Would def agree, it’s more a technicality thing than tonality for me as well. Although, we must have heard wildly different headphones with the sr-2 lol
1 Like
rofl 
I always interpret it in a less technical way more in line with it’s use in art. A fine, eerie quality that is almost transparent.
1 Like
I actually don’t think your saying anything different than the others.
By technical they are just suggesting it’s not a basic function FR, but rather about the way the headphone presents.
My 2c is inline with other, it’s a sort of floaty/open/eerie (artificial in a good way) presentation.
Often it seems like your inside the sound rather then hearing it through headphones.
2 Likes
I think you are right. I agree.
Apart from the artificialness I think. I associate ethereality with a naturalness, a fragility? I think this is the same end meaning though.
1 Like
I think those are all good descriptions, and i agree its a technicalities and presentation describer as opposed to FR.
To me its like those old dark photographs that have wisps of smoke in them. Those wisps very often do not have a visible origin, they are floating there near weightless, and are quite translucent. They almost have a ghostly quality to them as they come from seemingly no where and hang there before dissipating, vanishing without a hint or trace.
I also think there are some other qualities that are needed (or ease) to get there. Ie: a deep, well spaced, holographic stage.
2 Likes
Who here can help define “technicalities” so I can better understand? I feel that gets tossed around more often than not to describe a piece of gear especially when compared to another piece.
For example: “X is a step up in technicalities over Y” because it is the next level in a model line, or new version.
What the hell does that relay when used in impression’s of gear?
2 Likes
Overall technical performance of gear. Combined aspects such as resolution/detail, dynamics, timbre, spatial recreation, speed, control, etc. It’s a a catch all term of all of the technical aspects of a unit that contribute to the sound and performance. I’m guilty of using it often, but it’s just a really convenient thing to say if something is overall higher performing in most of these aspects than something else. An example would be saying the lampizator horizon has overall better technicalities than a pacific. It’s the highest model, and operates at a higher overall performance level than the pacific in most all ways, while having overall similar focuses/goals/presentation, etc.
I think it’s a term that’s best applied to things that are more direct comparisons, but also appropriate if something is just on a higher or lower level than something else overall. It’s a bad term in terms of not really saying much about how the unit is overall higher/lower performing than something else, and misses a lot of the nuance on how something sounds. Like something might be at a higher technical level in let’s say stage, but that doesn’t say much about how it’s potentially better and how it’s different from what’s being compared. But it’s just a really easy way to explain some things at times
Some sometimes use it as a “I like this better” term which I don’t feel is appropriate since just because something operates on a higher technical level than something else doesn’t mean you’ll automatically like it more or that it’s automatically “better”. I think in use it’s fine to say something has overall better technicalities, but it’s definitely more meaningful if you elaborate why that is or go deeper into any potential differences in specific aspects of that technical performance. It’s something that’s not always appropriate to use on its own, and can sometimes be used as almost of a cop out for giving a proper explanation. But I think in the cases of really direct similar upgrades it’s sometimes sufficient on its own.
If you feel like something that sounds really similar and “just better” in what it does, then I think it’s fine to use on its own, like you mention upgrades across the same line of a mfg, where you’re just getting more better of the same, it works well. If you’re comparing something that operates on an overall higher performance level than something else but they’re not all that similar to each other, I think it’s ok to say it’s a step up in technicalities over the other thing, but I’d definitely suggest more elaboration on potential differences and make a more proper detailed comparison if you can
Personally I like to separate tonality from technicalities. Somewhat counting tonality as perceived FR and potentially including overall presentation (on a more basic level), where I tend to consider most things that fall under more intangible characteristics as technicalities. While they’re all inherently linked together to some degree, I think it’s a helpful thing to separate them at times.
4 Likes
I generally use in comparisons and use it to imply that something is clearly superior, is some aspect of reproduction, I might not necessarily prefer it, but I can hear what it’s doing that’s better than some other piece of equipment. I tend to slant it towards dynamics, speed and resolution over the others @M0N mentioned, but if the others weren’t there I’d probably not refer to it as technically superior to something else.
4 Likes
What would you call the thing where on one side of the stage you have the cymbals just so crisp and detailed that it feels like you’ve put your head on the plate and can feel the vibrations? Detail, timbre, or resolution? I used the word detailed already so I guess that partly answers it…where does the “air” fit in here?
All of the above, you can also add instrument separation, stage presentation, speed, attack and for the “air” decay, shimmer. Sounds like you’re in a good place with your system.
2 Likes
I hope this is the right place to ask.
Is there a term or an easy way to describe the difference between the volume of sound, e.g. soft key press vs harder key press on a piano? Visually, it’s like being able to see more shades of grey from dark to light?
I always struggle to convey this to people when asking for recommendations.
2 Likes
When you’re talking about volume the swings of a sound are usually described as dynamics. But since you’re asking more about the shades of gray, typically that’s resolution, more resolution, more texture.
If you haven’t check out the top links in the thread, they’re good.
1 Like
I’d probably still incorporate that in dynamics, specifically micro dynamics, which to me is the ability to resolve small changes effectively.
resolution also incorporates it, but I think it ends up being more about the black and white ability to resolve detail, so for example the 1266 PhiTC has excellent resolution, but to me doesn’t have a very linear “grey scale”, I.e. it comes across compressed specifically in the high frequencies.
Short version, it ought to be resolution, but you need more than that to really convey it. It’s often easier to describe in terms of what known references don’t do, Or using visual analogies.
And of course people use all sorts of terms to mean all sorts of different things.
2 Likes
I would say that is micro dynamics and a touch of resolution.
I always refer to Dynamics like the brightness in tv. A tv with good dynamics like an HDR, will have a bigger difference between its blackest and whitest, blacker blacks or brighter whites. Micro dynamics can be more like how well it can sort out blacks and greys and avoids color/black crush.
From a musicians perspective, I always think of the terms of both tempo and loudness…both of which fit into dynamic range.
Loudness:
Fortissimo – very loud.
Forte – loud.
Mezzo forte – medium loud.
Mezzo piano – medium quiet.
Piano – quiet.
Pianissimo – very quiet.
Tempo:
Larghissimo: Extremely slow, 24 BPM and under
Grave: Slow and solemn, 25–45 BPM
Lento: Very slow, 40–60 BPM
Largo: Slowly, 45–50 BPM
Larghetto: Quite broadly, 60–69 BPM
Adagio: Slow and stately, 66–76 BPM
Adagietto: Quite slow, 72–76 BPM
Andante: At a walking pace, 76–108 BPM
Moderato: Moderately, 86–97 BPM
Allegretto: Moderately fast, 98–109 BPM
Allegro: Fast, quickly and bright, 109–132 BPM
Vivace: Lively and fast, 156–176 BPM
Vivacissimo and Allegrissimo: Very fast, lively and bright, 172–176 BPM
Presto: Very fast, 168–200 BPM
Prestissimo: Extremely fast, 200 BPM and over
4 Likes
Thanks, I guess it’s not so simple after all lol
I think microdynamics, dynamics is what I was looking for, but like everyone said, there’s other factors combined together that would accentuate/mask it.
1 Like
Hmm, I’ll use bb king/jimi Hendrix just for ease of explaining lol there’s a lot of contrast between how hard or soft they play a note.
I felt a bit awkward going into a shop with hundreds of iems not being able to convey this. I find I’m not to particular about certain characteristics such as warm, cold, energetic, relaxed, etched, smooth etc as long as it conveys that feeling of contrast?
I found campfire fathom had this contrast but wanted something more technical, but sorta felt bad after trying another couple of iems in the next tier up and it didn’t have that contrast.
Another way to describe it visually are photos with shadows deliberately crushed vs an hdr photo that has shadows brought up? Or like an athlete that slows down deliberately to create a sense of speed vs going a million miles an hour and kicks it up a further notch?
I’m slightly more familiar with daps, tried ibassos, cayins, hibys, fiios but nothing strikes me the way Lotoo paw gold touch does
1 Like