It sounds good, it sound better: is it always personal preference or even ability of your hearing?
I think that someone in good health when listening to music from a system should have two judgments about the related SQ, one related to an impartial evaluation and another one related to a personal preference.
impartial evaluation = It sounds good, but I don't like it.
Personal preference = It sounds bad, but I like it.
Just like when you taste food.
Please note that I would like it if we could demonstrate for once that we can approach the subject in a rational, but not Manichean, way.
I do not want to discuss about alleged absolute truths in Audio, but to possibly recognize a different way of approaching and sharing experiences related to listening to recorded music reproduced through an audio system.
Edit to add:
In this thread it is not appreciated to talk about instrumental measurements because this thread is not and does not want to be the usual thread of controversy and opposition between the two usual factions that "fight" each other.
The purpose of this thread is, if possible, to create a new value regarding the human capacity to use one's senses not only in a private and singular way, but with a meaning of shareability.
There are things you can only measure with your senses.
Examples of such cases where there are no tools to identify quality, but only our senses, would be appreciated.
Examples about the so-called "preferences" that some refer to would also be appreciated, since in my view they represent a rather nebulous concept for me, so comments listing one or more possible preferences in listening to a complete audio system would be welcome.
Furthermore, while the so-called golden ears may very well be people more gifted than average, they could instead be simply people more educated (and possibly also able to teach) to listen critically to the sound message that comes out of a complete audio system.
What I would like to refer to are the latter.
I think that someone in good health when listening to music from a system should have two judgments about the related SQ, one related to an impartial evaluation and another one related to a personal preference.
impartial evaluation = It sounds good, but I don't like it.
Personal preference = It sounds bad, but I like it.
Just like when you taste food.
Please note that I would like it if we could demonstrate for once that we can approach the subject in a rational, but not Manichean, way.
I do not want to discuss about alleged absolute truths in Audio, but to possibly recognize a different way of approaching and sharing experiences related to listening to recorded music reproduced through an audio system.
Edit to add:
In this thread it is not appreciated to talk about instrumental measurements because this thread is not and does not want to be the usual thread of controversy and opposition between the two usual factions that "fight" each other.
The purpose of this thread is, if possible, to create a new value regarding the human capacity to use one's senses not only in a private and singular way, but with a meaning of shareability.
There are things you can only measure with your senses.
Examples of such cases where there are no tools to identify quality, but only our senses, would be appreciated.
Examples about the so-called "preferences" that some refer to would also be appreciated, since in my view they represent a rather nebulous concept for me, so comments listing one or more possible preferences in listening to a complete audio system would be welcome.
Furthermore, while the so-called golden ears may very well be people more gifted than average, they could instead be simply people more educated (and possibly also able to teach) to listen critically to the sound message that comes out of a complete audio system.
What I would like to refer to are the latter.
Last edited:
If your thinking is Manichean, you see things in black and white, i.e., you have a simple view of what is right and wrong, or good and bad.
That contribution is simply intended to help get the discussion started, Logon. I think the topic may be too cerebral for me!
That contribution is simply intended to help get the discussion started, Logon. I think the topic may be too cerebral for me!
How can this be impartial? The judgement of good or bad is based upon preference. I may be misinterpreting what you intend though. If I am, my apologies. IMO, without a true (not what audiophiles call it) reference, the determination of good or bad can be different for everyone. Who gets to decide what is "good"? What level of "goodness" is really "good" or "great"?
The only (IMO) truly impartial assessment that can be made is accuracy of the reproduction of the original signal, and even that has major pitfalls as you well know, particularly when room acoustics and things like "separation / air / space / soundstage" are discussed. Heck, even what measurements to use and how they're conducted can be controversial in some discussions.
Yep. 🙂 I happen to like some foods that others would consider truly awful. Wines too. There are some that rate wines on a number scale, and they make a great deal of money doing so... I happen to disagree with many of them, but... C'est la vie.
I always appreciate your discussions, and I hope this thread doesn't go off the rails.
Cheers,
Patrick
I hope so too and I'm very happy for your appreciation.
Your reply deserves a comment that I'll post tomorrow since right now it is pouring with rain here and I've to take care of this...
Thank you very much, Patrick!
It can be both. There are basics of timing and reproduction that have to be got right. Beyond that, and we're into the realms of subjective judgement.
My brain and ears are not your brain and ears.
I have a poor sense of taste, good food, wine etc is wasted on me. Subtlety is lost on me. There must be equivalent people who's hearing is similarly less discriminating of the finer things in music.
I hate sibilance I cannot tolerate it, it's like fingernails down a blackboard to me. Any system that reproduces it accurately will get my downvote. Regardless. See misophonia.
FWIW I'm not much better with guitar fret buzz/squeak....
My brain and ears are not your brain and ears.
I have a poor sense of taste, good food, wine etc is wasted on me. Subtlety is lost on me. There must be equivalent people who's hearing is similarly less discriminating of the finer things in music.
I hate sibilance I cannot tolerate it, it's like fingernails down a blackboard to me. Any system that reproduces it accurately will get my downvote. Regardless. See misophonia.
FWIW I'm not much better with guitar fret buzz/squeak....
When the reference used is the real thing, the goal of reproduction will be the same for you and me.
It's an interesting but difficult issue as everyone has different preferences and hearing.
For example, my wife and I went to a dance performance in Melbourne last week and I thought the sound was harsh at times and too loud, my wife thought it was OK.
Geoff
For example, my wife and I went to a dance performance in Melbourne last week and I thought the sound was harsh at times and too loud, my wife thought it was OK.
Geoff
But I cannot reproduce live music, or at least not in a form that matches both my listening space, budget and acceptable social norms.
As @GeoffMillar said, even live isn't consistent, venues differ to an enormous degree.
I just don't think there's a standard to aim for beyond "what I like". But because we're cut from more or less the same cloth we want to hear more or less the same things. But there's wide wide wide variability.
I find that as a speaker improves, it begins to show to a degree less need to vary it between different source material than when there are flaws with the speaker. When some music sets off a resonance(s) (even subtle resonance, low Q is quite audible but not as distinct) but some music doesn't, I find it creates the desire to regulate the tone by force, by setting a 'voicing' tone which overrides across all source material.
Last edited:
In my view you can be impartial in your judgment if and when you are not under pressure, have no personal interests at stake and when you are or want to be honest with yourself.
Just like any judge should be in any trial.
It is perhaps difficult, but certainly not impossible, and we must begin to accept this fact.
In your own private and without anyone observing you each of us can be impartial or not, it is just a choice (if you know what I mean).
However, you can share your experience with others, in the sense that the experience of other people can be similarly collective.
It cannot have an absolute value since two equal people do not exist, but a collective perception of human senses exists and it has a non-negligible value (indeed of importance) and it cannot be ignored/rejected/cancelled to honor logic in spite of knowledge.
I've seen many people be so about a subject that deserves a different approach.
The following logical equation: "No two people are the same therefore no two sensory experiences are the same" is untrue.
It will not have an absolute value, and in fact it does not have one, but it is not equal to zero either.
We will go into more detail later, if we want and can.
I've seen many people, perhaps too many, shield themselves with logic and ask for absolute truths, but when do absolute truths ever exist in Audio?
I've seen people intelligent, prepared and competent who reject even current and acquired knowledge in favor of their own logic.
Logic is too limited to be able to explain everything.
To pretend and act as if it were is Manichean.
Logic cannot replace knowledge.
And the value of shared hearing experiences must increase as much as it deserves.
There is no doubt about this and certainly, when dealing with senses, someone must be excluded from a common base, but this fact does not prove anything else.
And it certainly does not prove that the same experiences of collective listening are impossible, because they are not.
And exceptions remain exceptions.
I'm really sorry you can't appreciate good food. 🙁
Yes, and that can be shared as a common experience even if we are two different people, with different ears and different brains.
Just because on average they (ears and brains) are not so different.
Yes, difficult, but not impossible and not so rare as logic suggests to some people.
This is exactly my point.
Perhaps there is no standard yet, but future progress in this department cannot be ruled out.
Sure, standard is a big word when it comes to senses, but something similar does already exist.
If you think about it, how does a system sound to sound good?
It has to have good bass, good mids and good highs.
And if it also has a good soundstage then you're good to go.
Please read between the lines...
Exactly.
Sure, there is variability.
But it may not be as wide as some would like to believe.
And it can have great value instead.
I think this is the heart of the matter...
I agree with your premise, and I admire your hope that a large population of people would agree to a "standard" for what sounds "good".
Even if a large population could / would agree and there was a way to do it properly, that doesn't account for having a readily reproduceable process to replicate the "standard" and how to determine meaningfully measured metrics for how "non-good" samples deviate from the "standard".
Even as an eternal optimist myself ... I find that even a bit too optimistic for me. 🙂
Also, when it comes right down to it... why does it matter (except to marketing people)? I really and truly don't give two fox if someone has the same preferences as I re: how I perceive my tunes.
The people around you have my sympathy 😉
I've been made aware that, from a physical POV, some hypersensitivity can result from fatigue of the muscles controlling the tension of the eardrums. Apparently a normal response is that the muscles reduce tension for loud transients, preventing discomfort up to about 100dB. I had a check-up not so long ago, and they actually recommended some extremely sensible things like playing wind instruments to help with that.
As for the less physical side, there are some misophonia sufferers close to me, and it can be a struggle. For anyone who's never heard of misophonia, the only thing I can offer is that it can be like some kind of serious progressive disease, like Lyme meningitis, or dementia, except that's it's focused on emotional reflexes that front-run your hearing perception. It's really horrible, whether you have it yourself, or live with someone who does. Either way, you either jump (or get mad) in response to some innocuous sound, or you get trained that someone else will jump or get mad (at you) if those sounds occur.
The point is not exactly this, but the fact that even if it is not large the amount of people who can share the same listening experience is never so low that it cannot be possible and useful for other ones: have you ever heard people ask on threads around here: "How does your recent modification sound?" or
"Interesting, but I noticed that the bass is light with it..."
There, something like that.
Which could also help to improve one's way of listening if the case was as when you share freely, perhaps the one who has a more developed hearing and greater ability to describe can open a new horizon to the one who is not so gifted and give a contribution to one's listening evolution.
Does that seem like too much to you?
I can understand that, but they could be the first steps towards an emancipation of listening.
However, I'm convinced that many do not externalize their experiences so as not to be targeted by the usual users of logic tout court and this, perhaps, is not exactly a good thing when it's done wrong.
After that, whether you care or not, it obviously belongs to your freedoms.
^ I like your analogy with food. If we have a common language around certain sonic traits, there could be better discussion. I've heard it said that master sommeliers can produce repeatable results for characterizing the flavors of a wine, and that the results have a level of repeatability within and between sommeliers.
If... a percentage of the population could do the same for the sonic character of a system in a room... that set of traits and the language could be passed along. Even if not everyone was the sonic equivalent to a master sommelier, there could be some valuable knowledge sharing. Harman's "How to Listen" is set of tools / instructions that point toward that goal, I believe.
I think I'm starting to understand your POV a little better.
If... a percentage of the population could do the same for the sonic character of a system in a room... that set of traits and the language could be passed along. Even if not everyone was the sonic equivalent to a master sommelier, there could be some valuable knowledge sharing. Harman's "How to Listen" is set of tools / instructions that point toward that goal, I believe.
I think I'm starting to understand your POV a little better.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.