[markl]

gpalmer, I've read many times where people complain about this or that component, and say it's "adding detail" by boosting treble response. here's what I was responding to in tomcat's post: Quote:

Detail means the inability of preserving signal integrity, it means artificial emphasis on higher frequencies,...

If what they mean by "detail" is "distortion" that's another thing and maybe they are mixing terms up, or can't tell the difference between detail and distortion, I don't know, it's a mystery to me...

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl gpalmer, I've read many times where people complain about this or that component, and say it's "adding detail" by boosting treble response.

I agree with you completely there. While the brighter sound may be perceived as being more detailed you cannot actually add detail. I would disagree with the point you quoted just as you have. There is just no way that I would equate the concepts of detail and an artificual emphasis on the high frequency. For instance I would say the Emmeline HR-2 which both you and I own is an amazingly detailed amplifer, however if anything I feel the treble region is less emphasized in respect to the rest of the frequency spectrum than a truly neutral presentation. This doesn't really affect it's detail in any way.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

I disagree that detail is the 'inability of preserving signal integrity, it means artificial emphasis on higher frequencies,...' The ER4S for instance is still able to resolve instruments and sounds and separate them even with the highs tamed to a desired response through a high quality equalizer. Detail really comes down to the ability to reproduce all the aspects of the music as it was recorded, to the ability of playing the music uncompressed and without artifacts (without added noises or background noise), to the ability of playing the music with clarity at all frequencies not just the highs, to the ability of playing sounds with exact timing without delays and lags and without significant release times (otherwise the sound will turn muddy). The best I have tried is the ER4S.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpalmer ...This doesn't really affect it's detail in any way.

I agree. Louder treble will not add details, just make what is there louder. While I think someone could mistake the two, I don't think it's that hard to find out that it's merely louder and not more detailed.

 

[JaZZ]

Well, detail is of course another aspect of resolution and transparency, too, not just a lot of high frequencies. Nevertheless, it can be overemphasized even if not combined with increased treble. That's the case when it's explicitly perceived as high detail, not as high resolution and accurate reproduction of an instrument. Sure, combined with a treble emphasis the detail is even more increased, because detail is predominantly in the treble and with transients.

Litmus test
(Let's assume the used headphone system has very high resolution.)

Is an increased bass ever perceived as increased detail? No. Quite the opposite.
What about the lower midrange? No. Not much different.
And the midrange? Well, there's where it does something, at least in the upper midrange. Yes, an increased upper midrange (from 1.5 kHz on) can be perceived as increased detail.
Treble? No question -- that's where the detail is located.

To be clear: a lot of treble doesn't automatically mean high detail. But a highly transparent and detailed sound transducer will produce even more detail with a treble emphasis (detail not to be mixed up with resolution!).

 

[rhizome]

interesting discussion. detail is something i value highly in a headphone. when i say detail, i'm thinking of it in the way servinginecuador and others have defined it: more audible information. i think people often confuse brightness with detail because short high-frequency sounds are often the most difficult to hear, and bright phones highlight these sounds. as markl and others have also pointed out, the ability to hear sounds that previously went unnoticed is not the same as having more detail. in fact, you may be getting much less detail. an overactive frequency response, be it in the highs, lows, mids, wherever, will most likely obscure detail in the other frequencies. if certain details are perceived to be overemphasized, i think the problem lies in frequency response, not "too much detail."

i didn't quite understand this relationship until i got the er4s. at first, the etys seemed to suffer from what some might call "hyper-detail" - so much to listen to it detracts from the overall experience. however, like jazz mentioned, once i tried the linkwitz eq scheme, the excessive highs were tamed. this not only reduced what i perceive as glare on the highs, it also opened up the mid and low frequencies very nicely. i can hear more detail across the spectrum, but none of it is fatiguing. in fact, it makes everything much more involving and keeps the etys stuffed in my ears even longer. now i realize that it wasn't too much detail, just too much treble. note that this was achieved by lowering certain overactive levels. i don't think you will reveal more detail by boosting everything else instead. i could be wrong.

is this sound "natural"? maybe not. are my ears naturally perfectly tuned to listen to music/headphones? certainly not. does a symphony sound exactly how it would if i was sitting in the best seat in the hall? i doubt it. but if it were possible for me to hear every last squeek and overtone of each instrument in real life, i would choose to. my goal is not to have the most accurate recreation of what my concert experience would be, but rather to have the most involving, amazing, lively sound possible. i would like it to be believable, but not necessarily natural (this distinction may only exist in my mind, i'm not sure how else to put it into words exactly) for me, though other characteristics contribute as well (discussed below) being able to hear as much detail as possible greatly contributes to my goal. if this entails a little recording or playback "magic" i will gladly welcome the music wizard into my home

that said, detail isn't everything. i love my sr225s also, but they provide me with something different, namely greater rhythmic energy. i've had the grados for a while, but i haven't really started to appreciate this strength until recently, post ety-ducation

people who gravitate towards this kind of listening experience may prefer a groovier can over a more refined, detailed one, and thus associate lots of details with an overly analytical, boring sound. this is a matter of preference, i like to have both options. well, until i can afford a pair of ps-1s anyway...

 

[JaZZ]

I'm getting the impression that the confusion has to do with different languages. Actually I've always wondered why in audio discussions the term «detail» is used in singular, whereas in German, my native tongue, one would exclusively use the plural form in this context. But as it seems in English «details» aren't the same as «detail» -- the latter rather seems to be a synonym to resolution. Is this the case?

 

[gpalmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I'm getting the impression that the confusion has to do with different languages. Actually I've always wondered why in audio discussions the term «detail» is used in singular, whereas in German, my native tongue, one would exclusively use the plural form in this context. But as it seems in English «details» aren't the same as «detail» -- the latter rather seems to be a synonym to resolution. Is this the case?

Because here in America we're a bunch of lazy slobs who would prefer not to pronounce or write the extra s and we hate worrying about details like that which is the reason the kicked our forebears out of all the respectable contries on Earth. Does that cover it?

But seriously folks, it's fairly common in English for us to us things in that manner, for instance the statement "Did you get the mail" which does not imply there was only one letter received and which probably should be "Did you get the mails?" Oh well, you already kicked us out of your countries and there isn't much more you can do to us!

 

[gpalmer]

D'Oh the Phantom of the double post strikes again!

 

[halcyon]

Ok, let's define detail. Let me try a simple approach:

- Audible detail is a smallest atomic piece of an audio that can still be perceived by the human hearing

By definition, an audible detail does not "exist" for the listener, until it is heard.

Then there is recording detail: a recording detail (one detail) is the smallest acoustic (atomic) piece of the audio signal that is still stored on the recording.

However, as the human hearing is non-linear, recording detail !=> audible detail.

There will always be details (several atomic pieces of recorded detail) on the record that will not all be audible at the same time. This is due to critical band masking of human ear and other distortion mechanisms of hearing.

Now, how can one be made to hear more detail?

There are several ways and two really efficient (from the point of view of hearing) methods are :

- dynamic compression/limiting. If you have two signals that are normally masked, due to their level difference, you can make them audible, by gaining both signals and limiting the one that starts to clip. Of course, this will introduce additional distortion (both in terms of hearing and signal theory)

- equalization to compensate for outer ear resonances. As explained, human hearing distorts sounds by itself. The outer ear will both attenuate and boost some frequencies. This will lead to masking of some sounds that would otherwise be audible. Hence with Ety ER4s (which don't have outer ear compensation) you can hear more details at certain frequencies, because the sounds are no longer at such a low intensity, due to the lack of outer ear masking.

There are other ways of course, but those two come into mind as some things that are easy to do and have a great impact to what is actually heard.

What I've found that many people actually perceive recordings/devices with lots of dynamic headroom to be "dull" and "lifeless", whereas they tend to think that dynamically compressed / equalized recordings/equipment are "alive" and "full of details".

That to me is understandable, because audibly it is true. You can in fact hear additional small details, that would otherwise be masked, when you listen to a professionally compressed/limited recording with equalization.

Audio reproduction equipment can do similar equalization and compression: you can have in-line equalizers, flat FR response headphones, compressing amplifiers, etc.

Some of these may bring more recorded detail that was previously not audible to the level of audibility. However, as it is always the case with human hearing, other details will be lost as well.

It's a matter of preference (again), to draw the line how much added detail is good, when there is a simultaneous loss of some amount of detail.

I try not to draw the line, because I think detail hunting can easily lead to the dark side, where naturality is lost. But this is hard, I like details too, but it can easily evolve into a manic quest that never ends.

 

[bhd812]

damm this is a good thread, very good post btw.

anyway I have been thinking alot lately (maybe to much) about my last few experiences with different headphones I had or have and how I can like one and not the other, but either know I might not personaly like one I can still respect it for the sound quality it gives.

I have rounded my likeing down to 2 totally different types for totally two different moods.

type one is the more sperated but not the "hear all that was recorded" sound, this type I love while listening to frank sinatra alot cause I love hearing the different instruments reproduced oh so nicely but I dont like when I can fell the bass strings viberate, or the back ground piano that comes in barely in the left ear (from what I understand the piano itself in some songs wasent meant to be recorded but to keep frank on a certain tempo type thing. the piano wasn't intended to be heard on the recording itself. and yes on some vers of his songs (there are many) it was actually recorded this way and useing the ps-1's lately you can hear the piano bleeding in from another mic) this type is more closed together sound.

then there is the second type I like,
which is everything is seperate and you hear all intended or not intended.
andrea boceilli benefits from this mostly cause it gives him a sense of super realism like when you hear him take a breath before he lets out, this is the type where I love to focus in on a certain instrument and hear it through out over the others.

I dont know if I put it rite, but I seem to like these two types on different days, this is why I'm thinking of having a tube amp and a solid state, so when i wanna hear frank i go tube more warm more close but not everything, when I want andrea I go solid state alittle more laid back but you hear all!

i hope this made some sense to you, sorry for mispellings

lol

 

[nakedtoes]

Whats so difficult to discribe "detailed"?? To me a pair of detailed can is the one able to produce what u are hearing like u are live there minus the soundstages/ surrounding effects.. Just like LIVE from a REcording studio..