[HesterDW]

Quote:

 
 




I'm not talking about detail, I'm talking about details/sounds. Sure a better headphone is more detailed (as in it makes the sounds you hear before sound better), but it doesn't mean you can literally hear NEW sounds. Say you have a $10 pair of skullcandys, then you buy a nice Grado or some thing. You notice the drums and cymbals sound brilliant and fresh, thinking you are hearing more of the drums. Go back to skullcandys; you can hear all of these sounds (unfortunately to the listener) but they are compressed, muddy, and harder to decipher (fortunately for the listener). They exist, but of course the Grado is more refined. I am not saying Skullcandys SOUND GOOD, I am saying they reproduce what must be reproduced!
 
Does it really take more than a few head-fi users to screw in this easily understandable light bulb that is my position?
 
 

Wow no duh. The point of buying better headphones is to hear the sounds more clearly...Youre really taking that statement too literally.
 
 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

O.P., think about it this way:

When a transducer plays back sounds, it can't do it perfectly.  It adds distortion related to the sounds being played - harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, time-based errors as a result of overshoot and a less than infinite transient response, etc., etc. that are all not part of the original signal.  As these distortion products get loud enough, they mask details because the noise floor at a given playback level rises and can even go significantly above those details, to the point where when you measure the driver, say music with a particular sound "detail" playing at negative whatever dB and the same music without that detail, you can't find a statistically significant difference.  Then, the sound is effectively not produced at all.  And since our ears are particularly insensitive compared to measuring equipment, that threshold is far easier to reach for us than for our microphones...
 
Want an example?  How about this one:
 

 
Not exactly fair, is it?  But look at how fast the HD 800 driver responds to the DC impulse of the square wave - near instantaneously.  The Lady Gaga instead takes its own sweet time, slowly responding to the impulse and taking about a third of the time between the impulses to even reach the maximum extension.  Oh, yes, the HD 800 is distorting too - it can't produce a constant pressure wave...  But it's behaving like a critically damped (i.e. optimally) transducer should, compared to the massively overdamped Lady Gagas.  If you're playing other frequencies on top of that, for example, the distortion created as a result of reproducing the low frequencies is going to be in the harmonics above the fundamental low frequencies, and right smack-dab in the middle of the midrange and treble that you want to hear the detail of.  So you've got all these distortions that aren't supposed to be there, and as they increase they make it harder to hear the original signal - until you reach the point where you can't any more - and eventually, measuring equipment can't distinguish it from the noise either.  At that point, it can be said that that detail - that particular change in voltage over time - isn't reproduced at all.
 
So yes, details can actually be not reproduced by transducers - that happens when they can no longer be distinguished to a statistically significant degree from the background noise.
 
 
I do agree that some headphones with extra emphasis on the treble seem to resolve more but don't necessarily - again, it depends on the distortion products.  For a lower distortion, flat headphone, you might actually have a higher signal to noise ratio in the treble than one that emphasizes treble over the lower frequencies but has relatively high distortion within the treble itself.  Lower distortion products may be masked by the dominating high frequency response, but distortion products within the treble itself will be emphasized as well.  The reverse could be true as well - it all depends on the particular examples.  It's really any enormously complicated field, and I'm not even going to begin to explain it because I don't even fully understand it myself.
 
Just realize that it's not so simple, so black and white.  Much of what we're down to is probability and statistics.  You know, eventually there's going to be white noise produced by a random thermal noise generator that conforms exactly to Beethoven's 9th Symphony...

 

[dhaarbrink]

****, I'm gonna bite.
 
Let's take it to the extreme: Suppose you have a tiny little detail (the sound of breathing, someone moving their feet, perhaps even a small percussion instrument that's even barely noticeable on high end phones), and that piece of detail lives in a tiny little spectrum of sound. Now suppose you have cheap phones with a FR that goes all over the place and in that specific band of the detail it shows a significant drop. Will it be audible? I think not. 
Now compare it to high end phones with a near flat FR, will it be audible? Most certainly.
 
This is not even accounting distortion and stuff like that, which can be a significant factor in your everyday $10 phones.

 

[BournePerfect]

Tranta:
 
     Go over to avsforum.com and tell them their 1080p plasmas don't have more detail than their grandparents black and white RCAs. C'mon-it'll be fun! Woot! Help them see the light bulb!
 
-Daniel

 

[TrantaLocked]

 
Quote:

Wow no duh. The point of buying better headphones is to hear the sounds more clearly...Youre really taking that statement too literally.
 
 

Well Mr. *******, every one is accusing me for NOT KNOWING this so I had to explain I do know. Every one seems to be saying I think there is no point in upgrading, and after enough misguided responses I pointed out the obvious.
 
Thank you blackbearben and dhaarbrink. Probably a couple of the best replies I've seen so far, and now I understand why I am wrong. No I am not "surprised," I put my case in black and white, and stand corrected. I am not an idiot that can't admit he's wrong and I'm also not a troll Republican that only thinks one way. 
 
Thank you to those that were constructive.

 

[Brooko]

Thank you Blackbeard Ben - that's the point I was trying to get across a few pages ago.  Very articulate and well reasoned post.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

Well Mr. *******, every one is accusing me for NOT KNOWING this so I had to explain I do know. Every one seems to be saying I think there is no point in upgrading, and after enough misguided responses I pointed out the obvious.

Tranta - don't worry about the few that are making it personal - stick to debating the actual points and ignore the rest.  Once you decide it's not worth it to respond to the few 'idjits', it becomes easier to keep the thread constructive.
 
Already the thread's been worth it - Blackbeard Ben's post above.

 

[HesterDW]

Quote:

Tranta - don't worry about the few that are making it personal - stick to debating the actual points and ignore the rest.  Once you decide it's not worth it to respond to the few 'idjits', it becomes easier to keep the thread constructive.
 
Already the thread's been worth it - Blackbeard Ben's post above.

Just re-read my post. Apologies Tranta need to watch my temper. :/
 

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

Just re-read my post. Apologies Tranta need to watch my temper. :/
 

Don't worry - have been guilty of "playing the man rather than the ball" a few times myself.

 

[deadlylover]

I gave this a try a moment ago, and I can definitely understand where the OP is coming from now with his/her new stance on the matter.
 
Try listening to some music with a crapton going on, but also listen to the instrumental version of it as well. I just tried this and there are definitely some sounds in the background that vanish due to the vocals covering it up with my ibuds. Those sounds are still there when using my proper gear. Hope this helps.

 

[LegendaryLvl1]

Sorry do the ***** appear when you swear? Just gonna test something out
 
**** **** ***
 
hmm it only appears to work for the f word
but then what is : *******...
what could be that long 0_o

 

[HesterDW]

^ He called me an a hole...:/

 

[LegendaryLvl1]

Quote:

^ He called me an a hole...:/

hmmm... Don't really know what to think anymore

 

[BlackbeardBen]

So everyone, if you're intrigued by this sort of thing - understanding how and why headphones and other audio components work - I suggest that you give the Sound Science sub-forum a visit.  A lot of people never venture there either out of intimidation or disinterest - but some of the threads (articles, really) are far more informative than my posts could ever hope to be.

 

[flaming_june]

Quote:

O.P., think about it this way:

When a transducer plays back sounds, it can't do it perfectly.  It adds distortion related to the sounds being played - harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, time-based errors as a result of overshoot and a less than infinite transient response, etc., etc. that are all not part of the original signal.  As these distortion products get loud enough, they mask details because the noise floor at a given playback level rises and can even go significantly above those details, to the point where when you measure the driver, say music with a particular sound "detail" playing at negative whatever dB and the same music without that detail, you can't find a statistically significant difference.  Then, the sound is effectively not produced at all.  And since our ears are particularly insensitive compared to measuring equipment, that threshold is far easier to reach for us than for our microphones...
 
Want an example?  How about this one:
 

 
Not exactly fair, is it?  But look at how fast the HD 800 driver responds to the DC impulse of the square wave - near instantaneously.  The Lady Gaga instead takes its own sweet time, slowly responding to the impulse and taking about a third of the time between the impulses to even reach the maximum extension.  Oh, yes, the HD 800 is distorting too - it can't produce a constant pressure wave...  But it's behaving like a critically damped (i.e. optimally) transducer should, compared to the massively overdamped Lady Gagas.  If you're playing other frequencies on top of that, for example, the distortion created as a result of reproducing the low frequencies is going to be in the harmonics above the fundamental low frequencies, and right smack-dab in the middle of the midrange and treble that you want to hear the detail of.  So you've got all these distortions that aren't supposed to be there, and as they increase they make it harder to hear the original signal - until you reach the point where you can't any more - and eventually, measuring equipment can't distinguish it from the noise either.  At that point, it can be said that that detail - that particular change in voltage over time - isn't reproduced at all.
 
So yes, details can actually be not reproduced by transducers - that happens when they can no longer be distinguished to a statistically significant degree from the background noise.
 
 
I do agree that some headphones with extra emphasis on the treble seem to resolve more but don't necessarily - again, it depends on the distortion products.  For a lower distortion, flat headphone, you might actually have a higher signal to noise ratio in the treble than one that emphasizes treble over the lower frequencies but has relatively high distortion within the treble itself.  Lower distortion products may be masked by the dominating high frequency response, but distortion products within the treble itself will be emphasized as well.  The reverse could be true as well - it all depends on the particular examples.  It's really any enormously complicated field, and I'm not even going to begin to explain it because I don't even fully understand it myself.
 
Just realize that it's not so simple, so black and white.  Much of what we're down to is probability and statistics.  You know, eventually there's going to be white noise produced by a random thermal noise generator that conforms exactly to Beethoven's 9th Symphony...

Not that I doubt everyone, but most people don't even know what you mean by statistically significant.