I see the term "detail" thrown around a lot when describing sound, like "DAC A sounds more detailed than DAC B".
I reason if, say 20 kHz is as high as one can hear, and the system can play past 20 kHz, it is able to play the most detailed sound possible, because this sound contains the theoretical maximum information per time that is audible.
Is this thinking wrong? What am I missing? It seems like almost every review and comparison on here throws around that word.
it's a subjective notion and should be treated as such without trying to tie it down to just one or 2 objective variables. even correlating actual fidelity and perceived details might be incorrect most of the time as perceiving more does not necessarily mean perceiving more of the original signal. the extra "details" could just as well be distortions so high that they become noticeable and affect the overall sound of an instrument(although that probably makes more sense in regard to tube amps and headphones, because audible distortions in DACs shouldn't be that common).
the feeling of noticing more details certainly exists, but the cause could be as simple as a slight change in signature, or the fact that we're using a new device so we're focusing harder or listening louder than we usually do. again, for a DAC it would probably be a good idea to check that we can notice a difference before starting to try characterizing said differences and look like we have no idea what we're talking about. I won't get many new audiophile friends for saying this but I still believe it's good advice.
I see the term "detail" thrown around a lot... I reason if, say 20 kHz is as high as one can hear, and the system can play past 20 kHz, it is able to play the most detailed sound possible, because this sound contains the theoretical maximum information per time that is audible. Is this thinking wrong?
I would say yes, because sensitivity in human hearing isn't very strong at the upper reaches of our perceptual threshold for high frequencies. There is a sweet spot in the high mids / low treble that is much more important for the perception of detail than the bleeding edge of human hearing. I would say the treble is the area where detail is located. You can goose it and get more detail, but that is a taste thing, not necessarily and accuracy thing.
The other thing to take into account is auditory masking. A frequency response imbalance can mask content an octave above or below. if you have a significant imbalance in the upper mids, it can drastically affect the treble range and reduce detail.
I would say yes, because sensitivity in human hearing isn't very strong at the upper reaches of our perceptual threshold for high frequencies. There is a sweet spot in the high mids / low treble that is much more important for the perception of detail than the bleeding edge of human hearing. I would say the treble is the area where detail is located. You can goose it and get more detail, but that is a taste thing, not necessarily and accuracy thing.
The other thing to take into account is auditory masking. A frequency response imbalance can mask content an octave above or below. if you have a significant imbalance in the upper mids, it can drastically affect the treble range and reduce detail.
I disagree with this assessment. Detail is not found only in the treble area. Dynamics, bass extension and depth, are all viable when talking about detail.
When you say the human ear sensitivity isn't very strong, do you have data to back up this claim? Certainly in older specimens I can see that being the case, but younger people do have sensitive hearing in the upper registries,
PointyFox I would be weary of some opinions (and they are opinions) and talk to many different people. There are many claims thrown around this sub forum that I have yet to see actual valid scientific data for, keep that in mind when you read posts that preach opinions as the one and only truth.
If you'd like information on bias, auditory memory and masking, I would be happy to share that info with you, but you have to be sincerely interested. You've burned through your brownie points.
"Detail" implies hearing something more clearly, but this can be affected by so many factors I don't think the term is very useful without context. Something could sound "blurry" because of actual resolution (amount of information), the speed/precision of the transducer, or peaks/dips in the frequency response (auditory masking is real).
I feel if one is going to use the term "detail", they need to be detailed about those details.
When you say the human ear sensitivity isn't very strong, do you have data to back up this claim? Certainly in older specimens I can see that being the case, but younger people do have sensitive hearing in the upper registries,
I think this (interactive chart) is what @bigshot was referring to. The human ear is less sensitive to nuance and detail at the upper and lower extremes of our hearing, regardless of age / hearing acuity / etc.
I think this (interactive chart) is what @bigshot was referring to. The human ear is less sensitive to nuance and detail at the upper and lower extremes of our hearing, regardless of age / hearing acuity / etc.
Bigshot was right. The chart is a little visually confusing. Read what it says as you hover your cursor over different areas of the chart and you'll see an explanation.
Bigshot was right. The chart is a little visually confusing. Read what it says as you hover your cursor over different areas of the chart and you'll see an explanation.
I have. This chart seems to show exactly what you said previously, detail is heard more in the mids and low treble, not upper frequencies. Am I misinterpreting the chart?
While subjectivity perceived detail comes about due to the complete quality of the system to resolve information. So it’s dependent on source, amp and transducer.
The perception of detail comes across all along the audible spectrum. In short it’s a sound replay which emulates the detail when heard in life. Also due to it being an illusion of life, the signal can actually have enhancements which are not found in life.
Below are a list of attributes which relate to a detailed response.
1) Complete source signal player/recording
2) Complete amplification process
3) Transducer Aspects:
Timbre
Phase correctness
Minimal resonance or correction resonance
Even tone response
Bass exstention
Treble extension
Response time domain accuracy
The list is in reality almost endless, and due to different ideas of correctness the final replay may or may not have various degrees of color. Ideally closer to a flat response has an even calibered relationship with detail, allowing room for more frequencies delineated.
Due to speakers not having treble roll-off headphones walk a tricky placed-top-off line of being able to produce treble frequency emission without sibilance. As a whole treble detail ends up as an emotional idea of detail, when in reality the detail is truly spread across the frequency spectrum.
There are also ways of perceived detail achievement which in some views degrades the idea of detail. A frequency response can have a diminished lower midrange but deep bass, along with a slightly scooped out midrange and prominent treble, to produce a soundstage with even more of a perception of detail. As what is removed can actually affect the preception of detail as much as too much treble response.
One great parallel example ends up being photographs as they are also a reproduction of what we see. Some photographs can have fake enhanced colors which seem too intense at detail. So they are detailed but not as life is. Also photographs can be blurry and dream-like or be increased in contrast to seemingly add detail. That stark contrast, though detailed is unnatural and can be fun at first seeing but does not replicate life.
So just as in photography an audio signal can be detailed but flawed, it’s not just the ability to be clear but ability to be life-like is what matters most.
Remember too many would rather have a poetic rendition of life; viewing or hearing it all musical and distorted.
I have. This chart seems to show exactly what you said previously, detail is heard more in the mids and low treble, not upper frequencies. Am I misinterpreting the chart?
I think maybe you're misinterpreting what bigshot said, not the chart, though I'll let you and him figure that out.
Anyway, I don't want to pretend to be anything like an expert on this stuff.
To me, detail can be both subjective and objective at the same time.
Some aspects of detail, such as separation of instruments, nuances in attack and decay, precise timbres etc is real but is more a function of qualities of the recording and speakers rather than a DAC, cables, streamer, cd player etc.
Just grab an equalizer and make small adjustments in different frequency bands, and you'll quickly find that above 10kHz, perception rolls off quite quickly, and the part of hearing that is the most sensitive is from 2kHz to 5kHz or so. The thing people generally call "detail" refers to the upper mids and lower treble. With headphones, when someone describes a set of cans as being "detailed" they're usually referring to a boost between 4kHz to 8kHz.
Detail can also be affected by auditory masking. An imbalance in one frequency range can block a frequency an octave away. Too many imbalances in the wrong places and the sound lacks detail.
High level of distortion can obviously blur detail as well, but that isn't generally a problem with modern home audio equipment.
Excessive reverb can smear over detail.
A high noise floor can bury low volume level detail.
With speakers, improper speaker placement can mush up detail.
And as old tech says, a lousy mix can make music lack detail too.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
