kelticwizard, how can anyone possibly determine what "sounds good" beside the person doing the listening?
All you can possibly hope to do beyond the individual is come up with what amounts to a popularity contest. Ok, so 90% think system X "sounds good." Great. So what's that to do with the 10% who don't? Are the 90% any more "right" than the 10%?
Why do audio fans and designers require this?
The designer designs that which sounds good to him. The audio fan buys that which sounds good to them. Or builds it as the case may be.
I don't see that it requires anything more than answering the question "Do I like it or not?"
How does it not make sense? I don't see your analogy as analogous at all. We're not talking about along the lines of labeling an independent object which remains the same regardless of who mght observe it.
We're talking about individual subjective experience of a stimulus which gets filtered through our individual tastes, preferences, biases, etc.
And how can any individual's experience NOT be as valid as anyone else's individual experience?
If you like the taste of carrots and I don't, how is your liking the taste of carrots any more valid than my not liking the taste of carrots?
I don't believe there are any standards as to what constitutes "good sound." At best all you can come up with is what would amount to a popularity contest. Nothing more.
There are standards for English because we use language to communicate with each other. And for that to be most effective, we need some sort of concensus as to word meanings, syntax, etc.
But when we sit and listen to music on an audio system, our experience of it has no particular inherent relevance to anyone else. Therefore no individual's experience is any more inherently valid or invalid than any other individual's experience.
Sure, some people may wish to share their experience with others and develop a means to try and communicate their experience to someone else. And say what they like and they don't like. And associate with those who tend to like the same things that they do. But that's voluntary. It's not any sort of requirement. Nor do their mutual agreements establish any sort of standards for anyone else.
Except that there is not universally correct "good sound."
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, good sound is in the ear of the beholder. And no one's idea of either is inherently any more valid or invalid than anyone else's.
se
All you can possibly hope to do beyond the individual is come up with what amounts to a popularity contest. Ok, so 90% think system X "sounds good." Great. So what's that to do with the 10% who don't? Are the 90% any more "right" than the 10%?
Why do audio fans and designers require this?
The designer designs that which sounds good to him. The audio fan buys that which sounds good to them. Or builds it as the case may be.
I don't see that it requires anything more than answering the question "Do I like it or not?"
How does it not make sense? I don't see your analogy as analogous at all. We're not talking about along the lines of labeling an independent object which remains the same regardless of who mght observe it.
We're talking about individual subjective experience of a stimulus which gets filtered through our individual tastes, preferences, biases, etc.
And how can any individual's experience NOT be as valid as anyone else's individual experience?
If you like the taste of carrots and I don't, how is your liking the taste of carrots any more valid than my not liking the taste of carrots?
I don't believe there are any standards as to what constitutes "good sound." At best all you can come up with is what would amount to a popularity contest. Nothing more.
There are standards for English because we use language to communicate with each other. And for that to be most effective, we need some sort of concensus as to word meanings, syntax, etc.
But when we sit and listen to music on an audio system, our experience of it has no particular inherent relevance to anyone else. Therefore no individual's experience is any more inherently valid or invalid than any other individual's experience.
Sure, some people may wish to share their experience with others and develop a means to try and communicate their experience to someone else. And say what they like and they don't like. And associate with those who tend to like the same things that they do. But that's voluntary. It's not any sort of requirement. Nor do their mutual agreements establish any sort of standards for anyone else.
Except that there is not universally correct "good sound."
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, good sound is in the ear of the beholder. And no one's idea of either is inherently any more valid or invalid than anyone else's.
se
I think I tend to lean on the side of "what sounds good to the listener"....... I recently did some measurements on my speakers and discovered that the whenI had done the attenuation by ear of my tweeters and mids, it was rather more attenuated than what would measure "flat". I wound back the LPAD's (tweeters were 7db and mids 3db) to 3db and 0db respspectively, the response curve looked a lot flatter, but I after listening for a while I really didn't like the sound.
the imaging seemed better at first but after a while everything just sounded a bit harsh.... Maybe it was just that I was used to having subdued mid and high freqencies, and If I listened long enough I'd get used to the "more acurate" sound, I'm not sure, but for me having the speakers closer to what would be considered acurate, made them sound worse.......
Of course I have heard some really high end gear, and after that I nearly wanted to cry when I heard my system.... Up till that point I thought it was pretty good!
Tony.
the imaging seemed better at first but after a while everything just sounded a bit harsh.... Maybe it was just that I was used to having subdued mid and high freqencies, and If I listened long enough I'd get used to the "more acurate" sound, I'm not sure, but for me having the speakers closer to what would be considered acurate, made them sound worse.......
Of course I have heard some really high end gear, and after that I nearly wanted to cry when I heard my system.... Up till that point I thought it was pretty good!
Tony.
catapult said:
Or, more likely, problems with the recording technique or equipment. Recording a handclap will tell you volumes about the acoustics of the space in which you made the recording, and virtually nothing about tonal balance, bass response, distortion etc in your playback system.
If your preference is for acoustic music (e.g. classical, most sorts of jazz), then "sounds like live music" is a pretty good criterion. We all know what the human voice sounds like, and most of us prefer it reproduced with the minimum of artifacts (sibilance, boominess, etc). Most people also like hearing all the instruments/voices in an ensemble clearly separated, rather than mushed together.
If you like "electronic" music, there are fewer rules. Typically, a wide frequency response is a good thing, as is the ability to handle dynamics (i.e. drums that really kick), and to play loud without giving you ear fatigue.
If you record music, you'll probably want a system which lets you hear any problems in a recording. Such systems give all the detail beloved of hi-fi enthusiasts, but can also take the fun out of listening to less-than-perfect recordings.
I'm quite a subscriber to the "toe tapping" test. If you put something on and just have to listen all the way through because you're gripped, the system is hitting the mark.
Cheers
IH
Steve Eddy said:
I think I agree with what kelticwizard is saying, and for me, it has to do with artistic intent.
I am a graphic designer, and when I have a design printed I expect the colors to match my original design. This way I can gaurantee that my audience sees the piece as I intended. Print houses and designers keep their equipment tightly calibrated for just this purpose.
By the same token, I want to be sure that I'm hearing a recording the way the artist intended. Particularly with studio recorded pieces, where there is no "live" performance to use as a reference.
There is always room for nuance and debate (tubes vs. solid state, etc.), but accepted standards set down a bassline for audio fidelity. This way, I can be somewhat sure that my system isn't causing Bono to sound like Dave Mathews, or Eddie Van Halen to Sound like John Petrucci.
/throws more spice in the soup... 
Electronic instruments are used to measure the response
of a speaker design and the goal is to design a speaker system
to achieve flat response ... without using pre-amp electronic
equalizers.
But, I know people that are tone deaf to certain
frequencies and for them flat response is useless, for them it
would be optimum to use an electronic equalizer to adjust
the response to offset their lack of hearing to make the music
more pleasurable.
From a design and manufacturing point of view, you want
to design the system to be technically correct, but in the end
the customer may alter the audio system sonics to make them
happy.
A person who is tone deaf won't really know what a violin
sounds like in the first place
Electronic instruments are used to measure the response
of a speaker design and the goal is to design a speaker system
to achieve flat response ... without using pre-amp electronic
equalizers.
But, I know people that are tone deaf to certain
frequencies and for them flat response is useless, for them it
would be optimum to use an electronic equalizer to adjust
the response to offset their lack of hearing to make the music
more pleasurable.
From a design and manufacturing point of view, you want
to design the system to be technically correct, but in the end
the customer may alter the audio system sonics to make them
happy.
A person who is tone deaf won't really know what a violin
sounds like in the first place
Hagbard said:
But how can you guarantee that the audience sees the piece as intended unless you control the means by which they view it? Unless it's displayed in an art gallery where you can control such things, the color balance will be different depending whether they're viewing it under natural light, or fluorescent light, or tungsten, etc.
That's fine. But how can you possibly do that without replicating the particular studio in which the recording was mastered? Without being able to experience how it sounded in the mastering suite, how can you have any frame of reference? How can you know what the artist intended?
Also, not all recordings are mastered according to any singular reference. They also consider such things as how it sounds over highly compressed FM radio. Or a boombox. Or car audio systems.
What if a particular recording was mastered with a bias toward a car audio system? Are you only going to listen to that recording in your car?
And what "standards" assure you of that?
se
thylantyr said:From a design and manufacturing point of view, you want
to design the system to be technically correct, but in the end
the customer may alter the audio system sonics to make them
happy.
From a design and manufacturing point of view, I want to design a system that pleases me. Period. If I get more pleasure from something which is less technically correct, I'll take more pleasure over more techincally correct 10 times out of 10.
se
Bottom line you do!
But I have this ideal in my head of what I would like from the best hifi in the world. The thing is it wont be possible, unless you use massive amounts of DSP, large numbers of speakers, and specially recorded music for each of the speakers. This however isnt surround sound!!!!!, my ideal is still just sounds coming from the front. without anything whizzing past my head at mach four.
But I have this ideal in my head of what I would like from the best hifi in the world. The thing is it wont be possible, unless you use massive amounts of DSP, large numbers of speakers, and specially recorded music for each of the speakers. This however isnt surround sound!!!!!, my ideal is still just sounds coming from the front. without anything whizzing past my head at mach four.
thylantyr said:The Borg (Star Trek) sets the standard, resistance is futile,
you will be assimilated
Hehehehe. "We are Good Sound of Borg..."
My favorite is:
"We are Homer of Borg. Prepare to be assimila... ooooh! Donuts!"
And the Jewish version:
"We are Homerstein of Borg. Prepare to be assimila... ooooh-vey! Bagels!"
se
Theli said:hey,HEY!!! People ...focus, FOCUS!!!!!
OK, my
. For the people listening to music that is electronicor electronically amplified/manipulated/whatever even at live
performances I have no idea how to judge sound quality, but
fortunately that doesn't interest me anyway.
For classical andany other acoustical live music, we have a reference from live
performances. Sure, the sound varies from hall to hall, from seat
to seat etc. but we know rather well how different instruments
and voices usually sound. Here I think, however, that any attempt
at faithful reproduction will never make it all the way, so it is not
obvious the most objectively faithful reproduction (if we can
even say what that is) will be the best. Maybe we should rather
strive for what gives us the best illusion of a live event? Compare
with painting for instance. Most people think that the Renaissance
masters were excellent at making almost perfect reproductions
of what humans and other things looks like. That is nowhere near the truth. The great masters knew already then that to make a
painting or sculpture look realistic, you must make judicious
deliberate "errors" to give the best illusion of reality. How to
achieve this for audio, well, I have no idea, except that many
old mono recordings have a darn more realistic sense of presence
and hall acoustics than most later stereo recordings. Why, I
cannot say. (No, I don't mean we should switch back to mono,
just that seemingly more faithful techniques do not automatically
guarantee a better result).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.