junk88
100+ Head-Fier
Can someone please explain to me what music detail is? Is it a lively sound?
Music detail?
- Thread starter junk88
- Start date
Just my 2 cents, I would classify a few components under "technicalities", one of which is "details". So technicalities include:
1) Imaging - How an instrument or voice is placed within the soundstage. Is it precise or imprecisely placed?
2) Instrument separation - In very complex instrumentation/competing instrumentation, are the different instruments blended together? Or can you hear individual instruments within the same frequency band?
3) Clarity - This is partially a function of tuning certain frequencies eg upper mids/treble, and some budget CHIFI indeed like to boost this area to give a fake sense of details.
4) Details - I look for micro details like ghost notes/ghost hits of drums, breath sounds of singers, squeaks on guitar/bass frets, even fine details like birds chirping/traffic/coughs/things being dropped in live performances. You can have details without having boosted clarity, ie some stage monitors which are pretty neutralish can still show ghost notes of drums. And conversely, some budget sets that overly boost the upper mids/treble can have clarity and make certain frequencies obvious, but they miss some fine details like ghost notes. The thing about details is that once you have heard this particular detail in this track, u will know that it is there in the future when u play the same song, and realize some IEMs don't show that particular detail well.
5) Bass speed/texturing/accuracy/layering - I'm a basshead and I look for how fast the bass can go and whether the bass notes are blended together or have a midbass bleed. This is partially related to driver type as BA bass tends to be faster in general than DD bass, but DD bass tends to have better decay and movement of air, and subbass extension.
6) Soundstage - Soundstage width, depth and height.
These are mostly subjective elements though, they are kinda hard to be measured objectively like on graphs.
1) Imaging - How an instrument or voice is placed within the soundstage. Is it precise or imprecisely placed?
2) Instrument separation - In very complex instrumentation/competing instrumentation, are the different instruments blended together? Or can you hear individual instruments within the same frequency band?
3) Clarity - This is partially a function of tuning certain frequencies eg upper mids/treble, and some budget CHIFI indeed like to boost this area to give a fake sense of details.
4) Details - I look for micro details like ghost notes/ghost hits of drums, breath sounds of singers, squeaks on guitar/bass frets, even fine details like birds chirping/traffic/coughs/things being dropped in live performances. You can have details without having boosted clarity, ie some stage monitors which are pretty neutralish can still show ghost notes of drums. And conversely, some budget sets that overly boost the upper mids/treble can have clarity and make certain frequencies obvious, but they miss some fine details like ghost notes. The thing about details is that once you have heard this particular detail in this track, u will know that it is there in the future when u play the same song, and realize some IEMs don't show that particular detail well.
5) Bass speed/texturing/accuracy/layering - I'm a basshead and I look for how fast the bass can go and whether the bass notes are blended together or have a midbass bleed. This is partially related to driver type as BA bass tends to be faster in general than DD bass, but DD bass tends to have better decay and movement of air, and subbass extension.
6) Soundstage - Soundstage width, depth and height.
These are mostly subjective elements though, they are kinda hard to be measured objectively like on graphs.
Selrisitai
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Posts
- 50
- Likes
- 38
I think of detail as small details that can be heard both during quiet and loud parts, and also in instrument texture.
Take a woodwind, for instance.
It's not just one volume. The initial breath might be a loud burst, followed quickly by a long, breathy drone. The earbuds might be described as having detail if they reveal this loud and quiet sequence, rather than sounding like a single volume.
A woodwind is also made of sifferent textures. It has a stronger, full sound when blown hard, and a breathier, more "hollow" sound when given less air or when playing lower notes. You want the breathiness and the strength to be starkly different.
Moreover, if the mic captured the flautist (or whatever instrumentalist) taking a breath, this might be hardly noticeable on a pair of buds that lacks detail resolution.
Finally, sound has "pressure." With bass, you can feel it shake you chest or skin or, in the case of earbuds, your head--but did you know that higher pitxhed sounds carry a physical sensation as well? Anyone who has been up close to a live brass quartet will tell you that you can feel a tenor horn in the form of a pressure. It's a real thrill!
That, along with dynamics, creates a realistic and detailed soundscape. If your earbuds can replicate these elements, I'd suggest they are detailed.
Take a woodwind, for instance.
It's not just one volume. The initial breath might be a loud burst, followed quickly by a long, breathy drone. The earbuds might be described as having detail if they reveal this loud and quiet sequence, rather than sounding like a single volume.
A woodwind is also made of sifferent textures. It has a stronger, full sound when blown hard, and a breathier, more "hollow" sound when given less air or when playing lower notes. You want the breathiness and the strength to be starkly different.
Moreover, if the mic captured the flautist (or whatever instrumentalist) taking a breath, this might be hardly noticeable on a pair of buds that lacks detail resolution.
Finally, sound has "pressure." With bass, you can feel it shake you chest or skin or, in the case of earbuds, your head--but did you know that higher pitxhed sounds carry a physical sensation as well? Anyone who has been up close to a live brass quartet will tell you that you can feel a tenor horn in the form of a pressure. It's a real thrill!
That, along with dynamics, creates a realistic and detailed soundscape. If your earbuds can replicate these elements, I'd suggest they are detailed.
Nice reviving an old but interesting topic! From strictly a headphone person, I always got the impression that detail involved good treble, which is usually absent or done poorly on low-cost gear.
Regarding the bolded, I believed I was hearing that on my He6v2 with piano strikes but my listening session with hd6xx, which was not one of my favs, made me realize that this is completely true and gave me a new appreciation of hd6xx. I goto live orchestras (even chamber) often and my daughter plays the violin so I know how the sound feels.
At the 6:15 mark on the song "Touch" by Daft Punk, violin starts to play in the background and you can feel this physical sensation you speak of more in the hd6xx than any of my other headphones, including the Arya and the Elex (it's really noticeable at the height at ~6:39). It's sublime with the hd6xx but feels hollowed out with the other cans.
The imaging and soundstage is still lacking but its timbre with this mid/upper range fullness that sounds/feels closer to real live performances is something I now realize why the hd6xx is so revered.
Last edited:
Extra texture is the most common 'extra' detail to extract.
But lets keep talking about treble. When I first started using the DT880 250 ohms I didn't find the treble harsh or piercing, but I felt this invisible high-frequency force, opening me up, cleansing my brain... hahaha... it's hard to describe. Uhm. Like having a clear head after the congestion of a cold or flu... discomfort and then... freedom.
But lets keep talking about treble. When I first started using the DT880 250 ohms I didn't find the treble harsh or piercing, but I felt this invisible high-frequency force, opening me up, cleansing my brain... hahaha... it's hard to describe. Uhm. Like having a clear head after the congestion of a cold or flu... discomfort and then... freedom.
Amazing. Are you one of those fabled treblehead
? Curious how high you can hear on the freq spectrum. Treble on most hifiman cans don’t bother me but I can only hear upto ~18000hz
Selrisitai
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Posts
- 50
- Likes
- 38
I have the Westone W80s. It seems that a lot of people were unimpressed, but there are some experienced audiophiles who adore them, and I think it's this sensation that the lovers are experiencing. People who "don't get" them, I suspect, are not getting a proper fit. I have to shove them in pretty deep, but once I do, I can feel instruments knocking against the inside of my skull.
I think I'd take this realistic instrument reproduction of sonic pressure over a technically more detailed sound, assuming that "detailed" refers to treble prominence and general texture.
Selrisitai
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Posts
- 50
- Likes
- 38
I've come to appreciate the mid frequency for a sense of realism, and treble for the "airiness" that can make tracks feel spacious and, to use an odd but appropriate descriptor, effortless.
ProtegeManiac
Headphoneus Supremus
Detail is texture on the notes. Think of a stringed instrument and then do more than just striking a single string with a pick quickly without moving the other hand's fingers. In some cases you get more nuance on how that string was manipulated to make some sounds, like when it was plucked a certain way or the other hand moved along the neck a certain way.
Lively sound is related to dynamic range and power delivery vis a vis transducer sensitivity and overall system response so the sound comes out and it just makes you tap your feet a lot more than on some other systems that aren't known for this. Listen to Feist's "One Evening" or Jane Monheit's "Taking a Chance on Love" on several systems and you may start noticing that at least the Feist track seems like it sounds slower on some systems (without touching the pitch on the CDP or FLAC player ie it's not actually playing faster). Drum hits have a louder, more solid "thud!" and fades out quickly as the next "thud!" hits and so on; on the other end of the spectrum the first note seems like it's still vibrating as the next drum hit comes and so on.
It’s such an interesting psychological effect. It’s very subtle but contributes greatly to my enjoyment of music. it probably also contributes to the disconnect when ppl describe certain differences as dramatic, w/o realizing how their enjoyment colors their perception
I don’t know if this is true but I always thought that dynamic range is central to establishing soundstage, provided that the recording captured it as well. I’m guessing power is needed there to induce the transducers at a specific spot to move air
? Just interesting things to ponder as I’m not an engineer of any sort.I'm not sure if 'placement' is the same as dynamic range. It's not my understanding.
Stage and placement I always attribute purely to headphones and the way the music has been produced.
Stage and placement I always attribute purely to headphones and the way the music has been produced.
ProtegeManiac
Headphoneus Supremus
I don’t know if this is true but I always thought that dynamic range is central to establishing soundstage, provided that the recording captured it as well. I’m guessing power is needed there to induce the transducers at a specific spot to move air
If you have good dynamic range it can help make placement clearer because the sound coming out of certain locations "pop" out more. That alone doesn't determine imaging and placement, or soundstage width and depth - for example Grados have really good dynamics given the response and the high sensitivity, but they're not what you get for imaging and soundstage.
I believe that dynamic range is not the only determinant but a main contributor to soundstage, which I intuitively understood to be different than placement. Placement to me is more related to imaging (within the established soundstage), which are admittedly interrelated. The reason why I believe DR is so critical for soundstage is b/c being able to cleanly reproduce both soft and loud sounds establishes depth perception. The exact spot at which the sounds (both loud and soft) is created confers placement. Again, this is assuming the recording captured all this info. Just my speculation based on my limited understanding of audio engineering and subjective interpretation of sound. I would be happy to be educated if I'm barking up the wrong tree 
An interesting question. I think (or hope?) that most here would agree that headphones are generally better at reproducing alot of the smaller details in recordings than speakers. There are a couple potential things which could explain that.
For starters, headphones don't have to contend with the acoustics in a room. The sound in a headphone is produced instead via acoustic coupling with the ear and ear drums. Headphones also generally have lower distortion. And they may also have a cleaner, faster, and sharper impulse response... But I'm less certain about that.
In headphones though, I generally associate good detail with good sound reproduction. Especially the accuracy, precision, and extension or depth of the frequency response; the lack of distortion; the sharpness, clarity, and speed of the impulse response; and also the symmetry of the drivers. There are others factors that could contribute to this as well. But these are the sort of sound quality characteristics I look for in a good pair of headphones, that can reproduce alot of detail in a recording.
More treble or upper mids might contribute to an impression of greater detail in some ways. But it would compromise the accuracy and precision of sound reproduction in other ways,... which would be a bad thing from a detail standpoint generally or overall imo.
For starters, headphones don't have to contend with the acoustics in a room. The sound in a headphone is produced instead via acoustic coupling with the ear and ear drums. Headphones also generally have lower distortion. And they may also have a cleaner, faster, and sharper impulse response... But I'm less certain about that.
In headphones though, I generally associate good detail with good sound reproduction. Especially the accuracy, precision, and extension or depth of the frequency response; the lack of distortion; the sharpness, clarity, and speed of the impulse response; and also the symmetry of the drivers. There are others factors that could contribute to this as well. But these are the sort of sound quality characteristics I look for in a good pair of headphones, that can reproduce alot of detail in a recording.
More treble or upper mids might contribute to an impression of greater detail in some ways. But it would compromise the accuracy and precision of sound reproduction in other ways,... which would be a bad thing from a detail standpoint generally or overall imo.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
