[Llloyd]

  Topic of the day for the HE500, what are the differences between the 2 terms "clarity" and "resolution" when used to describe audio quality? 

 
clarity is a more situational term that can be applied differently depending on what you are talking about such as how congested things might be. That's how I typically use it. A phone might sound congested or have great clarity with individual notes. Resolution, to me, is max potentail for detail reveal. You can have great detail but still have a congested sound if the driver cannot handle extremely complex passages.

 

[Zoom25]

  Topic of the day for the HE500, what are the differences between the 2 terms "clarity" and "resolution" when used to describe audio quality? 

 
People can argue whichever term is perceptive and which one is physical (for example, perception of loudness vs actual amplitude...regardless, it all boils down to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
 
Auditory masking. I highly suggest giving this a read through to anyone that "actually" wants to learn and understand, rather than spit out random theories or what people think "makes sense" or "sounds reasonable enough." Not to make this into a Science forum, but been seeing too much junk on this thread recently (Not directed towards anyone specifically).

 

[jerg]

  Topic of the day for the HE500, what are the differences between the 2 terms "clarity" and "resolution" when used to describe audio quality? 

 
They are distinct traits, but they interact I think. Resolution revolves around the ability for the drivers to extract itty-bitty bits of nuance and detail, while clarity refers to the (lack of) factors like ringing, harmonic distortion, or simple FR unevenness that tend to mask real detail/fidelity.
 
With HE500, I would say it has good resolution across the board, and adequate clarity though far from the best (specifically, I find HE500+velours to have poor upper midrange/lower treble clarity, and +pleathers to have poor mid-midrange clarity; in general the cans suffer slightly in terms of bass clarity, and upper treble clarity is mediocre).

 

[Dubstep Girl]

They are distinct traits, but they interact I think. Resolution revolves around the ability for the drivers to extract itty-bitty bits of nuance and detail, while clarity refers to the (lack of) factors like ringing, harmonic distortion, or simple FR unevenness that tend to mask real detail/fidelity.

With HE500, I would say it has good resolution across the board, and adequate clarity though far from the best (specifically, I find HE500+velours to have poor upper midrange/lower treble clarity, and +pleathers to have poor mid-midrange clarity; in general the cans suffer slightly in terms of bass clarity, and upper treble clarity is mediocre).

+1

For me resolution is like u said, the drivers ability to extract musical information and present it. More resolution = drivers able to pick up stuff in the recordings, this is very similar to detail and microdetail/nuances, detail to me would be, how obvious that resolving ability is and how easily its heard, this can go from being analytical and hyperdetailed to being dull and veiled, a lack of detail in a sense. From crisp and sharp to dull blunt and subdued.

Clarity is more like transparency, how easy is it to hear the music, like an open window, how the headphones disappear and all you hear is what the artist intended, not in style but rather can you hear it all easily and well? Is there anything in the way. Do u feel like its a recording or a live performance? A headphone can lack clarity in a sense due to treble warmth and colorations, but still be transparent, like hd 650, its hard to hear some details and stuff especially in the treble. Also a lack of openness or a headphone too slow and congested can reduce clarity, clarity in a sense is everything as a whole, transparency, extension, detail, openness, naturalness, etc. transparency is more specific, how close you feel to the music. Grain, lack of detail, distortion, artifacts, lack of coherency, unnatural tones, harshness, obvious colorations, slowness and congestion, etc, i think would interfere with this.

 

[Makiah S]

+1

For me resolution is like u said, the drivers ability to extract musical information and present it. More resolution = drivers able to pick up stuff in the recordings, this is very similar to detail and microdetail/nuances, detail to me would be, how obvious that resolving ability is and how easily its heard, this can go from being analytical and hyperdetailed to being dull and veiled, a lack of detail in a sense. From crisp and sharp to dull blunt and subdued.

Clarity is more like transparency, how easy is it to hear the music, like an open window, how the headphones disappear and all you hear is what the artist intended, not in style but rather can you hear it all easily and well? Is there anything in the way. Do u feel like its a recording or a live performance? A headphone can lack clarity in a sense due to treble warmth and colorations, but still be transparent, like hd 650, its hard to hear some details and stuff especially in the treble. Also a lack of openness or a headphone too slow and congested can reduce clarity, clarity in a sense is everything as a whole, transparency, extension, detail, openness, naturalness, etc. transparency is more specific, how close you feel to the music. Grain, lack of detail, distortion, artifacts, lack of coherency, unnatural tones, harshness, obvious colorations, slowness and congestion, etc, i think would interfere with this.

 
very nice +1 as well 

 

[Pianist]

   
They are distinct traits, but they interact I think. Resolution revolves around the ability for the drivers to extract itty-bitty bits of nuance and detail, while clarity refers to the (lack of) factors like ringing, harmonic distortion, or simple FR unevenness that tend to mask real detail/fidelity.
 
With HE500, I would say it has good resolution across the board, and adequate clarity though far from the best (specifically, I find HE500+velours to have poor upper midrange/lower treble clarity, and +pleathers to have poor mid-midrange clarity; in general the cans suffer slightly in terms of bass clarity, and upper treble clarity is mediocre).

 
I don't agree that HE-500 is "far from the best" and "poor" in clarity. Those sound like great exaggerations to me. It may be lacking clarity compared to some of the top-tiers, but compared to most headphones, I think HE-500 is very clear, while its resolution is one of the best I ever heard. HE-500 may seem lacking in clarity due to some roll off in the upper mids/lower treble and upper treble, but the actual quality is great on HE-500 - the sound is exceptionally clean, dynamic and articulate to my ears. I think that clarity and resolution may also seem lacking with HE-500, because it does not sound as sharp and defined as some other headphones. However, I wouldn't call the sound fuzzy or muddy, but rather naturally smooth.

 

[koiloco]

   
I don't agree that HE-500 is "far from the best" and "poor" in clarity. Those sound like great exaggerations to me. It may be lacking clarity compared to some of the top-tiers, but compared to most headphones, I think HE-500 is very clear, while its resolution is one of the best I ever heard. HE-500 may seem lacking in clarity due to some roll off in the upper mids/lower treble and upper treble, but the actual quality is great on HE-500 - the sound is exceptionally clean, dynamic and articulate to my ears. I think that clarity and resolution may also seem lacking with HE-500, because it does not sound as sharp and defined as some other headphones. However, I wouldn't call the sound fuzzy or muddy, but rather naturally smooth.

what? you did not see his plug? 

 

[Dubstep Girl]

I don't agree that HE-500 is "far from the best" and "poor" in clarity. Those sound like great exaggerations to me. It may be lacking clarity compared to some of the top-tiers, but compared to most headphones, I think HE-500 is very clear, while its resolution is one of the best I ever heard. HE-500 may seem lacking in clarity due to some roll off in the upper mids/lower treble and upper treble, but the actual quality is great on HE-500 - the sound is exceptionally clean, dynamic and articulate to my ears. I think that clarity and resolution may also seem lacking with HE-500, because it does not sound as sharp and defined as some other headphones. However, I wouldn't call the sound fuzzy or muddy, but rather naturally smooth.

Yeah compared to sub 500 dollar headphones and mid fi, yes the he-500 blows them away, here we talking about vs high ends and flagships

 

[koiloco]

Here we go again.  It all comes down to money and who's spending more...Just like in any hobbies I've been through.

  Thx all for your input/response.  I am stopping here cuz this is not going to go any further in my book.

 

[Makiah S]

Yeah compared to sub 500 dollar headphones and mid fi, yes the he-500 blows them away, here we talking about vs high ends and flagships

 
I'd put the HE 500 in that wierd Hi Fi low ground imo, like the T90 and LCD 2 are in that range, the LCD 3 HE 6 and T1 are above it, the W1000x the DT 880 and K702 are below it 
 
that's how I'm looking at the whole thing. Still I'm going to get the T90 and a tube next spring [ugh a balanced tube that's going to suck price wise] 

 

[Dubstep Girl]

I'd put the HE 500 in that wierd Hi Fi low ground imo, like the T90 and LCD 2 are in that range, the LCD 3 HE 6 and T1 are above it, the W1000x the DT 880 and K702 are below it 
 
that's how I'm looking at the whole thing. Still I'm going to get the T90 and a tube next spring [ugh a balanced tube that's going to suck price wise] 

I think upper mid fi- entry level high end for starters, with top lvl rig, they are high end.
Lcd-2 is high end imo, they hold their ground quite well even against lcd-3 and hd 800/t1, he-500 does so as well i suppose, but lcd-2 start up higher, poor amping makes he-500 sound like worser headphone even though its not, so depends on setup as well

 

[elwappo99]

   
I'd put the HE 500 in that wierd Hi Fi low ground imo, like the T90 and LCD 2 are in that range, the LCD 3 HE 6 and T1 are above it, the W1000x the DT 880 and K702 are below it 
 
that's how I'm looking at the whole thing. Still I'm going to get the T90 and a tube next spring [ugh a balanced tube that's going to suck price wise] 

 
Have you had a chance to compare all these high end headphones? 

 

[Makiah S]

   
Have you had a chance to compare all these high end headphones? 

 
NOPE making that call based on price. I group headphones in to tiers well based on Price
 
if it's priced at around $1000 I shove it into Hi Fi Tier, under $1000 Mid Fi, well mid fi kinda ends at like $600 ish imo anything in the 700-999 range is kinda iffy.
 
And I make those groupings to simplifie my own purchase plans 

 

[Zoom25]

I think upper mid fi- entry level high end for starters, with top lvl rig, they are high end.
Lcd-2 is high end imo, they hold their ground quite well even against lcd-3 and hd 800/t1, he-500 does so as well i suppose, but lcd-2 start up higher, poor amping makes he-500 sound like worser headphone even though its not, so depends on setup as well

 
Hmmm I always found the HE-500 to scale higher than LCD-2, but even off a Sansa Fuze, HE-500 kicked ass. The LCD-2 on the other hand I found to be much more pickier.

 

[daerron]

I would have happily paid $899 for my HE-500s. A lot of reviewers have mentioned that if it wasn't for the HE-6, the HE-500 would easily have qualified as a flagship headphone. And pricing doesn't count for much, there are more expensive headphones out there that definitely do not live up to their price tags (I'm looking at you HD-700). I can happily live with the HE-500s in the long term as they are such good all rounders. The Hifiman's do require proper amplification though to fully appreciate their sound. I definitely ran mine for too long on underpowered amps, not realising how great they really were.