Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE WALL OF TEXT" thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to... - Page 2  

Poll Results: White list at the bottom of the first post.

 
  • 75% (9)
    Disagree because I dislike you, that's why!
  • 0% (0)
    Disagree, one of the brands may not be considered trustful, the reason i will live in the commentary section below.
  • 0% (0)
    Disagree, need to add the brand i'll speak about in the commentary section below.
  • 8% (1)
    Agree, full&true list I suppose.
  • 16% (2)
    Disagree, because I think you have the wrong vision regarding the term "Brand" and i'll leave the reason in the commentary section below.
12 Total Votes  
post #16 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Looks like language is a bit of a barrier here, but I'll try to decypher some parts of your post later.
Just read your signature, it's brilliant smily_headphones1.gif
(have a look at previous page's last posts.
post #17 of 115
Thread Starter 
TON OF PROOFS GIVEN (not translated, huge sorry, guys, I can only type it for you ATM) AND MYTHBUSTING UPDATE: GENRES INTRO!

Transcriptions:
Male
Female
Big drum
Литавры
drums
small drums
Конга, тумба-юмба (don't look for translation, these are some asian instruments)
Тарелки
Туба
Валторна
Trombone and it's bass (2 lines)
Труба
Контрабас
Фагот
Saxofone Tenor
Alto saxofone
Clarnet
Гобой
Flute
Пикколо
Bass guitar
Виолончель
Violin (Скрипка) (up to 1.4 kHz for heavy-rockers&pitch dubstep guys)
Guitar
Гармонь
Organe (Орган).

Hope you'll appreciate this. I'm out for today, going to rest in peace gaming biggrin.gif

The lower I've found too hard to translate at least most part, so it will wait a bit.
The lower part is "decriptions for the frequencies", meaning not the instrument, but the subjective association.
Edited by MygpuK - 11/15/13 at 9:11pm
post #18 of 115
EQ can be used to approximate many differences in headphones, but nothing can make up for shortcomings in clarity and resolution, and that's usually the bugaboo with inexpensive cans. You can match the tone of the HD800s with some gaming headphones and an EQ, but you'll never have their detail retrieval. High end transducers are pretty expensive for a reason, though usually companies pad those costs quite a bit.
post #19 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

EQ can be used to approximate many differences in headphones, but nothing can make up for shortcomings in clarity and resolution, and that's usually the bugaboo with inexpensive cans. You can match the tone of the HD800s with some gaming headphones and an EQ, but you'll never have their detail retrieval. High end transducers are pretty expensive for a reason, though usually companies pad those costs quite a bit.
Some very nice feedback, will add it to the FAQ section.

Trouble here is that i reject the "detail" term because I've already been proven by FAC tests done by personalaudio.ru which explain the issue:

"Detail" which you mean is, I suppose, "deviation of frequency" while we have none of such in true high-end (simply non-outdated by physical limitations) products. The essence yet again lies in the expression "true high-end".
I suppose that ATM AFAIK Neodymium magnets 50 mm magnets are the true high-end (with true sound signature - FAC - analised) regarding portable stereo. Semi-true high end (slightly other perspective - the adding of FLAC 5.1 possiblities - TRUE SOUNDSTAGE and 3d localization gaming pluses) from the perspective of driver size (membrane diameter) is (OH LOL biggrin.gif) 5.1 Roccat Kave (proof of true 5.1 (8 drivers) was found here: http://www.es-gaming.ru/page/roccat-kave-solid.html IT IS THE ONLY TRUE 5.1 HIGH END HEADSET IN THE WORLD AFAIK).

Have you ever tried to analise the FAC of the humbly-priced true 5.1/7.1 Roccat products? (because this is the only brand in true 5.1)
Sorry, have doubts smily_headphones1.gif
Edited by MygpuK - 11/15/13 at 10:53pm
post #20 of 115
No, what I'm saying is that there are limits to the level of clarity you can generally get from inexpensive headphones. One of the near-universal aspects of high end headphones are their low THD (total harmonic distortion) numbers, and accompanying that is how fast the driver can recover after it's had voltage applied to it, that's called Impulse Response. Oftentimes what you'll end up with, when EQing the type of headsets you're talking about, is a match in tone, but treble is "grainy" and the bass is muddy, in comparison. The drivers on those lower end cans simply aren't as fast or as clean, and the magnets are just a portion of that (though you can have two magnets made of the same material, and are the same size and weight, but they don't have the same magnetic properties), diaphragm material also plays an important role, as does the electrical and physical properties of the voice coil. Ultimately, it's about how all of those work together, and if compromises are made along the way you change the fitness of the driver. The volume of the enclosure also affects those properties, particularly with closed configurations.

So yes, with a lot of EQ you can make your gaming headset match the tone of a $1200 set of Sennheisers, but it isn't going to have the same clarity and speed.
post #21 of 115
Thread Starter 
THREAD OVERHAUL, RE-OVERLOOK IT AND GIMME FEEDBACK, PLEASE!!
1. ALL KNOWN MYTHS BE MY ARE BUSTED
2. TASTES BUSTED, IF YOU LET ME SUPPOSE 640-2000 Hz is for Second Octave *do* up to Third Octave *si* (i just suppose we have no genre based on these frequencies ATM AFAIK) [NEIRO-BIOLOGY APPLIED] [a question remains the range of 320(640)-2000 Hz.]

Edited by MygpuK - 11/16/13 at 6:15am
post #22 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

No, what I'm saying is that there are limits to the level of clarity you can generally get from inexpensive headphones. One of the near-universal aspects of high end headphones are their low THD (total harmonic distortion) numbers, and accompanying that is how fast the driver can recover after it's had voltage applied to it, that's called Impulse Response. Oftentimes what you'll end up with, when EQing the type of headsets you're talking about, is a match in tone, but treble is "grainy" and the bass is muddy, in comparison. The drivers on those lower end cans simply aren't as fast or as clean, and the magnets are just a portion of that (though you can have two magnets made of the same material, and are the same size and weight, but they don't have the same magnetic properties), diaphragm material also plays an important role, as does the electrical and physical properties of the voice coil. Ultimately, it's about how all of those work together, and if compromises are made along the way you change the fitness of the driver. The volume of the enclosure also affects those properties, particularly with closed configurations.

So yes, with a lot of EQ you can make your gaming headset match the tone of a $1200 set of Sennheisers, but it isn't going to have the same clarity and speed.
Your point is absolutely right [did not read it all, so no changes required, correct me if something (didn't sleep for 27 hours)], but you did not understand me well. THD is a PERCENT. FAC speaks about THD, but in PERFECT detail.
That means THD is a derivate from FAC (arithmetical media, I suppose) and using that language - Total Harmonic Distortion in detail would sound like "Harmonic Distortions Characteristichs".

I was wrong arguing, because you didn't point out you're speaking about such term. Harmonic distortions DO INCLUDE frequency response deviation, but DO NOT INCLUDE Sound-to-noise (Sound-to-noise in detail I highly doubt exists).

FAC does it both for max dB it solves all the questions. Hope you've read carefully the thread about this subject smily_headphones1.gif

YOU CANNOT get both perfect bass and perfect treble with STEREO, WITHOUT a PERFECT (or nearly) AMP. That's why AMP's where created. Tell me which example we speak about, please, so I will go ballsdeep with google and tell you perfect tests if there are any for this product.

BECAUSE the term subwoofer exists. Yes, because of that. Why would you like bigger amplitude with lower impedance for both bass and treble? They're designed straightly for bass (there is a frequency filter) TO GET the same bass dB(!!) WITHOUT AN EQUILAZER!!

Pointed out: Cyber Snipa Sonar 5.1 has a minor issue: its' neither subwoofer nor central drivers have frequency filters. It means that centrals are playing "silent bass for" AND subwoofers"silent treble/higher_mids" - MIGHT BE DONE IN 5.1 FOR THE FLAC 5.1 MUSIC SAKE - the centrals specs are so to deliver "some" bass and the subwoofers specs are so to deliver "some mids". You know the phenomenon of "Sound slip" from stereo (revealed in the thread), now imagine that effect in as a TRUE 3-DIMENSIONAL FEELING!!

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/after-months-of-collecting-heres-a-list-of-true-surround-music-videos-dvds.304588/
I've found out there REALLY ARE TRUE 5.1 MUSIC AUTHORS!!!

This means, with a dB lower, it will seem (
Edited by MygpuK - 11/16/13 at 12:31am
post #23 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

No, what I'm saying is that there are limits to the level of clarity you can generally get from inexpensive headphones. One of the near-universal aspects of high end headphones are their low THD (total harmonic distortion) numbers, and accompanying that is how fast the driver can recover after it's had voltage applied to it, that's called Impulse Response. Oftentimes what you'll end up with, when EQing the type of headsets you're talking about, is a match in tone, but treble is "grainy" and the bass is muddy, in comparison. The drivers on those lower end cans simply aren't as fast or as clean, and the magnets are just a portion of that (though you can have two magnets made of the same material, and are the same size and weight, but they don't have the same magnetic properties), diaphragm material also plays an important role, as does the electrical and physical properties of the voice coil. Ultimately, it's about how all of those work together, and if compromises are made along the way you change the fitness of the driver. The volume of the enclosure also affects those properties, particularly with closed configurations.

So yes, with a lot of EQ you can make your gaming headset match the tone of a $1200 set of Sennheisers, but it isn't going to have the same clarity and speed.
Edited my answer.
post #24 of 115
Thread Starter 
Note: I am willing to polish the thread for an eternity, so gimme feedback, i'll sleep and fix everything and add/improve info ASAP.
post #25 of 115
Thread Starter 
I wonder who would just "dislike" such a thread... morons frown.gif

Personal feedback: I suppose IF you concentrate on the music you can feel desired genre's excitation even on low volume. higher dB matters. [Proven indirectly by personalaudio.ru]
post #26 of 115

SOUND MYTHBUSTING OVERHAULED [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE...

I'm sure there is more to what you are saying than I am responding to, but I agree that a lot of high-fi discussion around sound qualities of devices merely has to do with slight emphases or de-emphases of frequencies in certain ranges. And yes, equalization can correct those.

The kind of equalization I like is where you can adjust not only the frequency and amount of gain or reduction of that frequency, but where you can control the "width" of the frequency spectrum influenced by gain increase or reduction.

This has to do, and I'm working from dim memory here, with the effects of the filter as well, something electronic synthesists are very intimate with. A narrower band pass filter with a sharper roll off will affect a narrower range of frequencies, but the sharpness and nature of the roll off will affect neighboring frequencies in various ways. A wider band filter with a softer roll off slope will introduce fewer extra frequencies or distortion components at the edges of the slope, but of course will affect a broader spectrum of frequencies.

There are software algorithms for "slicing" frequencies bands quite finely, I'm forgetting the name for them right now. Spectrum analysis uses these windowing algorithms to identify things in sound research.

To the other point, though, what is worth paying more for in a transducer is not its emphasis on this or that part of the frequency spectrum, but its ability to reproduce transients without distortion. Any transducer is itself a filter of sorts, and will have distortion components, referred to as intermodulation distortion or total harmonic distortion (both explained well on Wikipedia, btw), and "ringing" in response to a transient. Once you add in on top of the work needed to reduce transient distortion in the device itself, you then need to look at all the work needed to get the device to reproduce accurately when coupled with its particular environment. Like engine and wing design in aerospace, you are looking for refinements on basic principles of science that will lead to more predictable results in a wide variety of environmental conditions, not just the one static environment within which the design can operate optimally.

Filter theory is quite complex, with a lot of mathematics and research needed to understand how it works. Finite response filters and infinite response filters have different characteristics, strengths, weaknesses, applications. Etc.

Again, I am sure companies like Shure and Sennheiser have scientists who work on research on such things. The evolution of their transducers is not just a question of engineering and materials, and certainly not just marketing, but also close attention to tackling problems in physics and psychoacoustics and filter/transducer design, that lead to tangible and useful results.

I do appreciate your enthusiasm, though! I hope to better understand what you are saying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
post #27 of 115

SOUND MYTHBUSTING OVERHAULED [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE...

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_%28signal_processing%29

I think of everything in terms of signal processing. smily_headphones1.gif




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
post #28 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copperears View Post

I'm sure there is more to what you are saying than I am responding to, but I agree that a lot of high-fi discussion around sound qualities of devices merely has to do with slight emphases or de-emphases of frequencies in certain ranges. And yes, equalization can correct those.

The kind of equalization I like is where you can adjust not only the frequency and amount of gain or reduction of that frequency, but where you can control the "width" of the frequency spectrum influenced by gain increase or reduction.

This has to do, and I'm working from dim memory here, with the effects of the filter as well, something electronic synthesists are very intimate with. A narrower band pass filter with a sharper roll off will affect a narrower range of frequencies, but the sharpness and nature of the roll off will affect neighboring frequencies in various ways. A wider band filter with a softer roll off slope will introduce fewer extra frequencies or distortion components at the edges of the slope, but of course will affect a broader spectrum of frequencies.

There are software algorithms for "slicing" frequencies bands quite finely, I'm forgetting the name for them right now. Spectrum analysis uses these windowing algorithms to identify things in sound research.

To the other point, though, what is worth paying more for in a transducer is not its emphasis on this or that part of the frequency spectrum, but its ability to reproduce transients without distortion. Any transducer is itself a filter of sorts, and will have distortion components, referred to as intermodulation distortion or total harmonic distortion (both explained well on Wikipedia, btw), and "ringing" in response to a transient. Once you add in on top of the work needed to reduce transient distortion in the device itself, you then need to look at all the work needed to get the device to reproduce accurately when coupled with its particular environment. Like engine and wing design in aerospace, you are looking for refinements on basic principles of science that will lead to more predictable results in a wide variety of environmental conditions, not just the one static environment within which the design can operate optimally.

Filter theory is quite complex, with a lot of mathematics and research needed to understand how it works. Finite response filters and infinite response filters have different characteristics, strengths, weaknesses, applications. Etc.

Again, I am sure companies like Shure and Sennheiser have scientists who work on research on such things. The evolution of their transducers is not just a question of engineering and materials, and certainly not just marketing, but also close attention to tackling problems in physics and psychoacoustics and filter/transducer design, that lead to tangible and useful results.

I do appreciate your enthusiasm, though! I hope to better understand what you are saying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're absolutely right, I just didn't wish to complicate the thread with such info. Anyway, you did complicate things even more, lol biggrin.gif

The point of "frequency slicing" is reffering to fuzzy/muddle thought which I already BUSTED.

How stuff works:
You have a pre-amp, which literally slices X of input voltage and you have the equilazer paranthesys (Click to show)
[Overall equilazer (not just music[strange thing, but AIMP really does slice X in his equilazer, I suppose it's a programming dilemma issue because the player has no access to "output_Volume" (assembler language needed to implement, legal issues with Windows possible, as example) info from the drivers feedback which comes from the soundcard+software(drivers)], it's like an amp inside your headset control panel because 5.1 NEED that)
which dims a percentage of output_Volume, which is better than music equilazer, you can achieve more detail! 5.1 systems have alot of improvement, which is because they literally need that to sound good (the drivers differ) AND if we've got a GOOD equilazer of that type (the software you reffer is "near_to") GOOD means 800 adjustable frequency ranges, zoomable. Nowadays I tell you IT IS possible (PC at least) to get perfect sound from 5.1 which will blew out all your fancy stereo which cost ~400 EUR just by engineering thought applied.
post #29 of 115
Thread Starter 
Regarding the filters: We may need perfect filters to get perfect_in_every_perspective audiophile 5.1/2.1(I saw Beats 2.1 at least) headphone, the question is: Is really a slight&dim reverb (probably 20 ms fade) troubling us? I got used with it on a low-end 5.1 and it even amplifies the soundstage experience.

Bear in mind, filters have nothing to do with noise filtering. Noise equals low sound quality, I do not even think about such audio products.
Edited by MygpuK - 11/16/13 at 5:41am
post #30 of 115
Thread Starter 
Huge thread improvement:

Reference Audio Analyzer 3.5 [RAA] - The software which allows us to TEST anything regarding sound quality! (FAQ&FR) [equipment needed] - A HUGE improvement to the www.personalaudio.ru PROOVES value.


Added to Abbreviations section.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE WALL OF TEXT" thread