The recording you posted may have been mixed with Neumann or Genelec monitors. So, why not go with Neumann or Genelec monitors?
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Is my preferred genre incompatible with hifi speakers?
- Thread starter Zenheiser
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2025
- Messages
- 245
- Likes
- 343
Because there is no correlation between the speakers used during the mix in a studio environment and the end result in any given user's room. And it's only a "may have been" anyway.
I like a lot of music, from Classical to Metal, and I feel that well recorded metal takes a pretty good speaker to sound as it should. Dynamics are also required, and some are rather stark like the snare hit and blast beats from the kick. That said, the Archspire grinding vocal style is not my cup of tea being I can't discern the lyrics. It still will require a low HD speaker to render the sonics better than an absolute mess.
When I designed a certain 3way pair in my repertoire back around 2010 (and the mid now being NLA), I tried to do the best I could to render metal as well as possible. I used a 2" dome mid and a planar tweeter, and an 8" woofer that would meet the midrange as cleanly as possible and also dredge the depths. The result was a lower sensitivity 3way system, but power on tap overcomes that. They still perform well, and sound great- on everything.
I know you can find the right speaker for your needs in either the prosound or hifi direction, or- build a pair that is well performing. They are out there.
When I designed a certain 3way pair in my repertoire back around 2010 (and the mid now being NLA), I tried to do the best I could to render metal as well as possible. I used a 2" dome mid and a planar tweeter, and an 8" woofer that would meet the midrange as cleanly as possible and also dredge the depths. The result was a lower sensitivity 3way system, but power on tap overcomes that. They still perform well, and sound great- on everything.
I know you can find the right speaker for your needs in either the prosound or hifi direction, or- build a pair that is well performing. They are out there.
- Thread Starter
- #24
First of all I would like to thank all of your for your time and dedication. I am really overwhelmed by the effort all of you spent to 1. explain what I perceive and 2. how to deal with it. I was a bit reluctant to start this thread tbh and I did not expect this many detailed constructive and profound replies. Thank you very much!
What I understand is:
- room
- modes/reflections
- the genre I am listening to is a bit more demanding to a speaker in some areas
- Hifi-speakers can have a colouring that does not suit the kind of music I am listening to, but one cannot generalize this, in terms of "technical metal can never be fully enjoyed on hifi speakers".
- the sub I listened to was probably not perfectly adjusted to the rest of the equipment
- there is nothing speaking against using studio monitors in my living room if I prefer their sound
I was not inactive over the last two days, studying a lot of threads in this forum regarding the topics mentioned above and doing "field studies", i.e. I went to the pro shop again and also to another Hifi shop in my home town.
At the pro shop I listened to the same speakers again, but brought some additional WAV-files with me, to also check different genres and add some electronic music into the mix:
-
-
-
-
-
I listened to them on the Genelec 8040, KH 120 II (yes, it is the II, not the A, the old modell was just on the printed speaker list) and the Adam A7V
I noticed something very interesting:
With electronic music, it was really, really hard for me to distinguish between the Genelec and the Neumann. There were nuances, but I could not really memorize them, both speakers sounded equally well. If you had asked me to chose between them on the spot, I would have flipped a coin. The Adams, however, are way more fun than the Neumann, and the Genelec, but in a way that sounds like pressing the loudness button on my Yamaha Amp back in the 90s. While they have more "attack" and sound like having enjoyed just a tiny bit of steroids, they do not seem to be as neutral as the other speakers. I still do not know if I like it, or if I am somehow tricked by some sort of make up.
For metal this was completely different. The Neumanns were much cleaner, brighter and thus, sounded faster. The sound of the Genelec was..."rounder" but somehow more also a bit muffled. I checked for the little switches on the backs, but on both speakers everything was in a neutral position. I could clearly tell without looking which speaker was the Neumann and which the Genelec. Looking at the speaker measurements, I cannot really explain this, and, as I said, I could not really tell this big of a difference for electronic music, e.g. the track by Zedd.
At the Hifi-Shop I was first just lurking around but then had the guts to speak to one of the employees and just told him, what I told you. Lucky shot: "Yeah, I have the KH 120 at home, I am a professional audio engineer for 15 years now and I get what you are saying." I spent some time at the shop listening to various speakers on the shelf (not yet in the listening room). First, he played some Dali Bookshelf speakers with various price tags for me: sorry, no offense, I found all of them...really, really meh.
Then he presented the Radiant Acoustics Clarity 6.2 to me. He definitely got me with them. Even in the huge, non-optimized show room, they were noticably different than anything else they had on the shelf, and anything I had listened to before from the Hifi segment (not that much yet, but I slowly start to get a feeling for things). He was super helpful and I will have a listening session with them next week in the test room.
Then this thread got me into the rabbit hole of room optimization. I found out that my living room is rather sub optimal: hard wood floor, Exactly 5x5 meters square layout. Hooray - but I will address this issue after the listening session with the Radiants next week!
Have a great Sunday, everyone!
What I understand is:
- room
- modes/reflections
- the genre I am listening to is a bit more demanding to a speaker in some areas
- Hifi-speakers can have a colouring that does not suit the kind of music I am listening to, but one cannot generalize this, in terms of "technical metal can never be fully enjoyed on hifi speakers".
- the sub I listened to was probably not perfectly adjusted to the rest of the equipment
- there is nothing speaking against using studio monitors in my living room if I prefer their sound
I was not inactive over the last two days, studying a lot of threads in this forum regarding the topics mentioned above and doing "field studies", i.e. I went to the pro shop again and also to another Hifi shop in my home town.
At the pro shop I listened to the same speakers again, but brought some additional WAV-files with me, to also check different genres and add some electronic music into the mix:
-
I listened to them on the Genelec 8040, KH 120 II (yes, it is the II, not the A, the old modell was just on the printed speaker list) and the Adam A7V
I noticed something very interesting:
With electronic music, it was really, really hard for me to distinguish between the Genelec and the Neumann. There were nuances, but I could not really memorize them, both speakers sounded equally well. If you had asked me to chose between them on the spot, I would have flipped a coin. The Adams, however, are way more fun than the Neumann, and the Genelec, but in a way that sounds like pressing the loudness button on my Yamaha Amp back in the 90s. While they have more "attack" and sound like having enjoyed just a tiny bit of steroids, they do not seem to be as neutral as the other speakers. I still do not know if I like it, or if I am somehow tricked by some sort of make up.
For metal this was completely different. The Neumanns were much cleaner, brighter and thus, sounded faster. The sound of the Genelec was..."rounder" but somehow more also a bit muffled. I checked for the little switches on the backs, but on both speakers everything was in a neutral position. I could clearly tell without looking which speaker was the Neumann and which the Genelec. Looking at the speaker measurements, I cannot really explain this, and, as I said, I could not really tell this big of a difference for electronic music, e.g. the track by Zedd.
At the Hifi-Shop I was first just lurking around but then had the guts to speak to one of the employees and just told him, what I told you. Lucky shot: "Yeah, I have the KH 120 at home, I am a professional audio engineer for 15 years now and I get what you are saying." I spent some time at the shop listening to various speakers on the shelf (not yet in the listening room). First, he played some Dali Bookshelf speakers with various price tags for me: sorry, no offense, I found all of them...really, really meh.
Then he presented the Radiant Acoustics Clarity 6.2 to me. He definitely got me with them. Even in the huge, non-optimized show room, they were noticably different than anything else they had on the shelf, and anything I had listened to before from the Hifi segment (not that much yet, but I slowly start to get a feeling for things). He was super helpful and I will have a listening session with them next week in the test room.
Then this thread got me into the rabbit hole of room optimization. I found out that my living room is rather sub optimal: hard wood floor, Exactly 5x5 meters square layout. Hooray - but I will address this issue after the listening session with the Radiants next week!
Have a great Sunday, everyone!
Last edited:
DSJR
Master Contributor
My take on this would be to try for a reasonable size speaker where the bass drivers aren't struggling and distorting below 80Hz at a reasonable level. I'd suggest this is physics more than anything else.
From a distance, I'd suggest seeing if you can hear some JBL models as well as say, KH150s or Genelec equivalents (JBL 4329 maybe?). I just have a feeling they could 'unravel' these complex mixes better than a domestic 'HiFi' speaker that's been 'Klippeled' to death. Maybe I have it totally wrong, so it's just a suggestion... If a passive speaker is chosen, a good powerful amp is a prerequisite I'd suggest, even at usual domestic listening levels. On the used ugly-pro-monitor market (
) I wonder what a reasonable pair of Ureis could do playing this music style?
My music tastes are no longer as 'heavy' as this, but a lot of the ancestral UK-recorded heavier rock I like still, needs a GOOD BIGGER box to allow better 'hearing into' these old mixes, which were probably mixed on huge Tannoy Lockwood Majors or JBL-based monitors back then.
Headphones/iems, do have a more 'direct' kind of presentation and it's not the same as speakers-in-room unless near-field. I wish you luck and it'll be interesting to see what you end up with.
From a distance, I'd suggest seeing if you can hear some JBL models as well as say, KH150s or Genelec equivalents (JBL 4329 maybe?). I just have a feeling they could 'unravel' these complex mixes better than a domestic 'HiFi' speaker that's been 'Klippeled' to death. Maybe I have it totally wrong, so it's just a suggestion... If a passive speaker is chosen, a good powerful amp is a prerequisite I'd suggest, even at usual domestic listening levels. On the used ugly-pro-monitor market (
) I wonder what a reasonable pair of Ureis could do playing this music style?My music tastes are no longer as 'heavy' as this, but a lot of the ancestral UK-recorded heavier rock I like still, needs a GOOD BIGGER box to allow better 'hearing into' these old mixes, which were probably mixed on huge Tannoy Lockwood Majors or JBL-based monitors back then.
Headphones/iems, do have a more 'direct' kind of presentation and it's not the same as speakers-in-room unless near-field. I wish you luck and it'll be interesting to see what you end up with.
Pareto Pragmatic
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I'm going to start where you are.... the 1350s. And I won't be very technical. But there is very, very good technical advice in this thread, take your time with it is my suggestion.
Here's a review with measurements of your headphones: https://www.stereophile.com/content/awesome-beyerdynamic-dt-1350-page-2
I'll give you my quick take, and relate it to issues in your OP. But remember, YOU like this sound... and that's all that matters in the end. It does not mean you might not like other sounds... equally or even more.
The Beyerdynamic 1350s have flat and DEEP bass, 10hz is LOW... and flat to 100hz.
So you like bass, but flat bass. I do too!
How low do you need to go? I can't answer that for you. I will tell you I certainly like 20hz in room but rarely miss it when it's 30... other than pipe organ. 40 I miss if it's not there. 50? Super detailed with the speakers 10ft into the room wall to wall to wall soundstage... but a couple of days and I miss bass.
My speakers hit 40hz before rolling off, and I can get 30hz (technically 28hz f3) in my room. I am quite happy with that. I have 40 in my office, and that's fine with me really.
100hz-200hz, upper bass, that's scooped out a bit, -2.5dB or so. My experience is that will let you hear more detail, but I encourage you to try (in room) to get flat to start.
I don't know a lot about headphones (just enough to buy hifiman xs with confidence) but the high end seems to roll off a bit early and a bit much for my personal taste. So you likely want to avoid speakers with a tilt up in the high frequencies. Also, be ready to roll off the treble if it is too much after years with the 1350s as your reference and preference. Your speaker options will let you do that.
Speaker options:
I would not consider Kali though I think they are good; the other two would be 1 and 2 on my list. I have a very nice passive speaker system now, so unless I want the big ones... which I do... and was willing to pay for them.... which I am not....
Subwoofer issues:
You like flat, sub systems are usually tuned to a curve that boosts bass. And if they are not tuned, just adding a sub bloats bass.
My advice on this? Ask a place to give you flat bass. Either through tuning with a system to a flat target, or manually setting the proper crossover and dialing in the volume by YOUR ear. If they can do that.... that's a really good place to shop.
Deep bass with two speakers, that costs money for good bass. A subwoofer + smaller speakers can get you 20hz at a much lower cost. The downside of it is, compared to two speakers only, a lot harder to set up correctly.
Are speakers worth it?
Imagine you have a track you like, with really solid left, right, and center positions of the musicians. Now imagine I had you to my house, and played it, and those musicians now filled a 13' wide 9' deep (~4x3m) stage starting 6' feet (~2m) in front of you.
If that sounds like a good way to listen to music, then speakers are worth it.
1. Did I "ruin" my listening preferences with my headphones over the last 13 years...
No, but you developed expectations for what music sounds like. Detailed for sure, which is a strength of headphones.
You had a preference for the sound too, the tone, and got the phones because you liked them, so your preference is long standing. The headphones "color" or change the sound in certain ways. That is how things SHOULD sound... to you.
I'm the same in some ways. Music I listened to when young sounds "right" played through vintage speakers with no EQ. But I definitely think it sounds BETTER on my modern speakers with a relatively flat to 2000hz and gentle roll off target. That's my preference most of the time.
But the old sound still hits hard when I go there.
Enjoy!
As mentioned by others, the big challenge with loudspeakers is to get the interaction with the room right.
To better hear what's actually going on in a recording, you want the direct sound from your loudspeakers to dominate over the reflections coming from your listening environment. This can be achieved by using the correct amount of acoustic treatment, furniture, and other things. The goal is to get the reflective decay times as even as possible, and hopefully over as wide a frequency range as possible, so that the "old sound" bouncing around will not mask a certain part of the range more than other parts. Another effective way to achieve a higher ratio of direct sound is to have the loudspeakers closer to you, using a smaller listening triangle.
No matter how good the loudspeakers are, they all benefit from an acoustically well-balanced listening environment. Don't let anyone mislead you into thinking there are loudspeakers immune to bad acoustics.
In my listening room, which is a normal living room, I have a few acoustic panels on the walls that are carefully chosen based on the acoustic coefficient and what is needed to even out the decay times in the room, as seen in the before-and-after REW measurements below (looking at the line going through the waterfall graph). I'm happy to have achieved a more even decay time over the range from around 120Hz and up, and the result is a "calmness" to the sound, which makes the music easier to follow, no matter how chaotic and dense the music and the mix may be. This is with only 5 acoustic panels placed in the front half of the room, and they are just positioned where they fit and "melt in" with the room, so there is no targeting of any first reflection points in particular. Unfortunately, I can't do much about the decay times under 100 Hz, but that's where EQ adjustment comes in handy, which at least partially solves most of the problem.
I also have my loudspeakers in a fairly small listening triangle, which results in a high ratio of direct sound, and the speakers are positioned far enough from the walls so that the first arriving wall reflections are down about 17dB to 20dB below the direct sound.
Subwoofers are pretty hard to seamlessly integrate with the main speakers, but when you get that right, you will likely realise how important the bass range is for the overall sound.
When you have solved all the above-mentioned problems that come with setting up loudspeakers in a room, you will be able to play any type of music and hear any detail and instrument separation the recordings contain. I also like to listen to music with headphones, but I find it even better with loudspeakers properly set up in an acoustically well-balanced room, as that will add another sense of three-dimensional space to the sound.
To better hear what's actually going on in a recording, you want the direct sound from your loudspeakers to dominate over the reflections coming from your listening environment. This can be achieved by using the correct amount of acoustic treatment, furniture, and other things. The goal is to get the reflective decay times as even as possible, and hopefully over as wide a frequency range as possible, so that the "old sound" bouncing around will not mask a certain part of the range more than other parts. Another effective way to achieve a higher ratio of direct sound is to have the loudspeakers closer to you, using a smaller listening triangle.
No matter how good the loudspeakers are, they all benefit from an acoustically well-balanced listening environment. Don't let anyone mislead you into thinking there are loudspeakers immune to bad acoustics.
In my listening room, which is a normal living room, I have a few acoustic panels on the walls that are carefully chosen based on the acoustic coefficient and what is needed to even out the decay times in the room, as seen in the before-and-after REW measurements below (looking at the line going through the waterfall graph). I'm happy to have achieved a more even decay time over the range from around 120Hz and up, and the result is a "calmness" to the sound, which makes the music easier to follow, no matter how chaotic and dense the music and the mix may be. This is with only 5 acoustic panels placed in the front half of the room, and they are just positioned where they fit and "melt in" with the room, so there is no targeting of any first reflection points in particular. Unfortunately, I can't do much about the decay times under 100 Hz, but that's where EQ adjustment comes in handy, which at least partially solves most of the problem.
I also have my loudspeakers in a fairly small listening triangle, which results in a high ratio of direct sound, and the speakers are positioned far enough from the walls so that the first arriving wall reflections are down about 17dB to 20dB below the direct sound.
Subwoofers are pretty hard to seamlessly integrate with the main speakers, but when you get that right, you will likely realise how important the bass range is for the overall sound.
When you have solved all the above-mentioned problems that come with setting up loudspeakers in a room, you will be able to play any type of music and hear any detail and instrument separation the recordings contain. I also like to listen to music with headphones, but I find it even better with loudspeakers properly set up in an acoustically well-balanced room, as that will add another sense of three-dimensional space to the sound.
If you consider the Radiant Acoustics Clarity 6.2, please try some pro monitors in the same price range. You have to be aware that the Radians need a very strong, state of the art amplifier to sound really good. Using anything mediocre, like your old receiver or integrated amp, will devalue them. You need a first class amplifier, as these have very special drivers from Purify. If you ask the guy in the HIFI shop, you will need another 1000€ at last. Take that sum to the music store and you will touch audio heaven!
Those pro monitors have their matching amps included, so you will always get the best sound they can do. On average, HIFI speaker are about 2-4 times as expensive as pro gear anyway. If you glue 25€ worth of veneer on a pro speaker, it's value in a HIFI shop will instandly double. Did you ever ask yourself why you can always buy last years Hifi with a 50% discount? You may guess.
Please listen to more monitor speakers from other brands, there is a lot more than Neumann, Adam and Genelec.
Put brands like EVE, Focal, Yamaha, Heed, Kali Audio, JBL, Presonus, KRK on your list, I sure forgot some.
If you choose something with a 5.5" to 7" woofer, tha option to add a subwoofer will double the impact and fun those deliver.
By the way, the resale value of HIFI gear is very disapointing. Once you carry it home and keep it for a week, you loose 50% of your money. Pro gear is very stable, even used and has long product cycles. Once you dig deeper into pro audio, you will see HIFI stuff with different eyes. No one is going to offer you a hand full of cables for thousands of Euros there, just for an example. Ask at your HIFI dealer...
Those pro monitors have their matching amps included, so you will always get the best sound they can do. On average, HIFI speaker are about 2-4 times as expensive as pro gear anyway. If you glue 25€ worth of veneer on a pro speaker, it's value in a HIFI shop will instandly double. Did you ever ask yourself why you can always buy last years Hifi with a 50% discount? You may guess.
Please listen to more monitor speakers from other brands, there is a lot more than Neumann, Adam and Genelec.
Put brands like EVE, Focal, Yamaha, Heed, Kali Audio, JBL, Presonus, KRK on your list, I sure forgot some.
If you choose something with a 5.5" to 7" woofer, tha option to add a subwoofer will double the impact and fun those deliver.
By the way, the resale value of HIFI gear is very disapointing. Once you carry it home and keep it for a week, you loose 50% of your money. Pro gear is very stable, even used and has long product cycles. Once you dig deeper into pro audio, you will see HIFI stuff with different eyes. No one is going to offer you a hand full of cables for thousands of Euros there, just for an example. Ask at your HIFI dealer...
EngineerNate
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2018
- Messages
- 291
- Likes
- 303
I think the mastering probably is a part of what you're hearing.
This is outside the subgenres of metal I typically enjoy, but I've noticed a lack of soundstage and imaging in metal music I do enjoy from time to time and chalked it up to “they turned it up to 11 in the studio and said hell yeah and sent it.”
With headphones I don’t notice so much as everything being jammed to the center of my skull is more or less the norm
High levels of compression (look at the waveform on most metal tracks, it’s hitting the limiters 99% of the time) will also cause things like soundstage to disappear, as with everything at equal and smashed loudness there’s less for you to pick out to place things.
As with all things, the validity of this will vary from artist to artist and mastering engineer to mastering engineer.
This is outside the subgenres of metal I typically enjoy, but I've noticed a lack of soundstage and imaging in metal music I do enjoy from time to time and chalked it up to “they turned it up to 11 in the studio and said hell yeah and sent it.”
With headphones I don’t notice so much as everything being jammed to the center of my skull is more or less the norm
High levels of compression (look at the waveform on most metal tracks, it’s hitting the limiters 99% of the time) will also cause things like soundstage to disappear, as with everything at equal and smashed loudness there’s less for you to pick out to place things.
As with all things, the validity of this will vary from artist to artist and mastering engineer to mastering engineer.
The original track you shared in the first post isn't even that dense or muddy compared to the more crazy metal shit, so imo not a super difficult track.
Your experience with the hifi speakers was likely as others have mentioned a combination of the room / the way they were set up, and possibly some problems with the speakers themselves. But there are definitely hifi speakers out there that will handle this type of music.
Your experience with the hifi speakers was likely as others have mentioned a combination of the room / the way they were set up, and possibly some problems with the speakers themselves. But there are definitely hifi speakers out there that will handle this type of music.
somebodyelse
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 6,406
- Likes
- 6,266
I'll start with the DT-1350 by noting its response is far from neutral - the extended bass response has been noted by others, but the peak/dip/peak centred round 500Hz/2kHz/5kHz may be another factor in shaping your preference. You might like to try one of the free software EQ options to see what influence that has, like using the values from the previous link to make it more neutral.
I think the influence of the room has already been covered well enough. It's interesting that you prefer some of the more neutral speakers given the less-than-neutral headphones you're used to.
Erin's Radiant measurements look good if you account for the manufacturer's recommendation to listen 20 degrees off axis - that brings it close to a flat response rather than the rising treble seen on axis. The dynamic range/compression response is particularly good. Unfortunately we don't have that test for the Genelecs or Neumanns - Erin has only tested one of each of theirs, and both are considerably smaller speakers with lower maximum output, so not expected to be comparable. They are in another league price-wise to the other monitors you've listened to though, especially once you include a power amp. You could have a pair of KH-150s, a KH-750 sub and the MA-1 doing room EQ for that sort of money, or something with GLM from Genelec. Plus the obvious competition from similarly priced passives at that level.
I think the influence of the room has already been covered well enough. It's interesting that you prefer some of the more neutral speakers given the less-than-neutral headphones you're used to.
Erin's Radiant measurements look good if you account for the manufacturer's recommendation to listen 20 degrees off axis - that brings it close to a flat response rather than the rising treble seen on axis. The dynamic range/compression response is particularly good. Unfortunately we don't have that test for the Genelecs or Neumanns - Erin has only tested one of each of theirs, and both are considerably smaller speakers with lower maximum output, so not expected to be comparable. They are in another league price-wise to the other monitors you've listened to though, especially once you include a power amp. You could have a pair of KH-150s, a KH-750 sub and the MA-1 doing room EQ for that sort of money, or something with GLM from Genelec. Plus the obvious competition from similarly priced passives at that level.
Chris A
Senior Member
Well, this was a bit of a sleuthing challenge. I'll try to dissect what I found...in sequential order:
1) The music track you posted (Somnambulation)-
First I checked the Dynamic Range Data Base (DRDB) for album dynamic range data, and found the following:
This level of dynamic range compression/clipping is on the extreme end of the Loudness War practices. When the track was ripped from the YouTube video, above, I opened this track with Audacity and found over 3 dB of clipping used on this particular track. Once I declipped the track with Audacity's Clip Fix, the following confirmation of compressed dynamics (using DSP compressors) was then obvious:
I looked at the cumulative spectral density of the entire track for issues related to mastering EQ used:
Note the rise in spectral energy from ~110 to ~165 Hz, as well as a hump at 2500-6000 Hz. Both of these frequency bands will cause certain issues on playback using loudspeakers having flat amplitude response across the audible spectrum. I used the following demastering EQ curve to de-emphasize these two areas, and the listenability of the track increased fairly dramatically, particularly with the flattening of the mid-bass response from 110-165 Hz, which got rid of the "mud factor" that so significantly affects playback performance in home hi-fi sized listening rooms:
2) Then I checked the amplitude response of one of the loudspeaker types that you liked (Genelec 8040)--
I then looked at the amplitude response (anechoically) of the Genelec 8040 loudspeakers that you mentioned above:
Note that the two areas of excess spectral energy above just happen to coincide with areas of decreased spectral output for the Genelec 8040 loudspeakers, particularly below 200 Hz.
Additionally, I checked the response of your Beyerdynamic DT1350 headphones...
Note that this headphone response must be convolved with the head-related transfer function (HRTF) of the listener's ear canals and pinna where the phones closely fit (closed back) over them. In general, there seems to be some relative interaction between the response of the headphones, the (assumed) HRTF, and the music track cumulative spectral density, although not knowing what the HRTF curve actually looks like precludes knowing the net perceived response of the listener's ears to this particular track using said headphones.
It is well known that the effect of closed back headphones on the perception of soundstage shows a pronounced "in-head" image, mostly due to eardrum--headphone bounce of sound in the closed passage between the headphone speaker diaphragm and the listener's eardrum.
Bottom line:
I believe that you show a strong preference in loudspeakers having reduced 100-200 Hz amplitude response (as well as frequencies below this band) to reduce the hump in mastering EQ used between 100-200 Hz. After declipping and reducing the two humps in amplitude response using Audacity, the listenability of the track improved greatly. Additionally, it is noticed that all loudspeakers enumerated above that the OP preferred are small direct-radiating designs that tend to mask distracting practices used during the mastering process, thus artificially smoothing the resulting sound quality to deal with added room reflections that were not present using headphones.
That was fun
. Any more? Chris
Chris A
Senior Member
"In God We Trust--everyone else bring data."
Chris
Chris
- Thread Starter
- #36
Hi Chris, Thank you very much! I am not sure what to make of this, but I bought all my albums on Bandcamp and downloaded them lossless as .wav. The Dynamic Range DB refers to .mp3-files?Well, this was a bit of a sleuthing challenge. I'll try to dissect what I found...in sequential order:
1) The music track you posted (Somnambulation)-
First I checked the Dynamic Range Data Base (DRDB) for album dynamic range data, and found the following:
View attachment 508286
This level of dynamic range compression/clipping is on the extreme end of the Loudness War practices. When the track was ripped from the YouTube video, above, I opened this track with Audacity and found over 3 dB of clipping used on this particular track. Once I declipped the track with Audacity's Clip Fix, the following confirmation of compressed dynamics (using DSP compressors) was then obvious:
View attachment 508273
I looked at the cumulative spectral density of the entire track for issues related to mastering EQ used:
View attachment 508275
Note the rise in spectral energy from ~110 to ~165 Hz, as well as a hump at 2500-6000 Hz. Both of these frequency bands will cause certain issues on playback using loudspeakers having flat amplitude response across the audible spectrum. I used the following demastering EQ curve to de-emphasize these two areas, and the listenability of the track increased fairly dramatically, particularly with the flattening of the mid-bass response from 110-165 Hz, which got rid of the "mud factor" that so significantly affects playback performance in home hi-fi sized listening rooms:
View attachment 508278
2) Then I checked the amplitude response of one of the loudspeaker types that you liked (Genelec 8040)--
I then looked at the amplitude response (anechoically) of the Genelec 8040 loudspeakers that you mentioned above:
View attachment 508279
Note that the two areas of excess spectral energy above just happen to coincide with areas of decreased spectral output for the Genelec 8040 loudspeakers, particularly below 200 Hz.
Additionally, I checked the response of your Beyerdynamic DT1350 headphones...
View attachment 508280
Note that this headphone response must be convolved with the head-related transfer function (HRTF) of the listener's ear canals and pinna where the phones closely fit (closed back) over them. In general, there seems to be some relative interaction between the response of the headphones, the (assumed) HRTF, and the music track cumulative spectral density, although not knowing what the HRTF curve actually looks like precludes knowing the net perceived response of the listener's ears to this particular track using said headphones.
It is well known that the effect of closed back headphones on the perception of soundstage shows a pronounced "in-head" image, mostly due to eardrum--headphone bounce of sound in the closed passage between the headphone speaker diaphragm and the listener's eardrum.
Bottom line:
I believe that you show a strong preference in loudspeakers having reduced 100-200 Hz amplitude response (as well as frequencies below this band) to reduce the hump in mastering EQ used between 100-200 Hz. After declipping and reducing the two humps in amplitude response using Audacity, the listenability of the track improved greatly. Additionally, it is noticed that all loudspeakers enumerated above that the OP preferred are small direct-radiating designs that tend to mask distracting practices used during the mastering process, thus artificially smoothing the resulting sound quality to deal with added room reflections that were not present using headphones.
That was fun
Chris
somebodyelse
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 6,406
- Likes
- 6,266
That or something similar for the 3 marked 'lossy' but not for the 'lossless' ones which would be WAV, FLAC or similar.
"In God We Trust--everyone else bring data."
Chris
Not sure I get it. So the experience shared by the OP was valid, but not mine? Why didn't you say "We have no idea what you experienced with any of the speakers" to him?
Chris A
Senior Member
One of the truisms about converting from lossless (e.g., WAV) to lossy (e.g., AAC as found on YouTube) is that the amplitude spectra must not change if the lossy version is to sound anything like the lossless version (at least at frequencies below ~10-12 kHz).
What the ripped AAC file from YouTube that I used showed will also show up on your WAV files. You can check this by using something like Audacity on the particular music track being discussed and look at the resulting plot spectrum view--the "purple mountain" view...as my wife likes to call them
.Chris
The track is definitely clipping, but not by 3 dB when looking at the FLAC file (44.1kHz/16bit) provided by Tidal, where it is clipping 1 dB in the left channel and 0.9 dB in the right channel. The track is clipping 36683 times in the left channel and 32117 times in the right channel.
Similar threads
