[lilboozy]

Shouldn't it be the best because it correctly reproduces the recording? Even if you are a bass head doesn't anything above a flat response be artificially enhancing it and not how the producer wanted you to hear it? On a side note should this be moved to the sound science thread?

 

[tinyman392]

It could be debated that many analytical sounds boost the highs a little more than they should...  This technically is artificially done.  In a way, it's just as bad as boosting the bass artificially or even the mids.  At the same time, it can also allow a certain property of music to be focused more.  
 
In my mind, so long as a headphone reproduces the various properties of music (all of them) without overdoing any of them (to an extent), it is faithfully reproducing the music.  This allows me to become unbiased towards any type of signature (after all, a signature in my mind is just a flavor).  

 

[sml1226]

Analytic does not necessarily equal flat response. You could have something ruler flat that has so little detail you couldn't pull a gunshot out during a flute solo it's so messy. On the other hand, a lot of very "analytic" headphones/speakers simply have monster treble making the high end details stand out because they're boosted so heavily. That's not to say you can't have both, but they are not one in the same thing.

Regardless of how it comes out, detailed, muddy, flat, v shaped, etc. everyone I know has some differences in their musical and tonal preferences. My musical tastes push me towards something that is pretty far from analytic because I don't want to hear the mastering and recording impurities that they did not put the effort in to avoid because most people don't or didn't care about that much detail. My tonal preferences say I like a somewhat W shaped response out of my phones and speakers (my screwy junk bin crossover in one of my speakers kinda gives this response naturally).

No matter how you look at it, whether you want to admit it or not, audio is a very subjective thing, and as a result, nothing you do will be a universal solution to this quest for nirvana and perfect reproduction.

 

[psygeist]

Quote:

correctly reproduces the recording

 
 
this includes timbre, imaging, separation and other factors too, human ear response is different for everyone...
 
Analytical earphones are good for some genres while not so for RnB and other bass heavy genres.

 

[Peculier]

Quote:

Analytic does not necessarily equal flat response. You could have something ruler flat that has so little detail you couldn't pull a gunshot out during a flute solo it's so messy. On the other hand, a lot of very "analytic" headphones/speakers simply have monster treble making the high end details stand out because they're boosted so heavily. That's not to say you can't have both, but they are not one in the same thing.
Regardless of how it comes out, detailed, muddy, flat, v shaped, etc. everyone I know has some differences in their musical and tonal preferences. My musical tastes push me towards something that is pretty far from analytic because I don't want to hear the mastering and recording impurities that they did not put the effort in to avoid because most people don't or didn't care about that much detail. My tonal preferences say I like a somewhat W shaped response out of my phones and speakers (my screwy junk bin crossover in one of my speakers kinda gives this response naturally).
No matter how you look at it, whether you want to admit it or not, audio is a very subjective thing, and as a result, nothing you do will be a universal solution to this quest for nirvana and perfect reproduction.

Why would an analytical sounding earphone have less detail? I'm not saying it does, but I don't think there's a correlation between detail and sound signature.

 

[sml1226]

I didn't mean to word that in a way that made it sound like something analytical had less detail or any specific sound signature. I meant that you can be analytical without being flat across your FR, and you can be flat without having any detail or being analytical at all.

Frequency response and detail retrieval do not have any real correlation was my point.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

Why would an analytical sounding earphone have less detail? I'm not saying it does, but I don't think there's a correlation between detail and sound signature.

Why not? The treble could be so boosted that is overshadows both the mid-range and bass. Why is that so hard to believe? Many listeners mistaken boosted treble as detail when it is not.

 

[HighFiguy]

Quote:

Shouldn't it be the best because it correctly reproduces the recording? Even if you are a bass head doesn't anything above a flat response be artificially enhancing it and not how the producer wanted you to hear it? On a side note should this be moved to the sound science thread?

can be a very subjective debate but i do agree with somethings you've mentioned there

 

[3nenbgumi]

Just a side note, I've read from somewhere that speakers are aimed to, or at least always advertised to be able to reproduce music neutrally. The main reason is that before coming into contact with your eardrums, the sound coming from the speakers will first interact with the environments, thus changing its nature. So basically the coloration occurs naturally, and what you might be hearing is pretty much colored to some extent.
 
For IEMs, that's a different story altogether. Since the IEMs are placed directly against your eardrums with nothing between, the sound reproduced by them is hardly affected by anything, so there is a need for IEM producers to create some kind of coloration to make the music sound "neutral", based on the standard of natural sound that you're hearing from speakers. This is probably also the reason why having different tips might change the sound signature dramatically, because they also play an important part in creating the "inside head" environment.

 

[AudioDwebe]

Analytical is best only if you want to analyze.
 
My dad used to have a '67 Vista Cruiser station wagon with one speaker centered on the front console that played radio stations only.  Cruising with my girl sitting next to me, that single speaker was perfect!  Zero desire to analyze the music, as there were too many other things to analyze.
 
What's best in a can or IEM depends entirely on what you're lookig to achieve.
 
Cheers.

 

[mosshorn]

To me, there's a fine line between analytical and enjoyable. You'll find out hyper detailing in the treble makes music less engaging in most cases, which some dig this. I personally need my bass to have enough movement to be detailed and seem like a feel thing (as a lot of bass notes are live or in speakers) and my mids to have meat. I need a lot less treble than I used to in my Grado days

Sent from my rommed Thunderbolt using Tapatalk 2

 

[BattleBrat]

Quote:

 
 
this includes timbre, imaging, separation and other factors too, human ear response is different for everyone...
 
Analytical earphones are good for some genres while not so for RnB and other bass heavy genres.

 
^ This
I personally LOVE my Ety ER6's and  ER4-pt's

 

[psygeist]

Quote:

I need a lot less treble than I used to in my Grado days

 

That's very treble insensitive comment !

 

[frix]

I think it depends on how people define analytical.
So ist analytical = neutral?
or is analytical = a little brighter?

 

[Kees]

Does a concert sound analytical?