The Half Life of Expectation Bias

[Mike Lavigne]

Tom knows not to take that bait. It leads down a road upon which, regardless of what he has heard, it will not be good enough. With one poster here, it will eventually come to you must have heard his system, in his room, or your listening experience is inadequate to legitimize your opinion.

Meanwhile, the entire pro audio (you know, the people who make the recordings?) world pauses, turns off the near field monitors and slips on headphones - closed, often not terribly expensive headphones, to listen in for that small thing they thought they heard through speakers.

Among the audio aware, only high end audiophiles even doubt what headphones excell at.

Tim

Tom had a choice how strongly to state his case.

he choose to add 'there is no contest IMO' to his claim. preferences are one thing, unequivocal 'truths' another. if he is now simply retreating to preference then he should just say so, or tell us what 'good' headphones are 'very resolving of detail' compared to what 'good' speakers. or he can ignore my request.

I'm sensitive to this particular issue since I went deeply into this exact question since I was very curious about the answer to this question. you and I have communicated about this in the past. I wondered if headphones could tell me things that my speakers could not. I approached the subject with an open mind and checkbook and spent a couple of years to find the answer. the answer was no;....... 'good'.......even very good headphones could not compete with high end speakers, and even extremely good headphones could not quite compete with top level speakers. I can name names if I need to. do a search and read my comments if you like.

when people make comments regarding headphones that exalt them to some untouchable status it hits a nerve with me; since it's a 'trueism' that is simply wrong.

if tom wants to really investigate this question, put the work in like I did, and then tell us about it then fine.....he can tell us that 'there is no contest'. or if someone has done the work to investigate and come to a different conclusion than me then tell us about it. I'm open to learning something new from other's work.

what most pro audio guys think about fidelity means nothing to me. their tools are many times wanting. their tools do the job they need to get done well enough for them. listen to the 'crap' they often produce for evidence. and headphones being more revealing than typical pro monitors is not much to brag about.

headphones do allow you to listen in a different way, and that can work as the right tool in certain situations. but as far as ultimate resolution, that's another question.

 

[Orb]

I am not afraid, only amused mostly on this forum. Occasionally bothered but sometimes I do rise to the bait out of boredom. Reading of the never ending adventures in component upgrades and astonishing increases In sound in every which way based on price and a change in sound verses no real advancements in the state of the art etc blah blah so , so what....

Tom, go to Inner Fidelity and look at those measurements....
I still have problems how anyone can say there is more resolution from headphones when they have some major compromises, yes the compromise with loudspeakers is room interraction but it is easier to build a speaker to great measurements (ala Magico).
Anyone who is an objectivist would look strongly into some of what I have been saying before anecdotally saying headphones are much more resolving.

What are parameters for resolving; it cannot be FR because headphones are dire, it cannot be L/R pair matching because again headphones are dire, it cannot be resonance because nearly all headphone designs are again dire, and this is compounded that nearly every recording is EQ-mixed for loudspeakers and this is NOT the same as if EQ-mixed on dedicated headphones so the recording heard is not actually 100% correct on headphones (unless actual binaural recording-mix for headphones).

Just to be clear I do agree headphones (the good ones) do a lot of good, but neither headphones or loudspeaker (mostly due to room variable-boundary) are perfect and both bring different aspects of improving resolution to the table.
Just find it strange how there is a myth that headphones are the best, but most never know how poorly they measure; innerfidelity measurements are pretty close to what I see from Keith Howard (also does pair matching comparison in greater detail as does S Olive - some of this is lost in the averaged report shown online by innerfidelity), anyway both Keith Howard and innerfidelity with Tyll Hertsen seem reasonably close to that of what S. Olive has been doing.
Here is an example, Sony MDR-ZX700: http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SonyMDRZX700.pdf
And interesting subjective thoughts compared to measurement from the experienced Tyll Hertsen:

I received these headphones during one of the long burn-in tests and did quite a bit of listening before getting to see the measurements. (I usually listen first anyway, but not for this long). I was quite surprised these cans measured relatively poorly as the listening tests were quite good. Measurements aren't everything, eh?

.
Subjectively it may seem headphones are more resolving/better but they are not necessarily so as measurements show in this case, some are exceptional I agree but only a very few.

Thanks
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

he choose to add 'there is no contest IMO' to his claim. preferences are one thing, unequivocal 'truths' another. if he is now simply retreating to preference then he should just say so, or tell us what 'good' headphones are 'very resolving of detail' compared to what 'good' speakers. or he can ignore my request.

I didn't know that you considered preference, the essence of subjectivism, a retreat, Mike.

A) "There is no contest" is the kind of hyperbole subjectivists on this board and all over the net make all the time with no data to back it up (in fact they often make it when all the existing data stands firmly against them).

B) What happens next if he gives you a comparison to chew on? Say Sennheiser HD700s vs Martin Logan Summits? Are you going to attempt an objectivist approach to showing that he's wrong? What data are you going to show that measures "resolution of detail from the recording?" I don't think there is a measurement for that, and if there were, how are you going to measure speakers, in what room, from what listening position, to create a valid comparison to headphone measurements?

The answer is "you're not." You're only going to have one place to go -- retreat into a subjectivist argument and dismiss whatever choices he makes as you dismissed the expertise of the entire recording profession in your last post to me. This is a circular discussion and the circle is just getting tighter and more meaningless with every turn. A waste of time. Is that "retreat?" Then I'll take it.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Tom had a choice how strongly to state his case.

he choose to add 'there is no contest IMO' to his claim. preferences are one thing, unequivocal 'truths' another. if he is now simply retreating to preference then he should just say so, or tell us what 'good' headphones are 'very resolving of detail' compared to what 'good' speakers. or he can ignore my request.

I'm sensitive to this particular issue since I went deeply into this exact question since I was very curious about the answer to this question. you and I have communicated about this in the past. I wondered if headphones could tell me things that my speakers could not. I approached the subject with an open mind and checkbook and spent a couple of years to find the answer. the answer was no;....... 'good'.......even very good headphones could not compete with high end speakers, and even extremely good headphones could not quite compete with top level speakers. I can name names if I need to. do a search and read my comments if you like.

when people make comments regarding headphones that exalt them to some untouchable status it hits a nerve with me; since it's a 'trueism' that is simply wrong.

if tom wants to really investigate this question, put the work in like I did, and then tell us about it then fine.....he can tell us that 'there is no contest'. or if someone has done the work to investigate and come to a different conclusion than me then tell us about it. I'm open to learning something new from other's work.

what most pro audio guys think about fidelity means nothing to me. their tools are many times wanting. their tools do the job they need to get done well enough for them. listen to the 'crap' they often produce for evidence. and headphones being more revealing than typical pro monitors is not much to brag about.

headphones do allow you to listen in a different way, and that can work as the right tool in certain situations. but as far as ultimate resolution, that's another question.

Great post Mike - it is good to have opinion of people with experience with top headphones.

Concerning your comment about most pro guys, it is admitted by many people. Fortunately most does not mean all, and we have great professionals that have adequate tools and sensitivity. Although as S. Linkwitz wrote "I believe that many recording engineers and also many loudspeaker designers are not aware of the wonderful illusion that we can create with simple two-channel reproduction , when we minimize misleading data streams at the ears and cooperate with natural hearing processes in the brain. But we should remember that his site signature states "What you hear is not the air pressure variation in itself but what has drawn your attention in the two streams of superimposed air pressure variations at your eardrums".

 

[microstrip]

I am not afraid, only amused mostly on this forum. Occasionally bothered but sometimes I do rise to the bait out of boredom. Reading of the never ending adventures in component upgrades and astonishing increases In sound in every which way based on price and a change in sound verses no real advancements in the state of the art etc blah blah so , so what....

Are you saying that you think that there is no real advance in state of the art high-end?
BTW, I find natural that people feel bothered reading something they do not understand - I am sure I would feel really bothered reading games forums. And would not mind to know what amuses you in WBF.

 

[DaveyF]

Tom had a choice how strongly to state his case.

he choose to add 'there is no contest IMO' to his claim. preferences are one thing, unequivocal 'truths' another. if he is now simply retreating to preference then he should just say so, or tell us what 'good' headphones are 'very resolving of detail' compared to what 'good' speakers. or he can ignore my request.

I'm sensitive to this particular issue since I went deeply into this exact question since I was very curious about the answer to this question. you and I have communicated about this in the past. I wondered if headphones could tell me things that my speakers could not. I approached the subject with an open mind and checkbook and spent a couple of years to find the answer. the answer was no;....... 'good'.......even very good headphones could not compete with high end speakers, and even extremely good headphones could not quite compete with top level speakers. I can name names if I need to. do a search and read my comments if you like.

when people make comments regarding headphones that exalt them to some untouchable status it hits a nerve with me; since it's a 'trueism' that is simply wrong.

if tom wants to really investigate this question, put the work in like I did, and then tell us about it then fine.....he can tell us that 'there is no contest'. or if someone has done the work to investigate and come to a different conclusion than me then tell us about it. I'm open to learning something new from other's work.

what most pro audio guys think about fidelity means nothing to me. their tools are many times wanting. their tools do the job they need to get done well enough for them. listen to the 'crap' they often produce for evidence. and headphones being more revealing than typical pro monitors is not much to brag about.

headphones do allow you to listen in a different way, and that can work as the right tool in certain situations. but as far as ultimate resolution, that's another question.

+1

I was using a pair of Senn 600's along with a customized Musical Fidelity headphone amp with rolled in NOS Tele Tubes and all connected with Cardas headphone cabling ( I suspect this is at least as great a rig as most any pro is using and probably a LOT better than most). IMO, the sense of musical loss compared to my system was MAJOR....so much so, that I really can't be bothered to listen to it anymore.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

+1

I was using a pair of Senn 600's along with a customized Musical Fidelity headphone amp with rolled in NOS Tele Tubes and all connected with Cardas headphone cabling ( I suspect this is at least as great a rig as most any pro is using and probably a LOT better than most). IMO, the sense of musical loss compared to my system was MAJOR....so much so, that I really can't be bothered to listen to it anymore.

Most pros use closed headphones out of necessity, and while the resonances Orb talks about can be controlled in closed cans, it's hard. And expensive. So yes, the open back HD600s are "better" than most pros' cans, though probably not as flat. The amp is a different question. I don't think Musical Fidelity even makes tube headamps anymore, and when they did, they were not considered among that best. Now, with that said, amplifying a signal enough for a pair of headphones, even demanding ones like the HD600, just isn't much of a challenge. If the noise and distortion levels were low enough, that MF amp was probably fine. Is your speaker system in a very heavily treated room?

Tim

 

[Orb]

Tim,
Just to clarify I am talking about headband resonance and unfortunately closed back design does not overcome this issue.
It requires certain isolation-damping design of the headband to capsule-can.
Keith Howard first became aware of this with pink noise testing and so did further investigations and measurement-tests to understand if it did relate to how capsule is/not isolated-damped with the headband.
And I agree IMO your right about the resonances you mention also requiring good design-engineering.

Cheers
Orb

 

[thedudeabides]

Among the audio aware, only high end audiophiles even doubt what headphones excell at.

Tim

Conversely, they apparently recognize their inherent weaknesses.

 

[mep]

To me, listening to music via headphones is analogous to wrapping your tallywacker in herculite and having sex. Yeah, it might work, but it kills all of the joy.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Just to clarify I am talking about headband resonance and unfortunately closed back design does not overcome this issue.
It requires certain isolation-damping design of the headband to capsule-can.
Keith Howard first became aware of this with pink noise testing and so did further investigations and measurement-tests to understand if it did relate to how capsule is/not isolated-damped with the headband.
And I agree IMO your right about the resonances you mention also requiring good design-engineering.

Cheers
Orb

I got ya, orb. I'm talking about resonances created by closed cans. I don't know if they're related to Howard's headband resonances, but they could be. Well, they could be if they exist. Has anyone but Howard measured these resonances? Any verification?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Conversely, they apparently recognize their inherent weaknesses.

I recognize the weaknesses if headphones. I'm just not getting them mixed up with their obvious strengths.

 

[DaveyF]

Most pros use closed headphones out of necessity, and while the resonances Orb talks about can be controlled in closed cans, it's hard. And expensive. So yes, the open back HD600s are "better" than most pros' cans, though probably not as flat. The amp is a different question. I don't think Musical Fidelity even makes tube headamps anymore, and when they did, they were not considered among that best. Now, with that said, amplifying a signal enough for a pair of headphones, even demanding ones like the HD600, just isn't much of a challenge. If the noise and distortion levels were low enough, that MF amp was probably fine. Is your speaker system in a very heavily treated room?

Tim

Tim, my system is in a treated room. However, I wasn't impressed with the headphone system even before my room treatments. While I think the MF amp may not be the very best tube amp for headphones ( it was actually highly rated in S'phile at the time ) ... I had an opportunity to listen to other tubed headphone amps in a direct AB with this amp...and it wasn't put to shame. Thing is, that even with the NOS Teles and the other upgrades, the headphone system just doesn't hold a candle to my audio system.

 

[thedudeabides]

I recognize the weaknesses if headphones. I'm just not getting them mixed up with their obvious strengths.

Excuse me PP. I apparently lack your personal insight and expertise to make such universal judgments. Please forgive my naivete.

 

[Orb]

Micro, yes, there is no real advance in two channel high end analog gear, in atleast 20 years. We had this discussion before, what you might consider an advance to me would only be an evolutionary step, ie a small incremental step in FR or distortion or whatever. High end analog on this forum is ANALOG...so, shoot me down with any real advancement in high end analog. And please don't mention 150 pound TT platters spinning around with funny belts, and with some non matched arm and non matched cartridge resulting in unknown resonances in the arm and unknown specifications from the record groove to the input of the phono pre-amp. We already know from tests here on WBF that those can not play the same song twice in a row anyway...and i like vinyl also and have it although others (who may step forward and identify themselves maybe) are more experts in vinyl than me...

Mike, really, I put IMO at the end of my statement. You may say that my ears and over three decades of testing are not match for your couple of years of subjective testing for detail, but my subjective testing and results are what I firmly standby, and the technical evidence is also in my corner...that's just the way I see it.

Its understood you prefer speakers, and most here do, but they are not a direct comparsion when we talk stereo and I never did. I do listen to speakers too you know.

Orb, I don't have time to get into the reasons that headphones do not have flat FR but there is good stuff on the web from one of the headphone manufacturers who did and do very critical tests to establish the best FR for headphones to best work for most audiophiles given the interactions in the ear etc et al. Somewhere on WBF, serveral years ago we went into all that, in fact you might have had the main post from that headphone manufacturer...

You cannot believe what a manufacturer tells you, how many times you said that about high end
More seriously you cannot believe headphone manufacturers as you will see it is very clear from innerfidelity and also Sean Olive musings amongst others including Keith Howard who has been testing-investigating headphones for years.

BTW innerfidelity,Sean Olive, and Keith Howard all use the same ear model test measurement device for simulating the ear.
I understand why there is a raw measurement and also a "corrected"-compensated one because as I keep saying headphones are not heard the same at the ear as loudspeakers meaning different EQ required for recording-mixed albums in the studio; this is also compounded that no headphone manufacturer follows a set rule on defining this sound trait-correction.
Hence why I mention both measurements are important.
Innerfidelity touch a little on this I think in their methodology: http://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-measurement-procedures
Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

+1

I was using a pair of Senn 600's along with a customized Musical Fidelity headphone amp with rolled in NOS Tele Tubes and all connected with Cardas headphone cabling ( I suspect this is at least as great a rig as most any pro is using and probably a LOT better than most). IMO, the sense of musical loss compared to my system was MAJOR....so much so, that I really can't be bothered to listen to it anymore.

Yeah agree that Senn 600 have a great reputation amongst good reviewers.
Here is theire measurements btw, unfortunately as I mentioned before FR is averaged so looks closer than it really is between L/R at times (issue is usually 2khz to 10khz).
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD600.pdf

Here is the HD800 in comparison that shows even better measurements and seen as being more neutral-resolving (although treble may be perceived as a bit unforgiving):
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD800B.pdf
Just so the measurements can be put into some light.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, my system is in a treated room. However, I wasn't impressed with the headphone system even before my room treatments. While I think the MF amp may not be the very best tube amp for headphones ( it was actually highly rated in S'phile at the time ) ... I had an opportunity to listen to other tubed headphone amps in a direct AB with this amp...and it wasn't put to shame. Thing is, that even with the NOS Teles and the other upgrades, the headphone system just doesn't hold a candle to my audio system.

Like I said before, I'm sure the MF was fine. Not sure what you were hearing, orb, but I'm pretty sure you weren't hearing speakers, any speakers in an untreated room, make more fine detail audible than HD600s and a decent amp. I expect it was something else that impressed you.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yeah agree that Senn 600 have a great reputation amongst good reviewers.
Here is theire measurements btw, unfortunately as I mentioned before FR is averaged so looks closer than it really is between L/R at times (issue is usually 2khz to 10khz).
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD600.pdf

Here is the HD800 in comparison that shows even better measurements and seen as being more neutral-resolving (although treble may be perceived as a bit unforgiving):
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD800B.pdf
Just so the measurements can be put into some light.

Cheers
Orb

Which measurement there casts light on the audibility of detail?

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

This has become an interesting debate with one side claiming that Headphones are not as accurate as speakers ... Frankly I always thought the contrary as headphones remove likely hte major distortion component in the reproduction chain:The Room. From the measurements that have been posted so far, I can only infer they (headphones) are not perfect and that there are room for improvements. OTOH can someone point me toward speakers that have better measurements in a room, in their own room or any other person's room, for example?

I am a heavy headphone user with 5 headphones and more amps and DACs than I care to list. I prefer speaker listening however: it is closer to the experience of Live music IMHO. There is a tactile component that is entirely absent in headphone listening. The mind has to work a lot harder IMO to create a sustained sensation of "being there" of believability . I , however, continue to enjoy music via headphones immensely. I contend that $2,000 of headphones + amp can provide a very high level of accuracy that few speakers/amps system costing 50+ times more can approach. Moreover Headphones, because of the way they remove the room from the equation can help one person fine tune his/her system for better ,more accurate reproduction.
All that IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Orb]

Frantz,
actually I am saying BOTH have their compromises but in different ways, so both bring resolution but not necessarily by the same variables.
One is not better than the other IMO when comparing the best of both, unless one skews the argument to then selectively debating a variable chosen at its worst (such as a good speaker put into a terrible room, or incorrectly choosing wrong speaker for room) - same could be said about incorrectly putting on the headphone as its quality changes depending how it sits on the pinna (most simple example to show how both can be skewed for debate).
All headphone debaters still ignore the fact nearly all music recordings were recorded-mixed-mastered via loudspeaker listening; in reality if this was done with/for headphones then the recording setup would be different, so would the mix and also the mastering, therefore all headphones "skew" most recordings.
This is offset that all headphone manufacturers compensate for this but there is no standard they use and this "standard" even changes between models under the same brand; a point that I emphasised by quoting Sean Olive footnote conclusion earlier.

This is just one fundamental difference.
Anyway dropping it now as we are going round in circles and it seems some think I am attacking headphones when I am not, the point is to actually be objective and see the benefits/weaknesses of both loudspeakers and headphones.....
Headphones are presented with some myths as being perfect/best resolving that then ignores some fundamental points and measurements, let alone how music is actually recorded and played in the studio.
Cheers
Orb