Are you Euphonophile?

[Theo]

I don't think you'd find, experimentally or anecdotally, that all people always prefer a specific distortion applied to the whole music signal, for every piece of music.

Yes. A good test when listening to a system is to use symphonic or very complex music signal. That's when you notice that the orchestra does not sound right and that the system is distorting somewhat. OTOH, if you play "simple" music, that is solo instruments (other than piano...) or songs where the voice is mixed forward, you may not find the system bad at all...

 

[Sal1950]

Yes. A good test when listening to a system is to use symphonic or very complex music signal. That's when you notice that the orchestra does not sound right and that the system is distorting somewhat. OTOH, if you play "simple" music, that is solo instruments (other than piano...) or songs where the voice is mixed forward, you may not find the system bad at all...

OTOH, without a known variable to compare against, under bias controlled blind conditions, you may THINK you hear just about anything.

 

[Theo]

OTOH, without a known variable to compare against, under bias controlled blind conditions, you may THINK you hear just about anything.

Do you mean that you are not able to tell if a system is bad by listening to it? We're not talking about comparing subtle differences between DACs here (usually, inaudible)...

 

[Wombat]

It is amazing to me that 'audiophiles' generally claim to hear subtleties well below established thresholds of hearing. Above those thresholds differences may be noticed to varying degrees by individuals. The degree varies with individuals. A says it is bad, B says not so much.

Give me measurements and leave preferences out of it .

 

[pkane]

It is amazing to me that 'audiophiles' generally claim to hear subtleties well below established thresholds of hearing. Above those thresholds differences may be noticed to varying degrees by individuals. The degree varies with individuals. A says it is bad, B says not so much.

Give me measurements and leave preferences out of it .

It is a new form of uncertainty principle: audiophile differences can't be heard and measured simultaneously. Differences can only be heard or only measured, but not both. If you try to do both, the audiophile reality collapses.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I am a regular victim of delusions; some I create intentionally (my grandmother’s cooking was the world’s best), some I cannot control, understand or even notice.

I guess an audiophile is a being who’s never in delusion. An audiophile is a truth finder. An audiophile is the truth.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes. A good test when listening to a system is to use symphonic or very complex music signal. That's when you notice that the orchestra does not sound right and that the system is distorting somewhat.

Do you mean that you are not able to tell if a system is bad by listening to it?

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying, within reason of course.
If you think you can determine the quality of a systems accuracy by comparing it against some memory of what think you heard at your last concert, you are open to huge errors in judgement.

Give me measurements and leave preferences out of it

AMEN

 

[Dogen]

Although I value transparency above all, I do like a little second harmonic distortion and soft clipping from tube gear on some recordings. I keep a tube system for that, but would choose the more accurate system if I could only keep one.

 

[Wombat]

I like the sound of a Fender Tweed amplifier but I don't want my system doing something similar as well.

 

[RayDunzl]

Do you mean that you are not able to tell if a system is bad by listening to it?

Mine is supposed to be bad.

What should I do?

https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html

 

[Wombat]

Can you be a trained listener without being a strained listener?

 

[Maki]

I have one system for total transparency (still looking for a more perfect replacement for the SU-8 DAC that doesn't cost $1000+) and other systems and components which either max out "euphonic" distortion or just look cool. Can't tell the difference most of the time to be honest.

 

[maty]

NOS vs. Digital Filtering DACs: Exploring filtering turned off, implications, fidelity and subjective audibility.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/11/nos-vs-digital-filtering-dacs-exploring.html

Let's summarize... IMO...

1. NOS DACs are not "accurate" or "high fidelity" when asked to reproduce typical 44.1kHz samplerate material...

2. Regarding the aphorism that gets trotted out by pure subjectivists frequently: "If it measures good and sounds bad—it's bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing." (D. R. von Recklinghausen)...

3. As I've said in the past, it's okay to be a "euphonophile". Some distortions could be subjectively perceived as "better"...

 

[sergeauckland]

2. Regarding the aphorism that gets trotted out by pure subjectivists frequently: "If it measures good and sounds bad—it's bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing." (D. R. von Recklinghausen)...


I've seen that on several Fora, and it always makes me scream with anger. It's just SO wrong. If it measures good and sounds bad, YOU are at fault!!!!

Of course that requires the measurements be competent and comprehensive, not just frequency response or THD, but if a properly conducted set of measurements indicate the equipment is sound, then if it sounds bad, it's entirely down to the listener just not liking an accurate sound. There are an awful lot of those around.

S.

 

[Cosmik]

Why just stop at bent transfer function type distortion? It seems to reveal a distinct lack of imagination.

There's loads of signal-related stuff you could try. What about all the possibilities of adding noise of various kinds? How about pitch shifting, flanging, phasing, chorus effects, pre-programmed reverberation that comes and goes in response to the amplitude of the signal?

Why not try scrambling the signal in some way, add some distortion with an audiophile-quality diode, then de-scramble the signal? There might be some hitherto unknown psychoacoustic effect.

And if non-harmonic IMD is good (as we know, there's no such thing as harmonic distortion for complex, i.e real music, signals unless you have access to the individual monophonic elements), there's all sorts of stuff you could do with frequency modulation, ring modulation, amplitude modulation. A tiny bit of dalek might be just what's needed to spice up some dull, i.e. high fidelity, soprano.

Really the possibilities are endless.

How do you know any of this doesn't work unless you carry out comprehensive scientific listening tests?

 

[graz_lag]

The biggest question may be : does it matter ?

In fact, it seems for many people audio playback quality plays little role in their enjoyment of the content. (MP3 is the very typical example. )
For the rest of us, "better" audio quality usually leads to greater listening enjoyment.
For some, however, "better" may mean sound with a particular tonal balance, or with the added distortions of tubes or vinyl, while others may prefer audio playback that is as transparent to the source material as possible.

 

[GGroch]

Does it matter? It matters to audiophiles....but sometimes perhaps to our detriment... lessening rather than increasing enjoyment.

Steve Guttenberg had a guest on his youtube channel last week, a pianist and music teacher who describes how musicians and audiophiles hear music differently. Just 1 opinion, but the speaker is both a lifelong musician and audiophile so an opinion with more weight than some.

Its only 4 minutes...so I recommend following the link But to summarize, he posits that in searching for perfect fidelity many audiophiles are unable to appreciate performers who lived before high quality recording existed. You could certainly broaden the argument to include classic live or "basement tapes" performances that were not recorded well. He rightly, I think, points out that music with wide dynamics, like classical, in particular may be an bridge too far for audiophiles to appreciate in lesser formats..and I recall a poster earlier here saying just that.

So perhaps we audiophiles appreciate state of the art recordings more...but classic performances by musicians before the mid 60s a lot less.

 

[Wombat]

Thanks for the video link. I can happily listen to early early recordings of interest to me because of the content. Also, I am not interested in making a concerted effort to find 'better' pressings or remasters of recordings I own that sound good in isolation. DSFDF.

 

[maty]

Do you want an euphonic sound? A new very interesting DIY desing. H2 predominance.

The Melbourne Class A Headphone Amp and Pre-amp by xrk971

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/headphone-systems/330947-melbourne-class-headphone-amp-pre-amp.html

[ As you can see, the harmonic profile is always classic SE Class A with 2nd order dominant harmonic and decreasing 3rd order and higher harmonics.

With a ratio of -17dB for H3/H2, the sound is very euphonic and the right balance of sweetness and articulation, and the absence of higher orders makes it non-fatiguing to listen to. ]

You need to be registered to see the pictures!

 

[watchnerd]

I'm not sure if I'm a euphonophile, but I'm definitely not a euphonophobe.