Testing audiophile claims and myths

[redrol]

Im sure you can use your brains and cut it off.

 

[2leftears]

Im sure you can use your brains and cut it off.

I do cut it off.

But it is a solution for a problem created by a solution looking for a problem.

 

[71 dB]

Funny how they don't go after the peanut butter though...

Well, some things are sacred.

 

[gregorio]

… are there any formal studies on the extent to which individuals are more or less affected by sighted bias in their perception of music?

Wow, that’s a far larger and more complex question than I think you realise, for two reasons:

Firstly, music is itself nothing more than a perception, it doesn’t actually physically exist, there is no physical attribute or property of sound that defines music, “Music” is just a collective word we use to describe sounds in a certain context. The same sound can be viewed as just sound or as music, depending solely on context. In fact, some genres exist which are deliberately based entirely on this dichotomy, “musique concrète” for example. This is somewhat different to the difference between say “sound” and “noise”, because although it’s somewhat ambiguous, “noise” can be defined and therefore objectively measured. However, there is no comprehensive definition of music, it cannot be objectively measured and your question doesn’t make any sense because in effect “music” is entirely the result of biases, both sighted and other knowledge based biases. Without biases there is no such thing as music.

Secondly, because of the point above, I/we would have to interpret your question much more specifically in order to present any sort of answer but even then, it’s still a relatively wide ranging question/complex question unless you’re willing to be far more exacting. For example, there are various studies regarding how the body movements of musicians while performing can affect onlookers’ perceptions of the intended musical interpretation. A question that incidentally was largely raised due to the performances of Jacqueline du Pré, whose movements were considered excessive by some at the time. An example of such a study is the 2007 paper: “Visual Perception of Expressiveness in Musicians’ Body Movements” by Sofia Dahl, et al. However, this has been a well known phenomena for many centuries, it is in fact a primary method of communication between conductors and musicians during rehearsals and performances (the exact style of conducting the beats).

G

 

[gregorio]

E.g., how would established research results re. limits of perceptible levels of of distortion, frequency range etc. hold up if the test subjects were exclusively made up of people with e.g. synesthesia? Getting a large enough group of test subjects would be problematic. But it would be interesting to see what such research could tell us about the physical limits of human hearing versus those potentially resulting from neurological processing limits in the (normal) brain.

They don’t affect the limits of human hearing, or rather; they can affect the limits of human hearing depending on the exact condition you’re talking about but they only reduce the limits, they don’t extend them, which is what I’m assuming you’re referring to? If so, it is based on a popular myth, for example that blind people develop increased hearing ability. There is certainly evidence that early blindness often results in enhanced listening ability compared to average sighted subjects but there’s no evidence that their physical hearing limits are improved. In other words, their physical hearing limits are no different to anyone else but they sometimes have a better than average ability to discriminate/identify what they are hearing. So for example, they would not be able to hear quieter sounds than normally sighted subjects but they can be better at determining the spatial location and/or pitch. This has been well known for a long time and more recent research has provided evidence of differences in blind people in the processing structures within the auditory cortex responsible for identifying pitch (EG. “Early Blindness Shapes Cortical Representations of Auditory Frequency within Auditory Cortex”, Huber, et al, 2019) but again, that is just a better ability to discriminate pitch, not any enhancement of physical hearing limits.

The same is true for other conditions. Another example would be Hyperacusis, a condition characterised by a highly “increased sensitivity to sound”. I’ve seen audiophiles misunderstand/misrepresent this fact, incorrectly believing that sufferers are able to hear quieter sounds than normally hearing subjects. This isn’t the case, in fact Hyperacusis sufferers commonly have a poorer ability to hear quieter sounds than normally hearing subjects. An “increased sensitivity to sound” in this case refers to a very significantly reduced threshold for “loud” and “painfully loud”, not a lower threshold for hearing sound. IE. The hearing threshold for a young subject with normal hearing in ideal conditions would be around 0dBSPL, for someone with Hyperacusis their hearing threshold would also be 0dBSPL although it’s likely to be somewhat higher. However, the threshold for “loud” and “painfully loud” for a normally hearing person would likely be around 75-90dBSPL and 100-120dBSPL respectively, while for the Hyperacusis sufferer they could be as low as 40dBSPL and 75dBSPL respectively, around 40dB or so lower.

G

 

[Ryokan]

The one that always gets me is “organic.” The number of times I’ve read someone describing their HP’s sound as, organic, is astounding. What that means is beyond me.

I know one thing anything labelled 'organic' is more expensive, Hi-Res music and carrots for example.

 

[BobG55]

I know one thing anything labelled 'organic' is more expensive, Hi-Res music and carrots for example.

Love it.

 

[solid12345]

Musical instruments should have timbre, but audio components shouldn’t. They should have fidelity without coloration.

I never understood this mentality that all audio products should just be a straight signal with a gain. Variety is the spice of life. I wear glasses and logically I need something that allows me to perceive the world as it is to the best of their vision corrective abilities. But if such things like beer goggles existed that made the world more charming to look at they’d probably sell more units than Apple!

 

[gregorio]

I never understood this mentality that all audio products should just be a straight signal with a gain. Variety is the spice of life.

There is already a phenomenal amount of variety, music from yesterday all the way back 700 years, from numerous different countries, composers, musicians and in numerous different styles.

I wear glasses and logically I need something that allows me to perceive the world as it is to the best of their vision corrective abilities. But if such things like beer goggles existed that made the world more charming to look at they’d probably sell more units than Apple!

But would you want to wear those goggles for driving, flying a plane or for looking at a piece of art by Monet, Ruben’s, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc? What about when looking at a piece of art that is not supposed to be “charming”, that is supposed to be something else entirely, like Picasso’s Guernica, Munch’s The Scream or countless other works of art? Wouldn’t looking through something that makes those works of art look “more charming” pretty much destroy the whole point of those works of art?

Most people want to hear music and recordings as the composers, musicians and engineers intended, not as some audio product decides. The majority of musical pieces have at least some parts that are not supposed to sound charming and some entire genres are not supposed to sound charming at all, why would you want to try to change them into something they’re not supposed to be, do you know better than Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Motorhead, The Prodigy and countless others?

G

 

[castleofargh]

Personal audio preferences shouldn’t be made into laws. But admittedly, in this hobby the core principle usually is to seek fidelity(it’s done with more or less understanding, usually less). If someone claims to aim for fidelity, he should be consistent enough not to go for the clearly colored amp with maybe 3 or 4% THD, or the nearly filterless NOS DAC with massive aliasing.
Of course someone can love how they sound and that’s that.

 

[solid12345]

There is already a phenomenal amount of variety, music from yesterday all the way back 700 years, from numerous different countries, composers, musicians and in numerous different styles.

But would you want to wear those goggles for driving, flying a plane or for looking at a piece of art by Monet, Ruben’s, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc? What about when looking at a piece of art that is not supposed to be “charming”, that is supposed to be something else entirely, like Picasso’s Guernica, Munch’s The Scream or countless other works of art? Wouldn’t looking through something that makes those works of art look “more charming” pretty much destroy the whole point of those works of art?

Most people want to hear music and recordings as the composers, musicians and engineers intended, not as some audio product decides. The majority of musical pieces have at least some parts that are not supposed to sound charming and some entire genres are not supposed to sound charming at all, why would you want to try to change them into something they’re not supposed to be, do you know better than Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Motorhead, The Prodigy and countless others?

G

Define intent. For decades, most record labels for a unfortunately large portion of their catalog outright ignore the artists & sophisticated listeners and mix their albums to be atrocious, brick walled, compressed monstrosities intended to sound louder on EarPods or car radios and not fit for quality home stereos. One of my cherished preamps is a mid-80s McIntosh C34v with a built in Compander and I’m constantly reaching for that knob to try and expand the soundstage and dynamics of these awful recordings. I don’t care about their intent because they sold me an awful sounding product to begin with. I do what I can to make it sound somewhat palpable to my ears.

As for artists who managed to get creative control in the mixer room, I’m still skeptical they have ideas in their head about what a “perfect” system is. If they did they’d issue audio albums like computer specs for games and list what equipment sounds best with their album. And which mix is the intended mix? You have albums like Darkside of the Moon that’s been remastered upteen times. Which is the correct one? The original on vinyl? The 80s digital? Or the new 50th anniversary mix? It gets even more wild when you start talking Quad, 5.1 or Atmos mixes, some which are blessed by the original artists, many not. You could go crazy trying to decipher the history behind every version. If the engineers can’t decide on a perfect mix and like to go in and tinker all over again on ancient albums like some mad scientist, how is it any different distorting them yourself at home with EQ and DSP. We all got a little George Lucas in us.

The best evidence for why I believe none of this matters as a cultural issue though is if you go to the homes of any top musicians or producers in the world from Paul McCartney to Rick Rubin, I have no doubts you’ll find at least one tube amplifier somewhere. If the musicians themselves are listening to music through a distorted lens are they really that anal about you as a customer doing the same? This is why they’re artists not engineers, a lot of them can’t even read sheet music!

in the meantime I’ll keep reaching for that equalizer and turning the bass up when I feel like it or adding some reverb to spice up a closed in sounding album.

 

[bigshot]

The way to add spice to your sound is with signal processing, not resorting to low fidelity components. Start clean and balanced as a baseline and do whatever you want with EQ or DSPs. The chances of finding a component with compromised fidelity that exactly matches your personal taste are very slim. Use equipment designed for the purpose of coloring and distorting sound euphonically that you can adjust to be perfect for you. There are all kinds of DSPs…. More different sounds than you’ll ever find in DACs, players or amps. Besides, most of those are calibrated for transparency. I’ve never run across one that isn’t. So you’re arguing in favor of something that largely doesn’t exist except in pathologically obscure corners of Audiophoolery.

 

[1oad3r]

Most people want to hear music and recordings as the composers, musicians and engineers intended

How do you know that? Seems like an opinion positioned as fact which you know not to do given this is a “science” forum.

not as some audio product decides

Why and how is the audio product deciding? Assume you mean how the user decided since they were the one to purchase the device based on their preferences.

While I’m intellectually honest enough to recognise the intent / benefit of “as the artist intended”, it seems to me the reality is that music is a deeply personal and subjective experience, evoking emotions and providing pleasure. If a certain setup (coloured or otherwise) makes the music more enjoyable or emotionally impactful for the listener, then that setup has fulfilled its purpose. Who are we to argue otherwise?

do you know better than Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Motorhead, The Prodigy and countless others?

Yes I do know better; there is no one more authoritative than me with regards to my personal audio preferences, that ensures I enjoy music to the fullest extent.

 

[71 dB]

The reason why audio gear should be as transparent as possible is, because without this ideology there would be chaos. Some people would have warm sounding gear. Some people would have cooler sounding gear etc. Which gear should musicians produce their music for? Because music producers will compensate to achieve the sound they want. The answer is they should produce it for neutral sounding gear. Now if you want to have warm sound then you use warm gear and everything produces for neutral gear will sound warm, but "warm" sound is relative. Warm compared to what? Not certainly compared to even warmer sound. The sound what you want IS the neutral sound for you. That is what you want and anything else is coloured sound to you. Too cool, too warm, too whatever. People get used to certain sound. If everything was neutral, all people would get used to that same neutral sound and nobody would experience wrong kind of sound. That's why I advocate neutral audio gear. Audio world were people can get any kind of coloured sound and get used to it is too chaotic for me, sorry.

 

[solid12345]

Personal audio preferences shouldn’t be made into laws. But admittedly, in this hobby the core principle usually is to seek fidelity(it’s done with more or less understanding, usually less). If someone claims to aim for fidelity, he should be consistent enough not to go for the clearly colored amp with maybe 3 or 4% THD, or the nearly filterless NOS DAC with massive aliasing.
Of course someone can love how they sound and that’s that.

I think 3-4% is a bit of an exaggeration in what I seek for a colored sound, for instance my McIntosh C2300 has a THD of .08% and my C34v is 0.01% yet they couldn’t be any more different. The C2300 is 20 years newer, tube-based and has an ethereal midrange, wider soundstage and actually sounds cleaner and crisper & more neutral to me while the C34v SS has a heavier emphasis on the low-end with a much warmer, almost gooey tonality. It’s ironically maybe even more tubey than its actual tube successor. One amp gives me a feeling like I’m sailing on a cloud listening to music while the other I’m in an underground nightclub tapping my toes to bass emanating all around me.

Logically they should sound practically identical with such measurements, the C34v with the slightly better rating should actually sound less warm….but numbers don't tell the tale to the ear. And while they exhibit what I imagine to most rational people as acceptable distortion numbers, if you put the average person in front of them they’d no doubt describe the sound as colored if your benchmark is the most neutral of 0.0000001% amps out there. Putting this McIntosh tube preamp in my chain was the biggest game changer to finally making me fully content with my sound regardless what amp is at the end.