There is no ULTIMATE PURPOSE for audio gear. Outside the closed world of audio engineering, recording and production there is little use for the concepts of "accuracy" and reference, unless this suits someones particular interests or tastes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly2
An excellent-sounding MP3 player—no signal processing activated—sounds neutral.
Keyword "excellent" is an subjective term, therefore to be accurate it requires
boundaries to remain valid. Instead "an natural sounding mp3 player
for an audio engineer sounds excellent. There are no universal truths, only agreement among individuals. Learn this well and open your mind.
When it comes to players with non-flat FR, this is often done to recreate certain desirable audio qualities, and limit certain undesirable audio qualities. These compromises are often necessary or desirable over a neutral response in portable audio applications. I personally dont care for the HF rolloff on my hifiman in its own right, but compared to my 5g ipod the improvements in detail, dynamics and soundstage, as well as bass extension make this compromise worthwhile until I find a better solution. If you sincerely believe that FR is the only important factor in sound reproduction you are deluding yourself. What i suspect is the case is that this is the only reliable, commonly understood form of empirical measurement available. The key here is comparative subjectivity. I didn't look at the Hifiman FR and say "
this isnt flat player x must be better" which is what an entirely empirical, a-priori based attitude would lead me to. Personally FR is not top on the list of my priorities, neither is battery life, gapless playback, ease of UI use, etc.
FR is useful in that it can reliably be understood for its effect on subjective experience, but it is not the be all and end all. Distortion measurements are similarly useful as far as they reliably relate to perceived experience.
Fact is that empirical data and subjective experience exist in two separate conceptual universes. Empirical data is only useful if it can be reliably linked to human perception. This is further only reliable if it can be reliably communicated to other parties. Firstly, most non-engineer audiophiles lack the technical knowledge to understand the significance of technical data, let alone how it relates to audio quality. Without years of training we cannot reliably understand technical data. Secondly, even if we THINK we understand technical data, human perception is unreliable and infinitely variable, eg the preference of "analogue" sound over digital, overly extended bass decay, treble presentation, sound signature anomalies. It is unreasonable to expect every audio review to be conducted by Phd students with audio engineering background, even if this was any guarantee of reliability.
If individual people can reliably perceive and compare specific sonic qualities that they connect with these label/words, then they can reliably guide their own purchases. If other people can reliably understand these terms and relate them to their own a-posteriori experience, then they can benefit from the subjective experience of others. If they fail a double blind test between equipment, this could be interpreted to weaken the reliability of their subjective judgement, or alternately it could point to flaws in their subjective testing methods. I'm all for controlled subjective comparisons, but to suggest that a lack thereof discredits all subjective discourse is premature. Scientific method has its own inherent inaccuracies, just look at the pace with which medical science changes its mind. I say prremature, because clinically controlled comparison of audio equipment is sorely lacking. Secondly there is the factor of a-priori assumptions affecting perception, eg, "I think I am not going to hear a difference as the FR is the same." There is endeless possibility for flaws to enter into a small scale "scientific" study, especially if the listeners have some notion of a-priori scientific based expectations.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/: this is a step in the right direction, but realistically how accessible/distributable is this training? I sincerely wish it was more accessible. However using scientific data to "disprove" subjective experience is really not all that useful. using controlled double blind tests on the other hand is. When it comes to audio experience, perception IS everything, and empirical data is only as useful as it can be reliably linked to subjective experience. In the end audio fidelity comes down to how closely the PERCEIVED reproduced sound matches the PERCEIVED
natural/intended/desired sound.
To reuse the car analogy: if you know how fast a car accelerates, this still doesn't mean you will like it, even if you think you want a fast accelerating car. You may find it too brutal, too jumpy for everyday use in city traffic etc. The empirical data is PURELY abstract, and needs to be related back in terms of human, a-posteriori experience. The question therefore is, unless you have a degree in audio engineering, why would a lay person bother interpreting this data?
Thanks for the links anyway, I look forward to your
controlled subjective reviews.
). None of these things (except to a small degree the racing driver) are measured by testing the car's ability to get from 0-60. Even for the racing driver, the 0-60 is only an indicator of how the car may perform, but that's offset with a vast number of measurments than only when combined deliver an impression of a car's performance. And all those measurements are meaningless until the driver sits on the track and does laps, they may indicate the likelihood, but will not ensure it.
