# Speakers or headphones?



## Markbridge (Sep 28, 2014)

For my entire adult life I have been a speaker kind of guy. My first set were Bose 901s, then Dahlquist DQ10s. I currently have a pair of Martin-Logans, although they're getting a little long on the tooth (I bought them in 1992). I've always liked the impact speakers make when listening to music at a fairly loud volume. However, as much as I would like to upgrade my speakers, I've decided to try some decent headphones. One of the things I noticed right off is the ability to hear subtleties in the music I couldn't hear through the speakers. I don't know if I will keep listening through headphones or not, but its fun experiencing music a little differently.

Any thoughts on speakers vs headphones?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Headphones get uncomfortable after a while, so that's one point for speakers.


----------



## Judas Priest Fan (Apr 27, 2018)

I prefer speakers; they just get me "there". I close my eyes and Iḿ in the concert hall.

I do agree that I sometimes hear a detail with headphones that I missed with speakers.

I really LOVE my Nubert 513 speakers, though!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I vastly prefer headphone listening. Speakers are excellent for watching movies; a surround sound setup is a great way to view them. But for serious listening it's headphones all the time. Some people complain that headphones become uncomfortable after a while. It depends on the cans more than anything. I listen with Sennheiser HD800s driven by a Burson headphone amp. The current CD source is a Marantz SACD player. The sound is effortless, full bodied, brilliant and very detailed. I can - and often do - listen for hours on end.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

I vastly preferred headphones too, until I got a pair of speakers equal to my Stax SRX-3s. And built a room suitable for cranking. And bought a subwoofer flat to 15Hz.

Now I prefer speakers.

But headphones still come in handy for late at night or when there's guests over or the wife is mowing the lawn.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Headphones for two reasons:

1/ To block out as much outside noise as possible
2/ I live in a flat-cum-maisonette so I have neighbours both below and to my right to consider


----------



## AaronSF (Sep 5, 2021)

Back in the days of the LP record I had a fairly fulsome hi-fi sound system, but somewhere in the transition to CDs and now streaming...and several household moves...I found myself with no hi-fi at all for more years than I wish to count. 

Recently I decided to finally remedy that situation, so I bought some Grado 325x headphones and a headphone amp/pre-amp and DAC from Schitt. This system produces very clear and detailed sound with a great sound stage, though a tiny bit too bright on the high end for my liking. Still, for $500 for the entire system, it's a deal. Someday I may graduate to the Sennheiser 800s's and a concomitant amp, but $1,800 for headphones alone is more than I can justify at the moment. Someday.

I love the sound of speakers, and my piano room is large enough to accommodate a big system, so maybe that's in the future, too. For now I'm happy with what I have.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Both for different contexts. Headphones for on-the-go, or late night listening; speakers for when I can crank them up. I will also just listen to my favorite music on both to get different "perspectives" so to speak on them. One good thing about headphones is they remove the equation of the room and are much easier to EQ to sound great. Speakers require some technical know-how to get the best of them. Plus, it's much easier to own multiple sets of headphones that excel at different things. I own way too many headphones for my own good.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I use earbuds/headphones more but I much prefer speakers when I can. They make my whole body feel the music when it's cranked up. Headphones feel more intimate to me. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Earphones (Shure SE535) for me. Not wireless so can occasionally be irritating but the sound is excellent and I don't annoy anyone else. Seldom in the apartment on my own so rarely get to use the Q Acoustics Concept 40 speakers which are truly excellent.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Headphones. We live with close neighbors, and also headphones work well with the YouTube CM I now rely upon for much CM. Plus I am an insomniac and must keep my music to myself. Sound quality is excellent and reveals much detail diminished on speakers. Had them both. Headphones win.


----------



## Bkeske (Feb 27, 2019)

Without a doubt, speakers. You cannot recreate the sound, soundstage, imaging, and feeling of being in the concert hall, (large or small), without the room being filled and pressurized with sound waves.

I have pretty good headphones, but no matter what, they are always headphones. Try as they might, they are still in my head, not the room.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

For those who use headphones, I've been something of a deranged connoisseur for years. I own way too many headphones myself (currently I have over a dozen pairs, though many are waiting to be sold) and have heard dozens more over the years. I've also looked into the science of audio reproduction and what sound signatures (ie, measurements) are preferred in blind tests. Most headphones have various flaws in frequency response that aren't easily correctable without either a manual EQ or various automatic EQ programs like SonarWorks. There are only a handful of headphones I think are fine without any EQ. Plus, audio quality correlates very poorly with price, so you can't depend on higher-end headphones to sound better than cheaper ones. At most I've found there is less variability at higher prices where manufacturers tend to put in some effort in measuring their headphones and such, but I still know plenty of poorly measuring high-priced headphones. 

So if anyone would like any advice/recommendations for headphones, I'm happy to help. My general top recommendation that doesn't break the bank is the Sennheiser HD600s/HD650s (or the now cheaper Massdrop HD6xx). They aren't perfect, but I haven't found a headphone at or below that price point that's definitively better. The Senns do roll off in the bass, and the mids/highs can be harsh on recordings with a lot of high-mid/treble content, but they are extremely linear through the mids and highs and take EQ extremely well. For all but the brightest recordings I've found I can just shelve down the highs/mids 1-2dBs and they sound fine.


----------



## sAmUiLc (9 mo ago)

Speakers! I hate wearing headphones. I am retired, live by myself and play music any time of the day or the night, at any volume I want. So no problem.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I'm more interested in the music than sound quality, and don't need high volumes because I have always valued my hearing and don't need to "feel" it (like a sledge hammer pounding the underneath of my chair. When I've tried headphones it's been fun and instructive, but for years a top of the line amp and turntable hooked up to car radio speakers was fine. Basically, if it's better than a tin can and a string, I'm fine.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

I have come to like my earbuds much better than my headphones for most of my listening, but I watch my music videos on my HDTV playing through my home stereo system.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Strange Magic said:


> Headphones. We live with close neighbors, and also headphones work well with the YouTube CM I now rely upon for much CM. Plus I am an insomniac and must keep my music to myself. Sound quality is excellent and reveals much detail diminished on speakers. Had them both. Headphones win.


What is CM? I googled it but turned up empty handed. Classical Music (channel) perhaps?


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I own way too many headphones myself (currently I have over a dozen pairs... So if anyone would like any advice/recommendations for headphones, I'm happy to help. Plus, audio quality correlates very poorly with price, so you can't depend on higher-end headphones to sound better than cheaper ones.


Yes indeedy. I've owned well over a dozen pair over the decades, and price is certainly no guarantee of sound quality. The much-touted Beats, for instance, sound dreadful.

Here's the ones I currently keep:
* My Stax SR-X MK3 electrostatics remain the gold standard. They're flat ±0.5 dB from 30Hz to well over 20,000Hz. They're precise and instantaneous and absolutely transparent, allowing you to hear (for better or worse...) every tape splice and non-overlapping reverb. Unfortunately, they require the external power supply and they're not very comfortable after an hour or so. And don't ever put them on with wet hair!

* At the other end of the scale is the Koss KTXPro1 for $45. They have titanium elements which are fast and accurate, and they're lightweight and comfortable for hours. They're so insanely detailed and transparent that I won't use anything else for mastering recordings. They don't have much response above 15K or below 40Hz, but for most listening (and mastering!) that's fine. I have owned a dozen pairs of these alone, because, uh, I've worn them out and they're not bullet proof.

* For late night listening on the TV when the wife is sleeping I use a pair of Cowin E7 wireless bluetooth noise canceling cans. They're fairly comfortable, though they can get hot because they fully seal your ears to block out external noises. The frequency curve is not flat -- they're a little boomy in the mid-bass (200Hz) and the high end is a bit distant, but for TV listening the wireless and noise canceling features reign supreme. Add a bluetooth transmitter and they'll play on any device.

* Sony MDR-V6 are my general-purpose kickaround phones. They don't do anything particularly well, but neither do they present any real deficiencies. They're comfortable, sound reasonably good, and are built like tanks. When I don't need wireless, they're my go-to backup.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Incidentally, I don't know if my ear canals are sub-standard or something, but I've never found a pair of ear buds -- and I've tried dozens -- that sounded any better than miserable.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

As others here have mentioned, headphones for privacy and consideration of the neighbors unless you want to keep the volume lowered. Speakers for better simulating the experience of an in person experience and perhaps feeling the music.

My 'good' phones are Beyerdynamic DT 880 Premium Edition 32 Ohm Over-Ear-Stereo Headphones (Semi-Open Design, Wired, high-end). They do well with a hi-res digital player for strinq quartets, OK with piano or keyboard instruments, but are muddy with orchestral works. iPod earbuds are better for detail and clarity. In addition - the Beyerdynamics over the ear design causes fatigue in a short amount of time.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I have always been a headphones-listener. The privacy factor is one; it became especially relevant when I started living with others in college. But the other factor is the intimacy of the sound and the level of detail you can hear with headphones. I do like the sound of a good speaker setup, but I think ultimately I prefer headphones.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Markbridge said:


> I currently have a pair of Martin-Logans, although they're getting a little long on the tooth (I bought them in 1992). Any thoughts on speakers vs headphones?


Off-topic potentially, but "long-in-tooth"? Speakers don't wear out. Thirty years old is not a deadline or anything. And, quite frankly, speaker technology hasn't advanced an inch in 50 years.

What model are they? ML's like these are still perfectly lovely speakers.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> My general top recommendation that doesn't break the bank is the Sennheiser HD600s/HD650s. They aren't perfect, but I haven't found a headphone at or below that price point that's definitively better. The Senns do roll off in the bass, and the mids/highs can be harsh on recordings with a lot of high-mid/treble content, but for all but the brightest recordings I've found I can just shelve down the highs/mids 1-2dBs and they sound fine.


Gee, I dunno. I wouldn't accept that kind of performance from a $400-600 dollar headphone.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Gee, I dunno. I wouldn't accept that kind of performance from a $400-600 dollar headphone.


The Massdrops can be had for half that. If you can name a headphone that has less issues for the same or cheaper price I'm all ears. Linearity throughout the vast majority of the audible spectrum is probably the single most important factor in sound quality, and most headphones are significantly worse at that the Senns. Even the "brightness" issue isn't the fault of the Senns but with recordings that are mixed/mastered on equipment that isn't linear themselves. There's no way to correct for the "circle of confusion" in audio without making some compromise. The easiest compromise I've found is with linear home gear and then using an EQ to correct for badly mixed/mastered recordings.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Chibi Ubu said:


> What is CM? I googled it but turned up empty handed. Classical Music (channel) perhaps?


Yes. Classical Music. Just classical music. Saves typing.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

The vast majority of recordings are not mixed for headphones, so without crossfeed headphone listening can be enjoyable but incoherent if you are a careful and attentive listener.
This is why I use both the RME-ADi-2 DAC and the Phonitor XE as an amp, to drive my sennheisers (hd650 and HD800S).
But I also enjoy high quality earbuds and I often add a subwoofer to my headphone earbuds listening.
Old stereo recording are unusable with headphones without crossfeed, unless you like the /‘cool” effect of weird panning, but that‘s totally unnatural.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There's no way to correct for the "circle of confusion" in audio without making some compromise. The easiest compromise I've found is with linear home gear and then using an EQ to correct for badly mixed/mastered recordings.


Oh gawd no. EQ should never be used. If you feel you need it, you have other problems that need addressing, stat!

Oh and the so-called "circle of confusion" is BS. You want to break the circle? Compare your stereo to live music. Done. End of circle.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Oh gawd no. EQ should never be used. If you feel you need it, you have other problems that need addressing, stat!
> 
> Oh and the so-called "circle of confusion" is BS. You want to break the circle? Compare your stereo to live music. Done. End of circle.


Why should EQ not be used and what's BS about the "circle of confusion?" Comparing your stereo to live music doesn't even begin to address the problems of the circle of confusion. I think you need to read that article and understand what it's actually saying.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

NoCoPilot said:


> Yes indeedy. I've owned well over a dozen pair over the decades, and price is certainly no guarantee of sound quality. The much-touted Beats, for instance, sound dreadful.
> 
> Here's the ones I currently keep:
> * My Stax SR-X MK3 electrostatics remain the gold standard. They're flat ±0.5 dB from 30Hz to well over 20,000Hz. They're precise and instantaneous and absolutely transparent, allowing you to hear (for better or worse...) every tape splice and non-overlapping reverb. Unfortunately, they require the external power supply and they're not very comfortable after an hour or so. And don't ever put them on with wet hair!
> ...


Curious to hear the Sony as I’m always on a hunt for light and comfy cans but the coiled cable is so stupid and a turnoff, it adds horrible weight for nothing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bernamej said:


> The vast majority of recordings are not mixed for headphones, so without crossfeed headphone listening can be enjoyable but incoherent if you are a careful and attentive listener.


Most recordings today are mixed with both speakers and headphones, but I do agree that headphones sound much better/more natural with Crossfeed. The best implementation I've found is GoodHertz's CanOpener plugin.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Bernamej said:


> Old stereo recording are unusable with headphones without crossfeed, unless you like the /‘cool” effect of weird panning, but that‘s totally unnatural.


Not in my experience. Some of the BEST headphone experiences are old 1950s & 1960s recordings done in a hall with live musicians and a couple of mics. Too many recordings these days are done with 60 tracks of instruments in isolation booths and you don't get any sense of a live performance in a real performance space at all.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Speakers when I can ... my first set were Rectilinear Mini 3's. Presently own KLJ 9510's that I purchased in 1998. For me nothing beats the sound when it also used the room to enhance the sound. 

When privacy is required I slip on my Koss Pro4aa's.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

NoCoPilot said:


> Oh gawd no. EQ should never be used. If you feel you need it, you have other problems that need addressing, stat!
> 
> Oh and the so-called "circle of confusion" is BS. You want to break the circle? Compare your stereo to live music. Done. End of circle.


EQ should never be used ? Is that like an old trope that is still popular ?
EQ should actually always be used, it’s called tuning and every studio and sound ingeneer do it, from the mastering to the speaker headphone design to the dac, the amp and the cables, every single step in the chain affects the frequency response. Every room in which music is played also affects the FR, by the specific accoustics. The concert hall near me is unlistenable for example, as the highs are so thin and peaky, very bad accoustics. Etc.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

NoCoPilot said:


> Not in my experience. Some of the BEST headphone experiences are old 1950s & 1960s recordings done in a hall with live musicians and a couple of mics. Too many recordings these days are done with 60 tracks of instruments in isolation booths and you don't get any sense of a live performance in a real performance space at all.


Maybe you like exagerated stereo effect but it sounds very unnatural. We’re not supposed to isolate left and right ears.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Most recordings today are mixed with both speakers and headphones, but I do agree that headphones sound much better/more natural with Crossfeed. The best implementation I've found is GoodHertz's CanOpener plugin.


True that it’s mostly a problem with older recordings. But there are many other variables like which headphone earbud is used, etc...


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Why should EQ not be used


Because it inevitably adds distortion and it's not that hard to get flat response these days.


Eva Yojimbo said:


> and what's BS about the "circle of confusion?" Comparing your stereo to live music doesn't even begin to address the problems of the circle of confusion. I think you need to read that article and understand what it's actually saying.





> The circle of confusion is graphically illustrated in Figure 1. Music recordings are made with (1) microphones that are selected, processed, and mixed by (2) listening through professional loudspeakers, which are designed by (3) listening to recordings, which are (1) made with microphones that are selected, processed, and mixed by (2) listening through professional monitors...... you get the idea. Both the creation of the art (the recording) and its reproduction (the loudspeakers and room) are trapped in an interdependent circular relationship where the quality of one is dependent on the quality of the other.


Where does the author jump out to real, live music?


> Another significant source of variation in the recording process stems from acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker and the listening room [1]-[3] Below 300-500 Hz, the placement of the loudspeaker-listener can cause >18 dB variations in the in-room response due to room resonances and placing the loudspeaker in proximity to a room boundary.


Engineers cannot possibly anticipate listening room resonances in playback. Yes, there are variations in recording technique, caused by differences in monitoring and studio engineers' tastes and histories, but all good recordings converge on the same sound: clear, open, flat, distortion-free and natural. Any deviation from this ideal causes users to begin applying their own EQ!!!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bernamej said:


> EQ should never be used ? Is that like an old trope that is still popular ?
> EQ should actually always be used, it’s called tuning and every studio and sound ingeneer do it, from the mastering to the speaker headphone design to the dac, the amp and the cables, every single step in the chain affects the frequency response. Every room in which music is played also affects the FR, by the specific accoustics. The concert hall near me is unlistenable for example, as the highs are so thin and peaky, very bad accoustics. Etc.


My argument for EQ is that every album is recorded, mixed, and mastered in different environments with different acoustics and by engineers with different speakers, headphones, etc. Just because they've mixed/mastered an album to sound natural and balanced on/through their gear is no guarantee it will sound that way through yours/your room. One reason many people dislike and claim neutral headphones/speakers are bright is because some recordings are mixed/mastered too bright because the engineers were listening in very acoustically dead rooms with dark headphones/speakers... but then if you buy dark headphones/speakers so that THESE recordings sound natural/well-balanced, all of the recordings mixed/mastered on more neutral gear will now sound dark and dull. You can't solve both issues without EQ.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Jimmy Page mastered all the Led Zeppelin recordings to compensate for his severe hearing loss. Does that make it okay?


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> My argument for EQ is that every album is recorded, mixed, and mastered in different environments with different acoustics and by engineers with different speakers, headphones, etc. Just because they've mixed/mastered an album to sound natural and balanced on/through their gear is no guarantee it will sound that way through yours/your room. One reason many people dislike and claim neutral headphones/speakers are bright is because some recordings are mixed/mastered too bright because the engineers were listening in very acoustically dead rooms with dark headphones/speakers... but then if you buy dark headphones/speakers so that THESE recordings sound natural/well-balanced, all of the recordings mixed/mastered on more neutral gear will now sound dark and dull. You can't solve both issues without EQ.


Exactly. But i’ll go further and say that if you can’t afford many different gears for your different moods (at night for example we tend to prefer darker sound) the EQ is an option.
Most of the time I don’t use it but sometimes it’s an effective mean to compensate for a perceived flaw.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Because it inevitably adds distortion and it's not that hard to get flat response these days.
> 
> 
> Where does the author jump out to real, live music?
> ...


The distortion added by any competently implemented EQ and handled with high enough bitrate is well below the range audible for humans, and even well below the noise floor of speakers, not to mention rooms. I'd challenge you to do a blind test with a decent EQ in and out of your system and see if you can genuinely tell the difference. Further, for speakers/headphones with peaks, EQing them down will actually reduce the distortion of the transducer by reducing the volume they are forced to play those frequencies at, and transducers have far more distortion than EQ does.

"Real, live music" is completely irrelevant to the issues caused by the circle of confusion. I can only conclude you don't even know what the CoF is referring to. The variations you mention aren't just caused by engineers' "tastes and histories," but also the speakers/headphones they're using. What sounds "clear, open, flat, natural, etc." on their setup probably won't on yours.

Also: where are these flat-measuring headphones you refer to? I only know of a handful.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Bernamej said:


> EQ should never be used ? Is that like an old trope that is still popular ?


Possibly. I'm an old codger.


Bernamej said:


> EQ should actually always be used, it’s called tuning and every studio and sound engineer does it, from the mastering to the speaker headphone design to the DAC, the amp and the cables, every single step in the chain affects the frequency response. Every room in which music is played also affects the FR, by the specific acoustics. The concert hall near me is unlistenable for example, as the highs are so thin and peaky, very bad acoustics. Etc.


True. Every recording is tailored for the best sound by the engineer(s). Poor acoustics, in a hall or your living room, can sometimes be _improved_ by EQ but they can never be overcome. It's better to start with a good listening space / recording space / recording equipment / playback equipment. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. (That's an old codger expression.)


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

Back to the topic, whenever possible, I go to my setup of floor-stand speakers driven by pre & power amp, which I have invested and adjusted for my music appreciation.

Meanwhile, I equally enjoy my mid-high headphones and earbuds with DAP as I could keep listening to music (DSD files or streaming) anytime & anywhere conveniently and privately. 

In both occasions, I'm involved and gain the satisfaction of music appreciation.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The distortion added by any competently implemented EQ and handled with high enough bitrate is *well below the range audible for humans*, and even well below the noise floor of speakers, not to mention rooms. I'd challenge you to do a blind test with a decent EQ in and out of your system and *see if you can genuinely tell the difference*.


Well, _THERE'S_ a recommendation.

And BTW? Speakers are passive. They HAVE no "noise floor."


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> "Real, live music" is completely irrelevant to the issues caused by the circle of confusion. I can only conclude you don't even know what the CoF is referring to.


Okay, have it your way. I can lead a horse to water....


Eva Yojimbo said:


> Also: where are these flat-measuring headphones you refer to? I only know of a handful.


Post #18


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Well, _THERE'S_ a recommendation.
> 
> And BTW? Speakers are passive. They HAVE no "noise floor."


If you object to inaudible distortion then you should throw out all your audio equipment, including your transducers that will have far more distortion than any EQ. 

Not all speakers are passive, but obviously I meant the noise floor you'll hear from your speakers when running a current/signal through them. 



NoCoPilot said:


> Post #18


The Stax isn't even available anymore, but I looked up a measurement for it and it's not flat. I can't find your middle two, but the MDR-V6, while not bad, also aren't flat. The latter's deviations are similar to the HD650s but are more egregious: a 5db+ boost in the 3-5k region where ears are really sensitive is going to be piercing on recordings that emphasize the presence region. Here's the HD650s for comparison.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Huh. I'll take THIS:








over THIS anyday:









And I'm not sure how the Stax were measured for the graph you posted. When they came out the measured response was flat ±0.1dB to 20,000.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Huh. I'll take THIS:
> 
> And I'm not sure how the Stax were measured for the graph you posted. When they came out the measured response was flat ±0.1dB to 20,000.


You do realize the former graph is compensated and the latter is not, yes? The former SHOULD measure flat (well, theoretically; perceptually flat might still have a downward tilt somewhat), not having that hump at 4k and dip above 5k. With the latter graph the dotted line is the target curve, which the HD650 follows really dam close from above 100Hz. Yes, the HD650 has bass deficiencies, but a lot (probably the majority) of music doesn't have much bass content below about 80Hz anyway.

If you want linearity from one end the spectrum to the other the only headphones I know that do this aren't cheap. There's the ZMF Auteurs, DCA Stealth, and maybe a handful of others that I don't want to bother to look up right now. There's some OOP headphones like the Oppo PM-3 that measured near-flat too.

That Stax measurement came from sorrodjie on Superbestaudiofriends who did a compendium of Stax measurements: One Day Ticket for Stax Galaxy - The STAX Compendium. You can also compare yours to several other Stax. I've heard quite a few Stax myself. The most neutral I've heard is probably the SR009s.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You do realize the former graph is compensated and the latter is not, yes?


Yes. But I'll take a 10dB variance from ideal over a 25dB variance any day, keeping in mind that decibels are logarithmic.

And yes, FR linearity is only one factor when evaluating headphones. Comfort, weight, transparency, and speed of response are all just as important. My Stax don't do well on that first one.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> That Stax measurement came from sorrodjie on Superbestaudiofriends who did a compendium of Stax measurements: One Day Ticket for Stax Galaxy - The STAX Compendium. You can also compare yours to several other Stax. I've heard quite a few Stax myself. The most neutral I've heard is probably the SR009s.


Thanks. I'm off to do some reading.

I once previewed some Stax 4-channel quadrophonic headphones(!) -- putting some really big boxes on your ears -- I wasn't impressed. The elements were too far from your ears to really get the "headphone sound" of the image appearing inside your head. [Edit: It might have been the Sigma Pros.]



Eva Yojimbo said:


> a lot (probably the majority) of music doesn't have much bass content below about 80Hz anyway


True. But a headphone should be able to reproduce bass frequencies; it's not like a speaker woofer where you have to physically move a lot of air.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

sorrodjie said:


> I have been super impressed by how the older headphones measures. Driver matching, extension, distorsion, overall Frequency response and technicalities are all Stellar and put to shame most of current TOTL headphones. Kudos to Stax engineers and workers. That's what I call serious engineering.


Yup. I have heard several new super expensive headphones (the SR009s are $4500) and they can't hold a candle to my SRX. Thank god.

Then there's this:








The 20 Most Expensive Headphones In the World


Which are the most expensive headphones in the world? We've put together this list of the 20 most expensive headphones As of 2023, and how much they cost.




wealthygorilla.com




Why should we trust someone who can't spell "serious" or "quite"?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I live in a condo with my wife and young children, and neighbors above and below. It's headphones all the way for me. I am quite happy with the experience of listening to classical on my MDR-Z1R headphones.

While I would love to try out some of my favorite recordings on a truly high end speaker setup, it's just not in the cards for my residence and my budget.

One benefit of headphones however, is that the "room" is always "perfect."


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I live in a condo with my wife and young children, and neighbors above and below. It's headphones all the way for me. I am quite happy with the experience of listening to classical on my MDR-Z1R headphones.
> 
> While I would love to try out some of my favorite recordings on a truly high end speaker setup, it's just not in the cards for my residence and my budget.
> 
> One benefit of headphones however, is that the "room" is always "perfect."


Lucky you, MDR X1R is nice cans and its soundstage and bass impressed me very much. IMHO, Sony headphones may not have an outstanding sound signature but they are all-rounded for all kinds of music.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

OCEANE said:


> Lucky you, MDR X1R is nice cans and its soundstage and bass impressed me very much. IMHO, Sony headphones may not have an outstanding sound signature but they are all-rounded for all kinds of music.


Two thoughts:
1. I recently attended a performance of Bruckner 2 at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Later that night I listened to a recording of the piece on the Z1R, and I was surprised at how close the headphones came to approximating the feeling of being there.

2. In audiophile circles I always see people recommending "bass-light" cans for classical, and I'm just baffled by that. Anyone who's heard a cello, a contrabass, or a tympani in person will be able to tell you how integral a deep, rich bass response is integral to the orchestral sound. So yeah, Z1R definitely fits the bill for me. If I were considering other headphones, they would also have to be noted for their bass, such as some of the Audeze and Focal lines.


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Two thoughts:
> 1. I recently attended a performance of Bruckner 2 at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Later that night I listened to a recording of the piece on the Z1R, and I was surprised at how close the headphones came to approximating the feeling of being there.
> 
> 2. In audiophile circles I always see people recommending "bass-light" cans for classical, and I'm just baffled by that. Anyone who's heard a cello, a contrabass, or a tympani in person will be able to tell you how integral a deep, rich bass response is integral to the orchestral sound. So yeah, Z1R definitely fits the bill for me. If I were considering other headphones, they would also have to be noted for their bass, such as some of the Audeze and Focal lines.


Agreed with you about bass line.
That's why I have a few pairs of headphones for different kinds of music.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Music is meant to be heard in space, especially music performed in well-constructed halls and other venues. The environment adds to the musical sound world. I find this true as much in my living room as my orchestra's hall.


----------



## kaluza (9 mo ago)

Short answer - for me it depends.

I have had headphones and earplugs of various sorts; I have had speakers of various sorts. I currently have TDLs for listening from my amp. I have Creative Gigaworks for listening from my laptop. I have a pair of SoundMagic earplugs for general use. Happy with this lot; odn't feel the need to spend lots of cash on Top Quality Headphones.

For mixing stuff on my laptop I start with the earplugs, then try the mix using the TDLs - then follow the Golden Rule and try listening to the piece on the car stereo. ("Crap speakers might be what many will be listening to so you need to know how that might sound.")


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

larold said:


> Music is meant to be heard in space, especially music performed in well-constructed halls and other venues. The environment adds to the musical sound world. I find this true as much in my living room as my orchestra's hall.


I agree with this generally, but it shouldn't mean the exclusion of people who don't have space at home (like me). There are high quality headphones that can create a sense of space and stereo image, just like speakers can. I think there are headphones that can do this in the $100-$200 price range. Maybe speakers can do it better, maybe not, a lot of that is room dependent.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

At the risk of sounding self-deprecating, I don't completely grasp the valuable and intelligent comments around frequency response.

I find speakers more enjoyable - and music was intended to be heard in an open space. Privacy and keeping peace with your neighbors make headphones necessary. The sound is also warmer. Phones may be desirable for hearing subtleties and details in the music but often cause ear fatigue and may trigger tinnitus in me and I have heard this from others. I find earbuds produce less fatigue than phones.

On phones, I don't recommend Beyerdynamic 990 DTs, have said why below, and would appreciate any advice on replacing them. Owning multiple pairs at a reasonable price for different genres (orchestral, vocal, chamber, piano/fortepiano) is a possibility. Earbuds are preferred. I hope people find the below on BD 990 DTs helpful. 

Thoughts about the BD 990 DTs - pros and cons

Overall disappointing for sound reproduction, with the exception of string quartets and other chamber music. O_rchestral and piano recordings are muddy (modern recordings)_. Fortepiano may be a bit better than piano.
Dynamic range is poor - to hear mids and highs and details you need to push the volume to 90 dB regardless of the device being used (hi-res sony walkman, iPod, or computer). I wish I had known this before I bought them. The basslines don't stand out on these either.
Nearly everything has the same level of sound - pianissimo and forte are reproduced at about the same volume
Pros and why I chose them: For over-the-ear, they may be comfortable, and are padded. I did not want BT, wifi, or noise-canceling, and these were well-rated for classical music. They have a neutral sound stage and are partially open-backed, and I was willing to spend $200. I learned $200 doesn't equate with listening pleasure.
By way of comparison to Apple earbuds - a positive is that one can hear greater clarity and at lower volume (42-64 dBs) although the lows and higher volumes sound the same as the BDs.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Speakers over headphones by a long shot.

Headphones, no matter how good (and I own some Grado GS2000e top quality Lehmann amp), can not get close to the visceral experience of high end speakers, properly set up. Which of course, comes up short over the visceral experience of a live performance. 

When I go see live music, the performance is in front of me, not coming from inside my heard.


----------



## mrravioli (Feb 2, 2014)

i've used a hd800 system and now have a pair of studio monitors. soundwise i prefer headphones, just so much more detailed. but unfortunately i couldn't bear wearing headphones for long periods, too uncomfortable and gives me tinnitus.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

mrravioli said:


> i've used a hd800 system and now have a pair of studio monitors. soundwise i prefer headphones, just so much more detailed. but unfortunately i couldn't bear wearing headphones for long periods, too uncomfortable and gives me tinnitus.


Speakers can achieve the same level (or greater) of detail as headphones, but headphones can do it at substantially lower cost.

My $1300 Grado headphones are not as detailed as my speakers. But my speakers cost substantially more than $1300.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I much prefer to listen via speakers whenever possible. The only times I use headphones (Sennheiser HD600's) or earbuds (an almost infinite variety) are when I'm travelling, when the rest of the house is either asleep or loathes the music I'm playing, or if I'm trying to compare remasterings of the same recording. Otherwise, I stick to speakers (Thiel 1.2's and Sonus Faber Concerto Domus).


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Caroline said:


> I don't recommend Beyerdynamic 990 DTs, have said why below, and would appreciate any advice on replacing them.


Check out the Koss cans I recommended in post #18. At only $45 you could buy them as an experiment, and if you don't like them, throw them away. But I bet you wouldn't!


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

NoCoPilot said:


> Thanks. I'm off to do some reading.


I noticed in the test results graphed by sorrodjie, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the headphones had approximately the same squiggly curves above 3,000Hz. I'm not sure how that could be. I'd be a little wary of his test procedure, if it was me.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Simon Moon said:


> Speakers can achieve the same level (or greater) of detail as headphones, but headphones can do it at substantially lower cost.


Excellent point. State-of-the-art sound in headphones can be had for less than most "fairly decent" speakers, and you don't need to spend *anywhere near* $4500.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Speakers are an absolute must for surround recordings. Surround is an absolute must for Respighi's Pines of Rome. In the closing march, the extra brass players up in the balconies will appear in the rear channels.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

wkasimer said:


> I much prefer to listen via speakers whenever possible. The only times I use headphones (Sennheiser HD600's) or earbuds (an almost infinite variety).


Thanks - the Sennheiser HD600s are on my wishlist.

I found two possible earbud options and wonder if you have any experience with either -

Do you perchance have any experience with _Sennheiser CX200 twist to fit earbuds?_ The total harmonic distortion is <0.2 percent. Transducer Principle: Dynamic. Alternatively, Sony makes MDR-XB55AP Premium in-ear Extra Bass earbuds. 

I am trying to avoid flat buds/phones. 



NoCoPilot said:


> Check out the Koss cans I recommended in post #18. At only $45 you could buy them as an experiment, and if you don't like them, throw them away. But I bet you wouldn't!


Thanks. May try them.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Yes. But I'll take a 10dB variance from ideal over a 25dB variance any day, keeping in mind that decibels are logarithmic.
> 
> And yes, FR linearity is only one factor when evaluating headphones. Comfort, weight, transparency, and speed of response are all just as important. My Stax don't do well on that first one.


I'm not sure where you're getting the 10dB and 25dB figures from, but "variance from ideal" has to be considered in the context of what spectrum is varied. The HD650s are linear throughout 80%+ of the audible spectrum, with the 20% being sub/low-bass that doesn't have much musical content anyway with few exceptions; the Stax has a large spike in not only part of the spectrum that contains a lot of musical content, but one in which human ears are very sensitive too, and with a large dropoff after that. It's actually the kind of flaws, though, that would be easily solved by EQ. 



NoCoPilot said:


> True. But a headphone should be able to reproduce bass frequencies; it's not like a speaker woofer where you have to physically move a lot of air.


It's the same principle though: headphones still have to move MORE air to reproduce bass frequencies, and while the driver being right next to ear reduces the size of the driver and excursion needed to produce them, headphone drivers are also quite small in comparison to speakers, much less subwoofers. Most headphones have high rising distortion in the bass as well, with some exceptions like many planar headphones. 

FWIW, I'm not diminishing the importance of deep bass, certainly in some music it's necessary. I even have some classical organ recordings with 16Hz frequencies recorded at high levels. I play THOSE through my speakers and 21" subwoofer, and at "live" volume levels the sheer physical experience of the sound is truly something else.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Caroline said:


> Thanks - the Sennheiser HD600s are on my wishlist.


If money is an issue the Massdrop HD6xx are essentially the same headphones but at about half the price.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If money is an issue the Massdrop HD6xx are essentially the same headphones but at about half the price.


Good to know for the future on a comparable item for less money.

I am looking for earbuds with sound characteristics comparable to the phones that have been cited. The reason being is the buds may be less fatiguing. My current BD over-ear phones cause fatigue and persistent irritation after a short listen. I hope better earbuds will have decent sound and provide a better listening experience.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Kinda off-topic, but how do y'all store your headphones?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If money is an issue the Massdrop HD6xx are essentially the same headphones but at about half the price.


From what I've read, they're closer to the 650s.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Here's a question for headphone listeners: EQ or no EQ?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

jegreenwood said:


> From what I've read, they're closer to the 650s.


Yes, but the HD650s are very close to the HD600s anyway. At least, the differences are minor enough, and neither is really "better" than the other as opposed to just different, to not warrant spending the extra money, at least IMO.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> Here's a question for headphone listeners: EQ or no EQ?


EQ always. Few headphones have perfect frequency response, and even the few that do are still likely to run into recordings that sound bad on them due to the circle of confusion in audio. EQ can help correct for both problems.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Kinda off-topic, but how do y'all store your headphones?


I keep mine in the boxes they came in. When I want to listen I just open the box and put them on, and when I finish they go off my head back into the box. Besides keeping them safe it also keeps them free from dust.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> EQ always. Few headphones have perfect frequency response, and even the few that do are still likely to run into recordings that sound bad on them due to the circle of confusion in audio. EQ can help correct for both problems.


One of the problems of EQ in headphone listening is it introduces distortion (or can with some recordings). So let's say you have a 10-band EQ, what would your ideal settings be that minimizes distortion, but still pushes the highs/mids/lows to satisfactory results?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> One of the problems of EQ in headphone listening is it introduces distortion (or can with some recordings). So let's say you have a 10-band EQ, what would your ideal settings be that minimizes distortion, but still pushes the highs/mids/lows to satisfactory results?


I addressed the distortion issue with NoCoPilot on one of the previous pages, but to briefly reiterate: any competently implemented EQ will have inaudible distortion that will be far less than the distortion produced by a transducer. I would also say that 10-band graphic EQs are ineffectual for what I'm talking about: much better are parametric EQs. They have more of a learning curve, but aren't terribly complex once you work with them a bit. With parametric EQs it's much easier to define problem areas and EQ them to be more linear, both for headphones and for recordings. Generally you want fairly linear headphones to begin with so any EQ tweaking won't have to be extreme. The distortion should always be inaudible unless you go wild with the EQ. Also, people are quick to mention distortion, but not address the audibility of distortion VS non-linear frequency response. How bothersome is, say, a .5% rise in distortion compared to a 5dB deviation from linearity?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I addressed the distortion issue with NoCoPilot on one of the previous pages, but to briefly reiterate: any competently implemented EQ will have inaudible distortion that will be far less than the distortion produced by a transducer. I would also say that 10-band graphic EQs are ineffectual for what I'm talking about: much better are parametric EQs. They have more of a learning curve, but aren't terribly complex once you work with them a bit. With parametric EQs it's much easier to define problem areas and EQ them to be more linear, both for headphones and for recordings. Generally you want fairly linear headphones to begin with so any EQ tweaking won't have to be extreme. The distortion should always be inaudible unless you go wild with the EQ. Also, people are quick to mention distortion, but not address the audibility of distortion VS non-linear frequency response. How bothersome is, say, a .5% rise in distortion compared to a 5dB deviation from linearity?


Thanks for the feedback, but you didn't really answer my question, so that's okay. I don't really care whether a 10-band EQ is less effective than a parametric EQ, I simply gave you a scenario and you couldn't answer it. But thanks anyway!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> Thanks for the feedback, but you didn't really answer my question, so that's okay. I don't really care whether a 10-band EQ is less effective than a parametric EQ, I simply gave you a scenario and you couldn't answer it. But thanks anyway!


Sorry if you feel I didn't address your question, but there's no definitive way to answer it. It depends on what I said about the bothersomeness of any distortion that might be introduced Vs. the bothersomeness of the non-linearity of the transducer. It even depends upon the frequency areas you're wanting to correct for given that the audibility of distortion is different across the frequency range. I'm just fairly certain for almost all people the problems of non-linearity vastly outweigh the problems of distortion introduced by EQ, so I would recommend using as much EQ as it takes to achieve a linear-as-possible frequency response and only using less if you find the distortion is bothersome, which it probably won't be.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

NoCoPilot said:


> Kinda off-topic, but how do y'all store your headphones?


Most often they are resting on a headphone stand; otherwise, they are stored in case they came with.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

Neo Romanza said:


> Here's a question for headphone listeners: EQ or no EQ?


My high-res player (Sony NW-A50) has a built-in EQ with presets (voice, bright, mellow, relaxed, etc.) and two customizable settings. The EQ introduces distortions as experts have noted, but it optimizes the quality of the output, as long as you make the best (subjective) selection.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I store mine in their included wood/leather storage box. No dust, no compression of pads. I can also keep my WM1A Walkman and cable in the same box.


----------



## Bkeske (Feb 27, 2019)

My Grado’s just sit on my side table, waiting to get used. Primarily a paper weight for my Berlin Philharmonic program schedule.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I can't help feeling that whatever I use, speakers, phones or earbuds, I'm never going to get over the nagging suspicion that I'm still not listening to the sound I should be hearing (even if I had unlimited resources, which I don't).

Then I remember that there is no such thing as perfection, even in the "best" seat in the concert hall with the real orchestra in front of me.

My neighbours like to play pop at high decibel levels, the bass thumping so loud that it jiggles my dog's den. As we had to challenge them about this, I can't really crank up my own speakers, can I?

Consequently, my listening is already a compromise. But then, my hearing loss and tinnitus compromise things further.

I blame Jobson, Wetton, Holdsworth and Bruford myself!


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

I do most of my listening on headphones, mostly a fairly modest setup of Fidelio X2 through and Fiio E10K at my PC, and some Fiio FH5 IEMs for portable use. I live in an end terraced house so loud speakers can only be enjoyed sparingly anyway. 

I would like to upgrade my headphones at some point in the near future.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forster said:


> I can't help feeling that whatever I use, speakers, phones or earbuds, I'm never going to get over the nagging suspicion that I'm still not listening to the sound I should be hearing (even if I had unlimited resources, which I don't).
> 
> Then I remember that there is no such thing as perfection, even in the "best" seat in the concert hall with the real orchestra in front of me.
> 
> ...


Do try YouTube concerts via headphones. To quote Bono, "it's better than the real thing!". I just listened to/watched a HIP Music for the Royal Fireworks at the BBC Proms, which sounded great, as are most of the Proms recorded concert pieces.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

There's talk in the industry over what DolbyAtmos will do for listening to music in surround through headphones. I think it might spawn new approaches to mixing orchestral art music and will certainly enhance scoring that utilises off-stage players. Works that rely on spatial positioning are going to sound amazing in these headphones.


----------



## Bkeske (Feb 27, 2019)

Forster said:


> I can't help feeling that whatever I use, speakers, phones or earbuds, I'm never going to get over the nagging suspicion that I'm still not listening to the sound I should be hearing (even if I had unlimited resources, which I don't).
> 
> Then I remember that there is no such thing as perfection, even in the "best" seat in the concert hall with the real orchestra in front of me.
> 
> ...


A recording will never be 'live'. 'We' try as hard as we can, but I'm really not sure it will ever be possible to sound the same as if the instrument(s) is actually being played within your room. There is simply a huge difference between live and a recording. But we, (at least I), try very hard to get as close as possible with the equipment we have. The room is a part of that experience, just as it is in an actual hall IMO, so for me, headphones cannot get as close as speakers within a room; It isn't close.

We don't listen in a concert hall how we do on a stereo system. At a live performance we use our eyes to place where the various performers are on stage. Listening to a recording we only have our ears to recreate that visual image. I work very hard to make sure the various instruments are on the stage aurally as they would be physically by speaker placement, equipment choices, etc. That can literally mean moving the speakers a 1/4" fore, back, or to the sides to achieve the best 'image' of the stage and placement of performers/instruments. The setup and quality of the recording is also a large part of the equation. So, listening to recordings and recreating a 'live performance' is done only with the ears, which has to replace the visual cues we have at a live performance. Additionally, a recording that can reproduces the sound of the instruments being played is a challenge, along with the equipment we have to reproduce it; piano seems to be one of the toughest. 

It's interesting, but when streaming the Berlin Philharmonic (live to otherwise) via the Digital Concert Hall, I use my home theater option, not 2 channel stereo. Primarily because I refuse to put my TV between my main (front) speakers. So I also have my 5.2 surround setup for streaming live performances. It sounds great, but more so because I also have the visual of the actual performance, so what I cited above for 2 channel listening isn't as important to me, as it isn't 'critical 2 channel listening'.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Bkeske said:


> We try as hard as we can, but I'm really not sure it will ever be possible to sound the same as if the instrument(s) is actually being played within your room.


Some day, soon I hope, 3D television and movies will be commonplace and we'll have comfortable goggles to wear.









At that point, headphones will be the default sound system.


----------



## Bkeske (Feb 27, 2019)

Not for me. I'll be a 2 channel user/listener til I die.


----------



## SARDiver (Jan 6, 2014)

I have a high end Yamaha receiver (with the program set to the Hall in Munich for CM) and a 7.1 set of excellent Andrew Jones-designed Pioneer speakers, with a downward facing sub. I know there are better systems out there, but I got these for a song (ha!). That's for when I'm alone in the house, though. 

A good pair of noise-cancelling headphones work very well at the desk when I'm ignoring the family. (Anker makes a good set for $80 at Amazon. Almost no hiss, and very customizable.) 

I use what I can to get the best sound I can, where I can.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Bernamej said:


> Old stereo recording are unusable with headphones without crossfeed,.
> View attachment 167461


Yes, crossfeed (when done right) makes an important improvement to LONG-term listening of headphones. 
The "problems" with crossfeed is that there are many versions of it. From pure in-software implementation, to passive (analog), to active (analog) implementation, etc.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

13hm13 said:


> Yes, crossfeed (when done right) makes an important improvement to LONG-term listening of headphones.
> The "problems" with crossfeed is that there are many versions of it. From pure in-software implementation, to passive (analog), to active (analog) implementation, etc.


I'll reiterate that I've experimented with many cross-feed applications and the best I've heard (so far) is GoodHertz's CanOpener. It seems to be a favorite of a lot of audio engineers too, and isn't break-the-bank expensive.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'll reiterate that I've experimented with many cross-feed applications and the best I've heard (so far) is GoodHertz's CanOpener. It seems to be a favorite of a lot of audio engineers too, and isn't break-the-bank expensive.


Leave to a listener who "always" adds EQ to his listening to also add software that makes stereo into mono.

Okay, I kid (a little). It's true some recordings are mixed too wide for headphones, and a little narrowing of the stereo image would probably be a good thing. Unfortunately it appears CanOpener can't stop there:


GoodHurts said:


> Headphones also offer poor externalization (i.e. mono sounds typically appear to originate from inside the listener’s head as opposed to externally).


 So what do they do? Add reverb to make fake stereo???

In another thread I posted this:


NoCoPilot said:


> In my Audacity software there's a plug-in called Channel Mixer, which allows you to assign any percentage of either channel to either channel. 50% left and 50% right, to both channels, gives you *mono*. 100% left to the left channel and 100% right to right makes *normal stereo*. 100% left to the right channel and 100% right to the left channel makes *reverse stereo*. Rudimentary, right?
> 
> There are also presets. One called* "Widen Stereo"* is: Right channel = 100% right MINUS 100% left. Left channel = 100% left MINUS 100% right. What this does is remove_ any center channel information_; anything common to both channels is totally mixed out.


So I'm not AGAINST remixing the channels when it's warranted. And I have run across maybe a dozen such instances in the 2000+ jobs I have done. If what CanOpener is doing is "removing any center channel information" to prevent any sounds from appearing to come from inside your head, I'm not sure I'd like that effect. "Fake binaural" is an awful effect, akin to using reverb to create fake stereo.





Too bad about the lame-a$$ music in this demo. It doesn't demonstrate ANYthing.

LOL. There are no prerequisites to putting a video online, are there?





In the following video, at about 27:30, the guy demonstrates the CanOpener using an LP of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring":





Two comments from me.
1. With the CanOpener in the circuit, the crossfeed (which "widens the stereo," or at least partially widens the stereo by injecting some percentage of out-of-phase signal into each channel) removes a good bit of the groove rumble. Groove rumble is of course inherently out-of-phase, so feeding the channels together naturally cancels the rumble out.

2. However! And this is a big however! The engineer here doesn't mention -- either because he doesn't notice or isn't paying attention or isn't clued-in to listening for this -- CanOpen *also puts the oboe solo out-of-phase*. On speakers it will no longer appear to come from a spot in-between the speakers. This to me is a rather critical failure, and why I would never use "crossfeed" or CanOpener on a mix just to narrow the stereo field.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Leave to a listener who "always" adds EQ to his listening to also add software that makes stereo into mono.
> 
> Okay, I kid (a little). It's true some recordings are mixed too wide for headphones, and a little narrowing of the stereo image would probably be a good thing. Unfortunately it appears CanOpener can't stop there:
> So what do they do? Add reverb to make fake stereo???


The stereo-to-mono thing is for engineers. End-listeners need not mess with it. I don't know what you mean by "add reverb to make false stereo..." The main point of crossfeed is that some sound from the left speaker is mixed into the right and vice-versa with a slight delay, mirroring the effect of listening to speakers in a room because with speakers each ear hears both speakers, not just the left and right channel isolated as in headphones. It sounds more natural long term, and fixes the problem many have with headphones sounding rather artificial. The narrowing of the stereo image can be mitigated with the "angle" setting that widens the stereo image again. You can tweak both aspects (the amount of cross-feed VS the angle of the speakers) to suit your tastes. I keep the crossfeed at 150% and the angle depends on the headphones and (to a lesser extent) on the content being played. 



NoCoPilot said:


> In another thread I posted this:
> 
> So I'm not AGAINST remixing the channels when it's warranted. And I have run across maybe a dozen such instances in the 2000+ jobs I have done. If what CanOpener is doing is "removing any center channel information" to prevent any sounds from appearing to come from inside your head, I'm not sure I'd like that effect. "Fake binaural" is an awful effect, akin to using reverb to create fake stereo.


Again, not sure what you mean "reverb to create fake stereo," and all I can suggest is to try it. The demo is free for a while (maybe 30 days?). Pretty much every audio engineer whom I've read loves it, as does most every listener I've heard from. I was skeptical of crossfeed myself for a long time until I gave it a try. Here's a thread about it on a board for pro audio if you want to read various opinions: Goodhertz CanOpener Studio v3 - Gearspace.com


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Again, not sure what you mean "reverb to create fake stereo"


You may not be old enough to have encountered this:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> You may not be old enough to have encountered this:


Maybe not. I was born in '85 and only got interested in audio probably in the early-mid 00's, and not sure when I got more into the technical side of things...

BTW, I don't know what your point was in posting two random reviews from two completely random people on YouTube. I got my information about CanOpener from actual engineers and professionals, I tried it myself, liked it, and now wouldn't want to be without it. You're free to hate EQ and crossfeed all you want, but you finding two random reviews online of people talking about it is rather silly when you could just try it for yourself and see. It's not like anyone is twisting your ear to use it, and it's free to try.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Maybe not. I was born in '85 and only got interested in audio probably in the early-mid 00's, and not sure when I got more into the technical side of things...


Shoot, I've got underwear older than you.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> BTW, I don't know what your point was in posting two random reviews from two completely random people on YouTube. I got my information about CanOpener from actual engineers and professionals, I tried it myself, liked it, and now wouldn't want to be without it. You're free to hate EQ and crossfeed all you want, but you finding two random reviews online of people talking about it is rather silly when you could just try it for yourself and see. It's not like anyone is twisting your ear to use it, and it's free to try.


These "reviews" as you called them are _*demonstrations, *_showing what the effect of CanOpener is on an audio file. Hearing is understanding.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Shoot, I've got underwear older than you.
> 
> 
> These "reviews" as you called them are _*demonstrations, *_showing what the effect of CanOpener is on an audio file. Hearing is understanding.


That's nice to hear given that I've been having that "man, I'm getting old" feeling more and more these days! 

Eh, I wouldn't put much stock in "demonstrations." You're going to be hearing the product filtered through their recording filtered through your headphones that aren't being used with CanOpener. Like I said, it's a free trial, literally zero reason not to try it. I have it as a plugin on JRiver.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Over on this thread, in posts #180 and #198, I discuss the effects of a device from 1981 (four years before you were born!) named the "Sonic Hologram Generator." It used some of the same ideas as your CanOpener, with many of the same drawbacks.

There's nothing new under the sun.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> That's nice to hear given that I've been having that "man, I'm getting old" feeling more and more these days!


Wait another thirty years. ALL your screws will fall out.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Like I said, it's a free trial, literally zero reason not to try it. I have it as a plugin on JRiver.


I'll give you one reason: I'm old school. I listen on stereo equipment, not a file playback device.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

13hm13 said:


> Yes, crossfeed (when done right) makes an important improvement to LONG-term listening of headphones.
> The "problems" with crossfeed is that there are many versions of it. From pure in-software implementation, to passive (analog), to active (analog) implementation, etc.


You got it; long term listening or general headphone fatigue. It’s good to alternate I think.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> Over on this thread, in posts #180 and #198, I discuss the effects of a device from 1981 (four years before you were born!) named the "Sonic Hologram Generator." It used some of the same ideas as your CanOpener, with many of the same drawbacks.
> 
> There's nothing new under the sun.


You can point to similarities all you want but if the technology is different the results can also be radically different. I prefer the opinion of professional audio engineers to random YouTube people and "hey, I found a similar device from 1981." 



NoCoPilot said:


> Wait another thirty years. ALL your screws will fall out.


Encouraging... I try to take care of my health as much as humanly possible. Watching my parents deal with health problems from poor life choices (no exercise, poor diet, smoking, etc.) is a good anti-model. 



NoCoPilot said:


> I'll give you one reason: I'm old school. I listen on stereo equipment, not a file playback device.


If you can't use it then you can't use it, but please refrain from disparaging something you haven't even tried or heard with your own ears. What's your media of choice? CDs? Vinyl? Because if it's CDs all you'd need would be a DVD/blu-ray/CD drive connected to a computer (either internal or external) and you could play the CDs on JRiver, Foobar, or any other media player that accepts VST plugins. If it's not worth the trouble, that's fine.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

That's why I went online to hear what this CanOpener plug-in actually does. I found out, I'm not impressed, I heard it all before, forty years ago.

My philosophy is to get as close as I can to transparent playback, where I'm hearing exactly what actually went down in the recording studio or symphony hall. Anything that detracts from that is going in the wrong direction.

IMO of course. Audio has room for all points of view.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> That's why I went online to hear what this CanOpener plug-in actually does. I found out, I'm not impressed, I heard it all before, forty years ago.
> 
> My philosophy is to get as close as I can to transparent playback, where I'm hearing exactly what actually went down in the recording studio or symphony hall. Anything that detracts from that is going in the wrong direction.
> 
> IMO of course. Audio has room for all points of view.


I'm getting tired of repeating myself, but "hearing online" is not hearing the plugin, it's hearing it filtered by a recording and your own transducers. You are at least 2-steps removed from "hearing it." 

Everyone wants transparent playback but there is disagreement regarding what that goal looks like. Ears hear and brains interpret sounds differently when played live Vs played back via recordings through transducers; and the old "circle of confusion" rears its head when any discussion of "what went down in the recording studio or venue" comes up. Headphones are particularly different in that we hear isolated left-right channels which we hear neither live nor with speakers. Crossfeed addresses that difference. You don't have to like it, but don't pretend that headphones without it are closer to what's heard live because it's demonstrably not, in more ways than one.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

If you're getting tired of repeating yourself, stop doing it. It should be apparent to you by now that I disagree with some of your fundamental assumptions, so I'm ignoring them.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> If you're getting tired of repeating yourself, stop doing it. It should be apparent to you by now that I disagree with some of your fundamental assumptions, so I'm ignoring them.


What "fundamental assumptions" do you agree with? "Don't judge audio devices you haven't heard?" Ok then.


----------



## Markbridge (Sep 28, 2014)

NoCoPilot said:


> Off-topic potentially, but "long-in-tooth"? Speakers don't wear out. Thirty years old is not a deadline or anything. And, quite frankly, speaker technology hasn't advanced an inch in 50 years.
> 
> What model are they? ML's like these are still perfectly lovely speakers.


They're the Sequel II's along with a Matinee center speaker.


----------



## Helgi (Dec 27, 2019)

I've been thinking about getting an RME ADI-2 DAC, mostly for the parametric EQ to soften the treble on my HD800S. I've tried setting up a software EQ on my computer but found it to be more trouble than it's worth. I'm happy with the sound of the headphones but I experience more listening fatigue using them compared to my HD600.

To answer the original question, most of my listening is on headphones for practical reasons (neighbours, family), but I have a nice enough speaker system in my living room and would probably choose speakers over headphones more often if I had the option. But I don't have a strong preference.

My headphone listening scenarios:

At the computer playing lossless files on Swinsian through a JDS Labs Atom amp and DAC, using either Sennheiser HD600 or HD800S, or my closed-back Neumann NDH-20 if I need to block out noise.
In the living room with a Yamaha receiver and NAD CD player, using the HD800S if possible but NDH-20 if there's noise, and HD600 if it's an older recording.
In bed or wherever with my iPhone playing lossless files through an iFi Hip DAC and the HD800S, or streaming from the Berlin Philharmonic on the iPad. This is my favourite setup, I think. Great sound and convenience.
Outside, walking or cleaning the car or whatever, playing music from my iPhone and listening on Sony WH-1000XM4 wireless noise cancelling headphones. Works like a charm and blocks out traffic noise.


----------



## Helgi (Dec 27, 2019)

Also:
- Renovating a bathroom. For that sort of thing the noise cancelling wireless wonders are priceless 😅


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

For symphonies or other large-scale orchestral works only speakers will do the music justice. It needs to be played at high enough volume to make an impact. I am lucky that I have an environment in which I can blast my music as loud as I want during reasonable hours. For chamber and solo instrument music headphones are great too, especially when paired with a good quality amp.


----------

