Are you Euphonophile?

[Theo]

The latest post by Archimago - On transparency, in response to "Measuring Emotional Connections to Music" -
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/07/musings-zen-and-art-of-high-fidelity.html
addresses euphonic distortion as follows :

..."Fidelity" and "accuracy" of audio reproduction have meanings in engineering hence the importance of measurements to make sure that the music reproduction chain acts as a faithful conduit of the recorded information - nothing more, nothing less. For some, it's not as much about fidelity as striving for euphonic reproduction (I've previously called these people euphonophiles, this is not meant to be pejorative!). For some, "so long as it sounds good to me", then that's the goal. While the pursuit of "high fidelity" is an idealistic one where a "gold standard" can be expressed with objective parameters (eg. zero distortion, a target frequency response, noise below any hope of auditory perception, ideal timing characteristics, calibrated room interactions...), those who seek euphonic reproduction can be seen as more pragmatic in some ways yet deviating from seeking to achieve high fidelity....
As usual, I found the whole paper worth reading, even if sometimes redundant with previous posts.

On this particular topic, the following question seems interesting to me:
Am I Euphonophile? Do I stick to transparency? Both?

I consider myself as both, depending on the way I listen to the music. If I want to really listen to it - somehow get into it - I want accuracy. If I just want to enjoy an atmosphere, especially for vocals, I like the "warmth" of "euphonia" of my second system...

Any thoughts?

 

[Wombat]

That is OK.

The problem is believing one's own singular perceptions, gear and environment included, are relative to others' personal different situations.

 

[sergeauckland]

I'm totally on the side of transparency. If then I don't like the sound, that's my fault, not that of the equipment, which I know to be blameless.

It so happens that I have NEVER, EVER, heard something sound bad that didn't also measure badly in one or more respects. As far as I'm concerned, this 'measures well but sounds bad' is impossible. If it sounds bad, the something also measures badly to account for it.

S

 

[solderdude]

Some will be strictly Transparancy guys others Euphonic guys.
Maybe camp A thinks camp B is nuts or vice versa.
I say.... feel free to like both sound sigs... doesn't make you crazy nor do you have to choose any specific 'camp'.
being Euphonophile AND transparencophile is perfectly fine when you can enjoy music that way.

I heard a lot of 'bad sound' coming from excellent gear. In all of those cases the bad sound originates from poor recordings or poor transducers or circumstances.
Also heard a lot of 'good sound' coming from not-that-well measuring gear.

But... very poor measuring gear always seems to result in poor sound.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

The latest post by Archimago - On transparency, in response to "Measuring Emotional Connections to Music" -
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/07/musings-zen-and-art-of-high-fidelity.html
addresses euphonic distortion as follows :

..."Fidelity" and "accuracy" of audio reproduction have meanings in engineering hence the importance of measurements to make sure that the music reproduction chain acts as a faithful conduit of the recorded information - nothing more, nothing less. For some, it's not as much about fidelity as striving for euphonic reproduction (I've previously called these people euphonophiles, this is not meant to be pejorative!). For some, "so long as it sounds good to me", then that's the goal. While the pursuit of "high fidelity" is an idealistic one where a "gold standard" can be expressed with objective parameters (eg. zero distortion, a target frequency response, noise below any hope of auditory perception, ideal timing characteristics, calibrated room interactions...), those who seek euphonic reproduction can be seen as more pragmatic in some ways yet deviating from seeking to achieve high fidelity....
As usual, I found the whole paper worth reading, even if sometimes redundant with previous posts.

On this particular topic, the following question seems interesting to me:
Am I Euphonophile? Do I stick to transparency? Both?

I consider myself as both, depending on the way I listen to the music. If I want to really listen to it - somehow get into it - I want accuracy. If I just want to enjoy an atmosphere, especially for vocals, I like the "warmth" of "euphonia" of my second system...

Any thoughts?

I see this entire conversation as rather funny because often the so-called transparency thinking (loving) objectivists easily flip and make clearly objective comments when they feel like it. If music was not pleasant sounding one would not listen.

 

[sergeauckland]

I see this entire conversation as rather funny because often the so-called transparency thinking (loving) objectivists easily flip and make clearly objective comments when they feel like it. If music was not pleasant sounding one would not listen.

I often listen to music I don't like. I call it education.

S.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

I often listen to music I don't like. I call it education.

S.

You do not like the way the music sounds (fidelity) or you do not like the music/ song itself?

 

[Cosmik]

I'm a transparency person. If there's any euphonics to be applied for artistic reasons I'm happy for the record producers to do it.

There is a major difference between record producers applying effects and the audiophile imagining their system can do it. A blanket effect over the whole composite, mixed-down recording is fundamentally different from effects applied separately to the individual elements - which the producers have access to. Maybe second harmonic distortion really can make a vocal sound more pleasing in the context of a studio creation. But second harmonic distortion applied to the entire composite track is just a source of unmusical intermodulation distortion, the level of which varies with the complexity of the recording. The audiophile's valves or whatever may sound acceptable on girl-and-guitar, but will sound atrocious on a full blown symphony orchestra.

 

[maverickronin]

I see this entire conversation as rather funny because often the so-called transparency thinking (loving) objectivists easily flip and make clearly subjective comments when they feel like it. If music was not pleasant sounding one would not listen.

Did you mean subjective there where I edited/bolded?

I'm a transparency person. If there's any euphonics to be applied for artistic reasons I'm happy for the record producers to do it.

There is a major difference between record producers applying effects and the audiophile imagining their system can do it. A blanket effect over the whole composite, mixed-down recording is fundamentally different from effects applied separately to the individual elements - which the producers have access to. Maybe second harmonic distortion really can make a vocal sound more pleasing in the context of a studio creation. But second harmonic distortion applied to the entire composite track is just a source of unmusical intermodulation distortion, the level of which varies with the complexity of the recording. The audiophile's valves or whatever may sound acceptable on girl-and-guitar, but will sound atrocious on a full blown symphony orchestra.

Definitely this^

I've heard various highly praised (headphone) tube amps which practically turn my preferred death metal into static. (People who don't like death metal insert your own joke here.)
The "best" ones usually don't get any better than "turned the lead guitarist's distortion pedal most of the way down and fed the final mix though it".

It makes me wonder if this is partly or largely a genre issue as sometimes I will prefer a sparse mix fed through such a distortion generating circuit. I've had a few such devices over the years and I might still have/use them if they fit my music library better.

 

[amirm]

Vast majority of people who think they are hearing euphonic distortion they like, are not hearing such. They are thinking they are hearing it but in reality, the device is likely transparent to their ears as much as another.

Until such time that subjective evaluations are done correctly, conclusions cannot be reached about their preferences.

 

[solderdude]

"Vast majority of people who think they are hearing euphonic distortion they like, are not hearing such. They are thinking they are hearing it but in reality, the device is likely transparent to their ears as much as another."

That is my experience as well.

 

[sergeauckland]

You do not like the way the music sounds (fidelity) or you do not like the music/ song itself?

Sometimes both, sometimes one, sometimes the other.

S

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Sometimes both, sometimes one, sometimes the other.

S

Well, I guess many of us do the same at times. When it comes to bad recordings a less revealing system can at times be beneficial. 50s and 60s rock can sound great on a system of similar vintage.

 

[garbulky]

When I hear the words "euphonic" I hear a "romanticized colored sound". Aka the "tube magic". Overall I don't care for tube magic. But I have heard one tube amp, of which there can be no doubt it doesn't measure well which sounded utterly fantastic. Colored no doubt, but gosh the sound was intoxicating. Too bad it was a custom made amp modded out of an old cheap amp. So no way to buy it. But that exception not withstanding, overall unless this coloration is done really nicely, I'm not a fan of obviously colored sound.

I guess if euphonic means "as long as it sounds good to me" then I guess that's exactly what I am. My purpose for my system is to provide me satisfaction. If I'm not getting it, then I don't have any problem getting rid of it for something that I like. Now I like to think that's because of good quality components, design, and performance. But the ear and mind cannot really tell what is causing the good sound. It can only guess at it.
I play acoustic music instruments (and do amateur recordings in stereo). And for me, the importance is to get a good realistic tone and imaging similar to what they sound like in real life.

And I suppose where do measurements play a part in it. Simply put I evaluate gear exactly how I normally would use the gear. In a subjective non level matched setting. I am interested in measurements to tell me how well a piece of gear performs in a measurement suite and to provide me information I would not know otherwise.

But, always, subjective listening will trump the measurements in making a decision. If I don't like my experience when using the gear, then I don't use the gear - even if the measurements are clearly better. Usually at this point somebody will usually talk about DBT and how it's more valid than subjective listening. But I think I've had that discussion many times over here, so I'm going to leave that alone. Overall if it doesn't sound like real acoustic instruments playing in a real acoustic space then it's not for me.

 

[Wombat]

Can adding distortion to an acoustic instrument sound make it sound more like itself(natural)? No. Fidelity to the source does that.

For Euphonophiles:

 

[JJB70]

The thing I have never understood in this debate is the inherent contradiction and irrationality in the ardent fervour in which many audiophiles (encouraged my magazines) have a complete aversion to the idea of providing equipment with tone controls or using EQ simultaneously with extolling the virtues of characterful sounding equipment (i.e. equipment with induced distortion).

I can understand why people like euphonic distortion if they think it sounds better, but in that case surely it is much more sensible to achieve it with EQ rather than spend $$$$$$$'s on a distorted sound you're then stuck with, or trying to compensate for it by spending $$$$$$$'s on other parts of the chain which also has a particular sonic characteristic to try and make it sound acceptable? But, more fundamentally, if you buy something which has already sacrificed accuracy for euphonic distortion then you have already thrown accuracy and "purity" of the sound chain away therefore I find it completely irrational to refuse to accept tone controls and EQ on the basis they add distortion, detract from signal purity etc (BTW, unless very badly designed I do not accept that tone controls do detract from anything). And that is not to mention EQ can be extremely valuable in adjusting a system for room acoustics.

PS. I tend to be in the accuracy camp in terms of judging equipment but I'll admit that I do use EQ at times.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I am a euphonophile. I like to approach that preferred sound very accurately. But if it doesn't sound good......I'm not going to listen to it recreationally.

Now in years past when the whole system was tuned toward a certain euphony, I noticed some recordings spun more often than others. Change a major piece of the reproduction pipeline, and with a differently tuned euphony factor rarely played recordings were listened to more often and some no longer got much time spinning. Most of my favorites still were listened to with a slightly different (hopefully improved) flavor.

I once considered doing some per album EQ and maybe other processing for all my music. Upon further reflection I knew what Toole calls the circle of confusion made that a bad idea.

When using Tact Room Correction it had 9 memories for various correction curves. I had one I judged most accurate. Then two that tilted FR a bit upward, and two that tilted a bit downward. One more was for low sound level listening. That was pretty useful until loudness wars made everything sound harsh and maxed out.

 

[RayDunzl]

I'll admit that I do use EQ at times.

Me too.

Here's a sample frequency response "adjustment" for my setup, taken at the output of the preamp, to measurably correct the frequency response at the listening position.

(with no EQ = a flat line, left and right traces)

MartinLogan with CheezeSubs, and a "sharp" correction filter:

For JBL LSR 308 (without subs), more gentle calculation, but overall, a similar adjustment:

 

[tomelex]

Audio is in my opinion supposed to be enjoyed first and foremost, that's why that old 1940s tube radio in the garage can rock me and I have fun with it. In my world, after much experimenting with mono and stereo, and tone controls and EQ and all manner of processors, you do have to agree that once you sort of "select" or create your sound, then you paint everything with that same brush. Now, that's not bad, but you can tell you are missing details or overblowing details or whatever.

Now, since two channel stereo is so weird sounding in general (you listen to mono for a few days then snap back on the stereo switch and it will sound contrived and forced) then I just don't expect too much out of it. That's why I have no problem experimenting or using processing in any form to make me happy with the sound.

I have found however, that a more accurate system to start off with allows more details to be heard in the music, and I am a detail person, so "processing" that to my tastes I can tell when I am losing too much detail, then need to back off.

Audio is a very personal hobby in the end.

 

[JJB70]

I think if you start out with accurate, neutral equipment then it gives you options, one of which is to retain an accurate, neutral sound. If you want to play with EQ then the options are endless.