When it comes to detailed speakers

[dopeist]

Hello,

When a speaker has an open and detailed sound is that related to a lesser degree of distortion?

If one speaker sounds open and detailed, and another speaker sounds veiled or lacks detail. Is this strictly related to distortion?

I struggling to understand what causes a speaker to have a “higher resolution” sound.

 

[Speedskater]

I would guess:
a] frequency response curve differences.
b] the "higher resolution" actually having higher distortion or higher background noise.

 

[dshreter]

- Often it’s the room and not the speakers
- Elevated treble will sound more detailed because that’s where the details of the music are. Boosted treble isn’t necessarily a good thing.
- Smooth response on and off axis so reflected sounds have similar tonal characteristics to on axis.

 

[DVDdoug]

I would have assumed "detailed" means boosted highs... But there is a video of a Dan Clark presentation on headphone measurements and he says listeners often describe headphones with more distortion as more detailed!!!

So like most "audiophile terminology", it's vague and maybe describes a subjective impression or feeling and it might mean different things to different people.

I struggling to understand what causes a speaker to have a “higher resolution” sound.

I have no idea what that means either. Usually with analog the actual usable resolution is limited by noise but speakers don't generate noise by themselves (unless they are rattling or something but I'm talking about background noise like hum or hiss).

 

[dopeist]

I would have assumed "detailed" means boosted highs... But there is a video of a Dan Clark presentation on headphone measurements and he says listeners often describe headphones with more distortion as more detailed!!!

So like most "audiophile terminology", it's vague and maybe describes a subjective impression or feeling and it might mean different things to different people.

I have no idea what that means either. Usually with analog the actual usable resolution is limited by noise but speakers don't generate noise by themselves (unless they are rattling or something but I'm talking about background noise like hum or hiss).

Ok that makes sense. I appreciate all of the replies.

It’s interesting how impossible it is to know what you’re supposed to be hearing. Whether a speaker has a dip or a bump, or the track sounds this way, or there’s a room flaw. Cracks me up

 

[kemmler3D]

Hey, welcome to ASR!

Let's assume the room is the same and only the speakers or headphones vary.

Perceptions of "detail" can come from a few different factors. I tend to interpret "detail" as "subjective ability to hear short and/or quiet sounds in the recording".

It's often associated with boosted high frequencies or even distortion in high frequencies. This would probably because short, sharp, high-frequency sounds tend to come across as "detail". So with more energy in the highs, you hear "more detail".

However, flat frequency response and low noise and distortion (THD as well as IMD) should also lead to more "detail". With distortion or uneven frequency response, you end up with masking, i.e. the "detail" is overwhelmed by something else coming out of the speaker. If everything is flat, with no noise or distortion to cover up the detail, you should also hear a clear, "detailed" sound.

You can sometimes experience this for yourself in interesting ways. If you play with EQ while listening to a song, sometimes a"detail will disappear or re-appear in a frequency range that you didn't touch with EQ. This is because of masking!

Lack of resonances in the speaker might also be important, for the same reason. If you have a honky 700hz resonance tail coming out of the port for longer than it should, it could mask quiet, short sounds, i.e. "details".

A more minor factor is probably the group delay / phase response of the speaker. If everything comes out of the speaker at the same time, this makes for a sharper impulse response. Very small sounds with impulse-like envelopes might be more audible if the phase response is really clean. This is a matter of some debate, but at the end of the day, all else held equal, it can't hurt to have more phase coherence.

 

[Prana Ferox]

I would have assumed "detailed" means boosted highs... But there is a video of a Dan Clark presentation on headphone measurements and he says listeners often describe headphones with more distortion as more detailed!!!

So like most "audiophile terminology", it's vague and maybe describes a subjective impression or feeling and it might mean different things to different people.

Distortion sprays harmonics into the upper frequencies so this isn't necessarily a contradiction. One way or another you have increased high frequency content.

 

[dopeist]

Hey, welcome to ASR!

Let's assume the room is the same and only the speakers or headphones vary.

Perceptions of "detail" can come from a few different factors. I tend to interpret "detail" as "subjective ability to hear short and/or quiet sounds in the recording".

It's often associated with boosted high frequencies or even distortion in high frequencies. This would probably because short, sharp, high-frequency sounds tend to come across as "detail". So with more energy in the highs, you hear "more detail".

However, flat frequency response and low noise and distortion (THD as well as IMD) should also lead to more "detail". With distortion or uneven frequency response, you end up with masking, i.e. the "detail" is overwhelmed by something else coming out of the speaker. If everything is flat, with no noise or distortion to cover up the detail, you should also hear a clear, "detailed" sound.

You can sometimes experience this for yourself in interesting ways. If you play with EQ while listening to a song, sometimes a"detail will disappear or re-appear in a frequency range that you didn't touch with EQ. This is because of masking!

Lack of resonances in the speaker might also be important, for the same reason. If you have a honky 700hz resonance tail coming out of the port for longer than it should, it could mask quiet, short sounds, i.e. "details".

A more minor factor is probably the group delay / phase response of the speaker. If everything comes out of the speaker at the same time, this makes for a sharper impulse response. Very small sounds with impulse-like envelopes might be more audible if the phase response is really clean. This is a matter of some debate, but at the end of the day, all else held equal, it can't hurt to have more phase coherence.

Ok this clears it up for me a bit better. When I think of a flat frequency response then it just makes me think where would the details come from if not from a flat frequency response!

There’s many variables, but the most detailed sound would be from a speaker with a flat frequency response and a room that doesn’t create flaws. Or perfectly flat headphones with no distortion. As a major generalization that’s what I’m taking from this thread so far.

 

[Chrispy]

Ok that makes sense. I appreciate all of the replies.

It’s interesting how impossible it is to know what you’re supposed to be hearing. Whether a speaker has a dip or a bump, or the track sounds this way, or there’s a room flaw. Cracks me up

It's probably more rooted in trying to assume there's some universal description/language we all share/understand equally. Pretty far from it IME. I have no idea what you're particularly describing....maybe if you included particular speakers you've done in your own room properly setup....

 

[kemmler3D]

the most detailed sound would be from a speaker with a flat frequency response and a room that doesn’t create flaws.

As others have noted, "detailed" is kind of a subjective term, but overall I think that's right.


Something could seem detailed beyond realism by artificially boosting the highs though, so if you want "detail" above all, you might actually not go for the flat / accurate speaker.

I think in any case, you do want a lack of resonance from the cabinet, low IMD, and smooth (if not 100% flat) FR.

The interaction with the room makes it more complicated, and whether you consider stereo image to be part of "detail" or not, more complicated still.

 

[FeddyLost]

I struggling to understand what causes a speaker to have a “higher resolution” sound.

It's very complicated because subjective opinion of "high resolution" may be induced by some artificial factors like "sharpening" filter.
In fact, some distortion can cause this. Non-flat FR can cause this. Non-constant RT can cause this.

Very good speaker with very low distortion can cause this also, but this is not very possible, because they usually sound just "ordinary" and it's expensive and not easy to achieve.

 

[steve59]

A lumpy frequency response can cause enhanced detail at some fq's that will make different types of music more appealing. Affordable speakers cut corners to be competitive and often more detail equates to better quality when it could just be a hot tweeter or recessed mids.

 

[dopeist]

Ok great responses!

I should say that when I mean detail it’s the experience of hearing sounds you may not have heard with a different set of speakers.

My brother recently got monitor audio silver 300 7g and compared to speakers I’ve listened to it sounds like there is a clearer sound that makes it easier to pick out fine details. The best way I can describe it is white on a black background. I assumed it was a lack of distortion, but the top end on those speakers do come off a bit hot. His room is also tile with no room acoustic adjustments.

 

[steve59]

Buy him a throw rug for xmas. Placement also can help a lot getting the speakers away from reflective surfaces, toe them in away from sidewalls, close curtains, etc. I haven't listened to MA in at least 20 years, but they were too hot for me back then. As long as he likes them right.

 

[dopeist]

Buy him a throw rug for xmas. Placement also can help a lot getting the speakers away from reflective surfaces, toe them in away from sidewalls, close curtains, etc. I haven't listened to MA in at least 20 years, but they were too hot for me back then. As long as he likes them right.

Yeah he likes them and so do I! But definitely hot on the top end. He also got them for 500 bucks so pretty jealous haha.

 

[posvibes]

Sometimes if you concentrate too much on details you miss the overall presentation. I used to be a little obsessive on rating my speakers on a triplet of single triangle strikes on the Horses track from the Ricky Lee Jones album. Where in the soundscape the strikes appeared, the tone of the strike and the duration and decay of the strike.

It was roughly the same but not always the same and sometimes very different depending on the speaker. Now I know there was no level matching or speaker placement exactitude, not even A/B switching so take this with a grain of salt, but nevertheless even though I don't obsess about it anymore, I still keep an ear out for that detail and it mystifies me to this day.

I figure it might have something to do with the crossover and perhaps "voicing". I actually thought at one stage, half jokingly writing to Walter Becker who produced the album to settle it once and for all.

 

[steve59]

There's nothing wrong with using familiar music to rate speakers, we just have to understand our source of reference is still personal preference.

 

[Roland68]

Sometimes if you concentrate too much on details you miss the overall presentation. I used to be a little obsessive on rating my speakers on a triplet of single triangle strikes on the Horses track from the Ricky Lee Jones album. Where in the soundscape the strikes appeared, the tone of the strike and the duration and decay of the strike.

It was roughly the same but not always the same and sometimes very different depending on the speaker. Now I know there was no level matching or speaker placement exactitude, not even A/B switching so take this with a grain of salt, but nevertheless even though I don't obsess about it anymore, I still keep an ear out for that detail and it mystifies me to this day.

I figure it might have something to do with the crossover and perhaps "voicing". I actually thought at one stage, half jokingly writing to Walter Becker who produced the album to settle it once and for all.

Perhaps you are forgetting an important point, besides influences such as space, placement, etc.
The loudspeaker can only reproduce the information it receives. The same speaker does not sound the same on every system.
More than 20 years ago, we made complex measurements on the subject of resolution, both for devices and for speakers.
As a consequence, I "preserved" a complete system (CD player, amplifier, loudspeakers) at the time to have a comparison with something I know well.

 

[posvibes]

The loudspeaker can only reproduce the information it receives

Nah, I've only had a few different amplifiers over the years and the same Bluray player and CD player for a long long time, the loudspeakers are definitely the culprits, I've never counted an amplifier or digital player as a major influence on the presentation of the "sound", they have all been capable devices.

Now I am more familiar with my speakers' overall "tonality" and any comparison I make is in reference to the preference (reference to the preference sounds like a line from a limerick, but I digress) to the overall tonality, that's why the JBL305p mkii was such a revelation.

 

[FeddyLost]

I've never counted an amplifier or digital player as a major influence on the presentation of the "sound", they have all been capable devices.

Actually, they can be a significant influence if everything else is already as good as it gets.
Especially if they made with such purpose to have "specific voice".