[smoth]

Quote:

video analogy: the exact same shade of red reproduced on even one single monitor looks different dependent on its settings and the current ambient light. measurably so. now put two different monitors with different settings next to each other...

If you change the settings of course it will be perceived differently, similarly if you cut off all frequencies below 100hz the audio will sound different. What I look for is closeness to a calibrated standard. 685nm source should be displayed as 685nm, not 684 or 686. Likewise, if an instrument produces a 174hz wave at the seat/mic location, I want to hear a 174hz wave reproduced through my system.

Quote:

what is played in that concert hall and what is perceived by you is NOT the same. the sound perceived by the person in the seat next to you is quite likely different - now which of you has the correct ears for "objective perception"?

All seats have 100% correct sound quality and it is irrelevant whether or not we perceive the sound the same or not as long as we share a common understanding of what a specific frequency sounds like. After all, given current technology, and I would even venture to say any technology in the next 100-500 years, it is nearly impossible to standardize perception, but since we all call 500nm light "blue", it does not matter.

 

[krmathis]

Probably never!
As we humans all have different set of ears and preferences about what is the ideal sound reproduction. So subjective it is...

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoth /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you change the settings of course it will be perceived differently, similarly if you cut off all frequencies below 100hz the audio will sound different. What I look for is closeness to a calibrated standard. 685nm source should be displayed as 685nm, not 684 or 686. Likewise, if an instrument produces a 174hz wave at the seat/mic location, I want to hear a 174hz wave reproduced through my system.

i agree with this. "calibrating" sound reproduction is a valuable goal, and if i'm not mistaken, the original idea behind hi-fi (not necessarily high-end!). i must have misunderstood you concerning an ideal of calibrated perception, sorry.

Quote:

All seats have 100% correct sound quality and it is irrelevant whether or not we perceive the sound the same or not as long as we share a common understanding of what a specific frequency sounds like. After all, given current technology, and I would even venture to say any technology in the next 100-500 years, it is nearly impossible to standardize perception, but since we all call 500nm light "blue", it does not matter.

i don't quite agree with you as far as seats go: room acoustics dictate that only some few seats have "100% correct" sound quality. (not that i personally would be able to notice the difference, and my few classical concerts have been wonderful even on sub-optimal seating).

about colors: light of 500nm wavelength might well be considered "blue" by a majority of non-colorblinds - but try lower wavelengths and you'll get different opinions about that color's name. is it violet or still blue? again, our senses aren't calibrated to a common standard (please bear my off-track into visual perception, but i think the analogy works.)

now some find bliss at the srgb standard of 6500 degrees or, more akin to a proposed audiophile reference point, a perfectly calibrated higher gamut like adobe rgb, but some stubbornly prefer "cold" color temparature instead, which would relate to "analytical, bright, lean bass, sparkling highs" in the audiophile world. others might prefer a warmer color temperature or "warm, bassy, liquid mids".

as far as colors go, you have ambient light, monitor differences and "visual taste" influencing the settings you need to change in order to get your personal "real white" out of your monitor.

in a similar way, room acoustics, the way your ears are built and your individual "musical taste" influences what tweaks you need in order to get "perfect sound" for your own ears (tweaks could be the objectivists' equalizer settings or the subjectivists amps, cables and beyond).

shortcut: the production/reproduction side is objectifiable (and should be which is what hi-fi is about), but perception is not (nor should it be). add to that the psychoacoustic phenomena that our brain lets our senses interact and overlap and routinely constructs perception out of nothing (which could just as well be called imagination as dillusion...) and you'll never reach a common audiophile reference point.

 

[xiaobao0707]

I'm conscious that it's laid back and warm when I listen to my HD-650. But I just prefer it to other phones I possess or audited. Can you explain that with a sound scientific base and objective analysis ?

Whether or not it is explicable does not really matter. There is just no need for explaination.

Audio is just like women for us. Everyone gets his own taste

sorry for my barbarian-type discussion.

 

[TStewart422]

Eh, I dunno... I'm not a fan of bassy German women!

 

[JadeEast]

Doesn't something like a Behringer DEQ2496 basically accomplish what the OP is questioning? Auto adjusting E.Q. for in room response of a system to be flat could establish an objective baseline for an audio system.

 

[haloxt]

I think the op wants us to buy calibration devices for our audio systems but the one I'm interested in costs $3000 and I can't afford it. Thanks for the advice though bye.

 

[smoth]

Quote:

I think the op wants us to buy calibration devices for our audio systems but the one I'm interested in costs $3000 and I can't afford it. Thanks for the advice though bye.

I am sorry if I came off as such, but I am in no way interested in your purchases. I am only trying to focus on how you go about selecting the equipment you do decide to purchase. Now if you say that you are interested in electronic calibration devices what end result would you hope to achieve through its use? neutrality, bass response, etc? Personaly, I would be interested in a sophisitcated sound calibration system as I believe it would work towards my audio goals.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's the topic? Seriously. I mean, what's the precise question we are supposed to discuss?

Why aren't audiophiles robots?

I think some here focus on each individual part of the audio spectrum. And all the technical aspects of audio can lead someone to be unfulfilled. I've been in high end audio for many years, and the longer I'm in it, the more I realize that the emotional connection is more important than getting ANY of the technical aspects right (or what we deem as right). I've heard many "accurate" phones that sound nothing like reality. Dead accurate, cold and sterile, fast but synthetic sounding.

I thinks it's the hobby that makes you want to dial in every area of the sound rather than what immerses you like a live performance. Which is fun and gives a basis for discussion and comparison, but in the end, what keeps you thinking about the next CD you are going to listen to while listening to something else is where you want to be at.

A good example is the Jolida JD-100 CD player. It's about $1K new. It does many things wrong. The IMOD gets more right across the board as far as FR and other aspects. However, some people that really get it say it's the best CD player until you are willing to spend $4K. How can this be when you can find something more technically right for much less? The Jolida gets the tubed output stage right and gives you an addicting sound that resembles live music. It can be shredded by those that want to throw technical stuff around, but the point they are missing is that it simply makes you want to keep listening.

Uh, what's my point again? Oh yeah, technical stuff is fun to discuss, but your ears tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about whether you like something or not and nothing you read or measure has any bearing beyond that if you really think about it. that's as subjective as it gets. I think too many want to follow what's popular, and they don't trust their own ears, so they end up unfulfilled but feel good about having what they can technically say is good or accurate or go overboard and say it's technically the best there is.

 

[haloxt]

smoth, accuracy of course.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoth /img/forum/go_quote.gif As such, when looking for equipment I try to obtain a sound that resembles the live performance as that is usually what the composer and performers used to base their decisions. As I said in an earlier post, its all about effective communication and I do not feel that I should alter someone else's words (sound) to fit my own preferences. Its like changing "I don't like you" to "I hate you". Similar meaning, but yet not the same emotion. From this persepective, my ears and perception have no bearing whatsoever on sound quality and as a result, I believe that one could conclude that sound quality is objective.

Since most of the music most people listen to is recorded in a studio, and is probably processed without the active participation of the artist, how do we know exactly what the artist intended it to sound like?

Also, I submit that most people want their music to sound good and to have a pleasant listening experience. If they get the music to sound good to them, they don't care that it may sound slightly different from exactly what the artist "intended" (again, assuming, one can determine that as a practical matter on a selection-by-selection basis).

I understand now, I think, why you suggest sound quality is objective, but it seems to me it is only objective to you due to your idiosyncrasies and personal preferences (which are fine for you). So, in answer to your initial question, sound quality is not objective for most people because most people are not like you and are not trying to achieve what you are apparently trying to achieve. Rather, most people want the music to sound good to their ears and their brain.

 

[haloxt]

Neither is tv or computer monitor preferences the same for everybody. I actually adjust my monitor whenever I have to spend hours reading or if I have to look at pictures or videos.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Neither is tv or computer monitor preferences the same for everybody. I actually adjust my monitor whenever I have to spend hours reading or if I have to look at pictures or videos.

Well, I think that's because you're not trying to do what he's trying to do, if I'm understanding all this correctly. See, if you were watching a movie on your projector in your HT (hypothetically), you might say, "this doesn't look right to me, the reds are undersaturated." And you might adjust your display so it looks right to you (or your wife, if you're married).

Whereas, smoth, if I'm interpreting him correctly, would first find out what the movie maker (the director, I guess) intended (or make assumptions about it if necessary), and if the director intended that the movie be seen with the colors calibrated to meet the SMPTE standard, or whatever, he would set his display to reproduce that, regardless of whether it looked good to him on a subjective level.

Now I would think that achieving this goal of fidelity to what the artist intended is a lot harder with audio, then video, at present. But I guess that means, in terms of headphones, for example, perhaps he would try to buy a headphone with as flat a frequency response as possible.

But in a sense, it's almost like it's two ships passing in the night when a lot of us say, "I like my music to sound good, or to look good." Of course we do. So do most people. But it seems that smoth is not interested in whether it sounds good or looks good in the true subjective sense (hope I'm not overstating it), but whether it meets an objective criterion that he has established (or obtained from the artist).

So it's almost like someone saying: "You guys spend a lot of time trying to find food that tastes good. I think the overriding objective is to assure that you get all the nutrients your body needs in the exact right proportions, and the best way to do this is through pills." Trying to explain to such a person that the taste of food is an important issue is almost pointless. We working with totally different valuation systems.

 

[haloxt]

I think a better way to say it is that we spend a lot of time trying to find condiments that taste good. There are inescapable limitations of sound/video recording/reproduction and we try to make the experience palatable.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe I have not been clear in my intentions for this discussion. The base question is: what is an audiophiles' (your) point of reference that you use to determine which components produce a better sound. As a subtopic, you may feel it is necessary to define "better" as part of your response to the base question. Is "better" accurate, processed to highlight certain frequencies, does it vary depending on material, is it completely subjective and how/why. As a second subtopic, you may address any factor which you feel defines your point of reference. Possible examples include: room shape, environmental conditions, mental states, etc. Obviously I do not have the answer since I am asking the question so if you feel something else needs to be stated to define your point of reference please feel free to include it. If your answer is "it costs more so it must be better" you do not need to respond, but almost anything else had the potential to be a valid answer. Since this is the Sound Science forum, I would expect your responses to have sound science and/or explanations behind them. I will not dismiss an anecdotal "why", but if you feel that quality is subjective please explain how you have gone about creating your kit. Personally, I rarely listen to music casually in an environment where I can actually hear differences in quality. However, I try spend a few hours each day critically listening to compositions, often accompanied by a lecture on the piece. I have been to many live orchestral performances and concerts and have always found the sound produced by the actual instruments' reverberations throughout a concert hall to be more revealing than any recording on any system that I have ever heard. At the local symphony there is usually a lecture given before the performance which I try to attend, so that I know what to listen for during the performance and have some understanding of the composer's intentions and the performers interpretation. I find this analysis of the music fascinating. As such, when looking for equipment I try to obtain a sound that resembles the live performance as that is usually what the composer and performers used to base their decisions. As I said in an earlier post, its all about effective communication and I do not feel that I should alter someone else's words (sound) to fit my own preferences. Its like changing "I don't like you" to "I hate you". Similar meaning, but yet not the same emotion. From this persepective, my ears and perception have no bearing whatsoever on sound quality and as a result, I believe that one could conclude that sound quality is objective.

1. Exact (see 3. below) reproduction of sound you hear at a location in your concert hall is achievable electronically. A feedback loop can be employed between your playback listening position and the original sound source to measure the difference. The playback sound source can then be transformed until the measured difference is zero. I don't know if this sort of set up is available commercially.

In the abscence of this facility most users systems are compromises with inferred superiority based on cost, brand or subjective preference.

2. I don't understand the food analogy that seems to be popping upon this thread. Yes the taste of food is subjective, so what? If I can eat a lemon merangue and I like it, can I go and buy an indentical bit perfect copy - NO. Food is NOT reproduceable in the way it is possible to reproduce an electronic signal. e.g. An electronic (or sound) signal is measurable, quantifiable and repeatable in that it can be completely described using a few parameters, a lemon merangue is not.

3. [Exact in the sense the human ear cannot detect a difference. Do you know that around above 4-5KHz the human ear cannot detect the difference between a sine wave and a square wave? Or the smallest step-change in amplitude of a pure tone that can be detected by human ear is 0.3DB?]

Please refer to Science v subjectism in audio engineering. Electronics and Wireless World July 1988. This is an excellent article. I can put a copy of this on site if someone can tell me how to do it