Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Battle Of The Flagships (58 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: AUDEZ'E LCD-2 Revision 2 (6/4/13)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Battle Of The Flagships (58 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: AUDEZ'E LCD-2 Revision 2 (6/4/13) - Page 322

post #4816 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by James-uk View Post


Decay is used to describe how a sound 'extends' or carries on so to speak. If a drum is hit for example , natural 'decay' would be it's natural resonance that follows, if a HP had slow decay it would carry the resonance on for too long and this wouldn't be desirable. Another way to think of it is a headphones ability to accurately move and stop when required and with the correct energy. I suppose an impulse response graph or csd plot would be the objective way of seeing this . Probably not the best description but I hope this helps. Hopefully someone can add to this to make it easier .

 

We can put it into an analogy I guess... Headphone decay = cars brakes. If a car needs a long time to brake, then they are not desirable. On the contrary, swift braking cars are desirable.

 

Don't know if this is a good analogy or not, hope it helps.

post #4817 of 4960

Decay is the speed that the headphone processes the data. Faster decay = more detail retrieval.

 

DT-660 has a similar sound signature to the HD800, but has a much slower decay, so it has forward treble but still feels blurred somewhat. HD800, in comparison, is exhausting because it is picking up so much detail with the same sound signature (although it has more bass).

post #4818 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic1er View Post
 

Hello,

 

As I'm french, I don't really understand the word "decay" used in the review. Could someone explain me what it does refer to or even translate it in french words?

Thank you.:wink_face: 

 

Les transitoires d’attaque sont les composantes du son qui ne sont pas entretenues, tel un claquement, un choc, le crissement de l'archat sur la corde d'un violon au tout début de la note et du son ; on parle de phénomènes inharmoniques qui se décomposent en partiels, de phénomènes intermédiaires, les fronts d’onde, ces instants si brefs et qui ne cessent jamais de se renouveler, jamais à l’identique, les éclats fugitifs, les instantanés de construction…


La musique n’est composée que de transitoires et d’harmoniques, tout ce qui en rend la retranscription si difficile du fait de l’inouïe diversité et précipitation de ces fugitives composantes…


Edited by Hun7er - 1/23/14 at 2:01pm
post #4819 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hun7er View Post

Les transitoires d’attaque sont les composantes du son qui ne sont pas entretenues, tel un claquement, un choc, le crissement de la colophane sur la corde d'un violon au tout début de la note et du son ; on parle de phénomènes inharmoniques qui se décomposent en partiels, de phénomènes intermédiaires, les fronts d’onde, ces instants si brefs et qui ne cessent jamais de se renouveler, jamais à l’identique, les éclats fugitifs, les instantanés de construction…


La musique n’est composée que de transitoires et d’harmoniques, tout ce qui en rend la retranscription si difficile du fait de l’inouïe diversité et précipitation de ces fugitives composantes…
This.
post #4820 of 4960

Decay: The fadeout of a note, it follows the attack.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary

post #4821 of 4960

OK guys I believe I do understand. Time domain: in fact, correct dampening properties allowing realistic tones, amount of details and innerdetails, microdynamics and on, so to speak... Hope I'm right.

post #4822 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic1er View Post

OK guys I believe I do understand. Time domain: in fact, correct dampening properties allowing realistic tones, amount of details and innerdetails, microdynamics and on, so to speak... Hope I'm right.
Exactly, you got it. You have great English by the way .
post #4823 of 4960

pdrm360, thanks for the glossary link; very helpfull for foreigners.:wink_face:

post #4824 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic1er View Post
 

pdrm360, thanks for the glossary link; very helpfull for foreigners.:wink_face:

 

Google Translate!  ;)

post #4825 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by James-uk View Post


 You have great English by the way .

certainly not but however thank you!:beerchug:

post #4826 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by 62ohm View Post
 

 

We can put it into an analogy I guess... Headphone decay = cars brakes. If a car needs a long time to brake, then they are not desirable. On the contrary, swift braking cars are desirable.

 

Don't know if this is a good analogy or not, hope it helps.


It isn't a great analogy, because the important thing with audio decay is accuracy, not speed.  All sounds have a natural decay in air (though it can change due to atmospheric conditions, but that's not important here).  To produce high-fidelity sound, by definition, you want the headphone or speaker to perfectly mimic the sound as originally produced, then recorded.  Decay that is either too fast or too slow is not desirable.

 

Of course, we all hear differently and have different audio preferences.  Many of us prefer a faster-than-natural decay rate, while others prefer a slower-than-natural rate.  But for true high fidelity, the natural rate is technically best.

post #4827 of 4960

And wouldn't it be, that to hear the sound as it was naturally recorded, that you would want as little decay as possible?  The decay information should come from the actual recording itself, not from the headphone.

post #4828 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

And wouldn't it be, that to hear the sound as it was naturally recorded, that you would want as little decay as possible?  The decay information should come from the actual recording itself, not from the headphone.


I think though, that the headphone would need to be able to react properly to the decay in the recording to be affective, right?  So the headphone decay is also important, not just the recording info...

post #4829 of 4960

The headphone has to be properly damped to accurately reproduce the signal that is sent to it.  Over-damped you get plink plink honk honk; under-damped you get riiiinnnnnnnggggggggggggggg, riiiinnnnnnggggggggggg, rummmbbbbllllllllllllllllllllllllle, rummmmbbbllllllllllllllllllle. 

 

Most cans/speakers are somewhere in between those two extremes, and everybody has their own opinion about where the perfect balance point is.  The only way to know for certain how accurate a can is would be to do a calibrated measurement of the sound waves at the source, or use a recording which has already been measured accurately, then play it through a calibrated system and measure what the can is producing at the other end with a calibrated measuring device.  I'm guessing, or at least hoping, that the can's designers do that, but they don't share the results with us (I've seen calibrated FR graphs from a couple of companies, but never a calibrated waterfall plot).  Instead the marketers usually just make up flowery descriptions about how accurate the sound is. 

 

There are some folks on Head-Fi and some pro reviewers who publish waterfall plots, but unless they have a calibrated system with a known source, all that gives you is relative performance, not absolute performance -- you would know, for example, that the HD800 decays faster than an LCD, which isn't exactly news to anybody who has heard both cans. 

 

However, you wouldn't know which one was more accurate, since even if you knew what the original signal looked like (which is not always the case with the plots you see floating around on the internet) you don't know what the signal looked like when it reached the inputs to the cans:  each part of the chain is introducing its own distortions of that original signal, and without any calibrated measurements of those distortions in between the source and the cans you would not be able to subtract them out from the final measurements.  In the end, without a fully calibrated system, you wouldn't know if/how the slower/faster decay has been added/subtracted by the system before the cans, so even if you get a perfect reproduction out of one pair of cans using that system, you don't know what components were pushing the sound in which direction -- some might increase the decay, some might decrease it -- you only know where you ended up.

 

But of course, we don't really need calibrated measurements.  Instead we use our ears, which have been calibrated by nature and by nurture so that we like the way a can sounds on a given system or we don't.  In the end, that's really all that counts anyway.  We don't have to like what others like, we just have to be happy with what we're listening to ourselves.


Edited by Gary in MD - 1/23/14 at 10:06pm
post #4830 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgtr0660 View Post

Agreed. Probably the two additions I would like to know about the most are Beyerdynamic's T5P and Audez'e LCD-XC. 
+100.... Please please could this happen soon?! Anyone else had comparison so far?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Battle Of The Flagships (58 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: AUDEZ'E LCD-2 Revision 2 (6/4/13)