Could that same openness idea translate to source gear as well? Or only headphones, cause that’s another goal in trying to nail down what I was doing above, have something that translates to both sources and transducers
1 Like
I believe so, though it is less noticeable at least in my experience. I think it has a lot to do with voicing of an amp and also how much is going on in the air frequencies to make things perceived to be more open.
1 Like
So then your definition of openness is more reliant on treble prominence and clarity rather than space?
No, just that thosee factors attribute to the voicing. Vocals and where they are perceived to be located at can alter the rest of the sound (not always, but most of the time). If the vocals are pushed back a step or two, it can give the perception that it is coming from further away. Air frequencies also give the visceral openness perception, versus the extreme sub bass giving you that rumble that gives a visceral feeling of closeness. This is all perception of the listener though and that can take some acclimation time, and is another example of why quick A/B testing is so flawed and unreliable IMO.
1 Like
I will absolutely attribute my experiences with my DAC and amp. I used my HEKv2 on the stereo setup and the P6P, which isn’t a slouch either. The presentation was night and day when it comes to how expansive, open, and airy it was.
2 Likes
Id also give a real life example of when I first heard the Focal Elegia. They still are the most open sounding closed backs Ive ever heard. But when I first heard them, I initially mistook the openness for stage width, which is inaccurate. I had to really get some head time in with the Elegia to figure out what it was doing. It had just enough extension into the extreme low and high end to give it rumble and air without overwhelming the rest of the sound signature.
This is often more noticeable with closed backs and is why many companies choose to tune them with a U or V shape to make them sound wider (i.e. DT 770, LSA HP-2/Kennerton Gjallarhorn, etc).
1 Like
All right, added what I’d call openness, now I just need 1 more term, I can’t let it sit at 31 and not 32 lol
1 Like
Have you mentioned texture yet?
1 Like
Twice even, differentiated midrange and bass texture
1 Like
Time domain?
1 Like
Most of time domain is represented though various terms there, was thinking more specific. Currently I think clarifying stage definition like @Draaly was mentioning might be what I will add, since that makes sense to me. Or also actually the verticality side of things, like the dimensionality aspect
1 Like
What about layering, depth and verticality?
1 Like
I already have depth, verticality is something I’ll likely add, I don’t like the term laying since it’s confusing to me when used on it’s own. To me layering is basically depth in how it’s used, perhaps depth combined with texture, but really though I’d just use depth instead
2 Likes
I would agree with you on depth an layering. I think subliminally a lot of people think of depth in forwards and backwards aspects, and quite often layering is added into the mix to account for the left and right depth.
1 Like
to me layering is the specific ability to separate things at the same radial coordinate but at different depths. Aka, do the two vocals in this track sound like the same image or are they seperate
Thats quite interesting. The lack of open-ness is probabaly my largest complaint with susvara and a primary reason I even keep soli P arround.
I will say that arya was much more open though
very good call. I agree that the P6P is pretty closed in
Layering to me is like un-pealing an onion.
1 Like
I personally just view that as separation, but that’s because I view separation in a holistic sense and expect them to be at different depths/places in space
Well I added stage boundary and stage verticality, now I just need one more to make it even lol
I’m really just giving myself more work any time I use this in the future aren’t I
3 Likes
Personaly I like to split out layering and seperation because I find there are lost of things that do seperation super well if the images are in a different radial location but dont seperate at all if they are the same location but different depths. Empy is a great example of this
What about synergy?
I personally think it’s straightforward but, as you probably already seen, not very commonly known in other places. And oftentimes mistaken as personal preference.
Or maybe you’re only referring to sound descriptors in which case nvm…