This is a continuation of a thread that went tangential, but @savvypaul asked some questions and I felt best to answer on a new thread.
I don't believe it's an academic exercise. If one has some distortion that creates a bass hump that is nice on the initially tested tracks, will it sound nice on every track, such as those already bass heavy? And vice versa. Also, who listens to a live performance and thinks, that needed more bass, or more midrange, creates kit to do the same and then think it applies equally well to all things other than that live performance? If a system tunes for one set of characteristics, it will no doubt seem preferable in some areas to others, but then equally, the owner may end up listening to the subset of music that 'works' on such a system and avoid other music because it sounds 'bad' or 'wrong' and may be blaming the music over the system in this example. So, no, it's not an academic exercise, it's to portray a recording as it was intended by the studio engineer. If that was a good recording and sounded real, the recording if played back faithfully should sound real. Nothing added, nothing taken away.
RE: how do you measure how much you enjoy your music?
Well, as said on the original thread, reproduction is a physical/electronic phenomena and enjoyment of sound is psychological. However, I personally find that if one's music tastes broaden on a system change and formerly unlistenable music becomes enjoyable, while formerly excellent music remains so, then it's probably going in the right direction. Of course, one can compare in-room recording with the signal, and scale it, to see if things are moving closer to the original, but that's not a requirement by any means.
RE: is not flat a distortion? what about BBC speaker dip/hump?
I think speaker designers consider it an incorrect response rather than a distortion, but excess or too little bass relative to the original performance is effectively (in my view) a distortion. Same with phase-shifted speaker responses. So I'd say the same about the BBC speaker dip/hump. But I know many people like it. It probably allows the vocal to be more set back than it would otherwise, so those with perhaps forward speakers, do not feel as if the vocalist is in their personal space
Separately things you might have wanted to ask...
Do I think everything should be measured?
No, but it helps if you can do what you can be faffed with to replace guessing accuracy with measuring it. Using REW to generate convolution filters that account for speaker and room anomalies and give an overall response more in line with the Harman Curver, seems to pay dividends in my experience.
So when do I think measurements are necessary?
Simply when somebody experiences something that current science says should not be so. When microphones are more sensitive than the human ear, they can pick up every little vibration we only 'think' was there. Since we experience differences as a psychological effect when we tweak something, try a power lead, an interconnect, a speaker cable, a network switch, a different DDC, it seems prudent to check that instrumentation more sensitve than our own does actually confirm or deny what we think we hear.
Do I use specs to buy equipment?
I somewhat used to, and now definitely do. Not because I am all about measurements, but because where in the past I would have compared similar measuring equipment for preference on a demo, I now live alone with a dog, and so getting to a demo in a shop requires getting a dog-sitter at cost. No shop will put something in my home unless they meet me and verify me first, so any outing to a hifi store means I have to try and make concrete arrangements for my dog.
As a result, I now use specs for things like DACs, and amps. My older system of Chord Hugo DAC, Modwright LS36.5 and Pass Labs X250 amp have been replaced by experimentation with buying 'transparent' kit via specs. The Pass Labs X250 is too expensive to run while I work from home all day, so I went Class D and got Purifi-based monoblocks.
The Purifi monoblocks reportedly give best measured performance in low gain mode, and the docs say that requires a preamp that can output 10Vrms or more. So I bought a Benchmark LA4 on the basis it measures in the same ballpark and is about as 'clean' spec-wise as it's possible to get.
DAC wise, I still have a makeshift SMSL M500 Mk1, which reportedly measures better than the Chord Hugo I had. So waht about the results?
First, I thought the system sounded brighter, but over time, it improved and when I stick either my old preamp or power amp in the system, I can immediately hear the distortion I never noticed before starting this experiment. Sure, the Pass Labs at least still sounds 'huge', but the effects are pretty much gone once adjusting for the different gain. The Pass has plenty of 2nd harmonic and I thought this was an amp I'd never get rid of as I found it more enjoyable than all sorts of esoterica I heard elsewhere. But now, I find it lacks the incisiveness or bass impact of the Purifi monoblocks once level-matched. There is more 'texture' to my ears than the Pass gave.
The same is true when I slot in the Modwright, which is valve based. I enjoy the sound, but there is a euphony I didn't notice before and it can sometimes harden or blur in ways that don't seem right to my ears.
As for the DAC... well, cannot say I notice too much difference at all with that, but I don't have the Hugo to swap to for a direct comparison.
What now?
I'd like objectively better speakers. The thing is, given all speaker designs are a trade-off, some better my WIlson Benesch on things like smooth response or directivity, while the WB seem to always win with resolution, refinement, bass texture and indeed measured bass distortion. So not sure what will ultimately replace them as I doubt I can afford what probably is better all round.
I won't be going back to the old system, even if energy prices plummet. The aim to seem what 'transparent' kit brought was illuminating for me, and demonstrated to me how a cheaper system can better more expensive stalwart brands that somewhat trade on brand cache.
@savvypaul So what are your thoughts on these topics?
RE: if equipment shoud be accurate? Why, what purpose etc...Interesting post. Thanks. I'm afraid I won't read the ASR link, and all my books by Floyd are about cooking, but I am interested in your own views.
If the point of the equipment is accuracy to the recording, what would you say is the point of accuracy to the recording? Beyond the the obvious answer, what outcome is that accuracy for, why is it sought-after? Is the purpose of that accuracy to enable us enjoy music to the maximum possible degree, or is it an academic exercise (I don't mean that last bit in any pejorative sense)? If it's the former, how do you measure how much you enjoy your music?
I generally seem to like (what is considered to be) accuracy, and I definitely want all the information that I can get, but I have liked some pieces of equipment (usually speakers) that would be considered 'not flat'. Is that a distortion, or is it a minor and intentional deviation from a flat response in order to increase musical enjoyment within a domestic environment? Is the BBC speaker dip / hump a distortion?
I don't believe it's an academic exercise. If one has some distortion that creates a bass hump that is nice on the initially tested tracks, will it sound nice on every track, such as those already bass heavy? And vice versa. Also, who listens to a live performance and thinks, that needed more bass, or more midrange, creates kit to do the same and then think it applies equally well to all things other than that live performance? If a system tunes for one set of characteristics, it will no doubt seem preferable in some areas to others, but then equally, the owner may end up listening to the subset of music that 'works' on such a system and avoid other music because it sounds 'bad' or 'wrong' and may be blaming the music over the system in this example. So, no, it's not an academic exercise, it's to portray a recording as it was intended by the studio engineer. If that was a good recording and sounded real, the recording if played back faithfully should sound real. Nothing added, nothing taken away.
RE: how do you measure how much you enjoy your music?
Well, as said on the original thread, reproduction is a physical/electronic phenomena and enjoyment of sound is psychological. However, I personally find that if one's music tastes broaden on a system change and formerly unlistenable music becomes enjoyable, while formerly excellent music remains so, then it's probably going in the right direction. Of course, one can compare in-room recording with the signal, and scale it, to see if things are moving closer to the original, but that's not a requirement by any means.
RE: is not flat a distortion? what about BBC speaker dip/hump?
I think speaker designers consider it an incorrect response rather than a distortion, but excess or too little bass relative to the original performance is effectively (in my view) a distortion. Same with phase-shifted speaker responses. So I'd say the same about the BBC speaker dip/hump. But I know many people like it. It probably allows the vocal to be more set back than it would otherwise, so those with perhaps forward speakers, do not feel as if the vocalist is in their personal space
Separately things you might have wanted to ask...
Do I think everything should be measured?
No, but it helps if you can do what you can be faffed with to replace guessing accuracy with measuring it. Using REW to generate convolution filters that account for speaker and room anomalies and give an overall response more in line with the Harman Curver, seems to pay dividends in my experience.
So when do I think measurements are necessary?
Simply when somebody experiences something that current science says should not be so. When microphones are more sensitive than the human ear, they can pick up every little vibration we only 'think' was there. Since we experience differences as a psychological effect when we tweak something, try a power lead, an interconnect, a speaker cable, a network switch, a different DDC, it seems prudent to check that instrumentation more sensitve than our own does actually confirm or deny what we think we hear.
Do I use specs to buy equipment?
I somewhat used to, and now definitely do. Not because I am all about measurements, but because where in the past I would have compared similar measuring equipment for preference on a demo, I now live alone with a dog, and so getting to a demo in a shop requires getting a dog-sitter at cost. No shop will put something in my home unless they meet me and verify me first, so any outing to a hifi store means I have to try and make concrete arrangements for my dog.
As a result, I now use specs for things like DACs, and amps. My older system of Chord Hugo DAC, Modwright LS36.5 and Pass Labs X250 amp have been replaced by experimentation with buying 'transparent' kit via specs. The Pass Labs X250 is too expensive to run while I work from home all day, so I went Class D and got Purifi-based monoblocks.
The Purifi monoblocks reportedly give best measured performance in low gain mode, and the docs say that requires a preamp that can output 10Vrms or more. So I bought a Benchmark LA4 on the basis it measures in the same ballpark and is about as 'clean' spec-wise as it's possible to get.
DAC wise, I still have a makeshift SMSL M500 Mk1, which reportedly measures better than the Chord Hugo I had. So waht about the results?
First, I thought the system sounded brighter, but over time, it improved and when I stick either my old preamp or power amp in the system, I can immediately hear the distortion I never noticed before starting this experiment. Sure, the Pass Labs at least still sounds 'huge', but the effects are pretty much gone once adjusting for the different gain. The Pass has plenty of 2nd harmonic and I thought this was an amp I'd never get rid of as I found it more enjoyable than all sorts of esoterica I heard elsewhere. But now, I find it lacks the incisiveness or bass impact of the Purifi monoblocks once level-matched. There is more 'texture' to my ears than the Pass gave.
The same is true when I slot in the Modwright, which is valve based. I enjoy the sound, but there is a euphony I didn't notice before and it can sometimes harden or blur in ways that don't seem right to my ears.
As for the DAC... well, cannot say I notice too much difference at all with that, but I don't have the Hugo to swap to for a direct comparison.
What now?
I'd like objectively better speakers. The thing is, given all speaker designs are a trade-off, some better my WIlson Benesch on things like smooth response or directivity, while the WB seem to always win with resolution, refinement, bass texture and indeed measured bass distortion. So not sure what will ultimately replace them as I doubt I can afford what probably is better all round.
I won't be going back to the old system, even if energy prices plummet. The aim to seem what 'transparent' kit brought was illuminating for me, and demonstrated to me how a cheaper system can better more expensive stalwart brands that somewhat trade on brand cache.
@savvypaul So what are your thoughts on these topics?