an interesting question about headphones and frequency range..!

[JaZZ]

Yes, 8 kHz is definitely affected (this from purely theoretical considerations) -- in the form of delayed decay --, and it's not even the lower limit. However, the effect is much stronger at the upper end of the spectrum, in proximity to the filter resonance.

Meanwhile I'm not too unhappy that the CD format has remained the uncontested standard as of now. because I'm about to rip and edit my whole CD collection for «crossfeeding» and doing some subtle sonic corrections now and then. That wouldn't be possible with any high-rez format. I still would have appreciated if high-rez PCM (24/96/192) had established, hoping that ripping it would become just as easy some day. Now I have gotten used to the CD format and can live with it. But especially high-rez DVD-A sounds (even) better to my ears (given identical masters).
.

 

[Nocturnal310]

i can argue that greater Frequency range helps to achieve a flatter response in the human hearing range...but there are headphones that prove it wrong..mainly consumer level stuff.

in high end headphones..have a bigger range past human hearing range...basically ensures that the frequencies from 20hz to 20khz are heard at good levels atleast.

imho

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because we don't have the same gear and set of ears I presume. Hence why audio quality is subjective.

That's what I was getting to.

I've tried various settings and if there is a difference it is a negligible difference to my ears so no longer fret over sampling rates and bit setting.

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatN /img/forum/go_quote.gif They don't really matter, no. I did hear a story though that even though you can't actually hear it, it is better. Oh yes, head-fi style.

That way my dog/cat can hear 'everything' when they put my headphones on.