Audio gear enthusiasts remind me of the medical/health industry

[DavidShe]

Health claims, in general, require numerous expensive studies performed over many years to provide compelling evidence. Even so, the biological mechanisms are often complicated and not well understood. In contrast, the mechanisms of sound production and perception are generally better understood and more predictable. Audio claims can often be substantiated simply by measurement or double-blind listening tests. These tests can be performed quickly and do not require the long-term studies necessary in medical research.

 

[Multicore]

Conflict is part of human social life. If we're not in conflict for survival or domination then we're in it for football or for punk v. disco or meat v. vegan or cars v. bicycles and so on.

Add to that the profitable economy of attention seeking on the social medias. Take a tour of YouTube and consider what factors build audience. The moderate, diplomatic, considered, humble and evidence based-are the winners, right? And nobody is pulling faces in thumbnails. It's all about exploiting our lizard brain. And let's not forget, a fair bit of hifi is driven by status -- about having something better than other people. So that gets built into the design and marketing of products. Combine all this and you get enduring online economy of hifi conflict. There is no incentive to resolve those arguments.

We could advance our communities towards greater understanding and harmony but where's the profit in that?

 

[master_arthur]

Of course a lot of health advice is not science based.

People want to sell x supplement, diet or lifestyle.

However, if you look at the research, there are answers.

Not to every single question, but to many questions.

Part of the problem is science gets dumbed down to the messes. You may see sensationalist headlines, then if you actually look up the articles they are citing, they absolutely do not state the same thing. People also look for information that supports their point of view.

So yes, there is some parallels to hi-fi marketing.

 

[DonDish]

We all say "cobalt blue",we all see how cobalt blue measures and how different is from the russian blue but no one guarantees how is perceived.

Its prussian blue. Russian blue is a cat. Otherwise I agree, we are all entitled to our own preferences and taste!

 

[Sokel]

Its prussian blue. Russian blue is a cat. Otherwise I agree, we are all entitled to our own preferences and taste!

Please don't tell my wife,I swear I won't mistake it again

 

[OK1]

This hobby is Star Trek where those on planet Vulcan keep emotions and feelings out of and logic and facts matter. Then there's planet Romulus where emotions are the thing and people feel more than they think.
I just look at things from a value for money perspective. It's all over the map with audio gear.

What would need is a definitive correlation of measurements and perception.
And I don't see that coming any time soon as every person perceives different things.

As the philosophers say,reality is an agreement,a consensus.We all say "cobalt blue",we all see how cobalt blue measures and how different is from the russian blue but no one guarantees how is perceived.And to add,a trained or talented or gifted person can tell,describe and mix the exact color but most of the people can't,or don't care.

It's the undefined nature of each hobby that makes it controversial,interesting,etc.
And at the end is not about how precise is the color mix but the dead simple "what color do you like?"

About 6 months on, what have I learned - the truth is somewhere in between subjective and objective, and here is what I am fairly certain of.

1. With electronics (digital, analog, whatever) - DAC's, Headphone Amps, Amplifiers - for the vast majority of people, without extra special hearing, there is a correlation between the measurements and what people here.

2. Beyond a certain threshold - with DAC's, Headphone Amps, Amplifiers - Any improvements are academic, not worth discussing, and most people would not hear the difference. The key reason is, for many, the ambient noise in their listening environment, alone would make it rather difficult for them to hear any further measurable improvements in the gear. We also do not listen to audio with extremes of quiet and loud, which would push gear to its limits. I give an example, I'm using, thanks to the tests of a similar product on AudioScienceReview with identical measurements, the TempoTec Sonata BHD dongle DAC, and the Apple Dongle. I have never heard any noise from them, nothing whatsoever, they are totally silent, unless they are playing back audio/music. Dead Dead silent, no noise, that I can hear. In today's world when the high quality DAC's used in these devices, cost no more than $20, with DAC's we are now in territory where we can be sure that if it measures well, above a certain threshold, it should sound good.

My personal target for DAC's(and headphone amplifiers), based on studying the measurements, and from devices I have owned, and it is interesting to note that in a dongle DAC, one is measuring both the DAC and the headphone amp, since they are inseparably integrated.

Ideal - Signal to Noise >= 120 dB, SINAD <= minus 110 dB, Dynamic Range >= 120dB.
Acceptable - Signal to Noise >= 105 dB, SINAD <= minus 95 dB, Dynamic Range >= 105dB.

Almost every DAC out there meets my acceptable, and many inexpensive Dongle DACs meet and exceed my ideal.

Where there is a bit of a challenge with the DAC's used in the Hi-Fi, Hobbyist world, is there is not much exactness from the manufacturer about the accuracy of frequency response, across the audible spectrum, some manufacturers do not publish this. e.g. 20 hz to 20Khz +/- 0.5 dB.

In the professional audio world, its typical to find a few top end DACs achieve or improve upon a spec of 20hz to 20Khz +/- 0.1 dB.

In other words, with DACs and Headphone amps, and Amplifiers, the specs, where published by a credible manufacturer, or measured independently by a trusted source, give me enough information to reliably purchase an item, and be sure that I would NOT be disappointed with the audio quality.

3. With speakers, its similar, the available tests, give us enough information, which combined with a general knowledge of speaker technology, allow me to make an informed purchase on a speaker (active or passive), with a degree of certainty. And also allow me obviously compare speakers, virtually, based on only their measurements, and know which one I would prefer to deploy. I find this holds true, not just in the hi-fi marketplace, but in the professional audio space. The measurements provide a lot of information., in my case the one I really look out for, is the impulse response. Nevertheless, nothing replaces a personal audition, and where possible being able to hear and compare speakers - side by side, for the ultimate comparison. Reason being - each room is different, and the speaker perception, includes an interaction with the room. I'm comfortable with using the measurements that are available today, to choose between speakers, without having to 1st hear the speaker.

4. Headphones and IEMs - this is the final frontier. The measurements allow us to compare one product to another, and highlight any major deviations from the optimal. But if two devices both measure close enough to the ideal, the variance in their measurements, will NOT sufficiently allow me to infer, which sounds better or which I would prefer. Cos my own HRTF is a factor, and none of these devices was measured with this in mind - using my own HRTF. I unfortunately have to listen to the device myself.

OR

Elicit the the subjective opinions of reviewers, whom I have discovered, have a similar opinion, to mine, on products or music/audio, I have owned or listened to.

Predominant amongst these are Youtubers - Akros, Paul Wasabii, Tone Deaf Monk, Vortex, BangsAudioReviews, AndyAudioVault

So it is a mixed bag, in my personal recent experience.

For electronics and speakers, the measurements easily correspond to what we hear, but with Headphones/IEM's we either must hear them for ourselves or find those whom we can trust, to share their opinions with us.

 

[Sokel]

About 6 months on, what have I learned - the truth is somewhere in between subjective and objective, and here is what I am fairly certain of.

1. With electronics (digital, analog, whatever) - DAC's, Headphone Amps, Amplifiers - for the vast majority of people, without extra special hearing, there is a correlation between the measurements and what people here.

2. Beyond a certain threshold - with DAC's, Headphone Amps, Amplifiers - Any improvements are academic, not worth discussing, and most people would not hear the difference. The key reason is, for many, the ambient noise in their listening environment, alone would make it rather difficult for them to hear any further measurable improvements in the gear. We also do not listen to audio with extremes of quiet and loud, which would push gear to its limits. I give an example, I'm using, thanks to the tests of a similar product on AudioScienceReview with identical measurements, the TempoTec Sonata BHD dongle DAC, and the Apple Dongle. I have never heard any noise from them, nothing whatsoever, they are totally silent, unless they are playing back audio/music. Dead Dead silent, no noise, that I can hear. In today's world when the high quality DAC's used in these devices, cost no more than $20, with DAC's we are now in territory where we can be sure that if it measures well, above a certain threshold, it should sound good.

My personal target for DAC's(and headphone amplifiers), based on studying the measurements, and from devices I have owned, and it is interesting to note that in a dongle DAC, one is measuring both the DAC and the headphone amp, since they are inseparably integrated.

Ideal - Signal to Noise >= 120 dB, SINAD <= minus 110 dB, Dynamic Range >= 120dB.
Acceptable - Signal to Noise >= 105 dB, SINAD <= minus 95 dB, Dynamic Range >= 105dB.

Almost every DAC out there meets my acceptable, and many inexpensive Dongle DACs meet and exceed my ideal.

Where there is a bit of a challenge with the DAC's used in the Hi-Fi, Hobbyist world, is there is not much exactness from the manufacturer about the accuracy of frequency response, across the audible spectrum, some manufacturers do not publish this. e.g. 20 hz to 20Khz +/- 0.5 dB.

In the professional audio world, its typical to find a few top end DACs achieve or improve upon a spec of 20hz to 20Khz +/- 0.1 dB.

In other words, with DACs and Headphone amps, and Amplifiers, the specs, where published by a credible manufacturer, or measured independently by a trusted source, give me enough information to reliably purchase an item, and be sure that I would NOT be disappointed with the audio quality.

3. With speakers, its similar, the available tests, give us enough information, which combined with a general knowledge of speaker technology, allow me to make an informed purchase on a speaker (active or passive), with a degree of certainty. And also allow me obviously compare speakers, virtually, based on only their measurements, and know which one I would prefer to deploy. I find this holds true, not just in the hi-fi marketplace, but in the professional audio space. The measurements provide a lot of information., in my case the one I really look out for, is the impulse response. Nevertheless, nothing replaces a personal audition, and where possible being able to hear and compare speakers - side by side, for the ultimate comparison. Reason being - each room is different, and the speaker perception, includes an interaction with the room. I'm comfortable with using the measurements that are available today, to choose between speakers, without having to 1st hear the speaker.

4. Headphones and IEMs - this is the final frontier. The measurements allow us to compare one product to another, and highlight any major deviations from the optimal. But if two devices both measure close enough to the ideal, the variance in their measurements, will NOT sufficiently allow me to infer, which sounds better or which I would prefer. Cos my own HRTF is a factor, and none of these devices was measured with this in mind - using my own HRTF. I unfortunately have to listen to the device myself.

OR

Elicit the the subjective opinions of reviewers, whom I have discovered, have a similar opinion, to mine, on products or music/audio, I have owned or listened to.

Predominant amongst these are Youtubers - Akros, Paul Wasabii, Tone Deaf Monk, Vortex, BangsAudioReviews, AndyAudioVault

So it is a mixed bag, in my personal recent experience.

For electronics and speakers, the measurements easily correspond to what we hear, but with Headphones/IEM's we either must hear them for ourselves or find those whom we can trust, to share their opinions with us.

Agreed to pretty much all of it.
To enter the personal stuff though I'll give you an example that cuts both ways:

Let's say we see a nice speaker mostly flat but with a little elevated 2kHz to 7kHz range.Not much,couple of dB.
To some people that's spark.To me is torture (combined with thin mid-bass make it medieval).

I have it narrowed down,no matter the room,the speaker,it's dispersion or directivity,that's the range we cut through direct sound.
Now,I always knew it,since I was a teenager but measurements showed the visuals,so...

 

[OK1]

Agreed to pretty much all of it.
To enter the personal stuff though I'll give you an example that cuts both ways:

Let's say we see a nice speaker mostly flat but with a little elevated 2kHz to 7kHz range.Not much,couple of dB.
To some people that's spark.To me is torture (combined with thin mid-bass make it medieval).

I have it narrowed down,no matter the room,the speaker,it's dispersion or directivity,that's the range we cut through direct sound.
Now,I always knew it,since I was a teenager but measurements showed the visuals,so...

Interesting thoughts. Cool.

I watched this a few days ago. You might enjoy this. It discusses speakers from the perspective of a professional audio mixing engineers standpoint.

 

[kemmler3D]

the truth is somewhere in between subjective and objective,

I would say it's a mix of the two. Ultimately we only experience things subjectively, the objective data just helps us meet subjective goals more efficiently.

I'm comfortable with using the measurements that are available today, to choose between speakers, without having to 1st hear the speaker.

I am too because I know I like a neutral response and I value that inherently. However, as @Sokel says, I think small variations in frequency response can affect our opinions of quality more significantly than most people realize.

I spent a solid week tuning headphones by ear once. I found a sense of quality or "good sound" could change significantly just by adding a +/- 2dB filter here or there. "harsh" becomes "mellow" becomes "open" as you tweak the FR, if you are not starting with a train wreck. The overall sense of the sound quality changes from surprisingly small concrete differences.

It's hard to predict how you're going to react to these small details, so I think listening in person is a good idea for anyone that is primarily interested in a pleasant sound more than they are having a speaker they can trust for accuracy.

I also think this is what drives so much of the tomfoolery in this industry. People really underestimate how much a small deviation in FR matters in terms of the subtle attributes of "sound quality"... I think sometimes people assume it must be something more exotic.

 

[OK1]

I would say it's a mix of the two. Ultimately we only experience things subjectively, the objective data just helps us meet subjective goals more efficiently.


I am too because I know I like a neutral response and I value that inherently. However, as @Sokel says, I think small variations in frequency response can affect our opinions of quality more significantly than most people realize.

I spent a solid week tuning headphones by ear once. I found a sense of quality or "good sound" could change significantly just by adding a +/- 2dB filter here or there. "harsh" becomes "mellow" becomes "open" as you tweak the FR, if you are not starting with a train wreck. The overall sense of the sound quality changes from surprisingly small concrete differences.

It's hard to predict how you're going to react to these small details, so I think listening in person is a good idea for anyone that is primarily interested in a pleasant sound more than they are having a speaker they can trust for accuracy.

I also think this is what drives so much of the tomfoolery in this industry. People really underestimate how much a small deviation in FR matters in terms of the subtle attributes of "sound quality"... I think sometimes people assume it must be something more exotic.

I'm open to experimenting, one never knows, we never learn unless we try and are open to new ideas.

How best, in your opinion can one tune an IEM/headphone by ear?

Sure it helps to start with something that is close to ideal, but I'd be open to exploring how one could reliably EQ, to improve the stock sound.

 

[kemmler3D]

How best, in your opinion can one tune an IEM/headphone by ear?

Having done it, I would say don't do it, if you need to tune one for real, get a real coupler.

I'd be open to exploring how one could reliably EQ, to improve the stock sound.

For your own purposes, I think you can use tones and band-filtered noise to try and find flaws in your personal response with IEMs / headphones. Basically you are shooting for something that sounds flat by comparing the loudness of different frequency bands A/B style. EQ until it sounds flat.

I am not sure if this is a real method, it's just what I do. I am 100% sure others on this forum know better.

I think you can also compare tonality to known-good speakers, (one ear on, one ear off) but because of the room influence I am not sure how well that works.

 

[OK1]

Having done it, I would say don't do it, if you need to tune one for real, get a real coupler.


For your own purposes, I think you can use tones and band-filtered noise to try and find flaws in your personal response with IEMs / headphones. Basically you are shooting for something that sounds flat by comparing the loudness of different frequency bands A/B style. EQ until it sounds flat.

I am not sure if this is a real method, it's just what I do. I am 100% sure others on this forum know better.

I think you can also compare tonality to known-good speakers, (one ear on, one ear off) but because of the room influence I am not sure how well that works.

Thanks. Someone on headphones.com, dropped some links for me, on a method of manual EQ, which unfortunately I have not had the time to explore. Planning to do this later in the month of January 2025.