MYTHBUSTERS[+White list of brands at the bottom of the first post] [objectiveness only] Intro to the "SOUND SCIENCE WALL OF TEXT" thread

[MygpuK]

1. Detail exists in the instrumental separation and texture of instruments. I can hear sounds that I never knew existed in recordings thanks to the imaging of my Paradigm Mini Monitors. Sound stage is a human perception, so I guess it can be counted as a myth. Resonance itself certainly isn't a myth. I've taken physics and despite only getting a basic introduction to sound science, I know this for a fact. You should read these Wikipedia articles in your native language to make it easier to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance

3. The things you cannot do are overcome the materials used in a headphone. You cannot overcome resonance, materials, transducer type, and enclosure type (vented, closed, open), some hardware characteristics cannot be overcome with software.

4. I'm glad we agree on at least something :wink_face: .

1. I said echoes to point out i'm speaking of resonance as a myth ONLY if resonance=acoustic_reverb. Of course we have mechanical/acoustic ones. As a fact.
2. Lol you have no 2 I suppose enclosure type modifies how X sounds, so it is possible to nivelate (level to the good sound) that. (done by engineers, developers, etc)
3. Materials should be true high-end, that's the whole point.
4. Same
P.S.: Trouble with our high-end is: BRANDS are the ones from high-end you can trust. I can't trust nowadays high_end because money are the whole point for differentiate medi-fi from hi-fi.
/discuss started: Which physic parameter should a true_high-end have? Materials, transducer type, enclosure type ( etc.

 

[dvw]

I am totally confused by this thread and its point. I think there is some language barrier here. I think the word myth is perhaps the wrong choice of word. I think by myth he meant perception, impression or a non-proper defined terminology. I think if "myth" is put in that context it makes more sense.

 

[MygpuK]

I am totally confused by this thread and its point. I think there is some language barrier here. I think the word myth is perhaps the wrong choice of word. I think by myth he meant perception, impression or a non-proper defined terminology. I think if "myth" is put in that context it makes more sense.

You understood myth the right way. I have chosen that word to induce some marketing, to attract more people to the /discuss.

 

[bigshot]

  It would be ridiculously difficult, if not impossible, to accurately equalize dynamics, detail, imaging, sound-stage, resonances, and the sound of a particular driver material or transducer type. 

 
I've gotten the EQ curve on my speaker setup very close to perfect, and that is a LOT harder to do than to EQ headphones that have no room acoustic problems and are already most of the way there.
 
By the way, a lot of the aspects of sound you mention are things that are created at the recording end. The reproduction part at the other end of the chain only has to duplicate all that faithfully by producing balanced frequency response. Frequencies are what we hear. They are what matter.

 

[MygpuK]

I've gotten the EQ curve on my speaker setup very close to perfect, and that is a LOT harder to do than to EQ headphones that have no room acoustic problems and are already most of the way there.

By the way, a lot of the aspects of sound you mention are things that are created at the recording end. The reproduction part at the other end of the chain only has to duplicate all that faithfully by producing balanced frequency response. Frequencies are what we hear. They are what matter.

Huge thumbs up once again.
Is a certain frequency's loudness highering (dB+) using an AMP safe (no bad effect) if you do not exceed physical limitations of the product (highest possible dB for the lowest (FAC down_curve/spike) dB frequency %] from the specs)?

 

[bigshot]

I'd answer your question but my mind hits reset with all the parenthetical asides in it.

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

   
I've gotten the EQ curve on my speaker setup very close to perfect, and that is a LOT harder to do than to EQ headphones that have no room acoustic problems and are already most of the way there.
 
By the way, a lot of the aspects of sound you mention are things that are created at the recording end. The reproduction part at the other end of the chain only has to duplicate all that faithfully by producing balanced frequency response. Frequencies are what we hear. They are what matter.

In my opinion, equalization is more for fine tuning the sound of a speaker or headphone. Equalization doesn't substitute buying a more technically capable piece of equipment, is the point I'm trying to make. Personally I'm terrible at software equalization, so I prefer acoustic treatments and other hardware based methods of modifying sound production.

 

[bigshot]

It would be good to spend a little time learning about frequencies. An equalizer is a million times more precise and flexible than juggling various colored components in the hopes that the right combination will come up with something good. EQing properly just takes practice.

 

[MygpuK]

It would be good to spend a little time learning about frequencies. An equalizer is a million times more precise and flexible than juggling various colored components in the hopes that the right combination will come up with something good. EQing properly just takes practice.

Without proper theory. If you have all the theory wall of text smacked into your face you just need patience to learn it and adjust your equilazer in a few days of practice being given you have analisys capabilities.

In my opinion, equalization is more for fine tuning the sound of a speaker or headphone. Equalization doesn't substitute buying a more technically capable piece of equipment, is the point I'm trying to make. Personally I'm terrible at software equalization, so I prefer acoustic treatments and other hardware based methods of modifying sound production.

As I have told already, the "best_technical_capable" is the true_high-end.

 

[xnor]

CAN YOU _please_ (at least) "try to" /post _normal_sentences_?

 

[MygpuK]

CAN YOU _please_ (at least) "try to" /post _normal_sentences_?

LOL
Sorry, I know i'm applying bad things, that's called programming-related comunicating issues. I can't fix them, yet i'm trying.

CHILD-THREAD STARTED:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/690818/the-perfect-stereo-headphone-true-high-end​

 

[MygpuK]

Thread updated: added white list of true brands at the bottom of the first post.

 

[MygpuK]

Thread name and poll edited.

 

[MygpuK]

Updated FAQ, edited the thread a bit.

 

[Makiah S]

  It would be good to spend a little time learning about frequencies. An equalizer is a million times more precise and flexible than juggling various colored components in the hopes that the right combination will come up with something good. EQing properly just takes practice.

Indeed it does, and I do enjoy EQ. I like to EQ my DnB as much as possible
 
still I find it fun to juggle various components, and with regards to money... oh hey I have 2 jobs and I work hard to feed my hobby ^^ that and I'm not a specialists of any kind. Just a Fellow sharing his joy with others
 
Also good enough read. An yea EQ takes time. I usally spend about a month fine tuneing an EQ for my Edm Headphones.