A lot of reviews focus on tonality but don't say much about resolution. For instance the Fiio FT1 has good resolution but poor tonality, while the he400se have good tonality but somewhat mediocre resolution IMO. The FT1 was too hated on here and the he400se too praised IMO. I finally settled on the Hifiman Sundara because it had both. Resolution is just as important to me and feel people should use a subjective rating scale in reviews even if you can't graph it.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Fidelity/Detail/Resolution on reviews
- Thread starter llmercll
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2023
- Messages
- 1,355
- Likes
- 2,471
Welcome to Audio Science Review!
What you call "resolution" is a subjective term which has no foundation in real science and engineering with the same name. Likely what you perceive is due to level of treble which is most definitely included in frequency response measurements. Get a player that allows EQ. Boost the 2 to 5 kHz and I bet you will think the headphone has more "resolution."
- Thread Starter
- #4
Resolution, detail, fidelity. Just because it isn't measurable doesn't mean it isn't critical to the enjoyment you get from your music. A headphone can have perfect tonality but still be lacking in resolution. I think resolution is a perfectly valid term for what I'm describing.
I know what you mean with how adding treble can increase perceived "clarity" but that's not what I'm describing. I've been using Oratory's EQ anyway and look for flat equipment.
I know what you mean with how adding treble can increase perceived "clarity" but that's not what I'm describing. I've been using Oratory's EQ anyway and look for flat equipment.
Imagine you bought multiple sets of the same headphone model. Do you think they will have the same 'resolution'?
Have you ever wondered, how did the manufacturer figure out how to standardize the resolution across thousands of units? Pay someone with magic ears to tune each headphone and hope he doesn't die before the model is obsolete? Or use some equipment to do the tuning?
If you are stuck at the 'resolution can't be measured' camp and not willing to at least entertain the thought that resolution IS measurable and thus can be standardized by manufacturer, then there won't be any real discussion.
- Thread Starter
- #7
They would have very similar resolution barring defects since they use the same drivers/enclosures/electronics
I guess the easiest way to explain what I'm saying is if you use a very high quality microphone to record a sound, how close will the headphone come to reproducing that sound identically. Will it resolve the detail that you would hear if you were standing in the room when the sound was made?
Bubbles is a track that comes to mind. On a good set of headphones it feels like the marbles are dropping right on front of me. It feels lifelike. on lower quality pairs, even with excellent tonality and other measurements, it just doesn't sound as good.
Keith_W
Master Contributor
If you can clearly define it, then of course it is measurable.
Curious, you only use headphones? I find headphones not to be particularly realistic for a lot of things.
- Thread Starter
- #10
I have M Audio Bx8a's on a focusrite 2i2 but they don't sound very good. I've been exploring high quality headphones trying to get a feel for audiophile level sound. My Sundaras sound a lotttt better.
Just the orientation of speakers clamped to my ears just isn't particularly realistic unless specifically recorded for that outcome is more the way I look at it.
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
Agree that these concepts are important to enjoying music, the only problem is they are not measurable *directly*.
Fidelity is generally interpreted to mean how closely the equipment can reproduce the original. That's an aggregate measure and the main one used around here is SINAD, but it's not the only relevant factor, fidelity can be lost in ways other than noise and THD, for example uneven frequency response.
Detail is a subjective term that I usually interpret to mean "how well can I hear low-amplitude stuff / how well can I hear background sounds in the recording". I think the experience of detail really is influenced by having extra treble (it tends to make short, quiet sounds more audible) but also low THD and IMD can help, since high distortion will tend to mask low-level sounds.
Resolution, as far as I can tell, is another way of saying "detail" - at least I don't know how you would distinguish the two subjective experiences in terms of measurements. Maybe flat phase response comes in somewhere.
None of these terms have official/technical definitions that you can put numbers on, so we tend not to use them as much here, and that's why ratings of those things are not given in reviews. But I agree that you would not want speakers / headphones that lack these traits.
If you get more familiar with the types of measurements published here, you will start to notice which ones correspond to detail / resolution etc. and be able to decide on those terms without relying on someone else's opinion - to me that's a worthy goal as an "audiophile", i.e. a listener that takes their setup more seriously than average. There are a lot of bogus reviewers out there and at the end of the day, numbers don't lie, or at least they lie less than people do.
Last edited:
Resolution, detail and fidelity are very important. We all seek that. What you said though is subjective reviewer made up term that has no real value. To wit, if I put that reviewer in controlled testing plus others like him, they would never agree with each other. Or even vote consistently with themselves!
So no, don't ask us to measure something unless you show that it is a reliable metric that is assessed by ears alone.
A microphone won't capture what you hear with two ears and a brain in a real room. So if that is your definition of fidelity, you have never heard it.
Keith_W
Master Contributor
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your cause. I was a card carrying subjectivist for years, and top of the list of audio virtues for me was "resolution", "transparency", and "clarity". When I got my microphone, I immediately started to measure and try to correlate subjective phenomena to objective. That's when I realized that what you hear subjectively is a mish-mash of different objective phenomena that your brain pieces together to make sense of what you have heard.
So I will start by defining what I mean by subjective resolution: when I hear an orchestra, I want to pick out what individual groups of musicians are doing. I want to be able to hear individual timbres and textures of each instrument. And let us assume that the recording has captured all this in the first place.
Now we look at our measurements. There are only 3 things to look at: amplitude, time, and noise. All three can affect your subjective experience of resolution. There are of course other relevant measurements, e.g. distortion, compression, etc. but i'll shove them into the main headings of amplitude and time for now. For example, listen in a noisy environment (e.g. open back headphones on a plane) and you will struggle to hear instruments because of masking from the high noise floor. Listen to speakers in an over reflective room, and early reflections will smear the direct sound and reduce subjective resolution.
As has been pointed out, a tilted frequency response will alter the tonality, but also alter subjective resolution. Distortion can mask upper frequencies, and thus alter subjective resolution. And it's not just your transducers that distort either, it could be your amplifier or some weird resonance.
I think you should start to see that there is no single measurement for subjective resolution. It is the cumulative effect of a well-behaved transducer. And we already measure that in our suite of standard measurements.
So I will start by defining what I mean by subjective resolution: when I hear an orchestra, I want to pick out what individual groups of musicians are doing. I want to be able to hear individual timbres and textures of each instrument. And let us assume that the recording has captured all this in the first place.
Now we look at our measurements. There are only 3 things to look at: amplitude, time, and noise. All three can affect your subjective experience of resolution. There are of course other relevant measurements, e.g. distortion, compression, etc. but i'll shove them into the main headings of amplitude and time for now. For example, listen in a noisy environment (e.g. open back headphones on a plane) and you will struggle to hear instruments because of masking from the high noise floor. Listen to speakers in an over reflective room, and early reflections will smear the direct sound and reduce subjective resolution.
As has been pointed out, a tilted frequency response will alter the tonality, but also alter subjective resolution. Distortion can mask upper frequencies, and thus alter subjective resolution. And it's not just your transducers that distort either, it could be your amplifier or some weird resonance.
I think you should start to see that there is no single measurement for subjective resolution. It is the cumulative effect of a well-behaved transducer. And we already measure that in our suite of standard measurements.
MaxwellsEq
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 3,710
- Likes
- 6,689
I often think that what people mean by "resolution" in audio might be defined as "anti-masking". I.e. fine details in the music can be grasped in the presence of other, possibly louder sounds.
We can boost the frequency response to increase apparent "resolution". But we can also reduce things which cause "masking". With rooms and speakers reducing resonances can make it easier to hear fine details. Lower distortion, especially IMD can reduce "masking". So products with low distortion, flat frequency response, low noise will be intrinsically more resolving...
More "sneaky" approaches include loudspeaker LF roll-off, since (in untreated rooms and non-EQ-ed room resonances) less bass leads to less "masking".
We can boost the frequency response to increase apparent "resolution". But we can also reduce things which cause "masking". With rooms and speakers reducing resonances can make it easier to hear fine details. Lower distortion, especially IMD can reduce "masking". So products with low distortion, flat frequency response, low noise will be intrinsically more resolving...
More "sneaky" approaches include loudspeaker LF roll-off, since (in untreated rooms and non-EQ-ed room resonances) less bass leads to less "masking".
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2023
- Messages
- 1,355
- Likes
- 2,471
That’s a very good point. Explains why so many expensive speakers eschew deep bass. Many audiophiles are allergic to EQ/DSP so chances of a full range design working well in a variety of rooms is lower and therefore risking a bad demo or bad result at home.
The other trick, whilst not always deliberate, is the directivity mismatch that occurs when non-waveguided tweeters are used. The sudden widening of dispersion at HFs increases in room energy leading to a sense of increased detail/resolution.
whereisbrian
Senior Member
Talking of "resolution" and "tonality" in a purely descriptive context is pointless.
I do have an opinion, of course, but it is subjective, and I am not arrogant enough to voice it.
When I play a FLAC file on my system, I am familiar with its characteristics and potential flaws—the quantifiable data—and only then do I feel justified in discussing "resolution", provided those underlying parameters are actually audible.
And if I use a device that has a distinctive "tonality," I start to view it with suspicion; that is not what I am looking for.
If that "tonality" persists regardless of the listening room setup, it might be time to get rid of the device.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2023
- Messages
- 1,355
- Likes
- 2,471
What is your definition of tonality because it sounds like a highly subjective term that could mean different things to different people. If you mean accuracy of tone then frequency response is the correct measurement for this. Resolution is a more objective term in my opinion as it relates specifically to dynamic range, signal to noise ratio and distortion. SINAD is the measurement for this.
