Frequency range discussion (from LCD-3 thread)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF 

Just wanted to comment on the whole frequency range fiasco.

 

This chart is based off of the famous Carnegie Chart. The original was hand-drawn in 1941 by E.J. Quinby of Carnegie Hall and has been used by audio engineers and audio professionals since the 40's.

 

Within the mastering industry, this is what is used for EQ points:

 

Sub Bass: 20 Hz and below

Low Bass: 40 Hz

Mid Bass: 80 Hz

Lower Cloud: 150 Hz

Upper Cloud: 250 Hz

 

Lower Mid: 1,000 Hz

Mid: 3,400 Hz

Upper Mid: 6,000 Hz

 

Lower Treble: 8,000 Hz

Top: 10,000 Hz

Air: 14,000 Hz

 

This is what I have been using for over 11 years now and I know of other famous engineers who use the same definitions who have been using it for 30 years or more. I am sure many of you have their work in your collection.

 

Now, if Robert Harley wants to come out and change those definitions for the sake of selling books and magazines, then that is fine. It doesn't make him right. It's up to you who you want to believe and/or trust. Then again...do you really want to believe a man who argues against objective tests/listening/results?

Thank you.

As I said, I if asked an audio engineer to cut the upper mids, and he cut 1200Hz (according to the Robert Harley definition), I'd be ripping his nuts off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF 

Just wanted to comment on the whole frequency range fiasco.

 

This chart is based off of the famous Carnegie Chart. The original was hand-drawn in 1941 by E.J. Quinby of Carnegie Hall and has been used by audio engineers and audio professionals since the 40's.

 

Within the mastering industry, this is what is used for EQ points:

 

Sub Bass: 20 Hz and below

Low Bass: 40 Hz

Mid Bass: 80 Hz

Lower Cloud: 150 Hz

Upper Cloud: 250 Hz

 

Lower Mid: 1,000 Hz

Mid: 3,400 Hz

Upper Mid: 6,000 Hz

 

Lower Treble: 8,000 Hz

Top: 10,000 Hz

Air: 14,000 Hz

 

This is what I have been using for over 11 years now and I know of other famous engineers who use the same definitions who have been using it for 30 years or more. I am sure many of you have their work in your collection.

 

Now, if Robert Harley wants to come out and change those definitions for the sake of selling books and magazines, then that is fine. It doesn't make him right. It's up to you who you want to believe and/or trust. Then again...do you really want to believe a man who argues against objective tests/listening/results?

Lol, well there you go: I betcha 99.99% of audiophiles have never heard of the "cloud" band of frequencies before!

Weird, this is the first time I seem to have triggered a hot-headed debate on Head-fi! Like many others, I certainly didn't mean to: I was just noting that it is more likely that headphone enthusiasts are, like general audiophiles, educated by reading review magazines (as opposed to pro audio rags), so they will tend to use Harley's definitions just so they understand what they are reading. That's not right or wrong: it's just expeditious.

Now can someone please theorize why I can understand lyrics so much better in the LCD-2 Rev-2 than in pretty much any other headphone (e.g. HD800, HD600, T1, D2000) despite it dropping off significantly after 1kHz? In fact, I almost find it easier to discern lyrics in the LCD-2 than my Etymotic ER-4S, despite the two having hugely different frequency responses in the presence region.

Can't wait for my LCD-3 to arrive from HeadRoom ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF 

 

That pisses me off. Mr. Harley should know what the proper ranges are, especially because he is a reviewer and people trust his opinions. His definitions, IMHO, qualify as false knowledge. There is a vast body of false knowledge that plagues the audiophile world and it has a great allurement...seducing the minds of both young and old while it masquerades as scientific or right. This only helps to drive this hobby further back into a cesspool of contamination which helps support snake oil products and beliefs. Even something as simple as wrongly describing frequency ranges can lead to havoc and misunderstandings. This thread proves it.

I recognize the Great Divide between audiophiles and those in pro audio (not that there should be one), but this is only a matter of semantics driven by necessity, not a broader conspiracy to obfuscate or mislead. A language needed to be established at the beginnings of the audiophile hobby and by chance Harley's definitions caught on. That it is different from pro audio's definitions is unfortunate but now that the language is established we should enforce what we have rather than force people to change. L'Académie française is all well and good when you only have one language, but not when two languages are already in use.

I do sometimes wish that people would stick with actual frequency ranges in reviews, like Erick Lichte does at Stereophile. For starters, it would stop a lot of people from writing really quite useless reviews, owing to a simple lack of technical knowledge.

Coming slightly back to topic: what frequency band contributes to my observation that I can understand lyrics better on an LCD-2 than on any other headphone (except the Etymotic ER-4S)? Is it transient speed, dynamic ability, etc? Surely it's not because the 1.5-4 kHz region is shelved down?!

Edit: BTW, there is no "false knowledge" as long as reviewers are clear what they mean when they use certain terms. Things that are a matter of definition cause mere inconvenience: only ignorance causes true misunderstanding. Harley's frequency definitions are quite clearly advertised every time a Stereophile reviewer uses them, and are in his book. No one said they were the same as pro audio, and as proof of that, I challenge you to find a reviewer on any audiophile magazine that uses "upper/lower cloud" instead of "upper bass" or "lower midrange".

^My friend who is a mastering engineer and professor at a local college (has also given talks for AES), uses the Bob Katz book "Mastering Audio" as the course textbook.  The Bob Katz book includes the Carnegie chart as a fold-out.

My friend always stresses extension/"connectedness"/and the lack of peaks or "scoops" in the response.  At one point, I had him listen to a pair of STAX and pointed out a dip in ~600hz.  I got excited and pulled out the STAX manual with FR chart- scoop at 590hz!

When something is "scooped" or "peaky" along the range, frequently he will use voices of instruments to flush that out rather quickly.  A violin might sound "honky" to him for example...

He has the benefit of listening to his own music and playing through a system so he can quickly hear any issues.  Oh, and lots of experience.  It's not really "fun" for him to evaluate gear but he loves people who love music.  That recharges him.

UMMM, sorry about the OT!!!

?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrin 

I'd be ripping his nuts off.

He's not kidding, I've seen him do it before.  It wasn't pretty. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by James 

I recognize the Great Divide between audiophiles and those in pro audio (not that there should be one), but this is only a matter of semantics driven by necessity, not a broader conspiracy to obfuscate or mislead. A language needed to be established at the beginnings of the audiophile hobby and by chance Harley's definitions caught on. That it is different from pro audio's definitions is unfortunate but now that the language is established we should enforce what we have rather than force people to change. L'Académie française is all well and good when you only have one language, but not when two languages are already in use.

 

I do sometimes wish that people would stick with actual frequency ranges in reviews, like Erick Lichte does at Stereophile. For starters, it would stop a lot of people from writing really quite useless reviews, owing to a simple lack of technical knowledge.

 

Coming slightly back to topic: what frequency band contributes to my observation that I can understand lyrics better on an LCD-2 than on any other headphone (except the Etymotic ER-4S)? Is it transient speed, dynamic ability, etc? Surely it's not because the 1.5-4 kHz region is shelved down?!

 

Edit: BTW, there is no "false knowledge" as long as reviewers are clear what they mean when they use certain terms. Things that are a matter of definition cause mere inconvenience: only ignorance causes true misunderstanding. Harley's frequency definitions are quite clearly advertised every time a Stereophile reviewer uses them, and are in his book. No one said they were the same as pro audio, and as proof of that, I challenge you to find a reviewer on any audiophile magazine that uses "upper/lower cloud" instead of "upper bass" or "lower midrange".

Maybe not quite "false knowledge", but certainly misinformation. I wasn't aware that Stereophile had their own definitions separate from "pro audio" or even that of other audiophiles / speaker-building hobbyists (at least the ones that I know.) Then again, the last time I read Stereophile was when I was in high school in the early eighties. I doubt these Stereofool reviewers even know what 5kHz sounds like (they are after all adverse to EQ - which is a good way to keep even more people unsatisfied than necessary.)

Despite statements to the contrary (from people without authority, without credentials, or just plain talking out of their ass), terms such as bass, midrange, and treble are fairly universal and have been firmly established for long time now, pro-audio or audiophile not withstanding. I can communicate to LFF: "Push down the lower mids - Snoop sounds a bit nasal on your Katy Perry remaster" or to Mr. Eddie Current: "That amp lacks bass, low to sub bass" or to Anax: "too much upper mids"; and these people know exactly what I am talking about. Sure, LFF uses "cloud", and I use "high-bass". You know what? It doesn't matter because they are terms with the same meaning in a compatible system. We can still communicate.

I can't help but think this whole thing got started because some prissy LCD# owners couldn't handle the fact that the LCD# really does start its roll-off from the lower midrange and by the time it hits the upper midrange, it's fully shelved down:

Oh my, the LCD# isn't shelved in the midrange, it just can't be! It just can't be! It's completely neutral! It's only slightly shelved down in the treble.

Get real folks. Learn what the terminology really means and accept how you like to hear things. Don't think of it as if you are somehow defective, but rather as you having a personal preference. Knowing the vocabulary helps us to communicate what our preferences are to others. Twisting an established vocabulary to fit what our own individual preferences is nothing but perversion and narcissism. There are people I know who would love the LCD3 and others I know who would hate it. The reason I can know is because these people I am talking about can express their preferences to me with terminology, which has more or less, maybe with some minor variation, the same meaning.

Only on a Head-Fi LCD# thread can this kind of nonsense occur.

So please, let's not invent stuff nor quote people like Robert Half who are either excessively narcissistic (re-interpretation of commonly understood terminology) or just don't know what they are talking about. I would again advise Head-Fi'ers to examine the glossary here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary by fordgtlover (who evidently knows what he's talking about.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrin 

Maybe not quite "false knowledge", but certainly misinformation. I wasn't aware that Stereophile had their own definitions separate from "pro audio" or even that of other audiophiles / speaker-building hobbyists (at least the ones that I know.) Then again, the last time I read Stereophile was when I was in high school in the early eighties. I doubt these Stereofool reviewers even know what 5kHz sounds like (they are after all adverse to EQ - which is a good way to keep even more people unsatisfied than necessary.)

 

Despite statements to the contrary (from people without authority, without credentials, or just plain talking out of their ass), terms such as bass, midrange, and treble are fairly universal and have been firmly established for long time now, pro-audio or audiophile not withstanding. I can communicate to LFF: "Push down the lower mids - Snoop sounds a bit nasal on your Katy Perry remaster" or to Mr. Eddie Current: "That amp lacks bass, low to sub bass" or to Anax: "too much upper mids"; and these people know exactly what I am talking about. Sure, LFF uses "cloud", and I use "high-bass". You know what? It doesn't matter because they are terms with the same meaning in a compatible system. We can still communicate.

 

I can't help but think this whole thing got started because some prissy LCD# owners couldn't handle the fact that the LCD# really does start its roll-off from the lower midrange and by the time it hits the upper midrange, it's fully shelved down:

 

Oh my, the LCD# isn't shelved in the midrange, it just can't be! It just can't be! It's completely neutral! It's only slightly shelved down in the treble.

 

Get real folks. Learn what the terminology really means and accept how you like to hear things. Don't think of it as if you are somehow defective, but rather as you having a personal preference. Knowing the vocabulary helps us to communicate what our preferences are to others. Twisting an established vocabulary to fit what our own individual preferences is nothing but perversion and narcissism. There are people I know who would love the LCD3 and others I know who would hate it. The reason I can know is because these people I am talking about can express their preferences to me with terminology, which has more or less, maybe with some minor variation, the same meaning.

 

Only on a Head-Fi LCD# thread can this kind of nonsense occur.

 

So please, let's not invent stuff nor quote people like Robert Half who are either excessively narcissistic (re-interpretation of commonly understood terminology) or just don't know what they are talking about. I would again advise Head-Fi'ers to examine the glossary here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary by fordgtlover (who evidently knows what he's talking about.)

I don't think it's misinforming either. It is very common in a lot of fields that the consumer's end and professionals do not share same standard or terminology, and in audio field the consumer's end includes musicians as well. I guess from the engineer's prospective, it is more about how materials make sound when defining the frequency range, where in audiophiles and musicians' end, it its more about how we hear and how sound is produced by instruments and vocal. It is IMO only make sense to use different standard in this case, since a big part of the frequency ranges in professional's terminology do not hardly concern us.

Lumping the whole range where most musical energy exists into "lower midrange" makes the description fairly useless. I prefer the Harley/Stereophile definitions for dividing the range into more useful chunks. But for clarity, actual frequency ranges should always be specified, at least until such definitions are actually standardized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thune 

Lumping the whole range where most musical energy exists into "lower midrange" makes the description fairly useless. I prefer the Harley/Stereophile definitions for dividing the range into more useful chunks. But for clarity, actual frequency ranges should always be specified, at least until such definitions are actually standardized.

Oh Wow! I'm flabbergasted. Learning so much new today.

Which part of the frequency range does not concern you?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jian 

I don't think it's misinforming either. It is very common in a lot of fields that the consumer's end and professionals do not share same standard or terminology, and in audio field the consumer's end includes musicians as well. I guess from the engineer's prospective, it is more about how materials make sound when defining the frequency range, where in audiophiles and musicians' end, it its more about how we hear and how sound is produced by instruments and vocal. It is IMO only make sense to use different standard in this case, since a big part of the frequency ranges in professional's terminology do not hardly concern us.

First off, we need to be able to refer to the same things when we say "midrange".  And that takes some care and study.  If we aren't all speaking of the same "midrange" we should just speak about the numerical frequency region.

Secondly, how can you be sure you don't need the frequencies that you think that you don't need?

When my engineer friend and I talk about treble, he once told me to think of transients as having "infinite high frequencies" and that capturing live drums in a room is about the hardest thing to do and and so very disappointing to not be able to fully reproduce...then he hit a cymbal in front of me.

Another thing he thought about and shared with me recently (said he did the math a long time ago):  he wonders if the very high frequencies might affect "soundstage/headstage/imaging".  He said that experiments show we have the ability to locate/sense changes in sound location (in the horizontal plane) by about 1 degree.  He thought the math would require a sensitivity of about 28kHz to do that.  He doesn't hear that high either but still wonders if we can sense it...

So, it's all kind of important to me these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrin 

Oh Wow! I'm flabbergasted. Learning so much new today.

 

Right, energy in lower midrange and the "cloud", forgot the "cloud".

(btw,  my criticism is pointed at the ranges you affirmed in this post.)