[voltrex]

I have always bought a headphone with higher  freq. range then the generic headphones   because i usually  felt that the sound is much richer and netural
with high freq, range  such as 16.hrz to 26mhz   ..    and while i listen to the generic  20hrz to 22mhz   the sound was always  plain and dull  .. not as rich and netural.  
 
But when i saw many reviews of audiophile range headphones    which cost $300   with  freq. range of 20-22  makes  me wonder what cause the differences and do i really can tell the difference or no ..
 
 
typical  microphone can record much mroe then the  generic range but  sound engineer usually  remove and clean every record to fit that range.  ,
 
am i wrong?  

 

[davidsh]

High freq range hasn't got much to do with audio quality, you can't judge anything based on that (if we are talking about a decent headphone).

 

[voltrex]

then why $5000  Japanese headphones have   freq. of   5-30.000    ?  

 

[obobskivich]

Marketing. Without conditionals those values are worthless numbers. Also - I highly doubt its MHz - you'd be cooking yourself to death.

 

[Sound Quest]

26 megahertz?!

 
You'd be microwaving your ears!

 
I'm sure you meant khz (kilohertz).
 
A higher frequency response doesn't always mean better headphones. It's more to do with how the headphones handle the frequencies that we can hear.
 
For example, a pair of headphones that might only go up to 20khz, could still sound much better than a pair of headphones that can go up to 30khz, because it does a better job of controlling the frequencies up the 20khz mark (which is considered by many to be the limit of human hearing anyway).

 

[Hoagie]

showing my ignorance.  So why do graphs show spikes and drops in frequencies above and below normal human hearing.  Why do many members make comments that lead me to believe that these drops and spikes are important? 

 

[Sound Quest]

Quote:

showing my ignorance.  So why do graphs show spikes and drops in frequencies above and below normal human hearing.  Why do many members make comments that lead me to believe that these drops and spikes are important? 

 
Because even although frequencies over 20khz are considered beyond the hearing threshold of 99% of people over 16, some people believe that the higher frequencies can have an effect on the sound of the lower frequencies that are audible. (The instruments sound more "airy").
 
But it takes a very good pair of headphones to take full advantage of this. Just because a pair of headphones can produce frequencies up to say... 35000hz, doesn't mean that they will necessarily do a good job of it.
 
As for the graphs, they aren't created based on a human ear. They're created based on what a high-end microphone was capable of picking up.

 

[obobskivich]

showing my ignorance.  So why do graphs show spikes and drops in frequencies above and below normal human hearing.  Why do many members make comments that lead me to believe that these drops and spikes are important? 

Do you have an example?

Because even although frequencies over 20khz are considered beyond the hearing threshold of 99% of people over 16, some people believe that the higher frequencies can have an effect on the sound of the lower frequencies that are audible. (The instruments sound more "airy").

Human hearing is spec'd as 20-20k for a reason, and I've yet to see "golden ears" make it into any textbooks (but I wouldn't be surprised to see some abnormal psych books change that ). The majority of people over 16 can't hear much beyond ~15khz just due to incidental loss. Especially modern teenagers. Not to mention that even for those who can hear 15-20khz, there's almost no content up there with conventional music/cinema/etc, and it's nothing you'd want to listen to. And you still have the issue of most headphones/speakers rolling off pretty heavily up there (human hearing does as well).

But it takes a very good pair of headphones to take full advantage of this. Just because a pair of headphones can produce frequencies up to say... 35000hz, doesn't mean that they will necessarily do a good job of it.

Basically no headphones can actually, reliably, do that - again, conditionals are a big deal. Sony has spec'd headphones as high as 110khz, which measure roughly 20 dB down at 20khz. So I'm sure with bounding of something like -100 dB they will hit 110khz, but then there's other issues associated with making those claims (like most digital audio hitting a wall at 22khz, and no - having "golden ears" doesn't extend that limit).

Insane HF extension is just a new frontier for marketing, nothing more.

 

[Sound Quest]

I would say that the frequency response of modern music is actually quite high. (Often hitting the 22.5khz barrier)
 
Unfortunately, the combination of over compression and limiting has made the music almost unbearable to listen to, regardless of the high frequency response.
 
We have far superior recording capabilities than we did 30+ years ago, but everything gets ruined in the mixing and mastering stages.

 
 
Sorry, I know this is off topic, just needed the rant.

 

[obobskivich]

I would say that the frequency response of modern music is actually quite high. (Often hitting the 22.5khz barrier)

Proof please.

And I'm not talking theoretical acoustics in an ideal concert hall, I'm talking actual recorded material (we'll ignore that no human can hear it, and that most codecs can't handle it nor can most transducers reproduce it).

 

[Kodhifi]

Quote:

I have always bought a headphone with higher  freq. range then the generic headphones   because i usually  felt that the sound is much richer and netural
with high freq, range  such as 16.hrz to 26mhz   ..    and while i listen to the generic  20hrz to 22mhz   the sound was always  plain and dull  .. not as rich and netural.  
 
But when i saw many reviews of audiophile range headphones    which cost $300   with  freq. range of 20-22  makes  me wonder what cause the differences and do i really can tell the difference or no ..
 
 
typical  microphone can record much mroe then the  generic range but  sound engineer usually  remove and clean every record to fit that range.  ,
 
am i wrong?  

I'll be blunt, its all ********. Frequency response numbers without a db variance are useless. Frequency response numbers with a db variance are only slightly better than useless.
 
Sennheiser reports their units can go to 35,000hz, but look at any frequency graph and you see them nose dive after 10khz like all headphones. Not to mention your ear wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.
 
 
Human hearing at it's best can appreciate and hear 20hz to 20,000 hz. By the time you're a teenager this drops to 18,000hz, and by the time you've got a mortgage it's more like 15,000hz. This is all fine though since even the highest pitched instruments like the sizzle of a drum cymbal peak out at around 12khz and that sounds very high and bright indeed.
 
 
What effects perceived sound quality isn't the range of frequencies, it's the response curve. In general, the flatter the curve the more transparent the sound. Most users prefer a gentle arching response curve though that looks like an upside down U.
 
Frequency response curves are measured with the level at 1khz becoming the baseline for 0db. Even world class audiophile headphones will lose flatness as they approach 10khz because of standing waves, resonances in the ear canal, things beyond their control. Generally the response curve of a good headphone, like a DT880, HD600, HD800, will have a dip around 7khz to offset an ear canal resonance, a peak around 10khz for a bright pop to the sound, then a rapid descent from 10khz to 20khz.
 
 
Flat doesn't always mean 'best'. Some of the non transparent headphones can be very flattering to the sound, making it more fun but less accurate. Think, a boring stereo that reproduces everything 100% flat, and you add some EQ to boost the bass and treble a little. That is what a good headphone does when it tries to be 'musical'. Where as studio monitors try to be flat without any bass or treble enhancements.
 
I hope this answers your questions.