A further thought, following up on my previous post:
Among the recordings that you have done the assessments with, are at least a few of them presumably high quality audiophile-caliber recordings, with minimal dynamic range compression, minimal equalization, and minimal processing generally, AND have you listened to them at approximately real-life volume levels, similar to what would be heard in a concert hall or jazz club?
If not, what I'm thinking is that with recordings that are some combination of low quality, inaccurate, overly compressed, distorted, overly processed, etc. there is a natural tendency to listen at lower than real-life volume levels. The more accurate the recording and its reproduction, the higher the volume level that can be tolerated without fatigue.
And listening at lower than real-life volume levels will tend to invoke the Fletcher-Munson Effect, which causes our hearing mechanisms to perceive highs (and lows) at reduced levels relative to the mid-range.
Perhaps that is a factor here.
Regards,
-- Al
Among the recordings that you have done the assessments with, are at least a few of them presumably high quality audiophile-caliber recordings, with minimal dynamic range compression, minimal equalization, and minimal processing generally, AND have you listened to them at approximately real-life volume levels, similar to what would be heard in a concert hall or jazz club?
If not, what I'm thinking is that with recordings that are some combination of low quality, inaccurate, overly compressed, distorted, overly processed, etc. there is a natural tendency to listen at lower than real-life volume levels. The more accurate the recording and its reproduction, the higher the volume level that can be tolerated without fatigue.
And listening at lower than real-life volume levels will tend to invoke the Fletcher-Munson Effect, which causes our hearing mechanisms to perceive highs (and lows) at reduced levels relative to the mid-range.
Perhaps that is a factor here.
Regards,
-- Al