Question about ‘neutral sound’ and preference.

[Soria Moria]

If someone prefers let’s say 5 dB more bass than me, is this purely ‘taste’ or is it because they perceive less bass than me and require more for it to sound ‘right’? Same goes for all other frequencies. I’m sure this has been researched. I know participants in the Harman studies had varying levels of preference in the bass and that’s why I’m wondering because I assume that what they all ultimately preferred is what sounds the most ‘neutral’ (right) to them, not just ‘fun’.
Actually on second thought I don’t know what the difference between ‘fun’ and ‘right’ sound would be. Maybe they are technically the same since if it doesn’t sound right then it isn’t fun.

 

[kemmler3D]

Personal equal loudness contours are known to vary quite a bit, so there's got to be some personal hearing sensitivity involved. However, anecdotally, bass quantity seems very subject to preference, even beyond the range we could account for with hearing tests.

If that's not the case, then we have to explain what kind of exotic hearing loss causes all of those young guys to buy absurd subwoofers for their cars, and how their hearing apparently miraculously recovers in their late 30s.

I think it's both, in other words.

 

[DMill]

If someone prefers let’s say 5 dB more bass than me, is this purely ‘taste’ or is it because they perceive less bass than me and require more for it to sound ‘right’?

The “one” in someone is the key. The Harman studies preferences are an aggregate, not one person.

 

[Chrispy]

Depends on your taste, their taste, the original setup of speakers/room....

 

[Timcognito]

Well thats a tough one as a small speaker will not produce as much bass as larger so correcting it may add distortion but yield a more pleasing sound. Amir seems to say that studies show the listeners mostly prefer a non distorting "flat" frequency response curve

 

[DVDdoug]

I'd say mostly taste. "The kids" sometimes like boomy one-note bass from their car stereos.

High frequency hearing loss is more common, especially in older folks. So an older person might prefer some high-frequency boost that would sound harsh to people with normal hearing.

But to some extent you get used to what you hear so if you have high-frequency loss you are unlikely to completely compensate for it, because it's going to sound unnatural to you.

I know participants in the Harman studies had varying levels of preference in the bass and that’s why I’m wondering because I assume that what they all ultimately preferred is what sounds the most ‘neutral’ (right) to them, not just ‘fun’.

I think they were trained-critical listeners so I don't think they were just turning up the bass and treble and saying, "This is fun!"

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I assume that what they all ultimately preferred is what sounds the most ‘neutral’ (right) to them, not just ‘fun’.

I've always thought the idea of home replay is for the kit to get out of the way of the recorded music. By this I mean to introduce the least amount of noise; to not add a frequency emphasis that's not already in the music; to not change the music and add character of its own.

For domestic replay, the unknowns are around transducers, listeners and the room. Personally my preferred approach is to have speakers which are reasonably flat in an anechoic model and to try to get them to work best in the room with minimal treatment and EQ. When calibrated I find many recordings "snap in to focus" without needing much or any EQ. Differences in recordings feel sensible. Where there is a lack (e.g. in the bass), it's seems obvious why - for example it's a 70s rock album. What this might not be is "fun", but it is great when it works.

 

[GaryH]

If someone prefers let’s say 5 dB more bass than me, is this purely ‘taste’ or is it because they perceive less bass than me and require more for it to sound ‘right’? Same goes for all other frequencies. I’m sure this has been researched. I know participants in the Harman studies had varying levels of preference in the bass and that’s why I’m wondering because I assume that what they all ultimately preferred is what sounds the most ‘neutral’ (right) to them, not just ‘fun’.
Actually on second thought I don’t know what the difference between ‘fun’ and ‘right’ sound would be. Maybe they are technically the same since if it doesn’t sound right then it isn’t fun.

Preference is an accurate proxy for perceived neutrality:

I think it is well established that flat bass in a headphone or in-room response of a loudspeaker is NOT neutral. We’ve had trained listeners draw the perceived spectral balance of these targets and they are perceived as not flat.
Toole spent 10 years having listeners rate loudspeaker based on perceived fidelity/neutrality. When we switched to preference, the loudspeakers ratings didn’t suddenly change. There is a high correlation between fidelity/neutrality/ preference.

Our headphone targets do not deviate significantly above 200 Hz from a anechoically flat speaker measured in our reference room at the DRP. For the AE/OE target it’s within 2 dB of the bass of the in-room speaker target. For the IE target it’s higher, but there are data to support it needs to be higher to be perceived as equivalent

 

[ozzy9832001]

All depends on what they are listening to, how they hear, how the room is setup, distance from the speakers, frequency response, volume and honestly, mood.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

If someone prefers let’s say 5 dB more bass than me, is this purely ‘taste’ or is it because they perceive less bass than me and require more for it to sound ‘right’?

It's taste.

Inherent spectral balances do not change with location. So someone whose hearing is 5 dB down at 100 Hz compared to you will always be 5 dB down compared to you. That 5 dB difference is natural to them .... they don't perceive it at all. It is inherent to them in a concert hall, in an outdoor arena, at a school playground, in a quiet office and in a listening room, listening to recorded music. All of those locations sound "right" to them. Only by comparing audiology tests can the two of you clearly see differences in levels of perception.

Jim

 

[MRC01]

It is taste, but it's not entirely taste depending on what you listen to. If you listen to natural unamplified acoustic instruments or voices and you want a good recording to sound like the real thing, your reproduction target is a limited range of tonal balance. Yes, that natural music sounds different in different rooms, and to listeners in different places in the room, which is why it's a range rather than a single target.

However, one could say your in-room reproduction should be a single target because the range of balance will be captured in different recordings, and your in-room reproduction must be neutral in order for these different recordings to sound like they should.

 

[tmuikku]

Hi,

I could speculate it goes something like this:
unless a system (any system) is equalized to room, which is quite rare, then people have used listen to room modes, boomy bass in general, quite bad bass quality.
Now, take such a person to a study room, to a situation that has no such issue, and they would like it to boom like they have used to, so increased bass level it is

Well, could be opposite:
quite big speakers are needed to get any real lows, quite rare again.
Now, take such a person to a study room, to a situation that has no such issue, and they would like it to boom because they've never hear proper bass before and it's so much fun

Also if you always listen rather low level then some bass boost would make it same sound as slightly leaner bass listened louder.

Speculation aside, best thing is to adjust your own system yourself, tune it to room, balance to liking never minding about such targets.
Balance could change after a while: too much boom gets tiring quite fast be it from room or from system balance. At least I get tired on too much bass, and with wild room effects it is very hard if not impossible to get good balance because there is easily peak or two that dominate and make the lowest lows and kick and punch and all that disappear. The peaks just dominate perception and you'd like to turn it louder to hear kick but now its too loud because of the peak and so on, there is no balance to system, its just boomy and miserable sound no matter what.
Measure and equalized enough to get the lows more balanced and its fine. Take effects of room modes somewhat in control at listening spot so that frequency response on low frequencies is closer to +-5db rather than +-15db. Suddenly there is punch and lows and all that, its now possible to balance the system to liking, be it some average target curve or your curve, what ever. Boost the bass if you like, change by record if you wish, I think its neutral at any level you like it. Contrary, if you ignore effects of room modes it won't be neutral no matter what your level is.

Happy tuning everyone, do not underestimate importance of this, room has huge effect on bass!

 

[MRC01]

... people have used listen to room modes, boomy bass in general, quite bad bass quality.
Now, take such a person to a study room, to a situation that has no such issue, and they would like it to boom like they have used to, so increased bass level it is
... Happy tuning everyone, do not underestimate importance of this, room has huge effect on bass!

I agree this is common and also a contributing factor why so many people want headphones to have elevated bass response. Even with good headphones having clean linear bass response, they want "mo' bass" for that "slam". I find that as people listen to headphones more, they get accustomed to the sound of clean, linear, realistic bass and stop cranking up the levels.

IMO, a similar effect applies for in-room speaker systems too.

 

[ChrisG]

If someone prefers let’s say 5 dB more bass than me, is this purely ‘taste’ or is it because they perceive less bass than me and require more for it to sound ‘right’? Same goes for all other frequencies. I’m sure this has been researched. I know participants in the Harman studies had varying levels of preference in the bass and that’s why I’m wondering because I assume that what they all ultimately preferred is what sounds the most ‘neutral’ (right) to them, not just ‘fun’.
Actually on second thought I don’t know what the difference between ‘fun’ and ‘right’ sound would be. Maybe they are technically the same since if it doesn’t sound right then it isn’t fun.

"Fun", by definition, is subjective.
For example, if I play the track: Violence by Andy Stott, my home stereo (flat down to 10Hz) renders it perfectly well. However, I find it much more fun if I add a low-shelf boost to the bass (+12dB below 60Hz), and then increase the volume until the bass lives up to the title.
Other pieces of music are fun in other ways, so that bass boost is only applied on occasion.


IMO, definitions of "right" will also vary hugely, along every axis you can think of.
For instance, if I stood you in front of a drummer going full bore on a stadium-sized kit, and then immediately took you to the next room to demo some HiFi speakers, asking which speaker sounds "right/correct/accurate", I'd expect your answer to be "none of them - they're not even close".

If, however, you listen to a singer with a guitar, and then I wait a week before presenting you with a reasonably high-quality recording of that same performance, you might be much more willing to accept the illusion.


Program material, SPLs, time between comparisons, psychological effects (mood, fatigue etc), physiological effects (ear muscles contracting/relaxing, etc), and a whole host of other things will factor into our internal comparison between whatever "reference" we hold and the music we're being presented with.


Following all of that, the best we can do is draw trend lines which will make most people happy most of the time. There will always be outliers in their tonal balance tastes, both in the "fun" and "right" categories, and I wouldn't deny anyone the opportunity to get their system aligned with their preference.


Chris

 

[Tim Link]

Bass preference can change day to day. God knows why. Over the weekend I thought I had my system dialed in to near perfection. Everything sounded very well balanced to me. Monday evening I listened again. It was too heavy in the bass and midbass. Not bad, but definitely too much. So, I turned it down, or more specifically I turned the highs up a bit more and it then sounded balanced again to me. Maddening. There is no one bass level that works for me every day. It's been this way my whole life. I used to play upright string bass and sometimes it would sound very full and rich, other times it would seem to lack fundamental and be excessive with scratchy overtones. I found this thread where bass players talk about the phenomenon. It effects musicians just as much as audiophiles. https://www.talkbass.com/threads/does-your-bass-sound-differant-every-day.235946/

 

[MRC01]

... I used to play upright string bass and sometimes it would sound very full and rich, other times it would seem to lack fundamental and be excessive with scratchy overtones. I found this thread where bass players talk about the phenomenon. It effects musicians just as much as audiophiles. https://www.talkbass.com/threads/does-your-bass-sound-differant-every-day.235946/

This is common across many kinds of musicians & instruments. I notice the same playing flute. My primary flute has different sonic personalities (or at least my perception of the personality) and each day it's a bit different. Usually I just accept that day's timbre for what is, different but still interesting and expressive. Sometimes the difference is grating so I pick up a different flute or headjoint for that day.

Same with my audio system and recordings. A great recording is always great, but not equally great. Some days it's a "10" and other days it's a "7". Conversely for bad recordings. Having simple tone controls helps a lot. Even subtle adjustments can make a big difference in perception and enjoyment.

 

[Tim Link]

This is common across many kinds of musicians & instruments. I notice the same playing flute. My primary flute has different sonic personalities (or at least my perception of the personality) and each day it's a bit different. Usually I just accept that day's timbre for what is, different but still interesting and expressive. Sometimes the difference is grating so I pick up a different flute or headjoint for that day.

Same with my audio system and recordings. A great recording is always great, but not equally great. Some days it's a "10" and other days it's a "7". Conversely for bad recordings. Having simple tone controls helps a lot. Even subtle adjustments can make a big difference in perception and enjoyment.

Thanks for sharing that! So it's not just a bass player's issue. Come to think of it I've noticed the effect with the piano to some degree too, although it seems perceptually more robust to me than either my old string bass or the stereo system. As you are a serious flute player I can see that you would be acutely sensitive to the tonal qualities of that instrument. Tone controls are underestimated, or perhaps misunderstood in the high end community, and I've found recently that a loudness curve can sometimes be really great for low level listening. I was loving it over the weekend. This morning I found listening at low level without it more satisfying. This idea that we might need to tweak our system on a daily basis is not something I hear talked about much.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Bass preference can change day to day. God knows why. Over the weekend I thought I had my system dialed in to near perfection. Everything sounded very well balanced to me. Monday evening I listened again. It was too heavy in the bass and midbass. Not bad, but definitely too much. So, I turned it down, or more specifically I turned the highs up a bit more and it then sounded balanced again to me. Maddening. There is no one bass level that works for me every day. It's been this way my whole life. I used to play upright string bass and sometimes it would sound very full and rich, other times it would seem to lack fundamental and be excessive with scratchy overtones. I found this thread where bass players talk about the phenomenon. It effects musicians just as much as audiophiles. https://www.talkbass.com/threads/does-your-bass-sound-differant-every-day.235946/

So glad it's not just me, and I'm not a musician.

This also creates a problem for subjective reviews. Sometimes my perception of what sounds good is quite different day-to-day. It's one of the reasons I've always bought kit that measures well.

 

[tmuikku]

Tim Link, MaxwellsEq, my personal opinion and observation on difficulty to set bass balance is due to a resonance, or a room modal peak, that takes the attention. Symptoms are: bass seems to be too much, turn bass down and now it's lean, turn it up and now it's overwhelming, it's just always seems to be off. Generalized, there doesn't seem to be single good level for bass when there is a peak. I understand your descriptions to be the exact same problem.

For live music one just have to change position to get balanced sound, but often this cannot be done if it is a crowded stage. One step to one direction could already help though, so try it.
For home stereo use room measurement to find the peak(s), fix it with what ever means, and suddenly it's easy to find level for bass that works. Actually even the midrange gets better and so on, masking reduced. Most likely it's just a room mode, but could be combination of room, speaker issues, and how speaker and room work together. Most simple thing is to use EQ to knock down modes / peaks first, then try to find bass balance again. Better would be to first find best positioning for balanced sound without exessive peaks, by changing speakers and listening position, and then use EQ. Perhaps use advanced EQ tactics but few parametric filters can do wonders already.

If and when there is modes in measurement and EQ, use high Q filter to knock them peaks down, low Q filters are not effective enough and in my small experience they could make the problem worse attenuating bass broadly, without fixing the issue which is the narrow peak. Don't be shy, -15db with Q 13 could be the cure! Narrow notch filters are very hard to hear, except if they fix a narrow peak, so it's very likely the filter is not audible anywhere else in the room, except where the mode got fixed the difference should be apparent. Peaks are far easier to hear and far more distracting than dips.

Please report if this helps My general feel is, when sound seems off but cannot quite pinpoint, it's very likely just a resonance, a peak in frequency response that kind of takes attention away from the music.

 

[DSJR]

My hearing issues seem to be as much about perceiving room reflections as much as high frequencies as such and one experiment I need to carry out is how a wide-dispersion/directivity speaker would compare in this way overdamped room to my more old fashioned speakers with response and directivity dips in the lower kHz region (feck it, I HATE not being in this industry now I've retired).

As for bass, our 'Soft Suffolk Red brick house' transmits low bass away from the sitting room and into the rest of the building including our next door neighbour, despite the party wall once being an outside wall before ours was tacked on a couple of years later in the late 1800's. Got to say I have a preference for a taut more punchy bass reproduction from large bass drivers not working hard, as opposed to a typical 'port laden underdamped boom' as so many porty speakers tend to be tuned (it doesn't have to be this way but that seems the commercial choice all too often).

Audiophiles over here seem to like more upper mid and top it seems and even with my ears I find that objectionable