Who determines what sounds good?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I`ve wondered about who sets the standard?
Isn`t it somewhat subjective???
Everybody's hearing is different, I know I`ve messed up my hearing by listening to too much loud music when I was younger, so when will I know when I have a great sounding system?

Just curious. :D
 
Theli said:
I`ve wondered about who sets the standard?
Isn`t it somewhat subjective???
Everybody's hearing is different, I know I`ve messed up my hearing by listening to too much loud music when I was younger, so when will I know when I have a great sounding system?

When you have a system that sounds great to you. No one else can set your standards for you.

se
 
The standard is live music, preferably recorded by you. You listen to the real thing and then listen to the recording played back over your speakers. If they sound the same, you've got a great system. Your hearing (we all have different hearing) is cancelled out as a factor when you A/B that way. You don't need an orchestra to do the test. Record a friend speaking, clapping hands, etc. Play it back and see if it sounds the same. It can be quite revealing of problems with your system.
 
Re: Re: Who determines what sounds good?

Steve Eddy said:


When you have a system that sounds great to you. No one else can set your standards for you.

se

But the experience changes and this is one area when you can improve things. If you listen to only one system it may sound great to you, until you try something better and then it makes your new reference. For me, the reference is in my head. My image or the memory of the best reproduction I've heard.


catapult said:
The standard is live music, preferably recorded by you. You listen to the real thing and then listen to the recording played back over your speakers. If they sound the same, you've got a great system. Your hearing (we all have different hearing) is cancelled out as a factor when you A/B that way. You don't need an orchestra to do the test. Record a friend speaking, clapping hands, etc. Play it back and see if it sounds the same. It can be quite revealing of problems with your system.

The playback is only as good as your recorder. If the recorder is not up to the task it can't be used to evaluate the rest of your system (as it becomes a weak link). Your record player or CDP, might be a much better source to start with.
 
catapult said:
The standard is live music, preferably recorded by you. You listen to the real thing and then listen to the recording played back over your speakers. If they sound the same, you've got a great system.

That'd be great if all you listen to were recordings you make yourself. What about the recordings made by others which will constitute virtually all of the recordings a typical individual will be listening to?

Record a friend speaking, clapping hands, etc. Play it back and see if it sounds the same. It can be quite revealing of problems with your system.

Hmmm. That rather assumes the recording side is perfect doesn't it? If the recording side isn't perfect, how do you separate which problems are on the recording side and which are on the playback side?

se
 
Re: Re: Re: Who determines what sounds good?

Peter Daniel said:
But the experience changes and this is one area when you can improve things. If you listen to only one system it may sound great to you, until you try something better and then it makes your new reference. For me, the reference is in my head. My image or the memory of the best reproduction I've heard.

Certainly.

I didn't mean to imply that when a system sounds great to you that that's the end of the line and nothing can sound better.

My point was simply that you're the only one who can set the standard for what sounds great to you.

se
 
Hmmm. That rather assumes the recording side is perfect doesn't it? If the recording side isn't perfect, how do you separate which problems are on the recording side and which are on the playback side?
Certainly, the recording side affects things. But it's really quite remarkable how people can convince themselves they have a "good" playback system when it sounds nothing at all like the original, even with a perfect recording. I find small single-driver systems particularly susceptible to this. They may sound "pleasant" in some ways - some micro aspects of the sound people are looking for - but, in the big macro picture, they aren't much like the original.
 
catapult said:
Certainly, the recording side affects things. But it's really quite remarkable how people can convince themselves they have a "good" playback system when it sounds nothing at all like the original, even with a perfect recording.

What perfect recording are you talking about?

And why do you say they are "convincing themselves" that they have a "good" playback system?

Looks to me as if you're just looking down your nose at those who get their enjoyment of reproduced music in ways other than yours.

I find small single-driver systems particularly susceptible to this. They may sound "pleasant" in some ways - some micro aspects of the sound people are looking for - but, in the big macro picture, they aren't much like the original.

Well, the way I look at it, the sole purpose of an audio system is the enjoyment of the person listening to it. Period.

If someone gets greater enjoyment out of a system that's more objectively accurate, great. If someone gets greater enjoyment out of a system that's less objectively accurate, that's great too.

se
 
Having the standard be live music can be problematic. I've been in many live situations where the sound was terrible. A recording made in a professional studio/controlled environment by talented recording engineers will always sound better unless your paying $100+ to attend a quality performance in an acoustically correct environment. If you can arrange it, go to a high-end audio show and listen to everything you can. You'll find many starting to sound alike with a few stand-outs. Then listen to your system. You may be surprised at what you've been missing. A more direct answer to your question would be; You do.
 
People always talk about "perfect" reproduction or getting as close to the original as possible. But, IMO, it will never be possible. As soon as we record the original event, it becomes artificial and it will never be the same. So the object in reproducing it back, may not be to reproduce the exact copy of the original event, but rather to recreate in the listener the exact emotions, as if he would be listening to that event for real. In that case everybody has their preferences (they value the most in the sound) so it seems more real to them. For some it's the dynamics and deep bass, for others it's acoustic space and detail, and still for others it's the way the vocals are reproduced.

Also, the space we use to listen to our music is never the same as where the original event took place. So the huge speakers with multiple drivers are not always suitable, if the listening envireonment is rather small. In that case a single driver might be much better choice if that what works for the listener.
 
This is a timely topic for me. I had some friends over and took the opportunity to demo some of my creations. I was surprised at the difference in opinions. One speaker in particular I don't think is very good for music. One person said that it sounded compressed, another said they liked it. Another speaker was described by one person as being "organic" and the other person was completely unimpressed. :xeye:
 
Timn8ter said:
Having the standard be live music can be problematic.

I think the notion of any sort of standard is rather silly. A standard implies some sort of universality. The enjoyment of music is very subjective and individualistic.

Some people (and I'm not saying you) seem to want to create some single-minded Borg collective when it comes to the "right" way of enjoying music. And that if anyone gets that enjoyment by some means other than theirs, well, there's just something wrong with those people.

Just look at catapult's comments about people "convincing themselves" as to what sounds good them. He actually seems to be somewhat bothered that others thing something sounds good which he may not think sounds good.

By the way, agree with the rest of your post. :)

se
 
Timn8ter said:
This is a timely topic for me. I had some friends over and took the opportunity to demo some of my creations. I was surprised at the difference in opinions. One speaker in particular I don't think is very good for music. One person said that it sounded compressed, another said they liked it. Another speaker was described by one person as being "organic" and the other person was completely unimpressed. :xeye:

Vive la difference, baby! :)

se
 
Peter Daniel said:
People always talk about "perfect" reproduction or getting as close to the original as possible. But, IMO, it will never be possible. As soon as we record the original event, it becomes artificial and it will never be the same. So the object in reproducing it back, may not be to reproduce the exact copy of the original event, but rather to recreate in the listener the exact emotions, as if he would be listening to that event for real. In that case everybody has their preferences (they value the most in the sound) so it seems more real to them. For some it's the dynamics and deep bass, for others it's acoustic space and detail, and still for others it's the way the vocals are reproduced.

Yup. The bottom line is that we all listen to music for pleasure. It shouldn't matter to anyone how anyone ELSE gets that pleasure in the end.

Also, the space we use to listen to our music is never the same as where the original event took place. So the huge speakers with multiple drivers are not always suitable, if the listening envireonment is rather small. In that case a single driver might be much better choice if that what works for the listener.

Yup. And if you want to perfectly reproduce that perfect recording, your listening room had better be an anechoic chamber. :)

se
 
I think the notion of any sort of standard is rather silly. A standard implies some sort of universality. The enjoyment of music is very subjective and individualistic.
Um, errrr, baloney. :D

If you've heard a lot of violins, trumpets, piano, bass, drums, etc. live, you know what they sound like. You can tell if they sound "real" or like speakers trying to reproduce them. If all you do is walk around comparing one speaker to another, without listening to real live instruments, you have no idea how well the various contenders are doing at recreating the real thing.

Some people may find enjoyment in speakers that make pianos sound like harpsichords. More power to them if it gives them pleasure but it isn't hifi.
 
catapult said:
If you've heard a lot of violins, trumpets, piano, bass, drums, etc. live, you know what they sound like.

So?

You can tell if they sound "real" or like speakers trying to reproduce them.

So?

If all you do is walk around comparing one speaker to another, without listening to real live instruments, you have no idea how well the various contenders are doing at recreating the real thing.

So?

Some people may find enjoyment in speakers that make pianos sound like harpsichords. More power to them if it gives them pleasure but it isn't hifi.

So? Isn't that the goal when we listen to music? Pleasure? That's certainly why I listen to music. Are you saying your goal when listening to music is hifi and not pleasure?

se
 
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
Joined 2001
The title of this thread is "who determines what sounds good", not "does the person who owns the equipment have the right to enjoy it even if everyone else thinks it's terrible?".

Of course you have the right to play any equipment that sounds good to you. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some agreed upon objective criteria.

Unlike some languages, the English language has no official group of people appointed to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable. Instead, there are several dictionaries, written by scholars who try to make a judgment based on what is considered correct English by the majority of English speakers. There can be differences in these dictionaries, and even differences between editions of the same dictionary.

I think a lot of things are like that, including "good sound". The notion of what goes into making "good sound" is put forward by a group of scholars who study what other people think, what appears logical, etc. There are several sharp disagreements among these scholars, just as there are sharp disagreements among dictionaries as to what constitues "correct English".

But necessity dictates that we have a general idea of what constitutes correct English, so we do-even though nothing is really official. Similarly, designers and audio fans require some criteria for comparison-imaging, accuracy, lack of distortion, etc.-and so a standard has evolved-although nothing is official.

Simply saying "If you like it, it is good for you" makes no more sense than saying, "If calling a glass bulb which emits light a table and calling a platform with four legs a lightbulb suits you, then your opinion is as valid as everyone else's."

Clearly, it is not. I do believe that a certain set of standards that constitute "good sound" exists, just as standards for correct English exist-even though is there is disagreement about what those standards are.

PS: I hope I don't come off as a language snob. Even people who never finished high school can tell the difference between someone is speaking or writing correctly and someone who is making all kinds of major mistakes.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.