[charlie0904]

Hi headfi-ers, I have this thought out of a sudden, might be abit foolish though.

and also how many different sound instruments can human actually hear in a 5 to 10 sec music?

 

[DeusEx]

Interesting question, but a bit vague...please explain

 

[Uncle Erik]

I think you're getting at the level of detail and transparency. I don't know how to quantify it, but a transducer can't separate everything if the sound is hugely complex. Something will get lost in the background. Amps will have similar struggles to produce a lot of different sounds.

I don't know where the threshhold is and it would vary depending on your equipment. I also think it would depend on the kinds of sounds being reproduced. A whole lot of voices can be separated by an electrostat, but it would also struggle with a lot of sound in the low end. Conversely, something that can resolve a lot of the low end might not keep up with the mids and highs.

 

[charlie0904]

thanks, uncle erik. do you mean if bigger the equipment, it would handle more complex sounds?

so in terms of separation, electrostatic would outclass any dynamics?

PS: is a human ear better than any audio equipment that man has created at the moment?

 

[DanielCox]

I'd say an electrostat would outclass any dynamic. The diaphragm in an electrostat is far lighter and thus acceleration would be quicker (you could compare this to slew rate).
If you want the best in terms of separation a plasma headphone would beat everything.

Yes and no for the human ear bit. Audio equipment has distortions, etc. and can reach the extremes of frequencies that human ears cannot hear but every headphone sounds different - there is not a perfect headphone out there that does not colour the input somewhat.

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you're getting at the level of detail and transparency. I don't know how to quantify it, but a transducer can't separate everything if the sound is hugely complex. Something will get lost in the background. Amps will have similar struggles to produce a lot of different sounds. I don't know where the threshhold is and it would vary depending on your equipment. I also think it would depend on the kinds of sounds being reproduced. A whole lot of voices can be separated by an electrostat, but it would also struggle with a lot of sound in the low end. Conversely, something that can resolve a lot of the low end might not keep up with the mids and highs.

This is similar to the dilemma faced in speakers - Speakers like my friends Infinity RS1b are dipole speakers and are hugely capable of instrument separation and detail, almost nothing is lost from the original . However, the RS1b only uses the ribbon dipole elements as tweeters and midrange panels, the low-end is produced by a woofer towers (and in his case, 4 20" subwoofers) which lack the superb transparency of the dipoles (although those dipole elements would be lousy as woofers). As such, those details get a bit more muddled.

By definition, a dynamic driver can only be reproducing one thing at one time, and will not move as quickly as an electrostatic, where the electrostatic will also reproduce one sound at once, but they are faster, and faster reproduction introduces greater complexity and transparency.

Sound works not by hearing several things at once, but hearing a fast succession of single noises, and from that comes the separation of instruments and voices. This is why amplifiers become crucial for reaching certain levels of clarity, for greater range and speed of drivers.

If I'm wrong about any of this, feel free to correct me, I am just a high-school student after all

 

[charlie0904]

thanks for the inputs. appreciated.

so lows were quite an issue as far as transparency and speed.

PS: I recently managed to try an omega mkII. I was totally blown sky high, sounds flying in and out fast. Jazz never sounded so good. hehe.

 

[jcx]

how about some Science?

I'd equate the op question with "how much information can the audio system convey"

the engineering answer to that is well established:

Shannon–Hartley theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if for comparison the amplitude is limited to relatively safe SPL levels and we assume audio bandwidth is also limited then the noise and distortion of the system limit the information the channel can convey

source and amplifier noise establish a limit - even with dynamic transducers

for practical headphone listening higher limiting noise includes room noise, microphonics from cup, cable motion

at higher volumes transducer nonlinear distortion ( or distortion from "no feedback", "simple" discrete, and/or tube circuits ) limits the Channel Capacity - IMD distortion products between complex multi-tone signal components (like orchestral music) looks like an increase in the noise floor

the Intermodulation Distortion problem with channels reproducing complex multitones is what drove the boys at Bell Labs to invent negative feedback amplifiers - and more recently the advent of A/DSL modems has driven the development of op amps capable of -100 dB distortion levels driving 25 Ohms up to MHz

Hearing is also complex and nonlinear the "information" we can perceive in sound is affected strongly by Masking - a low frequency sound makes other sound components of higher frequency harder to hear - badly distorting low frequencies will "wipe out" a lot of the rest of the audio spectrum perceptible "information"


For more intellectual fun with hearing/sound and information consider:

By exploiting psychoacoustic Masking phenomena good Codecs like OGG, AAC, and the rest can toss out 75% (@ ~320Kb ) of the Shannon-Hartley definition of information in Redbook CD data and vanishingly few people can hear the difference without training and using specific test sound clips