Apr 6th, 2016
So now, onto a most delicate subject: the psychology of hearing. Keep in mind that I have been speaking to customers for the past 25 years. All the way back to cassette decks, reel to reels, turntables, CD and DVD players, to modern computer recording systems. I think there is a tremendous ambiguity to the question 'what truly is the best sound?' What is the standard reference playback device? Who has the book on real controlled listening experimentation to guarantee comparable, consistently repeatable opinion? Well I can't find much in the consumer realm, but I do see a few extraordinary clues.
It's ironic, there have been many days when a customer calls complaining about poor sound quality in a particular CD player, then later, another fellow walks in, wants the same CD player fixed, and claims this model has the best sound out of any he has ever owned. Honestly . . . same day. Two educated adults with a love of music, who have used hi-fi equipment for 10 to 15 years. Both own good quality amplifiers, maybe one has a Rotel, the other an Adcom, both have decent turntables and, in my opinion, acceptable speakers – maybe KEF, B&W, Theils, Paradigm, Definitive, etc. Most importantly, both listen to a wide range of music, from vintage rock vinyl to modern popular music. But both claim sincerely that this CD player is the best or the worst they've ever heard, the irony being the CD player requiring service was claimed to be excellent until it recently started skipping. I ask many questions, like Socrates, always pursuing the reasons behind ambiguity.
Over the last 25 years I have acquired some interesting observations. After inquiring about where speakers are positioned in the room, the typical listening distance, and when in the day people listen (morning vs. night), I admittedly do pry to find out what this person does for business and a little about his person and spiritual self. Mind you, I am not going toward any religious agenda, just the music lover's philosophy about life. Obviously, if they listen to everything from Madonna to the Beatles to Beethoven, I get very interested in their opinion. Indeed, what stands out, is that people who listen late at night, fairly close to decent speakers are more critical. But people who listen in the morning claim the equipment can sound harsh before it warms up. Listeners who drink coffee or smoke cigarettes will also claim equipment needs to warm up to sound good. In fact, it takes about 10 to 15 minutes for their blood pressure to settle. Daytime listeners prefer “warmer” sounding speakers, but used at a near field (4 to 6 feet away). Brighter, more detailed speakers are preferred for evening listening. Ears are more fatigued from the days noise, your mind is a little tired, etc. “Bright” speakers might give an impression of more detail being displayed.
These are some generalizations, but what is valid are statistics which fit much psycho acoustic testing, quantified and documented in technical journals like the AES and older audio magazines. What is understood is that human hearing is more sensitive right when you wake up, your mind is relaxed, auditory nerves are rested, etc. Music will sound brighter, sometimes harsh conversely. Coffee, cigarettes, even a heavy meal can raise blood pressure and cause a dulling of auditory sense. Music will sound dull, lifeless, sometimes fuzzy. This is just one aspect that can affect criticism of music reproduction devices. Other important factors to consider, well known to any acoustician, are your speaker positioning in a room, the physical environment, and any destructive influences present that disrupt the speakers' ability to create an accurate sound field. Even having an extra person in the room can cause slight bass response deviations by absorbing certain mid-bass frequencies. The list could go on. Are those electrons swimming in the right direction? Is the speaker wire too close to the wall? Does your amplifier have a metal brick on it? I’ve heard it all.
What is apparent is very few people truly have controlled situations to repeatedly judge sound quality effects, especially when comparing components. No doubt good equipment sounds better than high distortion in preamps, poor dispersion speakers and worn out phono styli. But no, I've met people who were convinced their tube amp with a bad output tube and worn stylus sounded great, and I have done a repair which has ruined their lives. Three days later, they call me to tell me they bought new speaker cables for $140 and everything is now better than ever. I'm griping because the customer was initially worried about spending $120 to fix his beloved unit, but has now dropped serious paper out of his wallet for wire equivalent to a big lamp cord. Should I argue? Hell yeah! But that is another story. Here I am, 25 years passionately in this audio business, and I apparently know jack about wire!? Where is my Russian Roulette revolver?
I segued to the “better” speaker wire because, indeed, most people are convinced that this will improve fidelity when installed. For serious minded BSEE, to qualify this myth is close to UFO phenomenon – it needs to be studied, not because of absolute scientific merit, but because of market psychology and other more subtle electronic phenomena. I am personally convinced by my own experience that simple cleaning up and tightening of all connections, especially speaker connections, which are notorious for loosening, oxidization, etc. due to AC audio power going through these fitted connections, will indeed fix some fussy sound effects (freshening up connectors does solve the problem). I see it all the time with speaker relay, switches, etc. which are noisy. What is ridiculous is some people's reluctance to do proper maintenance of their hi-fi equipment, and their willingness to hand over mucho dinero to the well dressed salesman, who already knows you will be easily convinced to buy special wire because it is the conventionally accepted concept. It will be easier for most people to believe a well-marketed conventional myth than to accept an out of fashion, unorthodox fact concerning CD play. The fact is that spindle motors and transports create more “jitter” than any clock or DAC by 100 fold, but people still spend ridiculous money on outboard DACs. The crucial caveat, the salesman can't take apart your CD player, fix the motor, and calibrate it. He doesn't know jack about jitter or DACs or motors or laser heads or acoustic physics or remember his social security number. If the price of your hi-fi equipment looks like his social security number, then he wins, you lose. I've seen and heard a $150 CD player operate and possibly sound “better” than a $4000 player. Remember, I've seen and heard them both, have you!
To belabor the point further, I'll mention some interesting documented listening testing. These articles were mostly in the AES journals during the late 1980s to mid 1990s and I will condense the matter down to the crucial facts and the ultimate realization about which quite a few electronic scholars wrote. “What were people hearing as differences in various CD players?” was the initial question, or what is audible if any distinguishable sonic phenomenon between various units. Admittedly, the discussion was mostly about CD players made in this era, but the same, if not a worse controversy raged back then about the sonic qualities of CD audio reproduction. Today there are more add-on converters which could theoretically be of higher sonic quality, but people have positive and negative comments about these, too! So again, what are people hearing? First off, most listening testing was done by panels of golden ears, sometimes 5-10 of these people with a few “regular” people mixed in. I portend a strange twist in this story. Stay tuned! Listeners were asked which CD players sounded “better” on a stereo system of excellent quality, top name ,very much accepted as audiophile level monitors, amps, and preamps. The rooms were carefully laid out with the best theoretical placement of speakers and listeners were typically asked to relax, pick some of their favorite CDs or try pre-made test CDs, in some cases recorded with special distortions of audio on them (more about this later). Listeners were allowed to come back in some testing set-ups 2 or 3 times to accumulate more statistics. The listeners were given an option to have their names put in print, but only at the beginning of the experiment, not at the end when the results would show who could discern audible differences. Either put up or shut up, I guess. Well, as I recall, in these reports virtually none of the golden ears and only a few of the “regular” people put their names up in the cold light of science, enough said. Remember, many of these listeners were writers for magazines both here and in Europe. The results were as I expected. In some ways, it would be difficult for anyone to judge obvious differences because the listeners had a new room, possibly different speakers to contend with, and, most importantly, the controlling set up of requiring each listener to audition 3 CD players they were not necessarily familiar with. In ABX testing, can you tell A from B, or either of these from X (a third unknown or possibly A or B switched on again). Incredibly, most of the listeners could not distinguish anything consistently. In fact, statistics showed that most listeners missed being able to recognize any particular CD model with any certainty by less than chance! In other words, flip a coin and you've got a 50% chance of getting it right, well after maybe 10 to 20 auditions, most hit at 10 to 20%. Wow! Hmmm. The few people who did get better than 50% were a housewife, a few “regular” people, and one or two of the audiophiles. Now, admittedly, I am condensing down a number of articles and making some loose numbers, but the important point is coming. What, indeed, did these people hear? A few articles dove into the phenomenon of listeners' acuity and ability to hear the subtle frequency response deviations or volume level matching of certain CD players. Indeed, here lay a clue. Most listeners who could target specific CD players repeatedly simply claimed that said device was brighter, darker, etc., but seldom any comments about better imaging or definition - although the low percentage of golden ears occasionally made the claim. When researchers went back to check calibrations of CD players, they often found that unit's frequency response levels might be off by as little as 1/10 of a Db(decibel) rise or fall in the low, middle, or top frequencies. Indeed, the investigators' realization was that human hearing in some cases was sensitive enough to hear elevations in frequency response or level matching between units which is very subtle, but is it truly important?
I personally believe this, too, as I have often been fooled at the test bench. When I hear a CD player which is slightly louder by a small Db range, indeed a unit can sound more detailed if the analog output filters have a slight rise in frequency response, or more robust if there was a slight but measurable bass response rise. I believed I could hear a slightly better sense of ambiance depth or clarity in some units, too. This should leave the door open for your opinion, yes? So, only a few people could hear the differences and ironically it was seldom a professional/qualified person (someone who critiques in magazines?) who could consistently recognize a “better” sound. I should stop, but wait, there is more! As time went on, more experiments were done, but the most notable is going to show you even more bizarre results. Indeed, it will lead to expose designs which are better, both technically and audibly.
This gets a little complicated, so I will try to write simplistically. Bear in mind these original report papers in AES were 5 to 10 pages long! With many prefaces to explain set up and control of mitigating factors, such as who, what, where, when and which could affect listeners' capabilities. Here we go. I will attempt to find this original article and give the AES volume number on this one later. I'll dig it up because I might be a little vague on the facts, but I remember the outcome. Test CDs were made at different facilities throughout the world, although at the time the Sony 1620(?) digital mastering processor to make CDs with was widely in use. So the same mastering unit was used, but I will skip to endgame fast. Indeed, in this situation, people could hear differences in the same music CDs even in the same machine! OK, now we are getting somewhere, but the statistic wasn't overwhelming and, sure enough, the golden ears didn't do well here, either. To be fair, the few who could discern a difference could recognize a particular disc with some certainty. Ironically, it appears that the “regular” guy did better at recognizing certain discs which had a slightly distorted character. Researchers noticed those people, in fact, were either musically inclined (played one or more instruments), or were avid listeners of all kinds of formats: tape, vinyl, CD, etc. But, as I recall, almost nobody claimed extraordinary audio effects, but they did claim some CDs sounded “better”. Remember, everyone is listening to the same CD player. In this case, now listeners were claiming better imaging or clarity. The testers were now certain such phenomenon had to do with audio re-correcting being processed differently before it went to master. Sure enough, when they looked at the mastering facilities' equipment, there was enough variety to create such sonic differences. One facility might use an analog equalizer, another a digital computer version. One place added a tiny bit of compression, another didn't. Moreover, original master tapes or CD masters sent to them had to be played back from some machine into the whole process. So obviously the sound engineer tweaked the music a little, creating these assessable sonic differences. Sounds logical to me. Something I've said all along. It's all about who made the music and who put it into its recorded form. This makes the obvious improvements or troubles. And, finally, the most bizarre twist – Glad you stayed tuned, you will love this one.
Also in the AES was a fascinating report on the audibility of controlled specific distortions put into the CD recordings. Technology is such that some processors (both analog and digital) can actually be calibrated to induce certain forms of audio distortion into the recording. I'll elaborate on one particular situation where incremental levels of basic THD (which is distortion of fundamental audio signal sine waves being altered to have additional 2nd and 3rd order harmonics blended in) has been added. Many of these distortions occur naturally in music, but here they are being enhanced over the complete audio spectrum. As a general rule such distortions, depending upon the amount created, will blur the original in some way. However, the test results prove that small amounts of 2nd harmonic (about 0.5 to 2%) can be pleasing, and 3rd harmonic should be perceived as strident and causing audio to become slightly scratchy in character. Then again, it's a matter of taste at the user's end. More about this soon.
The bottom line was the audiophile golden ear types would typically take a few minutes of listening and comparison to realize the distorted disc and, in many cases, never noticed distorted discs until as much as 3 to 10% distortion was added! I say wow! Few listeners, amateur or pro, could almost immediately recognize small amounts of distortion for what it is, whereas many audiophiles thought the distorted discs were “better”! OK, read it again. What's happening here!?!? Obviously, having a little harmonic distortion to warm up the music is preferable by the golden ear and, indeed, we see so many writers praise tube amplifiers which create similar distortion. In today's market that's a big statement, pay attention, please. Aside of making a case for tube amps sounding “better”, these pundits possibly prefer distorted audio. Wow! I've made the same observation in my experience as a shop owner. Is a poorer spec, distorted product “better”? In some ways, yes. Specifically, in the article they noticed that classical music could allow high levels of distortion, while rock and roll almost always preferred a little but not much more. Something like that. If some of my past customers look back and remember, I kept saying, “Be sure to separate what you think is “better” from what is pure and true and accurate and honestly will not alter the existing program material.”
I quickly segue now into today's market with a few observations. Why is it that people search for the most accurate, euphonic CD player and then amplify it with some distorted tube amp? What is the point of having .001 distortion from a CD player and 3% from any tube amp? Someone tell me please. Actually, I already know, as I have owned and operated such equipment. The point is because it sounds better! No, just kidding! No doubt there are strange combinations of amps and speakers and program material (notice I left out the CD player and preamp) that sound just right. The caveat here is these stereo systems are extremely limited in that only certain music, the way it was produced, will sound right for certain personal taste. How often I've met an audiophile hiking from showroom to showroom wanting to play his/her favorite CD trying to find that special sound and searching for nirvana at any price. Maybe the $200 thing does what the $2000 thing doesn't, but they won't give it any credit. Too many listeners presume such sound quality must come from some expensive, esoteric name brand, backed by a patronizing smile and glowing adjectives. If I demonstrate a simple equalizer (which adds totally negligible distortion, please) to fix the tonal balance of the program, they usually come to realize, if they have an open mind and a little time to educate, how powerful such a device can be. For many people, it isn't some esoteric, expensive looking simple box that will be totally easy to use and not require any real education as to why it works. That will not be acceptable. People want the magic bullet. Some products reviewed and acclaimed by the audiophile press (remember the ones who can't tell CD players apart and prefer distortion in their music) and wrapped up with a bow tie at the right price. I ask, is this really the answer? Don't get me wrong, many audio circuit designs have improved to the point where processing the audio is as clean as a whistle, and I say great. But I tell people to choose a product because of their needs of functions, how many ins and outs, tone controls, better phono preamp (oops!) and don't be afraid to buy on style and appearance. We have to live with our choices (not be in love with our choices) and a unit that is comfortable to use is important.
So what is my point? Three things. Keep an open mind if a reasonable voice (where are they?) explains the technology for what it is or is not. Hey, maybe your natural instincts to smell bullshit should come into play here. Second is a realization that most manufacturers stink at supporting their product; investigate before buying that $1000 CD player that will be pushing up daisies two years from now. Third, respect the person who is being transparent about all matters. What bugs me personally is I often explain all the details and get asked the same question at the top of the list again. Sometimes by the third time explaining the same thing, I get impatient. It's not my fault electronic technology is too complicated to explain in 15 minutes. It took me 25 years to learn it. I keep an open mind, I have learned new things every day. I only get paid when I fix things in a few hours of labor time, but the unit design took a year of dozens of engineers' work to create. I need to know a lot of what they know. To be honest, if old school thinking was prevalent (where a true understanding of technology and it’s limitations exist), in that shops serviced and truly made honest recommendations of value and usefulness when selling equipment, then certainly a great deal of this equipment would not even be considered acceptable for resale. The moral is, buy an equalizer, learn to use it. Have the realization, that recorded music severely limited by the studio’s production quality, can be somewhat improved easily or tweaked to your personal taste. A good EQ is a small investment with tremendous return. You will never buy expensive equipment again. The problems of audio fidelity are in a great part due to the existing limitations of the format, holding the info and someone's opinion of what sounded good to them in a studio. Who knows what monitor speaker they used to mix down the audio? Who knows what mastering device was used, or where, or when? Taste and perceptions change and so do the scams. I hate to leave you like this, but I'll say it again, I've seen a $150 CD player perform better than a $4000 CD player. If I am rubbed out than you know I told you the truth.