[Joe Bloggs]

I have always been disturbed by the fact that objectivists always seem to be playing the role of naysayers, saying that nothing that audiophiles think matter in audio reproduction, matters. Source components don't matter, DACs have supposedly been audibly transparent since the 90s, you can get a $100 amp for your $100000 speakers / headphones and not be remiss in the former purchase... h34r: we're then left with things such as loudspeaker / headphone selection and room acoustics for speakers. For headphones... what? "Choose a good pair of headphones"? "Wear your headphones correctly and keep your pads in good condition?"

I think people obviously need more to sink their teeth into when considering things objectivists consider to be real advancements in audio, otherwise to the average audience
1. Nothing he thought mattered to sound quality, matters
2. But that doesn't make the sound he's getting from his audio system any better; and audiophiles are almost never satisfied with the sound they're getting
3. Your advice is duly ignored, because to heed it would mean to take all the fun out of audiophilia.

So here I am, starting a new thread, dedicated to the things that people of scientific mindset think are important to improving audio. Here's my starting contribution, originally from here
http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-the-official-thread-please-read-the-3rd-post/16155#post_12512595

1. Audio mastering needs to be improved, but for this to happen it needs a steady target to aim for (rather than having to cater to everything from mono boomboxes to car stereos to audiophile systems in one recording).

2. Accordingly, a new audiophile music standard needs to be put forward that segregates the responsibilities of audio mastering and audio playback correctly; for a start dynamic compression needs to be specified as a standard playback parameter that can be switched on and adjusted on the playback end to cater to different playback equipment capabilities and listening environments. Equalization and room correction capabilities need to become standard so that mastering engineers can simply aim for the best sound in the studio environment (which should also be standardized), while the wildly varying end-user listening setups can intelligently do their best to match the studio sound, rather than the other way around.

3. A 2nd version of all albums, mastered for binaural (headphone listening) ought to become standard. (I'm sure all head-fiers can get behind that!) For old albums mastered for stereo only, headphone listening systems ought to be updated with speaker system virtualization software that goes beyond the presently common primitive crossfeed options. Darin Fong's OOYH software is a good start. http://www.head-fi.org/t/689299/out-of-your-head-new-virtual-surround-simulator Here's my own humble attempt: http://www.head-fi.org/t/555263/foobar2000-dolby-headphone-config-comment-discuss/810#post_12496793

4. A whole industry of consumer-oriented audio engineering needs to be built from the ground up. For loudspeaker systems it entails proper room setup and speaker calibration by trained professionals rather than end-users all trying to do their own thing. For headphone systems it entails widespread adoption of HRTF measurements a la those done for the Smyth Realiser: http://www.head-fi.org/t/418401/long-awaited-smyth-svs-realiser-now-available-for-purchase

The latter would be an alternative to (3) and Smyth Realiser is in the High-End audio forum for good reason. Most every Realiser user would tell you it makes a joke of all talk of headphone "soundstage" and "realism" on conventional headphone systems. Individual HRTF measurements are necessary because of the wild acoustic variations between individuals when wearing headphones.

5. Audiophile headphones should come standard with compensation curves for arriving at a neutral reference. For (4) the HRTFs should be recorded as deviations from the KEMAR dummy head reference, so that corrections can be applied to the compensation curve to arrive at the studio-intended sound for every listener, using whatever headphones. Software to apply such corrections should come as standard on any audiophile music player for portable use.

But as you can see, every point involves sweeping changes to the audio industry, I'm not sure there's any money to be made from it, and it seems obvious that the majority of the target market won't even appreciate the reasons behind such changes if and when they are proposed. It needs to be proposed as a whole new system for everything from recording, mastering to playback. Everyone would have their own slightly different version of the underlying ideas and it would be very difficult to arrive at a universally adopted standard.

----------

To the list of things that matter, that an audio end user can change on his own:

--Equalization. People need to realize that equalizing an existing sound system for its faults is not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as many seem to think. For a start, the changes in tonality that many people aim for with source / amp component changes can be achieved more reliability with EQ, e.g.

Opinions with those who have heard the Opus #1 and the Onkyo DPX1 what they think has better Sound quality overall I like analytical but with subtle warmth. This would be disregarding other options.

Thanks!

Assuming neutral headphones, this would be my ticket for "analytical but with subtle warmth" on the DP-X1 (or Onkyo HF Player):

I can only post these comments tongue-in-cheek today, even though I'm actually completely earnest.

Moving on, we know that music sound signature does not just consist of bass, mids and treble, but actually everything in between--a system can sound "balanced" yet "wrong", this could actually be because of narrowband fluctuations in the frequency response rather than vindication that EQ doesn't do sh!t. :rolleyes: The more precise the adjustment an EQ is capable of the more capable it is of improving sound quality in the hands of the knowledgeable user. But how to make use of such an advanced EQ with only your ears as guide is a big problem. This was my humble attempt at a guide so far:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/794467/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-2016-update

-----------

And what are your thoughts and suggestions? My goal is to have a thread people can point to when people ask the inevitable question "okay, this doesn't matter and that doesn't matter. Ok Mr Smarty Pants, what do you think DOES matter in HiFi audio?"

 

[Sound Eq]

interested

 

[warrior1975]

Great thread idea. I'm a big fan of eq. It makes music sound the way I like it. I liken it to adding spices to your food. It doesn't change the basic flavor of your food, just adjusts it a little more towards your liking.

 

[gregorio]

I think people obviously need more to sink their teeth into when considering things objectivists consider to be real advancements in audio, otherwise to the average audience
1. Nothing he thought mattered to sound quality, matters
2. But that doesn't make the sound he's getting from his audio system any better; and audiophiles are almost never satisfied with the sound they're getting
3. Your advice is duly ignored, because to heed it would mean to take all the fun out of audiophilia.

 
I take it you mean the average audiophile rather than the "average audience" because the "average audience" doesn't really care about audio quality. If they care about anything, it's far more likely to be a (audio) fashion accessory to keep up with the Jones' than anything necessarily directly related the sound quality. If we're talking about audiophiles:
 
1. True but then some things he did think matters do matter (transducers) and some things he probably hasn't thought much about, matter massively (acoustics for example).
2. Your subsequent suggestions/points wouldn't made any difference here. Even if you could make a standard for both studios, consumer listening environments and the recordings, then audiophiles still wouldn't be satisfied and would change/tweak it to something they felt was better, even though it wouldn't be. Not really much different to how it is now.
3. As I see it, the "fun of audiophilia" for many appears to be about spending money on audio equipment/equipment tweaks. It's not really about audio at all, it's about pandering to biases which affect their perception of audio equipment. Acoustic treatment (for example) isn't audio equipment, so it's "duly ignored" by all the audio-equipment-philes. They might nod their heads when you talk about mixing/mastering but again, it's largely ignored because mixing/mastering is not audio equipment.
 
The 5 points you mention effectively inter-related and boil down to what is practical, possible and desirable. It's not possible to standardise the studio environment and even less possible to standardise consumer environments. This invalidates point #1. A way around point #1 is to make lot's of different masters but that's completely impractical due to cost. Even making just one different (binaural) master is generally impractical because there's no real binaural standard and simply not enough not enough return to make it worthwhile. This deals with point #3. Point #2 doesn't work either: A standard for Dynamic range compression is certainly possible but it's not desirable. In addition to being used in mastering just to make the whole recording louder, it's also used for other purposes, creative/musical purposes! It's a fundamental musical tool for many genres of music; the sound of the kick drum for example commonly requires compression (to change the balance between attack and decay), using compression to the lead vox adds presence and makes it possible to balance the vox relative to the rest of the mix. Put compression in the hands of the consumer and to a certain extent you might as well just give them all the raw multi-tracks and let them create their own mix. However, there are ways to limit the use of compression when used purely to make a master louder but that's a topic for another thread and again, should not be in the hands of the consumer. Point #4 isn't going to happen, 99.99% of consumers are not going to go to the cost of getting in a pro and neither are audio-equipment-philes. That leaves a minuscule minority of real audiophiles, can't really make a standard out of a minuscule minority, even if a standard were possible.
 

The more precise the adjustment an EQ is capable of the more capable it is of improving sound quality in the hands of the knowledgeable user. But how to make use of such an advanced EQ with only your ears as guide is a big problem.

 
The problem I have with EQ'ing cans is that there are no "knowledgeable users"! Yes, making use of a multi-band parametric EQ to reference what you're hearing to an equal-contour is "a big problem" but even if that problem is overcome, there's another problem and that's the assumption that the recording has been recorded, mixed and mastered with reference to an equal-contour in the first place, which it almost certainly hasn't! Is an average user going to get closer to what was intended by applying EQ or further away? In many cases, probably the majority, the manufacturer is likely to get closer than the consumer. Of course, the consumer is going to get closer to what they personally like (using EQ) than the manufacturer but what "they personally like" may be completely unrelated to what was intended.
 
G

 

[Sound Eq]

   
I take it you mean the average audiophile rather than the "average audience" because the "average audience" doesn't really care about audio quality. If they care about anything, it's far more likely to be a (audio) fashion accessory to keep up with the Jones' than anything necessarily directly related the sound quality. If we're talking about audiophiles:
 
1. True but then some things he did think matters do matter (transducers) and some things he probably hasn't thought much about, matter massively (acoustics for example).
2. Your subsequent suggestions/points wouldn't made any difference here. Even if you could make a standard for both studios, consumer listening environments and the recordings, then audiophiles still wouldn't be satisfied and would change/tweak it to something they felt was better, even though it wouldn't be. Not really much different to how it is now.
3. As I see it, the "fun of audiophilia" for many appears to be about spending money on audio equipment/equipment tweaks. It's not really about audio at all, it's about pandering to biases which affect their perception of audio equipment. Acoustic treatment (for example) isn't audio equipment, so it's "duly ignored" by all the audio-equipment-philes. They might nod their heads when you talk about mixing/mastering but again, it's largely ignored because mixing/mastering is not audio equipment.
 
The 5 points you mention effectively inter-related and boil down to what is practical, possible and desirable. It's not possible to standardise the studio environment and even less possible to standardise consumer environments. This invalidates point #1. A way around point #1 is to make lot's of different masters but that's completely impractical due to cost. Even making just one different (binaural) master is generally impractical because there's no real binaural standard and simply not enough not enough return to make it worthwhile. This deals with point #3. Point #2 doesn't work either: A standard for Dynamic range compression is certainly possible but it's not desirable. In addition to being used in mastering just to make the whole recording louder, it's also used for other purposes, creative/musical purposes! It's a fundamental musical tool for many genres of music; the sound of the kick drum for example commonly requires compression (to change the balance between attack and decay), using compression to the lead vox adds presence and makes it possible to balance the vox relative to the rest of the mix. Put compression in the hands of the consumer and to a certain extent you might as well just give them all the raw multi-tracks and let them create their own mix. However, there are ways to limit the use of compression when used purely to make a master louder but that's a topic for another thread and again, should not be in the hands of the consumer. Point #4 isn't going to happen, 99.99% of consumers are not going to go to the cost of getting in a pro and neither are audio-equipment-philes. That leaves a minuscule minority of real audiophiles, can't really make a standard out of a minuscule minority, even if a standard were possible.
 
 
The problem I have with EQ'ing cans is that there are no "knowledgeable users"! Yes, making use of a multi-band parametric EQ to reference what you're hearing to an equal-contour is "a big problem" but even if that problem is overcome, there's another problem and that's the assumption that the recording has been recorded, mixed and mastered with reference to an equal-contour in the first place, which it almost certainly hasn't! Is an average user going to get closer to what was intended by applying EQ or further away? In many cases, probably the majority, the manufacturer is likely to get closer than the consumer. Of course, the consumer is going to get closer to what they personally like (using EQ) than the manufacturer but what "they personally like" may be completely unrelated to what was intended.
 
G

to be honest, I do not care what the artist intended or how much the producer screwed up in making the record sound so crappy, all I care is have a great eq to fix things to my liking
 
and honestly I blame producers and sound engineers and dam record companies the most for putting out crappy recorded materials, and the artist who does not care to check if his album has been recorded in great way
 
with great recorded albums you do not need to eq but man the market is filled with crappy recording qualities
 
so for now, I will never buy a dap without eq, or an amp with no bass boost
 
as simply I will never ever fool myself with the saying " that is what the artist meant you to hear "

 

[warrior1975]

I agree, I always fix the sound to my liking... I definitely don't care if it's different than intended either.

 

[Sound Eq]

I agree, I always fix the sound to my liking... I definitely don't care if it's different than intended either.

honestly man I can not believe how such badly records can be pushed out in this disgraceful way
 
If i was an artist man I would teach the producer and engineers and record company a dam lesson if they screwed up with my album
 
but man it seems this industry simply is filled with crap and no one cares
 
and what bugs me more is that I am not talking unknown artists that allow such crap to happen to their albums, but well known artists are more to be blamed 

 

[warrior1975]

Such is life bro. Probably not changing any time soon either.

 

[RRod]

I tend to think, broadly, that we need really generalized sound formats (ambisonic, object-based) that get sent to devices with DSP out the wazoo. Receiver hooked up to 4 speakers and a tortoise shell? Ok, we'll correct for that? Got your own HRTF measurements, OK, we can patch it in, etc. The issue, as Gregorio point out, is that the broad public doesn't really care, and the niche market (for audio at least) is dominated by a stance against DSP of any kind.
 
As for shorter-term goals:
.Better music education
 
I guess my feeling is that great recordings and reasonable, high quality listening gear are already out there. Get people to them, but to do that they have to first care to hear and then actually hear. Then they'll give a whit about the loudness war.

 

[gregorio]

Originally Posted by hykhleif /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
but man it seems this industry simply is filled with crap and no one cares

 
You have this completely backwards!! The industry is filled with crap AND most of us care. The people who don't care are the consumers, they want music for peanuts (or nothing at all) and that means artists/record labels have to either hire monkeys or hire top staff for such a brief period of time they cannot create anything other than crap. You still want someone to blame?
 
Quote:

  to be honest, I do not care what the artist intended ...

 
Exactly my point, it's not about the music, the artist, the producer or the actual audio, etc., it's just about what your audio equipment sounds like to you. That's fine, I've got nothing against that, it's your money, your equipment, your entertainment. Let's not call that "audiophile" though!
 
G

 

[castleofargh]

1/ independent measurement company giving specs for manufacturers who want to prove they're doing a good job. something like a quality label, and if you're not in it, you pretty much admit that you have something to hide.
some meaningful specs, not the SNR of a device at max loudness, when it's likely to be used at a hundredth of that voltage. and for portable stuff, min measurements with 5ohm loads, not 16ohm or 30ohm. plenty of multidrivers go below and the source may behave ok at 16ohm and become total crap at 10 or 5ohm for all we know. devices changed, so should measurements. 
 
 
2/ come up with a damn standard for headphone frequency response. it will never be perfect, it will never fit everybody, so let's just pick one and definitely forget everything else. in fact I would love it to be RAW measurement so that audiophiles would stop thinking that a flat line sounds "neutral".
 
3/ any and all headphone/hifi shops should offer to measure customer's HRTF (for a price). and once that is a trend, any and all audio sources should have a mean to incorporate that(any mean to get headphones closer to individual physiognomy). also have this incorporated to some good crossfeed, because seriously, talks about soundstage and hifi with headphone panning... blehhh.
ideally for home systems, head tracking like the Smyth Realiser. the tech cost on a computer should be 1/10th of the price of a Realiser. cool tracking systems can be bought for games on PC for 150euro. all we need is the software to go with that. feeling of 3D sound is greatly boosted when it goes with how we turn our head.
 
4/ have headphone manufacturers offer IR or software that help optimizing their products. it's ok to tweak any and all things in a headphone to tune it, and it's very obvious that we can improve things further with digital settings.
 
5/ having albums produced like sound actually matters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm fed up with albums ruined on purpose on CD because there is a highres release, or because some idiot decided that CD format was only to provide radio stations with the loudest crap hit to listen in a car.

 

[Hutnicks]

  1/ independent measurement company giving specs for manufacturers who want to prove they're doing a good job. something like a quality label, and if you're not in it, you pretty much admit that you have something to hide.
some meaningful specs, not the SNR of a device at max loudness, when it's likely to be used at a hundredth of that voltage. and for portable stuff, min measurements with 5ohm loads, not 16ohm or 30ohm. plenty of multidrivers go below and the source may behave ok at 16ohm and become total crap at 10 or 5ohm for all we know. devices changed, so should measurements. 
 
 
2/ come up with a damn standard for headphone frequency response. it will never be perfect, it will never fit everybody, so let's just pick one and definitely forget everything else. in fact I would love it to be RAW measurement so that audiophiles would stop thinking that a flat line sounds "neutral".
 
3/ any and all headphone/hifi shops should offer to measure customer's HRTF (for a price). and once that is a trend, any and all audio sources should have a mean to incorporate that(any mean to get headphones closer to individual physiognomy). also have this incorporated to some good crossfeed, because seriously, talks about soundstage and hifi with headphone panning... blehhh.
ideally for home systems, head tracking like the Smyth Realiser. the tech cost on a computer should be 1/10th of the price of a Realiser. cool tracking systems can be bought for games on PC for 150euro. all we need is the software to go with that. feeling of 3D sound is greatly boosted when it goes with how we turn our head.
 
4/ have headphone manufacturers offer IR or software that help optimizing their products. it's ok to tweak any and all things in a headphone to tune it, and it's very obvious that we can improve things further with digital settings.
 
5/ having albums produced like sound actually matters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm fed up with albums ruined on purpose on CD because there is a highres release, or because some idiot decided that CD format was only to provide radio stations with the loudest crap hit to listen in a car.

1) The IEEE should have done that ages ago. I suspect it is a manufacturers dissent problem that prevents any standardization to be achieved. The market itself needs to rise up and clamour for it.
 
2) One would have thought that to be self evident. The problem there runs again to cometition amongst manufacturers and there "tame" scientists .
 
3) It still amazes me no one has open sourced a Realizer app. It cannot be that far off in the future. Patience here I think.
 
4) Not sure if I want hardware dudes jumping into the software spectrum if that is what you are actually saying. Experience has proven that to be a not so good thing.
 
5) There should be an industry fine of 5 dollars per copy for every bad mastered CD sold

  At the very least there should be a clearly stated passage on the outside of the disk somewhere that tells the consumer what it's intended use is. "This disk is brickwall mastered and may be offensive to those looking for quality" or "Mastered for radio play" type of thing.
 
My own pet peeve. Re Mastered re issues. There needs to be some control initiated over these so that we do not keep getting 25 new versions of Dark Side of The Moon every year.