Frequency response vs sound quality

[ratbagp]

Sometimes I think the loudness comes into the equation. Listen to a tizzy speaker at quieter volumes and it may become more acceptable. I suspect that is why the Quads did not impress me either.

It may also explain why a room impresses one person and not another who listens at another time. Choice of music and how loud it is played makes a difference.

ray

[Pelliott321]

Agreed, most of the show vendors just play too loud and the speakers just fall apart.

[ratbagp]

Or my ears fall apart.

ray

[Pelliott321]

I know and just do not get it
don't these guys know what they are doing.
its just like our government WTF

[tomp]

Sometimes I think the loudness comes into the equation. Listen to a tizzy speaker at quieter volumes and it may become more acceptable. I suspect that is why the Quads did not impress me either.

It may also explain why a room impresses one person and not another who listens at another time. Choice of music and how loud it is played makes a difference.

ray

Look at the equal loudness curves and it will become clear why a rising top end may sound OK at low levels but will be offensive at higher levels. Remember loudness controls that used to be present on every integrated amp and receiver? Bass has an even greater change but excessive bass while objectionable will not cause as much pain.

Attachments

Equal loudness curve.png (67.4 KiB) Viewed 9759 times

[J-ROB]

ABX testing is not about which sounds more accurate or more pleasing.

i never mentioned ABX testing, I said A-B testing." referred to in the most casual, informal sense. Call it "quick comparison" to move the discussion away from the bogus claims of objectivity these practices are said to encompass.

Neither hold much authority in my mind because they are carried out under conditions very different from our natural listening contexts. The mindset and goal structure are different in tests vs. listening situations and each valorizes different aspects of perception. Meaning must always be evaluated in context. Aesthetic sound perception is about meaning.

None of these clinical listening tests will ever be close to "scientific" procedures, simply because you can never control all of the variables or even know what they are. One people are involved, things get tricky, and one aesthetic perception is involved, science is out the window

Many differences are mot immediately apparent, they take a while, weeks maybe, to unravel. Natural use in real life will teach us this sort of thing. I suspect that bad tweeters will and have won many a hasty shoot-out thanks to the "excitement" factor of a wafer of titanium resonating at miscellaneous ultrasonic frequencies.

Wow...listen to that "air." WTF is "air?"

Bad tweeter can be such a slippery thing. Could "sound" good or even impressive at first blush, but weeks later you find yourself rubbing your aching jaw, trying to pop your ears like you got off an airplane, and you may tend to be wither bored, troubled , or just walk off rather than listening comfortably for hours on end. That is a bad tweeter, right there.

And this is the kind of phenomeon unlikely to be super-obvious in brief, decontexualized listening tests, which leads me to ask "What good are they then?"

True, many if not most sales transaction auditions take place under hasty A-B conditions, MORE highs and MORE bass usually win, so we get bad tweeters and bad LF, but lots of it.

This goes back to Paul's question of why it is like it is these days. Combination of factors, but one may be that excessive HF sells.