| Originally Posted by Leonard Norwitz and Peter Qvortrup Detail and Resolution We'd like to briefly examine one of the more interesting misperceptions common to audio critique. Many listeners speak of a playback system's revolving power in terms of its ability to articulate detail, i.e. previous unnoticed phenomena. However, it is more likely that what these listeners are responding to when they say such-and-such has more "detail" is: unconnected micro-events in the frequency and time domains. (These are events that, if they were properly connected, would have realized the correct presentation of harmonic structure, attack, and legato.) Because these events are of incredibly short duration and because there is absolutely no analog to such events in the natural world and are now being revealed to them by the sheer excellence of their audio, these listeners believe that they are hearing something for the first time, which they are! And largely because of this, they are more easily misled into a belief that what they are hearing is relevant and correct. The matter is aided and abetted by the apparentness of the perception. These "details" are undeniably there; it is only their meaning which has become subverted. The truth is that we only perceive such "detail" from an audio playback system; but never in a live musical performance. "Resolution" on the other hand is the effect produced when these micro-events are connected ... in other words, when the events are so small that detail is unperceivable. When these events are correctly connected, we experience a more accurate sense of a musical performance. This is not unlike the way in which we perceive the difference between video and film. Video would seem to have more detail, more apparent individual visual events; but film obviously has greater resolution. If it weren't for the fact that detail in video is made up of such large particles as compared to the micro-events which exist in audio, we might not have been misled about the term "detail", and would have called it by its proper name, which is "grain". Grain creates the perception of more events, particularly in the treble region, because they are made to stand out from the musical texture in an unnaturally highlighted form. In true high-resolution audio systems, grain disappears and is replaced by a seamless flow of connected musical happenings. [cf. "As Time Goes By" Positive Feedback Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 4-5, Fall '93]. |
| Originally Posted by Vertigo-1 [size=large]Sony MDR-SA5000 Review[/size] The midrange on the SA5000 can probably be summed up in one word: clear. It is brutally, coldly, ruthlessly clear, and in and of itself offers little warmth. If you like having deliberately heavy warmth added to the midrange, this is definitely not the headphone for you. This is a headphone that relies upon the recording itself to invoke emotions, particularly in the area of voices. Personally, I like it. I’ve learned to recognize that a good singer knows how to project emotion into the singing almost effortlessly, while bad singers or amateur singers will tend to sound flat and cold. You can really hear the naked emotions being projected in a good singer’s voice through these SA5000s, as it’s not being hidden behind any additional warmth. I’ve found that headphones with warm midranges tend to give emotion to any voice, whether it was there to begin with or not. |
| Originally Posted by Vertigo-1 The headstage also helps increase the perception of detail, because it’s a very near-field headstage. The overall size of the headstage is very small. The result is everything feels as though it’s playing extra close to you. When combined with the speed of this headphone, it becomes very easy to pinpoint instruments in an ensemble. However, at times this can become somewhat fatiguing as the brain tries to cope with the sheer amount of details being focused at you at close range. At times the listening experience almost becomes claustrophobic. The headstage sometimes gets so small on some recordings that the imaging goes flat, and you can no longer get a sense of anything playing in “front” of you. You get a relative sense of position, but it simply sounds as if everything’s located right between your ears, literally. This, I feel is a weakness of the SA5000s, in that it’s not very good at pushing the imaging out in front of you. Most headphones can pull this off to some degree without much difficulty, but the SA5000s struggle a bit here. |
| Originally Posted by Vertigo-1 I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned too often in past SA5000 reviews, but I think these headphones would be amazing as studio monitoring headphones, because of their analytical and revealing nature. But I honestly don’t think I would recommend these headphones to those that truly love music , in the musicality sense, and want a headphone that can truly reproduce music. Those that have come to love the Sony MDR-R10s over time can probably appreciate what I’m trying to say here. The SA5000s headphones are like taking a quick dance with some girl (or guy) that you’re not familiar with…good for a quick fling, but perhaps not so good for permanence. IMO, you really need to be firmly in the camp of listeners that prefers a clean, flat presentation to enjoy these headphones long term. Those that prefer a warmer, gentler musical presentation should consider other headphones. Personally, I’m in the “quick fling” camp…my listening time with headphones now days is very short, and I simply want a headphone that can quickly deliver all the musical content available in a recording. For that simple purpose, the MDR-SA5000s are exactly what I’m looking for. |
| Originally Posted by bangraman Your reference has some great passages which I could never have articulated myself. |
| Originally Posted by purk Spad, Welcome back. How have u been? |
| ....I found the SA5K too analytical for my taste and moved back to my Senn HD-650 w/ Zu. |
