Your reference sounds

[Peluvius]

Like most of us here I am sure, I have spent an inordinate amount of time and money trying to replicate "great sound" over the last 40 years or so. In the beginning, I really had no idea of what great sounded like in any considered way, I liked this and I liked that but with no real consideration of why. Early on in my career I spend a few years working on motion pictures and TV commercials in the camera department and started to be exposed to the concept of accurate sound, manipulating sound for broad appeal and professional recording and reproduction environments.

Following this I became increasingly interested in trying to replicate sound as accurately as possible at home and started searching for what would represent a "reference" sound that I could use to judge various systems, speakers, rooms etc....

I have sat for hours in a variety of "high end" Hi Fi lounges at sales outlets; toured Hi Fi shows; been to plenty of concerts and shows; listened through well regarded and reviewed headphones and IEDs; sat in sound studios for hours with engineers and been to plenty of movies with supposed "reference" systems. Variables of room acoustics, source material, component performance, loudness, listener preference & bias are all still in play.

I guess I am getting pretty close to what good sounds like to me and very curious to see what others have done in this area or even if it relevant to everyone?

 

[Multicore]

For me I think it is a combination of two things, first is the feeling that it's all there, nothing missing, all the bass, all the highs and the rest combined with, second, comfort, the absence of fatigue or difficulty interpreting, good intelligibility.

 

[Palmer]

Like most of us here I am sure, I have spent an inordinate amount of time and money trying to replicate "great sound" over the last 40 years or so. In the beginning, I really had no idea of what great sounded like in any considered way, I liked this and I liked that but with no real consideration of why. Early on in my career I spend a few years working on motion pictures and TV commercials in the camera department and started to be exposed to the concept of accurate sound, manipulating sound for broad appeal and professional recording and reproduction environments.

Following this I became increasingly interested in trying to replicate sound as accurately as possible at home and started searching for what would represent a "reference" sound that I could use to judge various systems, speakers, rooms etc....

I have sat for hours in a variety of "high end" Hi Fi lounges at sales outlets; toured Hi Fi shows; been to plenty of concerts and shows; listened through well regarded and reviewed headphones and IEDs; sat in sound studios for hours with engineers and been to plenty of movies with supposed "reference" systems. Variables of room acoustics, source material, component performance, loudness, listener preference & bias are all still in play.

I guess I am getting pretty close to what good sounds like to me and very curious to see what others have done in this area or even if it relevant to everyone?

Nice to hear from someone who spent time in these "fields" - always a different view. For me, there's always the voice - if the person sounds like as present in the room, that is a major concern, it is a double edged sword though. My current setup is close to Studio Mains, meaning if the recording is , cough, bad - it will sound bad. In other words, a middle of the road sort of system will play a lot of material sounding okay, never great maybe - but nice. The better it gets, the less material will sound pleasing, for a lack of a better word. I always was on edge when working on, say Tannoys in the Studio - they have a tendency to sweeten things to a certain degree, and one is always questioning if that is actually that good sounding. Anyway - if one analyzes too much, it becomes rare to just listen to music and enjoy it. Even harder if one is a musician, you sort of automatically zero in to the instrument in question, above everything else, took me years to undo, it and just take the whole thing in.

 

[DWPress]

The better it gets, the less material will sound pleasing, for a lack of a better word.

Exactly. So many productions I used to listen to all the time when I was younger are now relegated to the car or other systems mostly because of poor engineering.

Like the OP I've put way too many resources and time into deciphering the best sound in my space. Plenty of years of measurements and a dedicated playlist for testing EQ have always been the "go-to" for me to evaluate. Awhile ago Amir reviewed some cheap IEMs that measured superb, I don't usually wear headphones or IEMs but purchased them just so I could experience good sound without the room influence. It was comforting to discover things were pretty close in the intelligible range but the lack of sub-bass also threw me off not to mention the discomfort of the things in my ears.

Ultimately though, I think we all have a preferred "curve" that suits our musical tastes and rooms. The familiar test track playlist is still my gold standard for evaluating other systems or showroom environments.

 

[Chrispy]

Personally don't care for headphones let alone consider them particularly a way to judge anything. I tend to start with a well balanced response and tweak to preference from there. Depends on listening levels as well. Most of your poll choices just don't mean a lot....

 

[Peluvius]

Personally don't care for headphones let alone consider them particularly a way to judge anything. I tend to start with a well balanced response and tweak to preference from there. Depends on listening levels as well. Most of your poll choices just don't mean a lot....

Fair enough. How do you know that the response is well balanced? What choices do you think would be more meaningful? I am just using those that have been meaningful to me.

 

[Peluvius]

For me I think it is a combination of two things, first is the feeling that it's all there, nothing missing, all the bass, all the highs and the rest combined with, second, comfort, the absence of fatigue or difficulty interpreting, good intelligibility.

I have developed tinnitus over recent years and find intelligibility is now a moving target for me... There is definitely that sense that everything is "right" for me as well although sometimes I suppose you wouldn't know if there was anything missing if you had never heard it? Do you use any particular reproduction gear you always go back to as a known quantity or reference?

 

[Chrispy]

Fair enough. How do you know that the response is well balanced? What choices do you think would be more meaningful? I am just using those that have been meaningful to me.

Measurements to start, then preferences. Headphones are much harder to measure/judge let alone prefer (don't like them myself, never considered them a reference tool)

 

[Peluvius]

Measurements to start, then preferences. Headphones are much harder to measure/judge let alone prefer (don't like them myself, never considered them a reference tool)

I prefer to listen without headphones as well. I was taught by sound recordists that headphones can be an important reference once they are a known quantity. They remove room acoustics from the equation. I have myself used an IED from time to time to check reference.

 

[xanalog]

Thank you for posting.
I voted for the "Technical Measurements" but only because it comes close to "Technical Specifications".

 

[Chrispy]

I prefer to listen without headphones as well. I was taught by sound recordists that headphones can be an important reference once they are a known quantity. They remove room acoustics from the equation. I have myself used an IED from time to time to check reference.

Room acoustics are generally a part of the situation, tho.

 

[DVDdoug]

I have sat for hours in a variety of "high end" Hi Fi lounges at sales outlets; toured Hi Fi shows; been to plenty of concerts and shows; listened through well regarded and reviewed headphones and IEDs; sat in sound studios for hours with engineers and been to plenty of movies with supposed "reference" systems. Variables of room acoustics, source material, component performance, loudness, listener preference & bias are all still in play.

I'd say you've got plenty of good "references". But they're all different. You can get pretty close to studio sound at home with good speakers and plenty of acoustic treatment.

Getting the sound of a live performance venue is another matter. To some extent you can "fake it" with surround sound. I've got a shelf-full of concert DVDs with surround and I really enjoy the surround sound. And with regular stereo I like to use a "hall" or "theater" setting on my AVR even though I'm not hearing what was heard in the studio so I'm not listening "accurately".

But blindfolded, I don't think I'd be fooled into thinking I was in a bigger space. I don't have any acoustic treatment and that would probably help to minimize the "small room" reflections, but I probably still wouldn't be fooled.

Plus, live music is usually louder and more dynamic (no dynamic compression). Sometimes I like it loud but I wouldn't want the sound of a live band or orchestra in my living room, even if they would fit. Somehow, loud sound in a small space seems claustrophobic to me, or something psychological...

I've had my speakers in a "dance hall" a couple of times for DJ gigs and they sound a LOT better (to me) in the larger space.

Headphones are just a "different experience" and the most common perception is the sound coming from inside the head. I hear it coming from around my forehead except for hard-panned sounds that I perceive as coming directly into my ear from the headphone drivers. Some people experience a realistic soundstage, but as much as people talk about headphone soundstage most people don't get a good illusion.

It was comforting to discover things were pretty close in the intelligible range but the lack of sub-bass also threw me off not to mention the discomfort of the things in my ears.

I also prefer speakers in a room... But actually, good headphones can be very good in the sub-bass. And it's the most economical way to experience strong-deep bass. But of course you can't feel it in your chest, and I like to feel it (but it's not the deep-deep bass that you feel).

Here's a quote from Amir in his video about headphone measurements:

Most of you have not heard what's in your music... You have not heard proper sub-bass until you hear it on a headphone that's low distortion and is able to go this deep.

And somebody else suggested that "home mixing engineers" with small monitors in untreated rooms should check the bass with headphones.

 

[respice finem]

...IEDs...

IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are too lethal for me, despite the unbeatable transient capability
But seriously, before I vote - you mean IEM?

My main reference is live acoustic music, relatively hard to get in today's reality.

 

[Peluvius]

Thank you for posting.
I voted for the "Technical Measurements" but only because it comes close to "Technical Specifications".

I trust measurements more than I trust specifications....

 

[Peluvius]

IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are too lethal for me, despite the unbeatable transient capability
But seriously, before I vote - you mean IEM?

My main reference is live acoustic music, relatively hard to get in today's reality.

Ha! Yes of course, apologies no IEDs required (I cannot edit the Poll wording) thank you. Yes, live acoustic music is extremely hard to replicate accurately.

 

[respice finem]

So, my vote is, apart from measurements, IEM - because their frequency response is not changed by the individual ear form or position on the head, as is the case with other kinds of headphones. Loudspeakers are problematic if listening in untreated rooms / without proper EQ - they will sound differently in different rooms.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I measure and EQ to a target, use Hifiman XS for a flat bass reference, and buy equipment that measures in line with what I am seeking to produce. I also listen to test tracks that I know well and have listened to for decades in different rooms on different equipment. That's the accurate part.

Good? Do all the above and then adjust the volume so my bouncy 100 year old floor adds just the right amount of sound to balance things to my taste. Because my floor imposes a reverse loudness function on music; more volume creates more bass and treble. I do a lot of things to try to measure this in a general "need more or less here" sense, but mainly I use my feet. The floor needs to pulse to the music just so, but not drone. In practice, this is usually a dB or two of increased or decreased volume. More if I go from chamber music to hip hop.

Put another way, if I just sweep and correct, it will measure fine in a sweep. It will sound bad with super bloated bass for music. And a lot of measurements and experiments have given me ways to dial things in, using (to make it sound fancy) a Bayesian approach.

 

[Multicore]

I have developed tinnitus over recent years and find intelligibility is now a moving target for me... There is definitely that sense that everything is "right" for me as well although sometimes I suppose you wouldn't know if there was anything missing if you had never heard it? Do you use any particular reproduction gear you always go back to as a known quantity or reference?

I've noticed that intelligibility of music, song or speech improves with better sound. I think it could even be a useful proxy metric. Signal to noise ratio is important, e.g. try listening in a fast car, or an airplane. Tinnitus is like that too. It's horrible and I hate it and it getting worse over time.

No, I do not have a reference. In general its often easier to notice when there defects in sound that are degrading the experience (usually uneven FR and/or noise).

Our living room system is pretty good and its a joy to listen to most stuff on that. The study/music room is deficient in that the speakers don't make any sub bass and the bass modes of the room are more of a problem. Neither is what I'd consider reference.

 

[xanalog]

I trust measurements more than I trust specifications....

But do such 'measurements' tell you [we] the "whole story" of an audio hardware's particular/unique specifications?
Such as the types of internal designs/circuits, it's features, UI, connectivity, I/Os, etc.!

 

[Peluvius]

But do such 'measurements' tell you [we] the "whole story" of an audio hardware's particular/unique specifications?
Such as the types of internal designs/circuits, it's features, UI, connectivity, I/Os, etc.!

I am suggesting that measurements are a method of determining acoustic performance as opposed to identifying features, connectivity etc... There are a lot of manufacturers who will present specifications which are inaccurate or manipulated in such a way as to be misleading or not entirely representative.

I measure and EQ to a target, use Hifiman XS for a flat bass reference, and buy equipment that measures in line with what I am seeking to produce. I also listen to test tracks that I know well and have listened to for decades in different rooms on different equipment. That's the accurate part.

Good? Do all the above and then adjust the volume so my bouncy 100 year old floor adds just the right amount of sound to balance things to my taste. Because my floor imposes a reverse loudness function on music; more volume creates more bass and treble. I do a lot of things to try to measure this in a general "need more or less here" sense, but mainly I use my feet. The floor needs to pulse to the music just so, but not drone. In practice, this is usually a dB or two of increased or decreased volume. More if I go from chamber music to hip hop.

Put another way, if I just sweep and correct, it will measure fine in a sweep. It will sound bad with super bloated bass for music. And a lot of measurements and experiments have given me ways to dial things in, using (to make it sound fancy) a Bayesian approach.

I think measurements using REW help you get an objective perspective, I have taken a similar approach in using familiar test tracks although that can also be difficult if you have developed your familiarity based on a colored reproduction.