[Tefloon]

Sennheiser loli is cute, but your theory makes no sense at all.

 

[ac500]

> 1. From what I understand you say that details in bass are created by fast reaction of the driver.
 
That's exactly my point. Fast = low period = high frequency changes. Therefore, a slow reaction doesn't effect bass in the pure sense of the term "bass". To reveal such details, you need to have that treble component. Think of it this way: If you set your EQ to completely cut out all treble frequencies (that is frequencies f>1/T where T is the duration of this "fast reaction of the driver" you refer to), then such fast reaction has absolutely no effect on what you're hearing (bass).
 
> 3. This might sound cliché, but how can you be sure it's not a placebo? Unless either more people share your observations, or blind testes are performed there is no way to dismiss this possibility.
 
Funny thing is I've showed my SRH940 to a bunch of people, and literally the first thing everyone says is how amazing the bass sounds to them (I guess they're not bassheads). When I show them it compared to my HD650, they still like the SRH940s bass better, claiming it sounds more clear and less foggy. This confused me because the HD650 bass is supposed to be better, and in fact I do believe it is in the area of impact - the HD650 is absolutely better at putting out powerful bass.
 
Still, the SRH940 is way more detailed, and this was my impression of it from the start, despite my not wanting to believe so. I'd LOVE it if my HD650 was as detailed as the SRH940 (because the HD650 is more comfortable), but it's just not half as detailed in the mids/treble, and even the bass is less detailed although it doesn't matter so much because by definition bass is "slow". 
 
> And don't go telling me you are unbiased, because that is simply speaking impossible.
 
Still, there's a point beyond which bias matters. If you were here and listened to my HD650s and compared to my SRH940, listening to some FLACs with very complex treble, there's no way in the world you would say the HD650 has more detailed treble. Even if I EQ the 940s treble down. 

 

[Tilpo]

Funny thing is I've showed my SRH940 to a bunch of people, and literally the first thing everyone says is how amazing the bass sounds to them (I guess they're not bassheads). When I show them it compared to my HD650, they still like the SRH940s bass better, claiming it sounds more clear and less foggy. This confused me because the HD650 bass is supposed to be better, and in fact I do believe it is in the area of impact - the HD650 is absolutely better at putting out powerful bass.
 
Still, the SRH940 is way more detailed, and this was my impression of it from the start, despite my not wanting to believe so. I'd LOVE it if my HD650 was as detailed as the SRH940 (because the HD650 is more comfortable), but it's just not half as detailed in the mids/treble, and even the bass is less detailed although it doesn't matter so much because by definition bass is "slow". 
 
> And don't go telling me you are unbiased, because that is simply speaking impossible.
 
Still, there's a point beyond which bias matters. If you were here and listened to my HD650s and compared to my SRH940, listening to some FLACs with very complex treble, there's no way in the world you would say the HD650 has more detailed treble. Even if I EQ the 940s treble down. 

Such anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything. It's very well possible that other people say that the SRH940 has a more detailed bass, but does that mean this is true for all cans with detailed treble? Is it just the HD650 that is flawed?
Is it some other factor that makes other people perceive the SRH940 to have detailed bass?

The fact that the SRH940 is closed definitely has a big effect on the bass response. Is this causing the improved detail?

The HD650 is made for listening to music, the SRH940 is made for reference purposes. This fundamental difference in design purpose undoubtedly caused the engineers to take a different approach. It's possible that the HD650 is meant to have a less detail. Maybe this improves the feeling of bass impact?

And then the matter of bias still remains. Maybe something is biasing all your friends, or maybe something is biasing your interpretation of the data.


We need more evidence to support your hypothesis. This phenomenon needs to be tested on more headphones and by more people before a relationship between two variables can be established. Two data points a relationship does not make, young one.

 

[ac500]

I agree, I was just giving that as an example where I believe this principle of good treble comes into play. This thread is not a discussion about anecdotal cases, but mathematical and physical principles. Blind tests have no bearing on this other than to confirm what can be already be proven mathematically. But lets stick to the math/physics for a while before we start discussing blind tests like you brought up.
 
I'm still hoping someone will be able to explain how you can have "detailed bass" without treble components, and nobody has. Like I said before, my point stands until someone can explain how bass can be detailed with purely low frequency components. Keep in mind, everyone so far has defined detailed as "fast response" in one way or another, either as a low phase delay, low transient response delays, etc.

 

[Tilpo]

I agree, I was just giving that as an example where I believe this principle of good treble comes into play. This thread is not a discussion about anecdotal cases, but mathematical and physical principles. Blind tests have no bearing on this other than to confirm what can be already be proven mathematically. But lets stick to the math/physics for a while before we start discussing blind tests like you brought up.
 
I'm still hoping someone will be able to explain how you can have "detailed bass" without treble components, and nobody has. Like I said before, my point stands until someone can explain how bass can be detailed with purely low frequency components. Keep in mind, everyone so far has defined detailed as "fast response" in one way or another, either as a low phase delay, low transient response delays, etc.

can be already be proven mathematically​

So far I have seen no mathematical proof. I honestly love to see one.

how bass can be detailed with purely low frequency components​

I think this question has been confusing all of us. The question is not how it can be detailed, but for what reason should it not be detailed? Why do you think treble is necessary for bass detail? Bass is bass, treble is treble. Assuming there is no extreme amount of overtones on the bass notes, treble components should not have any effect on the bass components. Fourier transformations say the same thing as far as I know.

 

[ac500]

I think you need to define "detailed bass" then. Maybe someone should show an illustration what you call a waveform (just an example) of "detailed bass", so we're sure we're on the same page. Once we have defined a good picture of what it means for bass to be "detailed", then I can write up a proof.

 

[ac500]

I think you need to define "detailed bass" then. Maybe someone should show an illustration what you call a waveform (just an example) of "detailed bass", so we're sure we're on the same page. Once we have defined a good picture of what it means for bass to be "detailed", then I can write up a proof.
 
Edit: Here's an example of just one possible "detailed" bass waveforms as I imagine it:
 

 
Note that the wave has a very particular shape - being able to reproduce that is what I'd call detailed bass. In this example let's consider that the wave as a whole is oscillating for something like 40hz. If you remove frequencies above 50hz, this will instantly degenerate into a smooth blob of a simple sinewave, and therefore it will no longer be detailed.
 
This is not to say a 40hz bass sound needs 10khz frequencies to contribute enough detail to that bass sound - I never said that. I'm simply trying to explain the principle that quality of the higher frequencies are in fact necessary for detail to what we perceive as purely other frequencies. (Don't forget the thread title - "Good Treble = Detailed". Some of you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying as "treble = bass" which is not at all my point).

 

[Tilpo]

I think you need to define "detailed bass" then. Maybe someone should show an illustration what you call a waveform (just an example) of "detailed bass", so we're sure we're on the same page. Once we have defined a good picture of what it means for bass to be "detailed", then I can write up a proof.
 
Edit: Here's an example of just one possible "detailed" bass waveforms as I imagine it:
 

 
Note that the wave has a very particular shape - being able to reproduce that is what I'd call detailed bass. In this example let's consider that the wave as a whole is oscillating for something like 40hz. If you remove frequencies above 50hz, this will instantly degenerate into a smooth blob of a simple sinewave, and therefore it will no longer be detailed.
 
This is not to say a 40hz bass sound needs 10khz frequencies to contribute enough detail to that bass sound - I never said that. I'm simply trying to explain the principle that quality of the higher frequencies are in fact necessary for detail to what we perceive as purely other frequencies. (Don't forget the thread title - "Good Treble = Detailed". Some of you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying as "treble = bass" which is not at all my point).

I think I understand your point, but your definition of detailed bass still only needs good bass response. It still doesn't show why on earth you would need good treble to reproduce bass.

In your example you have a 40Hz tone mixed in with some >50Hz tones. The >50Hz tones are independent of the 40Hz tone, and of course if you would remove them you'd only be left with the 40Hz tone. But what does that have to do with anything?

And furthermore I wonder what combination of frequencies and amplitudes would be able to create the waveform you have shown us.

 

[ac500]

> And furthermore I wonder what combination of frequencies and amplitudes would be able to create the waveform you have shown us.
 
If the waveform I showed is 40hz overall, you need at least ~400hz components to be able to represent it without blurring it into a simpler sinewave. If it's not obvious why, then look at the part where it drops sharply.
 
> I think I understand your point, but your definition of detailed bass still only needs good bass response. It still doesn't show why on earth you would need good treble to reproduce bass.
 
Like I mentioned, I never said "treble = bass", but rather that bass tones do indeed require higher frequency components to be detailed, as with anything else. The point of all this being just that for a certain tone to be detailed, you really do need higher frequency components, or else it's just going to sound like a blurry tone.

 

[Tilpo]

> And furthermore I wonder what combination of frequencies and amplitudes would be able to create the waveform you have shown us.
 
If the waveform I showed is 40hz overall, you need at least ~400hz components to be able to represent it without blurring it into a simpler sinewave. If it's not obvious why, then look at the part where it drops sharply.
 
> I think I understand your point, but your definition of detailed bass still only needs good bass response. It still doesn't show why on earth you would need good treble to reproduce bass.
 
Like I mentioned, I never said "treble = bass", but rather that bass tones do indeed require higher frequency components to be detailed, as with anything else. The point of all this being just that for a certain tone to be detailed, you really do need higher frequency components, or else it's just going to sound like a blurry tone.

The thing is, in the example you gave us there is a high frequency and a low frequency component. The 40Hz component is completely independent of the ~400Hz component and is a completely different note.
Unless of course it's harmonically related. Messing up the 10th harmonic of a 200Hz tone (2kHz) would make the bass sound bad, but this is still within the mid-range. There is no way the harmonics of a base tone could extend all the way down to the treble range.

 

[ac500]

I don't think you understand. In that picture of 40hz I showed, if you suppressed frequencies above ~200hz, the wave would completely change and turn into a 40hz sinewave (not at all a detailed sound) for the most part. That wave above -- the note itself -- has higher frequency components as an integral part of it. It's a hard concept to understand intuitively at first, but it's what I was trying to say that so many people here don't seem to understand.

 

[Tilpo]

I don't think you understand. In that picture of 40hz I showed, if you suppressed frequencies above ~200hz, the wave would completely change and turn into a 40hz sinewave (not at all a detailed sound) for the most part. That wave above -- the note itself -- has higher frequency components as an integral part of it. It's a hard concept to understand intuitively at first, but it's what I was trying to say that so many people here don't seem to understand.

As far as I know a waveform looking like that can't be produced by one single note. A combination of one or more, on the other hand could do it (maybe).

Unless you are talking about electronic music, notes looking like that are fairly rare.
I would be interested if you could give an example of how a note like that could happen in real life (i.e. not synthesized digitally). The best example would be to take a screenshot of the waveform of a piece of music that features such a note.

Even if a waveform like that could be produced by one single note, it's still not theoretical situations we need to consider, but rather real life realistic situations.

 

[ac500]

The point is, that is a detailed bass note, and I can prove it requires frequencies 10x higher to be reproduced correctly. This applies at any frequency. If you would like to dispute that this matters, it's now your turn to provide a waveform that you claim is detailed in some way, and then we can analyze it under various frequency contributions.

 

[Tilpo]

The point is, that is a detailed bass note, and I can prove it requires frequencies 10x higher to be reproduced correctly. This applies at any frequency. If you would like to dispute that this matters, it's now your turn to provide a waveform that you claim is detailed in some way, and then we can analyze it under various frequency contributions.

No, it's your turn to explain why that is a bass note.
I don't see how the waveform you provided can be one note, so my question is whether you can find a waveform like that in music produced as a single note.

I could show you a random waveform and give no explanation, just that it kinda looks like a sine wave if you remove some of the frequencies.
Does that prove anything?

 

[R-Audiohead]

Maybe I'm missing something, but so far from what I've read it seems like this (very, very simplified)
 
If higher frequencies waves interact with lower frequency waves, how does removing treble NOT affect bass?
 
The waves interact, and change the waveform when summed, yes?  Removing the treble would indeed change the shape of the lower frequency wave, and thus our perception... since it is the changes in air pressure created by the wave that our tympanic and basalar membrane "detect".
 
Am I missing the whole point?
 
I understand it gets more complicated when you try to assess if adding treble increases bass frequency detail... but I hear all these comments such as "treble can't affect bass tones" and I just don't understand how it is unreasonable to think that treble does indeed impact the perception of bass.
 
I'm not saying that increased treble necessarily changes the detail level of the bass, but it only seems reasonable to think that treble presence at least affects bass response.
 
Correct me if I am missing something huge or I have a misconception of what's going on.