How do you know if it can sound better?

[Cote Dazur]

The hobby is called 'High Fidelity' not 'Absolute Fidelity'

Thank you for that, so true, a nice reminder to everyone, as so many express their opinion with such an absolute tone.
Here is to hope that all of us, audiophile, realize sooner than later, that the quest is a great one but their is no goal to reach until you decide that good enough is good enough and start enjoying the music.
This thread couldn’t last 100 pages and we will never reach an agreement on what it is exactly any of us is trying to reach, let alone as a group, not even as individual.
So how do you know, is the OP asking, that is easy, you don’t, ever. If that is what you are after, stop, it is not going to happen. Best you can hope for is some kind of compromise you can live with and get back to enjoy the music, as that is what started you in this endless journey.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

I guess the title says it? Personally speaking I don't know how good it can sound and even then am I "colouring" the sound to lean towards my personal psychoacoustic preferences rather than moving towards what was recorded? How do you get a reference for best in your listening room and inside your own head?

This is difficult, and the only way really is to listen to different systems, try different systems. If a system then sounds better, then you have a new reference. But you can never be sure, if there is more.. And audio memory is very bad, so you can not really remember what something you hear 10 year ago sounded compared to now, the only thing you can remember is your evaluation, a description of what you heard back then, was.

You can measure the system in your room, and then analyze and determine whether there is a potential for significant improvement. Potential for improvement will show, it can be identified, and possibly improved. Good systems tend to measure more similar. Once you reach this good level, it is not so easy to see from measurements exactly how it sounds and how the sound could be improved.

 

[Chrispy]

Sure, I could get better speakers, altho I'm largely happy with what I've got currently. My hearing is in decline in my dotage and I'm happy with what I've got and have other interests and expenses, too. I just don't worry about it a lot any more.

 

[Mart68]

Thank you for that, so true, a nice reminder to everyone, as so many express their opinion with such an absolute tone.
Here is to hope that all of us, audiophile, realize sooner than later, that the quest is a great one but their is no goal to reach until you decide that good enough is good enough and start enjoying the music.
This thread couldn’t last 100 pages and we will never reach an agreement on what it is exactly any of us is trying to reach, let alone as a group, not even as individual.
So how do you know, is the OP asking, that is easy, you don’t, ever. If that is what you are after, stop, it is not going to happen. Best you can hope for is some kind of compromise you can live with and get back to enjoy the music, as that is what started you in this endless journey.

I think our tastes are formed at an early age - food, music, women - and that's also true of audio systems. For my part it was a combination of a friend's father's 1970s JVC/JBL set-up and the recording studio at the university I attended which was a state of the art (for the mid-1980s) installation.

Although I did not think it was possible to get that studio sound in the home at the time. It was twenty-odd years later when I finally abandoned the 'audiophile' approach that I realised it was possible. Ironically having got there I found after a year or so it was actually too much so have since dumbed the system down a little so it is more relaxing to listen to. It's now closer to that JVC/JBL system than it is to the studio set-up.

I was never keen on the idea of the journey being endless, I just wanted the sound I was chasing so I could, as you say, get back to enjoying the music.

Having just quit being retired and gone back to full time work I'm in the position where I could, financially (and within reason), get any equipment I wanted, but I don't actually feel the need, so I guess that is journey's end. But of course 'never say never.'

 

[FeddyLost]

Let's not even go down the track of whether what I hear is the same as what you hear....

Besides of being ironic, it's the natural answer for

moving towards what was recorded

Each acoustic event is unique.
When we talk about commercial tracks, the last acoustic event before digital distribution is replay in studio when artist/producer approves record.
So, if we want to recreate this acoustic event as good as possible, we need this studio.
Otherwise we need some people who designed sound of this event to verify that our attempts are correct.
I see no other way of going towards to "what (really) was recorded".
And this approach is IMO kind of useless unless you listen primarily to some specific material and can adjust transfer function of your audio system for best results.
For wide variety of records and genres I'd make system just "good enough" and tweak according to personal tastes.

 

[Thomas_A]

You can't always know if you're close to the original recording because recordings can be very different from each other. For example an orchestral recording sounds completely different than pop music, because the way the artists used the microphones and mastered the song is completely different. Having a natural sounding system is always a good step but unless you know the equipment and the room of the recording, it's very hard to know if you're close to the original sound.
For me, getting a natural tone from acoustic instruments and voices is the most important thing. Other than that, if you're not in the studio you don't know how close you are to the original.

Agreed. Since it is not possible to know how it sounded at the recording studio, you need to rely on what sounds natural for voices and instruments. Measuring is a good way to find the errors.

Also, if you do upmixng for multichannel for suitable 2-channel recordings, you are effectively turning away from how it sounded at the studio. Instead you are trying to get an better illusion of the event rather than the recording.

 

[diaolodoro]

Going after the how the original performance of the music sounded in the studio is moot. The best you can do is getting close to the recorded source. Said source can be terrible for many reasons, but the standard of good gear is giving you the source, no matter its quality.

You'd be surprised how information you can extract just by seeing how stuff was recorded. Here's a few examples that will change the feel of the music and that information is needed to understand if you're close to the original source.
1) Did they record a band in the same room? Is it an acoustically nice room? Was it live or was it recorded separately? If it was a loud live recording, the singer might use a dynamic microphone, so the vocals will sound darker. So your speakers aren't dark sounding, the recording was.
2) How many microphones did they use to record an instrument and where they were located? Was it a small diaphragm or a large diaphragm microphone or a combination?
3) Were the vocals recorded in a natural "reverby" room or in a vocal booth and reverb was added later in the mix?
4) And of course my favorite example is guitar amps. People go and buy the same signature guitar, amp and even pedals from their favorite guitarist to try getting the same tone, because otherwise you have no idea how the amp distortion it's supposed to sound or how to recreate it.
And finally you have younger producers often go and buy the same studio monitors and microphones used by their favorite producers. I mean people still use the horrible Yamaha NS-10 or even iPhones to get a final mix only because these devices are often a reference point.

 

[Vacceo]

Precisely for all those reasons, that are usually hard to know, the only "cero point" you typically have is the final recorded sound. To me, hi fi is staying true to the final recorded product, no matter how good or bad it is. The point of the system, then, is delivering what is in the source, not trying to reverse or "improve" it. If I play Sepultura's Bestial Devastation I already know it's going to be very hash and crude, as the final result of the recording was very unpolished.

 

[FrantzM]

Speaking for myself here. I use my better headphones as reference. IN particular the HifiMan HE6Se, in a High SINAD chain (Topping D10 Balanced, THC789 AAA) (one of these days, I may get crazy and swing for the DCA Stealth )... And these are my reference and yeah, I rely on vastly different paradigms.. but I know which one has the better tonality and the least distortions: The headphones system._


Peace.

 

[FeddyLost]

but I know which one has the better tonality and the least distortions: The headphones system.

If you have good HP system with low HD and IMD and everything "live" sounds decent, you'll barely have better reference from ~100 Hz and up, since our hearing is very adaptive to linear distortion.
HP can't provide vibration below 100 Hz, so usually have slight bump to compensate this.
Room and room interaction is ... unpredictable at best if you can't measure it.
So, if you can't bring i.e. Jascha Heifetz into your room to assure that his records sound correct, it's OK to compare allover sound to SOTA HP system.

 

[Thomas savage]

Find the best recording and mastering, then you know it will sound better .

Assuming you have the best speakers you can afford and your aware of room interactions the rest of the stuff we all worry about is virtually meaningless all things being equal .

 

[Somafunk]

I guess the title says it? Personally speaking I don't know how good it can sound and even then am I "colouring" the sound to lean towards my personal psychoacoustic preferences rather than moving towards what was recorded? How do you get a reference for best in your listening room and inside your own head?

From a personal perspective I have treated my entire 4.2m x 3.3m x 2.4m room with 19 GIK panels (£2.5k) of various types and measured using REW and umik mic I have an RT40 time, I still have 3 room modes at 35hz, 75hz and 130hz but DSP implemented through ROON has somewhat tamed the bass - not perfect by any means but certainly more enjoyable to listen to, speakers are Dynaudio LYD 48's and Dynaudio 18s sub using CXN v2 streamer. My preferred listening choice of electronic music has never sounded better, needless to say with that much treatment in my only living room and only one chair in the sweet spot it's no surprise i live alone.

 

[Digby]

...needless to say with that much treatment in my only living room and only one chair in the sweet spot it's no surprise i live alone.

but you're convinced you made the better choice, right?

 

[Somafunk]

but you're convinced you made the better choice, right?

Damn right,

 

[abdo123]

I don't have any IMAX cinemas near me that sound "better" than my system at home (and there we are with subjective again), perhaps I should say "that I prefer the sound of my system".....

Well that's a shame.

Usually once you hear a room so big that the room modes are outside the audible spectrum any illusions of achieving the same sound in a tiny room disappear.

Room accoustics are 100% the limiting factor for anyone using something better than a bluetooth speaker.

 

[Chrispy]

Well that's a shame.

Usually once you hear a room so big that the room modes are outside the audible spectrum any illusions of achieving the same sound in a tiny room disappear.

Room accoustics are 100% the limiting factor for anyone using something better than a bluetooth speaker.

Then again not all Imax theaters are of equal quality (or size and assume gear/setup can be somewhat up to the local franchisee). My best Imax experiences have been in their flagship type theaters, my less than ideal ones more the smaller ones in a mall/multiplex. The last one I used (to see Dune pt1) there was something off with the audio, and each of us in our party noticed it....

 

[Peluvius]

Find the best recording and mastering, then you know it will sound better .

Assuming you have the best speakers you can afford and your aware of room interactions the rest of the stuff we all worry about is virtually meaningless all things being equal .

This is where I am at also. The biggest difference I hear now relate to where I am sitting in the room and how the recording and mastering was done. Chesky for example seems to have really done some special stuff. I struggle to hear an A/B improvement in electronics unless the component is very poorly designed or implemented, particularly with multichannel.

 

[Peluvius]

Well that's a shame.

Usually once you hear a room so big that the room modes are outside the audible spectrum any illusions of achieving the same sound in a tiny room disappear.

Room accoustics are 100% the limiting factor for anyone using something better than a bluetooth speaker.

A shame perhaps. This would make sense given the wavelength of lower frequencies. Are there other factors at play?

 

[Kvalsvoll]

This is where I am at also. The biggest difference I hear now relate to where I am sitting in the room and how the recording and mastering was done. Chesky for example seems to have really done some special stuff. I struggle to hear an A/B improvement in electronics unless the component is very poorly designed or implemented, particularly with multichannel.

I always find myself going back to the old Beatles albums, whenever something new has been made, it's become sort of an obsession to hear how weird does this sound now..

Chesky is more towards the other end of the scale, among the very best. Some of the test tracks are fun to listen to, such as the general imaging demo, where the performer circles around, presenting sound not only up front, but all the way around, including behind the listening position.

 

[Peluvius]

I always find myself going back to the old Beatles albums, whenever something new has been made, it's become sort of an obsession to hear how weird does this sound now..

Chesky is more towards the other end of the scale, among the very best. Some of the test tracks are fun to listen to, such as the general imaging demo, where the performer circles around, presenting sound not only up front, but all the way around, including behind the listening position.

The old Beatles albums I love purely for the music but I can see how they could be a reference. I was introduced to Chesky through his Stereo Review album, which is great as it gives a descriptive of what to listen for and talks about where and how it was recorded (which I think someone mentioned earlier was important if you are looking for reference). I then went on to listen to a lot of his recordings and was surprised at the difference good recording and mastering techniques had on what I was listening to. The Review album seems much harder to get these days, I have not found it on any streaming platforms.