• 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!

It (almost) never sounds bad!

Frankly its pretty hard not to build a speaker with decent engineering now that at least extends down to 100Hz or even 80Hz, unless its volumetrically constrained stuff that's at least -10dB shelved below 2KHz like a smartphone speaker.
 
Which is why listening tests, not graphs, are what matter in that realm.

Just for grins I ripped a couple of CD tracks [one I engineered and another fav I didn't] into four files: WAV, WMA 9.2 and AAC 250 and 500 Variable Bit Rates.

It took about four or five passes to be able to reliably determine which encoder was used as they all process with differences.

Once determined, I had someone else randomly choose the tracks which I got right about 75% of the time. Slightly better odds on the uncompressed track.

In all cases the compressed files change the perspective and cause something like a shaker or other atonal / asymmetric instruments problems in that they lose focus and smear. This may or not be audible on all systems and was tolerable for the most part for casual listening.
 
It seems to me that things sound good when they are played at a higher volume (without audible distortion)--hence the importance of level matching when one compares systems. I've always believed that the mark of a high quality system is one that sounds good when played at relatively low volume levels. Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but to me, anyway, the rest is gibberish.
I agree with this statement 100%. Over the past few months I converted my 7.1 system to all Revel F206 speakers and a Rythmik sub. I noticed two striking differences: (1) it sounds superb whether listening at very soft levels or what I consider to be full volume and anywhere inbetween (2) when I listen at what is my maximum - around 70-75 dB - the system does not sound "loud" it just sounds good.

I now only listen to music with the 7.1 system. I do use Airpods Pro2 when exercising, mostly to listen to a podcast or watch a TV show. I cannot listen to music with earbuds or anything else other than the main system. I prefer to wait until I can use the main system and otherwise forgo listening to music, it is too painful. They all sound mediocre in comparison.

When comparing the same audio at different volume levels, the equal loudness curve comes into play. Be careful what conclusions you draw.
 
Just for grins I ripped a couple of CD tracks [one I engineered and another fav I didn't] into four files: WAV, WMA 9.2 and AAC 250 and 500 Variable Bit Rates.

It took about four or five passes to be able to reliably determine which encoder was used as they all process with differences.

Once determined, I had someone else randomly choose the tracks which I got right about 75% of the time. Slightly better odds on the uncompressed track.

In all cases the compressed files change the perspective and cause something like a shaker or other atonal / asymmetric instruments problems in that they lose focus and smear. This may or not be audible on all systems and was tolerable for the most part for casual listening.

Yeah, so you say, maybe so

But this is why DBTs exist.

None of it points to a good lossy encode being notably or routinely 'bad'. Psychoacoustic modelling works.

(and 75% is not necessarily statistically significant)
 
Just for grins I ripped a couple of CD tracks [one I engineered and another fav I didn't] into four files: WAV, WMA 9.2 and AAC 250 and 500 Variable Bit Rates.

It took about four or five passes to be able to reliably determine which encoder was used as they all process with differences.

Once determined, I had someone else randomly choose the tracks which I got right about 75% of the time. Slightly better odds on the uncompressed track.

In all cases the compressed files change the perspective and cause something like a shaker or other atonal / asymmetric instruments problems in that they lose focus and smear. This may or not be audible on all systems and was tolerable for the most part for casual listening.
I guess people want to see some ABX test results (20 attempts) before they will believe you and have the files uploaded so they can be scrutinized.
 
Hey!

Ok, so this is something I experience, and I never seem to hear anyone else talk about it the way I feel it. So I just wondered if you guys every go/went through something like that.

In a way, unless the music is coming from a really poor device, I never spontaneously think "damn, that sounds bad". I have to pay attention to realize it doesn't sound great. But then, if I hear the music on a proper system, I spontaneously think "damn! that sounds good". I don't have to focus to realize it. You know?

When I use my bluetooth headphones in the street, sometimes my mind goes "damn that sounds good! did you really need to spend money on a better headphone for home?" and then I get home, put on my headphone and I'm like "oh ok, no, THAT sounds great".

It's like I only spontaneously experience the upgrade in quality.

And so it's like: every time I turn on my system, I'm (happily) surprised. Every single time. I'm always like a "woaw I didn't know that type of quality was possible!" type of a reaction. But I rarely catch myself thinking the other way around. You know what I'm saying?

Is it the same for you? Or, if you happen to be at a friend's who's not so much into audio, and one of your beloved tracks is played, you can't help yourself but think "arf... this is a poor reproduction"?

I wonder if it's not just the enthusiasm for the music itself that masks the flaws...
My home stereo is pretty good - good enough for my purposes. My car stereo is not good, but I don't really think - gawd, this sounds bad! - even when the program material cries out for better reproduction (like my symphonic recordings). I'm a "music-first" audiophile, I really like good sound reproduction but don't require it. A lot of my recordings are pre-high fidelity, but it takes very little time for my ear to adjust.
 
I guess people want to see some ABX test results (20 attempts) before they will believe you and have the files uploaded so they can be scrutinized.

For extraordinary claims, I need extraordinary evidence. In the case of audio, barring some obvious flaw (like, his encodes are demonstrably poor), that means a proctored DBT.



.
 
I was taught 'listen for what it does wrong not what it does right' but I have noted people who do not do this.

At a demo of some speakers they were dog rough in the mids, After listening to a recording which should sound fantastic on pretty much anything and finding it unpleasant I went off to one side to look at some equipment.

The seats were filled and more music played at a higher level. Even off at right angles you could hear how rough it was. Someone standing near said to me 'When I listened to those speakers I was physically wincing and I noticed you were too. But look at these people.'

And indeed all three were listening intently without any wincing despite the sound being actively unpleasant, especially on peaks. I am guessing they were concentrating on the imaging or the PRAT or something. Or they were just not at all fussy, which seems unlikely.

Some do seem to assume that the problem is the recording, especially if the speakers are well-reviewed and/or expensive.
 
If proper engineering work & experience is put into it, even most cheap speakers can sound somewhat decent. The most important thing by far is the frequency response the speaker produces at the listener's ear - it should be flat-ish, with a slight emphasis on lower frequencies.

I'm embedding a (free field) frequency response chart of a negative example, a cheap speaker that I could barely stand listening to - a Heco Victa 201:

4_1226878.png

Stock, it sounds muffled, with a bloaty upper bass, etc.

I then just EQed it, with this result:

12_1226892.png

.. and it sounded fine. Balanced, smooth, decent bass, decently detailed, etc. - not at a high level, but very acceptable even to an experienced listener's ears.

It's really mostly not all that hard to get a somewhat balanced frequency response out of a speaker, especially if it doesn't need to have a lot of bass (radios, small PC speakers, ...) - so yes, while there's bad apples, mostly even cheap speakers can sound acceptable.
 
Back
Top Bottom