Is the appeal to euphonic distortion learned?


Hi everyone,

I have been thinking a little bit about the idea of euphonic distortion. The idea that we can make an amplifier or preamplifier sound better by not being so absolutely true to the input. The common story is that by adding 2nd order harmonics the music sounds more pleasant to more people. Certainly Pass has written a great deal, and with more nuance and detail about this and makes no bones about his desire to make a good sounding, rather than well measuring product.

Lets keep this simple description of euphonic distortion for the sake of argument, or we’ll devolve into a definition game.

I’m wondering whether it is possible that this is in large part learned? For instance, if I grew up with non-euphonic amps and then was exposed to an amp with high amounts of 2nd order distortion would I like it? Is the appeal here one which you have to have learned to like? Like black coffee through a French press?

And this discussion is of course in line with my thoughts about the ear/brain learning process. That there are no absolute’s in music reproduction because we keep re-training our ears. We keep adjusting what we listen to and ultimately at some point have to decide whether the discrimination between gear makes us happier or not. (Go ahead writers, steal this topic and don't mention me again, I know who you are).
erik_squires
There are real instruments 🎹. They can be heard at live concerts (currently excluded).  There are hi fi systems that can make you feel like you’re listening to such an event in your home.  A lot of high end approved gear sounds like your listening to the players in an anechoic chamber.    Use your ears 👂. Talk to someone who has experienced the high end journey from the 60’s till today.  Call Steve at Decware...you will learn much and be happier for it!
A lot of high end approved gear sounds like your listening to the players in an anechoic chamber.
Many people really think that the sound coming from a 100,000 speakers is ALWAYS better than a 1000 dollars one....They trust the price not the room and not their ears, and there is NO musicians in this group and thread....Musicians dont buy audio product because they are the more high cost....


Give any speakers to a skilled acoustician, it will make one sound bad the other heavenly, with no regard to their price.....

But understand me right, a 100,000 bucks pair of speakers is probably better designed than a 1000 bucks one.... But the key factor that will distinguish them could be and is often the room controls....

By the way the human hearing faculties are way less more deceptive that "skeptic sunday scientist" says they are... Reason is simple, evolution.... recognizing timbre voice speech and the source of sounds is vital tool for survival.... The first sense to be born is hearing, the baby listen his mother voice, and in coma and death you can speak with people, it is the last sense organ to go.... The ears and hearing faculty in men can learn a lot and increase in experience, in musicians for example, way more than the eyes could be trained themselves... The reason is that in sounds experience, content and meaning are very important factors which ask constant  translation and interpretation....

Then yes the ears can be deceived, but not so easily than said by the obsessive blind test group of skeptic scout pretending  it ....






Skinny Puppy - Amnesia

Great song. Plenty of distorted bass. If you like this kind of distortion, get a nice tube amp.
There is never any accounting for personal preferences.  Anything is possible.
A lot of high end approved gear sounds like your listening to the players in an anechoic chamber.


I had this happen to me at Goodwin's High End.  They were nice enough to let me listen to Avalon Acoustics all ceramic speakers with Spectral gear.