indialogue
Active Member
Can be read here - Objective review of flagship headphones
Last edited:
Its actually from Reddit but you can find some more analysis hereI'm not sure whether or not it should make a difference, but, I wonder who did all this?
who seems to think that flat FR is the holy grail of audio.
It is, isn't it? Unless you want or need otherwise. Such measurements do matter, especially if a person is seeking high fidelity, or transparent music reproduction. But is it the only buying criterion? Probably not.
but there is a reference point - the sound of live music
His research at Harman, as always, has to do with listener preference, rather than trying to be accurate to some reference (whatever that might mean). It's been argued that preference varies from person to person. But if you test what 100 listeners prefer, the results won't be statistically random. A pattern will emerge, which is how you end up with Top-40 music lists. There's no guarantee that you will like those songs, but it does give you an idea of what people in general prefer.If Sean Olive has something to do with it, experience suggests it's worth hearing about.
I agree. Live music can never be a reference point because live music sounds drastically different in different venues.
However, I had one more thought on this before going to sleep last night, which is that sounds like live music is not only fine as a subjective reaction, but it is what most of us probably seek. Unamplified, etc, is a bit of a distraction: if we can close our eyes and feel that we are in a rock concert, that is good as feeling that we are listening to a piano recital. Personally, I would choose the latter as the better way of evaluating or showing off a hifi system, but that's a different matter.
Orchestral or solo classical music is usually better recorded; it has unbelievable dynamic range; an orchestra presents a challenge in sound stage/image that no small group could --- just by strength of numbers.
Now, if we can listen to that stuff, and subjectively feel that, against all logical odds, we are actually hearing an orchestra, it's really a bit of a miracle --- and plenty good enough for me.
The question may then arise: what measurable conditions best give rise to that experience. It may arise, it may not: we don't buy by looking at a set of specs and ordering the thing. We listen and enjoy.
However, engineers have been dealing with this stuff for most of the past 100 years. Sure, they too go beyond numbers: if they did not test their products on their own ears, and then the ears of others, then there would hardly be any point.
The subjective and the objective go hand in hand. That is the way it always has been. The objective cannot be written out, because then there would be no products to buy.
But, ultimately, it is the results that count, and the result, music listening, is a subjective experience.
Well, true ... but even a clock radio makes them recognisable. Beyond that there are of course many levels. A cough is recognisable. I have heard a certain cough on a live recording numerous times, but ...on a fellow form member's superb system, I looked round to see who was coughing in the room!Sorry, but I disagree. A violin has a certain sound. A piano has a certain sound.
SDurani points to the Harman labs - that's a step in the right direction. Question is, how qualified are the listeners to judge what is hi-fi?