Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 23:23:10 GMT -5
I'm heading down to the garage to get my boots on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 12, 2016 23:33:29 GMT -5
I kinda like for it to be like magic. Like my little Airmotiv 5 S speakers connected to my DC-1 DAC. I bought them because the Stealth 8 sounded so good when I heard it at the Atlanta road show. I had 4" passive speakers and a Mini-X and just said to myself I bet those little 5" powered speakers would sound good sitting arms length away. I do not care what any other speaker would sound like. Those Air Motion Tweeters sound so nice. I just happen to like Emotiva as a company and there products and now I have just wonderful sounding speakers to listen too. I like them better than my towers and headphones. I love to listen to YouTube songs on my PC through the DC-1. I did not have to worry how they sound or if something else would be better. They are perfect and like magic I went from a speaker that was good to a speaker that is great just by clicking my mouse on Buy. I know this is a hobby but I hope folks are not worrying to much about if what they hear is perfect. You and only you will know when you hear something you like. If it is a hobby to take measurements then have fun with it. I would gather that most any modern well made speaker with quality parts would satisfy most people on this planet. There is something to say for accuracy. Those ADS L1230 speakers with the Top of the line Yamaha class A was very accurate. When I heard other speakers and then came back and listen to mine, that was when I could tell. Right now these little monitors in front of me sound good to me. They may not be as accurate as those ADS L1230 but unless they magically appear in my room for me to listen to them the Airmotiv 5 S satisfy me very much.  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 13, 2016 0:22:54 GMT -5
Well... An example from my own heart - The most magnificent sound reproduction I've ever heard was in a REALLY large room with a good set of electronics (don't remember what) driving a pair of Klipschorns. It wasn't the most accurate sound I've ever heard - that award might have to go to a pair of stacked electrostatic panels that I also heard years ago. But given a choice between living with the well-set-up electrostats and the equally well-set-up K-Horns, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat. Music of the spheres, indeed! So the conclusion is that I will accept deviations from accuracy (reluctantly) in order to be moved by the music. Passion über alles! Couple of things, how do you know those electrostatic panels were truly "accurate?" Do you know for a fact they were, or did they fit your definition of what you think an "accurate" speaker sounds like (which goes back to my original post in this thread.. many find "accurate" to be too dry and clinical, but is what they think is accurate really accurate). Also, I can see why you liked those Klipschorns. They are easy to drive so they get loud, you were in a really large room, and they probably filled up that room with sound. The room also probably contributed to a concert-like experience in which you got really full, vibrant/lively sound so I can imagine that was a more exciting experience than listening to those panels. |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 13, 2016 1:12:23 GMT -5
Accuracy:
ac·cu·ra·cy
ˈakyərəsē/Submit
noun
the quality or state of being correct or precise. As for "ear satisfaction" I am sorry but I couldn't find an accurate definition for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionear on Feb 13, 2016 3:52:21 GMT -5
...that DOESN'T mean that "the numbers were wrong", and it also doesn't mean that "all those people who say that how good an amplifier sounds depends on its distortion measurements" were wrong, or that you should "forget the numbers and trust your ears".
"Accuracy or ear satisfaction" what's this "or" business? If it's not accurate then I'm most unlikely to be satisfied. Cheers Gary I think we really have to trust our ears. We've been there with TIM. Once upon a time, people thought the only thing that mattered in an amp was the THD measurement. Adverts boasted of solid state amps that had 0.001% THD and objectively, these amps had to be "better" than those that produced 1% THD distortion. Some people heard these amps and said they sounded awful, and were told that one should always go for "accuracy", and so, sorry, you had to listed to the amp with 0.001% THD. The sadists! People didn't realize, though, that one way to get 0.001% THD is to apply a lot of feedback. Up to 90 dB, from what I understand! The tests were also done with a simulated speaker load (a bunch of resistors, not a real speaker) and the test frequency was... a 1kHz sine wave. Oh yes, and amps just went from 20 Hz to 20 KHz - because adults couldn't hear beyond 12 kHz. All of these things were rational, sound engineering choices. So we had two camps - those who stood by the transistor amps with 0.001% distortion, and those who stood by amps that had atrocious measurements but which subjectively sounded good. Eventually, the transistor guys discovered that high feedback, combined with few output stages and low bandwidth resulted in a new kind of distortion. And the test was done with more than a single frequency - nothing too ambitious - just one low frequency mixed in with another high frequency. Nothing like real music, of course. But more than enough to demonstrate the distortion to the AES. The solution was to limit feedback to around 15 dB, go with high bandwidth (at least up to 50 kHz), local feedback rather than global feedback, and use many amplification stages (more than needed if you just go by a transistor's amplification factor). There was also no reason to go overboard on THD, after all - as long as it was below 0.1%, then we'd be fine. But TIM need to be below 0.01%. (All this has become the orthodoxy in transistor amps - but it wasn't always the case.) Those of us who trusted our ears said, "Ha! Ha! We told you so!" (We had deja vu all over again with dither, and the need to have very low jitter. I'm somewhat unconvinced, though, about the benefits of hi-rez and DSD.) Our ears have to be the final check on the assumptions and limitations of the tests, the interpretation of the test data, and the conscious decisions to get higher performance in one area, at the cost of performance in another area, meet a price point, etc. That's not to say that there is no place for measurements. Manufacturers need to rely on a lot of measurements. But as end-users, we just need to focus on the end result. To answer monkumonku 's question: if something measures well, but sounds bad, it could be because we don't know what's wrong, or because the manufacturer knows there's an issue, but decided not to address it (in the interests of cost, reliability, and other factors). |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Feb 13, 2016 6:04:43 GMT -5
...Yet if you measure something I can come close to replicating it then make up my own mind if it sounds good to me or not. I have to call BS on this one, bootman - There are too many variables to measure. Unless we measure the same system in the same room with the same furniture, etc. you'll NEVER get the same measurements. Not even close. The same speakers in one room can sound COMPLETELY differently than how they sound in another. Electronics, maybe. But sound, Uh-uh. Not going to happen. Now if we take the venue out of the equation, we can compare apples to apples. If I say that I like the way that a specific CD of Jimi Hendrix's guitar sounds through my Oppo into my Koss Porta-Pro headphones, then you CAN duplicate every aspect of the chain. You may not like the way the guitar sounds with that rig, but at least we have the same experience to compare. But if I say that I like that same recording through some Tekton Lore speakers in my room, there's no way for you to duplicate that specific experience. You don't have my room. And "coming close" to replicating anyone else's listening experience probably is highly questionable too. So I've just said that every loudspeaker review ever written is garbage! Not a good conclusion for a part-time audio journalist... But "the sound of a speaker" is absolutely inseparable from the "sound of the speaker in a specific room." Boom Regarding "then you CAN duplicate every aspect of the chain". The acoustic space between the drivers of headphones and the listener's eardrum also depends on the shape of the listener's pinnae. With my Westone ES60 custom in-ear monitors, due to the custom tailored earmolds I can duplicate ALMOST every aspect of the chain. However, our audible perception is shaped by our memory. As a result, if you start out by listening to sample A, then, by the time you will have switched to sample B, your recollections of how sample A sounded will be already altering your perception of how sample B is sounding. I.e., the effects of expectation bias are not as easy to eliminate as some ABXers love to claim they are. Psychoacousticians are able to show reliable evidence in abundence to support this assertion. When you switch from sample A to sample B, these recollections of how sample A has sounded will not have been erased from your memory all of a sudden. Else, how exactly were you going to compare sounds by listening? So, even if we can decide to use only test samples that we have never heard before, our memory *still* plays a part. If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. — Bob Stuart |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Feb 13, 2016 6:30:07 GMT -5
I agree with you 100% there.
Too many people seem to think that, for some odd reason, what you hear and what you measure are different... but they aren't.
Things accelerate towards the center of mass of the Earth at 32 feet-per-second-per-second due to gravity. The fact that a shot putter, or an archer, or a kid tossing bricks off a building, may experience the phenomenon differently does NOT mean that, somehow, magically, for them, "gravity is different". It's still exactly the same... it's just that they're LOOKING at it differently. And, likewise, even a bird and a helium balloon are equally affected by gravity, and the fact that they can fly makes perfect sense IF YOU UNDERSTAND ALL THE FACTORS INVOLVED.
Measurements are simply one way of looking at something... and, as that, they are absolutely 100% accurate...
I can honestly say that I have owned literally about a hundred amplifiers, probably two dozen DACs, and a few dozen pairs of speakers.... and I can say with perfect confidence that not a single one of them ever managed to somehow sound "different that its measurements". Now, that's not to say that I haven't had quite a few situations where I expected one thing or another BASED ON MY INTERPRETATION OF THE MEASUREMENTS, and ended up being surprised. However, in every single one of those cases, it was simply that MY INTERPRETATION OF THE MEASUREMENTS was wrong, or imperfect, or incomplete.
The problems people have are the result of faulty UNDERSTANDING of what the measurements MEAN... and it really is that simple. For example, if one day you hear an amplifier that produces lots of distortion, and you decide that it sounds better than one that has much lower distortion, that DOESN'T mean that "the numbers were wrong", and it also doesn't mean that "all those people who say that how good an amplifier sounds depends on its distortion measurements" were wrong, or that you should "forget the numbers and trust your ears".
All it really means is that the measurements of that particular type of distortion, which may correlate really well for someone else with what they hear, don't correlate well for you. Maybe, for you, frequency response matters a lot, and distortion doesn't, or transient response matters a lot, but you don't notice the frequency response; or, perhaps, you even LIKE higher levels of distortion. The whole point, however, is that ONCE YOU DO FIGURE OUT WHICH FACTORS MATTER TO YOU, being able to correlate which measurements tell YOU what YOU expect to hear will make your life a lot easier - because then you'll be able to use those numbers to help which devices are even worth listening to. (Face it, there are way too many amplifiers and speakers for you or I to ever hear even a small percentage of them; if you can't use measurements to narrow down which ones to listen to, then what ARE you going to use?)
And, for the record, I personally happen to agree with Gary.... I generally find that, to me, the audio equipment that is the most accurate also IS the most pleasant to me.... (But it's MUCH more important for you to figure out what works for you than for you to agree with me.) "Accuracy or ear satisfaction" what's this "or" business? If it's not accurate then I'm most unlikely to be satisfied. Cheers Gary Gravity is different depending on whether the observer is standing in a gravity wave. www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/gravitational-waves-einstein-s-ripples-spacetime-spotted-first-time |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 13, 2016 14:51:45 GMT -5
...how do you know those electrostatic panels were truly "accurate?" A good question monkumonku - The best answer I can offer is that the Acoustat speakers (1+1 or 2+2 models with medallion transformers) seemed to convey more information about the original acoustic of live recordings than did the other speakers in that room (Snell A ii & other leading lights of about 1974). The Acoustats were auditioned in an audio showroom. The K-Horns, in a small church. The horns accented the power and tone of the performance. The electrostatics accented the detail and the imaging. Pays your money, takes your choice... And ultimately, yes, "my idea of what a real performance would sound like" was the standard of measure. Since I was there at the recording of none of the original material, there is no way to know how accurate the recordings were or weren't. Boom |
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Feb 13, 2016 16:39:53 GMT -5
Years ago I would say strive for flat. But why? If something sounds better to my ears right or wrong that is what I want
|
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Feb 13, 2016 16:48:43 GMT -5
Years ago I would say strive for flat. But why? If something sounds better to my ears right or wrong that is what I want I'm kinda being pulled that way with tubes the more I hear about them. I know they're probably not as accurate as a high quality SS, and they have distortion issues (but "pleasing distortion"), but I still want to hear a tube amp for myself some time. Kind of like steak or other foods (coffee); solid state may be the purest form of steak, and like black coffee, but sometimes a large dose of 30% cream in my coffee tastes amazing even though it's no longer "pure coffee". Sometimes a steak needs a good bbq sauce  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 13, 2016 17:04:28 GMT -5
Years ago I would say strive for flat. But why? If something sounds better to my ears right or wrong that is what I want If it sounds "better" to your ears then it's "right", for you. With all things hifi there is no right or wrong, just what sounds best to the listener. Personally I find accurate more likely to sound "right" to me, I make no claim to being "righter" nor do I expect to be "wronger". Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by mshump on Feb 13, 2016 17:33:51 GMT -5
Ear satisfaction is the most important. If the equipment s perfectly accurate but gives you ear fatigue then why bother listening ?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulrcalderon on Feb 13, 2016 17:58:30 GMT -5
Oh I realize that. And we should strive for accuracy in reproduction and let the listener adjust to taste, rather than presenting some modified or altered signal to begin with. But I just find it funny how there is such an emphasis on "flat" and then people don't like it. But in a live environment, the instruments are "flat" which then go onto the recording which ideally should also come out "flat." So why would the live "flat" be any different from the recorded "flat?" People would like the live one but not the recorded one? But what is FLAT ? Here is the thing with that, Every musician adjust their instrument to their likening (Their sound or tone). Then every producer tweaks it to his likening. So lets go back to my first statement in any live band setting I have ever played in the drummer will beet a drum and adjust for what seems to be forever. Every kick drum tone is different. In a live situation. Cymbal's the way and placement they are stuck have a different tone. Now lets talk guitars and bass. Every guitar player has what they deem as their tone it will differ from player to player. Not to mention the boards full of effect peddles that shape tone as well. Maybe with acoustic instrument's such as full size or grand pianos there may be some common ground for what a standard of tone may be but I'm sure if you ask any true pianist they will tell you that their 30k Steinway or what ever has the best tone. So again I ask what is flat? And what is the tone the artist wants to make? To me this is a long and involved train of thought due to all the factures at play. The truth be told for most if you were to sit in on a real working band at practice most would not like the Tone they hear. So what should the reference of flat or tone start or stop? |
|
|
|
Post by paulrcalderon on Feb 13, 2016 18:00:37 GMT -5
I'll preface this with saying the bottom line is we should buy based on what sounds best to our own ears. But that said... I've been reading reviews on the Sennheiser HD800 headphones which were designed to be their top of the line model in a line of esteemed products. Many of the remarks I've read from pro reviewers and forum comments is that the headphones are remarkably clear, neutral and accurate but they aren't "musical." That is, many find something that is less neutral like the HD-650 is more pleasing to listen to and less fatiguing. I've read the same thing about other headphones and about speakers - that some are so accurate and neutral that people prefer listening to something else that has a more pleasing sound. But isn't music supposed to be music? That is, many people judge a system by how well it produces the original performance. Understandably you can't have a live concert in your living room. But when you go to a concert or hear a live performance, you can't get more accurate than hearing the instruments themselves (or the performance itself if it is amplified) so why would this be enjoyable whereas hearing "accuracy" through headphones or speakers not be enjoyable? In the case of amplified music, do the engineers tip up certain parts of the frequency range to make it sound more exciting or pleasing? If that's the case, then what really represents live music - what comes straight from the instruments or what comes through the monitors? I know our hearing is affected by the Fletcher-Munson curve, hence the reason why there are loudness buttons on some equipment or why people do a house curve on equalizing bass rather than trying to keep it absolutely flat. But even so, it's like from what I read there is accurate, neutral, flat response which many find to be too sterile or fatiguing to listen to, then there is the more pleasing sound, which often translates to raised bass, thicker midrange, perhaps rolled off upper midrange or treble, etc. If audio gear really presents something in an accurate manner then the instruments and voices ought to sound like they would if we hear them live (assuming the recording is done well) so why would the live sound be sought after so much by us but then when we hear something that people describe as accurate, they think it isn't engaging or interesting or musical (or whatever term they use to say that in other words, they prefer something less neutral)? We all have our own preferences for what sounds good to us but I find it funny that when confronted with something that is considered neutral and flat, it doesn't sound good. |
|
|
|
Post by paulrcalderon on Feb 13, 2016 18:01:27 GMT -5
Have you considered that there is no such thing as "flat" except on an oscilloscope? Have your hearing tested and you'll see what I mean when you see the audio response curve that you actually hear! The older you get, the more it looks like the outline of mount Fuji, with a rapid drop-off as you go up the frequency spectrum. So that means that audio reproduction equipment
should compensate for hearing loss as we age, and we should be able to manipulate it for maximum hearing pleasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulrcalderon on Feb 13, 2016 18:03:11 GMT -5
Have you considered that there is no such thing as "flat" except on an oscilloscope? Have your hearing tested and you'll see what I mean when you see the audio response curve that you actually hear! The older you get, the more it looks like the outline of mount Fuji, with a rapid drop-off as you go up the frequency spectrum. So that means that audio reproduction equipment should compensate for hearing loss as we age, and we should be able to manipulate it for maximum hearing pleasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 13, 2016 18:09:16 GMT -5
Did anyone say this yet ?
Accuracy equals Ear Satisfaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Feb 13, 2016 18:11:20 GMT -5
I'm heading down to the garage to get my boots on.
How did I miss this. Is it getting deep in here ?  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 13, 2016 18:14:31 GMT -5
I realize this thread has become one mainly of people giving their preferences, but my point is:
Lots of what I read in audio articles and forum posts is that when what they hear through whatever equipment they have (my example was headphones) is considered by the listener to be "neutral" or "accurate" then often they also say they don't care for it that much because it sounds clinical, dry, sterile, etc.
But then if "accurate" and "neutral" are supposed to mean that what they hear is a faithful reproduction of the live performance that generated the recording, then wouldn't that mean the live performance was also clinical, dry, sterile, etc? Yet people strive to replicate the live performance.
So perhaps people's image or definition of "accurate" and "neutral" is not really faithful reproduction but just something they think is supposed to sound a certain way. It makes no sense to enjoy the live performance but then feel like an accurate or neutral rendition of the same thing leaves something to be desired.
|
|
if there was an answer to the original question, it would have been solved many years ago by much smarter minds than mine!! 
