Pleasurably better, not measurably better

I think a lot of audiophiles talk about what sounds better. 

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.

You have no choice. What you hear is measurable. As long as you measure correctly it can be measured. Whether its distortion, frequency response, time smear.

Get your measurements perfect and you will have perfect sound.

I assume you began this topic based on your experience with those SNR1 revelator speakers you built. You chose what looked like good drivers yet ended up with imperfect sound. If you cant figure out why they measure fine but sound bad thats your problem to solve. Thats not an excuse to claim that measurements and what we hear lie at opposite ends of the spectrum.

@Kenjit You smell butt hurt, cause all you do is bring up non-squitor complain about speakers which you’ve never heard. You on the other hand have gone on and on with BS about your speakers, and never posted anything nearly as comprehensive as I have.

That was fine when you were in fifth grade but now here you are among adults, acting the same way. I don’t know but maybe you want to step up? Might be easier to take you seriously. Otherwise admit you are madly in love with those speakers and they take up all of the space in your head rent-free, cause you bring up my speakers more than I do.  You want them don't you?  You think about them at night and wish to make them yours, but you can't!

@chayro  - You are right and I had to edit my OP to say "technophiles" specifically.  My bad.

I have a friend from college that still has the same receiver and speakers that he bought way back when and is still incredibly happy with his setup. Heck, my brother is really happy with the sound that comes out of his phone! I will never be able to convince them why I have the kit I do. 
Measurements be damned!

@curiousjim You bring up the other side of the extreme.  Systems which measure a lot better, but which for the buyer has no more value. 

This is another case when measurements have no value.  I can't tell that person with a garage stereo my system is worth more if he doesn't actually sense more joy.

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.

@curiousjim - Yep.  And even among audiophiles this may happen.  I just can't listen comfortably for long to a stereo in a live room.  Many audiphiles absolutely can! I envy them.  To them, my room treatments are worth $0.

I am on track with your thinking and have often felt the same way. Getting the sound accurately reproduced is really just the beginning. What I have recently experienced is a build that has a lot more bass detail and yet at the same time is bass heavy. But as it turns out, I enjoy this for listening. In fact, I get to hear what else is in the music. It was written, it was played and recorded, but not heard after that. Now, I hear those bass details and marvel at what was missing.

 Since my hearing has changed in the treble area, I really miss the 'air' of the music. I got a lot out of the venue where the music was recorded, but these days, I have to aim my interest elsewhere. 

 Midrange will always be important. Again, I like detail but short of harsh, that's for sure. And I want the lower mids to have presence but not at a level of distraction.

 So it becomes the end game, pleasing ourselves with music, not graphs.

Pleasurably better...I like it. I listen to music to relax. When I do comparisons of equipment I base my final decisions on how I feel when listening to it.  I consider myself a scientifically and mathematically oriented person but would never want a good measuring (according to what people say is good measuring with what we have available today) piece of equipment to take away the joy I get from listening to something I enjoy. 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.

bhvf,

  Only recently, I showed a tool to a couple of people who had no real interest or even understanding of it. Their reaction was one of 'why would you spend that kind of money on something so basic?' Same reason I don't understand you buying many multiple pairs of shoes. 

 Audio and how each person enjoys it varies, but as long as the enjoyment is there, what's to criticize.

@4krowme Absolutely agree!

Good post.

This is probably a good way to look at it. Described as the accelerating return only creates controversy. I have been thinking about this as of late.

Looking at my enjoyment, it increases with greater sound quality… a lot. So, for instance I will not listen to a $10 radio… I will listen to a $2K system… but not realy enjoy it, but I start getting into it say, at $10K (I am using $ as a proxy for sound quality… let’s not get side tracked). My enjoyment increases with greater sound quality, faster than cost. Hence, my lifelong commitment to better system… the better… by far giving me greater and greater enjoyment.

I tried an elemental plot (overly simplified for folks that don’t look at charts daily.

the point is, for audiophiles, pleasure increases rapidly and continues to increase faster than cost.

With my audio choices pleasurably and measurably go hand in hand.

The measure I use are my ears, which if I do my research, talk to others, and then choose upgrades wisely, gives me an increase in pleasure.

I like the phrase @erik_squires  It's pithy wisdom. Thanks. 

Get your measurements perfect and you will have perfect sound.

You will only have perfect sound when musicians play perfectly, recording and mastering engineers do a perfect job and you find perfect playback equipment, none of which will ever happen.

“Get your measurements perfect and you will have perfect sound.”

Sure… if you have them all. The problem is the measurement problem is so oversimplified… it does not come close to characterizing sound as heard. It is like using stick figures to describe a person running across a field… you are only getting the gist.

"Measurements" seem like it refers to a unified set of practices. But it's a plurality; measurements are of different phenomena, with different scales, all with variable bearing on audibility, let alone "pleasing" audibility.  

Imagine if cooks just took "pro-seasoning" vs. "anti-seasoning" positions -- without any further qualification. It would be laughable.

Enjoying how it sounds to you is all that’s important. 

Enjoying how it sounds to you is all that’s important.

Agreed. I was enjoying things a lot and then I decided to try measuring the reflections and frequency curve in my room. After mitigating some peaks and troughs and eliminating some reflections, I enjoyed it more.

Measurements facilitated more enjoyment. That’s why I like measurements and why they are also important.

@hilde45 

I like the food analogy. Consider predicting how people will react to a dish by measuring the pH, thickness, saltiness, sweetness. Characterizing the food by single parameters is almost hopeless.  So you have the characteristics of a mixture and peoples values compounding the problem.

I also like food analogy - imagine that you order famous Korean dish known for it salty and sour taste, but you cover it with sugar to your taste.  Is it still original dish?
When I offer green tea to my friends they put two teaspoons of sugar into it.  It is perfectly OK, but it isn't a green tea IMHO.  You listen to clarinet, that produces only odd harmonics, thru amplifier that adds even harmonics (warm sound).  Do you still listen to clarinet or your syropy version of it?  You can do whatever you want - it is free country, but words "faithful reproduction" still mean something in both audio and food.

@ghdprentice You got at the heart of it, first, when you said, "The problem is the measurement problem is so oversimplified… it does not come close to characterizing sound as heard."

In early psychology, there is the idea of "minima sensibilia," roughly the threshold at which some phenomenon can be sensed. If we had that for audio measurements, it would help -- somewhat. I'm convinced that there is much we hear that no one knows how to measure for, yet. Skeptics will say this is just "subjective bias" but that catchall move just ends inquiry, cold. There's more at work, I'd expect.

@curiousjim

I like the food analogy. Consider predicting how people will react to a dish by measuring the pH, thickness, saltiness, sweetness. Characterizing the food by single parameters is almost hopeless.  So you have the characteristics of a mixture and peoples values compounding the problem.

@hilde45 @ghdprentice 

Really good anology, I like it! And certainly no well mannered person would ever attack another for discussing the ph of a wine or the saltiness of the soup or the sweetness of the pie. :-)

Pleasurably better, not measurably better.

Love it. There's simply no argument against it save for trolling and insults and it brings us all back to the point of this hobby: it's what we, ourselves, enjoy.

Remove dogmatic objectivism from the equation and you're left with personal preferences, self enjoyment and the (happily) loss of peer pressure from those too tightly wound. 

All the best,
Nonoise

Technophiles: Is pleasurability measuable?

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.

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

No?  First, I don't believe that "accuracy" is really possible in a speaker/room combination outside of the original recording space, nor do I believe the engineers would have mixed to reproduce that space.  Next, if you look at the research undertaken by JBL and Harman over time, speaker makers and measurements were based on human desire, not energy time curves.  Those who misunderstand that always end up with systems far too bright and dry.

Lastly why should I care about accuracy if it isn't more engaging to listen to?

I'm not buying a telescope to measure the distance or size or material composition of a distant star.  I'm not buying a tool to help me measure the amount of chlorine in a pool.  I'm buying gear that makes me feel good.  At best I can achieve a system that sounds good with a wide variety of source materials.

Above all, I will not abdicate my right to use my personal preferences to a lab instrument, of which I have several here. 😁

I decide what sounds better or worse to me and what is worth more or less money to spend on, not measurement gear or reviewers.

THEY all serve me, not me serving my gear.

Pleasurably better could go way beyond just the sound quality of a system. I personally love butter smooth FM tuner dials that have a good deal of mass and inertia and can coast a bit if you turn them quickly. A little static in the signal on a stormy night can add to my sense of coziness. I also like the little incandescent lights on the fronts of old analog dials and indicators rather than matrix panel displays. I think an LED would do as well as long as it was also warm white like the incandescent.

When it comes to sound quality, the debate is not only what sounds better, but what differences can we actually hear vs. differences that we perceive as a result of suggestion from our other senses. I’m all for allowing for other sensory input to color my perception of the sound quality in a positive way. I’ve noticed with binaural recordings on headphones that I cannot get a realistic sense of the sound having a large spaciousness to it if I’m seeing that I’m in a small bedroom. I just can’t do it. My eyes effect how I perceive the sound. The senses work together to create an impression. If I get into a larger room with a higher ceiling I can then perceive the sound as more spacious and enjoyable. Also while wearing headphones if I move my head around it can destroy the spacious effect temporarily. I need to sit still and face in a constant direction. Perhaps head tracking headphones could help with that. Maybe some day I'll get some. 

@asctim  - Also, consider ceiling absorbers.  Amazing way to open up the sound.

@erik_squires 

Thanks for that. I've noticed a lot of audiophiles who use extensive room treatments often leave the ceiling lightly treated or not treated at all. Some of them say they don't like it with too much absorption on the ceiling. Others might just be reticent to hang things on their ceiling. Do you focus on first reflection points when using ceiling  treatments? 

In regard to my post, while listening to headphones I wouldn't expect the ceiling absorbers to do much unless the headphones were very leaky and projected considerably more sound power away from my ears than towards them. 

@asctim Sorry missed that you meant with headphones!! Hahaha. :)

I think you can always deaden a room too much, but generally speaking I have found that room treatment works in the plane you apply it.  That is, if you treat the floor and ceiling it adds height to the image.  If you add behind the speaker and listener it adds depth.

I did a whole thread on first reflection points which was misunderstood I think by many readers.  I don't think room treatments work very well at all until you reach a certain critical mass.  If you ONLY treat first reflection points I can barely hear any benefit at all.  It is only when the room overall has enough treatment to quiet it down that the 1st reflection points matter.

No?  First, I don't believe that "accuracy" is really possible in a speaker/room combination outside of the original recording space, nor do I believe the engineers would have mixed to reproduce that space.  Next, if you look at the research undertaken by JBL and Harman over time, speaker makers and measurements were based on human desire, not energy time curves.  Those who misunderstand that always end up with systems far too bright and dry.

Lastly why should I care about accuracy if it isn't more engaging to listen to?

I'm not buying a telescope to measure the distance or size or material composition of a distant star.  I'm not buying a tool to help me measure the amount of chlorine in a pool.  I'm buying gear that makes me feel good.  At best I can achieve a system that sounds good with a wide variety of source materials.

Couldn't agree more with this, not to mention all the circuitry that music goes through in the recording process should definitely change the sound of the musicians in the studio.

I cringe when the word “accuracy” is introduced. The conversation tends to head towards simplistic measurements and goes off the rails.

For me, I need the gestalt right… conversations about accuracy tend to go to a few single measurements that completely miss the point. I have been a scientist and technologist for all of my life and when coming to carefully reasoned and logical conclusion based on all sorts of detailed data, I always ask my team, “does this pass the laugh test?”… if you look at the question… and the conclusion… does it make you break out laughing? As in, that is ridiculous! If so, go back to the drawing board, because there is something wrong with your premises. Ultimately science is about observation, then postulating possible causes and relationships, and if your theory doesn’t fit reality… it is wrong.

Anyway. Bring up accuracy, and typically over-simplified models of the world seem to get proposed and the whole conversation seems to go off the rails. So, I try to stay away from the word. I feel my system captures the gestalt of a musical performance… but I suspect measuring some simple parameters might say otherwise.

Measurements are definitely helpful. But what everyone experiences as pleasant varies. And what we call pleasant we tend to define as good as well. There the trouble starts.

I´d never expect anyone to like my prefered sonic signature.

When I bought my first stereo the shop owner told me he had sold an amp/speaker combination that was horrible to his ears, but the buyer was a professional cellist and the setup reproduced his experience as a player sitting in the orchestra very well.

„Pleasurably better“ – that´s a good term, because it´s asking to define what exactly is pleasurable. I also like the „euphony“, literally translated as „good sound“. We know euphoria and that it´s experienced in individual ways, so here´s an audio specific sister word.

I think culture, background and training are at play here. Those deeply engrained in the scientific and engineering communities are disciplined to defend their positions with hard data. It’s part of the culture and for valid reasons, when the goal is to prevent airplanes from falling out of the sky, for example. Those among us who have developed highly sensitive "antennas" to various audio phenomena and emassed a farily extensive vocabulary to relate those observations to others are quite comfortable sans data. Attempts to minimize the attachment of data to subjective audio experiences often frustrates data-driven individuals. It’s understandable. You can’t blame a compass for pointing north.

There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" here. A little intellectual humility is a great way to begin (and, end) a conversation.

Good post, Erik. It’s been a pleasure reading the comments.

Those deeply engrained in the scientific and engineering communities are disciplined to defend their positions with hard data.

I think there are a lot of people who want to play at being scientists or engineers when they defend their technocratic positions on audio.  The giveaway is when they attempt to make claims about metrics that are simply not in evidence.

Lower THD for instance.  Not proven to sound better and under some circumstances higher may be preferred.  Like measuring the hardness of a metal.  Yes, we can measure hardness, but is harder better?  That's a different issue and judged by application.  Measuring hardness is an engineering discipline, but claiming it is universally better is outside the scope of the discipline.

Also want to point out that Harman, and JBL and I think Floyd Toole have done actual research on audio and human preference.  It is not impossible to research this, and come to an idea about consumer preferences.  It doesn't always align with pure technocracy.

Bose for instance is an organization that, like it or not, knows a lot about consumer listening preferences.  You and I may not fit their demographic, but if you don't believe they know the sound that sells at a store you are sadly mistaken.  Please don't argue Bose good or bose Bad. I only want to talk about Pleasurable research.  it exists, and it's not the same as technocratic quests for minimal this maximal that.  It's quite complicated.

I am always impressed with the level of precision music listeners will use to modify their spaces to get that perfect sound. I also admit that I am just too lazy to follow similar methods. 

@femoore12 True! Speaking for myself, I tend to modify the sound to get the perfect space.

Only yesterday I fiddled around with an EQ, using long cables do I could sit on the sofa with it. It really improves the sound = the space (living room) = listening experience.

@erik_squires 

If you ONLY treat first reflection points I can barely hear any benefit at all.  It is only when the room overall has enough treatment to quiet it down that the 1st reflection points matter.

That makes a lot of sense, and matches some of my experiences. Truth be told, even though I sell acoustic treatments I'm not necessarily as experienced with listening directly to the effects they have as many of my customers and other people are who have the means to employ extensive treatments in their rooms and experiment a lot. I have set up the sound room we have here with increasing amounts of treatment and noticed that at a certain point where all the walls were well treated and the floor was treated as well, that's when the room walls "disappearing" effect really started to work for me, making for a quite compelling listening experience. Unfortunately that setup had to be disassembled as we were getting overwhelmed with stock we couldn't move out because of a shortage of shipping containers. Right now the room is set up with a studio mixing/mastering AttackWall arrangement. That is interesting to listen to and compare to my recollection of the hifi setup. I like the AttackWall because it's clear, clean and precise but it doesn't create the ambient effect that the full room treatment did. I enjoy it but in a different way. 

I am always impressed with the level of precision music listeners will use to modify their spaces to get that perfect sound.

@femoore12 

Speaking only for myself, as usual, I'm not trying to get to perfect sound.  I'm trying to get to a place where music sounds good and the room vanishes.  My investment in speakers, room treatment and DSP is for those two items.  I'm not really concerned with perfect anymore. :)

Pleasurably better sound makes me pleasure myself.

@erik_squires 

"I think there are a lot of people who want to play at being scientists or engineers when they defend their technocratic positions on audio."

I believe that there are many who are unwilling to acknowledge that there may be gaps in their knowledge base, as well as having a low risk tolerance for being proven wrong.  

Then, there's the "SGR" thing.  I became familiar with this term back in my home automation days when a gathering of really smart guys would occupy the same room and quickly attempt to establish who is the "Smartest Guy in the Room."  Audio forums provide a somewhat less confrontational venue, but can be rather energetic at times.

It's all pretty harmless in this enviromment.  Some other situations, not so much.

I look at (meaningful) specs, measurements and other objective data to identify items of interest. That enables one to cut to the chase and start experiencing the pleasure of good sound. You might hear some good things and not have anything objective to back up what you are hearing, but that is much more of a crap shoot and also a very costly one potentially.  The trick is to be able to identify the objective pieces of information that are meaningful.  That is not something that just happens.  You have to live and learn.  In any case we all just do the best we can and hopefully it all works out sooner rather than later. 

Then, there's the "SGR" thing.  I became familiar with this term back in my home automation days when a gathering of really smart guys would occupy the same room and quickly attempt to establish who is the "Smartest Guy in the Room."  Audio forums provide a somewhat less confrontational venue, but can be rather energetic at times.

This reminds me of the nascent days of "nerds" and the comedy films that flourished back in the day. They always competed with each other saying "my kung-fu is better than your kung fu". Things haven't changed much.

All the best,
Nonoise

@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!