Does higher resolution of mid to treble = elevated decibel output = brighter sound?

[w0203j]

Not sue if I could describe it any better but does higher resolution of mid to treble = elevated decibel output = brighter sound?

For example if speaker A sound darker while speaker B sound brigher which might end up with higher resolution of details, and by measuring the frequency response speaker B has higher decibel output in certain mid to treble region. Would speaker A gain that resolution or details by DSP those sound region by increasing few decibels? Really just trying to correlate objective measurement to subjective listening.

 

[Ropeburn]

Not sue if I could describe it any better but does higher resolution of mid to treble = elevated decibel output = brighter sound?

For example if speaker A sound darker while speaker B sound brigher which might end up with higher resolution of details, and by measuring the frequency response speaker B has higher decibel output in certain mid to treble region. Would speaker A gain that resolution or details by DSP those sound region by increasing few decibels? Really just trying to correlate objective measurement to subjective listening.

If that range is louder, you hear more details because... it's louder. No actual resolution change, but it seems like.

 

[RayDunzl]

does higher resolution of mid to treble = elevated decibel output = brighter sound?

I wouldn't use the word "resolution", but higher SPL (elevated decibel output) in the higher frequencies generally creates a "brighter sound".

 

[w0203j]

For example in the case of Linton and Super Linton since it's closely related. By bringing up the circled area to match each other's response would they ultimately sound the same? Would anyone be able to tell they are the same or not if frequency response matches by DSP one of them?

 

[w0203j]

If that range is louder, you hear more details because... it's louder. No actual resolution change, but it seems like.

I wouldn't use the word "resolution", but higher SPL (elevated decibel output) in the higher frequencies generally creates a "brighter sound".

Agreed ... so what is so called resolution in audio world. You hear louder sound in certain region of response? One speaker produce less while others more?

 

[Keith_W]

"Resolution" is a subjective term. What your ear hears as "resolution" is actually a combination of tonality and good time domain performance.

Tonality: if the overall frequency response has more treble boost, we perceive there is more "resolution".

Time domain: if certain frequencies ring more, it smears transients over time and it is perceived to have less "resolution".

 

[w0203j]

"Resolution" is a subjective term. What your ear hears as "resolution" is actually a combination of tonality and good time domain performance.

Tonality: if the overall frequency response has more treble boost, we perceive there is more "resolution".

Time domain: if certain frequencies ring more, it smears transients over time and it is perceived to have less "resolution".

Subjectively let's say 2 speakers different price point or brand, would they sound the "same" if frequency response matches by DSP?

 

[Keith_W]

Subjectively let's say 2 speakers different price point or brand, would they sound the "same" if frequency response matches by DSP?

No, because the directivity and time domain performance would be different. Let's say you have an extremely directive speaker that beams like a laser, and a broader directivity speaker that has is -6dB at 45deg. If you look at the spectrum of sound power radiated into the room, it would be very different. You can make the on-axis frequency response sound the same - which does have a major influence in tonality, but the reflections would sound different.

 

[DVDdoug]

Maybe you'd say it's brighter... If the highs are reduced (excessively) I say "dull" and the opposite is "bright". I remember lots of vinyl records from the analog days sounding "dull" and when I occasionally digitize one that sounds like that I'll boost the highs a bit.

But usually if I say "dull" I try to remember to also say "rolled-off highs". I try to be specific rather than using all of these vague words...

Some amplifiers (in the 1970s?) had a 3rd tone control. In addition to bass and treble, there was a midrange (or mid-high?) control called "presence". Now with multi-band equalizers you rarely see that. Occasionally you'll find a "presence" knob on a 3-way speaker and it adjusts signal to the midrange driver.

These words often have more than one meaning. I used to think "warm" is a mid-bass boost but some people say "warm" to describe slight "pleasing" distortion. So again, now I just try to avoid the word.

When someone says "detail" I think of high frequencies. But Dan Clark (headphone manufacturer) made a video where he said that when a headphone as more distortion it's often described as "more detail". That surprised me! It would be nice to say "distortion" if that's what you're hearing but I guess most listeners can't tell that what they are hearing is actually a particular kind of distortion...

Agreed ... so what is so called resolution in audio world. You hear louder sound in certain region of response? One speaker produce less while others more?

It's another commonly misused word.

Technically, resolution in the digital domain is related to bit depth. With 8-bits you have 256 "steps" between zero and maximum. With 16-bits you have 65,336 steps and with 24-bits there are 16,777,216 steps. The numbers in a 24-bit file are bigger, but it's not louder there is just more resolution. When you play the file it's scaled up or down to match the resolution of your DAC. If you play an 8-bit file the loss of resolution is heard as quantization noise which is like a fuzz on top of the signal. It's a lot like analog noise in-that it's most noticeable with quiet sounds but unlike analog noise away it goes away completely with digital silence. A lot of people talk about audio resolution without knowing what resolution sounds like, and if it's 16-bits or better they're probably not hearing what they think they are hearing.

BTW - DACs have a smoothing filter so the analog output is continuous analog with no "steps".

I don't know if there are any DACs with true 24-bit resolution. 18-20 bits seems to be about the best you can get with the last few bits being unstable (noise).

With analog, resolution is related to noise which is randomness or uncertainty. A lot of people think analog has infinite resolution because it's smooth and continuous and there are no "steps". But there is random constant noise and variation.

With digital photos or video, lower resolution has bigger pixels.

With analog photos or video low resolution makes the image "grainy".

 

[dualazmak]

Hello OP @w0203j,

My post here would be of your reference and interest, I assume, for flexible on-the-fly (while listening to music) relative gain control in high-Fq range covered by tweeters and super-tweeters.

 

[RayDunzl]

Subjectively let's say 2 speakers different price point or brand, would they sound the "same" if frequency response matches by DSP?

I have MartinLogan reQuests and a pair of JBL LSR 308.

I use both, depending. The JBL are the daily econo-drivers.

They are both DSP'd to very flat.

Here is a trace from each pair.

The difference is in how they interact with the room, not so much the direct sound.

JBL sprays the room, the ML are focused. Doesn't show above.

Take away the smoothing, and the JBLs have reflection/cancellations that the ML don't.

You can hear that.

 

[Keith_W]

Oh i'm sorry, I forgot to mention a couple of other things that might change subjective "resolution" ... distortion and dynamic compression! Both are problems with tonality.

Harmonic and non-harmonic distortion increase upper frequency components and might give the appearance of more resolution.

Dynamic compression or expansion - if you play back sounds at a different volume, either by turning the volume up or listening to a loud transient, the loudspeakers may not respond linearly. It may play the transient softer than you would like (compression) or louder than it is meant to be (enhancement). Compression makes the music sound less dynamic and sounds dull and lifeless. Enhancement makes the music sound more dynamic and exciting (which is why I think it is preferable), but taken to an extreme, it can make the speakers sound "yelpy".

 

[w0203j]

Appricate all the replies thanks guys.

Let me ask a slight different question. Imagine 2 vilions with each string adjusted properly. When violinist play same piece frequency response would be almost identical since they hitting the same notes in the same room. Still be quite easy to tell the different tone or timbre due to different brand, making, material or the layers of paint. This vilion sound different to that one. Would this also apply to speakers? Eg yes different twetter soft done vs beryllium vs whatever, given the similar response after DSP.

In another word, would frequency response/room response the only factors to differenticate speakers?

 

[Ropeburn]

If that range is louder, you hear more details because... it's louder. No actual resolution change, but it seems like.

Self-correction: there is an actual, physical resolution change with volume.

In your ear. It has a finite resolution and also a noise floor just like anything else, so if the incoming sound gets louder, the signal resolution from ear to brain gets higher because more of the dynamic range of the ear is used, making it easier for the brain to differentiate details in the music.

That's where the impression of higher resolution comes from. It physically and bioelectrically exists.

 

[dualazmak]

Hello again OP @w0203j,

Even though I assume you are well aware of these, the Fq-SPL measurements and tuning is only one of the various aspects/conditions for optimal sound quality at your listening position in your own listening room acoustic environments.

Just for your reference, I wrote as follows under the below spoiler, in my post #1,009 (at the end of the post) on my project thread.

Spoiler

In (at the end portion thereof) #1,009, I wrote:

I well understand, however, my Fq-SPL measurements and the results in this post would not fully represent/re-confirm the following aspects of my audio setup in my acoustic environments:

1. 0.1 msec time alignments among all the SP drivers (ref. #493, #494, #504, #507)

2. transient (kick-up and fadeout) behavior/characteristic of SWs and WOs (ref. #495, #497, #503, #507)

3. presence and extent of sound reflecting wall(s) and possible reverberation thereof (ref. #498)

4. pros of relative gain (tone) controls in analog domain (ref. #438, #643)

5. favorable effects of wide 3D reflective dispersion of high-Fq ST sound (above ca. 7 kHz) using random-surface hemisphere hard-heavy crystal-glass (ref. #912, #921, #926, #927, #929)

6. size of the “sweet sphere” around my listening position (ref. #926, #927, #931)

7. subjectively felt amazing disappearance of SPs (ref. #520, #687)

8. importance of excellent reproduction of 15 Hz - 40 Hz zone low Fq sound in some (many) music tracks (ref. #782, #588, #591, #641, #650, #63(remote thread) )

9. etc., and so on...

I have already objectively and/or semi-objectively measured and discussed above aspects/features in each of the attached reference posts.

After having completed present intensive re-confirmation of Fq-SPL in SP high level signals as well as in actual room sound at my listening position, therefore, I re-confirmed these other “aspects/features” through careful subjective listening session using my consistent “Audio Reference/Sampler Music Playlist” consists of excellent-recording-quality 60 music tracks selected from various genres (summary ref. #669, actual playlist #670, and my independent thread here).

I always prefer rather subjective re-confirmation of those aspects through my daily very much enjoyable music listening sessions in my listening room, in my acoustic environments. Furthermore, it would be always a little bit hard for me describing those wonderful subjective acoustic impressions by words/sentences, in English and/or Japanese.

Very fortunately, not only we (my wife and me) but also many of our audio/music enthusiast friends/guests (many of them are professional or semi-professional), always keep saying “Wow, wow, what a wonderful and amazing music listening experience we are having with your present multichannel active audio setup!”

 

[w0203j]

Hello again OP @w0203j,

Even though I assume you are well aware of these, the Fq-SPL measurements and tuning is only one of the various aspects/conditions for optimal sound quality at your listening position in your own listening room acoustic environments.

Just for your reference, I wrote as follows under the below spoiler, in my post #1,009 (at the end of the post) on my project thread.

Spoiler

In (at the end portion thereof) #1,009, I wrote:

I well understand, however, my Fq-SPL measurements and the results in this post would not fully represent/re-confirm the following aspects of my audio setup in my acoustic environments:

1. 0.1 msec time alignments among all the SP drivers (ref. #493, #494, #504, #507)

2. transient (kick-up and fadeout) behavior/characteristic of SWs and WOs (ref. #495, #497, #503, #507)

3. presence and extent of sound reflecting wall(s) and possible reverberation thereof (ref. #498)

4. pros of relative gain (tone) controls in analog domain (ref. #438, #643)

5. favorable effects of wide 3D reflective dispersion of high-Fq ST sound (above ca. 7 kHz) using random-surface hemisphere hard-heavy crystal-glass (ref. #912, #921, #926, #927, #929)

6. size of the “sweet sphere” around my listening position (ref. #926, #927, #931)

7. subjectively felt amazing disappearance of SPs (ref. #520, #687)

8. importance of excellent reproduction of 15 Hz - 40 Hz zone low Fq sound in some (many) music tracks (ref. #782, #588, #591, #641, #650, #63(remote thread) )

9. etc., and so on...

I have already objectively and/or semi-objectively measured and discussed above aspects/features in each of the attached reference posts.

After having completed present intensive re-confirmation of Fq-SPL in SP high level signals as well as in actual room sound at my listening position, therefore, I re-confirmed these other “aspects/features” through careful subjective listening session using my consistent “Audio Reference/Sampler Music Playlist” consists of excellent-recording-quality 60 music tracks selected from various genres (summary ref. #669, actual playlist #670, and my independent thread here).

I always prefer rather subjective re-confirmation of those aspects through my daily very much enjoyable music listening sessions in my listening room, in my acoustic environments. Furthermore, it would be always a little bit hard for me describing those wonderful subjective acoustic impressions by words/sentences, in English and/or Japanese.

Very fortunately, not only we (my wife and me) but also many of our audio/music enthusiast friends/guests (many of them are professional or semi-professional), always keep saying “Wow, wow, what a wonderful and amazing music listening experience we are having with your present multichannel active audio setup!”

1009 comprehensive!

 

[dualazmak]

Appricate all the replies thanks guys.

Let me ask a slight different question. Imagine 2 vilions with each string adjusted properly. When violinist play same piece frequency response would be almost identical since they hitting the same notes in the same room. Still be quite easy to tell the different tone or timbre due to different brand, making, material or the layers of paint. This vilion sound different to that one. Would this also apply to speakers? Eg yes different twetter soft done vs beryllium vs whatever, given the similar response after DSP.
....

My personal reply!
At least with my audio setup, I can always identify sound differences between one Stradivarius violin and another Stradivarius, if the music tracks have proper and excellent recording quality, and even if one violinist used/played two Stradivarius violins for same music in same volume (gain) in exactly identical recording conditions...

As I objectively shared in my post #643 on my project thread, violin sound consists of really complex mixture of key-note tone (key-note Fq) and higher Fq even-and-odd orders of harmonic tones even up to 22 kHz zone (and sometimes in higher inaudible near-ultrasound zone). These "voiceprints/soundprints", just like "fingerprints", would contribute to the audible difference between the two, but I know well many other factors including recording and mastering differences would also more-or-less affect.

Spoiler

In #643, I wrote and shared;
I usually use rather quiet but amazingly high S/N track-6, Sonata “Tambourin” in D Major OP.9-3 III Sarabanda: Largo" by Jean-Marie Leclair (1697-1764);

In this spectrum, you may easily "see" the wonderful S/N and also clearly identify multiple orders of harmonics tones of each of the violin sounds. In some portions, the harmonic tones reach at 22.05 kHz area, the upper limit zone of the CD format.
You can hear it on Youtube;

 

[dualazmak]

In another word, would frequency response/room response the only factors to differenticate speakers?

Maybe, in my post #15 above, I have already responded to this specific inquiry...

 

[sigbergaudio]

Appricate all the replies thanks guys.

Let me ask a slight different question. Imagine 2 vilions with each string adjusted properly. When violinist play same piece frequency response would be almost identical since they hitting the same notes in the same room. Still be quite easy to tell the different tone or timbre due to different brand, making, material or the layers of paint. This vilion sound different to that one. Would this also apply to speakers? Eg yes different twetter soft done vs beryllium vs whatever, given the similar response after DSP.

In another word, would frequency response/room response the only factors to differenticate speakers?

If you have a look at the spinorama measurements of a random speaker, for instance here:

Measurements for speaker KEF Blade 2 Meta

www.spinorama.org

Look at all the graphs when you scroll down. Everything you see in all these graphs affect the sound, not just the on-axis response. Then consider that Spinorama.org has over 1000 speakers. None of these have exactly the same data in the graphs. And still these measurements doesn't even cover everything there is to know about a speaker.

And no, even if you DSPed the on-axis response to look the same, all these graphs would still not look the same for any two speakers.

So theoretically yes;
If we had measurements covering 100% of what makes up the sound, and two speakers measured exactly the same, they would sound the same.

But:
We do not have the ability to measure 100% of what makes up the sound.
Further, no two speaker measure exactly the same. Not even two different units of the exact same speaker model measure the same within the measurements we already have available (which are not exhaustive).

 

[w0203j]

So theoretically yes;
If we had measurements covering 100% of what makes up the sound, and two speakers measured exactly the same, they would sound the same.

When two violins hitting the same notes but sound different in terms of tone or timbre, they should measure differently shouldn't they?

Any audioable differences should be reflected in measurement ... I mean it's all sciense after all lol