The Half Life of Expectation Bias

[Phelonious Ponk]

An acquired taste? Are you saying that properly reproducing something that is encoded in the recording is an acquired taste?

Not at all, I'm saying that the absence of environmental effects (room gain and the additional "sound stage" of your listening room is an acquired taste. What's encoded in the recording is reproduced by the headphones. What your room does with it is not.

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Not at all, I'm saying that the absence of environmental effects (room gain and the additional "sound stage" of your listening room is an acquired taste. What's encoded in the recording is reproduced by the headphones. What your room does with it is not.

Tim

Tim,

headphones provide clues to what is on the recording, but are limited to express the full rendition of those clues. headphones do mostly eliminate outside influences on the sound, but that does not solve the issues that they cause or their limitations.

it takes a very expensive pair of headphones and a very expensive headphone amp ($10k to $12k) to compete with high level speakers on resolution....and they still won't compete with the very top level of speakers in resolution. and even then one must endure the hassle of dealing with the challenges of headphones. most even very very good headphones and headphone amps ($4k-$6k) have considerably less resolution than most high end speaker systems. and we are only speaking about resolution. tonal shading, dynamics, note decay and bloom are problematic on headphones as well as tonal balance in particular. most are all either too bright, or too closed in and rounded off. most high end speakers are much more neutral in presentation. then you get to realism of presentation, soundstaging, and bass performance and it's no contest on even reasonably competent mini-monitors.

after a couple of years investigating headphone performance at the top level i sold all of them and moved on. i'll take a real room with real speakers most anytime.

all that said; headphone listening dwarfs high end audio in participation and offers a great alternative or compliment to a regular high end system. it fits the lifestyle of many more people than high end audio and can be cost efficient. and headphones can offer a great investigative tool in many applications. so i'm not dissing headphones, just calling it as i see it.

headphones allow more people to enjoy the music and many enter high end speaker audio from headphone listening.

 

[microstrip]

Not at all, I'm saying that the absence of environmental effects (room gain and the additional "sound stage" of your listening room is an acquired taste. What's encoded in the recording is reproduced by the headphones. What your room does with it is not.

Tim

It is known that sound engineers created the recording anticipating it would be listened in rooms that have some reflections. Many scholars have studied the effect of room boundaries in stereo sound reproduction and have explained why our brain, as soon as gets used to the rooms, manages to ignore most of the contribution of the room, but the reflections are part of the stereo process.

Bellow I am just quoting F. Toole about stereo and headphones:

Two-channel stereo. The ±30° arrangement is a widespread standard for music recording and reproduction, although many setups employ a smaller separation, especially those associated with video playback. To hear the phantom center image, and any other panned images between the loudspeakers correctly located, listeners must be on the symmetrical axis between the loudspeakers. Away from the symmetrical axis, as in cars, and through headphones, we don’t hear real stereo; we hear a spatially distorted, but still entertaining, rendering.

Nowadays, stereo recordings are enjoyed by multitudes through headphones. What is heard, though, is not stereo; it is mostly inside the head spanning the distance between the ears, with the featured artist placed just behind and maybe slightly above the nose. There may be a kind of “halo” of ambience in some recordings. This is sound reproduction without standards, but the melodies, rhythms, and lyrics get through.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

headphones provide clues to what is on the recording, but are limited to express the full rendition of those clues. headphones do mostly eliminate outside influences on the sound, but that does not solve the issues that they cause or their limitations.

You may have to be a bit more specific, Mike. I don't have a clue what you mean by "clues."

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It is known that sound engineers created the recording anticipating it would be listened in rooms that have some reflections. Many scholars have studied the effect of room boundaries in stereo sound reproduction and have explained why our brain, as soon as gets used to the rooms, manages to ignore most of the contribution of the room, but the reflections are part of the stereo process.

Bellow I am just quoting F. Toole about stereo and headphones:

Two-channel stereo. The ±30° arrangement is a widespread standard for music recording and reproduction, although many setups employ a smaller separation, especially those associated with video playback. To hear the phantom center image, and any other panned images between the loudspeakers correctly located, listeners must be on the symmetrical axis between the loudspeakers. Away from the symmetrical axis, as in cars, and through headphones, we don’t hear real stereo; we hear a spatially distorted, but still entertaining, rendering.

Nowadays, stereo recordings are enjoyed by multitudes through headphones. What is heard, though, is not stereo; it is mostly inside the head spanning the distance between the ears, with the featured artist placed just behind and maybe slightly above the nose. There may be a kind of “halo” of ambience in some recordings. This is sound reproduction without standards, but the melodies, rhythms, and lyrics get through.

Nothing to disagree with there, Micro, and nothing to contradict my last answer to you --

"I'm saying that the absence of environmental effects (room gain and the additional "sound stage" of your listening room is an acquired taste. What's encoded in the recording is reproduced by the headphones. What your room does with it is not."

Headphone listening does not re-create the stereo effect achieved with the listening chair on a symmetrical axis between the speakers. It does not create a phantom center. It is spatially distorted relative to speaker listening. And none of that has to do with the resolution of detail from the recording.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Nothing to disagree with there, Micro, and nothing to contradict my last answer to you --

"I'm saying that the absence of environmental effects (room gain and the additional "sound stage" of your listening room is an acquired taste. What's encoded in the recording is reproduced by the headphones. What your room does with it is not."

Headphone listening does not re-create the stereo effect achieved with the listening chair on a symmetrical axis between the speakers. It does not create a phantom center. It is spatially distorted relative to speaker listening. And none of that has to do with the resolution of detail from the recording.

Tim

I strongly disagree with this point. A correctly formed spatial image with spatial resolution enhances significantly the perception of details coming from the recording. Space is also a detail in stereo. You can read a lot on the Linkwitz site on this matters. http://www.linkwitzlab.com

Concerning the room, see his presentation (also available in the site )

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I strongly disagree with this point. A correctly formed spatial image with spatial resolution enhances significantly the perception of details coming from the recording. Space is also a detail in stereo. You can read a lot on the Linkwitz site on this matters. http://www.linkwitzlab.com

Concerning the room, see his presentation (also available in the site )

OK. You're wrong, what headphones actually do is create a different spatial image by resolving exactly the same details from the recording, but OK.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Good headphones are very resolving of detail, and are my best ally when driving for the most detail I can extract from a circuit. There is no contest IMO.

Of course. This is why they are one of the most important tools in the recordist's box. He reaches for them when he needs to hear something that is obscured by speakers; even highly resolving near field monitors.

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Good headphones are very resolving of detail, and are my best ally when driving for the most detail I can extract from a circuit. There is no contest IMO.

which headphones and headphone amp are you comparing to which speakers and amps where you find that 'it's no contest' where the headphones have more detail than speakers.

I did this comparison with my system and 3 different high end headphones and 3 different headphone amps.....and got a completely different result.

think about how involved the crossovers in high end speakers are and the parts quality, and compare it to the miniaturized circuits in a headphone. that's where there is no contest.

 

[microstrip]

OK. You're wrong, what headphones actually do is create a different spatial image by resolving exactly the same details from the recording, but OK.

Tim

Not only different, but much reduced in spatial detail content and accuracy, and incapable of fully recreating the artist intention. From S. Linkitz "Hearing spatial detail in stereo recordings" :

Stereo is based upon and relies upon our natural hearing processes, which are capable of creating a believable auditory scene in the mind, even when the air pressure signal streams at the eardrums do not represent the physics of a naturally familiar acoustic event. We must cooperate by hiding loudspeakers and room from perception by proper design and by recording sound as it exists in space naturally. Such a stereo system can be used to recreate art and to create art to its fullest, because the recording engineer/producer knows the outcome .
Stereo in its purest form is about recording real sources and reproducing them over two loudspeakers in a room as phantom sources, without hearing room and loudspeakers, while generating a believable illusion of sound sources in their spatial context . Timbre, localization and spaciousness are essential contributors to a satisfying auditory experience and should be preserved from recording to reproduction.

BTW, TU BS1116 also addresses why tests must also be carried with loudspeakers.

 

[microstrip]

(...) There might be a misunderstanding of what we mean by detail, but in my context, it means signal to each speaker in a stereo setup, not the result of the stereo effect. Detail is hearing every signal wiggle, no matter how small, or how buried in the signal to each speaker, independently, as far as the way I describe it, and I test for it, in one channel.

Thanks for clarifying your view. I must say I address detail as perceived by listeners in a stereo process in normal listening conditions. As far as I know we are debating stereo reproduction.

 

[thedudeabides]

My two cents.

Having listened to music on headphones versus a two channel, speaker based audio system and assuming all other things being equal, there is simply no contest between the two within the context of replicating a facsimile of what would hear in a live musical event.

More inner detail perhaps but this is a case where "size" truly matters.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

A headphone amp does not need in general to swing any current or voltage to speak of, and there are no crossovers in a headphone, just wire from an amp that hardly knows its on through a wire to a speaker coil. There is no contest.

There might be a misunderstanding of what we mean by detail, but in my context, it means signal to each speaker in a stereo setup, not the result of the stereo effect. Detail is hearing every signal wiggle, no matter how small, or how buried in the signal to each speaker, independently, as far as the way I describe it, and I test for it, in one channel.

in other words, you are simply going to ignore my question and switch the subject.

again; which headphones/amp compared to which speaker/amp where the headphone had better resolution? I'm not arguing the definition of resolution. that's another question.

if you are going to claim a strong broad generalization then please cite at least one example that supports that claim.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thanks for clarifying your view. I must say I address detail as perceived by listeners in a stereo process in normal listening conditions. As far as I know we are debating stereo reproduction.

Yeah, we're having two different conversations, again. All I'm trying to say is that a decent headphone rig can retrieve detail from the recording, and make it clearly audible to the listener, that cannot be audible in any but the most treated rooms. I'm not arguing that phones come close to speakers in stereo imaging. The present a completely different image, and one that is less natural than a well set-up soeaker system. I would happily concede that last point, had I ever argued against it.

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Yeah, we're having two different conversations, again. All I'm trying to say is that a decent headphone rig can retrieve detail from the recording, and make it clearly audible to the listener, that cannot be audible in any but the most treated rooms. I'm not arguing that phones come close to speakers in stereo imaging. The present a completely different image, and one that is less natural than a well set-up soeaker system. I would happily concede that last point, had I ever argued against it.

Tim

Tim, I agree with most of the things that you post, BUT I cannot agree with you on headphones. How can a headphone rig be more resolving than stand alone speakers on the one hand...but on the other hand- you say the headphone system presents a less natural image?? Perhaps you should define what you consider to be "resolving".

 

[Orb]

And speakers can vary audibly, suffering FR and pair matching anomolies when you turn your head an inch. You could have your head in a vice and you'd have much greater coherency problems with multiple driver speakers than with headphones. Are you talking about cheap closed headphones? I've never heard of (or heard) many of the problems you're talking about. Got sources? You're right that a lot of headphones, even very good ones, have inaccurate FR, often because they are deliberately trying to compensate for the lack of room gain listeners are accustomed to. On the other hand, you can buy a pair of IEMs for <$200 that are as flat as Magicos in an anechoic chamber. You might not like the sound of them, though. Most people find them unnatural. But yes, when single drivers are millimeters from your eardrums and have sealed your ear canals in the process of insertion -- no room noise, no room distortion, no coherency or crossover or cabinet resonance issues -- it's about as close as you can have to a line into your brain, yes. resolution of detail can be stunning. Presentation? Staging? Very different. An acquired taste to say the least. But I can't say I've run into many people who don't believe they hear more detail on headphones. YMMV.

Tim

I really think you should follow up on some of the investigations and measurements Keith Howard has done
The variables I mentioned are much worse for headphones than speakers when measured, headband resonance is audible in most designs (this was covered in this months HiFi News btw and backed up with measurements).
BTW NO HEADPHONES have measured flat from what I have seen (another issues is which correction do you use but still allowing for this they are far from as flat as the S3 Magico, however one does need to then consider room interraction).
Pair matching, most headphones are over 10db in error, even the recent testing at Harman the average pair matching error was over 8db (over same primary FR Magico S3 is below 1.2db error).
Then there is also capsule interraction...

But still everyone feels they are perfect or have the very best resolution when measurements show they are far from it
If that interested read articles by Keith Howard and when Hifi News has done reviews with measurements.
Tim, you are an objectivist so I thought you would like to know just how poorly most headphones actually measure (using an artificial ear is critical); the only real benefit is removing room interraction and noise floor of environment but this is balanced out by aspects that the best speakers actually do better or that recordings are mostly created in the studio using ideal EQ for stereo loudspeaker listening rather than headphones (EQ would be different if done specifically with headphones).

I strongly suggest looking at actually how well headphones do not measure (for free could also look at innerfidelity that even Sean Olive mentions).
And finally just went to the Sean Olive blog-article and this is his footnote regarding measurements and mentioning innerfidelity:

Tyll Hertsens at InnerFidelity has a large database of frequency response measurements of headphones that clearly illustrate the lack of consensus among manufacturers on how a headphone should sound and measure. There is even a lack of consistency among different models made by the same brand.

I reached the same conclusion without reading this blog and after following work by Keith Howard and seeing his results or even innerfidelity...
Anyway dropping this now as we are seriously digressing from OP, but bear in mind as well that measurements should show both the natural measurement and also corrected/compensated (which from what I understand can have different results depending upon one used).
Here is Sean's blog entry: http://seanolive.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-relationship-between-perception-and.html
Regarding headband resonance and measuring, I can only think of Keith Howard who has done recent work showing this interraction and its audibility, but others cover the more usual distortion with headphones.
Thanks
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, I agree with most of the things that you post, BUT I cannot agree with you on headphones. How can a headphone rig be more resolving than stand alone speakers on the one hand...but on the other hand- you say the headphone system presents a less natural image?? Perhaps you should define what you consider to be "resolving".

I think I just did, in the post you just quoted

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I really think you should follow up on some of the investigations and measurements Keith Howard has done
The variables I mentioned are much worse for headphones than speakers when measured, headband resonance is audible in most designs (this was covered in this months HiFi News btw and backed up with measurements).
BTW NO HEADPHONES have measured flat from what I have seen (another issues is which correction do you use but still allowing for this they are far from as flat as the S3 Magico, however one does need to then consider room interraction).

I'll look into it, Orb. I remember looking at the FR measurement on the old Headroom site (can't seem to find them anymore), and you're right, of course, there isn't a lot of "flat" to be found. But some of the IEMs were very flat compared to any in-room measurements I've seen of speakers, and of course that's the apples to apples comparison -- in-room and on all reasonable listening axis. But to get back to your original question, how can headphones have all these issues and still be more resolving? Well, lets drop "resolving" if you don't mind, it seems to muddy the waters. How about revealing? How can good headphones seem to reveal, render audible, more fine detail from recordings than speakers? I suspect it has to do with the elimination of room effects and maybe even more importantly, environmental noise. I'm sitting in a very quiet house right now. the AC is off, I'm the only one here, the laptop I'm typing on is SS, no spinning HD. The ambient noise level is about 40dB...43 when I inhale. I good IEM will physically isolate most of that. Drivers just millimeters from the eardrums, in front of all that ambiance will, I suspect, mask most of it, even in an unsealed phone. How can headphones reveal more detail and have the issues you've pointed to? I don't know, but they do. Maybe revealing isn't dependent upon flat FR.

By the way, I googled Keith Howard and found a printmaker and a couple of college professors. Can you point me to the guy with the measurements?

Tim

 

[rockitman]

post 169, I said this: Good headphones are very resolving of detail, and are my best ally when driving for the most detail I can extract from a circuit. There is no contest IMO.

what brand is that Tom ? The question was asked, what "brand" of headphones and speakers did you use to come up with your conclusions. More "Objectivist" and unsubstantiated Hot air, I'm afraid.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

what brand is that Tom ? The question was asked, what "brand" of headphones and speakers did you use to come up with your conclusions. More "Objectivist" and unsubstantiated Hot air, I'm afraid.

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