[Nightspore68]

I'm new to this forum and have enjoyed reading all the detailed (and not-so-detailed) reviews of headphones and amps. However, one thing strikes me as a possibly ridiculous indulgence many people here are suffering from - the belief that there is some kind of "sound stage" or imaging that can be enjoyed via headphones. Let me explain why I think that.
 
Recording sessions use powered monitors for mixing and mastering, to my knowledge. I'm sure headphones are used too, but I don't think it's for positioning sources in the mix. Using these speakers allows the engineers to move sources left to right and front to back, by panning or attenuating respectivelty. Unless they pan a given instrument all the way to the left or right (as heard on so many early Beatles songs), both ears will hear the instrument from both speakers. In fact, even a guitar panned all the way left will still be heard by one's right ear.
 
Headphones eliminate this desired crossfeed. Your left ear can't hear any of what it was meant to hear from the right monitor or speaker. Instead, that signal from the right speaker goes directly, with no delay and no attenuation, into the right ear only.
 
I would think this would wreak havoc with the imaging intent of the producers. In fact, I've experienced that it does. On well-recorded albums like Natalie Merchant's Live In Concert, on decent stereos, you can picture where she's standing relative to the other musicians. Trying to listen to this on headphones - actually, I don't think I've tried this example - couldn't possibly capture positioning clues the way speakers will.
 
Could it?
 
I know HeadRoom and other amp makers feature a crossfeed circuit to mimic the left-speaker-right-ear / right-speaker-left-ear transmissions and with those, I think it's fair to talk about imaging.
 
Otherwise, isn't it rubbish?
 
Looking forward to your views.

 

[zazex]

Quote:

I'm new to this forum and have enjoyed reading all the detailed (and not-so-detailed) reviews of headphones and amps. However, one thing strikes me as a possibly ridiculous indulgence many people here are suffering from - the belief that there is some kind of "sound stage" or imaging that can be enjoyed via headphones.
 

Can you provide your definition of "sound stage" or "imaging" that you're saying 'possibly' doesn't exist?

 

[ProtegeManiac]

While it's true that headphones don't have the "natural" crossfeed that you do with speakers, just because that's how it is in theory doesn't mean it always has to be like that. Just check out how some people defended some old-timey headphones vs the people who exalt newer headphones or systems that try to sound like speakers, either with a "cheat" like a crossfeed processor or, as I've experienced myself, driver and mount design*. To me it sounded a lot like car arguments where Ferrari, Porsche and Lamborghini fans (not necessarily actual owners) react whenever a mass-manufacturer attempts to build one, except this time they're justifying what roughly is Honda or Toyota being justified in never trying to punch above their weight (as opposed to a more understandable apologetic take on why an NSX isn't as "soulful" as a Ferrari).
 
I mean if you had a choice between a headphone system that has the typical strong L-C-R stage with nothing in between, and the cymbals are waaaay off to the left and right, would a system that has a more even imaging distribution from left to right but of course without the pinpoint accuracy of really good speakers, is that all just imagination and not imaging? If you had an option to have the latter set-up, would you just file it instead under B.S. and not listen to it because it isn't traditional or stereotypical (pun intended) headphone audio?
 
 
 
 
*From my listening the HD800 doesn't even need crossfeed. It can benefit from it when switched on but personally I never missed it; I've gone through several songs thinking I had it switched on actually.

 

[sofastreamer]

Quote:

While it's true that headphones don't have the "natural" crossfeed that you do with speakers, just because that's how it is in theory doesn't mean it always has to be like that. 

 
except sennheiser hd598

 

[rtaylor76]

I think it all depends on how a particular album or song was mixed. There are different approaches from the more "natural" approach to the more wild and crazy panning of old Beatles and Hendrix albums. Brian Wilson was too afraid of panning for fear that people would not properly put two speakers in the same room. So Pet Sounds was originally released in mono for this reason.
 
What you are talking about is binaural cues. The only way to truly represent staging with headphones is with a binaural recording techniques that simulate localization in the effect of our head and pinna (the outer ear). This can be done with simulation software or with a binaural recording head.
 
Some recordings don't use this and will be better than others in effect to staging. What others really mean in reviews is the dimensionality and separation. This way it can give a more accurate representation of what is happening, but without binaural recording techniques, will not be 100% accurate. Certain gear, headphones included, can give better detail and staging. Some can give great detail, but still lack in the staging department.
 
Cross-feed can help with hard panned recordings. However, it takes more sophistication to simulate timing, phasing, and combing effects of how our ears and brains perceive and locate sounds.
 
All this is why companies like Sennheiser and Ultrasone have gone so far at better placement of the headphone driver to include effects of the pinna in some of their headphone designs for better localization and staging. I think even AKG has done some of this.

 

[MalVeauX]

Heya,
 
Depending on what you're trying to say, and I think I know what you're saying, I would say I am one to admit that speakers generate a better sound stage than headphones do.
 
But then again, I think speakers do almost everything better than headphones (except isolation, clarity/detail at low volume, quality/price ratio, small foot print, etc).
 
Very best,

 

[chewy4]

I understand how it can be different... but non-existant? I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
 
With binaural audio, headphones exceed the positional accuracy of any 7.1 system.

 

[Nightspore68]

I guess I should have explained what I meant better. What I'm saying is that any spatial clues the recording engineers provided in a recording were encoded using speakers, not headphones. Since your left ear can hear what your right speaker is doing, this contributes to where you hear the intruments. (And of course vice-versa for the other ear and speaker.) So when you don a pair of headphones, you're effectively zeroing out these positioning cues, because your left ear no longer hears anything from the right channel of the stereo recording.
 
I agree that in binaural recordings, everything is perfectly positioned for headphone use. And this is precisely because the imaging or positioning info was designed (mixed) using headphones. But if the music is mixed and mastered for speakers, the sense of where each instrument is on the hypothetical stage you're trying to recreate at home is lost or is simply wrong.
 
And I still haven't gotten to do that experement yet with Natalie Merchant, but through my stereo I can tell where she's standing. I'm guessing through headphones, she'll either be somewhere else, which is OK, or her voice will no longer sound like it's coming from one specific place at all, which is what I suspect will happen. And that will be an inferior presentation in that's it's less true. I'll definitely do this over the holidays.
 
Whew, sorry, I didn't realize this was the complex subject that it is when I dove in!

 

[Nightspore68]

Quote:

I think it all depends on how a particular album or song was mixed. There are different approaches from the more "natural" approach to the more wild and crazy panning of old Beatles and Hendrix albums. Brian Wilson was too afraid of panning for fear that people would not properly put two speakers in the same room. So Pet Sounds was originally released in mono for this reason.
 
What you are talking about is binaural cues. The only way to truly represent staging with headphones is with a binaural recording techniques that simulate localization in the effect of our head and pinna (the outer ear). This can be done with simulation software or with a binaural recording head.
 
Some recordings don't use this and will be better than others in effect to staging. What others really mean in reviews is the dimensionality and separation. This way it can give a more accurate representation of what is happening, but without binaural recording techniques, will not be 100% accurate. Certain gear, headphones included, can give better detail and staging. Some can give great detail, but still lack in the staging department.
 
Cross-feed can help with hard panned recordings. However, it takes more sophistication to simulate timing, phasing, and combing effects of how our ears and brains perceive and locate sounds.
 
All this is why companies like Sennheiser and Ultrasone have gone so far at better placement of the headphone driver to include effects of the pinna in some of their headphone designs for better localization and staging. I think even AKG has done some of this.

 
The problem for headphone users is that virtually no recordings are binaural. And why would they be, when most people are using speakers for playback?

 

[Nightspore68]

Quote:

Heya,
 
Depending on what you're trying to say, and I think I know what you're saying, I would say I am one to admit that speakers generate a better sound stage than headphones do.
 
But then again, I think speakers do almost everything better than headphones (except isolation, clarity/detail at low volume, quality/price ratio, small foot print, etc).
 
Very best,

That's funny, I would've said headphones do almost everything better than speakers, except for imaging! But I think we agree on the differences.

 

[Nightspore68]

Quote:

While it's true that headphones don't have the "natural" crossfeed that you do with speakers, just because that's how it is in theory doesn't mean it always has to be like that. Just check out how some people defended some old-timey headphones vs the people who exalt newer headphones or systems that try to sound like speakers, either with a "cheat" like a crossfeed processor or, as I've experienced myself, driver and mount design*. To me it sounded a lot like car arguments where Ferrari, Porsche and Lamborghini fans (not necessarily actual owners) react whenever a mass-manufacturer attempts to build one, except this time they're justifying what roughly is Honda or Toyota being justified in never trying to punch above their weight (as opposed to a more understandable apologetic take on why an NSX isn't as "soulful" as a Ferrari).
 
I mean if you had a choice between a headphone system that has the typical strong L-C-R stage with nothing in between, and the cymbals are waaaay off to the left and right, would a system that has a more even imaging distribution from left to right but of course without the pinpoint accuracy of really good speakers, is that all just imagination and not imaging? If you had an option to have the latter set-up, would you just file it instead under B.S. and not listen to it because it isn't traditional or stereotypical (pun intended) headphone audio?
 
 
 
 
*From my listening the HD800 doesn't even need crossfeed. It can benefit from it when switched on but personally I never missed it; I've gone through several songs thinking I had it switched on actually.

The HD800 has built-in crossfeed? Or your amp?

 

[Nightspore68]

Quote:

Can you provide your definition of "sound stage" or "imaging" that you're saying 'possibly' doesn't exist?

I'm simply referring to postiion cues. You can tell where a singer is standing, for instance, how far away and in which direction, with good speakers (and components). My hypothesis is that you cannot when using headphones.