Better sound vs better experience?

[Robin L]

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.

One's appreciation of sound is proportional to one's appreciation of music.

Full stop.

If a boom box does it for you, fine. There's no law requiring you to be an audiophile.

I've had a lot of exposure to live, unamplified sound. While that's a good standard, a lot of times live, unamplified sound can be worse than a good recording played back on mediocre gear.

If you hear something and you have an "Ah-Ha!" moment you're probably on to something.

Most of my exposure to live, unamplified music came when I was recording (or just listening to) concerts. The perspective of a recording is usually better than one can get from a typical seat at that same concert.

I like the sound of my playback gear. I bought it cheap, mostly used from thrift stores. I listen to it for hours every day. It doesn't hit the bottom notes but still has enough bass for most of the music I listen to. It images well. All my sources are digital. I'm glad to be free from the distortions of LP playback.

If you're happy with the sound of the gear you now have, don't worry about it. That's a much better state of mind than the typical audio neurotic.

 

[sigbergaudio]

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.

I assume you mean even frequency response (few deviations). Flat (no slope) is wrong and will be too thin/anemic (too little bass).

 

[sigbergaudio]

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.

While reproducing music is mostly science, what people actually hear or experience when they listen is a lot of psychology, and still not well understood.

 

[whataboutmusic]

While reproducing music is mostly science, what people actually hear or experience when they listen is a lot of psychology, and still not well understood.

I find it more interesting to be honest.

I believe that a good start is to built a neutral and flat system and then change stuff and experiment with other sound signatures.

I have given it a lot of thought...what the op asked in his post...I mean do ''accurate sound'' is something that it can be learned to like? are most people find it dull and boring because we are listening to V shaped systems most of the time?

 

[Rob_Gordon]

Woaw ! Thank you for all these different answers! I didn't expect so many different feedback!

I want to address them all–it's the respectful thing to do–but I don't want to flood the thread who now has a life of its own, with sub-discussions and parallel debates, so I'm gonna reply in this one long message, hope I can make it readable!

I want to start by clarifying a few things so that there is no misunderstanding: I'm not "worried/unhappy". I'm a little taken aback by the amount of parameters to take into account but it's fine, I have other interests in life and some led me to even bigger vertigos! So, my bad if I sounded upset. I like asking questions in general and I'm generally fine with not getting answers immediately.

I'm not unhappy with my system, I'm not looking to change it now, I am mostly looking to learn and share with an intellectually rigorous audio community such like yours

I get that the natural/spontaneous response here is to guide someone building their system and maybe (hopefully?) I will do that, with your help gladly, in a year or two, but it's not now. I should explain why:

1) We just bought a place, so I'm not rolling with dough right now ;

2) we're still adding things to the living room (which is the listening room), for instance, big thick curtains are coming soon. My partner and I have also agreed on a DIY project to build an acoustic panel on the rear wall–so it's a little early to know what my system can do in this context.

3) it's also true that I know what I would lose (if I were to sell my stuff) and I don't know what I could or would get, because a)I have never heard a data/measurements based system and b) I don't know how much (time/effort/money) would be needed to get to a better sound than the one I already have.

But it is true that all "this" makes me want to buy a measuring mike and start digging, to get some objective data. So yeah, thank you for all the info. I'm gonna look on the forum things about that and REW. Fun perspective

I get that I sounded like someone super worried, I'm not, and I can very well enjoy my current system. But the fact that I'm super happy about it doesn't quench my thirst for knowledge

@whataboutmusic : thanks for your perspective! I tend to focus on my own enjoyment of music but I'm also intrigued as to what "better objectively" can sound like.

@GXAlan : thank you for this input. I hadn't thought of it this way and it does change a bit how I understand things

@Sal1950 : so, are you saying that an audiophile must be objective? as in: the term shouldn't be used to describe audio enthusiasts who just follow their personal preferences?

@MaxwellsEq : I get where you coming from but I want to add a third term to your input and it's the law of diminishing returns applied to time and effort instead of money. I'm already convinced better measuring is better period. What I don't know is how much time and effort would be needed for me to get to better measuring sound in my place.

@DWPress : thanks! yeah, I'm gonna look into that... and try to stay reasonable in my digging!

@Killingbeans : yeah, you're right. I'll get back to you with some measurements when I manage to find a way to get some! And yeah, I'm enjoying it, I'm not worried

@Mikig : thank you so much for such a nice and beautiful message. I agree wholeheartedly

@Jim Taylor : you're right, nothing wrong about it! And no component in my system pretends to do anything supernatural!

@MattHooper : thanks Yeah, that sounds about right. And I think that's what I experiment myself with my own system, in a way. The question is rather: between a 10K system that's built with objective measurements and a 10K system that is built on "reasonable intuition" (without any snake oil or "stupid" purchases such as a fancy DAC), would I just hear a difference, or would I be blown away by the difference?

@Mean & Green : thank you! you understood perfectly what I meant you wrote:

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.

And I think it's a very reasonable convincing stance. I like it! I will post info (and try to get some measurements).

@Devnull : thank you! yes, I'm gonna try to get into REW and yes, I really, really enjoy listening to my system. Every time, it's a treat.

@tomelex : patience is always the key!

@Robin L : yes, you're right, about everything. But I have difficulties trusting my Ah-ha! moments, because I have a natural bias for change. Any difference always sounds better to me... until it doesn't!

thank you all!

 

[whataboutmusic]

@whataboutmusic : thanks for your perspective! I tend to focus on my own enjoyment of music but I'm also intrigued as to what "better objectively" can sound like.

The good thing is that it is not very expensive to try a really neutral system....especially if you use headphones..but with speakers too...what others suggested with the microphone is very important because when you are listening with speakers you are also listening to the room you in to..so room treatment is as important as your speakers.

From what I understand with a microphone you can measure to what point you are getting a flat frequency response from your speakers...because if you are not then you have alterations. It is an interesting quest I would definitely try it if I was using speakers.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I have given it a lot of thought...what the op asked in his post...I mean do ''accurate sound'' is something that it can be learned to like? are most people find it dull and boring because we are listening to V shaped systems most of the time?

Accurate sound (depending on the definition) is not dull and boring. It's also not flat in the listening position.

 

[whataboutmusic]

Accurate sound (depending on the definition) is not dull and boring. It's also not flat in the listening position.

I think that lots of people are used (and tend to prefer) a sound signature with elevated bass and upper frequencies...

When I first listened to a neutral set of headphones I was not impressed at all..but in the end I ended up liking that kind of sound.

When you say it is not flat in the listening position you mean that in every room there is a difference?

 

[Gorgonzola]

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?

Don't worry, Rob. In the end it's the enjoyment that matters and enjoyment is subjective.

Still, I personally have found the more accurate my system sounds, the better I like it. This has been a slow process for me, literally taking over 50 years. Each incremental improvement in the direction of accuracy has brought satisfaction and greater musical enjoyment..

For I while now, in fact, the weak link has been the recordings, not my play back equipment. While, thank goodness, the large majority of recordings are quite listenable, it's true there is large variation. The worse consequence of a relatively high accuracy system is that recording defects are ruthlessly exposed.

A certain amount of certain types of distortion are inoffensive in themselves and can MASK other, more obnoxious types of distortion, whether originating on the recording or in one's play back equipment. OK then, but for my part I'd rather not rely on my equipment to mask defects but rather hear the recording as it is with minimal added distortion.

In any case, continue to enjoy, that's the main thing.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

For myself, the information here at ASR made the process of assembling a good sound system easier by an enormous magnitude compared to the classic audiophile process of watching a bunch of reviews in which people said a whole bunch of stuff that sounded good but was really based on nothing and was often just thinly disguised paid advertising, and then buying stuff which was usually satisfying for a while but then the adverts started making me think "hmmm should I upgrade my amp?"

In terms of sound, everything up to the speakers is dead simple. Measurements get you there.

Speakers are a little more complicated, but it's important to remember that perfection isn't necessary and there's lots of good speakers out there that will do the job just fine because ultimately you're going to smooth off the rough edges with some room correction.

Neutral is NOT "thin, anemic, dry." Neutral is the recording. If the recording is thin, anemic and dry then that's what you are going to hear from your system. But if the recording is majestic, deep and resonant...then THAT is what you are going to hear from your "neutral" sound system.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I think that lots of people are used (and tend to prefer) a sound signature with elevated bass and upper frequencies...

When I first listened to a neutral set of headphones I was not impressed at all..but in the end I ended up liking that kind of sound.

When you say it is not flat in the listening position you mean that in every room there is a difference?

I mean that when you put a tonally accurate speaker (which will often measure flat or close to flat in an anechoic room) in a normal room, and measure it in the listening position, it will have not have elevated upper frequencies, but it will have elevated bass. How much will depend on the loudspeaker design and the room, but you typically see a difference of 3-10dB from 50-10,000hz depending on the listening distance. This sounds accurate. A flat in-room measurement would sound to thin, and the anechoic measurement of such a speaker would show negative gain in the bass.

Example below.


Average of Left+Right in listening position:

Anechoic measurement of the same speaker (missing some port output from the measurement):

 

[whataboutmusic]

I mean that when you put a tonally accurate speaker (which will often measure flat or close to flat in an anechoic room) in a normal room, and measure it in the listening position, it will have not have elevated upper frequencies, but it will have elevated bass. How much will depend on the loudspeaker design and the room, but you typically see a difference of 3-10dB from 50-10,000hz depending on the listening distance. This sounds accurate. A flat in-room measurement would sound to thin, and the anechoic measurement of such a speaker would show negative gain in the bass.

Example below.


Average of Left+Right in listening position:
View attachment 412339

Anechoic measurement of the same speaker (missing some port output from the measurement):
View attachment 412338

Thank you for the clarification I did not know that. Headphones are way more simple though not as rewarding as speakers.

To add one more aspect that complicates things for me in regard of the room treatment....I always had a problem with low end when I was using speakers...too much "booming'' and I would always think that I am not hearing what I was supposed to from the album.

 

[GXAlan]

Woaw ! Thank you for all these different answers! I didn't expect so many different feedback!

You had a really thoughtful first post and I think it resonated with a lot of people. Your strength of character stands out even in this short interaction, with a thank you and even an attempt not to flood your own thread!

I get that the natural/spontaneous response here is to guide someone building their system and maybe (hopefully?)

It’s fun vicariously spending other people’s money.

1) We just bought a place, so I'm not rolling with dough right now ;

Congrats.

2) … so it's a little early to know what my system can do in this context.

3) … I don't know what I could or would get, because a)I have never heard a data/measurements based system and b) I don't know how much (time/effort/money) would be needed to get to a better sound than the one I already have.

House expenses are always a lot higher than you think when you first move in. Sort of like kids…

I may have missed the current setup you have, but in a way it doesn’t matter if you like it. Instead of trying to match a measurements based system to what you already like, it makes the most sense to try something with no preconceived notion or adjustment to what you already own.

#2 and 3 are where I was a few years ago. With the pandemic retail therapy, a weak yen relative to the dollar, a little bit of luck of selling some initial gear, and a lot of luck on eBay, I did the whole paperclip into a house style thing, where I definitely spent a lot of money but also was able to get to my end game setup at a fraction of a cost.

I have tried tubes several times (and I really like their sound) and have multiple turntable so I am in the camp that doesn’t follow the strict Sal1950 definition of being an audiophile.

I still have kept one thing through the process that goes against expected preference scores: my Magnepan MG-III. Now, it’s actually is in storage right now. It’s room/house dependent and my current home isn’t great for the Magnepan.

Mg current system is very much science driven. I currently run all Meyer Sound gear and a Trinnov Altitude 32. The system is the price of an nice car at retail (but again, I spent a lot less).

I tell that story because:
1) patience brings you deals.
2) I have a very premium “Summit Fi” system
3) You need ~$1200 to experience a measurements based system, ideally $1500 to $2500, and will get 80% of the performance of my “if I won the lottery” type system with just $2500.

#1 important element: speaker
#2 important element: DSP
#3 important element: source
#4 important element: knowledge

I would take a great speaker with no DSP and a YouTube source over a state of the art (SOTA) DSP and DAC and amplifier and lousy speaker.

Everyone likes to say that the source is the most important. You cannot deal with poor recordings with limited dynamic range or incorrectly mic’d environments, etc. While you may have the option of picking which recording of something like Tchaikovsky’s Nutracker Suite is the best, if you like Taylor Swift, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, the soundtrack to Wicked, the soundtrack to Avengers, you get what you get. You might find better versions of pop music or better songs you enjoy within a genre, but if you like _______, you get what you get. You cannot say that I want the Beatles with more dynamic range than they had. Remixes and remasters only go so far.


1) $400 JBL 308P II

JBL 308P MKII Studio Monitor Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the JBL 308P MKII 8-inch Monitor (powered speaker). I purchased this from a member a few months ago. New, they cost US $249. The 3 series look the same for good or bad: The large plastic waveguide is really in your face. Wish JBL would provide...

www.audiosciencereview.com

You may need to tune the tilt and listen at moderate or closer distances if you prefer to listen “loud” but this is a superb choice. It’s ugly but all the money went into sound.

2) $700 Black Friday, Onkyo RZ50. May hit it again after Christmas.

Dirac and Dolby Atmos are going to be essential. The SINAD is not an issue audibly. The power limiting is a reason to spend more, but if you are using active speakers not a big deal.

That combo with nothing else will get you a strong taste of what measurement based systems sounds likes. You may prefer a different tilt which is where even having the bundled mic with the RZ50 is good enough for you to do some testing.

Both of those can be found from places with an in-home trial.

Next level up
3) $240 UMIK-2
4) $100 AppleTV for Atmos and Apple Music subscription

There is a long thread about how Atmos
Music downmixed can still give you dynamic range superiority to a more compressed stereo mix.

Final upgrade:
5) PowerSoundAudio subwoofer
A single sub is fine for a single position as a start esp where you can move the subwoofer around to minimize the nulls in your sitting area.
——


The ergonomics of AppleTV for a music only setup and the aesthetics of studio monitors are challenges, but for a taste of measurements based systems, hard to beat the JBL 308P II and Onkyo RZ50

 

[sigbergaudio]

Thank you for the clarification I did not know that. Headphones are way more simple though not as rewarding as speakers.

To add one more aspect that complicates things for me in regard of the room treatment....I always had a problem with low end when I was using speakers...too much "booming'' and I would always think that I am not hearing what I was supposed to from the album.

The booming is the room messing up the response below 100-150hz, making it uneven. This can often be improved significantly with DSP/EQ.

 

[markstein]

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.


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.

If you like the sound of your system, do not change it, do not try to "optimze" but simply enjoy the music.

If the technical aspect is also part of your hobby, well, ASR is probably the start of an interesting journey... Enjoy this as well and keep learning.

Ignorance is NOT bliss.

 

[markstein]

Speaking of myself, knowledge has given me indeed more satisfaction and certainty with my hobby. I am less "searching" for "better components" and not believing in any marketing (bullshit) any more. Instead I am using my time to learn how to optimize bass reproduction with multisub setups and manual PEQ. Saved me a lot of money

 

[whataboutmusic]

The booming is the room messing up the response below 100-150hz, making it uneven. This can often be improved significantly with DSP/EQ.

Yes...also changing stuff around the listening position was changing the sound also but I was always under the impression that I don't know what I am doing.

It was one of the reasons that I gave up on speakers and turned in to headphones....other reasons was lower cost, room and being able to listen to high volume at any time even during after midnight.

I recall that using good stands for my speakers was very helpful with the low end booming situation...also keeping the speakers a little far of the wall

 

[sigbergaudio]

Yes...also changing stuff around the listening position was changing the sound also but I was always under the impression that I don't know what I am doing.

It was one of the reasons that I gave up on speakers and turned in to headphones....other reasons was lower cost, room and being able to listen to high volume at any time even during after midnight.

I recall that using good stands for my speakers was very helpful with the low end booming situation...also keeping the speakers a little far of the wall

Yes, it's difficult to fully fix without EQ/DSP. And that means you also need to be able to measure your room, unless you use automatic EQ (which might work, but isn't always perfect). So it's a bit of a learning curve.

 

[Multicore]

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!

How? How can you tell from reading posts on an internet forum that the sound you're hearing is not good sound, that it is deficient?

 

[eddantes]

Hey Rob,

I'll just share my journey on this subject. Maybe it will resonate with you. The big thing for me - blind tests.

Even my crappy ones, which were not even properly conducted, provided a very good illustration of the limitations of my hearing, and how forgiving my ears are. The key was to take a speaker that is by n large considered OK (F35s =in my case) and compare with loudness matching and rapid switching against something else. Now all of a sudden you realize just how small the differences are between OK and OK-1/OK+1. Once you've calibrated your ears and mind - you can relax when you realize that something as unremarkably OKish as the F35s, are really 90% (or more) of the way to audio-nirvana; and that the last 10% may or may not be audible to you and not worth pursuing.

Furthermore - if you have 2 or more speakers that are recorded in Spinorama - you can now compare them under the conditions above (volume matched and rapid switching) - you can look at the CEA2034 or the PIR charts and start to consider if you can hear the differences you can see in the chart and finally how impactful those differences are to you, in your environment and your musical tastes.

Yes - your room will have a big impact - but since you're room remains a constant (for you) you can ignore the absolute values and simply look at the relative differences.

Now - forarmed with the knowledge above - you can look at a comparisson like this and say to yourself - Do I really need to pursue this?

Are the Blades better? Damn straight they are better! But - are the differences so significant that I ought to shell out an additinal 35K?

I can confidently say - that for me - with my financial capabilities - Nah. Not really. I'd rather blow that money on a month long exotic trip with my whole family. Those 9/10ths F35s give me more than enough of music satisfaction.

My upgradeitis has been cured by ASR and learning to read Spinorama (with full apologies to all those that will claim measurements don't tell the whole story).