Audio nonsense

Thank God for our ears. Not to mention that any comment about audio without comparative listening is nonsense. As for determining what room correction might be required (for tonal accuracy, content resolution, transient response, etc.), we can easily aid it by using good headphones with a good amp and doing comparative listening with the speakers in front of you. Remarkably, you will find that sometimes what you hear from speakers you may personally prefer on some tracks, while, clearly, headphones are a superior sound device (apart from the sound stage alone). Arguing those results among listeners might be a sufficient thread for this forum, but it would make no practical sense because it is related to individual psycho-acoustics and may even include some missing variables that can not be discussed because they are not even determined. In short, listening, adjusting/experimenting to A/B comparing, and ending up with YOUR acceptable compromises, is the only process worth trying; disputing or arguing it here is a complete waste of time. Reporting it, however, should be encouraged and appreciated, not ridiculed.

Great post thanks!

I will only add about headphones, that i OBSERVED that my room acoustic was done when i did not want to hear my SEVEN different types of headphone anymore...They are no more needed for sound quality superiority at all...

Room Acoustic is the ONLY audiophile key element....

Anybody can buy a good amplifier or speakers pair.... Anybody can argue about the "taste" and difference between them like about Wine...

But gear is not wine, it is ONLY a MEANS for an ACOUSTIC experience: music listening...

Tasting gear is ignorance or a hobby called : misplaced sound obsession...

I prefer listening to music and i dont give a dam about my relatively basic good gear nor to any COSTLY possible meaningless now upgrade... I dont taste sound difference...I listen piano timbre in my TUNED room instead...

Anybody can buy a good amplifier or speakers pair.... Anybody can argue about the "taste" and difference between them like about Wine...

But gear is not wine, it is ONLY a MEANS for an ACOUSTIC experience: music listening...

Tasting gear is ignorance or a hobby called : misplaced sound obsession...

I prefer listening to music and i dont give a dam about my relatively basic good gear nor to any COSTLY possible meaningless now upgrade... I dont taste sound difference...I listen piano timbre in my TUNED room instead...

I say all this because there is the same amount of audio nonsense in gear idolatry than in "tweaks"...

There is no nonsense in acoustic experiments... Learning how to hear in a specific room with specific gear was my hobby for some years... Now i am done, the process is completed,  and my new hobby is more listening music.... 😁😊

Yes it is desirable to have an engineering STANDARD...

but you cannot tune a room without hearing listening experiments...

And you cannot say all is perfect because my measuring tool said so instead of my ears/brain ....We must CORRELATE ears and tool and the master at the end is our ears not a tool graph...

I speak here about complex very small room acoustic not big theater...

Flat frequency response is desirable.

And hearing a natural TIMBRE experience is not hearing DIRECTLY ultasonic frequencies impact on audible one for sure...

Second the time envelope and the spectral envelope of a timbre phenomenon is very complex and not reducible to a linear audible frequency scale...

Metaphor about "golden ear bat power" in audiophiles are only that : a bad joke...

Unfortunately, if you want to hear ultrasonic frequencies like a dog, you are totally out of luck. No amount of frequency boost is going to do the trick.

«We are all bats but our eyes make us deaf »-Groucho Marx playing a blind 🤓

Exactly....

But most people dont understand that they NEVER hear speakers alone but they listen with EARS/speakers/room specific TRIPLE interaction with each one his own specific unique characteristic...

Tuning a speakers/room relation ask for a specific brain/ears history to do the work and trained listening experiments in specific condition...

It is why their ears are for acoustician their main tool...

Exhibiting a graph is not a proof of understanding .... Concept matter more than measuring tools...Because nobody can understand a tool result without the right concepts...

Ideological objectivist or entrenched subjectivist position make people DEAF...

By definition acoustic and psycho acoustic sciences are the art of correlating objective measure and a subjective interpretation...These two different correlated perspectives are separated ONLY by consumers marketing idolatry of the gear or marketing engineering idolatry of the tool, not by acousticians....

«Music is like God, nobody understand it but everybody can listen to it»-Anonymus Maestro

I have never understood why having a flat frequency response for speakers is a desirable attribute when the human ear hears almost every frequency differently, as described in the Fletcher Munson curves.

My ideal frequency response is equivalent of when the old but now shunned ’loudness’ feature is turned on....

My "mechanical equalizer" is tuned to work and modify the room zone pressures level for some frequencies in relation with one another yes , but ALSO in relation to my own IMPERFECT hearing apparatus...Then my "curve" on the same graph as used by some here will not be so neutral...

Then my room is not neutral but the sound pressure levels related to some frequency bandwidth is ADAPTED also to my SPECIFIC tuning hearing/brain apparatus...

Then i need no microphone nor any electronic equalization...

I dont speak about that to boast about my devices, nor to boast about the alleged superiority of my method and device... THEY ARE NOT superior, they call for a dedicated room and much time to do the tuning...And they are not perfect but unlike an electronic equalizer which is a very limited tool for the global tuning of the room , my mechanical equalizer tune ALL the room at all the frequencies that matter for human hearing....

But that cost nothing , it is not only possible to do it, it is fun, and it is efficient: the sound quality is more than good for almost all people who listen music in my room and for me it is so good any upgrade appear preposterous...

Than measures are important yes, specially measure in acoustic for my ears in my case, and subjective correlated experience also is important...

The big egg objectivist, and the small egg subjectivist are two blind warring side whose existence make no sense for acoustic ....

But remember at last there is an order: any measure must be correlated to a subjectivity, not the opposite....

And in my process of tuning i at least learned the hard way that acoustic of small room is NOT the results ONLY of some waves coming from the walls ... It is a bit more complex thav this simplification for the benefit of acoustic panels sellers industry....This is the inconvenient truth....

😁😊

In my experience everything, every added materials make a difference...

Sometimes positive sometimes not... Sometimes the positive difference was an illusion for sure...

But the only way in audio is embeddings mechanical, electrical and acoustical controls...

Upgrade by gear or tweaks or blind tests are for ignorant or very rich people with money speaking...

I dont need money, my brain is enough to read acoustic articles...

You dont tune a room with Tweaks or blind tests....

I never speak of anyone.... If the hat fit keep it....Objectivist like you or subjectivist like the one you attack without rest it seems, are for me pure complete lunatics disctinction....

Or read Helmholtz genius understanding of room acoustic BASIC tuning....

And forget about blind test by the way if you want to tune your room...

Simplistic mind like binary disctinctions....

I guess I’ll remain deluded and an idiot. I can live with that.

Sound experience means something in some room for someone...

Change the room and you can prove anything.....The differrent devices has NO Sound of their own which stay the same in different room....

Blind tester audiophiles are deluded like people who vouch blindly for a piece of gear INSTEAD of acoustic embeddings controls...

That is my experience....

There is no objectivist nor subjectivist in acoustic protocol experiments....Subjectivity is CORRELATED with objective measures ALWAYS...Subjectivity is not ERASED by objective measure save for idiots...Idiot dont study acoustic with their EARS anyway....They trust a limited tool like other buy costly "tweaks" or branded name of costly gear...

Acoustic is the only key in audio....

Blind test are a method very useful for industrial research...

Make no sense in my room...

 Some Idiots are very fond of blind test here....

And Sellers hate them generally ...

 i am not an idiot nor a seller....

The most arrogant people here, insulting every one are the so called self appointed "scientists", an audiophile species i dont like at all.... I dont like "tweaks" sellers either....Not because they never work, they work often, but the explanation by the sellers are like the alleged claims of the pseudo "scientists" here, meaningless, the same pseudo-scientist who does not dare to create their own listening experiments but vouch by blind test in any room save their own.......NON SENSICAL rethoric...

I will listen music instead of reading idiots, subjectivist or objectivists, on my 500 bucks system mechanically. electrically, and acoustically controlled at NO COST....

I like to be alone.....

I tune my room by ears, creating my own mechanical equalizer...

After Helmotlz method...

No ears are the same  with the same history...

For some  pseudo-scientist here  who measure their room fine with tools but are unable to tune  it i had some news: it is possible...

This is not the story.... but i know that you will never inform yourself past this event...

There is many thousand cases in PUBLIC....not one case at the end where Groning was ill and attacked...Picking somethink which is a misinterpreted fact on the net will not disproof the case.... The case exist till today .... If you want to know listen the 4 hours video of testimonies...Nobody can debunbk thousands and thousands of healings...

To awake from your sleep try the fire yogi the video is short and debunk it....

Acoustic is not miraculous?

 Think again....

The only non miraculous world is the world of consumers of cars and of "technology "...

The real world is not constrained by what we call our  "science"....Too much bigger....

Then in audio study basic science yes, but dont stay in audio magazine facts...

Create your own world...

If you dont know that miracles exist try to debunk after the fire yogi the Miracle healer here? Good luck....Nobody ever succeed to  debunk him....

I dont bought "tweaks"...

I create them instead....

The same brain who spoke about "facts" pretend they know everything...Because the spell in which they are all their life limit their walk.... Newtons’s law is an HABIT.... Nothing else... we dont know what is fire and perhaps we must ask to the fire who he is?

Anyway for those who hate to experiment like children does, learn acoustic and give to yourself a magical life again....Instead of plugging gear in a wall....Which is also an unrecognized miracles or an habit....

«Miracles are only unrecognized new habit»-Groucho Marx