[gregorio]

Most ordinary people are practical minded. They want affordable equipment that makes sense scientifically and fits their personal purpose. I like those kinds of practical souls.

But there’s a big danger here too. Most ordinary people do not know what a “flat response” is, and many either prefer a some other response anyway (EG. More bass) or their “personal purpose” is varied (EG. A car system, a desk system, a more critical listening sitting room system and even laptop or mobile phone speakers). Even those who do want a flat response may have to add significant amounts of say EQ to compensate for room acoustics or some HPs’ response. So, it is NOT just a case of “doubling down and adding a little bit to the threshold "just to account for particularly sensitive ears"”. Sure, there are many people who listen to music who have more sensitive hearing, many of those who are much younger than us for example, but there are also many people whose “personal purpose” and/or preferences will significantly emphasise certain areas of the freq spectrum and can therefore make distortions that are “on the bleeding edge of audible” for you/your system setup, clearly audible.

So the big danger is in making false assertions of what is irrelevant, inaudible or “not practical minded” based on your “personal purpose”. Much of the time, that basis is going to be sufficient to avoid false assertions because many audiophile “concerns” are about distortions that are way beyond audibility or don’t actually exist at all in the reproduced sound. But sometimes you are going to be wrong, unless you allow a decent margin of error!

G

 

[bigshot]

Frequency response can be a personal thing. If your goal is accuracy, like in a recording studio, you want flat. But everyone has different ears and different tastes. For a personal home system, some people might prefer a response that isn't flat as a ruler. Of course folks aren't likely to prefer big deviations from flat. The plot of preferences for the Harman Curve is interesting. You can see how many people prefer the same response and how many prefer a unique response.

With speakers, practicality and functionality might trump a completely flat response. There's a place in the world for bookshelf speakers, music systems in untreated living rooms, and music on the go in cars or in lightweight travel headphones.

Of all the specs, frequency response is the wild card. I was referring mostly to distortion, signal to noise and dynamic range when I referred to audiophiles being focused on specs below the threshold of audibility.

 

[The Jester]

Frequency response can be a personal thing. If your goal is accuracy, like in a recording studio, you want flat. But everyone has different ears and different tastes. For a personal home system, some people might prefer a response that isn't flat as a ruler. Of course folks aren't likely to prefer big deviations from flat. The plot of preferences for the Harman Curve is interesting. You can see how many people prefer the same response and how many prefer a unique response.

With speakers, practicality and functionality might trump a completely flat response. There's a place in the world for bookshelf speakers, music systems in untreated living rooms, and music on the go in cars or in lightweight travel headphones.

Of all the specs, frequency response is the wild card. I was referring mostly to distortion, signal to noise and dynamic range when I referred to audiophiles being focused on specs below the threshold of audibility.

Depends on listening levels too, if either by preference or external limitations listening is done at lower levels a boost in bass and/or treble is needed for a perceived flat response, sadly the audiophiles dictated that tone controls and loudness switches degraded the signal, luckily a simple switch controlled relay allowed for “tone defeat” or “pure direct” options on some gear.

 

[gregorio]

Of course folks aren't likely to prefer big deviations from flat.

Shown the difference and given the choice, you’re probably right. However in practice that’s often not the case, countless people used “V” shaped EQ for example, which is a “big deviation from flat”, quite a few are bass-heads or at least prefer a somewhat higher level of bass and of course the Harman Curve isn’t flat and may require a significant EQ boost to achieve, as may room EQ correction with speakers.

Of all the specs, frequency response is the wild card. I was referring mostly to distortion, signal to noise and dynamic range when I referred to audiophiles being focused on specs below the threshold of audibility.

Yes, but they can be connected. For example, let’s say there’s some distortion in the low freqs which you can barely hear. A bass-head or “V” shaped EQ will significantly increase the level of the low freqs and make that distortion far more audible/obvious. A “V” shaped EQ will also make noise and high freq distortions much more obvious. Or, raising the bass level at an already quite high listening level could easily cause the drivers to produce audible distortion.

There are many potential examples of noise or distortion that maybe “on the bleeding edge of audible” for you, with your system setup but far more audible for others with their setup.

G

 

[bigshot]

If I knew where to find it, I’d post the preference plot of the Harman Curve. It clearly showed the amount and popularity of response deviances.

 

[craiglester]

I've been on head-fi for something like 17 years, albeit with some big old gaps in there (life happens) but I don't think it was until the last few years that I really thought about the technical side of the equipment that I had and how I could improve on it. That led to a lot of reading, a few posts here and there and a realization that the nagging sensation I had had for so long, that itch to upgrade gear regularly, was going away. I'm not very good at articulating this, but I do believe that rather than being a thought jail, this forum has helped free me from a lot of the more pervasive theories on some of the other forums.
Enlightenment might be too strong a term for some but there's a kind of peace that comes with science and reason, life's too short to sweat the inaudible stuff.

Edit : typo

 

[redrol]

life's too short to sweat the inaudible stuff.

More time to enjoy music my man. Couldn't agree more.

 

[BobG55]

I've been on head-fi for something like 17 years, albeit with some big old gaps in there (life happens) but I don't think it was until the last few years that I really thought about the technical side of the equipment that I had and how I could improve on it. That led to a lot of reading, a few posts here and there and a realization that the nagging sensation I had had for so long, that itch to upgrade gear regularly, was going away. I'm not very good at articulating this, but I do believe that rather than being a thought jail, this forum has helped free me from a lot of the more pervasive theories on some of the other forums.
Enlightenment might be too strong a term for some but there's a kind of peace that comes with science and reason, life's too short to sweat the inaudible stuff.

Edit : typo

The very same with me. Word for word.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Same here, life is short, I can only hear what I can hear and no amount of money thrown at things will change that. It is indeed much more peaceful to know that good enough, is indeed good enough.

 

[gregorio]

If I knew where to find it, I’d post the preference plot of the Harman Curve. It clearly showed the amount and popularity of response deviances.

I’ve seen the Harmon Curve. It shows an average of response preferences, rather than the preference applicable to everyone and necessarily has a limited sample size. Interestingly, Harmon have updated the curve several times, as testing continued over time and these updates increased the bass. In addition, you cannot deny there are quite a few bass-heads out there or the “V” shaped tone controls used by some/many, who presumably have never heard of the Harmon Curve and don’t realise they would probably prefer it.

Again, these variations or even the processing some might have to apply to achieve the Harmon Curve, could easily create or reveal distortions that are inaudible/barely audible with your system/setup.

G

 

[bigshot]

No, you are thinking of the curve itself. They published a chart that showed where each test subject's preference fell in relation to the curve. It was a cluster of dots around the curve with a handful of outlier dots in the extremes. You could see at a glance how many people prefer the Harman Curve and how many don't.

 

[gregorio]

They published a chart that showed where each test subject's preference fell in relation to the curve. It was a cluster of dots around the curve with a handful of outlier dots in the extremes.

I don’t recall seeing that particular version of the chart. Obviously though, such a chart can only display a limited number of test subjects’ preferences and, there were a “handful of outlier dots”, even with a relatively small sample size.

So I presume you are not denying the existence of bass-heads, the use of “V” shaped tone settings (regardless of the Harmon Curve) or the use of quite significant EQ to achieve the Harmon Curve on occasion? All of which can cause audible distortion or make barely audible distortion more noticeable.

G

 

[bigshot]

Not denying they exist, just pointing out they are quite rare. My comment was "Most folks aren't likely to prefer big deviations from flat." I thought there were more people who did until I saw this chart. I don't remember how many people were polled for the Harman Curve. I think it was something like 300. Of that number, the ones at the outer extremes were very few- maybe five or six. The vast majority ranged within a short distance of the Harman Curve, some a little in one direction, some a little in another.

 

[gregorio]

I think it was something like 300. Of that number, the ones at the outer extremes were very few- maybe five or six.

6 in 300 is 1 in 50, which as a percentage of the population would equate to about 150 million people and doesn’t include those who don’t know they would prefer the Harmon Curve and just apply a “V” shaped EQ or those who may need significant EQ to achieve the Harmon Curve.

That’s not an insignificant or irrelevant number of people.

G

 

[bigshot]

It is compared to 49 times that number all clustered around Harman! If you invited 50 people to your birthday party and the only person who came was your mom, it wouldn’t feel like a big number.