I would suppose the detail they are refering to would be the midrange detail we seem to miss on SS gear....the subtle squeek of fingers sliding along strings on a chord change, the sigh of a trumpeter as he/she inhales for the next string of notes, the soft voices in the studio prior to the start of a recording....all those nuances that seem to be supressed(sp?) on SS gear that come to life on tube gear.
____________________________________Rick................
____________________________________Rick................
I have come to associate the term "inner detail" with the more descriptive term "downward dynamic range" -- an increae in s a systems ability to reproduce small details in the music at the lowest levels of the music. A practical example is an improvement in the noise floor of a device (say by improving the power supply or by reducing the self-noise of a speaker cone) will allow you to hear stuff that was previously buried in the noise.
dave
dave
planet10 said:
Sounds logical. At least it's a testable proposition. But from the use of the term it seems more than just an expression of dynamic range or noise floor - both easily measured, and easier to maximize in a sand amp. Is there something like perceived dynamic noise floor - the ability to hear low level sounds among louder sounds? If it's simple distortion that masks low level sounds, the perception should track with that. Or is phase preservation more important for perceiving those low level sounds?
Sheldon
MJL21193 said:
Most of my experience is with paper cones where the mechanism is quite straight forward. Pape ris made of fibres. When the cone moves the rub together. Coat the driver with something that bonds the fibres on the surface layer together. I've been using puzzlecoat for 30 years. Lords BL100 & similar used by manufacturers for coated paper cones yields similar results, PE Wet look i suspect also does the same thing.
dave
TubeHead Johnny said:
OK. but isn't that the definition of detail? I understand what listeners have said here about what they are looking to hear, but I guess that I still don't see 'inner' detail as something distinct from detail. Is there some other type of 'detail' that we are differentiating from 'inner' detail?
Sheldon
Sheldon said:
It's probably to differentiate from the abused marketing definition. The singular term 'detail' has been co-opted by the smiley-face graphic EQ set and ADS tweeters, becoming almost a pejorative these days often prefaced by 'hyped' and 'false'. I like Dave's version, and other than for the sake of argument there's no reason to limit noise floor to drivers, unless of course you belong to the tiny niche of cabinet and frame-less speaker owners.
That said, to me it's obvious many like to tweak distortions down low to provide a sense of false low-level detail too.
My small addition to this bleeds into psycho acoustics. Along with the fine detail that Dave speaks of, these very tiny sounds must provide a coherent, understandable and informative mental impression, of an actual event within the recorded sound field. When you tease this sort of detail from your system, it will add significant amounts of information to all of the coherent signal structures your system is reproducing, regardless of the amplitude.
Bud
Bud
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.