|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 12, 2016 11:51:11 GMT -5
I'll preface this with saying the bottom line is we should buy based on what sounds best to our own ears. But that said...
I've been reading reviews on the Sennheiser HD800 headphones which were designed to be their top of the line model in a line of esteemed products. Many of the remarks I've read from pro reviewers and forum comments is that the headphones are remarkably clear, neutral and accurate but they aren't "musical." That is, many find something that is less neutral like the HD-650 is more pleasing to listen to and less fatiguing. I've read the same thing about other headphones and about speakers - that some are so accurate and neutral that people prefer listening to something else that has a more pleasing sound.
But isn't music supposed to be music? That is, many people judge a system by how well it produces the original performance. Understandably you can't have a live concert in your living room. But when you go to a concert or hear a live performance, you can't get more accurate than hearing the instruments themselves (or the performance itself if it is amplified) so why would this be enjoyable whereas hearing "accuracy" through headphones or speakers not be enjoyable?
In the case of amplified music, do the engineers tip up certain parts of the frequency range to make it sound more exciting or pleasing? If that's the case, then what really represents live music - what comes straight from the instruments or what comes through the monitors?
I know our hearing is affected by the Fletcher-Munson curve, hence the reason why there are loudness buttons on some equipment or why people do a house curve on equalizing bass rather than trying to keep it absolutely flat. But even so, it's like from what I read there is accurate, neutral, flat response which many find to be too sterile or fatiguing to listen to, then there is the more pleasing sound, which often translates to raised bass, thicker midrange, perhaps rolled off upper midrange or treble, etc.
If audio gear really presents something in an accurate manner then the instruments and voices ought to sound like they would if we hear them live (assuming the recording is done well) so why would the live sound be sought after so much by us but then when we hear something that people describe as accurate, they think it isn't engaging or interesting or musical (or whatever term they use to say that in other words, they prefer something less neutral)?
We all have our own preferences for what sounds good to us but I find it funny that when confronted with something that is considered neutral and flat, it doesn't sound good.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 12, 2016 11:58:07 GMT -5
System designers should strive for accuracy. Users should use whatever sounds good to them. "Flat" does not sound "good" to many users.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 12, 2016 11:59:41 GMT -5
And by the way, headphones from MrSpeakers sent my HD650's to Ebay.  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 12, 2016 12:02:53 GMT -5
System designers should strive for accuracy. Users should use whatever sounds good to them. "Flat" does not sound "good" to many users. Oh I realize that. And we should strive for accuracy in reproduction and let the listener adjust to taste, rather than presenting some modified or altered signal to begin with. But I just find it funny how there is such an emphasis on "flat" and then people don't like it. But in a live environment, the instruments are "flat" which then go onto the recording which ideally should also come out "flat." So why would the live "flat" be any different from the recorded "flat?" People would like the live one but not the recorded one? |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 12, 2016 12:02:55 GMT -5
Aren't the concepts of "accuracy" or "reference" achievable only in the original mix or mastering environment? The moment a recording leaves those places, its a mystery.
How's that for cynicism?
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 12, 2016 12:04:15 GMT -5
And by the way, headphones from MrSpeakers sent my HD650's to Ebay. So are those your current favorites? I remember you've posted about various ones in the past so I was wondering which ones you consider your top choice? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 12, 2016 12:12:45 GMT -5
I think it means the headphones are not as accurate as they are supposed to be. The innacuracies are probably a bit different from the HD650s and those stick out worse. So even if it reveals more than the HD650, is more clearer, something sticks out that isn't as pleasant or involving.
Now interestingly there have been a few times when the most clear version of the record I've heard wasn't that enjoyable. There was tape hiss. The dark distant sound that seemed interesting was no longer there. But it was on the mp3 copy of a poorer original.
I've also heard poor conversions from the master which make things just a little bit harder to hear. This proves enjoyable in the way it is revealed...just small tidbits in a large mix of sound. Making them clear as day sometimes can ruin the fun.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 12, 2016 12:21:20 GMT -5
And by the way, headphones from MrSpeakers sent my HD650's to Ebay. So are those your current favorites? I remember you've posted about various ones in the past so I was wondering which ones you consider your top choice? Ether-C is my current favorite. Best sounding headphones I've ever owned. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 12, 2016 12:28:03 GMT -5
So are those your current favorites? I remember you've posted about various ones in the past so I was wondering which ones you consider your top choice? Ether-C is my current favorite. Best sounding headphones I've ever owned. Well that's over my budget but just curious, you prefer the closed to the open version? |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 12, 2016 12:54:18 GMT -5
Ether-C is my current favorite. Best sounding headphones I've ever owned. Well that's over my budget but just curious, you prefer the closed to the open version? Yes, which shocked me being a long-time open-back Sennheiser user. There is something about the closed model that just feels more real to me. Plus I like the fact that I can play it as loud as I want and my wife never complains because she can't hear it.  |
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 12, 2016 12:58:44 GMT -5
System designers should strive for accuracy. Users should use whatever sounds good to them. "Flat" does not sound "good" to many users. Oh I realize that. And we should strive for accuracy in reproduction and let the listener adjust to taste, rather than presenting some modified or altered signal to begin with. But I just find it funny how there is such an emphasis on "flat" and then people don't like it. But in a live environment, the instruments are "flat" which then go onto the recording which ideally should also come out "flat." So why would the live "flat" be any different from the recorded "flat?" People would like the live one but not the recorded one? But what is FLAT ? Here is the thing with that, Every musician adjust their instrument to their likening (Their sound or tone). Then every producer tweaks it to his likening. So lets go back to my first statement in any live band setting I have ever played in the drummer will beet a drum and adjust for what seems to be forever. Every kick drum tone is different. In a live situation. Cymbal's the way and placement they are stuck have a different tone. Now lets talk guitars and bass. Every guitar player has what they deem as their tone it will differ from player to player. Not to mention the boards full of effect peddles that shape tone as well. Maybe with acoustic instrument's such as full size or grand pianos there may be some common ground for what a standard of tone may be but I'm sure if you ask any true pianist they will tell you that their 30k Steinway or what ever has the best tone. So again I ask what is flat? And what is the tone the artist wants to make? To me this is a long and involved train of thought due to all the factures at play. The truth be told for most if you were to sit in on a real working band at practice most would not like the Tone they hear. So what should the reference of flat or tone start or stop? |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 12, 2016 13:07:14 GMT -5
Accuracy or euphonics? It depends. Are you trying to assemble a laboratory reference or a system for listening pleasure? I agree with monkumonku that lots of stuff that measures well doesn't sound good. I remember some "Technics by Panasonic" flagships from the 1970's that measured absolutely perfectly ( PERFECTLY) with "0.000001 % THD." They sounded like nothing you'd want to listen to (ever). So much for specs being the be-all and end-all of audio. (throws the microphone against the chest of every "measurer" on the Lounge & walks away). The variables that must be taken into account (beyond the equipment) include: The venue where playback is to occur - (the room IS important) The musical preferences of the listener(s) - (loud? soft? type of music? emotional impact of the system? and everyone's ears are different!) The value to the listener(s) of specific aspects of audio playback - (imaging? bass extension? treble? etc.) Note that NONE of the above depend solely on accuracy. Boomzilla |
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 12, 2016 13:16:35 GMT -5
System designers should strive for accuracy. Users should use whatever sounds good to them. "Flat" does not sound "good" to many users. But what is accurate? Who is the base line. Guitars from the 40's 50's 60's70's 80's90's Every decade for that matter every year electronic instruments change and advance. For example listen to any Jimi Hendrix recording his distortion was made by cranking up his amps driving the tubes over the point to distort. But then came the "new" two channel amps you could achieve great over driven tones with out cranking to ear bleeding levels. And now we can achieve this with a rack mount box from fractal audio without any tubes or the tone of a guitar speaker in your amp. And to even touch the surface of electronic keyboards would take a hour to post. So what is accurate? In the years I have loved audio gear this discussion comes up quite a bit to me it is a dog chasing his tale. Not to mention the biggest uncertain element. Our ears they are the weakest link in the chain. We all hear different. To quote from a article I read in a guitar player magazine from a little guitar hero Eddie Van Halen. He said if it sounds good it is good. That for me is accurate. |
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 12, 2016 13:17:34 GMT -5
Accuracy or euphonics? It depends. Are you trying to assemble a laboratory reference or a system for listening pleasure? I agree with monkumonku that lots of stuff that measures well doesn't sound good. I remember some "Technics by Panasonic" flagships from the 1970's that measured absolutely perfectly ( PERFECTLY) with "0.000001 % THD." They sounded like nothing you'd want to listen to (ever). So much for specs being the be-all and end-all of audio. (throws the microphone against the chest of every "measurer" on the Lounge & walks away). The variables that must be taken into account (beyond the equipment) include: The venue where playback is to occur - (the room IS important) The musical preferences of the listener(s) - (loud? soft? type of music? emotional impact of the system? and everyone's ears are different!) The value to the listener(s) of specific aspects of audio playback - (imaging? bass extension? treble? etc.) Note that NONE of the above depend solely on accuracy. Boomzilla Right on Boom. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 12, 2016 13:23:51 GMT -5
Interestingly I did see a small time producer work. And man they will manipulate the living heck out of the signal. They can also do some pretty impressive magic. For instance he had one mic but two performers - one male and one female. he was able to manipulate the mono feed and split the singers in to stereo from the mono track. Add room ambience using an iphone mic at the back. And then eq the voices to make it sound more pleasant. And man it really worked. I was stunned that the track I was listening to was NOT a full on stereo mic setup. It was pretty enveloping and had pin p0oint soundstaging.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 12, 2016 13:44:52 GMT -5
System designers should strive for accuracy. Users should use whatever sounds good to them. "Flat" does not sound "good" to many users. But what is accurate? Who is the base line. Guitars from the 40's 50's 60's70's 80's90's Every decade for that matter every year electronic instruments change and advance. For example listen to any Jimi Hendrix recording his distortion was made by cranking up his amps driving the tubes over the point to distort. But then came the "new" two channel amps you could achieve great over driven tones with out cranking to ear bleeding levels. And now we can achieve this with a rack mount box from fractal audio without any tubes or the tone of a guitar speaker in your amp. And to even touch the surface of electronic keyboards would take a hour to post. So what is accurate? In the years I have loved audio gear this discussion comes up quite a bit to me it is a dog chasing his tale. Not to mention the biggest uncertain element. Our ears they are the weakest link in the chain. We all hear different. To quote from a article I read in a guitar player magazine from a little guitar hero Eddie Van Halen. He said if it sounds good it is good. That for me is accurate. When we listen to something we have no idea how "accurate" it portrays the original since we don't know what the original sounded like. And even if we were there, our memory is not good enough to compare the two to judge accuracy, same as if you try and judge how close a picture is to capturing what you originally saw on your vacation. So it seems to me that when people talk about "accurate" in audio forums, maybe this is just their own concept of what that means and for many, that means sounding really detailed and clinical, perhaps sterile. For some maybe unless it sounds that way then it isn't "neutral" or "accurate." But in real life, as has been pointed out by you and others in this thread, instruments sound all kinds of ways and the electronics used by the magicians musicians color the tone/timbre/sound to suit their own taste of what they want it to sound like. Some guitarists add fuzz to the sound so "accurate" for this would be to replicate the fuzz whereas someone hearing the recording would say it is colored because there's too much fuzz and a more accurate presentation would be more detailed unfuzz. Perhaps maybe we all have flawed ideas of what accurate means. We know the definition but how our brain judges it is based on our own idea of what is supposed to sound like it is "accurate." |
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 12, 2016 13:50:15 GMT -5
But what is accurate? Who is the base line. Guitars from the 40's 50's 60's70's 80's90's Every decade for that matter every year electronic instruments change and advance. For example listen to any Jimi Hendrix recording his distortion was made by cranking up his amps driving the tubes over the point to distort. But then came the "new" two channel amps you could achieve great over driven tones with out cranking to ear bleeding levels. And now we can achieve this with a rack mount box from fractal audio without any tubes or the tone of a guitar speaker in your amp. And to even touch the surface of electronic keyboards would take a hour to post. So what is accurate? In the years I have loved audio gear this discussion comes up quite a bit to me it is a dog chasing his tale. Not to mention the biggest uncertain element. Our ears they are the weakest link in the chain. We all hear different. To quote from a article I read in a guitar player magazine from a little guitar hero Eddie Van Halen. He said if it sounds good it is good. That for me is accurate. When we listen to something we have no idea how "accurate" it portrays the original since we don't know what the original sounded like. And even if we were there, our memory is not good enough to compare the two to judge accuracy, same as if you try and judge how close a picture is to capturing what you originally saw on your vacation. So it seems to me that when people talk about "accurate" in audio forums, maybe this is just their own concept of what that means and for many, that means sounding really detailed and clinical, perhaps sterile. For some maybe unless it sounds that way then it isn't "neutral" or "accurate." But in real life, as has been pointed out by you and others in this thread, instruments sound all kinds of ways and the electronics used by the magicians musicians color the tone/timbre/sound to suit their own taste of what they want it to sound like. Some guitarists add fuzz to the sound so "accurate" for this would be to replicate the fuzz whereas someone hearing the recording would say it is colored because there's too much fuzz and a more accurate presentation would be more detailed unfuzz. Perhaps maybe we all have flawed ideas of what accurate means. We know the definition but how our brain judges it is based on our own idea of what is supposed to sound like it is "accurate." Your picture analogy is the best way of describing it yet. I think we all have a sound in our head and that's what we want to hear in our sound systems. It is personal that's for sure. |
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Feb 12, 2016 14:10:56 GMT -5
Not to derail this by any means. Just a little side note.
I have a friend that I trade ton's of music with. It can be vinyl, cd, or DVD.
I was at his house yesterday and we were just listening to some new stuff I had never heard of.
He has a USB turn Table from Wall mart that he paid like 80 or 90 bucks.
A pair of old Cerwin Vega speakers that we had to glue one of the surrounds of the woofer on.
He never cleans any of his vinyl.so ya, They click and pop. His tape deck is one of those plastic things that used to come with the buy a whole rack system.
And his receiver is a flea market find form the early ninety's.
His living room looks as it came from the Munsters house or a well used frat house.
The point I'm getting to is. He loves it. And I have fun when over there I never think of wow this sounds like crap.
It is a fun day that is all. So at the end of the day isn't this what this whole thing is about? Fun and enjoyment of music.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 12, 2016 14:30:22 GMT -5
Accuracy or euphonics? It depends. Are you trying to assemble a laboratory reference or a system for listening pleasure? I agree with monkumonku that lots of stuff that measures well doesn't sound good. I remember some "Technics by Panasonic" flagships from the 1970's that measured absolutely perfectly ( PERFECTLY) with "0.000001 % THD." They sounded like nothing you'd want to listen to (ever). So much for specs being the be-all and end-all of audio. (throws the microphone against the chest of every "measurer" on the Lounge & walks away). The variables that must be taken into account (beyond the equipment) include: The venue where playback is to occur - (the room IS important) The musical preferences of the listener(s) - (loud? soft? type of music? emotional impact of the system? and everyone's ears are different!) The value to the listener(s) of specific aspects of audio playback - (imaging? bass extension? treble? etc.) Note that NONE of the above depend solely on accuracy. Boomzilla Picks mic back up. The issue with this point of view is that it is just that. Your point of view. There is NO WAY I can replicate what you heard so what good it it to ME? Yet if you measure something I can come close to replicating it then make up my own mind if it sounds good to me or not. |
|
|
|
Post by milsap195 on Feb 12, 2016 15:21:01 GMT -5
When I started my hifi journey my goal was accuracy. Now my system is set up for pleasure. I learned fairly fast that an accurate system is not fun to listen to for a long periods of time. Also my choice of music does not lend it self to a highly resolving system.
|
|
