[TrantaLocked]

Actually, experiencing the same feeling, a person will write down they hear new sounds thinking they never existed before, but actually find them when listening for any thing BESIDES what they know. Listening to a few Unexpect songs there are sounds I didn't notice for WEEKS until listening to a Grado SR80i at a local hi-fi shop. And what do you know, I go back to my HD 201s AND my CX300-IIs and hear those sounds, crystal clear! And I would say the Grado SR80i is a very detailed and relatively high end phone according to audiophiles here. Guess what: these headphones really put emphasis on the treble, and the GS1000 (which I've heard) even more so. It's an allusion that headfiers all seem to fall for, thinking the piercing feeling is worth the "detail." The Grado lineup effectively makes music brighter and thus seemingly clearer and detailed. There may be a refinement but there are literally no "new" sounds to be heard of that any headphone I've used can't reproduce.
 
Not to state headphones are all the same though; far from that. Refinement of detail, frequency response, imaging and sound stage all matter and are the reasons why we upgrade.

 

[Mink]

I agree, this is my experience as well.
 
Quote:

People always say how they can hear new things in their brand new headphones. This isn't true; it's either a sound that happened to be toned down by the frequency response of the last headphone (but still audible) or the simple fact when you get a new headphone you try harder to hear all of the details. I have never heard any less or any more sounds in any head phone; every detail is there, whether muddy or piercing or quiet or loud, It's there. New hi-fi users probably think they hear new details because higher end headphones tend to be lighter on bass, making higher frequencies stand out. I don't fall for the treble allusion, and thus I prefer a bassier but not too bassy headphone because it's just simply more enjoyable and less fatiguing.

 
Troll?
Don't be ridiculous.
Just because someone posts a different opinion than most on this forum?
Quote:

" but yes you would hear every detail that the song has, whether distorted, bassy, piercing, etc. it WILL be there. As long as the headphone can recreate the FREQUENCY"
 
It's official.
A troll has been born in head-fi.
TrantaLocked is it's name
Let's not feed it please, or take any of it's words to have any worth.
 
Obvious fact is obvious. This guy treats general knowledge like some kind of epiphany.
Either he JUST had this one. Or he's looking for a reaction.

 
 

 

[Jonasklam]

Quote:

I'm not saying higher end head phones aren't higher end. Of course the sound will be crappy on a $3 headphone, but yes you would hear every detail that the song has, whether distorted, bassy, piercing, etc. it WILL be there. As long as the headphone can recreate the FREQUENCY, any sound at that frequency will be heard. If a certain detail is at 1000hz and said $3 headphone just doesn't recreate that band, then no, that detail won't be there.

I do somewhat agree with you. Yes, the sound will be there in theory, but that doesn't mean that the headphone can reproduce the sound so that it is audible to the human ear.
And as you said yourself, some headphones are limited by their frequency.
 
So no, you can't hear all sounds with all headphones.
 

 

[wind016]

This is why Head-fi likes treble, it throws the details at you.
 
However, it is not always the case. Some headphones give better high pitched details without emphasizing the high end. For example, in my review of the ATH W11R, I noticed the W11R treble is rather tame compared to the very bright W2002, BUT high pitched details were much clearer on the W11R. I believe it has to do with neutrality. The bright W2002 caused high pitched details to blur each other out, while the more neutral W11R kept the details separated.
 
Generally, the more money you spend, the more neutral headphones get which will in turn make it easier to discern details. Sound congestion would be reduced and sound stage would be widened. Unfortunately, many of the top-tier dynamics are still bass-light. Better get into orthos or Stax instead =)

 

[UtzY]

       I tend to agree with OP, just like in this video, Audio Myth Workshop. But I still need some good (not necessary expensive) headphones for a "better" bass, "better" balance, lower distortion, and so on.
 
       Anyway, this happened to me, but not on any cheap/bad headphones that I had, because those couldn't reproduce bass at all...so if you ask me, the detail here is lost. But again, only bad/cheap headphones. 
      The bass is the hardest part for a headphone to reproduce (even for a speaker). Here (and maybe in highs region) are some fundamental details that get lost. But if you are referring to details like lyrics, drums, people whispering, cymbals, etc. then, yes the detail is there, on majority of headphones above 40$ to say so. 
 
      When we buy new headphones, we will focusing on details, and other parts of the sound ,other than we normally listen on our old headphones.  This change of focus is either from our brain (Like JJ said on the video), or because of the balance of the new headphone, that accentuate another part of the hearing range. 

 

[fatcat28037]

^ That looks like a great video. I've book marked it and will watch when I have an hours time. From what appeared at first to be a trolling expedition this thread has progressed nicely to a thoughtful discussion.

 

[LegendaryLvl1]

Quote:

I agree, this is my experience as well.
 

 
Troll?
Don't be ridiculous.
Just because someone posts a different opinion than most on this forum?
 

... 
You obviously did not get what I was trying to say -_-
"I have never heard any less or any more sounds in any head phone; every detail is there, whether muddy or piercing or quiet or loud"
As I said in my previous post - this is an obvious statement. All headphones would theoretically be able to produce any sound wave within the headphone frequency range, yet a human ear would not necessarily be able to discern each and every frequency - due to the way the headphone (of inferior quality) chooses to represent that particular frequency.
 
Similar to what Jonasklam posted:
"I do somewhat agree with you. Yes, the sound will be there in theory, but that doesn't mean that the headphone can reproduce the sound so that it is audible to the human ear."
followed by
"headphones are limited by their frequency"

I was trying to point out that in terms of logic and reason - what the OP says is true
 
My problem lies with the fact that he assumes (by his subjective opinion much like mine) that the theoretical components of such logic apply in real life, which is definitely debatable.
 
Another problem is the fact that he attempts to diminish new hi-fi users, by which I claimed troll
"New hi-fi users probably think they hear new details because higher end headphones tend to be lighter on bass, making higher frequencies stand out. I don't fall for the treble allusion, and thus I prefer a bassier but not too bassy headphone because it's just simply more enjoyable and less fatiguing."
 
Notice the distinction made between 'new hi-fi users' and the OP

 

[tupac0306]

I did heard things that I never heard before on certain songs. And When I actually go back and listen with my crap headphones I can sort of see why those sound weren't there. Of course u will never hear the thing that never even been mixed into a song.
 
But with good headphones. U can hear a lot more details/frequencies that can't be heard with average headphones.

 

[brat]

 
Quote:

People always say how they can hear new things in their brand new headphones. This isn't true; it's either a sound that happened to be toned down by the frequency response of the last headphone (but still audible) or the simple fact when you get a new headphone you try harder to hear all of the details. I have never heard any less or any more sounds in any head phone; every detail is there, whether muddy or piercing or quiet or loud, It's there. New hi-fi users probably think they hear new details because higher end headphones tend to be lighter on bass, making higher frequencies stand out. I don't fall for the treble allusion, and thus I prefer a bassier but not too bassy headphone because it's just simply more enjoyable and less fatiguing.

It's partially true. The "new" details mean a "new" FR. The different freq.response of the new gear focuses our attention on different sounds. It's simple.
"Detail" is а dirty word to me The details distract us from hearing music. We must listen to the overall performance of the music but not details. The most audible details are just distorted FR of some component or the recording.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

       I tend to agree with OP, just like in this video, Audio Myth Workshop. But I still need some good (not necessary expensive) headphones for a "better" bass, "better" balance, lower distortion, and so on.
 

 
Just watched the whole video.  Thanks for that - very enlightening.
 
I still found that with my Shures vs other cans I'd owned, I did hear new details (in tracks I know very well) that I'd never heard before.  There is no doubt that the detail was already there.  I also agree that if I specifically tried to hear the same detail on the other (can I say less resolving?) cans, I'd probably now be able to hear it.  But I wasn't specifically listening for the new detail when I got the Shures.  I was just listening the same way I always do - loving the music.  Yet I still had the "aha" moment with the Shures.  I just noticed the new detail for the first time.  The way I read the OP's post was that he was discounting this from happening.  I also love his reference to "new hi-fi users".
 
That's the point I was trying to make re the OP's statement.  I'd never heard the new detail before (regardless of it still physically being there all the time).  Maybe better to say I'd never noticed it before.  And it's likely that I would never have noticed it until I listened with more revealing headphones.
 
For the OP to make a blanket statement like that did not make sense to me - and I'm still wondering why he posted it.  But again - I appreciate the video link UtzY - utterly fascinating, and also an eye opener.

 

[xkfow]

I am sure the OP is technically correct. However the reality is, even if the sound was audiable beforehand, i'f you dont "hear" it before, it may as well not be there at all.

 

[mikeaj]

Quote:

Extreme case: If a pair of headphones is crappy enough, its own noise and distortion will be higher than certain parts of the music it is playing. Those details will be lost. This still applies to better headphones, but to a lesser extent.
 
More commonly: Any pair of good headphones capable of 20Hz-20kHz should reproduce basically the same audible details. However, each can have a slightly different presentation of those details (i.e. frequency response in headphones is never flat). And this leads to you noticing details you did not notice before.
 

In the extreme case, just because the noise and distortions are higher than certain parts of the music doesn't necessarily mean that you still can't pick out those parts of the music.  If you were to listen to somebody talking with a very poor phone connection with more static than voice, you can still pick out the voice.  However, I agree that these kinds of distortions are likely to obscure different aspects of the music. 
 
It's very likely that the different kind of presentation from different headphones will allow people to hear different things.
 
 
 
However, we shouldn't just be looking at this in the frequency domain.  Surely one headphone that looks like this when given an impulse response:

 
will not sound the same as something that looks like this:

 
It seems like the first headphone may often blend details together such that they're lost, while the second one would be more resolving.  Probably.

 

[TrantaLocked]

I explained this experience later in the thread; sorry if my first post seemed unreasonable but I completely agree with what you mean. 
 
Quote:

 
Just watched the whole video.  Thanks for that - very enlightening.
 
I still found that with my Shures vs other cans I'd owned, I did hear new details (in tracks I know very well) that I'd never heard before.  There is no doubt that the detail was already there.  I also agree that if I specifically tried to hear the same detail on the other (can I say less resolving?) cans, I'd probably now be able to hear it.  But I wasn't specifically listening for the new detail when I got the Shures.  I was just listening the same way I always do - loving the music.  Yet I still had the "aha" moment with the Shures.  I just noticed the new detail for the first time.  The way I read the OP's post was that he was discounting this from happening.  I also love his reference to "new hi-fi users".
 
That's the point I was trying to make re the OP's statement.  I'd never heard the new detail before (regardless of it still physically being there all the time).  Maybe better to say I'd never noticed it before.  And it's likely that I would never have noticed it until I listened with more revealing headphones.
 
For the OP to make a blanket statement like that did not make sense to me - and I'm still wondering why he posted it.  But again - I appreciate the video link UtzY - utterly fascinating, and also an eye opener.

 

 

[TMRaven]

Lacking of bass and treble emphasis has something to do with it, but not the end-all, be-all of detail.  There're many things I heard differently coming from a pair of iBuds (with no bass at all) to AD700s (with still little bass) and it wasn't just new bass tones that I could pick up.  I could hear clipping in many songs, I could hear the artists moving around in the recording studio in others, and I could hear violinists take deep breaths in between lines in concertos.  Going from AD700 to the DT990 was an example of emphasized treble giving the allusion of more detail, but there was also a bit of detail gain as well.  The emphasized treble made air in some live recordings stand out with a constant high frequency sound.  On other songs, noise in the recording didn't come out until I properly amped the DT990 with a (warm) tube amp.  I could also hear even more distortion and clipping in songs that were recorded and mastered in a subpar way as well.  I'd say going from AD700 to DT990 I heard roughly 3x the clipping in songs.
 
I won't argue that every headphone with the same frequency response range should give you the same amount of detail, because they all will, but it's an issue of isolating those sounds to the best of the headphones's ability.  Why, I didn't think my pair of iBuds were particularly noisy until I listened to them months after I was accustomed to my Beyers out of a dedicated dac and amp.  They're completely quiet when no music is played.  Put the iBuds through the computer's integrated amp, and you hair a constant noise that could most certainly mask some details in a song.
 
There's also the issue that a lot of songs are recorded and mastered in such a way to sound their best on many entry-level audio systems, so there's no extra resolution to be had when listening to them on higher end systems.  I think that's one huge problem to think about when questioning the ability for higher end audio systems to isolate minute details better.

 

[erod]

I disagree with this.
 
When I listen to Arctic Monkeys - I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor through iBuds, you literally cannot hear the main guitar.
 
Something similar happens with Radiohead - Paranoid Android. Not the main guitar, but the second guitar during the chorus. And it doesn't just happen with iBuds with this tune. My sony mini-component won't play it either. I can definitely hear it in my car stereo and my D1100s though.