Misconception of "neutral / accurate"
Sep 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM Post #151 of 292
If you only want neutral equipment, only buy stuff with exemplary and complete measurements (preferably third party.) To those who say "But wonderful company X does not provide such measurements/says they're not important," that's kinda the point.
 
Of course, if you're one of those people who believe in forced colouration by hardware that you cannot turn off, as opposed to DSP, you're stuffed.
 
Sep 21, 2011 at 12:54 PM Post #152 of 292
Someone (even the manufacturer) could publish measurements but that doesn't make the equipment neutral. What if they published measurements which showed 10% THD+N, and 200Hz-8kHz ±3dB? You bring up a good point though-- you can't make any informed decision without the measurements... unless you trust in the goodness of the manufacturer to tell you why to buy their product.
 
Generally I would trust manufacturers who offer up the measurements without having to be asked, because they probably already have them (i.e., they used them to verify their design.)
 
Sep 21, 2011 at 1:04 PM Post #153 of 292
If they're stupid enough to design something with crap measurements and then stupid enough to publicise them, they surely can't expect me to be stupid enough to buy their stuff?
 
Sep 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM Post #154 of 292
When I was looking for a speaker amp I found measurements and even proper technical info very very rare,some amps don't even say what load they can drive l refuse to buy any amp lacking this information as you have no idea what to expect from it.
 
Dec 5, 2011 at 6:27 AM Post #155 of 292


Quote:
 
 
I suspect it partly has to do with how colored consumer audio gear sounds, such as having overly emphasized bass and exaggerated warmth. When an entire market segment gets used to that kind of sonic signature, they will think that's "the standard," and when they hear actual netural/accurate audio reproduction, it sounds alien to them.
 
One very common phenomenon among both audiophiles and pro audio guys is this:
 
When they transition from being inexperienced to experienced, they pick up critical listening skills along the way, and part of the skill has a lot to do with "unlearning" the colored sound they got used to as consumers. At first, they can't get used to the neutral/accurate sound reproduction because it sounds so different; the lack of exaggerated warmth, the lack of overly emphasized bass, the clarity of transients and details--it all makes them think the sound is cold and analytical. But that is only in comparison to an exaggerated warm sound. The same can be true if the person was used to consumer audio gear that sounds excessively bright to "fake" detail in the mid and treble frequencies, such as some of the Sony headphones out there--they'll listen to neutral/accurate and think it sounds dull and dark.
 
Eventually, they learn that what they had become used to in the past is the colored sound, and once they spend some time with a neutral/accurate sound, they'll be able to discern all the problems with colored sonic signatures. They'll be able to hear just how bloated the bass is in the old sound, obscuring important details in the low frequencies, masking details in the low-mids, and just sound like of muddy and vague in general. They'll also hear that intentionally contrived "warmth" is often just rolled off treble, and that kind of artificial contrivance is simply subjective, and on material that really need to have the "air" properly presented, the colored sounding system will be unable to do it. If the colored sound they were used to was overly bright, they'll learn that the brightness they thought was detail was actually very artificial sounding and in fact, quite unpleasant, once their ears got used to a neutral/accurate sound.
 
They'll also learn that if a recording sounds fatiguing or too bright on a neutral/accurate system, then it's the recording that's the problem, not the system. If you try to remedy the recording's problem by using a colored sounding system, then everything esle you listen to on that system will be colored! That is like purposely buying a TV that is too dark and cannot be adjusted to neutral/accurate, simply because a small percentage of movies you watch seems a bit bright to you. It's ass-backwards and illogical.
 
So instead of buying colored sounding audio gear, what you should do is to simply use an EQ unit and create presets that contain the kind of warmth you want to remedy those overly bright recordings, and then on the majority of material that isn't too bright, you simply turn the EQ off.
 
The truth is, material that sounds too bright are the small minority, and it's counter-intuitive to cater your system to a small minority of inferior recordings, when the majority sounds just fine.
 
 
 
 
 



Really great post here. I really do agree with you. I'm currently on the hunt for a high fidelity set up. I'm currently running with the Pro 900 and I have grown to hate them. I feel as though I have really matured from the coloured sound to something better. A buddy of mine has a Sony V6 and I drive it with my Clip+ (Rockboxed) and PA2V2 (this site said it has a flat FR contrary to popular belief: http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/Various/Echo%20Gina%20-%20PA2V2.htm) and I much prefer the sound. I know I may not be quite into the realm of fidelity here but I am certainly closer. 
 
 
 
Dec 7, 2011 at 8:23 AM Post #156 of 292

 
Quote:

Can't agree on the graph.
 
I don't see any connection between wealth and fidelity, nor between professionalism and fidelity.
 
I mean... they are two different markets.
 
On one hand, the Consumer market is far more expensive than the professional one, but nothing restrain not-so-rich informed audiophiles from buying professional High-Fidelity gear... I mean... There are still people who sell esoteric CD players at 5 times the price of a perfect computer source, or homemade tube amps at spaceship prices.
So... Extremely rich audiophiles, if uninformed, can be anywhere on the graph, and wealthy informed ones can reach the level of mid studio facility.
 
On the other hand, even at high levels, pro gear is designed with some compromise, before diminishing returns start being so diminishing. Because, you know, you have to cover the investments. So... Pro gear will never be as overkill as some audiophile solutions.
So... Potentially, extremely rich audiophiles could buy/build a top-notch listening facility that could beat any recording studio, that, being a firm which sells tracks, can't have an unlimited budget, whereas extremely rich people, by definition, can.
Take a look here on head-fi, there actually are some rigs here that beat the headphone monitoring system of nearly any studio on the planet, just because they'd be overkill for the role they would cover in a recording studio...
 
Dec 7, 2011 at 8:38 AM Post #157 of 292


Quote:
 
Can't agree on the graph.
 
I don't see any connection between wealth and fidelity, nor between professionalism and fidelity.
 
I mean... they are two different markets.
 
On one hand, the Consumer market is far more expensive than the professional one, but nothing restrain not-so-rich informed audiophiles from buying professional High-Fidelity gear... I mean... There are still people who sell esoteric CD players at 5 times the price of a perfect computer source, or homemade tube amps at spaceship prices.
So... Extremely rich audiophiles, if uninformed, can be anywhere on the graph, and wealthy informed ones can reach the level of mid studio facility.
 
On the other hand, even at high levels, pro gear is designed with some compromise, before diminishing returns start being so diminishing. Because, you know, you have to cover the investments. So... Pro gear will never be as overkill as some audiophile solutions.
So... Potentially, extremely rich audiophiles could buy/build a top-notch listening facility that could beat any recording studio, that, being a firm which sells tracks, can't have an unlimited budget, whereas extremely rich people, by definition, can.
Take a look here on head-fi, there actually are some rigs here that beat the headphone monitoring system of nearly any studio on the planet, just because they'd be overkill for the role they would cover in a recording studio...

 
The graph is a generalization. And it also makes an assumption that extremely rich audiophiles actually give a damn about educating themselves on the matters of accuracy/neutrality, as well as other critical factors like listening space, acoustic design/treatment, and so on. There will always be exceptions to any rule. (And if you read the actual post, you'll see I addressed that.)
 
The point of the graph isn't to define anything in a rigid manner--it's merely a typical overview of how things are in general according to common circumstances.
 
 
 
Dec 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM Post #158 of 292
I haven't found that high end audiophiles give a damn about frequency response. They generally use brute force measures like room treatment to deal with frequency imbalances and refuse to use equalization that could give them control enough to match professional audio. They often argue that flat doesn't sound good. Instead they focus on splitting their fractions into tiny bits by optimizing electronics that already performs perfectly.
 
Also, I have found that a lot of professionals who work in small home studios don't go the extra mile to get flat response. In fact, I have met a few who insist on mixing to small bookshelf speakers because "that's what people at home have".
 
Flat response is undervalued in general.
 
Dec 7, 2011 at 4:15 PM Post #159 of 292


Quote:
I haven't found that high end audiophiles give a damn about frequency response. They generally use brute force measures like room treatment to deal with frequency imbalances and refuse to use equalization that could give them control enough to match professional audio. They often argue that flat doesn't sound good. Instead they focus on splitting their fractions into tiny bits by optimizing electronics that already performs perfectly.
 
Also, I have found that a lot of professionals who work in small home studios don't go the extra mile to get flat response. In fact, I have met a few who insist on mixing to small bookshelf speakers because "that's what people at home have".
 
Flat response is undervalued in general.


That just goes to show it's an epidemic that we, as a music-loving society needs to do something about. Spread the word. Educate others. Raise the level of awareness. 
 
BTW, any "professional" in audio saying that is IMO not professional enough, because that level of ignorance is a sign they haven't learned enough to be professional. Also, you need to look at what their specialty is. If they are just "making beats" or typical songwriters/musicians that don't know a damn thing about proper mixing/mastering, then they aren't "pro audio" guys--they're musicians, and very often musicians are clueless when it comes to mixing/mastering.
 
 
Dec 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM Post #160 of 292
Would an extremely rich audiophile wish to reproduce George Massenburg's Studio?
 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edoardo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Extremely rich audiophiles, if uninformed, can be anywhere on the graph, and wealthy informed ones can reach the level of mid studio facility.

 
 
Dec 8, 2011 at 2:06 AM Post #161 of 292


Quote:
Would an extremely rich audiophile wish to reproduce George Massenburg's Studio?
 

 
 


Generally speaking, I think anyone who's informed/educated about audio would love to have their listening spaces "sound" as good as a respected mastering studio, except it has to "look" like a place to relax and enjoy entertainment in, instead of doing work. 
 
If someone can afford to put together a listening space/signal chain that sounds like a high-end mastering studio, but chooses to have purposely colored and subjective audio reproduction, then accuracy/neutrality is not high on their list of priorities. If that's what makes them happy, then fine, have fun. It's not like these guys are doing mastering of other people's music and screwing them up or anything. They're not hurting anyone--as long as they are aware they have chosen to stray away from the ideal of accuracy/neutrality, and when conversing with other music-lovers, understand they are coming from a subjective point of view instead of an objective one. 
 
 
Dec 8, 2011 at 2:33 AM Post #162 of 292
Sure, as a listener and <not a professional needing "tools">, it will be interesting to see where I "end up" in terms of equipment.
 
Dec 8, 2011 at 3:40 AM Post #163 of 292
A few years ago, I had my garage set up similarly, not for mastering purposes, but for listening. Used JBL compression drivers and horns, and huge woofers. You have to EQ those things to neutrality (whether actively or passively in the x-over circuitry.) It's not as expensive as you may think, especially if you can DIY and have a proper measurement suite. Some pro-audio stuff is actually pretty good sounding while costing much less than audiophile gear.
 
I'll be doing it again soon. My wife is giving me the entire garage for the man-cave.
 
Dec 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM Post #164 of 292
Would an extremely rich audiophile wish to reproduce George Massenburg's Studio?



 


that is very interesting area. i would probably stare at the walls all day and just let my imagination run wild.
 
Dec 8, 2011 at 4:56 AM Post #165 of 292
A few years ago, I had my garage set up similarly, not for mastering purposes, but for listening. Used JBL compression drivers and horns, and huge woofers. You have to EQ those things to neutrality (whether actively or passively in the x-over circuitry.) It's not as expensive as you may think, especially if you can DIY and have a proper measurement suite. Some pro-audio stuff is actually pretty good sounding while costing much less than audiophile gear.

I'll be doing it again soon. My wife is giving me the entire garage for the man-cave.


making it into an anechoic chamber? it can be relaxing and good place to take naps,besides listening to the music.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top