Forum Trend Toward Euphony Instead of "Fidelity?"

[TheSloth]

I don't understand this idea that accuracy is measured by how 'true to life' the instruments of a recording sound. If the waveform recorded onto the disk is not 'true to life', then accurate reproduction should also produce a sound that isn't realistic. It should sound like what is on the disk. Many people expect that a great hi-fi system should turn a recording of a high school string quartet into the four clones of Pagnini, and if it doesn't do so, it's not 'faithful'. I'm always wary of various hi-fi products that impart the same particular qualities to every recording they play. If those are qualities that you like in recorded sound, then good for you, but I personally like all my recordings to sound as radically different as they really are, some being too harsh and sibilant, some overly warm and soup like.

It's fine that people don't like accuracy in the technical sense, and there is no reason they should or have to, but to me that is what accuracy is, and it's what I enjoy the most.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory Have you guys noticed a general trend toward an "euphonic" sound instead of an "accurate" sound here in the forums? I think this is especially prevalent in the IEM threads. Just my thoughts, anyone else feel this way?

accuracy vs. euphony is neither unique to this forum nor a new trend. the entire sub-hobby of tube amplification is an institutionalized bow to euphony. you'll also find ultra-high-end speakers with FR graphs as jagged as the Alps.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory Have you guys noticed a general trend toward an "euphonic" sound instead of an "accurate" sound here in the forums?

What is accurate in headphone listening anyway?

 

[markl]

With all-due respect to VicAjax, the reason people love tubes has nothing to do with frequency response, it's other less tangible qualities they have that transistors don't (and no, I'm not saying tubes are superior or that they don't have their limitations, I use SS gear for now, though I've owned plenty of tubed-based stuff). Voicing of a tube-based system or component is no different than voicing a solid state system/component. It is *not* a fact that all tubes or all tubed gear has the same identical "tube coloration" easily identifiable by a common measureable freuqency anomoly. To say all tube-gear is "euphonic" is no more accurate than to state all solid state gear is "accurate" or ruler flat. They aren't. You could create two separate pieces of gear, one with tubes and the other with transistors that each measure the same in terms of frequency response. But I'd bet you a million dollars they wouldn't sound the same.

It all depends on IMPLEMENTATION, people. Knowing that a certain piece of gear has tubes or is solid state will tell you next to nothing about its actual sound.

What does a "euphonic" frequency response look like? Do people really think what one person finds euphonic and what another one does will render an identical frequency response?

Furthermore, measured frequency response of a piece of gear is just one of a dozen factors that will determine how it actually sounds in a given system.

 

[Trogdor]

Any second now, some Evil Sith Fuzz is going to degenerate this discussion into a SS vs. Valve conversation...I feel it...

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl With all-due respect to VicAjax, the reason people love tubes has nothing to do with frequency response, it's other less tangible qualities they have that transistors don't (and no, I'm not saying tubes are superior, I use SS gear for now, though I've owned plenty of tubed-based stuff). Voicing of a tube-based system or component is no different than voicing a solid state system/component. It is *not* a fact that all tubes or all tubed gear has the same identical "tube coloration" easily identifiable by a common measureable freuqency anomoly. To say all tube-gear is "euphonic" is no more accurate than to state all solid state gear is "accurate". It all depends on IMPLEMENTATION, people. Knowing that a certain piece of gear has tubes or is solid state will tell you next to nothing about its actual sound.

point taken. i was over-generalizing. more specifically i should have said that many tube fans do build systems consciously based around the aforementioned euphonic coloration, rather than in search of accuracy. personally, i don't think there's anything wrong with that. so i should also clarify that i think the tension between euphony vs. accuracy is perfectly healthy and legitimate.

 

[markl]

Gotcha.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax accuracy vs. euphony is neither unique to this forum nor a new trend. the entire sub-hobby of tube amplification is an institutionalized bow to euphony. you'll also find ultra-high-end speakers with FR graphs as jagged as the Alps.

Vinyl is another great example!


Regards,

L.

 

[fjf]

I must live in a different planet, but if the music you like is not euphonic, it means you are listening to just noise. And if it is euphonic then, why color this music further?. To like it even better?. Don't see the point. If you have nice music, then an accurate setup will reproduce it for you to enjoy...I think the problem is that many people listen to loud rythms that are good to dance within a disco, but not to enjoy quietly.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory Have you guys noticed a general trend toward an "euphonic" sound instead of an "accurate" sound here in the forums?

Yes, definitely. Most people don't seem to care about accuracy, high fidelity -- as long as it sounds fun it's good. But is this a bad thing? I don't think so. It just undermines the search of the more serious audiophiles and sometimes makes them look like grinches.

This is a highly interesting thread topic and could get much too time-consuming if I don't take care of myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl To me accuracy and euphony are not necessarily two polar opposites completely unrelated. If we consider the sound of actual music to be "perfect", that is, most capable of producing pleasure in the listener because it's real, then the component that reproduces actual music most accurately will induce the most pleasure in the listener. But if they induce pleasure, does that actually make it "euphonic" instead of "accurate"? ...

Strong argument! I absolutely agree: A live concert sounds all but dry and analytic. So fun has to be part of a really accurate reproduction.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSloth I don't understand this idea that accuracy is measured by how 'true to life' the instruments of a recording sound. If the waveform recorded onto the disk is not 'true to life', then accurate reproduction should also produce a sound that isn't realistic. It should sound like what is on the disk. Many people expect that a great hi-fi system should turn a recording of a high school string quartet into the four clones of Pagnini, and if it doesn't do so, it's not 'faithful'. I'm always wary of various hi-fi products that impart the same particular qualities to every recording they play. If those are qualities that you like in recorded sound, then good for you, but I personally like all my recordings to sound as radically different as they really are, some being too harsh and sibilant, some overly warm and soup like.

My position as well: I want maximum neutrality, not artificial euphony and evening-out of sonic and recording characteristics.

I don't think those two positions are opposites in principal. They just highlight different criteria from a different preferences pattern. So I for one want as rigorous neutrality as I can get, but I don't equate it with analyticalness and emotionlessness.


Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax accuracy vs. euphony is neither unique to this forum nor a new trend. The entire sub-hobby of tube amplification is an institutionalized bow to euphony. You'll also find ultra-high-end speakers with FR graphs as jagged as the Alps.

While the latter is certainly true, the concept of the euphonic tube amps is wrong, at least if it's not balanced with the contrasting characterisation of solid-state amps as producing less euphonic colorations (but not less coloration).


Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello Vinyl is another great example!

Indeed. Although the vinyl lovers may be right in that the redbook CD format is too course and sounds too technical to do demanding ears justice. But the same applies to vinyl itself IMO, just that it's more forgiving and its colorations sound less technical (and thus more organic).


The claim for absolute accuracy and nevertheless/therefore preserved musicality has just one decisive snag: Somewhere in the recording-reproduction chain there may be a link or two or more which introduce such strong incalculable and inevitable colorations of the non-organic kind that for most listeners it would virtually mean to be masochistic if they had to leave them unvarnished. I'm rather sure that the first stage where this happens is the first sound transducer in the chain, namely the microphone. Depending on the studio electronics there may be another source of non-organic coloration in the latter, and then another critical point is the analogue-to-digital conversion. At home the digital player is the most decisive link IMO, although the speakers or headphones have much greater impact on the entire sound characteristic -- but it's more of the organic kind. Of course it would be silly to choose electronics with an emphasis on the treble if your speakers or headphones are already on the bright side, so there we have another argument for a tolerant handling of the neutrality principle. Not to speak of the artificial hearing experience headphones represent... there's room for individual compensation measures.

So although I'm actually a strong advocate of a puristic approach, a slight or less slight deviation from the path of virtue seems allowed or even necessary. I still think some gear categories are way overproportionally and uncritically dedicated to euphony... (I don't want to call names, just so much: it's the second from above).

 

[Riboge]

It may be true to an extent that preferences for tubes and vinyl are euphony nods moreso than accuracy based, at least these days. High level ss equipment has moved beyond the obvious edginess and unmusicality of the first two decades of ss stuff. But back then when I was willing to have only tube equipment and even to an extent now, the preference had to do with accuracy in the way it is not an antipode to sounding good: tube equipment reproduces some of the sweet and musical qualities of real, live performance acoustical instruments more accurately than did/do? ss counterparts. This is so even while ss stuff outdoes the tubed stuff in several other respects. So, given that accuracy has many facets and we still have not achieved perfection it is possible to prefer one or the other for either euphonic or fidelity reasons or, of course, both.

 

[halcyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl To me accuracy and euphony are not necessarily two polar opposites completely unrelated. If we consider the sound of actual music to be "perfect", that is, most capable of producing pleasure in the listener because it's real, then the component that reproduces actual music most accurately will induce the most pleasure in the listener. But if they induce pleasure, does that actually make it "euphonic" instead of "accurate"?

I think Mark makes a good point here (as he's so often inclined to do, when he has time to post).

Personally I've gone from one side (accuracy) to the other (euphonic) and now trying to find mid-ground myself (natural).

In my own thinking there is the mythical "accuracy" that some people aim for, and which often is mistaken for "unnatural resolution". That is, people like headphones that are so off-the-wall hyperrealistic that nobody would be able to hear things like that in nature, unless they stuck their head inside a violin (or a drum, or whatever it is that is playing on the recording). This is usually done by having some part of the spectrum (usually upper mids/highs) accentuated.

Then there is the euphonic (tonal coloration esp. in the critical mid-band + added reverbation) vs natural (tonal naturality) debate.

Euphonic can be really emotionally effective, especially with certain type of recordings.

Dry recordings become more lively, more intimate, voices more full bodied. Some type of studio recordings more believable in their acoustic space.

On other records, euphonic headphones completely fall apart for me.

I'm especially bothered by extra reverbation offered by some well regarded closed headphones.

Still, nicely euphonic (to me) headphones can have their place, but they are not the same as "hyperreal" to me. Hyperreal cans to me are often stingy and bright for people with deaf ears destroyed by noises of a big city or too much clubbing or playing walkman/iPod too loud

Then there's the last goal, which I still hold dear to me, because it is so elusive: naturality.

When a headphone approaches an unamplified acoustic event through a wide variety of "dry and simplistic" recordings, they have attained something magical.

They have made me forget for awhile, that I'm stuck in my own aparment, inside four walls, listening to a record of some acoustic event somewhere completely else.

They transport me to another place and time, and portray not only enjoyable (euphonic can offer that at times), but BELIEVABLE sound image that captures to me the essence of a good acoustic recording. At least, as long as I don't open my eyes or move my head

Still, cans tending towards natural sound can also sound dire, especially on modern hyper-compressed and digitally processed albums. Those can sound dire, bland and even downright nasty.

I think the important thing is to be happy with whatever rocks your boat, but also be aware that it may not be the only worldview that everybody else subscribes to also.

Sometimes you can enjoy them all: hyperreal for certain type of acoustical engineering tasks), euphonic for enjoying certain type of music with maximal emotional impact and natural for suspending your disbelief and being transported to the place of the original acoustic event.

 

[Ayreonaut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon They have made me forget for awhile, that I'm ... listening to a record of some acoustic event somewhere completely else. They transport me to another place and time, and portray not only enjoyable (euphonic can offer that at times), but BELIEVABLE sound image that captures to me the essence of a good acoustic recording.

My thoughts exactly. A great reproduction should make you forget that it isn't real. If the recording isn't perfect, you should forget that too.

I see a lot of talk about frequency coloration here, but not much talk about dynamics. I think that's where a lot of the realism is.

 

[Steve999]

To answer the question posed: I don't see any particular uptick in valuing euphonic cans versus accurate cans at head-fi.

As another poster said, I think most of the valued cans here are, on a relative scale, pretty good as far as accuracy goes.

There is some recent interest in the DT880, which appears to be quite high in accuracy, and yet euphonic too.

I approach the hobby in both ways.

I have headphones that I know are relatively accurate and I think of it as hearing what's on the recording, which I find fascinating.

I also have headphones that I know are not as accurate and that are very enjoyable nonetheless. Which I find fascinating.

I also mess with digital EQ, both in terms of trying to achieve what I guess is accurate and in terms of listening for what I find most euphonic. I think a little extra mid-bass and rolling of the highs a little are two things most people find appealing as a departure from accuracy, to varying degrees of course. On the other hand, I think smooth mids are something most people find appealing and is a very important part of accuracy.

The subject of accuracy and headphones is mind-bogglingly complex, IMHO. One thing you can be sure of -- anyone who thinks it's simple or cut and dry has not even a clue.

 

[Trogdor]

I actually believe its more about TRANSPARENCY than anything else. At the end of the day, I want my system to get out of the way of the music. I've always felt that the audio business has always been a game of who can take away the least instead of who can add the most!

In terms of euphonics, I think as many people have stated, if you are trying to get that perfect sound, i.e. some sort of unnatural but pleasant harmonic distortion, its not going to work for all types of music.

Accuracy is a misnomer here. Of course you want accurate reproduction of the signal. But as many have pointed out, everyone's ears are different and therefore everyone's PERCEPTION of accuracy is different (gives HeadFi personality!). Also as many have stated, accuracy also depends on the original mastered signal. Poorly recorded material may never sound right (in fact here accuracy may ultimately hurt you!).