Accurate and boring or colored and fun

[MattHooper]

This criticism overlooks the fundamental reason for the generic prescription: that we are hearing real sound sources, such as voices and instruments, every day, and apparently, when tested, we pretty much universally prefer it when reproduced music sounds like that.

To claim you prefer it any other way is a bit like saying you don't like the sound of reality and wish it sounded different. Our brains, it seems, are hard-wired not to think like that: instead, we think the sound of reality is comfortable, and digressions induce discomfort. It's logical really.

Oh how I wish that applied to my son ;-)

We actually have a good Dynaudio car stereo system that sounds relatively neutral to my ears.

But every time I drive it after my son has used the car, I have to switch the tone controls/eq back to flat from the awful "smile" EQ he uses for his music, which is a lot of rap music.

One thing I've realized over the years is that most people who are not audiophiles never give a thought to the idea that music can actually sound "real" or "more realistic." It's just..music...they listen to it on all manner of utterly colored systems and they generally don't treat it as something they are trying to make sound "real" but simply whatever sound moves them. That's one reason so many of my guests are shocked when they hear my system. They'd never even considered music could sound "real." My son isn't trying to get his rap music to sound more like real life sounds - it's utterly artificial even though it contains voices. He just finds he's more moved by the music when he can feel the bass a pumpin' and the highs a cuttin'.

(He does, btw, also enjoy listening to my system. But I have little doubt if it were his system and he had tone controls, he'd be dialing it like he does the car stereo).

 

[Newman]

most people who are not audiophiles never give a thought to the idea that music can actually sound "real" or "more realistic." It's just..music...they listen to it on all manner of utterly colored systems and they generally don't treat it as something they are trying to make sound "real" but simply whatever sound moves them.

Sure, but put them in a controlled test and ask those same people which they prefer. It's been done, and they prefer the one that's closer to "real". Even though they apparently don't care by their choice of audio gear.

So, it does apply to them too.

 

[Newman]

My uneasiness with the generic recommendation is that it's a fantasy. No loudspeaker has ever produced a flat FR. Not in all of history.

No, it doesn't have to be 100% flat. The closer one is preferred. It's not 'perfection or nothing'.

 

[MattHooper]

Sure, but put them in a controlled test and ask those same people which they prefer. It's been done, and they prefer the one that's closer to "real". Even though they apparently don't care by their choice of audio gear.

So, it does apply to them too.

Yes, like most on this site I'm aware of the research. What I wrote wasn't refuting it.

 

[krabapple]

Exactly, they veil the judgement in what seems like neutral, accepting language, but the message remains clear: "I wouldn't do that, but if you want to, well ...."

'The message remains clear'

You're doing wonderfully.

 

[krabapple]

Perhaps the reason that the generic recommendation, for a smooth, flat and extended direct sound FR (and a tonally consistent reflected sound signature), is attracting criticism, is on the basis of "who are you to tell me what I prefer: we are all individuals with specific tastes etc." Sounds familiar?

Perhaps , except...no one is actually 'telling me what I prefer'. This isn't a 'muh freedums' issue. (Can't deny that ignorant people might see it as that, though.)

99.9% of critical kickback against audiophile claims comes from audiophiles making this illogical leap:
"I know I prefer A over B. That means I know what causes that preference."

Science says: nope.