[LazyListener]

   
1. Transient response is the same for 16/44.1 as for "hires" except beyond the audible band.
2. That's particularly strange because of all the music genres EDM is the one which benefits the least from hires!
3. No, it's nothing like that at all! The differences between SDTV and even the latest Premium/Super/HDR UHD (4K) are all within the capabilities of the human eye. The differences between 16/44.1 and hires are all outside the capabilities of the human ear! In you want to make loose comparisons with TV, the cassette would standard def, Vinyl would be HD and CD (16/44.1) would be beyond even the latest UHD 4K specs.
i
Most probably the huge quality differences you're hearing are nothing more than perceptual biases (caused by marketing) or maybe they are real but caused by comparing different masters. Either way, your use of the term "hires" and your explanation for what you're hearing (or think you're hearing) are both incorrect.
 
G

2.  How does EDM benefit "the least" from Hi-Res?  From your recent comments overall and reply #3, it seems you're saying no music benefits at all from Hi-Res.
3.  I'll accept the way you framed this.  I'm not sure Hi-Res music files above 16/44.1 add any real world, subjective auditory benefits.  However, I was not referring to Hi-Res sources.  I was referring to headphones, some having a higher resolution capability than others.  The PM-3 to me sounded ultra-detailed and higher resolution than any headphone I've ever heard, especially noticeable with Skrillex tracks.  It sounded like listening to an electrostatic speaker versus a dynamic driver box speaker.  I attribute at least some of this to the faster planar magnetic driver, but I'm sure there's more to it.  I'm willing to bet that it's not simply a matter of frequency response.  I've heard the same music on some bright, trebly headphones, and the synths never sounded so fast and detailed like with the PM-3.  Ultimately, I didn't like the PM-3 because of this dry, analytical tonality and poor soundstage, but Skrillex and similar electronic music with fast synths sounded superbly detailed on them.
 
I think when "objectivists" are quick to try to explain away what people think they hear as "perceptual biases" caused by marketing, it's because they don't have an answer as to what objective measurement could account for the perceived differences.  BTW, they were not different masters.  They were the same Spotify Premium 320 Kbps ogg vorbis streams.  Again, I was comparing resolution ability of headphones, some labeled as Hi-Res.  I was not talking about Hi-Res source files.

 

[LazyListener]

  high resolution devices don't mean much(well the all high res thing doesn't mean much really). the big guys decided that resolution above 16/44 is high resolution. and that's it. 
but marketing is using that without any care for the fidelity at the output of the device. DACs and DAP are labeled high res as long as they can play high res files, as in read them without having to down convert.

  the output could be the crappiest ever they don't care they have the legal excuse to use the term and can always fall back on pretending that they only meant high res compatible all along if somebody complains.
as for headphones, just looking at distortions figures and FR make them high res unable.
 
the idea of speed a @lazylistener uses it is confusing because it brings a heavy baggage of preconceptions that seem obvious even to those who don't understand sound, yet absolutely fails when put to the test. like transient sounds and how they're audible yet contain ultrasounds so somehow ultrasounds must be audible in some way and we need that speed to make them sound right. if that was true, it should be easy to pass a blind test where one of the track is band limited to 44khz. the maximum speed is hard limited, but people massively fail such a simple test. IMO that demonstrates how the only speed one needs is the speed to reconstruct the audible range. else why do I fail the blind test against highres signals and high frequency content?
so by extension, I consider talks about the headphone's speed to also be a wild guess. the headphone has a different signature, and different distortion figures compared to another headphone, which is more than enough to create a different perception of sound. you deciding it has anything to do with speed because of some subjective interpretation of a feeling of speed is cherry picking one potential cause among many without any evidence that one variable is more involved than any other one. that's a guess, nothing more.

Agreed.  So I'm here providing a guess that the planar magnetic driver in the PM-3 has at least something to do with the individual notes I was able to hear in the fast, synthesized riffs used by Skrillex.  I'm guessing the planar magnetic driver's speed over that of dynamic drivers has at least something to do with what I heard.  I know that doesn't tell the complete story.  There are other factors.  Frequency response being only one of them.  The HE400S is also planar magnetic, but I didn't hear the same detail like I did with the PM-3.
 
So I'm asking you objectivists, if you know, why did the PM-3 sound so much more detailed with fast, electronic synthesized riffs, than any other headphone I've heard before (and I've heard dozens, some quite detailed in their own right).  If you can, please provide an objective reasons that would explain my subjective impression.
 
Or if you prefer, put another way, what objective factors, outside of frequency response, are responsible for the detail/resolution of a headphone.  Which are bigger factors and which are smaller factors?  Could planar magnetic driver versus dynamic driver not be one of those factors?

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

 
I'll leave it to you "objectivists" to define what detail or resolution translates to in terms of math or objective measurements.  For me, it means hearing everything that can be heard based on the original recording.  Some headphones are better at revealing the detail that is there, while others are less able to do so.  Many factors at play.  Some have to do with the headphone.  Others with the listener.  So just focus on the headphone and the equipment.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "unchanged" signal?  I do not agree that 100% input information (details) is always revealed at output.  Each output device (headphone) varies in its ability to reproduce the original signal.  Each headphone "distorts" the original signal in some way.  A headphone only provides a representation of the input signal, not an identical reproduction.

 
Little example from my musician's life:
Evening our band cool play music with great sound. After repetition we turn off apparatus.
Next morning we turn on apparatus. Began play, but sound was far not so good as yesturday. Warming of apparatus changed nothing.
It happened several times.
 
I suppose, what we hear (or think that hear) may be placed in our head. In evening we had big energy inside and sound was better for us. Morning, we havn't good mood. And sound was worse for us.
 
Real devices loss information anyway. But as ideal (reference point) I consider zero changes.
 
 
I meant "unchanged signal" as identical by waveform. [Input signal]-[Output signal]=Zero.
 
Ideal measurement this identity may be applied for digital signals only. If be more exact in integer format only.
 
For analog signal we limited by precision of measurement tools.

 

[CarlosUnchained]

Cringe
 

 

[gregorio]

  2.  How does EDM benefit "the least" from Hi-Res?  From your recent comments overall and reply #3, it seems you're saying no music benefits at all from Hi-Res.
3.  I'll accept the way you framed this.  I'm not sure Hi-Res music files above 16/44.1 add any real world, subjective auditory benefits.
4.  I think when "objectivists" are quick to try to explain away what people think they hear as "perceptual biases" caused by marketing, it's because they don't have an answer as to what objective measurement could account for the perceived differences.

 
2. By definition, EDM is mostly constructed with synths and samplers, it's very heavily processed and in addition is just about the most highly compressed music genre. So fewer bits are required for the limited dynamic range and there aren't all the natural harmonics to worry about, so no benefit of high sample rates either. In practise, no one can tell Hires from CD in blind testing any way, so hires is only really of theoretical benefit for any music genre.
 
3. IMO, subjective auditory benefits are the only benefits of Hires and that there aren't any objective auditory benefits.
 
4. In general "objectivists" are quick to explain what people think they hear as "perceptual biases" caused by various forms of marketing/suggestion because that's what ALL the reliable evidence indicates and, there is no objective measurement which accounts for many of the reported perceived differences! The problem with any argument counter to this, a massive logical hole! Which is simply: If we can't objectively measure it, we can't record it. This is true of audio recording since it was invented in the C19th to the latest digital technology. Tape recorders, ADCs, etc., contain no magic spells, they are entirely science/engineering based devices, which effective measure/convert energy which is stored and then replayed. Therefore, if you are hearing something which cannot be objectively measured then it cannot be anything other than a trick of your perception ("perceptual biases")! For example, have a look at this brief video, there is not, nor can there ever be, an objective audio measurement of the difference between baa and faa.
 

  1. Yes. DAW is big complex of software and hardware. There may be different interfaces between modules.
 
3. Downsamplig filter to 44 kHz have 2 kHz transient band for -200 dB digital filter. For minimization ringing need so tricks for design such filter. If sample rate 192 kHz, filter may have transient band 20 .. 96 kHz. That significantly simplify design for minimization of ringing.
 
4. What there border in numbers between "faulty/very poorly designed" and "good designed"?

 
1. So we can't actually write a DAW format file, let alone distribute the mix or master "as is".
 
3. Maybe when mixing lots of channels together there could be accumulated ringing effects with say 44.1kS/s. But even then, in the vast majority of cases, it's more of a potential or theoretical problem than an actual audible one. I don't really see ringing as a practical problem in modern consumer DAC design though.
 
4. Numbers which correspond with the limits of audibility, plus a bit of a safety margin.
 
G

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

  1. So we can't actually write a DAW format file, let alone distribute the mix or master "as is".
 
3. Maybe when mixing lots of channels together there could be accumulated ringing effects with say 44.1kS/s. But even then, in the vast majority of cases, it's more of a potential or theoretical problem than an actual audible one. I don't really see ringing as a practical problem in modern consumer DAC design though.
 
4. Numbers which correspond with the limits of audibility, plus a bit of a safety margin.
 

1. However, we can. Project DAW created in certain resolution despite geterogenous resolutions of processing. There is not sequential processing in different resolution. There complex scheme (parallel-sequiential). Own DAW's processings may be in project resolution. Hence, if we havn't obvious reasons to change resolution, better way is saving master in project's resolution, in my opinion.
 
2. I also don't consider ringing as big evil, because music have small differences between samples, as rule.
 
Need consider that music production applications work in real time.
Steep linear phase IIR filter for 44 kHz demands more coefficients, than "lazy" one for high sample rate value.
So delay between acoustical sound and response at speakers is increased. If delay will mpre several milliseconds it may cause discomfort during monitoring.
 
4. Ok. Let bound 0,001% THD, or -130 dB aliases and absolute threshould of ear listening.
 
Also which is value of dispersion of threshould of ear listening for different peoples?

 

[U-3C]

I suppose, primarily with panoramic auto SPL meter (acoustic pressure method) in anechoic room.

As test signal used sweep tone.

May be somebody use other methods.

Deviation 1 dB about average value in full band is good for electro-mechanical system.

Thanks for the response!

You can look at http://www.innerfidelity.com/ for articles. Measuring a headphone's FR is tricky due to each human being's head's varying acoustic properties, sound absorption, etc. They use fake heads, even the placement of headphones on a head causes variances. Then there's compensation curves.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/approaching-head-measurements#QpcMbwiP8CL3f35P.97  Includes the HD600

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-one#s82iihwrxudtWWTD.97

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/first-crunched-data-harman-head-measurement-session#rO7ojy3y0vXww99T.97

Thanks to you too!

However, I was referring to the spec that states XYZ headphone can go from 20 Hz to 100000000 GHz. Any idea how those are measured and how it may be useful in any case? People seem to just ignore it so I'm curious if it has any purpose, as well as any practices that companies do to make the numbers look nicer or misleading.

 

[castleofargh]

...

However, I was referring to the spec that states XYZ headphone can go from 20 Hz to 100000000 GHz. Any idea how those are measured and how it may be useful in any case? People seem to just ignore it so I'm curious if it has any purpose, as well as any practices that companies do to make the numbers look nicer or misleading.

that's very precisely meaningless data. we usually have no idea about the criteria used to get those values so you can as well write 3 billion trillion gigahertz as a number alone never meant anything. obviously it's not about flat response... because headphones. so what is it? +/-10db relative to 1khz? +/-60db relative to the quietest part in the mid range?  any sound at all at that frequency measured in anechoic chamber with a laser because they didn't have a microphone able to record that?  the only purpose of those numbers is BS marketing.
unless of course what they mean is clearly explained, but good luck with that.

 

[Dillan]

I always cringe when cable makers describe in detail exactly how their cables change the sound. It makes me angry in some cases.. guess I shouldn't let it bother me.

 

[U-3C]

that's very precisely meaningless data. we usually have no idea about the criteria used to get those values so you can as well write 3 billion trillion gigahertz as a number alone never meant anything. obviously it's not about flat response... because headphones. so what is it? +/-10db relative to 1khz? +/-60db relative to the quietest part in the mid range?  any sound at all at that frequency measured in anechoic chamber with a laser because they didn't have a microphone able to record that?  the only purpose of those numbers is BS marketing.
unless of course what they mean is clearly explained, but good luck with that.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up!


: )

 

[Argyris]

I always cringe when cable makers describe in detail exactly how their cables change the sound. It makes me angry in some cases.. guess I shouldn't let it bother me.

I'm starting to come around to the view that, in cases where people are gullible enough to eat up that kind of marketing crap and the breathlessly sycophantic rhapsodizing of audiophile subjectivists who affirm that it's true (because they literally bought it), maybe it's best to just say that a fool and his money are soon parted and leave it at that.
 
Still gets me, though, when they tell somebody who clearly just doesn't like the headphone they recently bought and would be much happier with something else that all they need to do is spend twice the cost of the headphone itself on an amp/DAC/cable, and that will somehow magically solve all their problems. Or that unless they're willing to spend a thousand bucks minimum on an amp and DAC, and unless they're willing to push 10 watts through a 200 mW max input headphone, they shouldn't even think about the HD 6x0.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

I always cringe when cable makers describe in detail exactly how their cables change the sound. It makes me angry in some cases.. guess I shouldn't let it bother me.

I don't mind expensive cables. In my opinion, cables must look according connected apparatus.
 
Different interconnection analog and digital cables may cause different catching of noise. It may be obviously detected by background noise during silence of a system after changing of cable.
But, probably, it is not matter of expensive cables.
 
However I don't look for sound transparency from cable to cable. May be transparency is issues of cheapest analog cables. As example with damaged isolation.
 
But damaged or long digital cable can give faults of transferring digital data. It lead to pauses. Probably, clicks there, but it depend on algorithm of processing, I suppose.

 

[Intensecure]

that's very precisely meaningless data. we usually have no idea about the criteria used to get those values so you can as well write 3 billion trillion gigahertz as a number alone never meant anything. obviously it's not about flat response... because headphones. so what is it? +/-10db relative to 1khz? +/-60db relative to the quietest part in the mid range?  any sound at all at that frequency measured in anechoic chamber with a laser because they didn't have a microphone able to record that?  the only purpose of those numbers is BS marketing.
unless of course what they mean is clearly explained, but good luck with that.

Wait, wut?
My Sonys are rated at 3-100,000khz, says so on the box - you mean to say that those bats hammering against my windows are a coincidence?

 

[StanD]

Wait, wut?
My Sonys are rated at 3-100,000khz, says so on the box - you mean to say that those bats hammering against my windows are a coincidence?

No, they wanted to _hang out with you.

 

[U-3C]

No, they wanted to _hang out with you.

That was soooooooo bad.

...

I love it.