Why would a pro acoustic musician or an audiophile with lots of acoustic experience make any difference? Speakers and HPs reproduce recordings, not acoustic experiences! And, many people are “bass heads” and/or have relatively little acoustic music experience, why should this significant demographic be excluded from an average human preference just because it’s not the same demographic as you?
Ummm because its more likely I know what an oboe should sound like on a very good recording more than a bass head that listens to EDM only. I am not interested in suppressing the opinions of others per se, however, I believe the sub sets I have identified are likely to yield results closer to what my perceptions are than a wad.
Are bass heads and those with little acoustic music experience not human or are you just effectively stating that you think organisations, researchers, etc., should produce target curves just for you and screw everyone else?
Oh please. Trying to suck me into a straw man argument..... I posit that different self identified sub groups would end up with different results. I would place more trust in the ones I specified, but, I would still verify by ear the accuracy of the settings.
And how would someone who has “heard say the BSO be trusted to know how that should sound like” when they are listening to a recording where the “sound” is significantly different?
The subject of music, recordings, and playback has not been specified, so that's an open question. There was a thread on HF last year about "great recordings" and a rather large percentage mentioned Steely Dan "Aja". Each instrument played was played separately, with multi mikes, then mixed, etc. While it is a good example of 'modern' recording of pop music - its not live, it is amplified. Not my reference. I'd be looking at 3 ribbon mike recordings of acoustic music played in a good hall with minimal post processing as being more accurate.
How the BSO “should sound like”, depends on the piece they’re playing, the venue in which they’re playing it
The Hall is the same (basically), of course the players and composer are different. Still a higher level of accuracy than Led Zeppelin in sports arena.
the listener’s location in that venue, the musicians’ and conductor’s interpretation that day and in addition, a recording will also vary depending on how it was mic’ed and the other subjective choices of the engineers, producer and in some cases the conductor again. Experience of acoustic music will tell you nothing or next to nothing about any of these determining variables!
I'm thinking about recordings from the mid 50's to late 60's, then then the audiophile recordings from labels such as Sheffield, Chesky, RR, etc. as representing the better rendering of music available.
I’m not sure if you’ve seen Sean Olive’s convention paper from just over a month ago (
link here or see the edit below), where he did in fact identify two “
stable preference groups”, which he calls “Class 1 and Class 2 listeners”, where the data indicates the differentiator to be age. This correlates well with his previous study in 2019 (
ASA article linked here), which indicates 3 classes of listeners and therefore 3 curves, that are accommodated through a simple bass adjustment.
Have not read it. Age is a factor obviously.
And yet this thread demonstrates the exact opposite! Here, those who “care about objective information” are stating it’s a guideline/starting point, while others are mischaracterising it as wrong because it’s an exact target (that doesn’t match their preference).
Its not either/or. Its a preference measurement - that appears to work for many. In the forms I have sampled it. I do not accept the results as acceptable as is.
Huh? “What’s on the recording is what I want to hear” too, which is precisely why I use PEQ! I do not want to hear the effects of my speakers with the room modes of my sitting room mangling the artists’ intent, nor the effects of headphone tuning, hence why I use PEQ. Your stated preference is apparently to hear the artists intent mangled by room acoustics or headphone interaction/tuning and then falsely claim you want to hear what’s on the recording?!
Nonsense. I use PEQ, I have room treatments/tuning (my current room/ required placement of speakers) has lots of issues in the 80-130 Hz area in particular with my new speakers (5 weeks old), which I will be borrowing equipment to analyize so I can address it.
That’s a shame because it means you pretty much never get to experience what you prefer. I on the other hand prefer “it to start and stop as it was” mixed, mastered and intended. You seem to be contradicting yourself, above you stated you don’t want to “have the artists intent mangled” and now you’re stating you prefer “it to start and stop as recorded” and therefore do want the artists’ intent mangled?!
The contradiction appears to be you ascribing things to me I didn't specify or opine.
