Good versus accurate ...

[Madlop26]

What instrument can measure human pleasure?

fMRI is getting into that

 

[Jim Taylor]

What instrument can measure human pleasure?

Instrumentation provides values in relation to a standard (it is quantifiable) ... pounds, degrees, gallons, volts and microvolts, miles and kilometers, etc. They are the same all over the world, today and tomorrow.

Human pleasure is subjective, and can be different for every person on earth. It may change, day to day. It is not definable in relation to a standard, and not quantifiable.

As I said in the OP ... there are two totally different worlds involved here, and it is best not to confuse them.

 

[goryu]

Instrumentation provides values in relation to a standard (it is quantifiable) ... pounds, degrees, gallons, volts and microvolts, miles and kilometers, etc. They are the same all over the world, today and tomorrow.

Human pleasure is subjective, and can be different for every person on earth. It may change, day to day. It is not definable in relation to a standard, and not quantifiable.

As I said in the OP ... there are two totally different worlds involved here, and it is best not to confuse them.

Indeed, though there are those here apparently who have issues if you suggest joining these two worlds, lol.

 

[DVinylfan]

If this thread had a poll for "good" or "accurate" I would certainly vote accurate.
Whether my hifi set up sounds 'good' (to me) is dependent upon a number of factors, all subjective in origin.
'Good' is a value-laden judgement, while 'accurate' is more measurable.
'Accurate' can be easily understood as synonymous with 'transparent' whereas 'good' is a vaguer term.
The aim in audio reproduction, for me, is to be as accurate, as transparent to the source as possible, such that good recordings with good mastering sound good, poor recordings/masterings don't sound good, but what I'm hearing is accurate, truthful to the source.
For those who wish to hear colourisations, sweeter sounding distorted versions of the source material, I think the equipment exists for them to have that experience. It isn't my preference, but I have no objection to them enjoying their music that way.

 

[Peluvius]

If this thread had a poll for "good" or "accurate" I would certainly vote accurate.
Whether my hifi set up sounds 'good' (to me) is dependent upon a number of factors, all subjective in origin.
'Good' is a value-laden judgement, while 'accurate' is more measurable.
'Accurate' can be easily understood as synonymous with 'transparent' whereas 'good' is a vaguer term.
The aim in audio reproduction, for me, is to be as accurate, as transparent to the source as possible, such that good recordings with good mastering sound good, poor recordings/masterings don't sound good, but what I'm hearing is accurate, truthful to the source.
For those who wish to hear colourisations, sweeter sounding distorted versions of the source material, I think the equipment exists for them to have that experience. It isn't my preference, but I have no objection to them enjoying their music that way.

I don't think you can separate good from accurate in any meaningful way when it comes to audio reproduction unless you further define the objective. If your objective is to sell lots of gear to people who like dance music, add bass. If you want to sell to people who like to display their gear, add timber finish and a bit of chrome.

If your objective is "HiFi" then good is accurate and more accurate is better.

 

[TTT15]

I wish there were some measurements which would tell which HiFi systems including non sound factors would give me the most enjoyment. I’ve tried the likes of Dan Clark Stealth, Topping, and RME before without any prior knowledge or pre-conceptions and I found them very capable but they didn’t bring me joy or desire to purchase. So while not questioning the measurements I saw subsequently at all I question how valid these measurements are for assessing your personal preferences unless your personal preferences happen to align with measurements. The harman curve for instance I understand is an average and therefore doesn’t apply to all individuals. Clearly audible noise and unpleasant disorientation are not welcome but otherwise they may not be definitive for everyone. I agree with blind ABX tests in principle but that doesn’t seem to be readily available for most consumers. And there doesn’t seem to be comprehensive measurements for most components and their various possible combinations. A lot of well measuring systems are not available to try in a lot of places. Therefore the majority of consumers are left making subjective choices in practice even if they would like to make more objective choices.

 

[goryu]

If your objective is "HiFi" then good is accurate and more accurate is better.

Only for those who define good, accurate and better the same way.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I want my gear needs to be as accurate as possible. This way I have a blank canvas over which I draw my own designs, my preferences. The "blankness' Of the Canvas defines the accuracy of the gear.
We are discussing a technological construct, one may need "overhead", a safe margin of accuracy, to accommodate our wants, if not our needs... Again this is served by accuracy.

I don't see a dichotomy" Accuracy as the blankness of the canvas, and gears that allow us to "draw" or "paint" our own designs.

On this, it seems that in many cases, most people are drawn to accuracy. They find that it does indeed , "sound good". It may require some-re-education in some cases but for the most part, people seem to prefer accurate reproduction.

Good Listening!

 

[RickS]

While not disagreeing with the OPs intent, this thread is unfortunately no less polarizing than other comparable ones that have thousands of posts and are no closer to concluding. The polarizing thread title does not help. Plan to review with Amir, but see no better purpose being served here and plan to merge with existing content.

Per feedback from Amir, have unlocked the thread for now. Hopefully it can improve over others but time will tell.

 

[j_j]

I am an objectivist and try to go beyond just looking at graphs and numbers and try to correlate the measurements with what I hear.

I have multiple subs and use room correction and play around with both "manual" room correction with REW as well as DIRAC DBLC. There is no doubt that DIRAC gets the measured response in the room "smoother" than I can do manually with REW and I have been listening using DIRAC for months. Reading about "room correction" on ASR I came across some recommendations by @j_j to use "ERB smoothing" on the measurements before creating the room corrections filters. Compared to "Var" smoothing which I had been using previously "ERB Smoothing" aggressively smooths the measurements and takes into account the physiology of our inner ear and how we perceive sound. When I created filters with ERB smoothing the number of filters REW created dropped from 16 to 5. When I apply these filters and look at them with VAR smoothing the measured frequency response appears quite uneven/ inaccurate with large steep dips (it looks OK with ERB smoothing) but when I listen I have a very strong preference for the less accurate filters created with the ERB smoothed measurements. This is a case where "more filters create a measured more accurate frequency response that sounds worse to me". There is certainly "science" behind too many steep filters causing audible issues which don't show up in FR measurements but this was quite a surprise to me.

Well, the broader ERB-based filters have a much shorter impulse response. Ideally you would also measure the response of the direct signal above 100 or 200Hz, and discard the reflections beyond that range, and it would be even better, most likely (but this depends on the room).

What's happening is that when you over-correct, you are first going to wind up incorporating the room response, and you're very likely to wind up with too much HF compensation. Second, you are going to "correct" to a space smaller than your head.

In addition, of course,if you seriously overcorrect, when you exhale your solution will be wrong. When the temperature changes, wrong. When there is any air current or turbulence in the room, wrong.

Physics is a *****, man.

 

[j_j]

Hi

I want my gear needs to be as accurate as possible.

How, in the case of a studio recording that's 100% synthetic, do you define "accurate"? How do you separate out room, speaker directivity, etc?

In the case of a field recording, it's even worse, because 2 channels don't even hold a candle to the information in one small part of the soundfield.

There is some meaning to "perceptually accurate" but not that much to "accurate" without a lot of very complex qualifications.

And, before you go further, remember you're talking to one of the most obstinate objectivists around.

 

[levimax]

Well, the broader ERB-based filters have a much shorter impulse response. Ideally you would also measure the response of the direct signal above 100 or 200Hz, and discard the reflections beyond that range, and it would be even better, most likely (but this depends on the room).

What's happening is that when you over-correct, you are first going to wind up incorporating the room response, and you're very likely to wind up with too much HF compensation. Second, you are going to "correct" to a space smaller than your head.

In addition, of course,if you seriously overcorrect, when you exhale your solution will be wrong. When the temperature changes, wrong. When there is any air current or turbulence in the room, wrong.

Physics is a *****, man.

Thank you. I have seen several links to a powerpoint you put together on room correction but it doesn't seems to be working anymore so I have only seen bits and pieces and summaries of it. Is this still available somewhere? I would be very interested to see the whole thing.

 

[j_j]

Thank you. I have seen several links to a powerpoint you put together on room correction but it doesn't seems to be working anymore so I have only seen bits and pieces and summaries of it. Is this still available somewhere? I would be very interested to see the whole thing.

It should return at some point to the www.aes.org/sections/pnw "meeting reports", EVENTUALLY. The AES is moving stuff around, (*&*(&*( it.

 

[boxerfan88]

People on either end of the spectrum- the 100% subjectivists and the 100% objectivists can both be immensely annoying with their dogma. There is plenty of room somewhere in the middle for those who realize and use science as a worthwhile tool and at the same time accept its limitations once we enter the subjective realm of the pure enjoyment of music on a personal level.

Hallelujah.

 

[boxerfan88]

But why "persuade" anyone? Each can stick to their own, if they want to.

Amen.

 

[PaulK]

That is exactly my opinion.
Respect the view of other posters.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Since this is a science forum, opinions are fine as long as they are backed up with data generated from a testing methodology that is reproducible by someone else in a different location.

In most scientific environments, proposed ideas, conjectures and opinions are expected to be peer reviewed and challenged. The challenging needs to be respectful. But eliminating this challenge leads to pseudoscience, bad science and dogma (e.g. Soviet Lysenkoism and suppression of dissent).

 

[solderdude]

Some people seek 'accurate' but in the end want something that sounds pleasant and 'know' accurate gear is needed.
Depending on the transducers, room, conditioning/EQ they may be getting anything from 'somewhat accurate' to 'fairly accurate' compared to the recording's wave-forms that are reproduced.
They want 'good sound quality' that resembles the recording in the best possible way and enjoy the music they listen to.
What can be observed is obsessive up-graditis when something new, with even better measurements, comes along and think it matters.

Other people seek 'pleasant' and in the end may end up with 'colored to personal taste' to maybe even 'somewhat accurate'.
They may care less (but don't always do) about the 'technical signal fidelity' and/or measurements/data sheets (but some do care).
They want 'good sound quality' that touches their emotional buttons and enjoy the music they listen to.
What is often observed is that these folks are on the 'never ending search for even better sound'.

Both use different methods to get to the point where they can enjoy the music.
Both care about different 'aspects' and 'ways' of their journey to audio nirvana.

Neither is 'wrong' in taking the route they are taking and should be free to do so.

When the goal is to reproduce the recorded waveform as 'exact' as possible the path is clear for each budget.
When the goal is to listen to recorded performances and enjoy it the path is 'divergent' for each budget.

The paths, budgets, component/brand choices differ (but sometimes not) and ways of looking at 'hi-fi' differs.
The final goal doesn't which is: enjoy recorded music.

Where the shoe wrings .... the way they go about it, the vocabulary used, the theories and preferences people have, the convictions/theories they have.
This can cause (almost violent) reactions between people that are trying to communicate how their 'method' is the only 'proper method'.

 

[Chr1]

All part of the fun of this hobby, I reckon.

So, therefore...

I like, and have both.

(Because I can.)

 

[respice finem]

Yes, many forget, it's no vital matter.