Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SupOrSalad t1_ja498im wrote

This is part of why "detail" is a little disagreed upon in terms of definition.

Some define it as a property of the driver that reproduces things others can't, and others define it as parts of the treble that emphasizes smaller nuances that are always there, but either masked or not as pronounced in most other headphones

73

ElectronicVices t1_ja4gx4l wrote

For me I tend to bucket them into macro and micro. Macro detail is largely dictated by frequency response.

Going from a headphone with a dip in a certain frequency to a headphone with peak in the same frequency may present "new" details. Then when you go back to the old pair you can still hear the "new" detail... because you know what to look for now. The new pair just made it stand out, due to a peak/lack of dip.

The micro/low-level/nuanced details are the bits that I think differ due to things beyond just frequency response/tonality. Here distortion and other factors are at play IMO.

To put it another way, macro is noticing a new background instrument/effect because you either corrected a dip in the fundamental range or used a headphone with a peak in that same range. Hearing additional texture on a guitar string pluck would be an example of a "micro" detail in my book.

18

thatcarolguy t1_ja4p0ag wrote

For any earphone with sufficiently low distortion (any quality one worth considering at any price) it is not an issue. Beyond that the micro detail is just smaller peaks and dips in FR.

6

oballzo t1_jab3sh8 wrote

So how about detail differences in amps when they measure the same FR and similar distortion?

2

thatcarolguy t1_jab53g7 wrote

lol

−1

oballzo t1_jab7kt5 wrote

Ah my bad, I forgot you don't believe in audible differences that are currently immeasurable through non-human diagnostic tools. ;)

2