Everybody's ears are different... So, if something measures "flat," that's not necessarily how my ear hears it; so, for my pleasure factor, I may prefer speakers that rise in the high frequencies to somewhat offset my ears' drop in highs, as a simple example.
The point about Bose is well-taken. It depends on the audience and the application. While not my primary listening speakers, I have a pair of original 301 v1, refoamed woofer of course, hanging by wires under my porch awning. We play poker out there. Everybody including me loves the sound, in that application. We're not critically listening, and it doesn't matter: we like it.
A speaker series that defies the "measure flat = great" metric is of course the Klipsch Heritage series. The sort of "it ain't perfect but it doesn't even matter because it sounds so very engaging" experience that many people, most critics included, adore. Even the Heresy IV have moved me to tears on occasion, and I "grew up" as a neutral leaning sort of guy. They're like a gateway drug... it's hard to go back to more laid back sound, once you get used to 'em... and the problem is, they have me jones-ing for more: Forte IV, here I come???
|
"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.
@cd318
The difference is that I am consciously declaring it my primary motivator. Some make "neutrality" or "accuracy" their declared motivator.
'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?
If you read any of my posts you would know I do not make this argument either. Rather, I declare that my experience trumps engineering standards. Take a measurement like THD+N. The argument has been made by many that below a certain level it is not perceivable. So, for instance, for them 0.0001 and 0.01 distortion perform the same way, yet for the spec chaser 0.0001 is "better."
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.
|
Gone through a little bit of this with power cables...at some point it was sounding "too perfect" and the musical presentation was a little sterile,lost its musicality?.So the search has bought me to think that too much of one thing Ofc/occ ?...rhodium/gold...?.
|
I love the “ Pleasurably Better”! That’s what enjoying music is all about. How we all get there when not actually attending a live performance is what this forum is all about.
Whatever makes you happy is great regardless of how something might measure. There are no units of measure to define pleasure, happiness, relaxation, peace etc.
I generally grade a component or system of components by how long I want to keep enjoying it. If listening sets in quickly something is wrong, at least for me regardless of the apparent frequency extension, imaging, dynamics etc. until maybe the past 5 or so years, digitally produced sound fell into this category & I couldn’t listen & really enjoy it for more than a song or two. That is no longer the case for me & hi rez streaming w/ a good DAC is really close to good analogue.
That said, while tube amps ( pre or power)generally measure worse than comparably priced solid state, I seem to almost always enjoy them more & sound more like live music. Tubed equipment is probably the prime example of “ Pleasurably Better”.
|
Kenjit comments represents Audio Science Review philosophy. I just ended a 27 page, 2100+ comment forum here concerning this very subject. Unfortunately, the owner and some followers of that site came here to lambast our knowledge and opinions which conflict with his and Kenjit.
Others continued to assault us with not comprehending our choices without measuring them in a blind ABX test and with high end equipment. I don't know who does that but not any of my friends or even those $500K to $1 million systems I've heard at their homes. ASR/Amir claims we are fooling ourselves. They indicate that cables and tweaks are irrelevant in making music sound better (or worse).
This forum says the opposite-if we enjoy what we are hearing, that's good enough. I have mostly older equipment (oldest-highly modified SME IV arm from 1989) because I want to spend my time listening to my vast music collection rather than testing equipment. In in my case, if a cable or tweak upgrade works I keep it, if not I return it-audition only.
The only upgrade I want will be costly as my system already sounds great and is lower cost high end. A better imaging/soundstaging/ambiance retrieving speaker than a Legacy Focus.
|
Oresund Space Collective sounds pleasurable on any system!
|
talking about “measurements” without specifying details is pointless.
one measurement to shed a light on how good system is integrated would be measuring sound distortions, phase and FR in actual room, at listener point. you will be surprised with discovery of how many things inside your home are resonating, reflecting, and impact SQ on mega scale!
|
@westcoastaudiophile Absolutely, even with my custom listening room, there's the couch/seating, the equipment racks and equipment, speakers themselves and CDs in a corner.
(If someone is curious concerning my custom room, check out my profile equipment information).
|
Everybody’s ears are different...
Yeah… @curtdr But the sound of whatever is playing should be the same.
A measurement sort of puts it all on a common baseline, and removes the ears from the equation.
If someone is curious…
@fleschler the photo is only a bit of a peek in from a window or doorway.
I feel like Chancy Gardner “watching” it.
|
@holmz but if one is listening to music, ears are NEVER removed from the equation. Hence the real real-world artificiality is when one depends solely on laboratory measurements that have cut the ears off.
|
@holmz The list provides the room info. There's really nothing to see but the cherry plywood walls and surface treatment (can't see the HFTs). I'll try to find the Acoustic Fields video and post my room as finished.
|
@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..
|
Even if the Cornwall's do other things better, the more neutral 15s allow you to hear the differences between recordings better.
I've not heard Pure Audio speakers in a very long time, and certainly not these models. I am however always skeptical when someone says they switched speakers to hear more. It's usually hearing something DIFFERENT than they did before. Not saying he's wrong, but this is a claim I've seen a hundred times from a dozen reviewers and IMHO neutrality was not the reason.
|
holmz but if one is listening to music, ears are NEVER removed from the equation. Hence the real real-world artificiality is when one depends solely on laboratory measurements that have cut the ears off.
this (below) mostly covers it:
I’ve not heard Pure Audio speakers in a very long time, and certainly not these models. I am however always skeptical when someone says they switched speakers to hear more. It’s usually hearing something DIFFERENT than they did before. Not saying he’s wrong, but this is a claim I’ve seen a hundred times from a dozen reviewers and IMHO neutrality was not the reason.
^this^
One can have the same exact music playing on the same system, and every time it can have subtle difference in what we perceive and focus on.
It is like a magic trick at a dealer’s shop, when they say listen to the “shimmer of the cymbals,” that is pretty much all we hear.
We are so busy focusing on one hand, that the other hand can literally pull a rabbit out of the hat or thin air.
So it is not so much that we all hear differently, it is more like we all focus differently, and the same person can change they’re focussing on.
At least with measurements we might get to the point where we find that all of the ones with certain squiggles we either like or don’t like.
And we are not likely to be fooling anyone, as the majority of people seem to find a set of gear either sounds good or doesn’t… and they quickly can acclimate to the sound. And that some measurements correlate with good sound.
To say that the ears are all different would be like saying that the feel of a block of ice or a hot stove is different because all people “feel” differently. I sort of doubt it.
Maybe it is possible…
But I would like to know the temperature, of say a bath, before I get in it… then over time I might find I like 95F water better than 50F or 130F.
Lastly; I do not mind know knowing that my gear is technically inferior, and that I still like it.
I am not going to be listening to graph paper… even though I know some people can read sheet music and hear the sound in their head. For them the ears are not even involved… much like Beethoven and other composers can be partially or totally deaf.
When we see high noise values we can pretty much expect to start with a system that will be hissing.
And when we see a spray of harmonics, like the 4th through 10th trailing out to the right, we know it is not count to be smooth and warm, and we know it before the Beethoven even starts playing.
Arguing about the relative level of 2nd and 3rd harmonics is like comparing the bath water preference of 90, 95 and 100F. Or why we have salt and pepper shakers on the table.
Everyone’s tongues are not that different, some people just do not care for too much spice.
|
@erik_squires @cd318 , +1 on ceiling absorbers. I have absorption panels on the ceiling in the front 1/3 of my room (you can see them a bit in the photo in my profile) and I use Auralex Geofusors back filled with absorption (polyfil) so they double as a bass traps over the MLP and on the ceiling in the back of the room near the corners. They work really well.
|
I do both measurably and pleasurably better. First I made the room measurably better. Then I added immersive audio capabilities for pleasurably better. Depending on the source and the recording I can "increase" the pleasure of the music by changing sound modes ( Stereo, DTS-Neo-X, Audyssey DSX, Auro 3D, Atmos, etc)
|
I haven't tested my system for it's distortion, although I suggest it is low (the speakers have very low distortion (under .4% at 35 Hz). However, I am astonished at the differences in sonic texture of different recordings with close miked jazz maintaining the least differentiation in sound (especially Rudy Van Gelder recordings). The range of sound is as wide as the colors in the rainbow (that's very wide).
|
There are certain things that cannot be determined without measurement.
Is your enjoyment of music one of them?
|
Here’s my dedicated room front door panel phrase:
”You can listen all you mesure, but you can’t mesure all you listen”
Mainly, you can’t mesure sound perception.
Do you agree?
|
@pinotnoir Absolutely! I have a 27 page/20 1312 comment response forum on Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy and an additional rebuttal forum (current) which debunks the absolutists who claim that measurements tell all. ASR/Amir eliminates all cables and tweaks as snake oil if they are not inexpensive (cables) or worthless (tweaks).
|
This chase for neutrality (or accuracy or however you want to call it) makes me wonder. Audio setups with a strong sonic signature aside, it‘s like investing so much in finding something that has least personality. From the top of my hat I can‘t think of any hobby or whatever gives you pleasure where least personality is something widely accepted as the ultimate goal.
“I went out dining, and let me tell you, that casserole was so accurate. I loved its linearity. I measured it.“
I‘m joking of course, but I think there‘s something to it.
|
@pinotnoir , agreed, how can a "single" mic possibly capture the same thing a "pair" of ears does? Impossible.
|
@chmaiwald Great! Food comparison. McDonald's burgers measure better than any other fast food burger for consistency. Despite that, I only eat Angus ground sirloin burgers at Le Petit French restaurant because they taste better to me. Amir's answer-Le Petit's burgers are too expensive so I am throwing away money when I could have purchased half a dozen McDonald's.
Last night I enjoyed listening to a 1912 recording of Gounod's Romeo & Juliet. It wasn't hifi but it had dynamic sounding singing of high quality. Until I moved into my custom listening room 3 years ago, I did not enjoy the sound of these 78 rpm transfers to LP. Now, it's pleasurable and I am stunned at the transfer which had virtually noiseless 78 rpm surfaces. Then I heard the famous Mitropoulos Mahler 1st Symphony from 1941 on CD transfer. That was fabulous (I've made copies for friends who heard it at my home and were also astonished). These were single horn and mike recordings.
|
|
One thing I’ve found very pleasurable is stereo crosstalk cancellation. I love the sound it creates, but find the methods used to achieve it difficult to live with. It tends to be a real "head in a vice" kind of listening experience, often with a divider panel right in my face. I’ve always thought that 2 channel stereo upmixing to more channels could be a better solution, but there’s no easy way to do it cleanly. There are sophisticated methods but I haven’t tried them yet.
Last night I decided to try a rather messy and easy way of turning two channel recordings into three channel playback. The center channel is created by simply summing L+R, the Left channel is mixed as L-R, the Right channel is mixed as R-L. It occurred to me that if these three channels were played through speakers positioned correctly they would produce crosstalk elimination while also allowing sounds from different directions in the sound field to approach the head in roughly the right directions. It works and sounds pretty good, but the more surprising thing was how pleasant it sounded anywhere in the room. I tried setting up the speakers closer or further apart, arranged in a U-shape, or all flat against the wall. Regardless it produced a nice sense of spaciousness on stereo recordings with center panned vocalists and instrumentals staying behind the center speaker no matter where I moved in the room, with a respectable sense of depth. This ain’t accurate. It’s messy. But if you’re not in the sweet spot, or even if you are in the sweet spot, it does make center panned sounds much cleaner as there’s no interference patterns or cross talk on anything panned center, and overall it’s just a downright pleasant arrangement to listen to when you’re sitting off axis or moving around the room.
In some ways, this arrangement is "pleasurably better."
|
The effect of your mixing is quite similar to the follwoing speakers placements and wiring suggested by one of the members here (sorry I do not recall his name). The 1st pair of speakers are wired normally and place close together to simulate your center chaneel. On the 2nd pair of speakers however, the positive terminals are wired normally but the negative (ground) terminals are wired together. Due to the phase (polarity) opposition, the R2 will only remits the R-L signal and L2 remits the L-R signal. I tried this setup and, admitedly, I do not find the sound more pleasing than playing 1st pair of stereo speakers alone with proper placement. The normal setup will render better imaging and soundstage, etc.
|
@holmz "To say that the ears are all different would be like saying that the feel of a block of ice or a hot stove is different because all people “feel” differently."
No... we have glasses or custom lasik to correct for differences in vision, some people even have color blindness, and we all have different hearing profiles. If we all had 20/20 vision and hearing, nobody would need correction. As for old and hot, 32 is 32 and 212 is 212, freezing and boiling.... (and even so, some people wear jackets when it's 70 degree weather, while others are loving it in shorts and t-shirt). But that’s not the same as flat to 20hz when my hearing isn’t flat to 20 hz.... If my hearing rolls off at 12hz, then a speaker that rises at that point might actually sound "flatter" to me, at my point of perception, than one that does not rise to compensate for my ears’ rolloff point.
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. I’ve seen plenty of "technically perfect" performances that were boring, boring to me, anyway. There’s something to be said for heart and soul... immeasurable factors. It doesn’t make sense to say one "should" prefer this or that sound, especially if one is reasonably cognizant of audio. Somebody who tells me I should prefer some speaker instead of one that I actually, in usage in my home, like pleasurably better... well, I can confidently dismiss that person’s opinion in that case.
Saying flat is ideal always reminds me of philosophers who have very neat ideal theories which then bump up against real world experience; I’m oversimplifying, but Kant’s "everybody should be treated as if they were all equally rational" comes to mind, and Rawl’s "social justice" theories, as does Marx’s so-called "scientific" economic theories, however compelling on paper... some universal theory of human experience will never, as far as I can tell, be formulated.
Not to dismiss measurements, I check 'em out myself, but technical measurements of equipment don't dictate the pleasure factor of individual listeners... never have, and, as far as I can tell, never will. The evidence of this claim can easily be seen by the variety of individual choices sophisticated audiophiles make when it comes to our own preferred speakers, for example, in our homes. In old school terms, "east coast sound vs. west coast sound," ... and on and on.
|
@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.
|
@curtdr If we have someone singing, there is only one singer. Whether one person is there watching or a thousand, it is still only one singer. And it does not matter what every member of the audience is hearing, and what their ears measure at the audiologist.
Saying that “we all hear differently” does not make it become 1000 singers.
We may prefer it pitch corrected, or tone corrected, and we may like the room to not colour the sound.
If I have 10 people listen to the same track, they all say that is Bob Dylan. I do not get people claiming that it is The Pixies, The Police or some random piano track.
Whatever they are hearing, that track sounds like the same Bob Dylan that they have heard and that they know.
|
@holmz "And it does not matter what every member of the audience is hearing..."
If you’re a member of the audience, it certainly does! It matters to oneself.
Ultimately, it does not matter what every measurement is telling me, if it doesn’t sound great to me, with my ears, in my room, to my taste.
Like someone earlier in this thread here, I am not here to serve the gear, the gear is here to serve me... so matter how "good" or how "bad" the measurable performance, if it doesn’t serve me pleasurably better, then it has no place in my home. Some "audiophiles" really are more "technophiles;" and technophilia has it’s place, but it ain’t gonna dictate my loving audio preferences.
I’ve heard plenty of speakers that "measure better" but that I do not like as much as certain personal trusty pleasurables, so obviously it would be downright silly to buy the less enjoyable speakers just because they measure better! (unless I’m trying to impress somebody other than myself... or if I’m being masochistic or audio-moralistic and insisting to myself that I should like the less enjoyable speakers, and damnit I’m going to make myself like them better because I "should"... )
|
Ok - I generally agree that one should get what they like.
But if we want the reproduction to still sound like the singer, then we generally want something that is not distorted to hell n back.
Then again I have heard some speakers with a lot of personality that sounded pretty good.
And I have some tube gear, so I must like some distortion, just like everyone else.
But the gear is not too far over on the spectrum of tubey.
I heard some speaker with the low distortion Purifi drivers, and they were pretty outstanding, so it is not like accuracy and low distortion is bad…
|
I heard some speaker with the low distortion Purifi drivers, and they were pretty outstanding, so it is not like accuracy and low distortion is bad…
No, I'm not saying they are either, but that no oscilloscope or calibrated microphone knows the experience you are trying to have, that you want to have, that makes you feel good.
|
No, I’m not saying they are either, but that no oscilloscope or calibrated microphone knows the experience you are trying to have, that you want to have, that makes you feel good.
Yeah true.
But most people find certain distortions are grating.
There is decades of research, that I do not want to just ignore.
i suspect that your “Custom sub integrator‘ integrator thread will be using measurements. And my AVR seems to sound better after the microphone is plugged in and it calibrates itself.
Someone, somewhere, figured out that statistically people like it when it corrects for the room. While I would like to think I am different and unique, the sound seems better when it does it all for me.
I do have some settings which have a tilt, or tone control slope… and I can rattle through to choose the one I like best for that show or movie.
|
But most people find certain distortions are grating.
There is decades of research, that I do not want to just ignore.
I think what most people ignore is that many measurements were done for convenience, or to ensure equitable comparisons between gear and the research into human preference is not the same research on how to lower distortion in an current mirror.
It’s actually different for different people. I can’t stand Pass sound for instance, who famously adds certain types of distortion. Many, many love it. I won’t buy Pass gear because others love it, nor do I avoid it because it has relatively high distortion.
I would happily trade any Pass amp for a Conrad Johnson Premiere 8, which I am sure has higher distortion and even a more limited bandwidth.
This is a great example of what I’m talking about.
My own personal preferences trump both.
i suspect that your “Custom sub integrator‘ integrator thread will be using measurements.
Of course, because it is very hard to deal with bass modes and crossover matching without it, but the final subwoofer level will be what I personally decide.
Someone, somewhere, figured out that statistically people like it when it corrects for the room.
You know, we think that room correction algorithms are exercises in pure math, but they are not. Even when deciding how the algorithms should work, how much of the initial vs. reflected sounds, etc. is... an aesthetic choice made by several different groups of people. The math doesn’t drive the choices. The listening drives the choices of how the algorithms should work for every room correction algorithm.
That is real science. Going from user experience to models and math. That is science. Using 30 year old measurements to determine what is good is not science, it is quality assurance at best, idolatry at worst.
|
It is funny when trying to discuss any subject with nuance how many will misread the intention or position of the OP (i.e. me).
I’m not saying measurements are not useful, I’m declaring what makes them useful is when they serve the purpose of enhancing my sensual experience. The hierarchical order is what I am trying to point out, not a tyranny of one and absence of the other.
Listening to music is my pleasure, much like a meal. It is not my job. It is not a mathematical exercise in assembling very expensive components together so I can accurately see the color of Jupiter’s moons.
Given the recording chain, the variable fads in recording and reproduction over the decades, and the near impossibility of 2 speakers reproducing a complicated soundfield I don’t believe accuracy at the listener location, or even neutrality, is possible. I do not experience sound like an oscilloscope or measurement instrument. I will not put them on a sacred platform as to why or how I choose my gear.
|
Measurements are a tool. Use them wisely! The end result: Pleasure. Ahhhhhh…..🙏
|
If measurements of individual components AND of audio pleasure of individual listeners could be standardized, we end up with only one components in each price category and probably one reviewer who undergoes hearing tests before each review (LOL) I am of opinion that recording techniques (proven by the simple fact they sound so different, starting with fact that microphones are really different) and individual psychoacoustics (proven by the fact that all listeners in a given room seldom fully agree) can not be absolutely compared because they are what they are: individual by default. Anybody who think that democracy (regardless how you can agree to implement it) is the best system for audiophiles ruling their own principalities, is a dreamer at best and naive fool at worst. Coincidentally, the most objective reviewers and best discussion forums must respect INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES.
|
how do you measure happiness? |
Happiness is also dependent on the individuals tastes and needs.
|
@westcoastaudiophile
You can't baby, you can only measure lust. 🤣
Serious answer though is that there's a tremendous amount of scientific work on human preference and perception. As you might imagine, much of it is geared to product development.
|
@bhvf
That probably goes to you and @curiousjim's posts above about garage systems and old receivers. If that's what brings them joy, so be it. They probably spend money on something I will never understand why someone would spend money on also.
Lol, my garage system is an old boombox. 😁
|
Agreed. Finding the particular 'sound" that you enjoy is what matters most.
That may explain why Audio Note has such a cult following. They are just drivers in a box but, from what I gather, create a rather addictive and pleasurable sound, regardless of absolute sound quality.
That is why reading magazine reviews can be so worthless, even misleading in the search for our own audio truth.
They may hear crystal clear highs and imply it is a good thing. But you have to listen to it for yourself to decide if it is a good thing to YOU.
I got a NOS DAC just out of curiosity. Sounded kind of dead. But after extended listening decided I like it much more that the Delta-Sigma stuff. The hyped sound is an exciting ride at first but later results in a "low" in the name of listening fatigue. Also found NOS had benefits i never listened for to nor realized the value of before such as better timing.
|
