Not
Objectivity vs Subjectivity
- Thread starter Passive_audio_enthusiast
- Start date
Enkay78
Well-Known Member
There it is.For pursuing science of audio reproduction, one has to be a pure objectivist.
For buying or upgrading gear to enjoy music , one need not be an objectivist at all.
For troubleshooting said gear when it does not sound right , one has to be bit of both.
And please continue with the flogging.
Live-a-bility!
Are the good things that the product brings to the table worth living with on a daily basis vis-a-vis the obvious flaws it has?
Then it is is a good product for the buyer.
I think there ends the story.
If someone wants to base their purchase based on ASR, they are most welcome. We shouldn't feel bad for them, unless they are choosing hardcore electronics.
Even there, I have my doubts.
Why does every recent thread have to descend to Arj, or NL, or Nik reading the riot act?!
It was not like this even six months ago.
Most FMs who follow me know that I am a measurement freak. But here is a secret that I wish to share now - My current OB speakers that I am using past 3+ years now have been purchased only with subjective listening that too on YouTube with ordinary headphones. Reason - no vintage driver dating to be as old as 1938 ( Sachenwerk field coil) or 1955 (Russian full range) or 1960 (Telefunken Isophone tweeter) had any measurements data -just a 2 minute video clip is all that I took to decide on them..
Ironically the Ahuja 12" woofer with all fancy TS parameters is getting replaced again by a vintage 1963 12" Alnico speaker (salvaged from Conn organ) again purely by subjective listening on YouTube. It's a different issue that I may measure them to get them married to each other.
PS: Anyone looking for the 12" Ahuja woofer can PM me for further details.
Ironically the Ahuja 12" woofer with all fancy TS parameters is getting replaced again by a vintage 1963 12" Alnico speaker (salvaged from Conn organ) again purely by subjective listening on YouTube. It's a different issue that I may measure them to get them married to each other.
PS: Anyone looking for the 12" Ahuja woofer can PM me for further details.
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
As a person, my mind will be bothering me, every time I turn on that device. Also it would be bothering me to know something at a price point less than it did not had this flaw and I missed a good opportunity. I have a severe OCD and this thought would literally kill me!
I understand it’s not same for everyone.
Vineethkumar01
Well-Known Member
The question needs to be answered at so many different levels that it is very hard to do a good job of it due to the technical jargon that needs to be introduced. Terms like "accuracy" means so many things to so many people as I have said in my previous posts in this thread. Hence I will try to give a relatively short answer while also trying to convey the different aspects involved to the extent of my knowledge. Also, I am not a fan of home theatres and enjoying movies in it so I have never bothered to go into more details about it. So my answer is more applicable to stereo music reproduction than home theatres. To some extent it also applies to home theatre systems but there we have much more capability to reproduce the sound field better due to the more number of spatially separated sound sources (speakers
) which can potentially bring in more smoothness in the frequency response (tonal balance).The simplest explanation regarding us not being able to hear what the recording engineer intended is because our ear-brain system makes a monkey out of us most of the time irrespective of how good the speaker is.
This is because more than the how good speaker is able to radiate sound, the engagement of our ear-eye-brain system to the sound field it is exposed to determines what we eventually hear. Based on age, demographics, and other factors including emotional engagement the hearing capabilities of people differ (the frequencies we are able to hear). Then based on similar factors there are equal-loudness contours which tell us, on an average, what is our sensitivity to different frequencies (how much we are able to hear "loud" and "soft" sounds of each frequencies). In short hearing varies from person to person. We don't have the recording engineer's brain or ears. Hence we don't hear things in the exact same way as that person.Then there are phenomena like auditory masking which influences what we hear in the environment we are sitting in while listening to music. The things that we hear in a silent studio may not be typically what we hear in our typical rooms. Then there are differences in what we hear based on the acoustics of sound reproduction in rooms (speaker radiation characteristics/room dimensions, room treatment). Then differences will come in what we hear depending upon where we are in the reproduced sound field (a binary classification of it is as follows: free field/near field-where the direct sound from the speaker "dominates" and far field/reverberant field where the reflections from surfaces around the speaker dominate. There are more elaborate classifications too). If we are more in the nearfield and on the same intended listening axis as the design axis, the on-axis response of the speaker dominates what we hear. If we are in the reverberant field, the power response and directivity of the speaker and how the room interacts with it (I would highly recommend you see this thread https://www.hifivision.com/threads/...-set-of-short-videos-on-room-acoustics.86875/ and go through the resources mentioned there for learning more about how different rooms sound) controls what we hear. Why? Because even a single dominant reflection that interferes with the direct sound alters its tonal balance due to the comb-filtering it causes. Therefore unless we have the same listening space (in all aspects: speakers, room, treatment) as the recording engineer, we don't even have any hope of reproducing the acoustics that the recording engineer had while he "made the music".
At least the acoustics part we can "alter" to some extent by room selection, treatment, and DSP/EQing capability. I recommend reading this post and the graphs there (my personal speaker building thread on diyaudio) to get an idea about some aspects of how room affects response: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/a-3-way-design-study.376620/post-6847339. I also recommend seeing the set up and graphs in this post to get an idea of the tonal balance change in another system placement scenario (one of my personal setups): https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/a-3-way-design-study.376620/post-6847377.
I would also suggest you to read this page: http://www.5een.co.uk/FSTNT1.htm, where there is a particular DIY speaker build. This is not to learn how to make that speaker. I am suggesting it because there are some valuable insights about interaction between speakers with rooms.
You can also refer to Kimmosto's posts that I have been repeatedly referring to in the previous posts to get an idea about the intricacies involved in speaker design/construction and why the current state of research is not enough for us to characterize everything "objectively". I keep referring to him because he is someone I personally respect for his smartness and experience (and because he is the guy to whom companies like Genelec consult when they want to design their controlled directivity speakers..
)Also to identify the set of caveats that come with the spinorama measurements, just take a look at Erin's site here: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_wireless_ii/ Just before every measurement and its explanation, there are explanations (a clickable arrow) of what is the premise under which that measurement is made and what it is intended to convey. This will show some of the limitations and why it should be taken with a slight 'pinch of salt'. As someone had remarked before in this thread, most of the people don't just gloss over the frequency response measurement of a speaker and call it a day. There are many who go past and read every single measurement in detail, understand it, and make their own judgements based on it.
I hope I have been able to give at least a vague idea regarding how aiming for hearing what the recording engineer heard is a fallacy and saying that everything about sound can be understood by looking at a few graphs is more like trying to 'revel in our own ignorance and ego'. Better aim would be to try for a more 'pleasurable' listening experience to 'you'. For me personally, it only comes through a combination of objective and subjective parameters. For others it could be just subjective parameters. That is their preference. My current taste in speakers is 'controlled/constant directivity speakers' (with controlled directivity waveguides/horns for upper end of the spectrum, super-cardioid, hyper-cardioid midrange and bass modules). To many others it could be some among 'direct radiator' designs (our typical 2 way, 3 way speakers, other acoustic concepts and constructs with different radiation patterns like open baffles and others), not because neither is technically superior but because it is what appeals to their senses.
I can go on for pages trying to explain the intricacies about measurements in more detail. But it is pointless (and I have other things to do
) so I wont attempt anything more in this thread.
Last edited:
Get your point, sir.
If you will indulge me, I will digress.
I live with a motorcycle that makes tandoori of my legs. It is a major flaw.
But when I ask it to accelerate, it does that to a T, and asks me back: Are your balls big enough to open the throttle even more.
Then I slightly open the throttle a little more, and it again asks me the same question. That is something I really love in my motorcycle.
Another big flaw, it does all the above in only a certain powerband. But that is a powerband I really love riding it in. So I am willing to live with it.
I keep nudging it up to <my limit> and that bike is still waiting for me to explore its limit. But it listens to me, and I am very happy to listen back to it, and also happy with how it performs.
Now, I don't know what an equivalent speaker will be. But am sure all of us buying things kinda know what gives us joy, and we are willing to live with its flaws.
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
So room colors - agreed. It’s even with the most perfect equipment room still color it. So, a speaker sounding in one room will not sound in another room.The question needs to be answered at so many different levels that it is very hard to do a good job of it due to the technical jargon that needs to be introduced. Terms like "accuracy" means so many things to so many people as I have said in my previous posts in this thread. Hence I will try to give a relatively short answer while also trying to convey the different aspects involved to the extent of my knowledge. Also, I am not a fan of home theatres and enjoying movies in it so I have never bothered to go into more details about it. So my answer is more applicable to stereo music reproduction than home theatres. To some extent it also applies to home theatre systems but there we have much more capability to reproduce the sound field better due to the more number of spatially separated sound sources (speakers
The simplest explanation regarding us not being able to hear what the recording engineer intended is because our ear-brain system makes a monkey out of us most of the time irrespective of how good the speaker is.
Then there are phenomena like auditory masking which influences what we hear in the environment we are sitting in while listening to music. The things that we hear in a silent studio may not be typically what we hear in our typical rooms. Then there are differences in what we hear based on the acoustics of sound reproduction in rooms (speaker radiation characteristics/room dimensions, room treatment). Then differences will come in what we hear depending upon where we are in the reproduced sound field (a binary classification of it is as follows: free field/near field-where the direct sound from the speaker "dominates" and far field/reverberant field where the reflections from surfaces around the speaker dominate. There are more elaborate classifications too). If we are more in the nearfield and on the same intended listening axis as the design axis, the on-axis response of the speaker dominates what we hear. If we are in the reverberant field, the power response and directivity of the speaker and how the room interacts with it (I would highly recommend you see this thread https://www.hifivision.com/threads/...-set-of-short-videos-on-room-acoustics.86875/ and go through the resources mentioned there for learning more about how different rooms sound) controls what we hear. Why? Because even a single dominant reflection that interferes with the direct sound alters its tonal balance due to the comb-filtering it causes. Therefore unless we have the same listening space (in all aspects: speakers, room, treatment) as the recording engineer, we don't even have any hope of reproducing the acoustics that the recording engineer had while he "made the music".
At least the acoustics part we can "alter" to some extent by room selection, treatment, and DSP/EQing capability. I recommend reading this post and the graphs there (my personal speaker building thread on diyaudio) to get an idea about some aspects of how room affects response: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/a-3-way-design-study.376620/post-6847339. I also recommend seeing the set up and graphs in this post to get an idea of the tonal balance change in another system placement scenario (one of my personal setups): https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/a-3-way-design-study.376620/post-6847377.
I would also suggest you to read this page: http://www.5een.co.uk/FSTNT1.htm, where there is a particular DIY speaker build. This is not to learn how to make that speaker. I am suggesting it because there are some valuable insights about interaction between speakers with rooms.
You can also refer to Kimmosto's posts that I have been repeatedly referring to in the previous posts to get an idea about the intricacies involved in speaker design/construction and why the current state of research is not enough for us to characterize everything "objectively". I keep referring to him because he is someone I personally respect for his smartness and experience (and because he is the guy to whom companies like Genelec consult when they want to design their controlled directivity speakers..
Also to identify the set of caveats that come with the spinorama measurements, just take a look at Erin's site here: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_wireless_ii/ Just before every measurement and its explanation, there are explanations (a clickable arrow) of what is the premise under which that measurement is made and what it is intended to convey. This will show some of the limitations and why it should be taken with a slight 'pinch of salt'. As someone had remarked before in this thread, most of the people don't just gloss over the frequency response measurement of a speaker and call it a day. There are many who go past and read every single measurement in detail, understand it, and make their own judgements based on it.
I hope I have been able to give at least a vague idea regarding how aiming for hearing what the recording engineer heard is a fallacy and saying that everything about sound can be understood by looking at a few graphs is more like trying to 'revel in our own ignorance and ego'. Better aim would be to try for a more 'pleasurable' listening experience to 'you'. For me personally, it only comes through a combination of objective and subjective parameters. For others it could be just subjective parameters. That is their preference. My current taste in speakers is 'controlled/constant directivity speakers' (with controlled directivity waveguides/horns for upper end of the spectrum, super-cardioid, hyper-cardioid midrange and bass modules). To many others it could be some among 'direct radiator' designs (our typical 2 way, 3 way speakers, other acoustic concepts and constructs with different radiation patterns like open baffles and others), not because neither is technically superior but because it is what appeals to their senses.
I can go on for pages trying to explain the intricacies about measurements in more detail. But it is pointless (and I have other things to do
Vineethkumar01
Well-Known Member
Yes. And our perspective, physiological, psychological, and anatomical make up "colors" even more.
Thank you so much sir, will read.The question needs to be answered at so many different levels that it is very hard to do a good job of it due to the technical jargon that needs to be introduced. Terms like "accuracy" means so many things to so many people as I have said in my previous posts in this thread. Hence I will try to give a relatively short answer while also trying to convey the different aspects involved to the extent of my knowledge. Also, I am not a fan of home theatres and enjoying movies in it so I have never bothered to go into more details about it. So my answer is more applicable to stereo music reproduction than home theatres. To some extent it also applies to home theatre systems but there we have much more capability to reproduce the sound field better due to the more number of spatially separated sound sources (speakers
The simplest explanation regarding us not being able to hear what the recording engineer intended is because our ear-brain system makes a monkey out of us most of the time irrespective of how good the speaker is.
Then there are phenomena like auditory masking which influences what we hear in the environment we are sitting in while listening to music. The things that we hear in a silent studio may not be typically what we hear in our typical rooms. Then there are differences in what we hear based on the acoustics of sound reproduction in rooms (speaker radiation characteristics/room dimensions, room treatment). Then differences will come in what we hear depending upon where we are in the reproduced sound field (a binary classification of it is as follows: free field/near field-where the direct sound from the speaker "dominates" and far field/reverberant field where the reflections from surfaces around the speaker dominate. There are more elaborate classifications too). If we are more in the nearfield and on the same intended listening axis as the design axis, the on-axis response of the speaker dominates what we hear. If we are in the reverberant field, the power response and directivity of the speaker and how the room interacts with it (I would highly recommend you see this thread https://www.hifivision.com/threads/...-set-of-short-videos-on-room-acoustics.86875/ and go through the resources mentioned there for learning more about how different rooms sound) controls what we hear. Why? Because even a single dominant reflection that interferes with the direct sound alters its tonal balance due to the comb-filtering it causes. Therefore unless we have the same listening space (in all aspects: speakers, room, treatment) as the recording engineer, we don't even have any hope of reproducing the acoustics that the recording engineer had while he "made the music".
At least the acoustics part we can "alter" to some extent by room selection, treatment, and DSP/EQing capability. I recommend reading this post and the graphs there (my personal speaker building thread on diyaudio) to get an idea about some aspects of how room affects response: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/a-3-way-design-study.376620/post-6847339. I also recommend seeing the set up and graphs in this post to get an idea of the tonal balance change in another system placement scenario (one of my personal setups): https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/a-3-way-design-study.376620/post-6847377.
I would also suggest you to read this page: http://www.5een.co.uk/FSTNT1.htm, where there is a particular DIY speaker build. This is not to learn how to make that speaker. I am suggesting it because there are some valuable insights about interaction between speakers with rooms.
You can also refer to Kimmosto's posts that I have been repeatedly referring to in the previous posts to get an idea about the intricacies involved in speaker design/construction and why the current state of research is not enough for us to characterize everything "objectively". I keep referring to him because he is someone I personally respect for his smartness and experience (and because he is the guy to whom companies like Genelec consult when they want to design their controlled directivity speakers..
Also to identify the set of caveats that come with the spinorama measurements, just take a look at Erin's site here: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_wireless_ii/ Just before every measurement and its explanation, there are explanations (a clickable arrow) of what is the premise under which that measurement is made and what it is intended to convey. This will show some of the limitations and why it should be taken with a slight 'pinch of salt'. As someone had remarked before in this thread, most of the people don't just gloss over the frequency response measurement of a speaker and call it a day. There are many who go past and read every single measurement in detail, understand it, and make their own judgements based on it.
I hope I have been able to give at least a vague idea regarding how aiming for hearing what the recording engineer heard is a fallacy and saying that everything about sound can be understood by looking at a few graphs is more like trying to 'revel in our own ignorance and ego'. Better aim would be to try for a more 'pleasurable' listening experience to 'you'. For me personally, it only comes through a combination of objective and subjective parameters. For others it could be just subjective parameters. That is their preference. My current taste in speakers is 'controlled/constant directivity speakers' (with controlled directivity waveguides/horns for upper end of the spectrum, super-cardioid, hyper-cardioid midrange and bass modules). To many others it could be some among 'direct radiator' designs (our typical 2 way, 3 way speakers, other acoustic concepts and constructs with different radiation patterns like open baffles and others), not because neither is technically superior but because it is what appeals to their senses.
I can go on for pages trying to explain the intricacies about measurements in more detail. But it is pointless (and I have other things to do
Regards
prateekatasniya
Well-Known Member
"Objective expertise must be carefully tempered with purely subjective wisdom"
"The study of audio and acoustics involves both art and science"
From first page of the book- Master handbook of Acoustics.
Hope this helps.
"The study of audio and acoustics involves both art and science"
From first page of the book- Master handbook of Acoustics.
Hope this helps.
Which is what many of us has already repeated on this thread , ad infinitum.
I ho
Cheers,
Raghu
Hope it was just an amalgamation and not a dirty punJust pronounce it as Sobjective and all will be happy
Cheers,
Raghu
I have been watching this thread since it's inception and sentiments aside I have never understood how can anyone quantify if either is more vital than the other (strictly talking about this hobby).
I do not understand measurements at all. I always however, look at ASR, reviews etc whenever I want to buy a product to see what they have to say about it "objectively" and "subjectively". The only things I understand on ASR and data driven websites are W, DB & OHMS and that is all - the rest is all greek to me. However whatever I do understand gives me an understanding of whether I can or not consider a certain product.
Most if not all products I buy are blind buys based on reviews, impressions, suggestions (a mix of both subjective & objective) and after the initial setup which is primarily all objective, it is all subjective from there on. If I am listening to a song and it talks to my soul, I can't quantify at all whether there is a dip in 95hz or a peak in 12000hz. Does it really matter? Not to me.
It is like 2 sides of a coin - 1 doesn't exist the coin is worthless.
***strictly my opinion, not trying to excite/disrespect anyone Just how I feel.
I do not understand measurements at all. I always however, look at ASR, reviews etc whenever I want to buy a product to see what they have to say about it "objectively" and "subjectively". The only things I understand on ASR and data driven websites are W, DB & OHMS and that is all - the rest is all greek to me. However whatever I do understand gives me an understanding of whether I can or not consider a certain product.
Most if not all products I buy are blind buys based on reviews, impressions, suggestions (a mix of both subjective & objective) and after the initial setup which is primarily all objective, it is all subjective from there on. If I am listening to a song and it talks to my soul, I can't quantify at all whether there is a dip in 95hz or a peak in 12000hz. Does it really matter? Not to me.
It is like 2 sides of a coin - 1 doesn't exist the coin is worthless.
***strictly my opinion, not trying to excite/disrespect anyone
Just how I feel.
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
I will take the same example, if your particular speaker has a dip in say 100hz of 6db, you would hear everything coming in that area from your music 6db lower than the recording. If your music has nothing going on in that region, say you are listening to some cymbals. You will not notice it. With a drum - at 100hz : If you never hear it on a speaker which has it on 0db (flat) you will never know what the difference is. May be then flat will sound more detailed to you as now you hear a detail which was very quiet on yours.I have been watching this thread since it's inception and sentiments aside I have never understood how can anyone quantify if either is more vital than the other (strictly talking about this hobby).
I do not understand measurements at all. I always however, look at ASR, reviews etc whenever I want to buy a product to see what they have to say about it "objectively" and "subjectively". The only things I understand on ASR and data driven websites are W, DB & OHMS and that is all - the rest is all greek to me. However whatever I do understand gives me an understanding of whether I can or not consider a certain product.
Most if not all products I buy are blind buys based on reviews, impressions, suggestions (a mix of both subjective & objective) and after the initial setup which is primarily all objective, it is all subjective from there on. If I am listening to a song and it talks to my soul, I can't quantify at all whether there is a dip in 95hz or a peak in 12000hz. Does it really matter? Not to me.
It is like 2 sides of a coin - 1 doesn't exist the coin is worthless.
***strictly my opinion, not trying to excite/disrespect anyone
The other case, your speaker has a peak at 100hz of 6db, and a music whic has nothing going on at this region, it will not make any difference between two speakers. With the drum at 100hz, your speaker your speaker plays it louder than it should be and after a time you will get used to it that when you hear a neutral speaker it will be “missing “ something
Thanks a ton for the explanation. There was a time when I was extremely compulsive about the nuances and a closer to perfect system - I ran studio monitors almost exclusively for many years for neutrality . At a young age - barely out of my teens I begged and borrowed to get me a pair of Genelecs 8xxx series with external soundcards and whatever I was told was required to get them to sound like the "artist intended", no money was spared (as per my extended budget) on source either from high quality Audio CDs to the best I could afford CD players. I was as audio tech illiterate then as I am now, so I took help of a bunch of my friends (2 recording guys) who set them up with SPL meters and all sorts of electronic & software paraphernalia. We went as far to not have a bed in my room as there were some 'reflections' and rather just have a mattress on the floor, lots of "dhurries", only floor cushions and no hardwood piece of furniture except the table on which my computer and other electronics sat. The room looked like a "bachelor's den" with sound absorption panels stuck at random places with absolutely no aesthetic coherence. The madness went on to the point that in peak summers in Delhi, AC and FANs were kept off so as to not introduce any additional noises while "enjoying the music". After a few months of adding things - it was finally declared I have achieved the best sound possible that the speakers can give. Well. I have to say I enjoyed them speakers a lot - it was a roller coaster ride, I couldn't understand the measurements at all, but I knew on 1 CD the bass was wonky so I will wait for someone to come from US/UK to get a better CD of the same album and things like that. (Luckily we were not particularly bothered about the impact of interconnects and cables and anti vibration furniture etc etc - thank GOD for that).
Sorry for the irrelevant rant, but what I am trying to say is that I understand the importance of measurements and data and what it means to have an "objectively" good system. I still have my reference systems, but they are all in the form of earphones
. That is where I go to see what the artist intended with my "objectively/subjectively" neutral IEMs - hi res sources, DSDs & FLACs. HOWEVER, I wholeheartedly enjoy my low res day to day system a lot - that is where all my "FUN" and "enjoyment" really happens. I know "objectively" it is not perfect, I know when I am listening to a song that it is not right there - cause there was that sharp hi hat ticking like a metronome which is not there on the speaker, but it rarely comes in the way of the enjoyment. The Spotify "song radio" feature has given me more joy than anything ever in this hobby. I have found more music in the last 1 year than I have in my entire 34 years.
I hold objectivity in very high regard pretty much the top of the pile but not the only thing, I depend on math for a living I do not have the option to be subjective, but for me subjectivity is equally important, when I can groove with my friends on a less than perfect system and the song the way it is presented on the less than perfect system becomes your preferred way to hear it.
I am not sure if whatever I said above makes any sense or is even coherent, I am currently really distracted by Sara K. on my "subjectively" great but "objectively" trash system. However, I highly respect both schools of thought and respect those even more who can bring both to the table. I know that my system isn't the greatest out there or even close to neutral/correct, but I also know that is not the end of the world.
****again - not trying to excite/disrespect anyone or their opinion just "typing" my thoughts out loud as they flow.
Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
Getting a Genelec will not guarantee artist/mixing engineer internded sound. Placing it in a environment similar to the studio will.Thanks a ton for the explanation. There was a time when I was extremely compulsive about the nuances and a closer to perfect system - I ran studio monitors almost exclusively for many years for neutrality . At a young age - barely out of my teens I begged and borrowed to get me a pair of Genelecs 8xxx series with external soundcards and whatever I was told was required to get them to sound like the "artist intended", no money was spared (as per my extended budget) on source either from high quality Audio CDs to the best I could afford CD players. I was as audio tech illiterate then as I am now, so I took help of a bunch of my friends (2 recording guys) who set them up with SPL meters and all sorts of electronic & software paraphernalia. We went as far to not have a bed in my room as there were some 'reflections' and rather just have a mattress on the floor, lots of "dhurries", only floor cushions and no hardwood piece of furniture except the table on which my computer and other electronics sat. The room looked like a "bachelor's den" with sound absorption panels stuck at random places with absolutely no aesthetic coherence. The madness went on to the point that in peak summers in Delhi, AC and FANs were kept off so as to not introduce any additional noises while "enjoying the music". After a few months of adding things - it was finally declared I have achieved the best sound possible that the speakers can give. Well. I have to say I enjoyed them speakers a lot - it was a roller coaster ride, I couldn't understand the measurements at all, but I knew on 1 CD the bass was wonky so I will wait for someone to come from US/UK to get a better CD of the same album and things like that. (Luckily we were not particularly bothered about the impact of interconnects and cables and anti vibration furniture etc etc - thank GOD for that).
Sorry for the irrelevant rant, but what I am trying to say is that I understand the importance of measurements and data and what it means to have an "objectively" good system. I still have my reference systems, but they are all in the form of earphones
HOWEVER, I wholeheartedly enjoy my low res day to day system a lot - that is where all my "FUN" and "enjoyment" really happens. I know "objectively" it is not perfect, I know when I am listening to a song that it is not right there - cause there was that sharp hi hat ticking like a metronome which is not there on the speaker, but it rarely comes in the way of the enjoyment. The Spotify "song radio" feature has given me more joy than anything ever in this hobby. I have found more music in the last 1 year than I have in my entire 34 years.
I hold objectivity in very high regard pretty much the top of the pile but not the only thing, I depend on math for a living I do not have the option to be subjective, but for me subjectivity is equally important, when I can groove with my friends on a less than perfect system and the song the way it is presented on the less than perfect system becomes your preferred way to hear it.
I am not sure if whatever I said above makes any sense or is even coherent, I am currently really distracted by Sara K. on my "subjectively" great but "objectively" trash system. However, I highly respect both schools of thought and respect those even more who can bring both to the table. I know that my system isn't the greatest out there or even close to neutral/correct, but I also know that is not the end of the world.
****again - not trying to excite/disrespect anyone or their opinion just "typing" my thoughts out loud as they flow.
How can we do it?
1. Place exactly the same distance and height from our listening spot, where most studio monitors are placed in a studio
2. Fix the room acoustics to get closer to a studio
3. If that’s hard, run a room correction to fix it.
What is here guaranteed: an experience closer to what they heard while making the music
Will you like it? Not guarantee.
Enkay78
Well-Known Member
A gramaphone can be subjectively pleasing and wonderful. It is analog....in the purest form.
But it is not a hi-fidelity system. The dynamic range is limited, the lows are negligent. The mids and highs are heightened. And we can exactly measures where the problem is .....right from the heights and depths of the audio grooves, to the vibration of the needle/tonearm and the passive amplification of the horn. It was accurate for our fathers/grandfathers.
But now we have gone beyond that. We have evolved into electronics and active amplification. Now music has to be produced/reproduced through a medium. And that is where our modern hi-fi debate lie. Fortunately for all concerned, that medium of electrons, electricity, electric signals and transducers to physical waves are all measurable parameters.
And it's due to this property of being measurable that today we can enjoy a hi-fidelity music on our portable smartphone using a wired/wireless headphone/earphone.......in addition to the many speakers drivers at home/studio.
But it is not a hi-fidelity system. The dynamic range is limited, the lows are negligent. The mids and highs are heightened. And we can exactly measures where the problem is .....right from the heights and depths of the audio grooves, to the vibration of the needle/tonearm and the passive amplification of the horn. It was accurate for our fathers/grandfathers.
But now we have gone beyond that. We have evolved into electronics and active amplification. Now music has to be produced/reproduced through a medium. And that is where our modern hi-fi debate lie. Fortunately for all concerned, that medium of electrons, electricity, electric signals and transducers to physical waves are all measurable parameters.
And it's due to this property of being measurable that today we can enjoy a hi-fidelity music on our portable smartphone using a wired/wireless headphone/earphone.......in addition to the many speakers drivers at home/studio.
You guys are missing a very important part. The engineer is listening to the master. You are hearing a compressed version of it on Tidal or on a CD. It’s not going to sound like the master by a mile.
A beautiful, well-constructed speaker with class-leading soundstage, imaging and bass that is fast, deep, and precise.
