what is good sound ?

First Mr. Tennis, I must thank you because, if it weren’t for you and the gauntlets that you throw out continually, then I would not be very inclined to write in as often.
To address the argument that you have been engaged in, it first needs to be pointed out that you are working under the flawed assumption that there “are two ways to judge…a stereo system”; who has stated that there are only two ways to judge these systems…it sounds like an opinion and a fallacious one at that; so as we all know, all arguments that are based on erroneous reasoning would lead to erroneous results, but I will overlook that just so I can get in a tussle with you, as I have a few extra minutes on my hands.

Prepare to duel…

Shenanigans, shenanigans, I am calling shenanigans on you Mr. tennis. I think you are well aware that you presented a circular argument that is indefensible.

From past posts, you have described your listening preferences and the sound of your rig to be comparable more to a bad date or a sleeping pill than to a stereo. There is no doubt that you do not like excessive treble energy and you like tubes to sound like tubes, so, hypothetically, if you found the perfect system that fit your description exactly (rolled-off, dull, and boring) and someone came in and listened to it and declared it to be hard, brittle, and bright…who is right? More importantly, who is going to be the judge to say that either person is right or wrong? The microphone…that is how to judge in this situation and that is one of the times measurements could be factored in. If you had it measured and you were exactly right, according to the mic, in that it is rolled-off, dull, and boring, then you are 100% supported in your beliefs and the other guy is incorrect in his assumptions, but the question remains, do these measurements change the opinion of the guy who heard it as bright? The answer is probably not; when it comes to shelling out the “cold hard cash”, most people will go with their gut instinct and the rest of the opinions and/or facts are ignored. Measurements are useful tools to ensure that the intended sound is what it is expected to be…nothing more, nothing less. Let’s compare this situation to a car speedometer, it is intended to tell you the speed you are going, it does not tell you the correct speed to go or what speed the driver enjoys driving at…it is a tool to give accurate information about the speed of the car, as sometimes the senses are misleading and do not support the reality of the situation.

I will go one step more, say we measure this “perfect system” of yours and it measures exactly as you described (rolled-off, dull, and boring) does this measurement imply that the other person would not still hear it/perceive it as “hard, brittle, and bright?” The point being made is that neither position is, or should be, defended, as they are not necessarily exclusive or inclusive, it depends on the “who, where, what, and why” of the evaluation; because measurements alone are useless in the big scheme of things, meaning take a hypothetical situation of a newly designed pair of speakers that measure flat in a chamber…these measurements are published and distributed, then a consumer buys these speakers based solely on the published measurements, they place them in their room, measure them again in their environment, and, oops, the measurements do not look anything similar to the manufacturer’s! So, why would anyone publish measurements knowing that things may measure very differently when placed in situations other than the original measuring environment? Because it gives a glimpse of the capability of performance and a delta for comparison, more than it is a declaration of why to purchase the product. Also, measurements are a good way to get a person interested, but once they go and listen at either a shop or in their own system, it always boils down to what the listener’s impressions and measurements become unimportant.

In essence, the point I am trying to make is that these two perspectives are intertwined; a designer of stereo equipment could not accomplish their design goals if they worked under the assumption that only measurements mattered (equipment based) or that only their idea of good sound mattered (listener based); measurements are extremely crucial in being able to tell compatibility (i.e., sensitivity, amp choice), but it cannot tell you who will buy it or why they will by it or, even, why they would enjoy it and someone else wouldn’t. There is no standardization because the topic is subjective and there is no need for standardization, as it is not a contest, but an opinion-based endeavor on the part of the consumer.

To round out my reply to you, I am calling shenanigans because I think you are trying to slyly find a way to support the fact that you believe systems that are “so called” neutral, transparent, and accurate could only be purchased by tone deaf “sheep” who buy for measurements alone and are using only the measurements as their evaluation criteria without regard to sound; what I am saying is that measurements don’t tell you “enjoyability”, but they also, do not imply that there would be the absence of an engaging, musical sound or that a person who relies only on measurements would not be truly engaged in their equipment or that a system that measures well would not be as warm and emotionally engaging as a system deemed by you to be warm and engaging, which is an assumption that you seem to be functioning under, as you have repeatedly asked others to defend and define neutrality, accuracy, and transparency. From my experience, very few audiophiles have actually taken the time to measure their systems once they are in their own personal environments, meaning TRUE MEASUREMENTS, not the simple Radio Shack meter and a tone disc, but using a calibrated microphone and RTA. In conclusion, I say most people buy from listening and purchase what they find engaging and pleasurable, so the onus is now on you to prove that the majority of audiophiles buy from the perspective of equipment based decisions, even if they find the sound non-engaging and without merit, but love the way it measures in a magazine review, while being completely ignorant of how it measures in their room. So, instead of having the minority opinion demand that the majority opinion prove that it is correct, I am turning the tables and, respectfully, requesting you to show some proof of your very vocal opinions.

Lenny

Mrtennis,

If by equipment-based, you mean evaluating equipment as a physical entity, its reputation, or its cost as opposed to listening to its acoustic output, then I could agree to such a dichotomy. If you mean critical as opposed to ralaxed listening, I could also agree to such a dichotomy. If you mean listening as a physiological/psychological, i.e. perceptual, process as opposed to something else, I think you are mistaken.

My doctoral and post doctoral work was in binaural processing, and I can assure you all hearing is a physiological/psychological perceptual process. Those who blab on about an "emotional" amp are doing just that, blabbing.

The psyhoacoustic correlates of complex perception (as in appreciating a Mozart sonata) are not subject to scientific study.

db

hi lenny. you are discussing another topic.

let me restate my position.

there are two ways to evaluate a stereo system.

first there is the performance of the stereo system itself, whether through use of measurements, or by listening.

the issue here is not what does a stereo system sound like.

the issue is how do you evaluate a stereo system ?

of course, people wwill disagree as to what a stereo system sounds like and will also disagree as to what constitutes sonic excellence.

the other approach is to ask the listener to describe how he/she feels after listening to music played through a stereo system. is there some sense of improvment in mood, lowering of blood pressure, reduction in anger, etc. ?

what are appropriate criteria for evaluating a stereo system.

i have observed several answers from asute individuals, but i suspect that there is no definitive answer to this question.

if that is so, i would hope that people would be open minded an accept many ideas as to what constitutes a high quality stereo system other than the concept of neutrality, accuracy, transparency, lack of coloration, etc.

by the way, just for the record, my own preference for a reduction in treble energy has nothing to do with the quality of a stereo system. it is my own idiosyncratic taste.

this is another philosophical question whose purpose was to stimulate a discussion and provide an impetus to change attitudes about what constitutes good sound.

Mrtennis, why do you want to "change attitudes about what constitutes good sound"? Have these so-called "attitudes" kept you from enjoying your good sounding stereo?
I think that Lloyd has it right.
Bob P,.

mrtennis, you've have to too much time on your hands. How 'bout trying to pick fly shit out of pepper wearing boxing gloves? Start with white pepper if you're having trouble.
:)