• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Better sound vs better experience?

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.
I do not disagree with you at all if we are talking about what good and accurate sound is. I think I also stated that perfect sound can only be the flat sound because how else can you define what ''perfect'' is if not as close to the source?

But when we are talking about preference and enjoying the sound signature from your speakers then I believe that ''sounds good to me'' it is very important. Otherwise what is the point of this hobby?

So hearing what is on the source and why a flat system can help you come closer to that is important..but someone is not ''wrong'' to prefer a different sound signature.

I don't see how I blur the lines...I am also stating that there is a clear difference between objective performance and personal taste.
 
Hear Say evidence is not admissible.
 
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.
I do not disagree with you at all if we are talking about what good and accurate sound is. I think I also stated that perfect sound can only be the flat sound because how else can you define what ''perfect'' is if not as close to the source?

But it IS more complicated than this (at the risk of derailing the thread). Hearing what the mic heard at the listening position in a different room is a pretty complex endavour. It's for instance not as easy as stating "perfect sound is flat sound." Depending on what that statement means it's not necessarily true. It's true for audio components, but when we add speakers and rooms to the mix, it gets more complicated than that.
 
Part of me is perfectly satisfied with this. Part of me is convinced by you and wants to chase « objectively better sound ».
All you have to do is answer a simple question: 'which of these two "authorities" is right?' The two authorities are 1) measurements and 2) opinions.

People have been measuring domestic audio playback systems for decades. They've also been measuring how we hear for decades. As a result, there's a sold consensus on what good looks like for playback electronics - which are therefore sufficiently good that our ears and brains can't detect their impact on sound. What's more, give or take a couple of percentage points, if I measure a device that Amir has measured, we will get the same results.

Everyone has an opinion. Opinions often differ. So, Ella loves her vinyl through her tube amp; Inga loves her CD through her solid state amp. Which of these opinions is correct. Perhaps they both are. As soon as you are using opinions to make decisions you are in a boat on the sea with no horizon, watch or compass. Which way is best? Who knows.
 
But it IS more complicated than this (at the risk of derailing the thread). Hearing what the mic heard at the listening position in a different room is a pretty complex endavour. It's for instance not as easy as stating "perfect sound is flat sound." Depending on what that statement means it's not necessarily true. It's true for audio components, but when we add speakers and rooms to the mix, it gets more complicated than that.
I don't think there are absolutes when we are talking about speakers...but if there is a thing like "perfect'' sound I guess it would be the closest to the source...now the source is the file/cd etc....whatever was managed to be recorded.

Now we are not all the same....perfect for my tastes could be different from yours...but we can not argue about what a flat FR is....so I am calling that ''perfect'' perhaps I should call it ''correct sound''.

My comment was more about personal taste and preference than audio gear. I have found that some days I enjoy my accurate system and other days I prefer other stuff.
 
Otherwise what is the point of this hobby?
I thought it was "High Fidelity" ?

So hearing what is on the source and why a flat system can help you come closer to that is important.
Exactly

but someone is not ''wrong'' to prefer a different sound signature.
No one is wrong, I never said anything like that.
OTOH, if you prefer to listen to system that distorts the source in all sort of ways, why come to a science based site and support a "sounds good to me, bass cranked to +10db" approach. That's blurring the lines.

Depending on what that statement means it's not necessarily true. It's true for audio components, but when we add speakers and rooms to the mix, it gets more complicated than that.
I don't think there are absolutes when we are talking about speakers...but if there is a thing like "perfect'' sound I guess it would be the closest to the source...now the source is the file/cd etc....whatever was managed to be recorded.

Yes
Isn't that why we measure both and attempt to improve the breed?
There's a pretty obvious line between speakers that are very good and junk with a small window open to choose preference in between, since none are perfect.
If High Fidelity is the goal.
If not the subjective reviewers can guide you on that path.
 
But it IS more complicated than this (at the risk of derailing the thread). Hearing what the mic heard at the listening position in a different room is a pretty complex endavour. It's for instance not as easy as stating "perfect sound is flat sound." Depending on what that statement means it's not necessarily true. It's true for audio components, but when we add speakers and rooms to the mix, it gets more complicated than that.
All this is true and much of the other comments and that is precisely what the OP is dealing with and why many come come here. Many want to assure themselves that they have a good system and need the validation of measurements and others input. Some are experts, hobbyists and music enthusiasts like me that happens to be a ME that can't do anything without metrics, tinkering with sound systems since age 16. There is no simple way to tell someone who trepidatious about purchasing something when all the experts can't agree on what's best and the plethora of choices of tech, features and cost. One must insert judgement as well visceral excitement about what they buy and not leave such decisions up to others if they are to be satisfied. IMO
 
I thought it was "High Fidelity" ?
For some is high fidelity and for others is a sound that they like and it is not close to HiFi.
No one is wrong, I never said anything like that.
OTOH, if you prefer to listen to system that distorts the source in all sort of ways, why come to a science based site and support a "sounds good to me, bass cranked to +10db" approach. That's blurring the lines.
I do not prefer just one thing...I prefer lot's of things depending on my mood...and though I do not usually respond to the ''why you post in a science forum'' I will tell you that I participate for the same reason as everyone else...because I am interested in it. I did not state anything about the performance of audio gear or that what I like is better than what others like. Even If I really don't like ''bass cranked +db" approach. How can there be lines (to be blurred) on personal taste?
Yes
Isn't that why we measure both and attempt to improve the breed?
There's a pretty obvious line between speakers that are very good and junk with a small window open to choose preference since none are perfect.
If High Fidelity is the goal.
If not the subjective reviewers can guide you on that path.
Yes you are correct but for some speakers with strange sound signature sounds better than others. For example i cant stand the klipsh sound signature....but others love them. I really like my hd650's but my friends find them dull and think that I was ripped off that paid 400 euros to buy them.

I do not get into reviwers and marketing of the gear...it is a mess.
 
Yes you are correct but for some speakers with strange sound signature sounds better than others.
Sounds better or really are better?
There is a difference, and the measurements that Amir and others post here can show us them.
Improving the breed is what engineers have worked toward and thankfully they've made great strides on that path.
Have a great weekend all.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? "Peter Aczel"
 
Sounds better or really are better?
Sounds better of course. Better are the ones that have more flat FR.

But this is a hobby and it can mean something different for everyone so someone is not obligated to enjoy or like the better speakers...he just have to like what he hears even if it is not better.

Also....pizza or burgers are worst food than a healthy full meal....but many like them better....as they are free to do..even though they know they are not quality....

For me it is way more interesting to find why and how people prefer what they prefer...because taste is not written in stone...it is somehow grow to us...and it is changing constantly.

Have a great weekend and thanks for the conversation

Cheers
 
Lots of speculative talk. Anybody mention you getting a measurement microphone and learning how to use REW? That is the only way you'll know if what you're hearing is lacking or exaggerated in any given octave throughout the frequency range. But beware, once you know, the real rabbit hole reveals itself and you can keep digging deeper or just throw a little bit of DSP at it to fix the worst and be happy knowing it's not perfect but potentially better.
 
Last edited:
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!

A. You used those tools the wrong way.
B. You used those tools in a way that wasn't audible (not very likely though).
C: You have a different preference.
D. You have a different idea about what things should sound like, and you didn't give you brain enough time to "burn in".
E. Who knows...

Hard to tell without seeing measurements.

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

You're a man who has everything he needs. Just enjoy what you got and stop worrying.
 
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?

probably, like most people you already have a very good system without realizing it. They have simply told you for years, that by changing and upgrading you will find nirvana: it is not like that, you just have to use well what you already have. But out there nobody ever explains it....
Like most of us you have spent days studying technical sheets, but you have not spent the same days studying the physical, acoustic and electronic phenomena that regulate audio systems and their integration in an environment. And of course, the driver does not necessarily have to be the engineer!!
Like most of us you have tried to refine your system more than with objective rules, now available to everyone, but with tricks handed down by the gurus of high fidelity.
Like most of us at a certain point you wanted to see clearly, and, you began to follow a different path.

What you will read very often on ASR will not be the dispatches of brand marketing agencies, which ask testimonials, influencers, journalists, bloggers to spread their product in the best way possible, advertising it to the world with the prose of those who have to sell and well.
Instead, you will read thousands of scientific notions concerning the regulation of the phenomena that move and create our beloved music from electricity to the waves that invade our rooms where we listen.
It is simply a different point of view, nothing to be afraid of, to try to solve problems with the help of scientific experience codified over time rather than by customs of other eras mythologized and proclaimed in exotic cult clubs.
Your ear is fine as it is. You must never abandon your personal taste, the game, and let's also add the visual experience. Everything helps. So calmly throw away your frustrations, have fun, it's a hobby, live it with serenity and if you need to understand something, before buying and throwing away what good you have without having understood, you know that around here you will have at your disposal the contributions and the scientific and "on the field" experience of many people who have faced your same doubts, or who for work face these problems every day or who deal with this subject for interest and study and let's not forget those who in life do something completely different but have the passion for this intriguing, fun and complex hobby ....
 
And, precisely, this is where I fail: I don’t trust my ears.

Instruments are for measuring. Ears are for enjoying.

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

What's wrong with that? It sounds like you're in a great place!
BTW ... there is no audio system that is "ASR heresy". Basically, the "ASR heresy" is that there is some magical component to audio that cannot be measured because science is inferior to human hearing. That's not an audio system.

You might benefit from this advice from Bobby McFerrin:

 
I’ve had a number of guests listen to my 2 channel systems over the years, who started off making apologies “ I don’t really think I have the hearing or ears for this stuff.”
Like they were afraid they weren’t going to notice the sound quality.

It didn’t take long for them sitting in front of the system playing some music they were familiar with to put that idea to rest. They were usually blown away..

I know I’m far from alone and having this experience with guests.
 
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 think it's a good immersion point to see why what is said here, a learning opportunity.

No reason to trust your ears, especially when combined with expectations, eyes, etc.

Audiophiles often overstate their hearing ability. Just look at how many go for the cable nonsense. More likely a mood or setup difference or no difference at all other than time.

Getting some education makes for the best audiophiles, but the commercial side of things has sullied that term IMO.
 
It appears you are happy with your system and get great enjoyment from it. That is a good place to be.

You are now worrying about whether or not it is objectively good although you subjectively enjoy it, and if you are enjoying something that is objectively bad what could that be saying about your audiophile status or skill level?

Well there are no hard rules set in stone about what you should and shouldn’t enjoy. The fact you are here trying to learn what separates fact from fiction immediately elevates you above those on more conventional forums talking about the emperors new clothes.

I think it is all too easy to obsess over every detail as an audiophile. Always wondering what you may be missing out on. Wondering what could be improved instead of being happy that you like what you hear. Here are a few things to consider…

There is a point where chasing ultimate SINAD is purely a numbers game rather than an enhancement in sound quality. Good enough for human ears is good enough and the best state of the art amplifiers and sources while being technically excellent may not actually improve your audio experience if your current gear measures ‘good enough’. It’s safe to say most electronics are high fidelity with the transducers and the listening environment being the areas where things are let down. You can always measure your room and implement some room correction to convince yourself that you are listening to things as accurately as possible, but if you like how things are as they are don’t sweat it.

No one is hearing what went down at the mixing console without being there with the engineers and producers in the studio, so the ideology of perfect accuracy is never achieved anyway. We can aim to get close, but personal taste is as important too. Understanding what it takes to achieve our audio goals and accepting what our preferences are as well as understanding how we can be fallible is what separates an educated audiophile from dare I say it an audiophool.

If there are specific aspects of your system you don’t like or think could be improved you will be guided correctly on this forum and you will achieve real tangible results.

Maybe you should post some info on your set up if you want to know if objectively something is lacking.
 
The amount of info here is akin to trying to drink from a fire hose. Start small, think about what you like and dislike about your current setup. Then think about what you want or might want. Take a look through the reviews for your current equipment, odds are if it's performance is above average it's perfectly acceptable.

Like others have said, getting a measurement mike and learning to use REW is a great way to learn about audio science, which we love here, and how your current system is performing. From there a lot of great people around here will be happy to help spend your money making things great.

But the bottom line is when the lights are dim, your favorite album is on, a glass of your favorite beverage is being consumed is a smile on your face? Because the only thing that matters is enjoying the music.
 
But it IS more complicated than this (at the risk of derailing the thread). Hearing what the mic heard at the listening position in a different room is a pretty complex endavour. It's for instance not as easy as stating "perfect sound is flat sound." Depending on what that statement means it's not necessarily true. It's true for audio components, but when we add speakers and rooms to the mix, it gets more complicated than that.
You have to take the measurements at the listening position. And if this achieves a flat frequency response, then you are getting close to a transparent reproduction. That's my goal. And if I don't like it, it's the piece of music and not the sound.
 
It is a journey. At some point, your technical understanding and experience will allow you to accept a component as good enough. For many of us, the end game is the speaker/room or headphones you like. The entire electronic chain finally becomes a non issue. Those mechanical transducers and the room, that is where we might "upgrade" or "sidegrade" if we just have the money to burn. It comes with experience and knowledge, and yes it is a fun journey, so don't try to get there right away!
 
Back
Top Bottom