Submitted by West-Cheek-156 t3_11cpf4g in headphones
[deleted] t1_ja4gbhk wrote
Reply to comment by West-Cheek-156 in How do I listen for "detail" in music? by West-Cheek-156
I wonder that myself. And yet, everytime someone asks, all they manage to do is provide a pseudo-physical explanation, without giving any examples.
If they cannot name a method or way to listen/test for "detail", "speed", "dynamics" and all such things, then their assesments in that regard are just noise.
Soundstage is one example of a loosely defined term, relative to tonality. BUT one can EASILY provide a test for people to conduct at home to understand the meaning. Just use an old IEM to listen to any song. Then use any over ear headphone to listen to the same song. Chances are that with the IEM the music will sound "more in your head", this difference between the IEM and the over ear headphone is soundstage and it can exist between different headphones as well.
One can easily explain and show what tonality is. These "audiophile terms" on the other hand are, poorly defined and cannot be tested for. Reminds me of a cult:
"You shall not put these terms, technicalities, to the test" -Headphonomy 6:16
SupOrSalad t1_ja4jku3 wrote
I think resolve lately refers to those terms as "subjective things that aren't easy to see in FR, but may be contained in FR"
[deleted] t1_ja4ks4b wrote
That is cool, but does not solve the problem.
See, I do not even care about whether or not it is reflected in FR that is secondary to the first problem: DEFINITION.
If they cannot tell me what to listen for, like a certain thing at certain time in a certain song, for example, then I just cannot take it as anything but the ramblings of a guy high on placebo.
The_D0lph1n t1_ja4uz1p wrote
You might find what I call "old-school audiophile" reviews better in some circumstances then, as many of them include stuff like "I put on [specific song] and the saxophone was deeper and richer, but the trumpet sounded a bit flat and lacking brilliance". Brent Butterworth (who used to write for SoundstageSolo!) did his written reviews like this, where he went through a bunch of songs and described what he heard in each on the headphone being reviewed. He then extrapolated the FR features from there, like "the bass guitar was more prominent in this track than when played on [other headphone], so I suspect there is an elevation in the upper bass." He also did measurements (after writing the entire review, so that his listening wasn't biased by seeing the measurement).
Other people don't like that style of review, because they don't see the relevance of those impressions if they don't listen to the same songs as the reviewer. So they prefer the Crin/Resolve method of describing sound in general terms, like "mids are honky", "bass is muddy", "there's good/bad detail retrieval". The downside of that style of review is that sounds and perceptions have to be described in somewhat general and vague terms.
Another problem with the first, "old-school" style is that it gets very verbose, very fast. When the whole script of the review has to fit within a 10-minute YouTube video, there's no time to describe all of the examples of where an acoustic feature is present while also including stuff about build and comfort.
I've recently started gravitating towards that "old-school" style because even if I'm not familiar with the tracks the reviewer is using, they're almost always just a Spotify search away, I can discover new music in the process, and I can better understand what a reviewer means in a description (learn the jargon), and what they value in sound.
SupOrSalad t1_ja4l7gq wrote
Fair enough. It definitely does get confusing when terms are used differently by everyone
[deleted] t1_ja4lyge wrote
They could just call it "schlorp", to be honest.
Egoexpo t1_ja6au92 wrote
All these problems are about phenomenology and the problem of qualia.
[deleted] t1_ja6n68r wrote
No they are not :)
You can say a headphone is muddy. When I asked what that meant you simply say: excessive energy in the mid bass and sent me an EQ ti test it with my own headphones.
If I ask you, what "direct steering" means, you'd tell me to drive a G class and then hop into a 911.
I can explain what warm colours are to me, and show you.
These terms can easily be explained and shown to one another.
Detail, dynamics and speed cannot. They are meaningless, it seems :)
Egoexpo t1_ja7d7fy wrote
That's the point I'm making in my last comment. Detail, dynamics and speed is a subjective perception, individual perception is phenomenology. It's a relational subject.
It is not meaningless if this is something that is important to this person and if he is looking to have this experience.
The problem is that each individual will perceive details in different places in different songs. So the detail is there, but there are multiple details as much as there are multiple songs, multiple instruments recorded in different ways, and multiple headphones with different frequency responses in the world.
thatcarolguy t1_ja8swc6 wrote
Ooh, I can define dynamics and speed too!
But the Crin and Resolve fans aren't gonna like it :(
TheFrator t1_ja6dgqv wrote
For my own curiosity, can you give Pneuma by Tool a listen? Start at 9:30 mins in to save some time and through to the ending. Does anything sound off to you?
RB181 t1_ja799v8 wrote
I'll give you a certain thing at a certain time in a certain song:
Listen to the 4:41 - 4:53 section of 'Abyss of Time' by Epica, maybe do it with some low quality gear first, and then do it with higher quality gear. Do you notice anything that you haven't noticed the first time?
I love Epica, I've listened to that song about 100 times but it took me about 50 times and possibly different gear to hear the vocal there. That's an example of a detail to me. It's difficult to notice, but it's definitely there and has nothing to do with placebo.
West-Cheek-156 OP t1_ja4mf3i wrote
I feel a similar way when people describe drinks as having "body" lol. I'm sure it's a real thing but I don't know if everyone is describing the same thing
Thanks for the, ahem, detailed answers
thatcarolguy t1_ja8sdjf wrote
I have the definition of detail.
The Crin and Resolve fans aren't gonna like it though.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments