When you want to turn the volume up.
How do you know when a stereo sounds good?
When do you know your system is pleasing to listen to? How do you conclusively prove to yourself that your system sounds good to you? How do you determine that you enjoy listening to music through your stereo? Do you have a suite of measurements that removes all shadow of a doubt that you are getting good sound, sound that you enjoy? Please share.
265 responses Add your response
+1 @bishop148. Very true! Did we miss that one somehow? |
I too like it when a stereo’s sound field transcends the boundaries of my listening room. Tonal accuracy for me is not enough if the music sounds as if it’s coming out of the speakers, or with only a small envelope in between and perhaps slightly outside the speaker cabinets. My design criteria is always number one tonal accuracy, but number two is spatial accuracy and dynamics. I just can’t get excited about any system that throws a Lilliputian sound stage.
Yours in music, Ted Denney III Lead Designer/CEO Synergistic Research Inc. |
| Post removed |
Well, if any question begs a tautological response, this is it. A stereo sounds good to me, when it sounds good to me. A stereo sounds good to you, when it sounds good to you. It doesn't matter how one interprets the questions posed (whether "you" was intended to mean "one", or "me" as I read the question, the answer is the same). I've heard any number of systems that the owner was enthralled with, but sounded pitiful to me. In none of those instances was either of us wrong. If the questions were intended to ask for a differential comparison, that's a very different matter, but also subject to the same preferential differences. I would say, however, that if you cannot enjoy good music on even a mediocre system, it's not just the music you're interested in, or you have a very different understanding of music than I. I fully enjoy listening to music in my Westy Vanagon, although it has the acoustics of an F2 tornado at highway speeds. I've flown >1M miles listening to Bose (or worse) headphones in horrendously noisy aluminum tubes, and enjoyed thousands of hours of music. I feel sorry for folks who can't enjoy the beauty of music if the decay of a cymbal isn't perfectly reproduced, or the "midrange" isn't perfectly liquid. Is it *more* enjoyable with better sound in a better acoustic? Sure, it can be, that is why we're here, theoretically. But, I can be, and have been, brought to tears on particularly beautiful and soaring female vocal lines with mid-level cans on Youtube. If that's impossible for you, then I think you're missing an important part of the beauty of music. Mediocre reproduction of beautiful music is still beautiful. Beautiful reproduction of crap music is still crap. That's just my opinion, of course, and it's totally impervious to the approbation or denigration by other's differing opinions. |
@khughes , you are forcing me to both rethink my answer, to some degree, and revisit the question.
This is not the innocuous question this may seem to be. For those that don't know Ted, Ted has been on a multi-year, perhaps multi-decade attack on using measurements in audio. He created a "subjective" forum on Facebook where one is not allowed to discuss measurement, he makes fun of people who use measurements on multiple forums and in general to the point of being banned frequently. It makes total sense, Ted's business is based around selling products that with few exceptions will produce no measurable benefit or a measurable difference so small as to be considered inaudible by any reasonably accepted metric. Even for the most obvious products, i.e. power conditioning Ted has never published any tests that show either a verifiable benefit other than a link one time by a 3rd party that showed just the slightest improvement. Ted has published innumerable questions like this over the internet, in multiple independent forums, many of which he is no longer welcome at, and in multiple Facebook groups. So what you see as an innocuous question, I see as free marketing. So since this is a free marketing posing as a question, I will respond with a
The answer is yes, yes I do. - I don't think that my speakers are low distortion, I know they are. - I don't think that my amplifiers are low distortion, I know they are - I don't think my crossover are not adding coloration to the music, I know they don't - I don't think I may or may not have system noise/ground/noise, I know I don't and where I did, I used products with known and verifiable benefits to fix the issue - I don't have to guess at what my direct / reflected sound is, I know what it is - I don't think I have an ideal in room frequency response (or more accurately whatever I want it to be), I know I do. - I also don't question whether my DAC is free or any number of real and invented artifacts, - And just for good measure, I don't think my turntable is set up ideally. I know it is.
Now you may think that I believe the perfect path to audio nirvana is zero distortion and a perfectly flat response. You couldn't be farther from the truth. I am very aware of how distortion and frequency response can be manipulated in pleasing ways. I am also aware of what works for some music does not work for others, and even what works for one recording does not work for the next. So why did I set my goal to as perfect as possible? Two reasons. One is I know exactly how my system performs, hence I know if what I hear is the recording or the system. Two, is I can (with signal processing) dial in whatever I want, depending on the recording, mood, who I am listening with, whatever.
Now I will give props where props are due. Ted does have a very good skill (other than marketing). I honestly believe that Ted has a very good ear, has a good feel for what his customers like to hear, or at least audio reviewers, and importantly, he knows how to set up a trade show room to sound pretty good, which is not an easy feat. There is a reason why Ted uses some of the best speakers made, and equipment that gives what many would consider a pleasant experience, typically tube gear with a typical higher frequency roll off good in a nasty hotel/trade show room. I have no doubt Ted spend hours listening in that room, moving the speakers, etc. till it sounds best, and having a good ear, is probably able to do this better than most. What I don't believe is that SR equipment in the room, other than the acoustic panels, has much of any impact on the overall sound. |
I dont need Ted products nor the DSP refine processing of our friend cindyment... Why? Because my audio system is embedded in ACOUSTIC passive materials treatment and more importantly mechanically controlled with Helmholtz method... Is my system better than the system of Ted or cindyment ? No But it is so good i dont give a dam about upgrade... My system is under 500 bucks... All my device are homemade... By the way we could create a soundstage out of the speakers and a good imaging WITHOUT great tonal timbre accuracy, but i cannot and i think nobody could create a natural great tonal timbre accuracy WITHOUT in addition gain a great soundstage...This is simply acoustic laws... In acoustic reproduction of timbre ask for an acoustically controlled room... But if i can create an impression and an image filling the room without great tonal accuracy...i cannot create a tonal accuracy without at the same time creating a good soundstage... Take my word for a personal experience, i am not a scientist like cindyment or a master in audio like Ted... Feel free to contradict me... A system does not sound good because we feel it is good.... A system sound good with minimal acoustical settings... If not it is an happy illusion... All my system were bad all my life and i always tought that they sounded good... i realized that after my listening experiments in acoustic for the last years mostly... i dont need my 7 headphones anymore nor any upgrade... My system is not the best in audiogon for sure.... For the ratio S.Q./price it is the better or one of the better... 500 bucks for my audio system...
Dont upgrade before embedding mechanically and electrically and acoustically all the gear...This is my only discovery in audio.... |
Bad Hippie on is onto something here about being being happy with what you have. About being content with what you have, I'll segue into this with this: I seem to remember Sinead O'Conner had something titled "I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got." Using this mantra, a fella can save himself lots of grief in chasing the endless stereo set-up. For me, I buy the stuff I can afford/save up for and then say, that's it for spending money; after all, stereo is just a hobby and a non-essential life expense, for most of us. |
I've been a audiophile since the start of the 80s. During that time, I've found out that you start to listen more to the sound that your getting than the music itself. You will notice that certain music peaces sound very good on your system and others sound pretty bad. That will be the case in just about any case as all recordings are not of equal quality. Also, your listening room will make for 50% of your listening enjoyment. I started to listen more to the music and less to the sound. That way, I can enjoy music in my car, just as much as my big rig. It's just a different experience. Enjoy the music first. Sound is secondary. |
Take the measurements with a grain of salt. If I went by the “measurements” I would have never bought the Vandersteen's I currently have and love. Every measurement told me that they were 86 to 87 db and that my class A amps could not drive them. All the measurements in theory were wrong as my amps not only drive them but they sound great besides. So like everything gather all the info not just some and make your own judgement decisions and enjoy the music. |
For me, it's real simple: Drop the needle on "Live From Deep in the Heart of Texas, Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen" and crank it up to where conversation isn't possible, close your eyes and just listen to the musicianship. You should be about third row center in the concert, able to point to the musicians on the stage. It is a rowdy Texas bar recording that just happens to be one of the best live recordings I have heard. Then drop the needle on "Waiting for Columbus" from Little Feat. Once again, you should be at the concert with some of the best musicians EVER! Next up is "The Seth James Band, Live @ Grune Hall". This is Texas blues at its best. If your stereo can recreate the concert in your listening room, you will smile, you will laugh and you will enjoy all of your music all over again. |
@cindyment "So since this is a free marketing posing as a question, I will respond with a
The answer is yes, yes I do" For the record, I don't have a clue who "Ted" is, and being an old curmudgeon, this is as close as I get to social media, thus I'm more likely to invent time travel than get into FB. BUT, here I would have to disagree with you. I would submit that don't know *that* the sound is good, nor that it *is* the sound you enjoy (although closer on this one) because of measurements. You've identified a number of the *whys* you find you're subjectively enjoying good sound. An example, say you tilt your system response to accommodate a loss of HF hearing on my part; that tilt makes your system sound wonderful to me, and shrill and unlistenable to you. That's why I make the distinction - measurements can control, they can distinguish, they can provide for reproduciblity and repeatablity of particular setups, identify room modes, etc. They identify the "whys" for an individual, not as a general principle, because individual preferences are not determined (measured by, or identifiable by, are not the same IMO) by objective criteria. This may sound like a quibble, but believe it's fundamental to understanding the issue. You need no understanding of acoustics or physics to determine what sounds good to you. Serendipity can work, like the lottery. But you do need them to understand the parameters that combine to create the sound you prefer. Audiophiles that poo-poo DSP will nonetheless experiment with all manner of pathological cable designs to achieve, less reliably, less predictably, and more expensively, what DSP easily achieves - i.e. what it is designed for. And of course, when one makes an extraordinary claim that has no known support in either acoustics, electronics, or physics, one needs measurements to support the claim. Yes, rocks, plates, firehoses, I'm looking at you... "Is my system better than the system of Ted or cindyment ? No But it is so good i dont give a dam about upgrade... My system is under 500 bucks... All my device are homemade..." This I would wholly agree with, it's where I am as well albeit more expensively, but to my thinking, you have made a diametrically opposing comment below: "Feel free to contradict me... A system does not sound good because we feel it is good.... A system sound good with minimal acoustical settings... If not it is an happy illusion... All my system were bad all my life and i always tought that they sounded good..." OK, so please explain how is "because we feel it is good" qualitatively different than "But it is so good i dont give a dam about upgrade"? You seem to be using "good" extremely liberally, meaning anything from "meh, sort of ok" to "so wonderful improvement is irrelevant". So not sure exactly what you mean (I know English is not your mother tongue, and I'm not trying to quibble grammar or syntax, just not sure the distinction you are trying to draw). I would also say that "If not it is an happy illusion" applies to all stereos at all times. Stereo *is* an illusion, is just the realism provided by the illusion that we are discussing. There is no one "True Path" to enjoyment, there are a great many, and they are far from universally shared.
|
Thanks for the occasion you give me to be clearer... All our past systems may sound good to us...At some time and for many people it is enough... And it is OK.... But if we enter in some listening experiments journey, like i had, you may discover some BASIC facts... The electrical noise floor of the house is too high... The vibrations affect greatly your gear.... The passive treatment of the room is very important, and even active mechanical control may be necessary in a dedicated room, i even add a mechanically controlled equalizer made from many Helmholtz resonators... It is not perfect by all means.... But now i know why my system is "good" because i had a comparison BEFORE and AFTER these embeddings controls installation WITH THE SAME GEAR... Then thinking that our sound is "good" is not enough now for me generally speaking ... We must know why....Thinking that good gear will do is not enough...Because of the huge impact of electrical noise floor problem, vibrations, and acoustic... My comment "feel free to contradict me" is only to underline my openness to discussion... There are 3 criterias FOR ME to know if your system is good: Is the playing microdynamical timbre of any voices and instrument are well defined like a human face ? Is the sound filling the room, fill the room with good imaging OUT of the speakers ? Are ALL your albums now revealing the acoustical choices of the recording engineer and his trade-off when recording the album? If all your albums even the less well recorded are interesting now? If yes you are there....Perhaps not with the best system but you begin to listen music without thinking about the sound or without picking an album only because it appear well recorded... is it clearer? My best and deepest respect....
|
@khughes , I probably did not communicate well my intentions w.r.t. measurement, at least to remove all doubt. The question was posed,
To which I would still answer yes, because the measurements "removes all shadow of a doubt". I am not guessing about whether noise, distortion, and any number of variables I can control are detracting from my potential listening enjoyment (I do worry about some variables I have not found a way to control). I know that objectively, within the variables I can control (and justify the money for), that the sound reproduction I am getting is about as good as I can expect w.r.t. recreating what is on the recording medium. With that as a starting point, I can explore all sorts of different ways I can modify the sound to increase my enjoyment, and I already enjoy it a lot. So yes, I would say I have a suite of measurements that ensures I am getting good sound, but I would need to slightly reword to "and enables me to achieve sound I enjoy". I could not achieve the latter without the former. I may get lucky and stumble on it, but the odds would be much lower.
|
Do you have a suite of measurements that removes all shadow of a doubt that you are getting good sound, sound that you enjoy? Definitely no. What sounds good to you may sound terrible to others, therefore if we measure what you believe is fantastic and saw that is good then for others what has been measured is bad. |
Ah, OK, you said: "I have a suite of measurements that ensures I am getting good sound, but I would need to slightly reword to "and enables me to achieve sound I enjoy" That was my point exactly. The measurements do not define your ideal, or preference, for what "good" or "enjoyable" are, they are an objective means to adjust to get that sound, and to get it reliably. Phrased the other way I think it says it somewhat backwards, and is interpreted by "pure subjectivists" as *only the measurements matter*. See it all the time. When in fact the opposite is true. I spent a number of years running a metrology lab...I like measurements 😁 |
You said: "But now i know why my system is "good" because i had a comparison BEFORE and AFTER these embeddings controls installation WITH THE SAME GEAR... Then thinking that our sound is "good" is not enough now for me generally speaking ... We must know why....Thinking that good gear will do is not enough...Because of the huge impact of electrical noise floor problem, vibrations, and acoustic..." OK, I understand what you're saying, and I agree on the importance of maximizing the acoustic environment (although not all cohabitants may agree). And certainly, unless you are immortal with plenty of time to kill, understanding the underlying principles is absolutely important. But I don't see that as being responsive to the OP's question, as I read it. You appear to be addressing improvement of any given system, versus whether the sound is good and enjoyable as-is, which I take to be the original question. As you say, you had a system that sounded good to you, so I assume you enjoyed it, if you enjoy music (which I take as a given). It seems to me you are saying more that you were not *satisfied* with the system, even though it sounded good, or at some point you became dissatisfied with it, so you're enjoyment declined. But again, I would say that's a different question. You appear to be satisfied, once again, and again love your system. I'm at that point as well - I could improve my system, without doubt, but that would come at an expense (not just money) that is higher than it's worth to me. It's at the point now where I'm far more disappointed with quality of individual recordings than with any "fault" I find in my system performance. And to forestall @cindyment, yeah I could likely make many of those poor recordings sound a bit better with DSP, but dynamically squashed recordings are never going to sound wonderful - except in the car! Enjoy the music... |
This is one of my most important realization.... But it is interesting NOW to listen even bad recording because so bad they are they acoustically reveal some information and anyway they sound better in my audio controlled system... And like you i am too much immersed in music now to bothered for costly improvement... We know when our system is good when we make it happened by EXPERIMENTS not only by upgrading or buying gear....
|
For many years I have attended and listened to all sorts of events where live music has played. I regularly listened and danced to live Latin music. |
Why people want to reduce everything to a binary distinction? measurements are tools and necessary even for experiments... But in audio our sujective experience is also primary... The truth is simple: nothing is simplistic... especially in physical acoustic and in psycho acoustic and in engineering... subjectivist or objectivist are two blind road... Children wars...
|
and
@khughes The twisting of words by folk who eschew measurements sometimes makes my head hurt. The narrative being presented as facts is upside down and inside out, much as we may observe in some news reports originating in certain countries - selective facts are provided but presented in such a manner as to persuade the reader that something else is actually the situation. I have addressed (perhaps poorly) this fairly transparent non sequitur pattern of reasoning in one or two previous posts here. The second quote is of course so perfectly succinct that any elaboration may only spoil it.
|
The arguments are meant to first divide the groups and then once divided to isolate the target group. You will note above I called this post thinly veiled marketing which it is. It is meant to create a division between those who use measurements and those that don't and then isolate those that don't from those that do so that those that don't can be targeted with specific marketing and sales messages which don't work with the scrutiny of the other group. |
Yes, I think divided only by sleight of hand and in my opinion by the use of some very deliberate and garbled misrepresentations that are abundantly transparent in their intent. I disagree that they are veiled, but I guess I'm just at the 6th standard deviation of cynical. That this succeeds in many good and honest folk - the target group - being tricked is tremendously "clever" but entirely unethical. |
It's not really everyone who does that..
There is a large cadre, however, that adamantly denies this simple reality. They self segregate, no need at all for me to do it for them.
Whether this is true or not depends on how you're defining "primary". If, for example, I give you 2 identical power cords, one with a red plug, one with a blue plug, and your subjective impression is that the red plug is clearly better as it sounds more <insert audiophilic mumbo jumbo> than the black one. Now, that may in fact be true, but it's not due to the change in *auditory* stimuli reaching your body. Should you rely on that subjective evaluation even when I tell you that the black plug cord is $10 and the red plug cord is $12K? I sure wouldn't. As I replied earlier to @cindyment, in slightly different terms, correlation of measurements, a priori, to preference or enjoyment is not trivial, if possible at all. But measurement of *difference* is trivial IMO. So, if there's no scientifically known mechanism of action for A (latest floobie dust product) to act differently than B, in situ, and you cannot measure a difference between them in any relevant attribute or parameter, listening for a difference is folly. Certainly any product can be designed to sound different, and do so, whether active or passive device.Those differences are easily measured as well. Because... if you don't know what to measure, or how to measure it (a couple of favorite disingenuous locutions favored in the snake oil world), however did you *design* it in the first place? |
When I spoke about "subjective experience being primary" like measurements are in acoustic and in engineering, i refered ALSO to the fundamental criteria in acoustic: the human perception of timbre.. If people were educated by ACOUSTICIAN they will not buy 10,000 bucks cable they will treat and CONTROL their room...It is evident for me that each cable is different BUT IT IS SECONDARY completely compared to other impactful necessary controls: mechanical, electrical and especially acoustical... I fine tuned MECHANICALLY my Helmholtz resonators grid guided by my timbre perception...Like some fine tune a piano,,,, It is not objective . It is not perfect. It is a relation between my particular room with his particular zone pressures grid distribution, modifiable at will, in relation to EACH of my ears, which are not only different from one another but different from all others ears... i dont bought audio tweaks... I created mine....Nobody sold my mechanical equalizer, i designed it with discarded junk...If some mouth laugh about that junks my own ears smile anyway.... Learning basic acoustic help me to spare my money...And spare me to enter into these stupid "objectivist" /subjectivist" childish and unscientific completely and this by the 2 sides which each one reject reason and acoustic or psycho-acoustic... If measurements are ONLY necessary tools,his perception of timbre is the essential tool of any acoustician...Then negating one or the other, without understanding their complementary relation is insane when people argue without listening the other sides... All these debates AGAINST or FOR cables or other tweaks are beside the point....There is subjective partiality to sell products on one side or there is people on the other side who vouch that we can know how a dac would sound just by reading a measurement chart...I am not interested by these 2 groups.... I am not a genius.... But i am not stupid either.... I am an audiophile and lover of music who designed his own audio controls: mechanical,electrical, and acoustical...It is not perfect at all... But it is spectacular and satisfying at NO COST... I am out of these debates where people sometimes defend an agenda more than truth in the two sides... There is debates more important now in the world....
|
To me, it’s very simple. If I close my eyes, and “feel” the singer or the/a band is in the room with me! When the hairs on my neck go up, because it “seems” SO REAL!! That’s my answer. Rotel CD player, McIntosh amp, Bowers and Wilkins 804 speakers with Diamond tweeters. HEAVEN on earth!! Santa, can I have another awesome record player as well please?? |
| Post removed |
Ted Denney sell "tweaks" that can help some and not so much others, it is relative to many factors i will not enter into...( not everyone here own a dedicated room where we can replicate acoustically many imaging and soudstage effect with Helmoltz method +passive treatment) He is probably a talented audio sellers thats all.... Why attacking him in audo thread? Some use DSP to be the pinnacle of audio... For sure it is a very useful tool.... I plan to use some DSP free tool this summer myself...But is it the ONLY universal solution for all?
I dont need myself none of these two different agenda solutions... I go along the road of no cost simple acoustic and mechanical solutions... Then why arguing for measurements or against it, that makes no sense at all save if you had an AGENDA including one factor and not the other factor for your own agenda .... I listen music/sound without agenda... In acoustic Ears and measurements go hand in hand....Only sellers of electronical solutions via tweaks or DSP argues like fools, one against the other... It is childish... But anyway they are sellers , some sell products the other sells other technology.... Basic acoustic is simpler and dont need a seller... It is not perfect but very economical....😊It could be almost perfect though if we invest big money.... i prefer to "sell" creativity openness including ears and measurements WITHOUT reducing one to the other... Anyway human sound experience begins in greek theater, and architectural Christian monasteries, and even before that in caves acoutical effect control, then human sound experience begins with ACOUSTIC not with DSP or electronical tweaks or ,cables etc.... All is useful for sure, but arguing with agendas is not.... It is better to go with history than against it....
|
I become convinced that my stereo sounds good to me when I continue to enjoy it after many months of listening to all kinds of music, without feeling any need to adjust anything, and even after hearing other systems that are decidedly superior. What sounds good to me and gives me the experience I want out of reproduced sound at home is at least a little below my threshold of absolute detection of sound quality. |
Some measurements are critical. How wide is it? How tall and how deep is it? Will it fit on my shelf? How loud will it play? All the rest of the measurements are just marketing. I can’t hear numbers or even verify what the heck they’re actually measuring it certainly isn't sound quality. If numbers are really that important you should be buying a calculator instead of a stereo. When I rent a moving van do I really care what its 0 to 60 time is. I’m sure it’s measured somewhere but would you rent one because of that or how many boxes it holds? After you determine where you’re going to put it the only thing that matters is HOW DOES IT SOUND TO ME? If you can’t answer that question without relying on someone else's numbers, maybe you’re in the wrong hobby.
|
Read Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and discover that the physics/abstraction dichotomy is first dramatized as early as the fifth century BC. Collateral reading: The Bacchae by Euripides. The conclusion I draw is that BOTH the Apollonian electricians and the Dionysian aesthetes are necessary contributors to our chosen hobby (indeed, lifestyle) as evidenced in this discussion. We would have no hobby without the electricians. What we would have might sound like a can of nails without the influence of the aesthetes. As an admitted and accepted (in my orbit) aesthete, I honor those whose talents allow them to plumb the depths of physics in order to improve the audiophile's lot. Their work is essential and many of their tools are used by all of us in our everyday life. Problem is the electricians continually fail to produce the perfect system. Someday they will do it and we'll gladly give it a listen and critique. Meanwhile, is there anything to be done but enjoy what we have as we slip into the abyss? |
