Pleasurably better, not measurably better


I have created a new phrase: pleasurably better.

I am giving it to the world. Too many technophiles are concerned with measurably better, but rarely talk about what sounds better. What gives us more pleasure. The two may lie at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I use and respect measurements all the time, but I will never let any one of them dictate to me what I actually like listening to.

erik_squires

Showing 5 responses by cd318

@curiousjim

Yep, I learned decades ago that if someone is happy with the sound of two tin cans and some string, there is little chance of convincing them that your system is any better.

 

I think you’re right.

Bass heavy low resolution high distortion systems probably outsell audiophile systems by a factor of 100 to 1.

If not more.

’No highs no lows’ never bothered with accuracy but Amar Bose himself was left swimming in a sea of cash as a result of his careful crowd pleasing algorithms.

 

Accurate playback is not only extremely difficult to deliver, it’s not even on most people’s radar.

Quickly descending into a promo campaign for dealers?

 

Let’s not forget that there are also a few music lovers that do care for accuracy in playback.

Accuracy, not short term attention grabbing rising treble or smiley frequency curves. You can buy speakers like that for a few hundred dollars, so why spend thousands?

 

Accuracy and long term satisfaction is our common goal, is it not?

We don’t want to endlessly flit from one step of the never ending audio roundabout to the next, do we?

Losing money and gaining frustration as you go.

 

The best and most surest way to lasting pleasure is the measured way.

Endgame speakers are few and far between, but all of them seem to measure well.

@erik_squires 

"I'm buying gear that makes me feel good."

 

So presumably is everyone else here, though not necessarily by the same route.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

'At best I can achieve a system that sounds good with a wide variety of source materials.'

 

And just how do you intend to achieve this without measurements and data?

By ear alone?  Without any data whatsoever?

Good luck with that one!

@erik_squires 

What if I like 2.8% distortion?  Sure, we can measure it, but the engineering goal of lower is not the same as my personal listening goal of making things that sound good to me. 

 

If you prefer 2.8% distortion that's fine and dandy.
Who knows, on certain music and certain genres I might like it too.

But then again what if this 2.8% distortion is always audible, on all music?

What if this sometimes nice distortion on some recordings then turns into nasty distortion that you can't 'hear through'?

Perhaps the strongest argument for neutrality is that you get to hear the differences in different recordings rather than them all being smothered in the same sonic sauce.

I recall that of the criticisms of the Linn LP12 was that it put it's own sonic signature on everything that was played upon it, as opposed to decks like the Pink Triangle which were far more neutral.

This sonic signature (midbass warmth?) could sometimes suit certain types of music (jazz soul and funk?) and sometimes spoil others (piano, strings, pop, and rock?). 

 

I was again reminded of this whilst watching the latest video from the audiophlliac himself, Steve Guttenberg, who recently changed his reference loudspeakers.

One of the reasons Steve puts forward for swapping his Klipsch Cornwall's for the PureAudioProject Duet 15's is exactly this issue about neutrality.

Even if the Cornwall's do other things better, the more neutral 15s allow you to hear the differences between recordings better. 

The problem with audible distortion is that there is no such thing as an entirely benevolent distortion in all cases..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@curtdr 

It has been suggested previously that reviewers should have their hearing regularly tested and the results should be published for the benefit of their readers but no one seems very willing to do it.

It has been suggested that many loudspeakers have their treble balance tilted upwards in order to catch the listener's attention during a short demo but another consequence of that could be that such speakers will actually sound better to those reviewers who are experiencing some loss of high frequency hearing.

Such speakers will be almost painful to listen to for those who have good high frequency hearing (16kHz+).

 

Saying flat is ideal always reminds me of philosophers who have very neat ideal theories which then bump up against real world experience;

Maybe, maybe not.

If what we're interested in is the accuracy of playback then we do want a flat frequency response at the point of delivery.

However, there is no good reason for the listener to then modify the signal to compensate for room acoustics, hearing issues, personal tastes etc.

As you say, 

'This is why we have bass and treble controls too... to help compensate not only for our own individual hearing but also for our own personal preferences and purposes. It’s music, for crying out loud!' Taste matters.


It certainly does.