Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Best headphones/speakers for listening tests (Read 9733 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

In various listening tests, the used headphones or speakers are not allways indicated.
But I'm quite sure that some equipment help to reveal artifacts or problems.

So for listenings tests of codecs, high def audio, polarity, distortion, ABX tests, ...
I would like to have your feedback :

- are headphones allways better than speakers for those tests purposes?
- did you get different results with different technologies : dynamic, electrostatic headphones or speakers ?

Did somebody get convincing results such as :
with headphone A, I allways fail the ABX test
but with heaphones B, I generally pass the same test
thanks for your infos.

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #1 –
I wouldn't go out and buy any "fancy" new pirce of gear just for an  audio abx test. Gross artifacts can be heard on pretty cheap pc speakers-try some 24 kbps Live365 streams for example-some of those sound pretty bad on cheap speakers that come free with new computers.
you will make mp3's for compatibility reasons.

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #2 –
There is a reason that speakers intended for studio monitoring are different (and generally somewhat to very expensive). It is because they reveal more about the mix than you can get from HiFi speakers (but only if used under the proper conditions, which means in a properly treated room).

With headphones one can often detect things that are more difficult to hear even on very good speakers, but it is also the case that proper speakers reveal many things that headphones just can't. Headphones are sometimes used while recording but (essentially) never for serious mixing and mastering.

What is your real concern? Why do you want to test? If it is to discover what will sound good to you, you should probably do it under the conditions you will actually be using to listen to the music. Maybe studio conditions would reveal problems you can never be aware of on your DAP (or where ever you listen). Do you really care? To what end?

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #3 –
nvm

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #4 –
The main job of a studio monitor is to convince the client that they sound great and their money is well spent. The second job is to be familiar to most engineers, so most places use one or more of less than about a dozen monitor types. They also need to be really loud and fairly indestructible or easily protected. Most of them do that stuff so well that studios also have some kind of "reference" low fi speaker like the Yamaha NS10 or worse.

Revealing defects is about the last thing they are concerned with, or often the quality control is the job of a junior engineer that checks all the tracks one at a time to make sure there are no mistakes at least technically.

Whats best for ABX?
What ever you like the best is the best, since differences that you could hear on something you don't want to listen to don't really matter too much.

Whats most revealing of differences would depend on what the differences are. In many cases what might be most revealing would be speakers with gross frequency response variations, like a really boosted tweeter level so that high frequency noise was easier to notice. To reveal something you need a speaker that passes the signal (ie if noise is at 3.7 khz, best the speaker not have a dip in response right there), and that has very little masking resonances etc. All in all the most revealing might be perfectly miserable to listen to.

Same for headphones, with just a guess that electrostats might be the most revealing normal speaker.

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #5 –
I like magnetic planars myself.  These devices, very much like electro stats', are quite the champs at providing a transparent reproduction in the critical midrange of recorded audio.  The high-frequency reproduction is also very life-like.  I feel that one has not really heard true cymbal recreation via dynamic transducers until they have heard it via planars or stats'.  The only weakness with both of these units is in the very lowest octaves.  personally, I augment mine with dual 12" stand-alone subs, run very low, subtle to the point of acoustically disappearing.

Andrew D.

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #6 –
Quote from: digital on
I like magnetic planars myself.  These devices, very much like electro stats', are quite the champs at providing a transparent reproduction in the critical midrange of recorded audio.  The high-frequency reproduction is also very life-like.  I feel that one has not really heard true cymbal recreation via dynamic transducers until they have heard it via planars or stats'.  The only weakness with both of these units is in the very lowest octaves.  personally, I augment mine with dual 12" stand-alone subs, run very low, subtle to the point of acoustically disappearing.

Andrew D.


There is no inherent superiority of planars or electrostats compared to modern dynamic transducers. Perhaps 20 years ago they had some superiority due to the complications of producing linear response dynamic drivers[which has not been an issue for quite some time].

-Chris

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #7 –
Quote from: WmAx on
There is no inherent superiority of planars or electrostats compared to modern dynamic transducers. Perhaps 20 years ago they had some superiority due to the complications of producing linear response dynamic drivers[which has not been an issue for quite some time].

Wmax, you may be right : now we have dynamic transducers with distortion figures under -50dB, quite as good as best electrostatics. And unless you use controlled directivity like Quad ESL63 or equivalents, you can have more spatial dispersion problems to solve with planar or statics. For headphones where you don't have real spatial problems, I suppose you can get as good results with both technologies (despite that constant charge electrostatic is not far from an inherently distortion free transducer)

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #8 –
Quote from: jlohl on
Quote from: WmAx on

There is no inherent superiority of planars or electrostats compared to modern dynamic transducers. Perhaps 20 years ago they had some superiority due to the complications of producing linear response dynamic drivers[which has not been an issue for quite some time].

Wmax, you may be right : now we have dynamic transducers with distortion figures under -50dB, quite as good as best electrostatics. And unless you use controlled directive like Quad ESL63 or equivalents, you can have more spatial dispersion problems to solve with planar or statics. For headphones where you don't have real spatial problems, I suppose you can get as good results with both technologies (despite that constant charge electrostatic is not far from an inherently distortion free transducer)


Non-linear distortion is probably not such a big factor(as the ear is relativley insensitive to harmonic distortion spectrum of a typical transducer until it reaches extreme levels) unless one is trying to use a driver at strained mechanical limits(like an open baffle system, or simply using a driver near it's limits period, for example), the main ones are off axis response(that you mentioned) and linear distortion of the transducer and cabinet panel properties that lead to resonance(s). The Quad units with co-eccentric ring portioned sections partially solve the off axis issue, but not to a very satisfactory degree, certainly not comparable to what can be achieved with a direct radiator dynamic driver, as 3rd party off axis measurements have demonstrated. An acoustic lens(as used by Beveridge ESLs) can solve this problem, but leads to large increase in cost(s) due to the raw cost of the lens and the requirement for greater amplifier power and more capable transducers to compensate for the loss of sensitivity caused by such a lens system.

-Chris

Best headphones/speakers for listening tests

Reply #9 –
Quote
An acoustic lens(as used by Beveridge ESLs) can solve this problem

I remember that the Beveridge was a very interesting and impressive speaker but
- about the lens : if the covering is really constant (constant DI),plus the fact that it behaves like a line source if you are not too far, it's surely a remarquable speaker. The drawback is maybe that a 180° horizontal coverage doesn't minimize the direct/indirect sound ratio.
- it used conductive (aluminium ?) mylar so was not a constant charge electrostat, that means that it couldn't have the best distortion performances (I guess because I have never seen the measurements).