We audio nuts, let´s gather here and discuss audio related test equipment! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: DanNorman
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 10:40:23 pm
content: What equipment do you require to design world class amps, preamps, dac´s or speakers? And what´s your secret recipe?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 10:50:14 pm
content: That depends entirely on what market you are in. Some guitar amps have a light bulb in series with the output which is against all the rules in the 'how to built an amplifier' book but musicians love it because of the nice distortion it produces. So what is it then: a guitar amplifier or a musical instrument?

author: Andy Watson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 11:36:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 01, 2016, 10:50:14 pmAudio nut using test gear ? Oxymoron.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 11:43:48 pm
content: All the equipment you need to design and test audio equipment? It depends on what part of the audio reproduction chain you want to design and build:Multimeters, preferably twoOscilloscope 20Mhz to 100Mhz bandwidthSoldering stationA computer and software are handy, the computer with an outboard sound card to get it out of the electrically noisy environment inside a computerA good set of headphones, a good set of speakers, perhaps a good microphone, and an education to understand the difference between good and woowooA brain and an education in electronics

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 02:06:13 am
content: You did say audio.Other than two ears for listening and balls to admit it what other equipment is important or relevant ?

author: Smith
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 06:21:27 am
content: Function generator, oscilloscope, multimeter and of course some good headphones/speakers. I use the Function gen to trace signals, and test power ouput (with some high power resistors). I use the scope for finding distortions (at power or audio lines) when repairing, and the multimeter for the obvious. Oh yea, and an ESR meter for repair purpses. Thats about all I use for building, modding and repairing audio stuff, mostly cd players and amps.I like to listen instead of measuring, because in the end thats what it's all about. It took me a full year to modify my cd player, taking it upstars to mod it, and downstairs to listen and choose whether the mod stays or goes.I started out building a lot of equipment myself, but nowadays I just fix and upgrade existing stuff because it was becomming to time ( and money) consuming to build everything from scratch.

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 06:24:56 am
content: Quote from: Andy Watson on April 01, 2016, 11:36:26 pmDesigning high end audio products for recording or professional markets should not be mistaken with "audiofools".Quote from: DimitriP on April 02, 2016, 02:06:13 amTHD, Frequency response, Noise floor, and even sometimes how it distorts (ie guitar amplifiers and pedals)Im afraid many people on this forum confuse high end audio design with "audiofools", while forgetting an entire industry revolves around high quality audio and the subtle nature of audio circuit design.For anyone who wants a more scientific approach with great analysis of general high end audio design principles, Douglas Self's "Small Signal Audio Design" is hard to beat!

author: Smith
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 07:41:27 am
content: Quote from: iampoor on April 02, 2016, 06:24:56 amYou are right in this regard, but IMHO there is a big difference between building audio for yourself, and for others. I want it to sound like I want, basicly not giving a crap about specs. I like the "sterile sound" wich most people dislike. I don't like the tube sound myself. Thats why I said these are the tools I use. You must admit good specs dont necessarily mean you will like the amplifier. My amp cost a good fortune (thank god I got it broken and for free). I have upgraded it wherever I tought was needed. I think it sounds much better than any other amp I have ever heared before. I have heared many 4 digit cd players wich don't even come close to my modified cdplayer. Of course I also use 20+ years of experience in audio and electronics.For marketing purposes its obvously required to have your specs, and you need the test equipment to prove it. Specs sell, I know.Please let's NOT go into the "audiofools" discussion.

author: focovario
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 01:03:08 pm
content: Andy Watson wrote:QuoteHere is what I think is a good counter example.My stereo pics and lab views (partial):

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 01:21:29 pm
content: Sounds like a cool Idea. However it should first define a double blind testing procedure before throwing test equipment measurements into the mix.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 01:22:16 pm
content: My biggest problem with audio is that it is very easy to end up in discussions about 'how it sounds'. In the past I have been designing audio equipment for PA and telecom purposes. IMHO the starting point should be to keep noise and distortion to a minimum. From there you can add things like an equalizer to adjust the high/mid/low frequencies to taste.If you want to go further you quickly enter an area where there basically is a difference in opinion between you and the person who made the recording about how a certain piece should sound. That is impossible to quantify in numbers (a specification).

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 01:25:30 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 01, 2016, 10:50:14 pmWhich amplifier? I've only ever heard of this in the context of presenting a minimum load for tube amps if the speakers are accidentally disconnected.

author: deadlylover
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 02:26:17 pm
content: This thread needs more gear, here I am representing Japan.Fun fact: The ShibaSoku 725 series was used to measure the THD+N of the legendary PCM1704 DAC, I bet some here will recognise that part number!I think it was also used in the Art of Electronics 3rd edition low noise shootout (or some other section).

author: Lukas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 03:15:00 pm
content: Take a look at this guy's blog:http://nwavguy.blogspot.bg/Aside from the usual equipment like DMM and scope, the most important bit of kit is an audio analyser for measuring distortion, noise, etc.For basic usage, a good sound card with some audio analyser software should be good enough.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 04:18:44 pm
content: Quote from: focovario on April 02, 2016, 01:03:08 pmWith all that fancy hardware you'd think a few acoustic panels on the bare walls would be within budget.And a speaker right next to a window? Ouch.

author: DanNorman
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 04:32:04 pm
content: I´m not intrerested in audio phoolery, which sadly plauges the whole buisness, but like to take a more scientific approach ton audio design. My primary interest is in designing speakers, as that is the most important part of the listening chain (mics and how you record are important too).In general, ADC´s, cd players, DAC´s, preamp, amps and cables are way more than good enough, if you look at it scientifically, with like double blind tests and other measurements. Speakers are the decoders which transfer the signal from one domain (electrical) to another (acoustical). There are no "perfect speaker", as the source material (music, speech and whatever you want to listen to) and listening spaces differs so much. One can make a specific recording for a specific system (speakers + room) and call the reproduction true. Therefore, designing speakers is a form of artStill there are a few guidelines, like a linear frequency response on axis, and at smooth off axis response, falling with higher frequencies. Research has been done proving a few things, mainly by Floyd Toole in his bookhttp://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092.Gearwise, a good microphone with specified characteristics, a decent mic preamp and ADC and good software, along with know how, get´s you very far. Woodworking skills are essential

author: focovario
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 07:02:26 pm
content: Fungus wrote:Quote.This are corner horns and the corner on my apartment has a window. In listening mode I roll down purposely installed black outs.Thanks for your criticism. I read it as constructive.

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 08:38:49 pm
content: Quote from: deadlylover on April 02, 2016, 02:26:17 pmYep. I'm working on a USB DAC based on a 1794 now though. Driven by an MSP430 and using LME49720MAX for I/V and LME49710MAX for reconstruction and perhaps output driver (haven't investigated that part yet). One each per channel. I have it to where it outputs test signals, and all the I2S generation (DMA feeding SPI plus a couple of timer comparators driving GPIO pins, GPIOs also used external FMTx pin configuration but obviously not timer based).Here's rev2 of the main board and a LED panel board (showing both sides of it) and a dual XO daughter clock board (two Crystek CCHD-575 ULPN oscillators). Don't currently have it powered or hooked up though to show.Here's the KiCAD PCB layout for the main board. A bit messy escaping the MSP430, but I'll fix that in rev3. Another change is the DAC RST will be controlled by the uC instead of the reset button so it can be held in reset while switching clocks. The clock will probably go from being a separate board to the main board (where all the text is near the center bottom) with its own ground pour.For audio measurements I'm fine with the HP 8903B. It goes down to about 0.015% with an external source. In the case of the USB DAC that's just firmware repeating a buffer containing a test tone.For phase noise measurements of the clocks I'm using a Siglent SDG2122X run off an external reference (Trimble Thunderbolt), set to the clock center frequency measured by a 53131A counter, also using the same external reference. The DDS output at +10dBm is run into a Mini-Circuits DC-400M mixer with the DUT clock input at -50dB on the RF input; the IF output is low-passed (Mini-Circuits 1.5MHz LPF, which my VNA tells me actually has a -3dB point at ~1.9MHz) to extract the phase offset component. This I capture into a Keithley 2001 with MEMUP2 (dropped a DS1545Y I think it is into it when I replaced the EPROMs with EEPROM and updated the firmware), just fill it up. I haven't done so yet, but the plan is to grab the capture off of it and analyze it off-line (using a python program and vxi-11; the K2001 sits on an HP-IB bus controlled by an ICS 8065 to put it on ethernet).For general logic and checking I/V performance I'm using a WaveSurfer 3054 with a couple of FET probes (AP022 single-ended, AP034 differential). I empirically source terminate all signals to eliminate overshoot to reduce noise, although the star ground design helps. (Separate grounds for 3.3V logic, 5V analog for the DAC, and +/-15V output op amp rails.)To verify the correctness of the I2S feed and make sure the DMA doesn't miss a buffer hop (when it runs out of data the source address needs to be set to the next buffer and the length reloaded, all between two samples) I'm capturing it on a Saeleae Logic Pro 16. There's five logic signals. This looks good just scrolling around watching test tone generation, but I plan to write a verifier that can take a dump and scan it for inconsistencies - timing issues, in particular. This will be necessary at some point, likely when I actually implement a USB audio class for it. (The firmware will need a few changes to reliably buffer hop.) Since it only uses the integrated 12M USB this isn't going to be a super big deal. But the controller has only 6k RAM so it's ability to buffer is limited (probably will fix it to 3) and depending on the format may need to do a bit shuffling to make it DMA ready.That's pretty much it; other than the HP 8903B there's really nothing here particularly audio specific. It's all the same as is used for any similar project, really.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2016, 11:00:58 pm
content: @bson So I take it you're using an MSP430 to convert S/PDIF and/or optical to I2S to feed the DAC? Interesting. Which chip are you using? I'm working on a headphone amp/DAC and was thinking about using the MSP430F5529 for USB Audio (and optical) to I2S.I think there's even example code for USB Audio in the MSPWare package, though I may be thinking of TivaWare (I know it's in there because I've used it with a Tiva C).The other MCU I'm looking at is the PSoC5LP. The advantage there being all the extra analog and digital blocks. That would save a lot of extra parts if you wanted to say, setup comparators to monitor the output and activate a protection relay if a DC bias appears. You could also use the Digital Filter Blocks along with the fast ADC and a few macrocells to generate a spectrum bar graph display completely in hardware.Anyway, there's some Cypress example code for USB Audio to I2S on the PSoC, complete with clock recovery and some other nice features. I'm going to start playing with it tonight. I'll report back if anyone is interested to see how it performs.

author: amirm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 05:02:48 am
content: My weapon of choice for audio measurement is (last generation) Audio Precision:The folks at prism sound were kind enough to loan me one of their analyzers (dSound) for a deep dive I did on HDMI audio performance (http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-deep-dive-into-hdmi-audio-performance.56/). It doesn't have the nice analog front-end that the AP has but is very easy to use and is nicely integrated into the PC as the signal generator.I don't do much design these days but have a good suite of instruments which I used for a funny project a while back to see if 12 gauge speaker wire is really 12 gauge (http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/when-12-gauge-wire-is-not-12-gauge.3/)TI has a very good ADC reference board which can be the foundation of a very low cost but with excellent dynamic range for testing DACs. I am just getting mine up and running.http://www.ti.com/tool/pcm4222evm

author: _Wim_
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 07:40:42 pm
content: Quote from: DanNorman on April 02, 2016, 04:32:04 pmCouldn't agree more. Speakers and their interaction with the surrounding area are nowadays the only important aspect of the reproduction chain. As you stated correctly, the recording chain has it own challenges also. Apart from Floyd book, I can recommend this book also as I found some of the psychoacoustic topic in Floyds book confusing and sometimes contradicting:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Auditory-Neuroscience-Making-Sense-Sound/dp/0262518023/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352658057&sr=8-1

author: BobsURuncle
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 08:37:43 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 01, 2016, 10:50:14 pmMusical instrument - or more accurately an integral part of the instrument. An electric guitar is nearly inaudible, thin and tinny sounding. Every piece of the signal chain between the guitarists fingers and the room containing the speakers define the tonal character of the instrument and its responsiveness to the player. Linear amplification is a sure way to drain all character out of the sound. Getting the optimal mix of harmonics is more art than science and is largely a matter of personal taste.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 09:14:37 pm
content: Quote from: BobsURuncle on April 06, 2016, 08:37:43 pmPartly correct. If you want to hear a trumpet in your living room as it sounds in the orchestra in your favorite theater, then there are many factors to make it sound right. An electrical guitar only sounds right when it is distorted and manipulated to the guitarists original intent. They are two different things except if you are just live micing the stage of a group.If you are trying to recreate a live performance, then you need to have flat response, and a dead listening room. That is if the mixing engineer had the same conditions. When does this happen? NEVER. If you want to hear the performance as the mixing engineer intended, go to his mixing room. If you want to hear a live performance the same as it would sound live, go to a live concert. After that, it is anyone's guess. Having sound systems adjusted to get close to the same standards helps. Finding a recording where you know that the mixing console had a properly adjusted monitoring system is probably pointless. Most recording engineers adjust their rooms and sound to their "golden" ears, meaning subjectively.The best you can do is adjust your audio system (playback, speakers and room) to be as neutral as possible and let the variations of the different recordings be what they are.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 10:21:49 pm
content: Quote from: _Wim_ on April 06, 2016, 07:40:42 pmAgree 100%.All the rest is phoolery these days. A good amp can be had for under $300*, a good DAC/source can be had for under $50.(*) Unless you're trying to drive something really weird/exotic.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 10:35:34 pm
content: Quote from: amirm on April 06, 2016, 05:02:48 amWhat software are you using with this for testing?I've actually been toying with the idea of putting together a board with an ultra low distortion Sinewave oscillator (one of Jim Williams designs) or a high end audio DAC along with a PCM4220 ADC. Do I2S to USB through a PSoC and add a USB isolator. You'd then have a pretty good setup for audio testing I think.

author: DrGeoff
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 11:00:36 pm
content: Quote from: DimitriP on April 02, 2016, 02:06:13 amSince you obviously have zero knowledge of the industry then your stupidity is excused this time.I'd suggest taking a look at the various papers published through the Audio Engineering Society (AES), for real engineering and scientific work in the field of audio. From transducer and enclosure design, spatial design, distortion analysis, standards for digital audio and its transmission etc etc.Exactly what equipment you need depends entirely on what area of the huge field that is 'audio engineering' you want to play in.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 11:21:33 pm
content: In a previous life, I worked in recording, live music, and TV audio. I have tracked and mixed in rooms that cost more than a nice house with a garage full of exotic cars. I always sought out a general purpose mix that was a reasonable compromise between playback on high-end audio systems, radio, cars, headphones, etc. In an engineering sense we were never trying to make it "perfect", we wanted to make it commercially viable.At home, I never had any urge to hear it the way it was heard in the studio. I want the music to sound good to me. Fit my own unique perception of what I like. I would use various techniques and engineering to make an initial setup, and then tweak until I like it. I don't claim to have golden ears, but I notice things that most people don't and like to address them if possible. I have yet to find any test equipment or specification that will tell me if something sounds good or not. The loudspeaker is the last instrument in the chain, and I embrace the ones that have the right flaws. If I ever hear a perfect loudspeaker, I probably won't like it.Sent from my horrible mobile....

author: amirm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 12:39:34 am
content: Quote from: _Wim_ on April 06, 2016, 07:40:42 pmI am biased because Dr. Toole is a friend and professional colleague, but he is the best teacher there is on the topic of loudspeakers and room acoustics. If you ever have an opportunity to take his in-person class, I highly recommend it. He teaches one at CEDIA conference in US once a year.The book while highly recommended can be difficult to understand as you rightly mention. It is written as if it is a very long scientific paper presented to AES or ASA. Without digging into some 200 references at the end, some of the topics, especially those that go contrary to what is posted online, can be hard to understand.An easier path may be some of the articles that I have written based on his teachings and modern acoustic science. Here are a few:On speaker reflections in the room and how our measurements can be completely misleading:http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/perceptual-effects-of-room-reflections.13/Optimization of low frequencies where the effects of the room are the largest:http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/subwoofer-low-frequency-optimization.15/Advanced low frequency optimization using computer analysis and programming of multiple subwoofers:http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/computer-optimization-of-room-acoustics.12/How to use Room EQ properly with respect to target curve and mistakes made in calibration of cinema sound today:http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/Happy to answer any questions you may have about this topic either here or on Audiosciencereview.com forum.

author: billfernandez
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 03:23:38 am
content: Does anyone have experience with the QuantAsylum QA400, or the new QA401 and their software?

author: RJFreeman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 03:37:23 am
content: Quote from: Lightages on April 01, 2016, 11:43:48 pmI think you will find that in many Audio Circles, those two are strictly verboten....

author: _Wim_
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 07:43:59 pm
content: Quote from: amirm on April 07, 2016, 12:39:34 amDon't get me wrong, I also think it is a very good book and have read it (twice!). I recommend this book to anyone also who is ethousastic about audio. Still, it always good to read some other views on the topic also, hence my recommendation for the audiosience book. I have read many books on the subject, and Tooles book and this one I find the most intersting. Still trying to fully understand Dr. Geddes book "Loudspeakers", should be very good also if you can follow the math. Should have paid more attention in my math classes when I was studying!

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 02:55:04 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 01, 2016, 10:50:14 pmJeri has a pretty interesting story about that:I dunno about putting them in series with the output, that seems strange. Perhaps it creates a certain type of distortion they like. Which is fine I suppose. The amp is part of the instrument stack too.

author: Richard Head
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 06:07:59 am
content: Linear amplification is a sure way to drain all character out of the sound.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 07:17:57 am
content: Quote from: Richard Head on April 08, 2016, 06:07:59 amHe was talking about guitar amps. An electric guitar does get its character from distortions applied in various pedals and the amp. That's why you can't put the rest of the band through a guitar amp - its highly non-linear. There are now modelling gadgets of various types which replicate the behaviour of a guitar amp, so a guitarist can go guitar => gadget => main PA, mixed in with the rest of the band.

author: krivx
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 07:31:34 am
content: Quote from: coppice on April 08, 2016, 07:17:57 amGuitar amplifiers shouldn't really be discussed with hi-fi/audio reproduction amplifiers. It's a different problem domain. Quantifying distortion and flatness of frequency response for guitar is misunderstanding the problem, the amplifier is part of the instrument and it should sound like what the user expects a guitar to sound like that (which in itself is highly subjective).

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 09:03:29 am
content: I've designed many hi-fi amplifiers and other audio related equipment in the past. For the majority of these designs I've used the Amber 3501 distortion and noise measuring system. I still have one in my home lab and use it. I would never deliberately sacrifice technical performance of a circuit for a "better" sound, however from my experience it is not possible to rely only on measurements (or only on ears for that matter), neither would tell you the whole story and both objective and subjective evaluation is required to design something that you will be happy to use for music listening.CheersAlex

author: _Wim_
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 05:09:28 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on April 08, 2016, 09:03:29 amI see no reason why this would be true for electronics, as the measurements have far more resolution then necessary nowadays, and trade-offs are not necessary to get distortion, noise, etc below the audible threshold.For speakers and their interaction with the room it is different, as the psychoacoustics are not fully understood yet, and a speaker design is full of trade-offs than are difficult to choose between.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 05:18:49 pm
content: Quote from: _Wim_ on April 08, 2016, 05:09:28 pmMeasurements easily have far more precision than your ears, but you need to be measuring the right things. Audio systems often sound wrong because something important has not been measured. A classic example would be the late 70s amps with masses and masses of feedback that measured wonderfully on THD and IMD tests, but sounded horrible. Then they started measuring transient IMD and realised why.

author: _Wim_
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 05:42:02 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 08, 2016, 05:18:49 pm

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 06:05:14 pm
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on April 06, 2016, 11:21:33 pmActually there is some equipment and standarisation in this area where it comes to PA systems: the Speech Transmission Indexhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_transmission_indexAt my first employer we used a RASTI test set from Bruel & Kjear to measure PA systems so customers (usually churches) would have a solid number telling something about the quality of their PA system.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 06:50:47 pm
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on April 06, 2016, 11:21:33 pmThe perfect loudspeaker can never exist. It would be a 1mm cube that's capable of moving a lot of air. It would need to be positioned at about head height and quite close to you in an infinitely large room. Even so you won't get 'live' sound because your hearing is very directional and speakers don't adapt for head movements.If it's bigger than 1mm it loses stereo image. If it's further away the elasticity of the air messes with the frequency response. If the room isn't infinite then you get reflections, resonances, reverberations, etc.So yeah, find some that suit your room and your taste in music. Place them as far from the walls and as close to the listener as you reasonably can. Get the height of them right or it will fatigue you.Find the right compromise.(or get some good headphones - headphones are almost always closer to the ideal than a pair of wooden boxes)

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 09:06:39 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 08, 2016, 06:50:47 pmMonitor speakers are usually prefered over headphones for accuracy.Headphones have to compensate for the head related transfer function:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_functionBecause they are right next or in your ear. Far away sounds have a different frequency response than close sounds. This is why when you look at a measured headphone response curve, even on neutral sounding headphones the curve is all over the place.That's not to say there aren't some impressive headphones out there, that will do the job. But most professionals prefer and use quality monitor speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics are also very important in getting the accurate sound.Personally I enjoy a good set of headphones though. For ambient noise isolation.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 09:47:16 pm
content: Another issue with headphones is that you do not get any sound on your body. Parts of you your body other than your ears can sense or transmit to your ears low frequencies and this can affect your perception of sound. A properly designed speaker and room can "calibrated" to a standard and can therefore more closely approximate the same experience for all users. The same cannot be said for headphones. The HRTF for everyone is a bit different and the elimination or distortion of it by the proximity of headphones to the ear ensures that not everyone will have the same experience. This also explains the wild diversity in opinions on the same headphones when listened to by different people.Having said that , I really like preferred headphones for some critical listening. Even though, nothing beats the visceral experience of a good set of speakers cranked up!

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 10:10:57 pm
content: Quote from: Lightages on April 08, 2016, 09:47:16 pmWhat about headphones plus a sub (or one of those house shakers you mount under your floor)?

author: amirm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 10:29:59 pm
content: Quote from: _Wim_ on April 07, 2016, 07:43:59 pmOh, I didn't get you wrong. I figured you were recommending it for good reason. On Earl (Geddes) his has a strong background in physics so doesn't get shy about using math. Even though he is also a professional colleague, I tend to trust Dr. Toole's teachings much more because he mixes psychoacostics with sound reproduction which creates a complete picture. And backs it with tons of bias-controlled listening tests. Earl's work is mostly about one school of speaker design (controlled directivity horns).

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 08, 2016, 10:32:52 pm
content: Quote from: timb on April 08, 2016, 10:10:57 pmHRTF different for everyone, matching sub to headphones, phase differences, etc.....

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2016, 02:04:42 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on April 08, 2016, 09:06:39 pmYep. I'm one of those who prefers a pair of small speakers positioned close to the listener (also known as monitors).Bass is very easy to overdo, IMHO, and most big manufacturers seem to design for too much bass because that's what sells well to the cloth eared nincompoops who do most of the buying.