What is "good enough"?

[fpitas]

Yes, so financial considerations apply to almost everyone, whether we (as a 3rd party) think they spend too little or too much.


If someone is 'not very free' with their money, then a significant part of their decision is going to be dictated by price (almost irrespective of income). Someone who is much more liberal in spending money wouldn't be satisfied until they spend more. My point is these are psychological questions and it pertains a lot to the temperament of a person as to how much they'd be happy to spend. Some aren't happy with they spend 'too much', some aren't happy if they 'don't spend enough' - this could be two people with roughly the same income, with disparate ideas as to what is a satisfactory outcome, due entirely to the amount of money they apportion to their hobby.

The bolded part is an engineer lol. I always consider price.

 

[Digby]

The bolded part is an engineer lol. I always consider price.

That's because you know how much every individual capacitor and switch costs! I'm currently indulging my blissful ignorance on these matters.

 

[GearNostalgia]

I switch camp between your first three categories and I also share my listening space with the rest of the family. So I guess I am a true compromizer. Money and room is my limiting factors.

 

[JeffS7444]

The enlightened: has gained superior audio knowledge by attending audio-shows and is friends with the local hifi store. She/he knows all the high-performance components and does not necessarily need to listen to a component before forming an opinion. Quality is measured in $.

Ouch! Once upon a time, I may have been part of such a scene. And for a time, it pleased me to imagine that I was experiencing hifi at a rarified level. It's kind of funny that I found it so much easier to spend money extravagantly when I scarcely had any

 

[fpitas]

The audio industry doesn't typically encourage actual knowledge. ASR has proven that over and over.

 

[mppix]

I have another definition for "pragmatic"

Your definition ("assesses components predominantly by listening") leads to a lot of disillusion and waste of time, in my experience.

Therefore, the "pragmatic" approach for me is to preselect by referring to measurements where it gives the (almost) full picture, and based on budget and functionalities, and then to listen only when it makes most sense (loudspeakers, headphones, mainly).

Since I'm proceeding this way, I get much better and consistent satisfaction.
And much less incertainty and time loss.

Perhaps there is room for an "engineer" that identifies "knee-points" before the diminishing returns and assesses quality in "objective metrics per $" and assesses real-world constraints such as WAF?

 

[Rja4000]

Perhaps there is room for an "engineer" that identifies "knee-points" before the diminishing returns and assesses quality in "objective metrics per $" and assesses real-world constraints such as WAF?

Can't find the "laugh" emoticon...
;-)

 

[fpitas]

Can't find the "laugh" emoticon...
;-)

Well...I'll agree there aren't a ton of us, but...?

 

[fpitas]

Sorry
Was about WAF

Ah. It is an unfortunate reality.

 

[Rja4000]

Well...I'll agree there aren't a ton of us, but...?

I'm an engineer too ;-)
That + WAF...

 

[Saponetto]

Unless you are a oh-so-much-wealty people who builds its own home surrounding the chosen-to-be-perfect listening point, the first blade of Ockam Razos is always budget.

 

[mppix]

Ah. It is an unfortunate reality.

I think the experienced engineer has understood some properties of the WAF and carefully checks it before allowing a project to advance beyond a point where WAF problems would result in considerable setbacks. Albeit highly nonlinear and counterintuitive, the WAF may be differentiable. Therefore is tends to be much easier to solve locally at least in an approximate way if a feasible solutions is known to exist. On the other hand, global properties of the WAF are a subject of study by thousands of researchers around the globe. As it stands, the problem seems to be NP-hard without relevant shortcuts and it remains hard to predict for foreseeable future.

 

[kemmler3D]

I just spend a dinner with friends discussing this and we could not agree - as so often - but we came up with some points of views that we all adopted at various times:

• The scientist: requires that a component must reproduce audio beyond what can be detected by a listener. Scientists may use their own measured ears, best case human hearing, or the ears of their preferred pet as reference. Quality is a deterministic measure of physical units in reference conditions.
• The psychologist: requires a scientific approach but only for parameters that have been shown to matter in side-by-side blind test. Quality is a statistical measure of, typically, physical units.
• The pragmatic: assesses components predominantly by listening to well-known recordings in a familiar space and by playing with volume and other controls. She/he may engage in occasional side-by-side comparisons, which are usually not blind, and consider a system agreeable if it lacks obvious flaws. The pragmatic can listen to a vinyl or tape record without needing to identify flaws. Quality is largely binary: pass or fail.
• The enlightened: has gained superior audio knowledge by attending audio-shows and is friends with the local hifi store. She/he knows all the high-performance components and does not necessarily need to listen to a component before forming an opinion. Quality is measured in $.
• Everybody else: considers that everything but all-in-one devices are a waste of space and hifi should not cost more than a family dinner. Typically buys state-of-the-art hifi that is bluetooth speakers, preferably an Alexa/Siri/Echo. Quality is measured by a "best of ranking" by some website (one of the first few google responses).

It is also noted that these individuals can be

• egoistic: the listening room has a single chair and well defined sweet spot
• social: the listening room is open for social gatherings and the sweet spot must extend over a minimal area, which may be a couch or more
• compromising: the listening room doubles as additional room, e.g. living room, limiting placement options and often adding requirements such as dorm-proof, child-proof, or pet-proof.

At our dinner, we could not find system that is "good enough" for everybody. Perhaps we did miss something important or perhaps it is for the better if the question has more than one answer.

I'm curious what folks here think.

Just remember it is all for good (and well intended) fun.

The system that's good enough for everybody:

-Fits in a backpack
-Can run on battery or USB 5v if need be
-Has the design to make you look rich even when your friends drive italian sportscars
-Costs less than $100 and can be had for $60 around the holidays
-Has flat anechoic response from 20hz to 20khz at 120dB SPL with -65dB THD at worst
-Has perfectly even cardioid directivity down to 80hz
-Also somehow has a dipole mode
-Has the impact of a Klipschorn and the pinpoint imaging of a Blade Meta
-Has inputs for any source from phono to AES to WiFi and runs Roon, spotify, and every other "connect"
-Perfectly linear phase response via DSP
-Somehow also has an all-analog option
-Is made from all biodegradable, green materials

I agree, there is no such thing and I doubt there will be in my lifetime.

 

[kemmler3D]

I think the experienced engineer has understood some properties of the WAF and carefully checks it before allowing a project to advance beyond a point where WAF problems would result in considerable setbacks. Albeit highly nonlinear and counterintuitive, the WAF may be differentiable.

WAF is the spec provided by the industrial designer and/or marketing or product manager, it is not typically the idea of the engineer, more of a design constraint.

 

[kemmler3D]

those silly LEDs are just dumb.

Those silly LEDs paid for someone's second house by a lake, so maybe not that dumb.

 

[Elkerton]

I fall into the egotistic/social camp for several reasons. Videos are often shown with others, so good dispersion is vital. I listen predominantly in the sweet spot, but there are other chairs I use off-axis, and I like to pace. Therefore, a speaker's off-axis performance is nearly as important as its on, so this data on performance in the listening window with sub is valuable to me:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...i_eE1JS-JQYSZy7kCQZMKtRnjTOn578fYZPJ/pubhtml#

 

[LuvTheMusic]

This is not quite in the spirit of the OP (and the original post was brilliant.) But here goes:

We need one more category: the fortunate who have found the right setup (regardless of price or specifications) such that listening to Brahms brings tears to their eyes and listening to Bach brings peace to their hearts. <feel free to substitute your composers/music/musicians>

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

It's not complicated. Measurements tell us nearly everything we need to know. Even with speakers. Get stuff that measures well (aka does what it's supposed to do and nothing more or less) and then set it up in the room as best you can (the room/speaker relationship is where most of the issues exist). Spend what you can - you can do it pretty successfully for very reasonable amounts thanks to having good information to use (measurments).

There is no system that's good for "everyone" because people have different requirements. But even as a person who values "good sound" in an audiophile sense, I could get by if I had to with a nice bluetooth speaker or a set of bluetooth headphones. Luckily I don't have to.

 

[restorer-john]

The audio industry doesn't typically encourage actual knowledge. ASR has proven that over and over.

Perhaps the audio industry of today is guilty of that.

The audio industry of yesteryear was completely the opposite.

 

[fpitas]

Perhaps the audio industry of today is guilty of that.

The audio industry of yesteryear was completely the opposite.

Times change.