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.
I actually agree with Bigshot when he says upper-mids, lower treble area is where the details are. That's the area where you hear the finer strokes of sound in what I'd consider that defines the sounds. That area being done right is quite important for detail retrieval. That's something I've realized over the years.
Look at headphone responses, and pay close attention to that area, and hear for yourself what happens when there are dips in the that area.
Masking is quite important as well. If you have good level of low-mids presence, it will create warmth in the sound depending on how much warmth energy is in the cup, and thus reduce clarity, which is related to hearing details better.
I actually agree with Bigshot when he says upper-mids, lower treble area is where the details are. That's the area where you hear the finer strokes of sound in what I'd consider that defines the sounds. That area being done right is quite important for detail retrieval. That's something I've realized over the years.
Look at headphone responses, and pay close attention to that area, and hear for yourself what happens when there are dips in the that area.
Masking is quite important as well. If you have good level of low-mids presence, it will create warmth in the sound depending on how much warmth energy is in the cup, and thus reduce clarity, which is related to hearing details better.
Detail is also in the lower registers. This is noticeable when you compare a good recording on decent speakers that reproduce bass accurately. For example, when I upgraded my sub to go along with accurate active speakers, the nuance in bass is immediately noticeable, ie the fine changes in bass notes and the lack of overhang.
This is also noticeable when comparing a good LP with a good CD of the same recording. The LP sounds a bit warmer due to the inaccuracies of bass reproduction whereas the CD is more precise. I think this is a characteristic some mastering engineers do not properly take into account when remastering music originally meant for vinyl playback. The CD actually reproduces deeper bass but it can sound like it has less, simply because the overhang in vinly playback gives it more "reverb" which thickens the sound.
So to me at least, detail variation in recordings and stereos is right across the frequency range.
Subs help the detail in bass by taking the effort off the mains. The lower the frequency, the more energy it takes to reproduce. If you channel all the hard stuff off to a sub, it's easier for the woofers in the mains to reproduce the upper bass clearer... and that is the part of bass that defines "tight bass". The lower frequencies just are kind of there filling the room. They don't have so much definition. If you think of a standup bass, it's the pluck part of the sound that defines the crispness, not the really low stuff.
The reason bass sounds muddy on LPs is because of the RIAA curve. To improve the groove pitch, they reduce the level of the bass when cutting the disc and boost it when playing it back. That means that on playback, the signal to noise and distortion levels are much worse in the bass.
Subs help the detail in bass by taking the effort off the mains. The lower the frequency, the more energy it takes to reproduce. If you channel all the hard stuff off to a sub, it's easier for the woofers in the mains to reproduce the upper bass clearer... and that is the part of bass that defines "tight bass". The lower frequencies just are kind of there filling the room. They don't have so much definition. If you think of a standup bass, it's the pluck part of the sound that defines the crispness, not the really low stuff.
The reason bass sounds muddy on LPs is because of the RIAA curve. To improve the groove pitch, they reduce the level of the bass when cutting the disc and boost it when playing it back. That means that on playback, the signal to noise and distortion levels are much worse in the bass.
This was also the reason for "horribly harsh sounding " cd's in the 80's...,some engineers weren't compensating for the RIAA curve....gave cd/digital a bad rep right out of the gate.
Due to using the k701 and a variety of amps, treble and midrange detail was never an issue for me. After years with the k701 I went back to an old 1990s Sony CD8700 looking again for lower midrange and bass. Then later getting the AHD-7000 by Denon which sounded like more bass detail.
So I agree treble and upper midrange gets the feeling of detail.
I’ve never had an issue with treble detail, though it can vary from headphone to headphone, it’s harder in my experience to get profound high quality clear definitions of lower midrange, bass and sub-bass.
And as we found out timbre ability gets us the definition of instruments playing the same notes. As far as bass, much improvements are not always from the headphones but the damping factor of the amp. When psychologically more detail sounds like more bass, when after measurements can only be one dB. Better than quality bass can seem like more bass most of the time.
The 1980s!
Everyone was into the new thin Yamaha DX7 New-Wave sound! The music made room for a revolutionary new synth sound.IMO It was strangely mixed and recorded to picture frame the trendy new sound.
Not only were those 1980s pop music CDs done with hot treble, but much of the vinyl was mastered thin and bright.
Somehow the 1980s music at the time sounded more detailed, due to the midrange and treble being out front and fast? That music now is refereed to as poorly recorded and mastered. It stands out in bold contrast to warmer “correct “ recordings from the 1970s. IMO
depends on what you're talking about. subjectively sure, no tactile feeling of bass on the body is sort of a deal breaker. but objectively, headphone are generally better at doing bass. less roll off, lower disto than most speakers. the proximity makes the job way easier.
depends on what you're talking about. subjectively sure, no tactile feeling of bass on the body is sort of a deal breaker. but objectively, headphone are generally better at doing bass. less roll off, lower disto than most speakers. the proximity makes the job way easier.
Being this IS SS, and all........I would think it has to do with frequency range? And the fact yes, there are limitations with headphones, but I’m starting to see the area change. Meaning speakers compared to what. What speakers? Any speakers?
Truth to be told for many here........ due to $200 headphones sounding like expensive speakers. Yep...all of it; bass detail, midrange detail maybe some speaker treble detail.
But of course.... I have 15K posts......so you can imagine how many posts about speaker superiority I’ve read.
The change in paradigm is that it’s not air but frequencies entering the eardrum. Same as how pharmacology has introduced chemicals which occur naturally in the human body as new editions to the human chemistry.
And of course sound science will have a day trying to disapprove of posts. Especially posts which go against this small microcosm called Head-Fi Sound Science.
Probably my biggest gripe in Sound Science has been the complete diregard for the subjectivity of the Carl Jung psychotherapy in relation to perception. The fact that all of us interpret stimulus both as objective and subjective stimulus. The main reason why we will never reach a substantive agreement on what the correct Harmon curve.......is, and one of the reasons the curve has changed.
Of course again the conflict of psychology and science arise again and again......nothing new. But to me it is the issue of the subjectivity and the importance as in comparison to what is real and what is measurable as truth in the end. As said before, just as the perception of age, it’s all in the head.
If someone thinks IEMs sound like speakers in a room, it’s simply perception, it’s the grand illusion which is propelling Head-Fi. IMO
depends on what you're talking about. subjectively sure, no tactile feeling of bass on the body is sort of a deal breaker. but objectively, headphone are generally better at doing bass. less roll off, lower disto than most speakers. the proximity makes the job way easier.
I guess I'm comparing to the way bass sounds like in real life. When I hear a kettledrum hit in a symphony, or a thunderclap, or a plucked string bass in a jazz group, it doesn't sound much like it does in person through headphones. Bass is enveloping. It fills the space around you, and sometimes the spaces inside you too. You can feel it as much as hear it. And the concert hall or nightclub or theater space enhances the bloom of bass. I think the envelope around sound is just as important as the sound itself. It's like the difference between 2D and 3D. The size of the sound matters too. It can have scale with speakers. With headphones, its confined to the size of your head. Speakers can get a lot closer to those aspects of bass than headphones can.
I always ask people who say their high end cans sound like speakers if they have a really good speaker system too. They usually say they have a small speaker system, or they used to have one but then they moved into an apartment, or they say speakers are too expensive. That makes me wonder how informed their opinion is. I have both a really good multichannel speaker system and really good headphones. There's really no contest, especially with bass.
It's true. My DT 1990 are positively Satanic while my HD 650 and PM-3 are only devilish. This isn't a cyst on my scalp, it's my headphones causing me to grow a horn.
The most detailed headphone ever made should be called "The Pandemonium."
you're one to talk, Metal is famously evil!!!!
or was it rock?
no wait... I know! it's punk. no it's that gothic stuff and new wave. no it's Jazz, or maybe ... well basically, music is evil. we should entirely ban it, end of story.
you're one to talk, Metal is famously evil!!!!
or was it rock?
no wait... I know! it's punk. no it's that gothic stuff and new wave. no it's Jazz, or maybe ... well basically, music is evil. we should entirely ban it, end of story.
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.
