Submitted by West-Cheek-156 t3_11cpf4g in headphones
For added context: I have listened to high end, more "resolving" headphones and have definitely heard things in songs I hadn't before. But the problem is even when I go back to cheaper, worse headphones, I can still hear those details because now I know what to listen for.
So with that in mind, how do people demo/ review the levels of detail in headphones without listening to new music every time?
Thanks in advance.
Controversial but rational take: all of the above is the human brain and ear's way of interpreting variations in frequency response. Sound waves have amplitude, frequency, and stop/start time. There are no other characteristics of sound waves. Every headphone that works is capable of vibrating at least 20,000 times per second. That's fast enough to cover all frequencies, but the differences in amplitude between frequencies create the illusions you describe.
I agree with this take, but the problem with this take is that it's functionally useless. FR is heavily smoothed because of how inconsistent it is with fine-grained measurements, especially in the treble, which is mostly what affects perceived detail. The way FR is measured is also just a constant volume one-tone sweep, which doesn't really catch anything nonlinear. Time-related response isn't measured either.
The more specific take would be "FR, split across all frequencies, of the sound reaching your ears, across all different speeds and volumes, is all that matters" but it's basically useless trivia at this point.
There won't be audible timing issues from equipment designed to vibrate more than 20,000 times per second.
Edit to add: I don't know what nonlinear means in this context.
>a constant volume one-tone sweep, which doesn't really catch anything nonlinear
It's not just the frequency of vibration that matters, but also the impulse response. Theoretically, transducers are limited by the fact that you can't replicate immediate changes in velocity while you're working with something that has mass. Even if we accept that over 20khz frequency changes aren't perceptible even in transients, FR up to that range is very inconsistent. Nonlinear in this context would be the change in FR when measuring at different amplitudes, which would include resonances for example.
I'm glad you backed off the speed issue. I think it is reasonable for people measuring headphones to assume that most listeners will generally tend to listen at a generally loud but safe volume. But my original point was not a defense of measurement, but an explanation of some illusions created by the designs of different headphones.
Yeah, I'm not completely sold on speed myself, I just think it's an additional potential source of inaccuracy in how we measure FR. I just wanted to emphasize that measured FR is lacking, so there are perceived technicalities, but those technicalities are also just un-measured FR.
Ok, but then please explain to me why when I EQ all of my Headphones to the Harman target, why does my HD800 still sound the most detailed?
My guess would be that the HD800s bigger soundstage spreads the individual sounds over a much larger area, making it vastly easier to discern individual sounds. The LCD2C sounds like a thick blob of sound in my head in comparison.
Sound stage from headphones is an illusion created by manipulating high frequencies the ear and brain use to locate sound sources. PEQ uses smoothed curves and is imprecise to each individual set. It would take maybe hundreds of lines of PEQ code to make two different headphones sound close enough to exactly the same for most human ears.
You are telling me that soundstage has nothing to do with the shape of the cop, reflections within the cup and at what angle the soundwaves are actually hitting my ear? If its ALL in the frequency response, you should be able to name me one IEM that produces a HD800 like soundstage. One of them must have similar high frequencies in the ear compared to an HD800 right?
Hey, we're having a friendly conversation here.
The design of the cup is how the engineers manipulate the high frequencies that our brains and ears use to locate sound sources. Sound waves have only three characteristics: amplitude, which we hear as volume, frequency, which we hear as pitch, and start/stop times, which are easy for any device designed to vibrate 20,000 times per second. Sound has no other characteristics. But our ears and brains interpret sound waves in very complicated ways.
Edit: Just saw your stealth edit. I don't think you raised any new points for discussion with it.
Spot on, I say.
This is probably the best explanation I’ve read.
I missed this but thank you, very insightful.
Read about this subject here. TL;DR: The cleaner the headphone is between frequencies, especially in the high frequency region, the more definition it can have, and as a result, you will notice more "details." These descriptions correlate with the idea of auditory masking.
Among audiophile reviews and headphone frequency response graphs, what correlates with the idea of "more detail" is usually the region above 10kHz.
The region above 10 kHz is usually reduced in headphones as it is a region that we hear at high volume, but some headphones made for audiophiles have a lot of activity above that region so that the details in that range can be heard more easily.
Deserves an upvote
This is part of why "detail" is a little disagreed upon in terms of definition.
Some define it as a property of the driver that reproduces things others can't, and others define it as parts of the treble that emphasizes smaller nuances that are always there, but either masked or not as pronounced in most other headphones
For me I tend to bucket them into macro and micro. Macro detail is largely dictated by frequency response.
Going from a headphone with a dip in a certain frequency to a headphone with peak in the same frequency may present "new" details. Then when you go back to the old pair you can still hear the "new" detail... because you know what to look for now. The new pair just made it stand out, due to a peak/lack of dip.
The micro/low-level/nuanced details are the bits that I think differ due to things beyond just frequency response/tonality. Here distortion and other factors are at play IMO.
To put it another way, macro is noticing a new background instrument/effect because you either corrected a dip in the fundamental range or used a headphone with a peak in that same range. Hearing additional texture on a guitar string pluck would be an example of a "micro" detail in my book.
For any earphone with sufficiently low distortion (any quality one worth considering at any price) it is not an issue. Beyond that the micro detail is just smaller peaks and dips in FR.
So how about detail differences in amps when they measure the same FR and similar distortion?
lol
Ah my bad, I forgot you don't believe in audible differences that are currently immeasurable through non-human diagnostic tools. ;)
That's how I see it, too.
I’m in the camp that believes it’s all or almost all just part of frequency response.
Thanks, added question, what other things should I be listening for other than FR (assuming a decent enough set can just be EQ'ed to your liking)?
Overall smoothness and not rolled off at the top helps.
Do you think that means you can just buy one really good pair and EQ it to the FR of other headphones and it will sound exactly the same?
No, this is something that's often misunderstood, but in real world use, you can't easily EQ one headphone to another without knowing how that headphone or IEM response on your own ear. Even if you could EQ two headphones to appear to have the same FR on a measurment rig, on your own head the FR at your eardrum can still be drastically different
Sharur in shambles.
Regardless of Sharur, Harman performed virtualizations (EQ) so that one headphone could sound like another, which is part of the methodologies used to develop the Harman Target. Among the studies conducted, individuals did not report significant differences between the original headphone and the equalized one, although there may be differences when wearing them in your ears. It is worth noting that the main differences will be found in the range of 1 kHz to 20 kHz, as these are the ranges with the greatest variations among HRTFs. u/West-Cheek-156
How? He understands this concept and he repeatedly states that he hates equalizing headphones/IEMs in his videos.
He reviews headphones without seeing them in real life and simply EQuing his Moondrop Variation to whatever headphone he's reviewing. He says that the Frequency Response the only thing that matters in a headphone's sound as headphones as they are pressure chambers.
He says that a $20 Moondrop Chu can be EQued to sound exactly like a $500 Moondrop Variation. He calls anyone who questions this and his review methodology a "noob".
He doesn't hate EQ for the reason you stated. He says he hates EQ because a headphone that needs EQ is a bad headphone. He says that they sound the same after EQ but EQ is just cope for buying bad headphones and that he only buys good headphones.
Actually his view kinda changed. Sure he still eq's to hear frequency response, but you gotta buy the headphone to see if it has polarity and phase issues.
I'm glad to hear that's he's having character development :)
LMAO
Yeah that's what I've heard particularly in the upper frequencies. Thanks
Folks who believe it's all or almost all about FR are fairly odd to me.
Try convincing music studios of the mentality. They'll laugh at you. Sound is more than just FR, otherwise post effects beyond equalizers would be far more rare. It definitely is of great importance, but the whole story has much more going on, or music production would be much simpler.
For example, closed headphones often lack acoustic dampening materials on the inside. In studio monitors, you'll often find polyester fiberfill inside their cabinets to kill excess resonances, which muddy the sound and can give speakers a "boxed-in" sound. Closed headphones tend to "sound closed" for their lack of fiberfill inside, or sound like they apply a "hall reverb" to everything. Occasionally, some may actually have fiberglass for dampening. Equalizing the headphone can never mitigate this issue as it has nothing to do with frequency response in the first place. The Beyerdynamic DT660 (discontinued) was famous for being a closed headphone appropriate for classical music. It had dense cotton padding inside to kill excess resonances, in addition to a balanced FR. It "sounded open" rather than "closed" as a result, so it wouldn't mask and muddy music with a "hall reverb" over everything. A comparable, more modern headphone (but also discontinued now) is the Pioneer MHR5. Another closed headphone with dampening to purge internal excess resonances is the HRM7, a superb studio can.
Cleaner and finer articulation of sound is also related to other aspects of headphone design; you can't make it happen with EQ, but it can help subtly at best. I'm guessing this is affected by the voice coil and chemical treatment of the diaphragm. I have no idea. The articulation of sound is fuzzier in cheap headphones versus my HD650 and K701, for example.
Clearer, tighter bass out of a headphone is a bit of a tough job to pull off, but the kinds of modifications that can contribute would probably blow your mind. Impossible to replicate with only equalizers.
If you listen to a speaker in a room with some reflection, you will likely also hear bass reverberations. Harman's research takes into account these reverberations because they consider the type of environment in which people normally listen to music.
You are unlikely to see someone listening to music in an anechoic chamber.
And tweaking a closed headphone to be pretty close to an anechoic chamber is not a difficult thing to do.
What do you think that post effects are manipulating besides timing based ones like reverb/delay?
I see what you are getting at but there is no true equivalent to reverb/delay in the physical behavior of resonances in headphones. Resonances affect the FR in an exact 1:1 fashion to the point that one can be calculated from the other.
A resonance at a certain frequency causes a peak at that same frequency. Or does the peak cause the resonance? I dunno, they are inseparable.
[removed]
not exactly, but not too far off either
tuning isn't what makes a headphone, technical performance (which includes detail retrieval, staging and imaging, etc) has an equal part to play. the entire build/fit of a headphone also drastically affects the sound. placing one headphone's driver in another's casing would not give you the same sound, for example
Sennheiser takes advantage of this by using the same drivers in their whole HD5x5, HD5x8, and HD5x9 lines. Each line uses the same deiver elements, the differences in sound boil down entirely to the housing. HD595, 598, and 599 get the best housings and achieve the best sound. Many would mod the next model below to get the 595/598/599 sound for less money. I've gotten my HD558 sounding better than the three top models.
There's also driver matching. If the FR of the left cup is very different from the FR of the right cup, it'll never sound right unless you EQ each cup specifically to match each other.
Not exactly. But probably pretty close.
I think that’s mostly correct, the thing is that unless you posit a flat curve, the frequency response pattern will be both a product of tuning and an index for detail retrieval.
I also believe that FR is the main part, the HD600's are within +/- 3dB from 30-20khz and they sound detailed to me.
Have you ever heard two amps where one can be perceived as more detailed than the other? FR wouldn't explain that since almost every SS amp is dead flat
I have not actually
I've come to learn that what many people refer to as "detail" is something I would personally call "clarity".
This becomes particularly noticeable in fairly treble heavy vocals. Less "detailed" headphones will make them sound somewhat "grainy", more "detailed" headphones will present them more cleanly.
It is this treble cleanliness that can make it easier to distinguish details, but less easy does not equal impossible, and other factors play into how easily details are heard as well.
Detail and clarity go hand and hand. Detail exposes certain audio queues, listen to older Tool tracks between different sets of headphones, EQ whatever it is as well.
On a daily basis I listen to Bluetooth beats(the sports ones) at work, which is just convient and sounds pretty good. Then I get home and jump to DT990s, which are decent, just all around budget friendly and sound good. Then I jump to my LCDs, and it's just a leap in detail, clarity, Frequency response, etc. (Typically I don't even wear the DT990s anymore)
Planar magnetic headphones are just a different breed/experience. I plan on getting a pair of focals next possibly.
I've had that same experience, so the way I discuss detail is more in terms of mental effort. Highly detailed headphones allow me to perceive small details and textures in the music with less mental effort needed than with less detailed headphones. If the headphone is less detailed, then I have to know that a detail is there and focus on it to perceive it. If a headphone is more detailed, then that sound jumps out at me even when I'm not focused on the music. Hence, different headphones can be more detailed in some areas than others, and a "less detailed" headphone can in some frequency regions be perceived as more detailed than a "more detailed" headphone by having an FR that emphasizes the details in that region.
Another term that I've seen in place of detail that I find really helpful is "tonal contrast". I first saw the term used by reviewer Marcus at Headfonics, but the term probably goes further back than that. Tonal contrast is the contrast (think visual contrast) between different tones, like between fundamental and the overtones. Higher tonal contrast makes the differences between similar pitches on different instruments be more pronounced, which sounds like more detail. Human vision, object recognition in particular, is more dependent on contrast and silhouette than color. That's how optical camouflage works, not by making an object impossible to see with the eye, but harder for the brain to recognize as a given object. To me, detail is music is similar. You're always hearing that sound that comprises a detail, but your brain didn't recognize it as an instrument or whatever, until you heard it on a headphone with higher tonal contrast in the relevant frequency bands.
All of this should just be encapsulated in the FR (plus psychoacoustics), but it's a very fine-grained and multi-band look at FR that we currently don't know how to do accurately or reliably. It's not just more treble, as I've heard very treble-heavy headphones that masked detail due to having too much treble. And it's not just having an even or neutral frequency response either, as an unbalanced FR can highlight certain parts of sound, which can make them sound more detailed than a headphone with a balanced FR. Then there's also distortion; sometimes distortion can improve clarity by boosting relevant overtones and thus increasing tonal contrast. So yeah, it's not something that's easy to recognize from just a graph.
That's seems like a sensible way to think of it actually. I definitely have had instances with my new iems where I'm not paying attention to the music but I'll suddenly prick up at something I'd never heard before. And they are just way clearer than my old ones which goes a long way.
I’ve got a few full size headphones and a few good IEMs. I’m honestly not sure which one has the “most detail”. Focal Elex, AKG K371, 7Hz Timeless AE, Etymotic ER4SR, Truthear Hexa, and AirPods Pro 2’s is what’s in my rotation. Maybe I’m just not able to hear detail as well as some others with golden ears. I’d think that most would assume that the ER4SR would have the most, and maybe it does, but I don’t know.
The two I’ve been using the most lately is the Timeless AE and the Hexa. The Timeless is $260, and the Hexa is $80. I’m not sure that I’m really hearing more detail with the Timeless over the Hexa. I know that the Timeless is the more fun sounding one in terms of impact and fun treble extension.
I appreciate your honest comment. I went through similar experiences and it was a red pill for me. Especially combined with finding "detail" matched more and more the better I was able to tweak the headphones with EQ.
I think the "hearing things in songs" factor is more a matter of how the headphone's tonal balance emphasizes or de-emphasizes various things in a mix. Even shit headphones can be EQ'd to emphasize the same things, assuming they can reproduce the relevant frequencies without serious distortion.
"detail" to me (and these kinds of subjective terms lack any concrete definition outside how each individual interprets them) means lack of "crud" for lack of a better word, like reverberations, resonances, "grain", etc. Stuff that doesn't lend itself to easy EQing.
For me it's about how EASY those details stand out. Sometimes I have to squint my brain to hear them, and other times it comes through effortlessly, like I don't even have to try to hear it.
I love how whenever this sub discusses those topics, someone says that every piece of equipment should technically sound the same. But it very obviously doesn’t.
Right? All these people pretend like they have the answers but they don't know what they are talking about at all. It's very frustrating they drag down the community into arguing over their vapid copy and paste ideas.
I define detail as small things in songs that literally disappear when going back to worse transducers. I have a reference track that only the better transducer can reproduce:
The intro lyrics from The Chainsmokers - Closer has buried detail that a decent headphone (at least a Drop DCA Aeon X Open or maybe even HD6XX) or a decent IEM (IEM that don't come as a freebie) can easily reproduce
Here's the lyrics with the extra detail:
>Hey *hey*, I was doing just fine before I met you
>
>I drink too much and that's an issue but I'm okay *okay, I'm okay*
​
the ones with the * are the extra detail. The *okay, I'm okay* part will be easier to hear than the *hey*
Try with any inferior headphones first as a baseline then try again with the best headphone in your collection
I find it very interesting that you have such a specific example but I don't really understand what I am supposed to be listening for or what the buried detail is.
As a baseline, use your quarks to listen to the song until the "I'm okay part"
Here's the original lyrics (no additional details) >Hey, I was doing just fine before I met you >I drink too much and that's an issue >But I'm OK
As you can see, there's only one "hey" rather than two before the "I was doing just fine" starts, and that's because only the better transducer can reveal that second "hey" in the mix. The same with the "I'm okay" part where the better transducer will reveal that there's two repetitions of "okay" after the original line in the form of "okay, I'm okay"
It’s kinda hard to describe. I do think that detail can be “faked” by heightening a frequency response. Or, listening to a new headphone can make you hear new things because the frequency response is different, or “new toy” syndrome is forcing you to pay more attention than you normally would.
On the flip side, some headphones and even driver types can do things that are simply unique. For example, I compared my Focal Clear to the Sundara I previously owned, and the Sundara had that “plucked” quality to its bass that I’ve heard some describe, where it sounds like each bass note has its own little vibration or feel to it. Meanwhile, the Clear has this dynamic capability that’s hard to match, and it can come with either a lot of dynamic swing where drums have a lot of power, or something soft where you can kind of feel the air or breath of a voice or instrument. Something like that is what I call detail, because you can actually feel the driver doing something. Acoustic guitars on the Clear are amazing in a similar way, because you can sort of feel the strumming and air around the notes that’s otherwise hard to replicate.
I’ll also say that the recording you’re listening to plays a major part.
You'll be able to hear it but the details are usually just more buried with lower end headphones, it's like a dirty window
Whenever I've bought new headphones, even lower-quality ones, I've discovered new things in songs that I had never consciously noticed before. I'm pretty sure it's because I listen more intently for a while after getting new cans. As you've discovered, all those details are audible on any decent pair of headphones. You don't need to spend $1,000 to hear them.
There's a lot of utter nonsense that gets passed around as conventional wisdom in the audiophile world.
I've considered that and I think it definitely does happen, but I have also found myself not paying attention to music on new gear and doing something else then suddenly I'll prick up at things very distinct that are new to me. On songs I've heard 100 times.
i can fully attest to this, yet i still think it's just due to the (intentional or unintentional) differences between headphones, and not a sign of 'better' technical capabilities. differing tonalities, imaging/separation capabilities and whatever else means that different headphones will make some 'details' more audible than others
probably
That could be it. My experience comes from having quite a few ~$100 iems that I've listened to for a while and just getting the IE600. Makes sense that the perception of detail would be a side effect of other things.
The differences in resolution between headphones are smaller when using budget DACs, too. Not having your ears clogged with wax also helps, you'd be surprised how many folks don't even notice.
Everyone's ears also have varying frequency responses and whatever else.
based af
So the way I see it: if I listen to a particular headphone and the song has drums in it - do I hear the impact from the very beginning, does it sound slow and sluggish, almost farty?
Do you hear echoes or reverb from instruments while other stuff is already going on, or is the whole image too mushy to listen for that?
The phenomenon that you described, hearing something new on a high-end headphone and then hearing the same thing on a cheaper one is your ears being trained basically. You know now what to listen for, but you needed the better headphone at least once to properly be made aware of it.
If you have the chance: try to compare the focal utopia to the Audeze LCD-X. You would assume that the Utopia, given it’s price, is better in every way - but I don’t think that is the case, I would describe the LCD-X as more detailed and faster, but the Utopia as smoother and more pleasant for longer listening sessions. I do think the terms make sense, but only in comparisons with relatively large differences.
sound of wagon wheels
T3 ~2:05
T2 ~1:20 / ~3:20
T1 ?
The way I do it is fairly simpler than what most people generally go for. I play industrial music with vocal distortion. The more detail, the more patterns you’ll identify in the distortion. The less detail, the more “smear” you’ll hear.
[deleted]
I don’t know about all this talk from self proclaimed audiophiles and reviewers, but I only buy “bass head” iems and judge them by the same reference tracks, then reread the reviews. I hear (or don’t) the same things in the tracks, but with different prominence or coloration. Does that mean I always like the Honeydews better than the OH10’s or 1More Quads? No-they are just different. And It takes my ears awhile to tell my brain why I enjoy each of them.
Some things I listen for.
Just some of the things I listen for. I'm not an experienced great connoisseur by any means
[deleted]
what songs do you listen to?
Double Blind Testing is the best we have came up with till date
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.
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.
We do know what aspects of the frequency response contribute. Literally all of them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
your inability to understand written english is shocking...
Were we not talking about detail?????
Jesus Christ, education has gone down the shitter....
Fair enough, it is a term I hear reviewers like Crin and Resolve use often so I do wonder what they're referring to
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
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"
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.
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.
Fair enough. It definitely does get confusing when terms are used differently by everyone
They could just call it "schlorp", to be honest.
All these problems are about phenomenology and the problem of qualia.
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 :)
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.
Ooh, I can define dynamics and speed too!
But the Crin and Resolve fans aren't gonna like it :(
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?
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.
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
I have the definition of detail.
The Crin and Resolve fans aren't gonna like it though.
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".
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.
Oh crap. You found my definition of detail. I hope the laughing doesn't disturb your sleep too much.
Luke_bxl t1_ja4hy5a wrote
Here’s how I define it after hearing the difference between detail and resolution on high end systems:
Detail is the ability to clearly present barely discernible sounds which would be veiled by other less detailed systems due to their higher noise floor. These are sounds and micro dynamics within the track such as the sound of a guitarist lifting his finger off a string to move to the next note (small quiet pops etc). On a a very detailed system you will notice a physicality to the image presented in front of you
Resolution I define as how lifelike the sound appears, it is the auditory equivalent of moving from a 1080p HD display to 4k, there is just more information there that the driver is able to present to you. Lees resolution sounds fuzzy or veiled by comparison
I hope this makes sense, Hifi can be hard to put in to words until you have heard it. To answer you question, yes all that information is in the song if you look for it, but very detailed systems present this VERY obviously, all clearly separated and relaxed. You shouldn’t have to look for detail that is already there in a good system