Submitted by West-Cheek-156 t3_11cpf4g in headphones
[deleted] t1_ja4ckdi wrote
You don't. "Detail", among others, is a made up term by audiophiles, to justify paying unreasonable sums for a headphone (with often horrid FR).
Just enjoy music without worrying about that nonsense.
radrod69 t1_ja524z6 wrote
You know, I resent snake oil as much as the next guy, but in my opinion this statement is going too far. Detail is as much a made up term as any other descriptor we have to talk about our hobby. We may not know yet what aspects of a frequency response to attribute to this quality, but we can still experience it, and we need to be able to talk about it without the need to shout boogeyman.
thatcarolguy t1_ja8rs77 wrote
We do know what aspects of the frequency response contribute. Literally all of them.
radrod69 t1_jadijef wrote
When I say what aspects of the frequency response, I mean what distinctive features may cause us to experience a heightened sense of detail compared to others.
thatcarolguy t1_jadj1iv wrote
It's the lack of distinctive features. Detail is just hearing what you want to hear. If your expectations are broad and balanced (Ie, not just honing in on what helps you hear the singer's fart at 1:37 the best) then to hear the proper detail you want a smooth response with rises in the right areas (ear gain) and no big spikes or elevated regions that mask detail in adjacent regions.
But if you are hung up on the singer's fart then you are listening for a distinctive elevation in whatever frequency region helps you hear that at the expense of other details.
[deleted] t1_ja52tf5 wrote
Homie...
LITERALLY NO ONE has an example of what "detail" is.
Detail is like Bigfoot. They all pretend as though its there and assure you that they know how it looks but they actually cannot show you evidence.
I am not shouting boogeyman, mate. I am GENUINELY angry that everyone just accepts it that a term, which NOONE as a clear and precise definition, nor an example for, is used as a differentiator between headphones.
Imagine me differentiating cars based on their "schlorpiness". I can feel how schlorpy a car is, after the first five minutes, trust me.
radrod69 t1_ja5593r wrote
I don't appreciate you all capping at me, first of all, homie.
Which terms used to differentiate headphones have a clear and precise definition?
Edit: Before you try to derail the conversation further, I mean in terms of sound.
[deleted] t1_ja6mllv wrote
your inability to understand written english is shocking...
Were we not talking about detail?????
Jesus Christ, education has gone down the shitter....
West-Cheek-156 OP t1_ja4edm7 wrote
Fair enough, it is a term I hear reviewers like Crin and Resolve use often so I do wonder what they're referring to
[deleted] t1_ja4gbhk wrote
I wonder that myself. And yet, everytime someone asks, all they manage to do is provide a pseudo-physical explanation, without giving any examples.
If they cannot name a method or way to listen/test for "detail", "speed", "dynamics" and all such things, then their assesments in that regard are just noise.
Soundstage is one example of a loosely defined term, relative to tonality. BUT one can EASILY provide a test for people to conduct at home to understand the meaning. Just use an old IEM to listen to any song. Then use any over ear headphone to listen to the same song. Chances are that with the IEM the music will sound "more in your head", this difference between the IEM and the over ear headphone is soundstage and it can exist between different headphones as well.
One can easily explain and show what tonality is. These "audiophile terms" on the other hand are, poorly defined and cannot be tested for. Reminds me of a cult:
"You shall not put these terms, technicalities, to the test" -Headphonomy 6:16
SupOrSalad t1_ja4jku3 wrote
I think resolve lately refers to those terms as "subjective things that aren't easy to see in FR, but may be contained in FR"
[deleted] t1_ja4ks4b wrote
That is cool, but does not solve the problem.
See, I do not even care about whether or not it is reflected in FR that is secondary to the first problem: DEFINITION.
If they cannot tell me what to listen for, like a certain thing at certain time in a certain song, for example, then I just cannot take it as anything but the ramblings of a guy high on placebo.
The_D0lph1n t1_ja4uz1p wrote
You might find what I call "old-school audiophile" reviews better in some circumstances then, as many of them include stuff like "I put on [specific song] and the saxophone was deeper and richer, but the trumpet sounded a bit flat and lacking brilliance". Brent Butterworth (who used to write for SoundstageSolo!) did his written reviews like this, where he went through a bunch of songs and described what he heard in each on the headphone being reviewed. He then extrapolated the FR features from there, like "the bass guitar was more prominent in this track than when played on [other headphone], so I suspect there is an elevation in the upper bass." He also did measurements (after writing the entire review, so that his listening wasn't biased by seeing the measurement).
Other people don't like that style of review, because they don't see the relevance of those impressions if they don't listen to the same songs as the reviewer. So they prefer the Crin/Resolve method of describing sound in general terms, like "mids are honky", "bass is muddy", "there's good/bad detail retrieval". The downside of that style of review is that sounds and perceptions have to be described in somewhat general and vague terms.
Another problem with the first, "old-school" style is that it gets very verbose, very fast. When the whole script of the review has to fit within a 10-minute YouTube video, there's no time to describe all of the examples of where an acoustic feature is present while also including stuff about build and comfort.
I've recently started gravitating towards that "old-school" style because even if I'm not familiar with the tracks the reviewer is using, they're almost always just a Spotify search away, I can discover new music in the process, and I can better understand what a reviewer means in a description (learn the jargon), and what they value in sound.
SupOrSalad t1_ja4l7gq wrote
Fair enough. It definitely does get confusing when terms are used differently by everyone
[deleted] t1_ja4lyge wrote
They could just call it "schlorp", to be honest.
Egoexpo t1_ja6au92 wrote
All these problems are about phenomenology and the problem of qualia.
[deleted] t1_ja6n68r wrote
No they are not :)
You can say a headphone is muddy. When I asked what that meant you simply say: excessive energy in the mid bass and sent me an EQ ti test it with my own headphones.
If I ask you, what "direct steering" means, you'd tell me to drive a G class and then hop into a 911.
I can explain what warm colours are to me, and show you.
These terms can easily be explained and shown to one another.
Detail, dynamics and speed cannot. They are meaningless, it seems :)
Egoexpo t1_ja7d7fy wrote
That's the point I'm making in my last comment. Detail, dynamics and speed is a subjective perception, individual perception is phenomenology. It's a relational subject.
It is not meaningless if this is something that is important to this person and if he is looking to have this experience.
The problem is that each individual will perceive details in different places in different songs. So the detail is there, but there are multiple details as much as there are multiple songs, multiple instruments recorded in different ways, and multiple headphones with different frequency responses in the world.
thatcarolguy t1_ja8swc6 wrote
Ooh, I can define dynamics and speed too!
But the Crin and Resolve fans aren't gonna like it :(
TheFrator t1_ja6dgqv wrote
For my own curiosity, can you give Pneuma by Tool a listen? Start at 9:30 mins in to save some time and through to the ending. Does anything sound off to you?
RB181 t1_ja799v8 wrote
I'll give you a certain thing at a certain time in a certain song:
Listen to the 4:41 - 4:53 section of 'Abyss of Time' by Epica, maybe do it with some low quality gear first, and then do it with higher quality gear. Do you notice anything that you haven't noticed the first time?
I love Epica, I've listened to that song about 100 times but it took me about 50 times and possibly different gear to hear the vocal there. That's an example of a detail to me. It's difficult to notice, but it's definitely there and has nothing to do with placebo.
West-Cheek-156 OP t1_ja4mf3i wrote
I feel a similar way when people describe drinks as having "body" lol. I'm sure it's a real thing but I don't know if everyone is describing the same thing
Thanks for the, ahem, detailed answers
thatcarolguy t1_ja8sdjf wrote
I have the definition of detail.
The Crin and Resolve fans aren't gonna like it though.
PutPineappleOnPizza t1_ja578gl wrote
Exactly. You might hear stuff like piano pedals or a singer taking a breath and such, but it's not like a super high end headphone is the only thing that enables you to hear these sounds. If it's in the recording, well, then it's in there. That's it. I highly doubt that there's more to hear once you get whatever is described as "summit-fi".
[deleted] t1_ja6mqtp wrote
These things are also frequency dependent, just boost the range to which those things belong and you ear them more easily. If that were what they mean with "detail" then I'd laugh myself to sleep.
thatcarolguy t1_ja8tq2s wrote
Oh crap. You found my definition of detail. I hope the laughing doesn't disturb your sleep too much.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments