But this is not a test for the resolution of digital or vinyl or tape, it's a test of the speakers and the room. Or the entire system in a case in which the headphone system electronics are separate from the speaker system electronics (usually the case in Audiophile systems). The one thing that's common is the media, and perhaps the source.
It's not a very fair test either. There is a reason why studio engineers often shut their monitors down and put on headphones if they think they hear a tiny noise that they can't quite pinpoint. And it's not because highly-resolving speakers should reveal anything that they can hear through good headphones.
I've had a 15 ips recording studio in my home. I have a tremendous respect for the medium and the engineers who made the most of it. It was not easy to work with. Just achieving the critical balance between maximum signal/minimum noise with no clipping and no limiting could be a challenge with some material. Keeping distortion levels low while building up tracks was an even bigger challenge. But to answer the basic question, yes, I've heard it. I've heard a lot of it. At its best, I agree that it has a wonderful sound. I do not agree that it captures more "information" or is more resolving than digital recorded equally well. I don't know a way to do that without abandoning reason.
But this is not a test for the resolution of digital or vinyl or tape, it's a test of the speakers and the room. Or the entire system in a case in which the headphone system electronics are separate from the speaker system electronics (usually the case in Audiophile systems). The one thing that's common is the media, and perhaps the source.
It's not a very fair test either. There is a reason why studio engineers often shut their monitors down and put on headphones if they think they hear a tiny noise that they can't quite pinpoint. And it's not because highly-resolving speakers should reveal anything that they can hear through good headphones.
Tim I'm talking about what most people using free space loudspeakers categorize as microdynamics in response to Frantz not resolution of any media in particular. Not your fault though, my post lacked a quote or an @Frantz. My bad.
You are right though, it is very much a test of the speakers and the room. HOWEVER, if in that room details are revealed by a format that is masked by another, frankly I don't care which, logic dictates that that format is giving you more at least in the frequency band in which that detail exists. Heck, ABX it if you like.
As for the your second sentence, what are you talking about? Studio Engineers, go to cans when, as you say hear sounds they can't pinpoint BECAUSE the monitors which are used most of the time don't allow them to. If their monitors could, they wouldn't go to cans at all. You should spend more time on the other side of the glass Tim. I sure would like to know what you think their reasons for using cans at all are given that the majority of their work, even tracking, is done with monitors. The exception would be remote/field recordists and home studios without isolated control rooms.
Spatial compression is one of the chinks in near field monitoring brought about by the smaller summing area due to the proximity of the monitors from each other as well as filtering from reflections off the board. These are mitigated with mid field monitoring but the latter introduces it's own set of problems which can be addressed to a great degree. Just take a look at what Bruce has been doing at Puget Sound's mastering room lately. A speaker/room and associated equipment is highly resolving in practice if they can and do let you hear what you would otherwise only hear with cans, which is a heck of a lot more than a table radio or OEM car stereo.
As for the your second sentence, what are you talking about? Studio Engineers, go to cans when, as you say hear sounds they can't pinpoint BECAUSE the monitors which are used most of the time don't allow them to. If their monitors could, they wouldn't go to cans at all. You should spend more time on the other side of the glass Tim. I sure would like to know what you think their reasons for using cans at all are given that the majority of their work, even tracking, is done with monitors. The exception would be remote/field recordists and home studios without isolated control rooms.
My turn for my bad. Very confusing sentence, indeed. All I meant was headphones are the best place to listen for very small details and, IMO, even extremely resolving speakers (top-quality monitors) in near field configurations, in very well treated control rooms are not as revealing, and will cause the engineer to reach for the cans.
But this is not a test for the resolution of digital or vinyl or tape, it's a test of the speakers and the room. Or the entire system in a case in which the headphone system electronics are separate from the speaker system electronics (usually the case in Audiophile systems). The one thing that's common is the media, and perhaps the source.
It's not a very fair test either. There is a reason why studio engineers often shut their monitors down and put on headphones if they think they hear a tiny noise that they can't quite pinpoint. And it's not because highly-resolving speakers should reveal anything that they can hear through good headphones.
you might think 'good headphones' can hear everything there is to hear. i thought that too, and last year i invested in some very very good headphones and headphone amps just to check that theory out. i purchased Senn HD-800's and a Woo Audio 6SE maxed for dynamic headphones, and a Stax Omega 2 mK1 headphones and Stax SRM-717 amp to see just how good headphones could be. i would listen to the headphones for 10 minutes, then remove them and un-mute my speakers. these headphones could not produce the detail of my speakers. i'm not talking about deep bass, or note decay, or imaging, aspects speakers do better than headphones. i'm talking about detail and texture.
these are both pretty high level headphones and amps. and the speaker system with exactly the same source and power grid, had more detail.
so i ordered what many consdier the top level electrostatic commercially avialable amp, the BHSE from Headamp. it took 14 months to get. i then purchased the new Stax 009 headphones. could this combination match or exceed the speaker performance?
and it did do that. the BHSE and 009 headphones have a slight degree greater detail than my MM3 speaker system. however; i don't think it will quite match the incoming MM7's; we will need to check that out later to be sure.
so step right up with your $6k for the amp, and $5800 for the headphones, and get more detail than high quality speakers.
so don't put too much faith in 'good' headphones having more detail than a good speaker system. it will cost ya to make that happen.
and maybe this says more about the studio engineers use of a typical pro audio monitor system than it does about headphones.
i still have all these headphones and amps in room for anyone to come over and listen for themselves.
maybe if someone had lots of ambient noise issues and used closed ear headphones, that would result in more low level detail.
you might think 'good headphones' can hear everything there is to hear. i thought that too, and last year i invested in some very very good headphones and headphone amps just to check that theory out. i purchased Senn HD-800's and a Woo Audio 6SE maxed for dynamic headphones, and a Stax Omega 2 mK1 headphones and Stax SRM-717 amp to see just how good headphones could be. i would listen to the headphones for 10 minutes, then remove them and un-mute my speakers. these headphones could not produce the detail of my speakers. i'm not talking about deep bass, or note decay, or imaging, aspects speakers do better than headphones. i'm talking about detail and texture.
these are both pretty high level headphones and amps. and the speaker system with exactly the same source and power grid, had more detail.
so i ordered what many consdier the top level electrostatic commercially avialable amp, the BHSE from Headamp. it took 14 months to get. i then purchased the new Stax 009 headphones. could this combination match or exceed the speaker performance?
and it did do that. the BHSE and 009 headphones have a slight degree greater detail than my MM3 speaker system. however; i don't think it will quite match the incoming MM7's; we will need to check that out later to be sure.
so step right up with your $6k for the amp, and $5800 for the headphones, and get more detail than high quality speakers.
so don't put too much faith in 'good' headphones having more detail than a good speaker system. it will cost ya to make that happen.
i still have all these headphones and amps in room for anyone to come over and listen for themselves.
Mike, those are, indeed, very good headphones. Many would call them the very best. If you're getting more detail from your speakers and room than you get, even from a pair of Senn 800s and a fairly modest headphone amp, all I can say is congratulations.
you might think 'good headphones' can hear everything there is to hear. i thought that too, and last year i invested in some very very good headphones and headphone amps just to check that theory out. i purchased Senn HD-800's and a Woo Audio 6SE maxed for dynamic headphones, and a Stax Omega 2 mK1 headphones and Stax SRM-717 amp to see just how good headphones could be. i would listen to the headphones for 10 minutes, then remove them and un-mute my speakers. these headphones could not produce the detail of my speakers. i'm not talking about deep bass, or note decay, or imaging, aspects speakers do better than headphones. i'm talking about detail and texture.
these are both pretty high level headphones and amps. and the speaker system with exactly the same source and power grid, had more detail.
so i ordered what many consdier the top level electrostatic commercially avialable amp, the BHSE from Headamp. it took 14 months to get. i then purchased the new Stax 009 headphones. could this combination match or exceed the speaker performance?
and it did do that. the BHSE and 009 headphones have a slight degree greater detail than my MM3 speaker system. however; i don't think it will quite match the incoming MM7's; we will need to check that out later to be sure.
so step right up with your $6k for the amp, and $5800 for the headphones, and get more detail than high quality speakers.
so don't put too much faith in 'good' headphones having more detail than a good speaker system. it will cost ya to make that happen.
i still have all these headphones and amps in room for anyone to come over and listen for themselves.
Very interesting. My main issue other than the discomfort of having something on my head is the fact you get zero body sensation from the music...The feel me portion of the sound only loudspeakers can do. That is a real important part of the listening experience, at least for me.
just listen to a digital cymble, then on high level vinyl or tape. overtones and decay is missing on the digital. the metalic quality of the tone is missing on the digital. the fine details are blurred on the digital. the life and energy are missing comparitively.
Here is something else I have noted and I wonder if others have heard it too. On digital music that was sourced from analog tape (which is tons of music) and you can hear the very low-level analog tape hiss in quiet parts of the music, it doesn't sound like tape hiss does in real life from a real tape playing on a R2R deck. And maybe that makes sense because digital's distortion goes up as the recording level goes down. Anyway, it doesn't sound 'right.' Tape hiss heard on an LP sounds like real tape hiss though.
I am baffled by those purporting their media of choice is best when they haven't compared all 3 (RTR, Vinyl & Digital) at the highest level in their own systems or someone else's that does have all 3 well sorted media systems...Seems like of lot of that going around from the digital only (and is best crowd) The "Spec-ulators".
And even worse is when these same people who have no tape decks or tapes tell you that you couldn't possibly be hearing the things you say you do.
I've said it before and I will say it again, I'm glad I'm not tied to just one medium. None of them are perfect regardless of what measurements are shoved in your face (and again, I have a first generation CD player that was very expensive and has 'perfect' measurements that I will gladly sell to anyone. In fact, if you pay for the shipping I will send it to you for free). If money was no object, I would have way more tapes than any other medium because it is simply the best I have heard. In the real world, I do enjoy all three mediums I own.
Here is something else I have noted and I wonder if others have heard it too. On digital music that was sourced from analog tape (which is tons of music) and you can hear the very low-level analog tape hiss in quiet parts of the music, it doesn't sound like tape hiss does in real life from a real tape playing on a R2R deck. And maybe that makes sense because digital's distortion goes up as the recording level goes down. Anyway, it doesn't sound 'right.' Tape hiss heard on an LP sounds like real tape hiss though.
one of my all time favorite pieces of media is the Columbia SACD of Walter's Beethoven 6th. i also have a few original pressings of this Lp, as well as a 15ips, 1/4" master dub of it. but for some reason, i'm many times compelled to play this SACD. first of all; Walter's interpretation of the 6th is magnificent, and it does not hurt that it's possibly my favorite all time music. but you hear so far into the noise floor and there is all this tape hiss, and then the music just leaps and soars above it all. when i hear that hiss i get goose bumps in anticipation and then blam, i'm carried away by the music.
My Harry Belafonte Carnegie Hall tape is long, it has the entire performance - when I play it for people they settle down, I get comments about the rich variations in Belafonte's voice, and then they discover the size of the arena, that is created in front of them through sound alone. Several times I have people insisting we play the entire tape, from start to finish. Some of them have never heard it before - I've never experienced that from the CD-version or the record I have. But the tape they want to hear - at least one full side, and occasionally the whole thing.
Amazement interspersed frequently. There's something about tape.
With tape you get hiss and I always adjust the volume on my preamp to just above the hiss level. The hiss is the last thing I notice because there is so much more,closer and closer to the music. As far as tape hiss on CD's yes I hear it and no it does not sound like the real thing,the mastering engineer saw to that.
I have a CD "music from hollywood" and the same music on a NPR CD and one is straight from the master tape and the other has been remastered with everything a live broadcast should have,has been removed,just the music. Comparing the 2 CD's is like 2 different concerts,what a shame.
Micro-dynamics - nice to see you understand what I mean - is not a circuit property, it is a system property connected sometimes to this "synergy" we are debating elsewhere. I have seen systems built with pieces that I would not expect to be very good in this area handling micro dynamics with excellence. Even worst - the wrong cables can easily damage micro-dynamics.
I will give a simple example. My current ARC system measures perfectly either after a five minute or an one hour warm-up. But after one hour warm-up micro-dynamics are really much better. How was the designer sure that sound would improve wit time and not become worst? Within the range of my 24 bit 192 kHz audio spectrometer built with an EMU202 I can not measure any difference.
My Harry Belafonte Carnegie Hall tape is long, it has the entire performance - when I play it for people they settle down, I get comments about the rich variations in Belafonte's voice, and then they discover the size of the arena, that is created in front of them through sound alone. Several times I have people insisting we play the entire tape, from start to finish. Some of them have never heard it before - I've never experienced that from the CD-version or the record I have. But the tape they want to hear - at least one full side, and occasionally the whole thing.
Amazement interspersed frequently. There's something about tape.
Yep and that's what I notice. How do you describe that,all I can say is the tape sounds natural and has a complteness about it. The only way to tell there is such a difference,you have to be able to compare.
And maybe that makes sense because digital's distortion goes up as the recording level goes down. Anyway, it doesn't sound 'right.' Tape hiss heard on an LP sounds like real tape hiss though.
This is probably the most important statement on this thread. Low-level detail seems to be where the"magic" is & yet digital, natively by design, has a weakness at rendering low level detail- quantization error. It requires the addition noise in the form of dither to overcome this error. But, & I'm just asking this for others consideration & because I find it an interesting question - is dither a mathematical trick which works when using an averaging method like an FFT to tease out this low-level signal? Do our ears work like FFT ? It again comes back to finding out more about the model of the perception we call hearing. Arguing about SNR, bit depth, sample rates, etc. is somewhat meaningless when we don't have an accurate model for hearing to know the significance of these measurements.
This is probably the most important statement on this thread. Low-level detail seems to be where the"magic" is & yet digital, natively by design, has a weakness at rendering low level detail- quantization error..
I have always stated this, that the hardest things for converters to reproduce are the low-level details... ie. ambience, reverb tails, the size of the room!
My Harry Belafonte Carnegie Hall tape is long, it has the entire performance - when I play it for people they settle down, I get comments about the rich variations in Belafonte's voice, and then they discover the size of the arena, that is created in front of them through sound alone.
Oh heavens! You mean that people can somehow get enough cues from the recording that they can get a sense of the size of the venue and its ambience? It’s all a trick I tell you! Those damn recording engineers put that crap in there! It’s not real I tell you! It’s a figment of your imagination and all of your friends that heard it. At least that is what someone on this forum has tried to convince us of.
Oh heavens! You mean that people can somehow get enough cues from the recording that they can get a sense of the size of the venue and its ambience? It’s all a trick I tell you! Those damn recording engineers put that crap in there! It’s not real I tell you! It’s a figment of your imagination and all of your friends that heard it. At least that is what someone on this forum has tried to convince us of.
Lol! This is what I mean when I say space and time,that the venue size and the performers are mapped out more correctly. You're are correct though there are a few that are non-believers,maybe someday they will experience such a great recording and system. Also these tapes are factory pre-recorded versions at 7.5 ips . I play 4 track 7.5 all the time just for the great music, I just happen to have my machines setup by JRF and I have no noise issues with these tapes.
Very interesting. My main issue other than the discomfort of having something on my head is the fact you get zero body sensation from the music...The feel me portion of the sound only loudspeakers can do. That is a real important part of the listening experience, at least for me.
Me too.Gotta feel it. Oh, and I get at least as much detail from my speakers as my 004s. I will say that it's only half the story and the room is the other half. Equaling or beating headphones was a goal I set having been frustrated at the mixing desk. When I was at Full Sail, I was hearing all sorts of junk on my discman (how's that as a dead give away of when I was there, LOL) on the dubs of my edits and mixes that I hadn't picked up on with monitors so I started using cans to double check my work. Actually, getting that detail isn't so hard, getting it at safe sound pressure levels is the real challenge.
