"Duh" moment: frequency response
Jun 7, 2002 at 2:05 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 6

Matt

Are there any women on this board?
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Posts
974
Likes
10
A second ago, I was marvelling at the frequency response of your typical Stax can (up to 41kHz) when it dawned on me: that's only about one octave above 20kHz! That ain't much, don't you think?

I wonder what the harmonics implications of this are with regard to our perception of the "realism" of the sound.

- Matt
 
Jun 7, 2002 at 6:59 PM Post #3 of 6

Nezer

Antibacterial soap... kills bacteria... bad karma?
Joined
Dec 6, 2001
Posts
1,273
Likes
13
And if your using a 44-48kHz PCM source, what does it matter?

There better be a lowpass filter around 22k but it doesn't matter because everything over about 15-16k is crap anyway.

Personally I think the Stax are junk. The highs are just too harsh and was VERY prounounced (read awful and possible distorted) around the 6-10k region. Couple that with no bass and you have pure overpriced junk on your hands (IMHO). Honestly it would have felt better to cram sewing needles deep into my ears.

I'll take a pair of HD600s (or K501s) and a qulatiy cable and amp anyday over anything Stax makes. Hell, I'd take Koss KSC-50s with NO amp over the Stax.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 
Jun 8, 2002 at 7:12 AM Post #4 of 6

Dusty Chalk

Head-Fi-holic: With headphones would just be a benny.
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
6,565
Likes
15
Quote:

Originally posted by Matt
A second ago, I was marvelling at the frequency response of your typical Stax can (up to 41kHz) when it dawned on me: that's only about one octave above 20kHz! That ain't much, don't you think?

I wonder what the harmonics implications of this are with regard to our perception of the "realism" of the sound.

- Matt


Well, yes and no. No, it's only another octave, yes, but it's still hard. And, contrary to the views held by detractors, it's still important.

Also, I read a very interesting article about DSD noise in the May 2002 issue of Hi-Fi News (a British magazine). I think the author was struggling with the experiment, but it was my first exposure to any problems, so it was still revelatory to me. Basically, high-frequency noise goes up with increasing frequency. Do a search on Lip****z and Vanderkooy.
 
Jun 8, 2002 at 2:42 PM Post #5 of 6

Mystyler

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Posts
657
Likes
0
I wouldn't have thought that being able to respond to frequencies above 20kHz would have made much difference, since most people have trouble hearing anything above 18kHz, and the human ear's frequency range is topped out at 20kHz...

That's my two cents.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jun 9, 2002 at 4:58 AM Post #6 of 6

Dusty Chalk

Head-Fi-holic: With headphones would just be a benny.
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
6,565
Likes
15
Quote:

Originally posted by Mystyler
I wouldn't have thought that being able to respond to frequencies above 20kHz would have made much difference, since most people have trouble hearing anything above 18kHz, and the human ear's frequency range is topped out at 20kHz...


Well then, you would be one of those aforementioned detractors. As individual tones, I agree, I doubt many of us can hear, but as components of music whose tones are within the audible spectrum, I do believe they can be heard.

This is a problem with fourier analysis. People think that -- as far as audio is concerned -- music can be decomposed to its constituent frequencies, and whatever applies to the individual component frequencies applies to the composite signal. That is simply not true, especially when the human hearing system is involved.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top