How do you hear headphone 'soundstage'

[DVDdoug]

I'm surprised at the results!!! From what all of the stuff I read about "soundstage" I was assuming that more people were getting a good soundstage illusion. (I posted earlier... I perceive the "stage" near my forehead.)

And something I've said sometime-somewhere before, "To me, headphones sound like headphones".



...I did forget that I was listening to headphones once. I wasn't listening carefully or critically... I think I was watching TV or a movie or something. They were open-back so I could hear environmental sounds and I don't think forgot I was wearing them, but for some reason I thought, for a moment, that I was hearing the sound from my speakers.

 

[solderdude]

Re: 3D Magic eye..

There are tricks for how to learn to see it. Google is filled with them. Chances are one of the methods works.
I simply 'stare' blank in the distance while focussing the image.
At some time I see the image 'bubble' a bit. Sometimes it goes away (instantly) but if you let it happen something seems to come out of it. At one time it 'snaps' into focus and you can look at the object (basically made out of the background you are looking at).

Some use the finger method or use the dots on top of the picture.

Of course the audio illusion is something different but in the end both is 'stereo' input (2 ears vs 2 eyes) that can provide info for the brain to do something with it.

 

[pseudoid]

Google '3D Magic eye' if you have no idea what I am talking about. It was all the rage about 20 years ago.

I think '3D MagicEye" is same as what I had learned to call "stereograms" and I posted some factoids about them here.

 

[JanesJr1]

This poll is born out of a 'soundstage / imaging' discussion.
I am just curious how people hear headphone 'soundstage'.

Note this is with 'normal' recordings so NO binaural recordings and without any processing/plug-ins like crossfeed, stereo enhancers and 3D emulators.
Just a plain headphone...

And yes ... some are wider than others but its the placement I wonder about.

Sound image between the ears, somewhat in front, above, after the head etc.

When this is headphone dependent for you please note which headphone does that for you.

I get a moderate but satisfying soundstage impression from DCA Aeon 2 Noire. Dan Clark describes his changes to this headphone to provide a larger soundstage, which include a more "U-shaped" FR curve and frontal perforations on the earpads (presumably to add some directionality.)

I wanted to test Dan's claims. I did a lot of level-matched, EQ-matched, bi-directional A/B comparisons between the Noire and the Aeon RT/Closed X, which I find provides much less of a soundstage impression than the Noire. I also compared different EQ's in A/B fashion. I found I could validate Dan Clark's explanation that a less mids-focused FR would be more likely to lead to a feeling of being set back from the instruments and in the audience, albeit with a more recessed sound for the mids. This effect was not dramatic, but for me very pleasant, as I am sensitive to the "ear-to-ear", in-the-head image and dislike it. The effect was more dramatic when the recording used a simple mike setup and there was depth to the recording venue, so that additional spatial cues like delay, reverb, tonal changes, etc. could enhance the imaging. Maybe the directional cues from frontal earpad perforations also help.

I am aware that soundstage and imaging are mostly synthesized psychoacoustic constructs. Yet when I did hours of A/B comparisons either switching between headphones and IEM's, or toggling between alternate EQ's for the Noire with respectively more or less mids-emphasis, I consistently found that a U-shaped FR was more satisfying, often immediately, with respect to how a realistic soundstage would unfold and how much realism it added. Again, usually not spectacular, but gratifying in providing a sense of fidelity to a live performance. That is true for me even though I recognize that for some material, a mids-focus can be more energetic and dramatic at first listen. The U-shaped FR works particularly well when there are multiple performers (like an orchestra) ... the U-shaped FR brings in more tonal balance among instruments (as you would get sitting in the audience), and in some cases brings forward reflections or resonances (particularly in the bass) that contribute to ambience. The tonal balance is just more convincing, and I notice the effect mostly when it is absent.

Is this just a case of getting a FR that common-sensically provides a better simulation of a live performance, and thus supports a realistic illusion of being in the audience? If so, then that's ok with me, because whatever it is, it combines with other spatial cues, especially in well-recorded selections, to get things "out of my head" and sounding more realistic. MY MAIN PROBLEM is that a straight-line soundstage from ear-to-ear sounds very artificial to me! A lot of people don't seem to notice it, but to me it is anti-fidelity.

In another thread, respondents steered me to the PRTF function (pinna transfer function) that RTings uses to evaluate headphone imaging. It also connects soundstage to the overall frequency curve for the headphones. I am completely unsure if that applies here in a related way, because Rtings doesn't have any of its graphic analyses of this variable for DCA headphones, and I don't have enough experience with PRTF to see how it overlaps; that said, some of Rtings examples in their explanation of PRTF measurements do show the overall level of the mids as a significant factor in headphone efficacy in creating a good soundstage. PRTF can vary from individual to individual ... just like the comments in this thread!

 

[pseudoid]

I am aware that soundstage and imaging are mostly synthesized psychoacoustic constructs... realistic soundstage would unfold and how much realism it added.

I wasn't!
By that description, almost everything becomes a psycho- construct: From all our senses, to time, to dimensions, are they NOT constructs.... are they also not all synthesized? So, if "soundstage" is a synthesized realistic construct [?] can we, then, be able infer that no matter what the source of the music is (IEM, over-the-ear, monitors, floor standers and/or subs), we could "pretend' that they all can sound the same?

 

[Robbo99999]

I tried both. now I must say that here are two recuring topics overlapping. like in topics where I say that to hear the ambience in the recording in a dead room, I say the same here: you do need a little imagination. the image helps, but even without it you can create that room in your head. this happens automaticly if you are used to a dry room.

it's like a 3d cube on paper. you can see it in 3d, but you can force yourself to see it in 2d, too

...I did forget that I was listening to headphones once. I wasn't listening carefully or critically... I think I was watching TV or a movie or something. They were open-back so I could hear environmental sounds and I don't think forgot I was wearing them, but for some reason I thought, for a moment, that I was hearing the sound from my speakers.

Yep, auditory perception seems very flexible, and the context that is given by any other perceptual or imaginary input can change your perception of what you're hearing, it happened with you when you were watching that movie with your headphones. For me when I used to watch movies with headphones on it felt completely natural and I completely forgot about the headphones, it actually felt more real than speakers in terms of "being there in the movie" - one reason for that being that the content I was watching was on a laptop very close to me, so the screen filled up more of my field of vision, so you're more likely to completely get immersed in the film as "your new reality", and the audio tags along for the ride. That's what I think.

 

[Robbo99999]

I get a moderate but satisfying soundstage impression from DCA Aeon 2 Noire. Dan Clark describes his changes to this headphone to provide a larger soundstage, which include a more "U-shaped" FR curve and frontal perforations on the earpads (presumably to add some directionality.)

I wanted to test Dan's claims. I did a lot of level-matched, EQ-matched, bi-directional A/B comparisons between the Noire and the Aeon RT/Closed X, which I find provides much less of a soundstage impression than the Noire. I also compared different EQ's in A/B fashion. I found I could validate Dan Clark's explanation that a less mids-focused FR would be more likely to lead to a feeling of being set back from the instruments and in the audience, albeit with a more recessed sound for the mids. This effect was not dramatic, but for me very pleasant, as I am sensitive to the "ear-to-ear", in-the-head image and dislike it. The effect was more dramatic when the recording used a simple mike setup and there was depth to the recording venue, so that additional spatial cues like delay, reverb, tonal changes, etc. could enhance the imaging. Maybe the directional cues from frontal earpad perforations also help.

I am aware that soundstage and imaging are mostly synthesized psychoacoustic constructs. Yet when I did hours of A/B comparisons either switching between headphones and IEM's, or toggling between alternate EQ's for the Noire with respectively more or less mids-emphasis, I consistently found that a U-shaped FR was more satisfying, often immediately, with respect to how a realistic soundstage would unfold and how much realism it added. Again, usually not spectacular, but gratifying in providing a sense of fidelity to a live performance. That is true for me even though I recognize that for some material, a mids-focus can be more energetic and dramatic at first listen. The U-shaped FR works particularly well when there are multiple performers (like an orchestra) ... the U-shaped FR brings in more tonal balance among instruments (as you would get sitting in the audience), and in some cases brings forward reflections or resonances (particularly in the bass) that contribute to ambience. The tonal balance is just more convincing, and I notice the effect mostly when it is absent.

Is this just a case of getting a FR that common-sensically provides a better simulation of a live performance, and thus supports a realistic illusion of being in the audience? If so, then that's ok with me, because whatever it is, it combines with other spatial cues, especially in well-recorded selections, to get things "out of my head" and sounding more realistic. MY MAIN PROBLEM is that a straight-line soundstage from ear-to-ear sounds very artificial to me! A lot of people don't seem to notice it, but to me it is anti-fidelity.

In another thread, respondents steered me to the PRTF function (pinna transfer function) that RTings uses to evaluate headphone imaging. It also connects soundstage to the overall frequency curve for the headphones. I am completely unsure if that applies here in a related way, because Rtings doesn't have any of its graphic analyses of this variable for DCA headphones, and I don't have enough experience with PRTF to see how it overlaps; that said, some of Rtings examples in their explanation of PRTF measurements do show the overall level of the mids as a significant factor in headphone efficacy in creating a good soundstage. PRTF can vary from individual to individual ... just like the comments in this thread!

I think we need all the help we can get to enable us to experience a more holographic experience in headphones, and I too have noticed a similar effect re frequency response that you mention, but to me the Harman Curve is able to do this enough, the Harman 2018 Curve is slightly V-shaped vs the Harman 2013 Curve, with the latter being a more accurate interpretation of Harman Curve Speakers in a room in terms of measurements.....I do generally prefer the Harman 2018 Curve. It also comes down to the hardware though, the headphone in use, some have better soundstage than others regardless of what EQ you use.

 

[Axo1989]

I don't care where the cowbell is, it's still jazz.

Jazz. Pffft.

Ok I mostly experience headphone stereo image in a line between the ears, sometimes a little wider if the mix uses appropriate effects. That also means a bit behind the centre of my head.

But it does vary with different headphones. With AirPods Max (spatial audio off, obviously) and Senny HD650, it's pretty much the straight line from ear to ear. With Sony Z1R the overall image is noticeably bigger and some of it moves forward, presenting between my eyes, nose and my chin. Interesting. No wonder I enjoyed those headphones (compared to the Sennys) when I got them.

Edit: I assume we all have different pinna transfer function. Cranking up the Sennys embiggens their stereo image somewhat. Probably should level-match to compare. Tried some vintage Massive Attack because @Robbo99999 reckons it's the sh*t. Driving both wired 'phones from a Mojo btw ... because we all know 'stage is DAC-dependant

 

[solderdude]

The U-shaped FR works particularly well when there are multiple performers (like an orchestra) ... the U-shaped FR brings in more tonal balance among instruments (as you would get sitting in the audience), and in some cases brings forward reflections or resonances (particularly in the bass) that contribute to ambience. The tonal balance is just more convincing, and I notice the effect mostly when it is absent.

Yet... the Stealth and Expanse are not U-shaped at all and are supposed to have better stereo imaging.

the PRTF function (pinna transfer function) that RTings

I had contact with SamV when he was developing that. He had the HD800S and Edition X that he found to have good spatial qualities compared to some other headphones he had at that moment to test.
AFAIK he averaged the PRTF (the difference between a pinna and no pinna on his fixture) of those headphones and used that as a target assuming a headphone that comes close to it must have good spatial properties and then good score that aspect.

Personally I have not seen any good relation between other headphones with good spatial qualities and the PRTF measurement so disregard it.
The idea was that a dip at 10kHz at his fixture would be the biggest reason for this. A similar dip is observed in Amirs measurements of all headphones and is phase nulling caused by the pinna.

If it were indeed that aspect then peaking or lowering the 10kHz at that specific bandwidth would induce better stereo imaging with any headphone and would ruin the headstage of headphones that have good headstage.
The interesting part is that it does not happen to me, but I seem not to be able to get my brain to do this. BUT when I lower the peak at 10kHz in the HD800S, which it actually has but is 'obscured' by the fake pinna as it nulls there, the stereo imaging does seem to get less and 'sharpness' of the stereo image is lowered a bit.

So it seems 'something' is there. Unfortunately the 10kHz range (a peak there) also gives 'sharpness' to instruments that have such content when there is too much of it or when it is too wide in BW.

Also the HD820 (not universally loved because of its weird FR when one has perfect seal) has a narrow peak at 10kHz and this headphone, to me, also had good imaging and a wide stereo image.

Of course on HATS measurements this is nulled out so you can't see it.

So there seems to be something there BUT your brain has to do something with that. It seems that for the majority of people it does not. Only very few people report 3D effects and if they do it is recording dependent. Perhaps some trickery (phase, reverb, hall or other plugin) is used in those recordings.

As I don't do IEMS it might be interesting for people to experiment with a sharp notch filter (move it around between 8kHz and 12kHz ?) or peak filter in an IEM as it bypasses the pinna. This then should affect the imaging/spatial qualities IF it really is a peak or dip that is responsible for it. Personally I would assume it may only be a small part of the story.

To me it remains a mystery and as I cannot seem to get the same depth I can hear with good speakers (my brain can easily do that) with headphones I am not the right person to look into that closer either.

Interesting subject.... perception.

 

[odyo]

Yet... the Stealth and Expanse are not U-shaped at all and are supposed to have better stereo imaging.



I had contact with SamV when he was developing that. He had the HD800S and Edition X that he found to have good spatial qualities compared to some other headphones he had at that moment to test.
AFAIK he averaged the PRTF (the difference between a pinna and no pinna on his fixture) of those headphones and used that as a target assuming a headphone that comes close to it must have good spatial properties and then good score that aspect.

Personally I have not seen any good relation between other headphones with good spatial qualities and the PRTF measurement so disregard it.
The idea was that a dip at 10kHz at his fixture would be the biggest reason for this. A similar dip is observed in Amirs measurements of all headphones and is phase nulling caused by the pinna.

If it were indeed that aspect then peaking or lowering the 10kHz at that specific bandwidth would induce better stereo imaging with any headphone and would ruin the headstage of headphones that have good headstage.
The interesting part is that it does not happen to me, but I seem not to be able to get my brain to do this. BUT when I lower the peak at 10kHz in the HD800S, which it actually has but is 'obscured' by the fake pinna as it nulls there, the stereo imaging does seem to get less and 'sharpness' of the stereo image is lowered a bit.

So it seems 'something' is there. Unfortunately the 10kHz range (a peak there) also gives 'sharpness' to instruments that have such content when there is too much of it or when it is too wide in BW.

Also the HD820 (not universally loved because of its weird FR when one has perfect seal) has a narrow peak at 10kHz and this headphone, to me, also had good imaging and a wide stereo image.

Of course on HATS measurements this is nulled out so you can't see it.

So there seems to be something there BUT your brain has to do something with that. It seems that for the majority of people it does not. Only very few people report 3D effects and if they do it is recording dependent. Perhaps some trickery (phase, reverb, hall or other plugin) is used in those recordings.

As I don't do IEMS it might be interesting for people to experiment with a sharp notch filter (move it around between 8kHz and 12kHz ?) or peak filter in an IEM as it bypasses the pinna. This then should affect the imaging/spatial qualities IF it really is a peak or dip that is responsible for it. Personally I would assume it may only be a small part of the story.

To me it remains a mystery and as I cannot seem to get the same depth I can hear with good speakers (my brain can easily do that) with headphones I am not the right person to look into that closer either.

Interesting subject.... perception.

Interesting. I tried -30db Q30 at 8k to 12k and yes it affects the soundstage. Most notable at 8k. If it's a music with a prominent treble, things shift from center in front to the sides. I hear more distinct stereo.

Now i think about it, it makes sense. When there is a high pitch noise in the real world, moving my head can make this noise either too loud or completely silent. It hits different parts of my pinna i guess.

I also tried tone generator playing 8khz but the headphones on my desk(not on my head) and then i turned my head right and left. It's very confusing doing this because during my head movement i can't hear the noise like there are blind spots and when i hear the noise, the direction of it very confusing. Can anyone try this ?

 

[solderdude]

The HD800 and HD820 have a +10dB peak in that area though.
What happens if you do not cut -30dB but add +10dB with headphones that do not have a peak there (say HD6*0) ?

 

[posvibes]

I generally have great success with soundstage, but never, ever in front of me. The HD650's sound like they replace my entire head as if my head is a speaker. What I like most about headphones is locating, counting and being astounded at how many instruments and voices Dr.John got on "Gris Gris Gumbo Ya Ya" cleanly,

 

[JanesJr1]

Yet... the Stealth and Expanse are not U-shaped at all and are supposed to have better stereo imaging.



I had contact with SamV when he was developing that. He had the HD800S and Edition X that he found to have good spatial qualities compared to some other headphones he had at that moment to test.
AFAIK he averaged the PRTF (the difference between a pinna and no pinna on his fixture) of those headphones and used that as a target assuming a headphone that comes close to it must have good spatial properties and then good score that aspect.

Personally I have not seen any good relation between other headphones with good spatial qualities and the PRTF measurement so disregard it.
The idea was that a dip at 10kHz at his fixture would be the biggest reason for this. A similar dip is observed in Amirs measurements of all headphones and is phase nulling caused by the pinna.

If it were indeed that aspect then peaking or lowering the 10kHz at that specific bandwidth would induce better stereo imaging with any headphone and would ruin the headstage of headphones that have good headstage.
The interesting part is that it does not happen to me, but I seem not to be able to get my brain to do this. BUT when I lower the peak at 10kHz in the HD800S, which it actually has but is 'obscured' by the fake pinna as it nulls there, the stereo imaging does seem to get less and 'sharpness' of the stereo image is lowered a bit.

So it seems 'something' is there. Unfortunately the 10kHz range (a peak there) also gives 'sharpness' to instruments that have such content when there is too much of it or when it is too wide in BW.

Also the HD820 (not universally loved because of its weird FR when one has perfect seal) has a narrow peak at 10kHz and this headphone, to me, also had good imaging and a wide stereo image.

Of course on HATS measurements this is nulled out so you can't see it.

So there seems to be something there BUT your brain has to do something with that. It seems that for the majority of people it does not. Only very few people report 3D effects and if they do it is recording dependent. Perhaps some trickery (phase, reverb, hall or other plugin) is used in those recordings.

As I don't do IEMS it might be interesting for people to experiment with a sharp notch filter (move it around between 8kHz and 12kHz ?) or peak filter in an IEM as it bypasses the pinna. This then should affect the imaging/spatial qualities IF it really is a peak or dip that is responsible for it. Personally I would assume it may only be a small part of the story.

To me it remains a mystery and as I cannot seem to get the same depth I can hear with good speakers (my brain can easily do that) with headphones I am not the right person to look into that closer eithe

Interesting subject.... perception.

As to the Stealth Expanse lack of a U-shaped FR. I have read, and (frustratingly) don't recall exactly where, Dan's comment that the Stealth/Expanse tech somehow enhances soundstage by a different mechanism, so that he didn't need to use recessed mids. [EDIT: see further response #86 below.]

Further, my findings only relate to me and the older Noire, but they are not what I expected. For the Noire, Dan seemed to be proposing a purely subjective benefit to perceived soundstage from the recessed mids, not a phasing or directional or whatever mechanism, and I was somewhat receptive to the idea but thought the effect would be a lot less. (I'm leaving out the frontal earpad perforations, which are a different thing.) What I'm talking about may be more simplistic, but seems to be more effective than I imagined it would be, something like: if the sound image (both FR and any other spatial cues) resembles sitting out in the audience, the brain will interject a perceptual soundstage, a perception of physical distance. (Perhaps by contrast, a strong mids focus brings out voices and key instruments that make it sound like you're up on stage, and the brain infers little or no physical distance?)

That IS simplistic, but is consistent with so much other research about how the brain fits limited sensory data into mental "models" of reality and infers many other attributes of the immediate social or physical context based on those models and prior experience. We use limited cues to filter our perceptions into conformity with our pre-conceptions. We grab at familiar patterns and make inferences more than other thinking species, but this allows us to think more predictively than those other species. This auditory phenomenon may just be a small example of the same thing.

Anyways, it happens much more systematically for me than I expected, but it resembles exactly what Dan originally proposed. What can I say: maybe I'm an easy audiophile date for a good FR curve.

I will see if I can dig up that commentary by Dan about soundstage on the Stealth/Expanse.

Thanks for the PRTF insight! I wasn't exactly sure what to make of it.

 

[odyo]

The HD800 and HD820 have a +10dB peak in that area though.
What happens if you do not cut -30dB but add +10dB with headphones that do not have a peak there (say HD6*0) ?

I tried it. The headphone is Arya SE. +10db here made a more subtle difference than -30db. It overall sounded just brighter and a bit more in front and distant(like echo forward). I like the effect of -30db. It's like treble shifting from my eyebrow to the sides of my neck.

 

[JanesJr1]

I think we need all the help we can get to enable us to experience a more holographic experience in headphones, and I too have noticed a similar effect re frequency response that you mention, but to me the Harman Curve is able to do this enough, the Harman 2018 Curve is slightly V-shaped vs the Harman 2013 Curve, with the latter being a more accurate interpretation of Harman Curve Speakers in a room in terms of measurements.....I do generally prefer the Harman 2018 Curve. It also comes down to the hardware though, the headphone in use, some have better soundstage than others regardless of what EQ you use.

I agree. I sort of had the feeling that the thread has focused mostly on acoustic/physical influences that modify the source signal on the way to the eardrum. I was trying to suggest that simple fidelity of the sound image to the physical staging of the original recording (FR plus any secondary spatial cues in the recording) seems also to cue a perception of physical space.

 

[JanesJr1]

I wasn't!
By that description, almost everything becomes a psycho- construct: From all our senses, to time, to dimensions, are they NOT constructs.... are they also not all synthesized? So, if "soundstage" is a synthesized realistic construct [?] can we, then, be able infer that no matter what the source of the music is (IEM, over-the-ear, monitors, floor standers and/or subs), we could "pretend' that they all can sound the same?

On the one hand, lots of brain research says that we do take limited sensory cues and fit them into preconceived models of reality ... we project a lot of detail into our perceptions that is ultimately only inference. We do that more than other thinking species but that's what enables us to be more predictive. (There's lots of brain research on this, and even Temple Grandin explains it well in describing what it is like to be autistic, and how she re-shaped the meat processing industry using those insights about the differences in perception between people and animals.) It's plausible to imagine that we project a perception of distance into a piece of music if it resembles a live performance in terms of FR and any other spatial cues in the recording. I DONT think our mental images are arbitrary, but that we may look for certain cues to confirm that the signal resembles our prior experience with spatial reality... When I perceive a soundstage with a recording it HAS to be a construct, since the transducer is on my ear, not a few feet in front of me. But it works only because the signal sufficiently resembles my prior experiences with live performance.

On the other hand, you ask a really good question, particularly why, say, IEM's don't create much impression of a soundstage. I'm not sure and would like to know. I suppose a PRTF advocate would say that a 90-degree signal straight into the eardrum cannot sufficiently resemble a frontal signal shaded by the pinna, and maybe there's truth to that. Over-ear headphones aren't great at soundstage for the most part, but they can have pinna effects and sometimes directional cues that seem to help. A FR consistent with sitting in the audience (i.e. U-shaped FR with tonal balance among the instruments) helps me create a soundstage in my head with headphones, but it doesn't seem to be sufficient to create a soundstage with an IEM is aiming into my eardrum.. I know that spatial cues in a simply-miked recording enable me to infer a deeper soundstage. It seems to be a dog's breakfast of potential cues, and at least two or three of them seem to need to point in the same direction to create a perception of soundstage. There's a lot of perceptual inference involved, but it ultimately depends on plausible fidelity to live performance.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yet... the Stealth and Expanse are not U-shaped at all and are supposed to have better stereo imaging.



I had contact with SamV when he was developing that. He had the HD800S and Edition X that he found to have good spatial qualities compared to some other headphones he had at that moment to test.
AFAIK he averaged the PRTF (the difference between a pinna and no pinna on his fixture) of those headphones and used that as a target assuming a headphone that comes close to it must have good spatial properties and then good score that aspect.

Personally I have not seen any good relation between other headphones with good spatial qualities and the PRTF measurement so disregard it.
The idea was that a dip at 10kHz at his fixture would be the biggest reason for this. A similar dip is observed in Amirs measurements of all headphones and is phase nulling caused by the pinna.

If it were indeed that aspect then peaking or lowering the 10kHz at that specific bandwidth would induce better stereo imaging with any headphone and would ruin the headstage of headphones that have good headstage.
The interesting part is that it does not happen to me, but I seem not to be able to get my brain to do this. BUT when I lower the peak at 10kHz in the HD800S, which it actually has but is 'obscured' by the fake pinna as it nulls there, the stereo imaging does seem to get less and 'sharpness' of the stereo image is lowered a bit.

So it seems 'something' is there. Unfortunately the 10kHz range (a peak there) also gives 'sharpness' to instruments that have such content when there is too much of it or when it is too wide in BW.

Also the HD820 (not universally loved because of its weird FR when one has perfect seal) has a narrow peak at 10kHz and this headphone, to me, also had good imaging and a wide stereo image.

Of course on HATS measurements this is nulled out so you can't see it.

So there seems to be something there BUT your brain has to do something with that. It seems that for the majority of people it does not. Only very few people report 3D effects and if they do it is recording dependent. Perhaps some trickery (phase, reverb, hall or other plugin) is used in those recordings.

As I don't do IEMS it might be interesting for people to experiment with a sharp notch filter (move it around between 8kHz and 12kHz ?) or peak filter in an IEM as it bypasses the pinna. This then should affect the imaging/spatial qualities IF it really is a peak or dip that is responsible for it. Personally I would assume it may only be a small part of the story.

To me it remains a mystery and as I cannot seem to get the same depth I can hear with good speakers (my brain can easily do that) with headphones I am not the right person to look into that closer either.

Interesting subject.... perception.

Just to respond to the bit I bolded in your post, I don't think you should ever be expecting headphones to sound like speakers as a possibility unless you've gone down the Smyth Realizer or Impulcifier Project route - I mean I don't think anyone can really believe their headphones sound the same as speakers in terms of the soundstage unless they've gone down that route. That's not to say it's unrealistic to have some depth & width in the soundstage of headphones where it can feel somewhat "out of your head" or an occasional effect sounding like it's going behind your head as it pans around in a track. I don't think there will be many people that will say that headphones are the same as speakers in terms of the spatial soundstage. So I don't think you should think that you're unusual in that respect.

 

[Robbo99999]

On the one hand, lots of brain research says that we do take limited sensory cues and fit them into preconceived models of reality ... we project a lot of detail into our perceptions that is ultimately only inference. We do that more than other thinking species but that's what enables us to be more predictive. (There's lots of brain research on this, and even Temple Grandin explains it well in describing what it is like to be autistic, and how she re-shaped the meat processing industry using those insights about the differences in perception between people and animals.) It's plausible to imagine that we project a perception of distance into a piece of music if it resembles a live performance in terms of FR and any other spatial cues in the recording. I DONT think our mental images are arbitrary, but that we may look for certain cues to confirm that the signal resembles our prior experience with spatial reality... When I perceive a soundstage with a recording it HAS to be a construct, since the transducer is on my ear, not a few feet in front of me. But it works only because the signal sufficiently resembles my prior experiences with live performance.

On the other hand, you ask a really good question, particularly why, say, IEM's don't create much impression of a soundstage. I'm not sure and would like to know. I suppose a PRTF advocate would say that a 90-degree signal straight into the eardrum cannot sufficiently resemble a frontal signal shaded by the pinna, and maybe there's truth to that. Over-ear headphones aren't great at soundstage for the most part, but they can have pinna effects and sometimes directional cues that seem to help. A FR consistent with sitting in the audience (i.e. U-shaped FR with tonal balance among the instruments) helps me create a soundstage in my head with headphones, but it doesn't seem to be sufficient to create a soundstage with an IEM is aiming into my eardrum.. I know that spatial cues in a simply-miked recording enable me to infer a deeper soundstage. It seems to be a dog's breakfast of potential cues, and at least two or three of them seem to need to point in the same direction to create a perception of soundstage. There's a lot of perceptual inference involved, but it ultimately depends on plausible fidelity to live performance.

I reckon I agree with your first paragraph there, but for the bit I bolded in your post I don't think has to be a total total construct, as in I think slightly angled drivers or pads could help provide a few more cues as a portion of your HRTF is injected into the stream that you receive at the eardrum. I mean that goes along with the idea that some designs of headphone have better soundstage than others once you've tried to account for measured frequency response on a dummy head (although I'm aware of the limitations of unit to unit variation throwing a spanner in the works if you're trying to match frequency responses, not to mention the more unpredictable shenanigans above and around 10kHz that you don't really have reliable visibility on from measurements). So I do agree with your first paragraph there, but regarding the bit I bolded in your post - I think it is a construct like you say, but not a total one, there are still cues that are happening & coming from the headphone's characteristic physical design (the soundstage potential of that headphone model).

 

[solderdude]

So I don't think you should think that you're unusual in that respect.

I never thought I was nor do I believe this is possible.
Also I suppose Smyth etc. is just an approximation of 3D image but have never heard it and may never either but it would be fun to try one day.
So far none of the trickery I tried ever did something amazing for me.

It seems, however, that some people do get a 3D feel. To me the question is raised whether or not it is caused by lots of hall/reverb or some other aspects.

 

[Robbo99999]

I never thought I was nor do I believe this is possible.
Also I suppose Smyth etc. is just an approximation of 3D image but have never heard it and may never either but it would be fun to try one day.
So far none of the trickery I tried ever did something amazing for me.

It seems, however, that some people do get a 3D feel. To me the question is raised whether or not it is caused by lots of hall/reverb or some other aspects.

I think the variation between people comes from what headphone they have (as I do think this plays a part in determining max soundstage potential), what EQ they use, the tracks they listen to, but largely what kind of "acoustic/visual imagination" (my own made up term I guess) they have, combined with how much they use headphones (and for what purpose) with the last point being akin to "brain training".

EDIT: you mention the 3D trickery software: I will say that Creative Soundblaster Virtual 7.1 Surround Sound works really well for me in gaming with distinct out of head in front, and behind & to the sides (essentially almost feeling like "real life" with somewhat less reliability of exact pinpointing of sound sources, and especially when lots of conflicting noise going on at once) - so I think software DSP (even if it is generic, probably using a generic HRTF) can work very well for some people, especially when "trained" through use in a 3D Virtual World (gaming environment). So I'm quite confident that the more exact & personalised Virtual Surround DSP of Symth Realizer and Impulcifier Project would work for me - but I've never tried it, and as to whether I would like the experience even if I'm confident it would work, I don't know if I'd like the experience, I probably would like it though. (It would be interesting to know or experience if any "absolute audio fidelity" is lost in the process of Smyth Realizer & Impulcifier, in terms of subjective audio quality beyond the pure spatial side of it.)