headphone surround processors?
Soundhaspriority
thing I can imagine would be an outboard surround processor that accepts
multiple types of inputs, both digital and analog, with an HRTF that can be
programmed the way Sennheiser did it with their Dolby headphone processor.
There are some HT style surround phones, but I think all the current market
offerings are compromised in quality. I'd like something I can use with my
existing Sennheiser 580 and Stax phones.
Anything out there?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
MiNe 109
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Can't really help you much, maybe some gamer gear could approximate the
results you want, but you inspired me to select "HP3D" on my Yamaha
CAVIT. Not recommended! Too much eq madness.
Stephen
Soundhaspriority
"MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:smcelroy2-E0E8C...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
What a shame. It's the classical [sic] example of lots of research leading
to not a single product.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
sucke...@gmx.us
Humans have two ears. Headphones have two drivers.
Two and only two channels makes sense for headphones. Three, four, or
more arguably can make sense in far space, but not for headphones.
Soundhaspriority
opportunity of surround field synthesis.
<sucke...@gmx.us> wrote in message
news:7c21a16a-5ac3-4dd1...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
You have two ears, but you can sense the location of sound at any angle.
Part of your location mechanism is due to the pinnae, ie., external ear,
which modulates the sound according to the impinging angle and similarly,
the head itself. The second part of the location mechanism is based on time
delay. The ear-brain system has the remarkable ability to measure relative
delay between the two ears of as little as 100 microseconds. While other
species have more sensitive ears, Man has the penultimate ability to locate
the position of a sound.
Spatial simulation, the simulation of "venue", or "soundfield synthesis" has
a long and honorable history of research by audio engineering scientists,
and has reached quite an advanced stage. It can be done either in a room, or
in the comparatively small space enclosed by a headphone or earpiece. With
headphones, the effect of a sound impinging on the pinnae from a particular
angle is simulated in electronics. Because everyone has a different shape
and size of pinnae, a simulator must calibrate to the user first. In the
Sennheiser procedure, the user listens to pink noise test tones, determining
which tones appear to come from a particular angle. The whole calibration
process takes about a minute.
My Sennheiser product is old, and does not handle discrete sources. HRTF
benefits from a lot of CPU power. The Sennheiser is far from the state of
the art. But why are improved products lacking? Sadly, while the technology
of soundfield synthesis is well advanced, the audiophile community has
seemingly rejected it as a source of additional diversity for the listening
experience. I wonder why?
This may be because the search for musical epiphany is a quasi-religious
experience, which does not mix well with gadgets. The high-end emphasis on
both cosmetics and traditional appearance serves the desire for a personal
tabernacle. But ironically, the truely abstract does not. To tell the Hifi
Seeker that epiphany might be found in a particular Algorithm simply puts
the abstract in the service of the spiritual. But paradoxically, the Seeker
prefers his epiphany to be channeled to him by the Material World, excluding
as much as possible things which he does not understand, and has no hope of
understanding. Yet people receive God all the time, and they have no hope of
understanding God.
But back to hifi. I recall that JA said or wrote something to the effect
that so much could be done with two properly set up speakers that the
rationale for more was weak. While I acknowledge that the most remarkably
enveloping experience available to me is provided by a pair of NEAR 50M
speakers set at a very particular angle, envelopment is only one measure.
Placing the NEARs required a lot of furniture rearrangment, and is not an
option for most listeners. Furthermore, it is not the most real experience.
Back-and-forth listening between various concert halls and my listening room
has convinced me that, unless you're particularly addicted to the third-row
experience, the surround synthesis experience is a much closer memento to
"being there."
Although the technology for this was in full flower by 1991, development
continued, pushed by Yamaha. Not only is it far more realistic than relying
on the characteristics of the listening room, it is far more flexible in
speaker placement. The sweet spot can become a "sweet line", containing a
far stronger image than two speakers can provide. This is because while the
brain can see through the fiction of stereo speakers, it is pleasantly
confused by more.
Many people have tried sound field synthesis, and been disappointed, due to
a common error. They think that the surround speakers need only provide the
signature of faint reflections, and may therefore be of less than ultimate
quality. My own experiments indicate that the quality of the surrounds,
particularly the tweeters, is in fact crucial. It is very hard to find
surrounds with ribbon tweeters, but anything less results in location of the
beams, and a subtle sheen of distortion. I was lucky to pick up Radio Shack
speakers with Linaeum tweeters. The bass/mids are quite mediocre, but the
tweeter has the ideal characteristics: distortion that decreases with
frequency, and broad horizontal dispersion.
The advertisements in audio magazines tell us that the audiophile Seeker has
lost his way. The thermionic anodes of vacuum tube equipment exert a
"seductive effect". The connotation of this last is neutral, while the
phrase "idolic attraction" is strongly negative. Which is more applicable?
Audiophilia is a part of our culture, and culture is a matter of proportion.
People frequently deplore a phenomena that causes or allows one element of
culture extinguishes another. The High End now possesses many elements of
anti-technology that have actually displaced elements of technology from the
marketplace. This is a form of cultural extinction.
In 2008, the technology of Virtual Reality appears to have been rejected by
the audiophile community, eclipsed by retrograde elements. The audiophile
community has encapsulated itself in the search for the personal tabernacle.
But the capsule is shrinking, constrained by inflexible, traditional
thinking. We may seek solace from the knowledge that rebirth cannot happen
without death.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
"Virtual Reality and Extinction of High End Technology"
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
ScottW
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ruOdnRqLw7M9Qt_V...@giganews.com...
> Back-and-forth listening between various concert halls and my listening room
> has convinced me that, unless you're particularly addicted to the third-row
> experience, the surround synthesis experience is a much closer memento to
> "being there."
Being where? In hall or in the orchestra?
>
> Although the technology for this was in full flower by 1991, development
> continued, pushed by Yamaha. Not only is it far more realistic than relying on
> the characteristics of the listening room, it is far more flexible in speaker
> placement. The sweet spot can become a "sweet line", containing a far stronger
> image than two speakers can provide. This is because while the brain can see
> through the fiction of stereo speakers, it is pleasantly confused by more.
I don't find the experience of being in the middle of the band particularly
pleasant nor realistic when using my SS.
If I'm 5 feet from the drummer it isn't real to
be able to hear the singer at all. Next thing you know, "being there"
will require musicians ear plugs as well.
ScottW
Soundhaspriority
"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnB0k.1194$bZ3...@newsfe16.phx...
row.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
ScottW
The Atkinson override switch. That might be worth considering :).
ScottW
Soundhaspriority
perspective, ie., over the conductor's podium. It can't bring the
performance closer. It takes the immediate sound and adds the hall
perspective to your liking.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Ian Thompson-Bell
> This is both a response to "suckerton", and a little essay on the lost
> opportunity of surround field synthesis.
>
>
> <sucke...@gmx.us> wrote in message
> news:7c21a16a-5ac3-4dd1...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> IMO headphone spatial processing is a singularly dumb idea.
>>
>> Humans have two ears. Headphones have two drivers.
>>
>> Two and only two channels makes sense for headphones. Three, four, or
>> more arguably can make sense in far space, but not for headphones.
>
> You have two ears, but you can sense the location of sound at any angle.
> Part of your location mechanism is due to the pinnae, ie., external ear,
> which modulates the sound according to the impinging angle and similarly,
> the head itself. The second part of the location mechanism is based on time
> delay. The ear-brain system has the remarkable ability to measure relative
> delay between the two ears of as little as 100 microseconds. While other
> species have more sensitive ears, Man has the penultimate ability to locate
> the position of a sound.
>
There is a third part, and possibly others. Some of the information
about the height of a sound source comes from reflections from the
shoulders.
Cheers
Ian
UnsteadyKen
> 'd like something I can use with my
> existing Sennheiser 580 and Stax phones.
>
Hi Bob, what is your opinion on the 580 i'm currently bidding
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&&item=300228841281
on a pair to replace my 495's which I find unsatisfactory in the bass
region, it seems too pronounced and sometimes breaks up. The 395 is
32 ohm and the 480 are rated at 300 ohms which I'm hoping will be a
better match for the headphone outputs on my elderly amps.
--
Ken
Soundhaspriority
"UnsteadyKen" <unste...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22ad20fe1...@news.btinternet.com...
Ken, the 580 is one of the best phones at any price. It is identical to the
600, which used a metal mesh on the outside shell instead of plastic, and
the 600 received audiophile acclaim. Sennheiser is a remarkable company, one
of the few who service the mass market with the same attention given to
professional equipment. They do this so well and consistently that some of
their consumer offerings are, in fact, identical to professional equipment.
The 580 has a replaceable cord, part of the commitment to durability.
The 580/600 are open back phones, which have an inherent advantage every
time I compare them to my monitoring phones, which are Sony based. You are
probably aware that speaker cabinets are stuffed or lined with a variety of
materials, one purpose of which is to prevent, as much as possible, the
re-radiation through the speaker cone of sound reflected inside the cabinet.
It isn't possible to effectively attenuate the backwave inside a headphone
shell. Hence phones that provide isolation from the environment are
inevitably inferior to the open back alternative.
The 580/600 are not sensitive enough for use with walkman-type equipment,
but they should be fine for your application.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
"Ian Thompson-Bell" <ruffr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g1v0ct$plu$1...@energise.enta.net...
Good point, Ian.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
AZ Nomad
I wouldn't pay more than $40 for anything from sennheiser. The headphone
plugs invariable develop open connections after 6-9 months of use.
Soundhaspriority
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrng46691.9...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
Haven't seen it.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
UnsteadyKen
> I wouldn't pay more than $40 for anything from sennheiser. The headphone
> plugs invariable develop open connections after 6-9 months of use.
>
I think you're being a bit harsh on them, my max bid is the
equivalent of about $66 and they will be a bargain if I get them for
that, probably get outbid in the last seconds by some lowlife toad as
usual.
Yes, the connections are a bit of a weak point but the accasional
annoyance they give are outweighed by the sound quality, comfort and
otherwise good reliability, IMO.
--
Ken
AZ Nomad
>AZ Nomad said:
>> I wouldn't pay more than $40 for anything from sennheiser. The headphone
>> plugs invariable develop open connections after 6-9 months of use.
>>
>I think you're being a bit harsh on them, my max bid is the
>equivalent of about $66 and they will be a bargain if I get them for
>that, probably get outbid in the last seconds by some lowlife toad as
>usual.
Sure. As long as you don't mind replacing them in a few months.
UnsteadyKen
> Ken, the 580 is one of the best phones at any price.
Thats what I wanted hear Bob, more placebo please.
Don't you hate it when you rush home with the latest toy, marvel at
the sound for a while then read in some dratted mag a comment along
the lines of... "Only a total feeb would buy the Heapocrap MkII when
the Acme Gentlemans Thunderer has vastly superior midrange
definition" ...and thats it, the magic has gone, doubts set in and
forever after no matter how happy you are with the MKII there is
always a question in the back of your mind.
> It is identical to the
> 600, which used a metal mesh on the outside shell instead of plastic, and
> the 600 received audiophile acclaim.
According to posters on head-fi & headwize swopping the shells is
worthwhile. And lots of other mods to try.
> Sennheiser is a remarkable company, one
> of the few who service the mass market with the same attention given to
> professional equipment. They do this so well and consistently that some of
> their consumer offerings are, in fact, identical to professional equipment.
> The 580 has a replaceable cord, part of the commitment to durability.
>
And a possible weak point some think, but better to be able to
replace the cords than not. And the added advantage that when you
trip over the cord as one inevitably does, all that happens is the
plugs disconnect instead of ripping the phones from your head.
> The 580/600 are open back phones, which have an inherent advantage every
> time I compare them to my monitoring phones, which are Sony based. You are
> probably aware that speaker cabinets are stuffed or lined with a variety of
> materials, one purpose of which is to prevent, as much as possible, the
> re-radiation through the speaker cone of sound reflected inside the cabinet.
> It isn't possible to effectively attenuate the backwave inside a headphone
> shell. Hence phones that provide isolation from the environment are
> inevitably inferior to the open back alternative.
>
I couldn't agree more, closed back phones do not seem to have the
airy light sound of opens.
> The 580/600 are not sensitive enough for use with walkman-type equipment,
> but they should be fine for your application.
>
I've been thinking of making an adaptor to run my phones from the
speaker outputs which would allow me to play with resistor values
which might improve things but i'll see how the amp output works
first.
Cheers Bob.
--
Ken
Arny Krueger
news:slrng46691.9...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net
On the 580 that doesn't matter too much - the headphone jack is part of a
field-replaceable cord assembly that sells for a bout $20 on the Sennheiser
site.
One of the nifty features of the 580 is that they are almost entirely
field-replacable. That said, I'm on my second cord assembly, but it lasted
many years as compared to the first, that lasted only about 2 years.
The first couple of years were rough on these 580s, as one of my
grandchildren stood on them, and I also had to replace the headband
assembly. The headband cost about twice as much as the cord, but it was
still all a snap-apart, snap-together job. I've also had to wash the cloth
earpieces several times.
The open-ear nature of the 580s is IMO their only disadvantage. I have
therefore been on a quest for closed-ear phones that sound as much like them
as possible. Also, they are a bit pricey for some who are looking for
headphones. Are the closed-ear 280s an option? IME, no.
IME, the closest alternatives to the 580/600 can be found in Audio
Technica's audiophile and studio line.
AT's ATH-A700 Closed-back headphones and the ATH-AD500 Open-air Headphones
are comfortable audiophile-style headphones, with a smooth sound reminiscent
of the 580s, but at a lower price and lacking any of the field-replicable
features.
My ATH-AD700 have been used extensively while listening for pleasure, but
have not fared well. I have had to disassemble them and fix the internal
wiring. They have broken in several places and the small pads have fallen
off. They are currently a testimonial to the effectiveness of polyurethane
glue.
My ATH-A700 have received far less use and are doing just fine. My ATH-M50
are newer and are more typical of professional-style headphones with tighter
sealing and possibly more durable construction. These are as close as I have
found to headphones that sound something like I imagine closed-back 580s
would sound.
UnsteadyKen
>
> Sure. As long as you don't mind replacing them in a few months.
>
Okay doke, these look good value.
http://tiny.cc/DnGNT
--
Ken
Peter Wieck
*what* to do with tubes, and why is it cross-posted here, initiated in
this NG by an individual who likely neither owns nor uses tubes?
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Arny Krueger
$185 for a headphone cable?
LOL!
http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite/productdetail.asp?transid=081435
ScottW
IME, adding synth hall perspective to recordings which already contain
those cues gets pretty muddled. Have we reached a point where
reproduction capability has equaled recording capability?
The problem is, going forward with further improvement in reproduction
requires some standardization in recording which does not exist.
Systems that work really well on reproduction with some recordings
fail with others. With no uniformity in recording, reproduction
cannot be optimized. Same can be said for the room though.
Makes me think that a customizable speaker might be the way to go.
One which can reconfigure its radiation pattern and FR to accommodate
both room and recording. Room correction is only a first step.
Speaker adaptability with multiple phase and FR variable drivers
may be the next.
ScottW
AZ Nomad
$185 for three dollars worth of wire and a dollar's worth of molded plugs?
Yeah, buy 5 of them and just replace them when they break.
Arny Krueger
When my HD580 cable broke, I bought two. I haven't needed the second one.
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority said:
>
>> Ken, the 580 is one of the best phones at any price.
>
> Thats what I wanted hear Bob, more placebo please.
> Don't you hate it when you rush home with the latest toy, marvel at
> the sound for a while then read in some dratted mag a comment along
> the lines of... "Only a total feeb would buy the Heapocrap MkII when
> the Acme Gentlemans Thunderer has vastly superior midrange
> definition" ...and thats it, the magic has gone, doubts set in and
> forever after no matter how happy you are with the MKII there is
> always a question in the back of your mind.
>
Funny!
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
UnsteadyKen
> $185 for a headphone cable?
>
> LOL!
>
Aw c'mon Arny some of us can't afford the really good stuff.
http://tiny.cc/z7QWI
--
Ken
Soundhaspriority
What have you listened to that gives you that opinion? My opinions result
from long term ownership of:
Sony TA-E100ESD
Sony EP9ES
Yamaha RXV1, DSP-A1
> Have we reached a point where
> reproduction capability has equaled recording capability?
> The problem is, going forward with further improvement in reproduction
> requires some standardization in recording which does not exist.
It would be beneficial, but it is not required. The listening room already
provides a nonstandard muddle. Synthesized surround replaces it with
something nowhere near perfect, but a substantial improvement over adhoc
reliance on the acoustics of the listening room.
> Systems that work really well on reproduction with some recordings
> fail with others.
Well, sure, this is true. I doubt my surround processors would enhance JA's
recordings, because his already incorporate the acoustics of the concert
hall in a substantial way. But his efforts are untypical. Most orchestras
are miked no further back than the podium, and augmented with spots. They
provide an artificially close perspective. Along with studio multitrack
productions, these are ideal food for synthesized surround.
> With no uniformity in recording, reproduction
> cannot be optimized.
Of course not, but for the majority of recordings, there is substantial room
[sic] for improvement.
> Same can be said for the room though.
> Makes me think that a customizable speaker might be the way to go.
> One which can reconfigure its radiation pattern and FR to accommodate
> both room and recording. Room correction is only a first step.
> Speaker adaptability with multiple phase and FR variable drivers
> may be the next.
>
> ScottW
Good thoughts, phased array is worthy goal, but it takes a lot of hardware.
By contrast, synthesized surround is something anybody with an eBay appetite
can explore.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Kalman Rubinson
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>You have two ears, but you can sense the location of sound at any angle.
>Part of your location mechanism is due to the pinnae, ie., external ear,
>which modulates the sound according to the impinging angle and similarly,
>the head itself. The second part of the location mechanism is based on time
>delay. The ear-brain system has the remarkable ability to measure relative
>delay between the two ears of as little as 100 microseconds. While other
>species have more sensitive ears, Man has the penultimate ability to locate
>the position of a sound.
Not better than bats and owls or, I'd guess, other nocturnal hunters.
Kal
Soundhaspriority
"Kalman Rubinson" <k...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sgi644h6q4alfvdo3...@4ax.com...
Hi, Kal. What do you think of my "thesis" ?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
AZ Nomad
>Arny Krueger said:
>> $185 for a headphone cable?
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>Aw c'mon Arny some of us can't afford the really good stuff.
Paying 50 times too much doesn't make a product good.
TT
>>
> That's not what it's about. With a Sony processor, you can select the seat
> row.
>
ladies sitting directly behind the listening position that are either:
a) Rustling sweet wrappers
b) Talking about the weather
c) Talking about the infidelities/weight gain/surgery of some mutual
acquaintance
d) Discussing how last time at the venue it was so much nicer sitting
somewhere else
e) All of the above BUT not in logical sequence. (Note: Although it may be
in some relevant logical sequence to females. I can't offer a comment on
that one)
f) As a surround test mode you would then have voices surrounding the
sitting position saying things like "Ssssssshhhhh", "Be quiet", "Shut up",
"Die you bitches" etc.
Only when these options are included can someone *truly* claim they have the
surround fields at a high level of sophistication to offer the effect of
"being there". Everything else then will just pale into artificialness I'm
afraid to say.
Cheers TT :-))
PS nearly forgot you also need some electronic servo to keep randomly
kicking you in the back of the seat, just between the shoulder blades ;-)
May also be achieved by a weighty handbag on a pendulum arrangement timed to
let go 5min before the end of the show aimed at the base of the skull!
PPS Then you need an earbud speaker with a recording of your partner's voice
saying "Keep calm, don't make a fuss dear, it will be over soon etc)
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Soundhaspriority
"TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:IPudnUnPp_jb4N7V...@westnet.com.au...
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:2NCdnaZapNkWf9_V...@giganews.com...
>>>
>> That's not what it's about. With a Sony processor, you can select the
>> seat row.
>>
> Bob, can you also select the soundtrack/effect for the two middle aged
> ladies sitting directly behind the listening position that are either:
> a) Rustling sweet wrappers
> b) Talking about the weather
> c) Talking about the infidelities/weight gain/surgery of some mutual
> acquaintance
> d) Discussing how last time at the venue it was so much nicer sitting
> somewhere else
> e) All of the above BUT not in logical sequence. (Note: Although it may
> be in some relevant logical sequence to females. I can't offer a comment
> on that one)
> f) As a surround test mode you would then have voices surrounding the
> sitting position saying things like "Ssssssshhhhh", "Be quiet", "Shut up",
> "Die you bitches" etc.
>
> Only when these options are included can someone *truly* claim they have
> the surround fields at a high level of sophistication to offer the effect
> of "being there". Everything else then will just pale into artificialness
> I'm afraid to say.
>
> Cheers TT :-))
>
are uncorrelated with the performance. It requires a separate set surround
speakers for the "Telarc New Edition Audience Noises." Tracks include
"hacking cough", "bawling babe", "loud personal discussion", and the most
popular of all, the "active asshole." :)
> PS nearly forgot you also need some electronic servo to keep randomly
> kicking you in the back of the seat, just between the shoulder blades ;-)
> May also be achieved by a weighty handbag on a pendulum arrangement timed
> to let go 5min before the end of the show aimed at the base of the skull!
>
> PPS Then you need an earbud speaker with a recording of your partner's
> voice saying "Keep calm, don't make a fuss dear, it will be over soon etc)
>
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny! I used to be on the sursound mail list, and someone sent me a free
Ambisonics demo, a CD encoded in DTS. I set up an uneven rectangle of Radio
Shack surrounds, and sat in the center. The effect of being in a crowd was
absolutely uncanny. I had been quite careless in the setup, yet it still
performed. All of the terrible timbre characteristics of the speakers were
unnoticed by me, so beholden was I to the illusion.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
TT
> Funny! I used to be on the sursound mail list, and someone sent me a free
> Ambisonics demo, a CD encoded in DTS. I set up an uneven rectangle of
> Radio Shack surrounds, and sat in the center. The effect of being in a
> crowd was absolutely uncanny. I had been quite careless in the setup, yet
> it still performed. All of the terrible timbre characteristics of the
> speakers were unnoticed by me, so beholden was I to the illusion.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
And before anyone says anything it *SHOULD* be legal to use this during a
concert you are enjoying :-))
Cheers TT
Arny Krueger
Is it really good, or just a trap for the uninformed?
http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite/productdetail.asp?transid=081435
If you trust Sennheiser to get the phones right, why not trust them to get
the cable right?
Ian Iveson
> Just a question so as to avoid another round of
> silliness - this has
> *what* to do with tubes, and why is it cross-posted here,
> initiated in
> this NG by an individual who likely neither owns nor uses
> tubes?
>
I guess if you're looking for champions of "retrograde
technology", this is where you come. Especially considering
that multi-channel audio is such a pain to implement with
valves.
Or maybe because it's our death that will enable the posited
rebirth?
I take it this thread would be banned by your moderator?
Ian
UnsteadyKen
> >> $185 for a headphone cable?
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >>
> >Aw c'mon Arny some of us can't afford the really good stuff.
>
> Paying 50 times too much doesn't make a product good.
>
Yes of course, I was trying to imply that Arny was "LOL"ing because I
was gonna buy such "cheap" cable.
--
Ken
UnsteadyKen
> If you trust Sennheiser to get the phones right, why not trust them to get
> the cable right?
I do Arny, it was a feeble joke that fell flat on its face :-(
I've never heard any cable effects that I couldn't trace to poor
connection/termination. However I read so many reports about cable
sound by people whose opinions on other hi-fi matters I trust
greatly, that it does make one doubt. I wish the cable sound question
could be settled one way or the other.
--
Ken
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger said:
>
>> If you trust Sennheiser to get the phones right, why not
>> trust them to get the cable right?
>
> I do Arny, it was a feeble joke that fell flat on its
> face :-(
>
> I've never heard any cable effects that I couldn't trace
> to poor connection/termination.
That's pretty much the whole story, provided the application of the cable
follows usual engineering practice. IOW, don't use 100 foot of 24 gauge wire
to connect up 4 ohm speakers.
> However I read so many
> reports about cable sound by people whose opinions on
> other hi-fi matters I trust greatly, that it does make
> one doubt.
Those people probably gave you good reason to doubt them.
The esoteric cable business was devised by descendents of the inestimable
P.T Barnum. Actually, this is a slam on good ole' P.T., as he always gave
good value for your entertainment nickel.
>I wish the cable sound question could be
> settled one way or the other.
It was, decades ago. It is just that people like Monster Cable and Cardas
continue to find a fresh supply of suckers. For many of their dealers, they
make more money on the cables than the new box that is going to be cabled
up.
The latest scam is HDMI cables. Like almost everything else digital, in fact
they either work stunningly well, or it is a badly engineered application,
and the picture and sound are obviously trashed. IOW, no picture or sound,
one that is highly intermittent, or one that has obvious problems like pops
and clicks in the sound, or streaks and breaks in the picture. People who
say that a certain HDMI cable gives darker blacks or more detail or depth
are talking out of the backs of their necks.
AZ Nomad
Yeah. You'd rather pay $185 for it.
UnsteadyKen
> Yeah. You'd rather pay $185 for it.
>
And do without luxuries such as food for a month? OK you've talked me
into it.
Anyway I won't need too pay anything if my experience with
Sennheisers is anything to go by, I've been using Senns since 1973
and apart from the occasional easily fixed plug socket contact issue
I've never had a cable assembly fail. I've stood on the phones or had
them chewed by pets but no cable probs. IME most headphone cable
problems are caused by winding the cables up , using a "phone holder
or stand and not putting any strain on the cables is the best way.
--
Ken
ScottW
Just my low-end Pioneer receiver and few highend SS demos.
I never felt any of them created as realistic illusion as my Stereo.
> My opinions result from long term ownership of:
>
> Sony TA-E100ESD
> Sony EP9ES
> Yamaha RXV1, DSP-A1
>
>> Have we reached a point where
>> reproduction capability has equaled recording capability?
>> The problem is, going forward with further improvement in reproduction
>> requires some standardization in recording which does not exist.
>
> It would be beneficial, but it is not required. The listening room already
> provides a nonstandard muddle.
But is that an insurmountable obstacle or just a variable that needs to
be addressed?
> Synthesized surround replaces it with something nowhere near perfect, but a
> substantial improvement over adhoc reliance on the acoustics of the listening
> room.
I think it just throws different sound effects into an unknown acoustic
environment. Sometimes they are so unsubtle they overwhelm everything
to create the hall (or whatever) impression but they've never felt realistic to
me.
>
>
>> Systems that work really well on reproduction with some recordings
>> fail with others.
>
> Well, sure, this is true. I doubt my surround processors would enhance JA's
> recordings, because his already incorporate the acoustics of the concert hall
> in a substantial way. But his efforts are untypical. Most orchestras are miked
> no further back than the podium, and augmented with spots. They provide an
> artificially close perspective. Along with studio multitrack productions,
> these are ideal food for synthesized surround.
>
>
>> With no uniformity in recording, reproduction
>> cannot be optimized.
>
> Of course not, but for the majority of recordings, there is substantial room
> [sic] for improvement.
I agree. But I'm talking about the end to end solution optimized for
realism that is adaptable to the variables you mention.
>
>> Same can be said for the room though.
>> Makes me think that a customizable speaker might be the way to go.
>> One which can reconfigure its radiation pattern and FR to accommodate
>> both room and recording. Room correction is only a first step.
>> Speaker adaptability with multiple phase and FR variable drivers
>> may be the next.
>>
>> ScottW
> Good thoughts, phased array is worthy goal, but it takes a lot of hardware.
Yes. But the processing power to utilize it does exist so I don't think there
remain any
fundamental technology obstacles. And some of the hardware aspects that
create expense are getting cheaper such as amplifier channels.
> By contrast, synthesized surround is something anybody with an eBay appetite
> can explore.
or Quadraphonic or CD-4 if that tickles your fancy.
ScottW
Martin Leese
news:XdOdnftXdZ3fHd7V...@giganews.com...
> Funny! I used to be on the sursound mail list, and someone sent me a
free
> Ambisonics demo, a CD encoded in DTS. I set up an uneven rectangle of
> Radio Shack surrounds, and sat in the center. The effect of being in a
> crowd was absolutely uncanny. I had been quite careless in the setup, yet
> it still performed. All of the terrible timbre characteristics of the
> speakers were unnoticed by me, so beholden was I to the illusion.
If anybody is interested in doing this then
there are well over 100 pieces available for
free download at:
http://www.ambisonia.com/
Just download the DTS version, burn it to a
CD, and play it on any DVD player.
--
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail: ple...@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
Soundhaspriority
"Martin Leese" <ple...@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> wrote in message
news:UIo1k.960$Gn.182@edtnps92...
Martin,
I am looking for a method of minimal expense to use the Core Sound
mike. I do not have a conveniently gain-matched preamp; all my equipment use
conventional potentiometers. Any suggestions?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Peter Wieck
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a cross-posted troll. When dealing with the Morein coterie,
the best response is none as whatever response is made will inevitably
pollute other and unrelated groups. For instance, this is showing up
in a tube-oriented group - and neither relevant nor useful.
Peter Wieck
wrote:
> I take it this thread would be banned by your moderator?
Damned straight without a valid tie-in. This thread is a troll, no
more. As to multi-channel audio - it would depend on the distribution
technology. Most systems using digital synthesis work just fine with
tube amplifcation - and that would, for example, be a valid tie-in.
The Morein coterie would like nothing better than to spread its idiocy
back into this group - most here know to avoid the Buzzard, but that
is only one side of the same coin, the head or the tail is as yet
undetermined. But one certainly would be incomplete without the
other.
Peter Wieck
the best response is none as whatever response is made will inevitably
pollute other and unrelated groups. For instance, this is showing up
in a tube-oriented group - and neither relevant nor useful.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Clyde Slick
You 'didn't respond' quite often enough.
Could you 'not respond' one more time
just for me, pretty please.
Martin Leese
> "Martin Leese" <ple...@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:UIo1k.960$Gn.182@edtnps92...
>> "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:XdOdnftXdZ3fHd7V...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> Funny! I used to be on the sursound mail list, and someone sent me a
>> free
>>> Ambisonics demo, a CD encoded in DTS. I set up an uneven rectangle of
>>> Radio Shack surrounds, and sat in the center. The effect of being in a
>>> crowd was absolutely uncanny. I had been quite careless in the setup,
>>> yet
>>> it still performed. All of the terrible timbre characteristics of the
>>> speakers were unnoticed by me, so beholden was I to the illusion.
>> If anybody is interested in doing this then
>> there are well over 100 pieces available for
>> free download at:
>> http://www.ambisonia.com/
>>
>> Just download the DTS version, burn it to a
>> CD, and play it on any DVD player.
> Martin,
> I am looking for a method of minimal expense to use the Core Sound
> mike. I do not have a conveniently gain-matched preamp; all my equipment use
> conventional potentiometers. Any suggestions?
Ask on the "sursound" e-mailing list. This
is where the Ambisonic crowd hangs out.
Visit:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
I am just a domestic listener, so cannot help.
(rec.audio.tubes removed from list of
newsgroups.)