Headphones vs Nearfield Monitor vs HiFi Speakers

Discussion in 'General Audio Discussion' started by Cspirou, Oct 21, 2015.

  1. Rex Aeterna

    Rex Aeterna Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Cinnaminson, nj
    i always found speakers to have lowest harmonic distortion compared to headphones. but, then again i had experienced and owned interesting speakers. most speaker distortion is cause of comb filtering, standing waves and, room reflections.

    speakers will always have edge over headphones but, i love and enjoy headphones as well. wonderful tools and use for enjoyment. i will admit i am not fond of most thoes tiny monitors and will prefer headphones over them. i always liked using big and heavy speakers for all around monitoring and purposes.
     
  2. sphinxvc

    sphinxvc Gear Master (retired)

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Likes Received:
    3,320
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think for most people, this comes down to are the kids/SO sleeping or not?

    I'm also not a subscriber of the headphones equal more detail groupthink. (Doesn't matter whether we're talking about the face tweeter or not.) Doesn't it all depend on how one chooses to define detail? Spatial cues can be considered a vital dimenson of detail. It's almost no contest if you place any importance on that. And then you could go into "what did the artist intend" regarding details.

    I don't mean for this to be a pissing contest post or anything, but as I was reading through the posts it occurred to me that this groupthink is an oft-cited pro/con of the headphones/speakers comparison matrix.
     
  3. Priidik

    Priidik MOT: Estelon

    Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Estonia
    @sphinxvc Totaly agree with you there on spatial ques = crucial part of 'detail'. Although I'd say spatial ques are better from speakers only because of how they are presented. Stick your speakers into a tiny untreated room and there are not much left of the spatial cues.
    HP-s on the other hand(at least HD650 and more so HD800) are superior in dynamics and lack of compression. That is also a way to look at 'detail'. A single transducer hp is usually more coherent and cohesive sounding at the same time being full range.

    edit: Speakers feel like they give more room information, but it is still there with great hp-s only much harder to focus on. HP = brainfuck :D vs speakers = Morgan Freeman explaining complicated stuff
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2015
  4. Rex Aeterna

    Rex Aeterna Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Cinnaminson, nj
    because headphones require very little power and on top of it not bottlenecked by a passiver filtering network system.

    it comes to multiple things as well with speakers. you got sensitivity vs. effeciency, got drivers themselves, speaker box, crossover,room,ect. that has complete effect.

    on smaller part is amp you are using to drive a speaker. lot of drivers nowadays for home use is low sensitivity and lack proper design for proper cooling decreasing it's effiecency as well which causes premature compression.

    a simple 3db peak required double amplifer power and 10db increase requires 10x amplifier power. why think in pro world it is suggested to use amp twice as powerful as the speakers in? to compensate for compression caused by passive network(if using at all..most go active 90% time anyways which eliminates power gobbling network completely) and compression of drivers when it reaches it's maximum continuous power and still have headroom to spare when a very dynamic material occurs such as a kick drum. you amp needs to provide enough power for 10-20db peaks...if think bout it, thats crap load of power..

    like headphones, full-range speaker drivers are same way in a way since there is no power sucking passive network which it will come off as more effecient and dynamic. same thing with horn speakers which driver load to give greater and even dispersion which acts like a megaphone and is suppose to act as a natural amplification to the sound making it more dynamic due to less amplifier energy needed for same spl giving greater effciency for peaks/dynamics..
     
  5. Cspirou

    Cspirou They call me Sparky

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    8,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Northwest France
    Been thinking about this topic recently. From the previous posts it seems like the near field setup is the least desirable. However how much does this have to do with the monitors themselves vs placement? Meaning if you put your JBL lsr305s on stands and sat far away, would that be a 'better' listening experience vs the desktop arrangement? Conversely, would taking fancy bookshelf speakers and setting them on a desktop reduce your experience?
     
  6. Hrodulf

    Hrodulf Prohibited from acting as an MOT until year 2050

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Likes Received:
    4,276
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of these setups have their share of limitations.

    Headphones - will never provide imaging and felt sonic impact of speakers. Currently very few headphones are tonally accurate, because there are no standards regarding their tonality or how to measure it. That will change, but former disadvantages will still apply.

    Near fields - best imaging and potential tonal balance due to lack of room interaction. Near fields alone will never have extension to play bass and require a sub for these duties. For proper midbass impact at least 8" drivers are required, <6" drivers leave a dynamic hole around 80-250Hz.

    Full-size speakers - require extensive physical and digital room room doctoring to achieve a correct tonal balance. Bass cabinets usually have to be moved together with mid-treble cabinet, which is a compromise. Placement for best imaging won't be necessarily best for bass.

    IMHOBBQROFLcakes best setup - stand mounted mid field 3-ways with passive crossovers and a dedicated Class-A/AB power amp. These speakers must be able to provide good FR down to 50Hz or lower. Think something like this - http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Diy_Loudspeaker_Projects.htm#3-WAY_CLASSICS or ATC 50 - 100 liter 3-ways. Feed these from a quality DAC.

    For bass duties have at least one 12" sealed sub - SVS SB-2000 would be perfect. Sealed subs isn't really rocket science - a good Daytona driver in one of those PartsExpress doghouses will do. Sub power needs to be calculated in relation to main speakers, Class-D watts are cheap. Larger sweetspots will require >1 subs, small sweetspot might let you use a single 15". Feed the sub from another lower quality DAC.

    Use a digital crossover for crossover/room-correction/volume duties. Lower quality setups might get away for using the crossover for DAC duties as well. A measurement mic is a must.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2016
  7. Rex Aeterna

    Rex Aeterna Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Cinnaminson, nj
    class d watts aren't always cheap. even if it's using a switcher. the psu would still have to be robust enough to handle the heat dissipation and current delivery for the given output. but, that's just opinion on actual class d with mosfet outputs and not a chip/IC in place instead that have experience with(never dabbled with chip amps). good class d stuff is just as expensive as old school class a/b stuff. there is a lot of cheap class a/b stuff out there...

    on the subject that cs asked...no, i think. most every speaker is designed and measured the same way. even large ass mastering speakers is measured on axis at 1 meter(about 4ft) in an anechoic chamber so can even use large speakers as near fields if you want. hi-fi,near-field,ect. is just marketing terms. i wouldn't let it get to you. a good speaker is a good speaker and can be used however the user wants to use it. it comes down to certain restraints, needs, and intentions of the individual that makes the most difference.

    there is some odd ball speaker manufactures measuring in different ways using diffused-field technique and so forth to mimic an avg listening space but, it's done mostly for a consumer standpoint for the casual uses like ht systems. ht stuff and ht dsp is a form of diffused-field equalization process.
     
  8. Hrodulf

    Hrodulf Prohibited from acting as an MOT until year 2050

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Likes Received:
    4,276
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Cspirou

    Near vs. mid and far field - it's all about the amount of direct and reflected sound. The further you get from your speakers the more room you mix into the incoming sound. Most near fields will do okay with you sitting further away, provided they have extra headroom for the increased output requirement.
     
  9. Orkney

    Orkney Acquaintance

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2016
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Both for me. I listen while I work, and tend to work long days round kids etc., so having the ability to swap between speakers and headphones without losing much in the way of overall tonality and SQ is important for me.

    Generally feel more connected to the music through HPs and use those (even crappy ones) while writing, but nearfield listening can be more visceral, more immersive and a little less intense, IMO -- though I've got a pair of new PMCs incoming that have some of the direct-sonic-injection properties of my favourite HPs.

    best,

    o
     
  10. chopstix

    chopstix Canali at HF (keeping him close)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Canada
    i sold off all my gear a while ago...then 1 yr or so ago re-entered audio from the portable angle.
    just recently i realized that i missed the live sound that could fill my room (and mostly work from desktop) so got some audioengine a5+ speakers and a nice pioneer sub....loved it...
    then i wanted better sound and after much research (emotiva, adam, jbl) i settled on the
    the Focal Alpha 50...found some new and unused for US$510.
    next i'll focus on my living room in a yr or so..prob look at new Kef LS50 wireless
    Leave it to the French to kick the sound of desktop/computer speakers up a notch
    https://www.cnet.com/news/leave-it-...sound-of-desktopcomputer-speakers-up-a-notch/
     
  11. Xyrium

    Xyrium New

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2017
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    NJ
    I've had several pro monitors over the past decade, ranging from the inexpensive but likable JBL LSR305s to the reasonably priced ATC SCM11s and Focal Solo 6bes. I've had various hifi monitors, some projects like the Zaph Audio ZRT, and others such as Dynaudio Audience and Excite lines (both low end). The same goes for amps. Pro audio from Crest Audio and one Crown cheapie, to hifi Parasound A23 and Nuprime STA9. My main listening has now focused on the less the accurate, but more pleasing colouration in hifi.

    My musical preferences really run the gamut, and many recordings just come through with displeasing harshness on the better Pro Monitors because of their accuracy. While I lose some detail and soundstage coherency, I prefer a dip in the high mids, and a slight boost in the bass. That allows my old ears to enjoy the dynamics of a recording, without listener fatigue, and yet, maintain some semblance of instrument timbre.

    That said, I only use headphones for isolation. I don't seek the wow factor of the minute details that a good set of cans and amp can provide, and bass down to 40Hz is really all I need. So, Hifi it is for me. I enjoy the freedom to sit and listen without tether, or minor head pressure, enjoy a good cocktail, and speak with guests freely.

    Edit: Apparently I need some of these "crystals" now too. LOL
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2017

Share This Page