it comes to audio.....

.....someone might have a slight hearing deficiency at a certain frequency level that will make a certain pair of speakers sound great to them, while another person might not appreciate the speakers nearly as much....if we were all alike in every way, there would only be one speaker company that would be successful....whatcha' think?.....

 

[Sleestack]

When you discover the meaning of life, I'll let you know what the "meaning" of good sound is! I don't even think GDS or Clint can answer that one!

If you mean what music do I like, Indie Alt. Rock, Triphop, Jazz, Old School Gangster Rap, Classical...thanks for asking.

Is that you Dubbya?

I wasn't asking, but thanks for sharing. Not very specific, but what else would I expect from you? So how many hours of your life have you devoted to reading to come to the conclusion that a majority of people will prefer a flat freq. resp.? That is all you are saying, correct? Furthermore, do you prefer a flat freq. resp. b/c of reading the NRC reports, or because of what you hear? I assume both? I"m sitting here listing to my distorted setup... you are absolutely correct. It sounds awful. Please help me fix it. Anyone want to take it off my hands? I know Audioswayze wouldn't want it.

EAR 864/Meridian G57/Meridian G08/Onix Ref.3s/Velodyne DD15

 

[mulester7]

I wasn't asking, but thanks for sharing. Not very specific, but what else would I expect from you? So how many hours of your life have you devoted to reading to come to the conclusion that a majority of people will prefer a flat freq. resp.? That is all you are saying, correct? Furthermore, do you prefer a flat freq. resp. b/c of reading the NRC reports, or because of what you hear? I assume both? I"m sitting here listing to my distorted setup... you are absolutely correct. It sounds awful. Please help me fix it. Anyone want to take it off my hands? I know Audioswayze wouldn't want it.

EAR 864/Meridian G57/Meridian G08/Onix Ref.3s/Velodyne DD15

.....Sleestack, I may have your answer.....hang six cubes and call somebody in the morning, haha.....

 

[mulester7]

.....Sleestack and Audiosouse, let's try to turn this discussion into a win-win situation that we might remain one big happy family united in our love for audio.....

.....Audiosouse, you might have taken what so-called audiophiles claim to be their measuring stick of ruler-flat too far....ruler-flat in an audiophile's sense of thinking, almost invariably means the tone controls on the pre-amp are left at high noon mid-way which is the "flat" position to leave what's heard unenhanced....but to be content with those settings at flat, an audiophile must shell out the dough for speakers that sound, all they can sound, at those flat settings, and to me, audiophile quality speakers mean the highs are resolved, and a flat setting on the treble tone control is actually "desired", even if the bass tone control is tweaked a bit....it has always been my desire to add treble to speakers I have had up until the ones I have now....and the ones I have now cost about three times more than any of their predecessors, so what does that make me?....an audiophile?....hardly....it just means I shelled out more money for resolved highs, which is all so-called audiophiles do, imo....

.....Audiosouse, there's no doubt in my mind you made your selections on your individual component selections based on your ears, not the science of scope measurement or opinions of others, thus I respect your opinions.....

.....Sleestack, it's obvious your trained and seasoned ears decided for you also, and I applaud your demeanor displayed in this thread, and hats off to you, Sir.....I quit.....

 

[Audiosouse]

I had to get drunk and dumb myself down for you first Sleestack...

As I said before, I use measurements as a guide to narrow down what can only be described as a daunting selection of components to choose from (where else does one start?). Once narrowed down to what's easily (locally) available and in my price range, of coarse my ears guide me to final decision. Even if a component meats all those criteria, if I don't like the sound, it ain't worth sh$%.

I bring along my Rat Shack (sorry, The Source by Circuit City) SPL, level the volume on all components, turn my back and have a buddy switch them by saying "A", "B", etc. I tally up the one I prefer for my criteria (the one that sounds best to me, if there's any difference at all) and turn around to find out what I picked, It's not always what I thought I'd pick. If I hear little differnce between two options with vastly different prices, why would I pick the expensive one? Because of the name? Of coarse not, I'm smarter than that and don't suffer from snob appeal (much). Then I write the cheque.

My preferences do tend to follow the very criteria I listed previously. I like a full range sound where one frequencey doesn't stand out from the rest like lots of highs but no low end impact (flat frequency response and wide bandwidth). I prefer when I can hear the same sound moving around the room (wide and constant dispersion) and have no tolerance for static, hiss or other distortion when I crank it past respectable volumes. What's cool is objective graphs directly relate to what I hear. Therefore, graphs of a component I haven't heard will relate to what I can EXPECT to hear...see how it works?

And while I know ruler flat will likely never be achieved, I think it should be the goal. Without a goal, what are we working towards? I'm not some NRC natzi, but there has to be a way to cut through all the bullsh$% and marketing hype, which is the very purpose of this site (or so I thought). That's why I'm so astonished that people (forum cult hobbyists) that read (troll, bait) these particular forums staunchly refuse to recognize it's validity. And surprise, surprise, price is rarely the determining factor of performance.

.....Sleestack, I may have your answer.....hang six cubes and call somebody in the morning, haha.....

Great, I love a good pinata, who's got the bat!

 

[mulester7]

.....Audiosouse, you're a very good man in my opinion, and I believe we're all after the same thing....and that's "Live Presence"....Live Presence, like the group is 10 feet away from us with drop-dead imaging....not 50 feet away from us sorta' muffled, like systems we've had in the past....my GOAL is to have a good system, and that says money spent....my HOPE is simply to not waste money along the way....

.....and did you hear about the pair of jump-cables that walked into a bar, climbed up on a stool, and ordered a stiff double-bourbon?.....

.....the bartender looked at the pair of jump-cables for a minute while pondering the situation, and then said, "ok, I'll serve you the double-bourbon if you'll promise to not get drunk and start anything".....

.....whew, I am done now....nite, all.....

 

[Audiosouse]

.....Audiosouse, you're a very good man in my opinion...

I'm an 18 year old blonde with DDs? Oops...wrong forum...

...pair of jump-cables that walked into a bar, climbed up on a stool, and ordered a stiff double-bourbon?.....

.....the bartender looked at the pair of jump-cables for a minute while pondering the situation, and then said, "ok, I'll serve you the double-bourbon if you'll promise to not get drunk and start anything".....

That's actually pretty funny when you're in a scotch induced coma

I'm offically done with this thread, thanks for all the insight (and blindsight).