[bigshot]

You are incorrect on so many fronts. I am making the case that its all about "preferences"

That's the old logical fallacy, "We can't know everything, so we can't know anything."

There are objective ways to improve sound fidelity. And even if you don't get all the way to perfect sound, the results are more accurate than just going with subjective impressions that are subject to bias, placebo and perceptual error.

If your goal is purely subjective sound that appeals to you personally, that is perfectly fine. I see the value in that. But it's best to start with a baseline of accuracy and fidelity before you start slathering on the ketchup. It can be very hard to pinpoint your personal subjective target without a starting point. Your unconscious bias and perceptual errors can lead you around in circles because they aren't consistent. Eat something that doesn't agree with you and you go in one direction, have a nice glass of wine and you go in another. If you start from a baseline of accuracy, your flailing about will be much more contained and you will find your personal nirvana a lot easier.

But subjectivity isn't the topic of this forum. Here we apply scientific principles and good old horse sense to try to improve the fidelity and accuracy of our home audio systems. That doesn't mean that our systems are objectively *perfect*. It just means that they are more faithful to the intent of the source because we have addressed the science and reduced subjective and perceptual pitfalls. This is a lot more effective than throwing up your hands and saying "it's impossible!" and choosing to just "like" something because you "like" it.

The disagreement here isn't factual. It's a matter of attitude. The Sound Science regulars aren't being condescending when we respond with information. We're doing what we are here to do. Help people and learn about things we don't know yet. If you adopted the same attitude, we wouldn't be arguing. To be honest, most of us are tired of arguing with people who don't understand the basic concept of this group. We'd prefer not to argue. But when someone comes in with a chip on their shoulder and gets aggressive, we get that way too.

 

[bigshot]

If brains are interpreting vibrations differently, why bother with science, just calibrate your speakers to your liking and enjoy the music! Why should someone then to bother to impose their subjective opinions to other people

That's a bingo. Subjective tastes only apply to an individual. It's a waste of time to recommend your tastes to someone who has different tastes. But that's done all the time on Head-Fi and in all kinds of other internet forums. It's the noise to the signal here in Sound Science. The advice that actually helps people achieve a goal is the objective steps to take to achieve fidelity. Fidelity is possible to quantify and improve. All you have to do is strive to be as close to the intent of the source sound as you can. Calibration and using similar means of reproduction of sound are both good ways to achieve fidelity when it comes to commercially recorded music.

 

[redrol]

You can always go full jump-the-shark and get the same studio monitors used to master the album in question. Set them up to nearfield listen. It can happen..

I'll say this, people that do that have my respect.

 

[bigshot]

The trick isn’t the brand of monitor, it’s the calibration. If you want accurate, you want to get a balanced response. In a home situation that can be a challenge, but you get it as close as you can and the closer you get, the more accurate it is.

By the way, the little speakers on top of the mixing board aren’t the main monitors. Those are used for editing and tracking. The main monitors are full size cabinet speakers. Those are the ones they use for mixing and mastering.

 

[538681]

That's the old logical fallacy, "We can't know everything, so we can't know anything."

There are objective ways to improve sound fidelity. And even if you don't get all the way to perfect sound, the results are more accurate than just going with subjective impressions that are subject to bias, placebo and perceptual error.

If your goal is purely subjective sound that appeals to you personally, that is perfectly fine. I see the value in that. But it's best to start with a baseline of accuracy and fidelity before you start slathering on the ketchup. It can be very hard to pinpoint your personal subjective target without a starting point. Your unconscious bias and perceptual errors can lead you around in circles because they aren't consistent. Eat something that doesn't agree with you and you go in one direction, have a nice glass of wine and you go in another. If you start from a baseline of accuracy, your flailing about will be much more contained and you will find your personal nirvana a lot easier.

But subjectivity isn't the topic of this forum. Here we apply scientific principles and good old horse sense to try to improve the fidelity and accuracy of our home audio systems. That doesn't mean that our systems are objectively *perfect*. It just means that they are more faithful to the intent of the source because we have addressed the science and reduced subjective and perceptual pitfalls. This is a lot more effective than throwing up your hands and saying "it's impossible!" and choosing to just "like" something because you "like" it.

The disagreement here isn't factual. It's a matter of attitude. The Sound Science regulars aren't being condescending when we respond with information. We're doing what we are here to do. Help people and learn about things we don't know yet. If you adopted the same attitude, we wouldn't be arguing. To be honest, most of us are tired of arguing with people who don't understand the basic concept of this group. We'd prefer not to argue. But when someone comes in with a chip on their shoulder and gets aggressive, we get that way too.

You are such a broken record.

BigShot: "Help people and learn about things we don't know yet."

I don't think you actually meant that but how true that is. As for the rest you are dreaming.

I see very little science in what you talk about. Sure there is the mechanics of sound reproduction but that is not what I am talking about. What I clearly see is an itsy-bitsy club obsessed with an overreaching definition of "fidelity". And then an even tinier cult that attempts to elevate reproducing the "intent" of audio engineers for home use, as if that should be important. No doubt this is due to you being a producer and thus quite full of yourself and despite your protests exceedingly condescending. But I no doubt return the favor.

Now if we want science we need to head over to Audio Science Review, not here, and check out their definition of fidelity. A quick summary says its limited to what can be measured (as science usually is). This includes noise, distortion, and more tenuously frequency response. Absolutely nothing about so called spatial properties since there is still no agreed upon way of measuring that (not that they are not trying, for games anyway). When ASR does discuss spatial properties its clearly in the subjective listening category and the most descriptive term I heard yet about it is "fun". Enough said.

So that leaves FR as a difficult thing to reproduce in headphones and IEMs. ASR does not resolve this issue by attempting to decipher "intent" of sound engineers. They use curves like Harman to match. If you accept the curve its easy to attempt to match scientifically. However, Harman curves are a worthy subject of debate, just like your numerous assertions, about their relation to music enjoyment.

You know, if you go to headphones.com, almost all the folks there talk far less pedantically and overbearingly about their feeling concerning speakers and headphones. They know full well it is a matter of preference. Given the fact you don't just go away, I think that's where I'll be heading.

What on earth are you even doing in a forum that is supposedly about IEMs and headphones? You clearly don't like them. My conspiratorial side thinks you are really just a speaker salesman trying to convince uneducated members to buy much more expensive systems. But, ah, that can't be true.

Final tip, if you don't want a reply don't respond. Your not up to the task.

 

[bigshot]

I'm sure I've said this to you in the past under different screen names, but I invite you to ignore my posts. If you are going to mad dog me, you aren't going to last long here. If I reply to you, you can be sure I'm not really talking to you, but to the lurkers who are willing to listen.

One tip: If you start out and end your post with personal attacks, I won't read all the stuff in the middle.

 

[Ohman]

Now if we want science we need to head over to Audio Science Review, not here, and check out their definition of fidelity.

Fidelity = what you hear, good and bad. It's subjective as it varies with individuals.

Jeez guys it's just a forum about headphones, who'd thought it'd be so heated? Sheesh!

 

[538681]

I'm sure I've said this to you in the past under different screen names, but I invite you to ignore my posts. If you are going to mad dog me, you aren't going to last long here. If I reply to you, you can be sure I'm not really talking to you, but to the lurkers who are willing to listen.

One tip: If you start out and end your post with personal attacks, I won't read all the stuff in the middle.

" you aren't going to last long here"

I shiver in fear and trepidation. And yes, please don't read what I have to say, let others, if they choose, respond.

 

[bigshot]

Fidelity is accuracy to the original sound source. Opinions about preferences are subjective.

If you want to hear Sgt Pepper with the highest degree of accuracy, you go to Abbey Road Studios and listen to the master tape on the same system the Beatles used when they were mixing it. If that isn't practical, you get as close to that as you can... setting up a similar setup in your home that is calibrated to the same kind of standards. The closer you come to that, the greater the degree of fidelity. Thankfully, digital audio has pretty much solved the problem of fidelity when it comes to signal from master tape through the amp. The harder part now is the playback- the transducers and room. But that isn't unachievable.

 

[538681]

So for a couple of outside refinements:

https://independentclauses.com/fidelity-vs-sound-quality-a-comparison-of-digital-and-analog/

And quote:

"This is based on an erroneous conflation of two terms that should be kept distinct, “fidelity” and “sound quality.” Fidelity describes the degree of accuracy to which a medium recreates a sound. Sound quality, however, is subjective. It’s not a measurement; rather it’s an indication of preference."

What are we actually more interested in here? I'd say Sound quality. But sure, pursue "fidelity" if you like, I'm sure its a fascinating hobby for some. I accept that fidelity, for now, is more available to scientific analysis. Just don't conflate it with Sound Quality.

Now for a far more heady read that I expect few will fully tackle, ...the myth of perfect fidelity:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20551940.2020.1713524

And I quote the summary:

"Whether it is heard in the control room of the music studio, in the comfort of one’s own living room, while driving in a car or dancing in the club, the signal at one end of the chain is both radically different and fundamentally the same as the signal that went in. Radically different in the sense that its spectral contours and temporal flow are singularly unique in comparison to those that went in; and fundamentally the same in the sense that, regardless of this difference or similitude, it is just as physically real and present as the input signal. The transient traces left behind by the cuts of technical filters thereby confirm the primacy of the unrepresentable moment of filtering. They put an end to the idea that sound recordings are incomplete or flawed reproductions of some “original” sonic event. Instead, the logic of filtering emphasizes that a technological produced sound is never an ideal replication of some supposed “original,” but always a singularly complex and essentially new sound altogether."

 

[bigshot]

So. There’s a football game tomorrow, right?

 

[bfreedma]

I see we have another “single topic guru” here to correct everyone. Seems to happen once a quarter or so, though this is the second time in a week...

let the windmill tilting continue!

 

[538681]

I won my $10 bucks! Thank you, that's all I needed to know. Live near the mountains here, time to go ice climbing.

 

[castleofargh]

Fidelity = what you hear, good and bad. It's subjective as it varies with individuals.

Jeez guys it's just a forum about headphones, who'd thought it'd be so heated? Sheesh!

Fidelity is, initially at least, a very objective audio concept. You have a reference, you have copies/reproductions/playbacks of that reference and the one coming closest to the original has more fidelity. Sometimes it's quite tricky to assess, but the general concept is simple and clear enough.

So for a couple of outside refinements:

https://independentclauses.com/fidelity-vs-sound-quality-a-comparison-of-digital-and-analog/

And quote:

"This is based on an erroneous conflation of two terms that should be kept distinct, “fidelity” and “sound quality.” Fidelity describes the degree of accuracy to which a medium recreates a sound. Sound quality, however, is subjective. It’s not a measurement; rather it’s an indication of preference."

What are we actually more interested in here? I'd say Sound quality. But sure, pursue "fidelity" if you like, I'm sure its a fascinating hobby for some. I accept that fidelity, for now, is more available to scientific analysis. Just don't conflate it with Sound Quality.

Now for a far more heady read that I expect few will fully tackle, ...the myth of perfect fidelity:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20551940.2020.1713524

And I quote the summary:

"Whether it is heard in the control room of the music studio, in the comfort of one’s own living room, while driving in a car or dancing in the club, the signal at one end of the chain is both radically different and fundamentally the same as the signal that went in. Radically different in the sense that its spectral contours and temporal flow are singularly unique in comparison to those that went in; and fundamentally the same in the sense that, regardless of this difference or similitude, it is just as physically real and present as the input signal. The transient traces left behind by the cuts of technical filters thereby confirm the primacy of the unrepresentable moment of filtering. They put an end to the idea that sound recordings are incomplete or flawed reproductions of some “original” sonic event. Instead, the logic of filtering emphasizes that a technological produced sound is never an ideal replication of some supposed “original,” but always a singularly complex and essentially new sound altogether."

So you didn't like the references we suggested, fine. I thought that you would come up with your own reference, but it seems that you want to reject them all(based on what is IMO a logical fallacy, but you said it's not so, 1-1 we'll never know^_^) and go with how we feel about good sound. and I say, fine.
You care more about your vision of sound quality. Good. To each their own.
I have a deep dislike for noticeable hiss on a record, while some people don't mind it at all and can barely even notice it until you point it out. They might very clearly prefer a fairly old and hissy vinyl they have, to a clean CD(for many reasons). I never would make such a choice.
I care a lot that my impression of sound comes from outside my head and that I don't have mono feeling like it's stuck on my forehead(something I almost always get with IEMs and headphones playing most stereo albums), you obviously do not feel that or do not mind it. All that is perfectly fine because it's about impressions and personal preferences. There is nothing to win, nobody to find being wrong. We like what we like for the reasons we like them.

Now if this is indeed what you care about, why do you keep asking for more science? Science of what?

 

[old tech]

So for a couple of outside refinements:

https://independentclauses.com/fidelity-vs-sound-quality-a-comparison-of-digital-and-analog/

That article contains many truths with regards to fidelity but the subjective part is pure anecdotes from a selective few. Given this is a sound science forum I prefer controlled peer review studies such as that below. It certainly accords with my anecdotes over the past 30 years that listeners mostly prefer higher fidelity and because of that, and all things equal, digital productions over analog.

Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.

"Music majors were subjects who listened to digital and analog recordings of the same concert performances, recorded unequalized and unmixed (to control EQ variables and level matched. It was a double blind test and the listeners were able to switch back and forth between the two at will. Overall, the digital version was preferred in all ten scoring areas.

The researchers concluded that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings as higher in quality than the corresponding analog versions. The listeners gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble and overall quality, as well as separation of instruments and voices. The ratings were consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions."

Can you show me a similar controlled study showing the opposite? And remember, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes not data.