Better sound vs better experience?

[Rob_Gordon]

Hey there !

After reading a bunch here, I got a little overwhelmed. Felt like sharing.

This place can really make you feel small and ignorant! It’s humbling in a good way, but it’s also not very « empowering » if you know what I mean. It’s intimidating.

Hanging out here has its perks and disadvantages. For instance, it freed me of many beliefs that are dominant in the game of our hobby. Like many others, I'm sure. I can’t thank ASR enough for freeing me from the cable myth, for instance! how much money saved, am I right?! And that's just one thing.

But I guess, if I have to be honest, it gives me less a feeling of « I can do it » than a feeling of « fuck it, let’s give up, it’s too complicated ». And it’s okay, really, I’m not mad about it. It’s not like subjectivist forums are reassuring. If you believe places like stereophile or audiogon, you end up depressed because you believe that unless you’re a millionaire, you can’t have proper sound at home.

So yeah, I’ll choose ASR any day.

But I want to address the limits of my understanding of the whole thing. The quest for good audio is an infinite path with many parameters to take in. It implies a scientific ethos: one needs to be rigorous, methodical, and have constant self-awareness to take the unavoidable biases into account.

What an intellectual challenge, right?

So… facing this challenge, one either feels up for it or thinks they will never succeed. I lack the confidence and the will to do it, probably. And I admire how thorough some of you can be, truly.

But I have to admit I also lack the belief that I will actually perceive (and enjoy) that difference.

And this is where I want to take this post: the quest for a better rig implies the trust in the quality of one’s ear. It doesn’t necessarily mean being arrogant about it. But it does mean something like « I believe my ear is good enough that it will enjoy an objectively better gear ».

And, precisely, this is where I fail: I don’t trust my ears. I have no reasons to believe I could identify a « better system ». Nothing makes me feel like my hearing is good enough to take that hobby of ours seriously.

For instance, I have tried « objective improvements » (like preset EQs or DSP) and not liked them better.

What does this mean? I don’t understand. I’m lost!

It’s almost like an audiophile existential crisis!

What am I? my current system is ASR heresy. But it has me crying my guts out because of how beautiful it sounds.

Part of me is perfectly satisfied with this. Part of me is convinced by you and wants to chase « objectively better sound ».
And I’m just torn. And I wonder.

Because, it has to be either your appreciation of sound is proportional to the quality of the gear or it isn't. It's as simple as that.

I know that I've had good experiences and great experiences with audio gear. I don't know that among my "great experiences" (as in "all the experiences I've had that gave me a very strong impression") I've actually preferred "the right ones". And what if I didn't?

What if I liked poorly measuring gear? And I don't mean "prefer" because I know it's statistically not likely. I just mean "liked". Does that mean I'm a "bad audiophile"? that I'm wrong? And that I should educate my hearing? It might! But how? how does one "learn" to hear better? It's another challenge!

Sorry, it's very long!

TL;DR: if your hearing is really not golden but you still have very different experiences audio wise, how should you deal with the whole audiophile quest?

 

[Digby]

TL;DR: if your hearing is really not golden but still have very different experiences audiowise, how should you deal with the whole audiophile quest?

For many components, but particularly speakers, there is no "best" component. There are better or worse ones, but given a range of similarly performing components, the choice may come down to certain personal preferences or the need for one feature, more than another.

What am I? my current system is ASR heresy. But it has me crying my guts out.

Part of me is perfectly satisfied with this. Part of me is convinced by you and wants to chase « objectively better sound ».
And I’m just torn. And I wonder: am I part of a special category of people?

Human ears can put up with a fair few deviances from perfect, with regards to reproduction. Then there is a question of personal taste, environment...the list goes on.

It'd be better the narrow the question down. What kind of music will you listen to, in what space and with what equipment. What funds do you have available? The answers will determine what is a good fit if you want to upgrade/change equipment.

 

[sigbergaudio]

(...)

But I have to admit I also lack the belief that I will actually perceive (and enjoy) that difference.

And this is where I want to take this post: the quest for a better rig implies the trust in the quality of one’s ear. It doesn’t necessarily mean being arrogant about it. But it does mean something like « I believe my ear is good enough that it will enjoy an objectively better gear ».

And, precisely, this is where I fail: I don’t trust my ears. I have no reasons to believe I could identify a « better system ». Nothing makes me feel like my hearing is good enough to take that hobby of ours seriously.

If you both enjoy music and is interested in hifi and reproduction of music as a hobby, I think you are qualified to identify the better system. But it may take a bit of time and understanding to do it well. Just like a TV with "show settings" in the local electronics store, some speakers have "show" qualities that are immediately fascinating, but problematic over time and across tracks and genres. Suddenly that specific quality is present in all tracks, so you recognize the speaker as much as the individual qualities of each track. These type of qualities are also often tiring over time. So while I think you can identify better, it's also easy to be misled in the short run. It's also easy to be biased by what others are saying.

Secondly, at some point you reach diminishing returns. While you can get better, it might not be worth it to you.

For instance, I have tried « objective improvements » (like preset EQs or DSP) and not liked them better.

What does this mean? I don’t understand. I’m lost!

EQ or DSP is not an objective improvement. It's perfectly possible to (mis)use these tools to make the sound worse.

It’s almost like an audiophile existential crisis!

What am I? my current system is ASR heresy. But it has me crying my guts out.

Part of me is perfectly satisfied with this. Part of me is convinced by you and wants to chase « objectively better sound ».
And I’m just torn. And I wonder: am I part of a special category of people?

Because, it has to be either your appreciation of sound is proportional to the quality of the gear or it isn't. It's as simple as that.

Perhaps your system isn't as objectively bad as you think? For instance some think that liking "warm" sound is bad. They listen to something defined as "neutral", and think it sounds wrong and anemic. Probably because that is actually exactly the case. Thin/anemic/"sterile" sound is often defined as neutral. It isn't. Live instruments and vocals do not sound like that.

I know that I've had good experiences and great experiences with audio gear. I don't know that among my "great experiences" (as in "all the experiences I've had that gave me a very strong impression") I've actually preferred "the right ones". And what if I didn't?

What if I liked poorly measuring gear? And I don't mean "prefer" because I know it's statistically not likely. I just mean "liked". Does that mean I'm a "bad audiophile"? that I'm wrong? And that I should educate my hearing? It might! But how? how does one "learn" to hear better? It's another challenge!

I think most find it perfectly okay to own and like poorly measuring gear like for instance tube amplifiers. It's your gear and your hobby, no one is the boss of that. Except you of course.

Sorry, it's very long!

TL;DR: if your hearing is really not golden but you still have very different experiences audio wise, how should you deal with the whole audiophile quest?

This is hard to discuss as a general concept. I suspect there are some misunderstandings hidden in how you interpret your experiences. When those are cleared up, perhaps they start to make sense. But we don't know until we know the specifics.

 

[Petrushka]

If you both enjoy music and is interested in hifi and reproduction of music as a hobby, I think you are qualified to identify the better system. But it may take a bit of time and understanding to do it well. Just like a TV with "show settings" in the local electronics store, some speakers have "show" qualities that are immediately fascinating, but problematic over time and across tracks and genres. Suddenly that specific quality is present in all tracks, so you recognize the speaker as much as the individual qualities of each track. These type of qualities are also often tiring over time. So while I think you can identify better, it's also easy to be misled in the short run. It's also easy to be biased by what others are saying.

Secondly, at some point you reach diminishing returns. While you can get better, it might not be worth it to you.



EQ or DSP is not an objective improvement. It's perfectly possible to (mis)use these tools to make the sound worse.




Perhaps your system isn't as objectively bad as you think? For instance some think that liking "warm" sound is bad. They listen to something defined as "neutral", and think it sounds wrong and anemic. Probably because that is actually exactly the case. Thin/anemic/"sterile" sound is often defined as neutral. It isn't. Live instruments and vocals do not sound like that.



I think most find it perfectly okay to own and like poorly measuring gear like for instance tube amplifiers. It's your gear and your hobby, no one is the boss of that. Except you of course.



This is hard to discuss as a general concept. I suspect there are some misunderstandings hidden in how you interpret your experiences. When those are cleared up, perhaps they start to make sense. But we don't know until we know the specifics.

I’m old, and my ears are far from golden, but most of the energy in music is below 2kHz, certainly below 4 kHz.

I can easily distinguish live voices from recorded, as in audiobooks. I can tell if a speaker is flat in the mid and lower range, and I confirmed this with the HouseCurve app. There’s a reason why room correction apps concentrate on the bottom four octaves.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

First of all, thank you for such a generous answer!

If you both enjoy music and is interested in hifi and reproduction of music as a hobby, I think you are qualified to identify the better system. But it may take a bit of time and understanding to do it well. Just like a TV with "show settings" in the local electronics store, some speakers have "show" qualities that are immediately fascinating, but problematic over time and across tracks and genres. Suddenly that specific quality is present in all tracks, so you recognize the speaker as much as the individual qualities of each track. These type of qualities are also often tiring over time. So while I think you can identify better, it's also easy to be misled in the short run. It's also easy to be biased by what others are saying.

Secondly, at some point you reach diminishing returns. While you can get better, it might not be worth it to you.

ahaha, well, that did not help me feel reassured lol! It seems IMPOSSIBLE to find a way in all this!

EQ or DSP is not an objective improvement. It's perfectly possible to (mis)use these tools to make the sound worse.

it is very likely that I misused these tools. But I thought that the harman-target preset EQ for my specific headphone could qualify as "objective improvement"

Perhaps your system isn't as objectively bad as you think? For instance some think that liking "warm" sound is bad. They listen to something defined as "neutral", and think it sounds wrong and anemic. Probably because that is actually exactly the case. Thin/anemic/"sterile" sound is often defined as neutral. It isn't. Live instruments and vocals do not sound like that.

Perhaps indeed! You're right, I mean, it's true that there seem to be a lot of misconception on how things are supposed to sound.

I think most find it perfectly okay to own and like poorly measuring gear like for instance tube amplifiers. It's your gear and your hobby, no one is the boss of that. Except you of course.

True, of course... but even if you like it, when you hang out here, you feel like you should do better. And that's the whole reason of my thread. Where does this "should" come from? and isn't it legit?

This is hard to discuss as a general concept. I suspect there are some misunderstandings hidden in how you interpret your experiences. When those are cleared up, perhaps they start to make sense. But we don't know until we know the specifics.

For sure. Thank you again

 

[sigbergaudio]

The state of the art is that video and audio reproduction are 2 problems solved since the last century. If we accept that the capture is closer to a certain conception of reality which is more clearly three-dimensional.
The rest is marketing.

I guess you need to join the discussion here https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...kers-actually-already-a-solved-problem.57633/

 

[Timcognito]

Nothing wrong with trusting ones ears and being satisfied. Just don't let anyone talk you into spending too much because they say its better. The exception is using specs to chart your journey and then your ears.

 

[ZolaIII]

Follow the signal and more it looks too it on analog output for better and worse it's what's recorded. Compensate for various common factors (room, FR, refractions, placement psy...) and you might get there and I don't mind using cheaper components that will do the job just fine. I leave elusive aesthetics to owners wallet and requests.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Nothing wrong with trusting ones ears and being satisfied. Just don't let anyone talk you into spending too much because they say its better. The exception is using specs to chart your journey and then your ears.

I wish I could be that confident that I'm okay just trusting my experience.
Reading here makes me feel like I'm missing out on something!

 

[sigbergaudio]

it is very likely that I misused these tools. But I thought that the harman-target preset EQ for my specific headphone could qualify as "objective improvement"

Headphones aren't my specific expertise, but I would suspect it's not necessarily so.

Perhaps indeed! You're right, I mean, it's true that there seem to be a lot of misconception on how things are supposed to sound.

True, of course... but even if you like it, when you hang out here, you feel like you should do better. And that's the whole reason of my thread. Where does this "should" come from? and isn't it legit?

For sure. Thank you again

That is understandable, and I guess it depends what you want out of the hobby. I forgot which thread, but I argued earlier today that this is a complicated hobby, and it's not only about the sound but also (as I guess you hint at in the title of this thread) the entire experience of listening. How the gear look and feel, build quality, etc etc add to this experience. So while the sound is important, it's about other things too.

That being said, I think your title is somewhat misleading. I don't think you necessarily need to get a lesser experience in the quest for better sound. And I definitely don't think you shouldn't listen to something you think sound worse, because something you read on ASR or anywhere else makes you feel like you should think it sounds better. The whole point of this hobby is to enjoy the music.

That being said too, I think many find the need to defend their own purchase when they see a poor review of measurement of their speakers. And then they reason that since they like their speakers, they must like poor measuring speakers. I don't think this is true. They are able to enjoy their speakers despite their flaws, not because of them. If they were to hear better speakers, they would sound better to them, unless they have a hard negative bias fooling their brains.

 

[AdamG]

Don’t try to Eat the Elephant “Audio Science” in one meal. Absorb one small meal at a time. The science is complicated and many of us will never truly understand it. But the Members here are really good at explaining the stuff in basic terms. Just let them know you are new at this Audio science stuff.

The biggest improvement is your speakers and room acoustics. Then Sources. Post a picture of your room and list your kit. Then tell us what you are looking to improve and why. Getting a microphone and learning how to use REW at the basic level will take you a very long way. Just go slow and ask questions and be nice. Our members will jump in line to help you. Teaching is one of the very best benefits of being a member here. Keep an open mind and trust the Science and Data.

Enjoy the process and the incremental improvements.

Welcome Aboard @Rob_Gordon . Happy you joined our merry band.

 

[Rob_Gordon]

That is understandable, and I guess it depends what you want out of the hobby. I forgot which thread, but I argued earlier today that this is a complicated hobby, and it's not only about the sound but also (as I guess you hint at in the title of this thread) the entire experience of listening. How the gear look and feel, build quality, etc etc add to this experience. So while the sound is important, it's about other things too.

yes, of course, it's a whole thing.

That being said, I think your title is somewhat misleading. I don't think you necessarily need to get a lesser experience in the quest for better sound.

Yeah, you're right. I didn't actually mean "vs" as in "one or the other", but more like a general confrontation of different perspective. One "against" the other, but not in the sense that "only one can stand".

And I definitely don't think you shouldn't listen to something you think sound worse, because something you read on ASR or anywhere else makes you feel like you should think it sounds better. The whole point of this hobby is to enjoy the music.

Of course, you're right. But it's not that easy actually. Fortunately, I'm very happy with what I have!

That being said too, I think many find the need to defend their own purchase when they see a poor review of measurement of their speakers. And then they reason that since they like their speakers, they must like poor measuring speakers. I don't think this is true. They are able to enjoy their speakers despite their flaws, not because of them. If they were to hear better speakers, they would sound better to them, unless they have a hard negative bias fooling their brains.

I can understand that. But it's also true that, as you said, it's a whole experience. So that it's not only how they sound but also how they feel. So maybe they wouldn't necessarily like better sounding speakers better, right?

 

[Sal1950]

What if I liked poorly measuring gear? And I don't mean "prefer" because I know it's statistically not likely. I just mean "liked". Does that mean I'm a "bad audiophile"? that I'm wrong? And that I should educate my hearing? It might! But how? how does one "learn" to hear better? It's another challenge!

Not a "bad" audiophile, but IMHO just not an "audiophile"?
You bring up the "better sound vs better experience" subject.
Some of the best musical experiences of my life were listening to a vibrator buzzing car radio while in the back seat with my girl of the night.
But more on this particular subject of "listening" to music, how can the experience ever be any better than using the
audio tools of today to hear as accurately as possible the musical event the artist and production team attempted to capture?
The biggest problem with DRC is the difficulty of executing it right. If the path you took didn't seem good to you, most likely it was the path
and not the software itself.. It's true that it's all too easy to come up with a horrid result

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Don’t try to Eat the Elephant “Audio Science” in one meal. Absorb one small meal at a time. The science is complicated and many of us will never truly understand it. But the Members here are really good at explaining the stuff in basic terms. Just let them know you are new at this Audio science stuff.

Ahaha, yeah, it's that feeling exactly. Eating the whole thing in one bite!

The biggest improvement is your speakers and room acoustics. Then Sources. Post a picture of your room and list your kit. Then tell us what you are looking to improve and why. Getting a microphone and learning how to use REW at the basic level will take you a very long way. Just go slow and ask questions and be nice. Our members will jump in line to help you. Teaching is one of the very best benefits of being a member here. Keep an open mind and trust the Science and Data.

Oh yes, I'm sure of that. I'm just not sure I'm ready to take on the full journey. But I'm here to learn, definitely. And that's why I've been doing, for months, now. At my own pace. Thank you for the welcoming.

Enjoy the process and the incremental improvements.

Yes, you're right about that. It's the proper approach.

Welcome Aboard @Rob_Gordon . Happy you joined our merry band.

Thank you again

 

[Timcognito]

Well like most things there is a level of how much of a bar do I need to reach some satisfaction, how much do I have to spend in time and money. Seiko or Rolex, Honda or Ferrari. Best advice start by picking some music that is simple and well recorded. Go to the review index above and one can sort by price. Maybe an all-in-one like WiiM Amp, miniDSP SHD Power or Lyngdorf Audio TDAI‑1120 will where integration simplifies the choosing or active speakers. A few years back I made this FYI

 

[whataboutmusic]

Hey there !

After reading a bunch here, I got a little overwhelmed. Felt like sharing.

This place can really make you feel small and ignorant! It’s humbling in a good way, but it’s also not very « empowering » if you know what I mean. It’s intimidating.

Hanging out here has its perks and disadvantages. For instance, it freed me of many beliefs that are dominant in the game of our hobby. Like many others, I'm sure. I can’t thank ASR enough for freeing me from the cable myth, for instance! how much money saved, am I right?! And that's just one thing.

But I guess, if I have to be honest, it gives me less a feeling of « I can do it » than a feeling of « fuck it, let’s give up, it’s too complicated ». And it’s okay, really, I’m not mad about it. It’s not like subjectivist forums are reassuring. If you believe places like stereophile or audiogon, you end up depressed because you believe that unless you’re a millionaire, you can’t have proper sound at home.

So yeah, I’ll choose ASR any day.

But I want to address the limits of my understanding of the whole thing. The quest for good audio is an infinite path with many parameters to take in. It implies a scientific ethos: one needs to be rigorous, methodical, and have constant self-awareness to take the unavoidable biases into account.

What an intellectual challenge, right?

So… facing this challenge, one either feels up for it or thinks they will never succeed. I lack the confidence and the will to do it, probably. And I admire how thorough some of you can be, truly.

But I have to admit I also lack the belief that I will actually perceive (and enjoy) that difference.

And this is where I want to take this post: the quest for a better rig implies the trust in the quality of one’s ear. It doesn’t necessarily mean being arrogant about it. But it does mean something like « I believe my ear is good enough that it will enjoy an objectively better gear ».

And, precisely, this is where I fail: I don’t trust my ears. I have no reasons to believe I could identify a « better system ». Nothing makes me feel like my hearing is good enough to take that hobby of ours seriously.

For instance, I have tried « objective improvements » (like preset EQs or DSP) and not liked them better.

What does this mean? I don’t understand. I’m lost!

It’s almost like an audiophile existential crisis!

What am I? my current system is ASR heresy. But it has me crying my guts out because of how beautiful it sounds.

Part of me is perfectly satisfied with this. Part of me is convinced by you and wants to chase « objectively better sound ».
And I’m just torn. And I wonder.

Because, it has to be either your appreciation of sound is proportional to the quality of the gear or it isn't. It's as simple as that.

I know that I've had good experiences and great experiences with audio gear. I don't know that among my "great experiences" (as in "all the experiences I've had that gave me a very strong impression") I've actually preferred "the right ones". And what if I didn't?

What if I liked poorly measuring gear? And I don't mean "prefer" because I know it's statistically not likely. I just mean "liked". Does that mean I'm a "bad audiophile"? that I'm wrong? And that I should educate my hearing? It might! But how? how does one "learn" to hear better? It's another challenge!

Sorry, it's very long!

TL;DR: if your hearing is really not golden but you still have very different experiences audio wise, how should you deal with the whole audiophile quest?

I don't think there is right or wrong when it comes to personal taste and preference and of course there is not a ''good'' or ''bad'' audiophile thing.

This is a hobby so you can prefer whatever you like...and change your tastes many times along the way....since the goal is to have fun.

If at one point fun for you is to go after the perfect (flat) sound it is fine...and if you decide that you want to experiment with tube amplifiers and v shaped speakers it is also fine

there is no point to try to force it upon yourself to ''like'' the more accurate sound.

Cheers

 

[GXAlan]

What if I liked poorly measuring gear? And I don't mean "prefer" because I know it's statistically not likely. I just mean "liked". Does that mean I'm a "bad audiophile"? that I'm wrong? And that I should educate my hearing? It might! But how? how does one "learn" to hear better? It's another challenge!

Science helps eliminate pure placebo where we cannot find any differences. Statistics are complex and can misleading/misinterpreted.

Statistically, a random American is likely to have voted for President Trump. Individually, there are people who might have voted for Kamala Harris but was on the fence or people who voted for Kamala Harris who were vastly opposed to Trump. On the Trump said same thing. We don’t talk politics here, but this is a really nice example of how statistics and facts are mathematical certainties but individuals can deviate from statistics quite regularly.

Going back to speakers

If you look at the data from Harman (and I added the red triangles), there was a speaker predicted to have a 4.5 performance but actually was a 2 and a speaker that was predicted to be a 3.5 and behaved like a five.

The worst speaker was predicted to sound better but in blind testing, people preferred the worse predicted speaker.

For a company like Harman, they can look at this trend and try to make the best speaker they can based upon the prediction. But taking this to the extreme, it’s like saying that Harman needs to make a speaker that is preferred by voters who voted for Trump. Statistically that is where they have the best sales because as a whole, Trump saw more votes.

Companies like B&W have stood the test of time and the marketplace despite falling out of the standard preference target.

With room EQ and DSP, there can be variability in the accuracy of calibrated microphones and monaural omnidirectional microphones really cannot distinguish on axis and off axis sounds the way that our ears can. Dr Toole’s comment about having a violinist coming into your home and not needed to room correct the violin even though different homes will have different measured performance of that violin because our ears “hear” through the room.

It’s all still science based to like what you like, especially when the measurements aren’t nulled out.

 

[Sal1950]

If at one point fun for you is to go after the perfect (flat) sound it is fine...and if you decide that you want to experiment with tube amplifiers and v shaped speakers it is also fine

But that is the line that separates the subjective community from the objective community.
There are loads of places that believe & follow the "sounds good to me" path.
What was started here was a place to define and educate visitors on the differences.
Hearing what is on the source material as accurately as possible has been the goal of audio engineers and true "audiophiles" for 7
or more decades now.
Lets not blur the lines.

 

[Timcognito]

Lets not blur the lines.

But lines do get blurred between what a microphone "hears" and what one hears. But most at ASR would agree that if it tests good that is great place to start and a few that is all one needs for purchase.

 

[Sal1950]

But lines do get blurred between what a microphone "hears" and what one hears. But most at ASR would agree that if it tests good that is great place to start and a few that is all one needs.

But the idea is still to hear what that mic heard without distortions or purposeful tampering, best as possible.
The ability to do so is what science brings to the table.