There is a lengthy thread on those here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/210627-wilmslow-audio-prestige-platinum.html
Does anyone have a circuit to process headphone sound to resemble the position of speakers ? Stereo to binaural ? Hopefully > 16 bit . I really can not cope with headphone sound . I have been designing a headphone amp . It was only when I realized this was the problem I was happy with my design . It will never sound right so does it have listening fatigue ? No it doesn't in itself . I don't much like my Stax headphones for the same reason . I admire them , I can not relate them to live music .
Thanks a lot for the information. Excellent speakers really.
I like the style immensely ... even if i would cut the upper half
to make a sat+sub arrangement ... same shape of course ... very beautifulKind regards, gino
Hi and just to say that i have the same nightmare ...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/headphone-systems/255972-about-crossfeed-concept.html
I cannot live with that sensation of sound stuck in the head.
The sound must come from the front outside the skull.
Binaural recordings are better but still i have problems locating the sound front and rear (sometime a front sound seems to come from the back of the head), but the overall feeling is indeed better.
The day when they will find a solution the world will be a better place.
And me too i think that it will be digital
Kind regards, gino
Last edited:
I'm in the process of building a pair of Prestige Platinum at the moment.
x2
Some are nicer than others because the sound seems farer but finally all the same... maybe a problem with the too short load of the ears itselves without bigger space environnement. Maybe it needs some electronic delay at some higher frequencies (whic is hard to do with a width band driver) or acoustic interface... Philips used to sell +5.1 headphones with multiple drivers in it and filters. I owned.. but the result was strange.
Thanks for the post, familar with all except Ray Kimbers setup ....
You should get 7 dutchie , perfect multi/channel setup ...
Problem is that Harry van Dalen showed me the Avalon Ascent in the late '80s.
The (eidolon) Diamond is even higher up the ladder.
(think I'll stick with Lyngdorf S15IW)
I too admire headphones (less phase problem, no acoustics to deal with), but I agree. We hear sound around us, mostly listening to stuff in front of us. I've even contemplated a nearfield setup.
Maybe a lack of crosstalk, but with an image in front of you. Like below, but move the speakers up so they are straight ahead. I made a demonstrator years ago with TB w3-871s that was was interesting (got damaged in a move).
Norman
Maybe a lack of crosstalk, but with an image in front of you. Like below, but move the speakers up so they are straight ahead. I made a demonstrator years ago with TB w3-871s that was was interesting (got damaged in a move).
Norman
Thanks Scott .
I read about a very simple crosstalk device . Couldn't find any details of the how and the why . I assume some frequency tailoring ?
If I had this device ( Smyth ) it would be interesting to arrange speakers to resemble headphones . Doubtless very closely spaced to work with the headphone assumptions
I remember someone saying maybe 40 years ago that the problem with headphones is someone coughing at a concert does so in the middle of ones head . If the BBC it is usually between musical pieces when live concerts . For me that impression is constant . I don't get it with mono ( especially 78's ) . That's probably is where it needs to go . Leave enough stereo to give space and get the blend frequency response correct ( variable to suit the listener ) .
Having listened to proper binaural I am not happy with it ,perhaps they try too hard to make it obvious ? I think a simple analogue blend circuit would do me very well . When this is right headphones out perform speakers . Beyer DT 990 being probably being better than any speaker at any price ( measurements , distortion , transient response ) . I supplied some calibrated KEF 27 tweeters to Oxford University to test hearing response . I was told some very interesting facts . We don't hear much below 100 Hz , 200 Hz being more realistic . The low frequencies sensed in the body . The other ears are located all over the body . My deaf friend has zero hearing via his ears . He can dance if the music is loud enough . That is not hard to believe . What is harder to guess is we hear the same as him for sub 200 Hz bass . The Japanese had a chair that was a sub woofer for headphone listening . I suspect it would give better stereo !
The Oxford research people told me other interesting stuff . The ear is a very crude analogue device of about 30% THD . It is also like a digital device ( hairs firing ) . The mystery was a signal coming back from the brain at about 2 MHz switching speed . They inferred that the analogue and digital work together . They suspected a feedback loop of sorts , that explains the 2 MHz signal . Hamsters rather than mice used to test similar hearing to ours . The mice listen to a totally different range . The project was about binaraul hearing in mammals . One thing that comes from this is making emergency sirens that we respond to quickly when in traffic .
One thing I inferred from that research was how the contradiction of euphonic distortion might be understood . If an amplifier or total system drifted towards a distortion the ear produces it could easily ignore it . Put in one minute deviation from it's " house " defect and it will stand out . To engineer such a system is reasonably easy as it is the natural tendency of tubes and loudspeakers . Quad 303 has this distortion albeit at 20 dB below supposed audibility . I feel I still can hear it and very much like it . A tube amplifier I built was of about 1% TDH and of the same spectrum . Now that is + 20 dB above audibility . I would say within reason it sounds just like the Quad 303 except slightly more detail . I put this down to being class A SE . I don't have an explanation for how the amplifier alone can have this sound . Surely it is the overall combination ? I can only speculate that we use the same criteria when choosing the partner equipment so unconsciously seek this sound . Thus a the sound reliably emerges . Possibly knowing too much makes this road longer as it offends some to think others prefer distortion . They don't actually , they prefer well ordered distortion . How many reading this would be shocked to know how distorted most speakers are . This will include ones costing as much as a house . Compared to a Quad 303 they are 100 times worse and yet that is totally OK . If I was the claim a Quad 303 as the worlds best amplifier people would laugh . In truth it might be . The speakers don't exist to definitively say it is not . I would guess the 303 started life in 1965 , not bad for a device born when transistors were far from being ideal devices . If a Quad 303 sounds dull you have the wrong speakers . That might even include the Quads .
my friend heard the Magico Ultimate III speakers in Munich, and he is fond of it. and he's (was?) a die hard Martin Logan fan.
5 drivers ! Passive filter ?
600 K dollars without the room & the wires ! Can be cloned for 10 K dollars ?
All the good technics here, look at the bass mid on top with something 1 squaremeter mouth ! Closed for the bass, maybe just the two first octaves.
Why not AMT driver for the top treble instead the CD ! Stupid I am... it's for the V2 at 700 000 dollars in two years !
600 K dollars without the room & the wires ! Can be cloned for 10 K dollars ?
All the good technics here, look at the bass mid on top with something 1 squaremeter mouth ! Closed for the bass, maybe just the two first octaves.
Why not AMT driver for the top treble instead the CD ! Stupid I am... it's for the V2 at 700 000 dollars in two years !
I'm not sure they are the best speakers I've heard (because it was a long time ago) but I remember being impressed with a pair of Townshend speakers. They had a row of KEF B110s and a row of Jordan 2" units (maybe 8 of each?).
Probably coloured by today's standards but they really punched out the transients.
Probably coloured by today's standards but they really punched out the transients.
Hello, i been searching forum for posts about DTQWT, found your question and thought i should reply. Maybe other people will find this description usefull as well.
I have DTQWT (T35 variant) and been tuning it for a year now, and it's best speaker among those i built or had. I also built/have Zaph SB12.3, SR71 and various stuff from internet as well as my own, but these finally got me settled.
I guess i should characterise their sound briefly, so:
- Very fast and punchy. The dynamics, bite and attack is their main thing. The closest thing to isodynamics i have.
- Very uniform crossover and dispersion. Tweeter and mid work as one and they measure and sound uniform at very wide angles.
- Very fast, punchy, dry and deep bass, free of "boxiness". Although i prefer Beyma bass drivers - i have Eminence as well, but Beymas go lower with better attack. The bass is among best and most lifelike i heard yet and as deep as i ever wanted (with Beyma) in my room (19 sq.m.) getting in that "seismic" low-end territory.
- overall sound is very non-fatiguing, musical, very neutral, dynamic. Soundstage is precise and holographic.
Although one thing need special notice - DTQWT is a burn-in monster which will turn any burn-in unbeliever into a cultist, such a great the difference there is. At first the sound is dark, somewhat dull, muddy hence some of the misleading impressions on this forum. They will also have resonances at different frequencies while burning-in. But in month or two it is a totally different speaker, free of all problems mentioned and with a amazing sound.
Best i heard, contrary to their looks, these are not about playing loud and max spl. But about voices. Cessaro Alpha I.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.