Audiophile terminologies.

Submitted by easypeace420 t3_y9iifd in headphones

Hi everyone, I've recently developed an intrest in this hobby although I've been always listening to music. I am slowly trying to understand about headphones and the words associated with it but sometimes it gets to confusing. If someone would be kindly enough to explain me the some of the terms like Soundstage,tonality, impedance and many more that I don't even know of could be of great help. Please try to keep the words easy and simple. I've started my journey with KZ and a blon-03. Hoping someday I have earned enough money to buy some of the legendary stuff. Having my eyes on the XM4 for the next upgrade.

15

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Potential-Support280 t1_it6b7jm wrote

impedance, technically speaking, isn’t an audiophile word. it’s an electrical engineering word for AC circuit resistance

7

phoebdroid t1_it6yc1b wrote

Ac ? İmpedance works for ANY electrically conductive resistance

0

audioen t1_it79rjp wrote

Well, it may be worth highlighting the fact that impedance varies by sound frequency when there is significant inductance and capacitance involved. Most measurements of headphones come with the impedance graph as function of frequency, so I kind of struggle to understand your point.

1

phoebdroid t1_it7a4ai wrote

I was, in this comment, referring to the term impedance not being limited to AC but also DC, what did you understand out of that ?

0

TrueSelenis t1_it7fij7 wrote

he probably wanted to say something about "electrically conductive resistance" as you worded it, which doesn't make any sense and makes one think that you don't really know what you are talking about ;)

2

phoebdroid t1_it7gsnl wrote

Well as soon as we are conducting electricity through a closed circuit, we can talk about resistance and impedance right ? Cables have impedance, components have impedance , so on and so forth. While I'm not an electrical engineer, about something that trivial I fail to see what's wrong with that statement.

1

TrueSelenis t1_it7igju wrote

OK I will bite.

impedance does not equal electrical resistance.

Components like capacitors and inductors behave very differently in DC systems and AC systems.

In DC Systems they have only a normal electrical resistance value except for the short period when current is changing when a capacitor is discharging for instance. Capacitors for instance are isolators in DC systems.

In AC systems capacitors and inductors are not isolators anymore but introduce a phase shift in the AC current. In the relevant equations their influence needs to be expressed as a complex value if you want to see the full picture.

When you are simplifying AC equations, you can apply a so called impedance value to such systems for some equations which then behaves like resistance (and has the same unit as electrical resistance) as long you can ignore phase shift behavior which is not always possible.

So you really do not use the word impedance for DC systems. It has a very subtle technical meaning.

Mathematically it is a combination of electrical resistance and these phaseshifting effects in AC systems.

Cables usually don't have an impedance value but just a electrical resistance value because you would have to coil them really tightly and introduce an AC current in order to have a coil again and then its not a normal cable anymore.

Edit: and I am completely skipping even more subtle concepts like pulse propagation and modulation, shielded cables and much much more.

3

phoebdroid t1_it7jadb wrote

Hey thanks for the enlightenment, I did think DC resistance also meant impedance. So when I measure the resistance of a cable it's not impedance, just resistance then.

2

TrueSelenis t1_it7o1be wrote

no problem. electrical engineering is a fascinating rabbit hole and there are many good sources from which you can get the basics and then dive deeper into the stuff that interests you.

1

MentalThroat7733 t1_it9zqps wrote

Similarly apparent power where you often treat watts and volt-amps like they're the same when they aren't. AC is hard 😂

1

phoebdroid t1_it6zuvs wrote

Soundstage is a difficult one and and none of the explanations so far seem to satisfy me so I will also attempt to define it. It, to me, is the merit of how close we can get to reproducing an actual stage filled with musicians , through sound reproduced by means of electrical amplification.

In doing so, you need good and accurate stereo separation. Say we have some cellos on the far right of the stage , o soprano in the middle and some Violins on the left. In reality , where you are sitting in front of that stage , your ears will be able to pinpoint each sound source even with closed eyes. Can we achieve the same ? That's stereo separation.

And then there is depth, now let's put some rows of flutes behind the vocalist, while they are all roughly grouped in the center the ones behind will be slightly quieter to you since they are farther. To reproduce this you will need a good dynamic range, to be able to meaningfully reproduce very subtle level differences. Also with great dynamic range you will be able to hear incredibly quiet stuff, like musicians breathing, clarinets clicking, fingers moving on strings etc.

Also you need good tonal fidelity that all the sounds and relevant timbres actually sound like the real thing.

Add to that adequate amplification so that we can push exact same sound pressure levels all the way to you, as if there was a stage in front of you and VOILA , we have created a good soundstage.

5

GrimTurtle666 t1_it6i9vh wrote

Like someone else mentioned - that glossary is great. Here's my own quick rundown:

Soundstage: the perceived physical space the sounds seem to fill up. In all headphones, soundstage is a bit of an illusion. Generally, open-backs (no covering behind the driver, the headphone allows sound to leak out the backs and/or sides) have a bigger soundstage because the sound is able to actually leak out and surround you. Bigger doesn't always mean better - the Sennheiser HD820s is known for its class-leading massive soundstage, but to some people it sounds TOO wide, and makes it feel artificial. For others, the size makes them feel more immersed.

Tonality (or tonal balance): with regards to music, the sounds travel along certain frequencies that are associated with different types of sound. You have lows aka bass, mids, and highs aka treble. I think you'll understand what bass is; mids typically are associated with vocals; highs are things like cymbals. A headphone is considered flat, neutral, or balanced when no one section of the sound dominates the other. You'll eventually see frequency graphs when exploring this hobby; note that no headphone will ever have a completely flat line. There will always be dips and peaks.

Impedance: an engineering term, basically the higher the number the more power-hungry the headphone. Higher end headphones typically require more power, and thus need dedicated headphone amps to get the proper sound signature and volume out of them. Impedance is measured in Ohms. Typically, under 50 ohms, no amp needed. Around 100 is medium strength, amp not needed but could affect sound quality. Above 250, amp absolutely required to get any real volume out of it.

You'll hear lots of words used to describe tones in headphones. "Warm" means louder bass and mids, quieter treble. "Cold" means the opposite. "Bright" typically is used to described when treble is so loud that it is harsh and sharp. "Sibilant" is related to bright; sibilance occurs when the S sound has that really nasty sharp sound to it. "Detail" is basically how much miscellaneous sounds you hear besides the main sounds of the instrument, and is associated with clarity (at least in my mind). Imaging, related to soundstage, is how well the headphone allows you to pinpoint where a sound is coming from i.e. upper left, bottom right, in front of you, behind you, etc. Resolution, afaik, is the same as instrument separation - how well you can separate the sounds. When a headphone is "fast" it means each individual sound resolves itself very quickly, there isn't much bleed over between sounds.

That's all I can think of right now, the glossary can teach you more. Also, most of these terms can be kinda shaky and BS and imho the feelings that are evoked from sounds and music matter much more than these attempts to quantity subjective experiences (sound) with imperfect language.

4

audioen t1_it7d0z6 wrote

I would add a minor quibble about the impedance part. It is only the other half of the equation. After all, impedance is the R in the total power, which is the familiar P = UI, U = RI part of the equation. One consequence is P=U²/R, square of voltage divided by impedance. The higher the impedance, the larger voltage is needed to produce certain level of power, but voltage grows in square so it will not be all that much in the end.

Depending on design, that power can then be translated to acoustic energy at some efficiency or other, and manufacturers either relate that in terms of voltage or milliwatts to achieve certain SPL. From what I can see, most headsets should be deafeningly loud with very low power figures, to the tune that even 1 mW is more than your ears can take without suffering damage. Milliwatts of power are such an astonishingly low figure, and I think it is a crime that not literally everything has enough power behind it to drive headsets well enough. You don't need a separate amplifier to make milliwatts of power, that much is achieved by pretty much anything. I confess I also do not quite understand how headset can have multiple hundreds of ohms of impedance. What is it doing? Do they put big resistors there? A voice coil really shouldn't present that much of resistance.

In any case, I would personally steer away from headsets that require an amp. The Apple USB-C DAC is a great example of USB soundcard that can deliver the few milliwatts more or less perfectly, and it costs all of $10. Hopefully in the future, all DACs on all devices are decent enough, and headsets can be simply driven by any random thing even if it isn't a real amplifier, because there is clearly solution space where the problem is tiny -- just keep impedance anywhere reasonable, say somewhere in 15-50 range, and produce enough SPL per milliwatt, easily achieved by many designs already and there really is no sound quality compromise here as far as I can tell.

2

Egoexpo t1_it66me8 wrote

Here, only the final part of the text.

2

D1visor t1_it6v7uj wrote

Both tonality and Soundstage mostly have to do with frequency response relative to your ear-anatomy.

Frequency response = volume of each frequency on the spectrum, when measured, forming a curve that indicates a certain sound profile.

Tonality = overall balance.

Timbre = how smooth and consistent the tonality is because if it deviates a lot, if there are significant peaks or dips in several places it will mess with everything, though my experience is that it's a bit different on headphones as opposed to in-ears.

Sound stage = really just a blanket term for treble extension and good tonal balance. In other words, right amount of lows, mids and highs.

Fun to play around with once you get familiar with EQ.

2