fbpx

Tag Archives: Sound Quality

World News

Philosophical Notes: Are Audiophiles Crazy?

Posted on by Tom Martin

This blog is on theabsolutesound.com, and I’m an audiophile, so the answer to the title question, at least in my view, is obviously “no”. Or “No!” That’s not the interesting response to the question.

I think one interesting part (there are several IMHO) is a partial explanation for why audiophiles do what they do. Audiophiles spend a lot of time “obsessing”, or we might say “working on” in more neutral language, getting audio systems to sound more like real music (a.k.a. The Absolute Sound). At one level, I think we should say that working hard on something of value seems like an admirable program to follow. You just don’t often hear parents say “I want my kids to be slackers, with no direction in life”.

In addition, some of the critique of audiophiles seems to revolve around their (our) focus on getting better, more accurate sound. That critique seems weird and misguided too, given that a lot of people really like music and a similarly very large number of people seem to think it is admirable for, say, Bill Belichick (head coach of the New England Patriots football team) to spend decades and decades of his life trying to make a football team better than other football teams. Of course, Belichick is handsomely paid for his efforts, but then we don’t say that embezzlers are good people because they get rich but Mother Teresa is despicable because she earned very little in cash.

Then there is the view that spending large sums of money on hi-fi equipment makes no sense because the return on investment is poor. This view, when held by friends, is often similar to the view of friends who “hate Thai food” but upon questioning admit that they haven’t eaten any. A similar view comes from logic like “$100,000 for a stereo?! That’s crazy, I could buy a car for that!” Which, given the minimal functional differences between $100,000 and $50,000 cars, might be understood as “if I’m going to spend money, it has to be to show off to others how rich I am, not to deliver intrinsic value.” Okay, I guess, but not really. And for people who view spending $100,000 on anything as nuts, I must mention your house. Where I live, which is in a mid-priced housing market, an extra 1000 sq. ft. costs about $300,000. And lots of people buy 4000 sq. ft. houses instead of 3000 sq. ft houses. So, who is nuts? It isn’t super obvious, really. We’re back to “people just aren’t that logical”.

Okay, so people aren’t consistent in their value judgements. And they are socially influenced more than logically influenced. So, my view would be that we can safely ignore what friends and The New York Times say about audiophiles.

But there is a “killed by friendly fire” element to audiophilia that deserves some added exposition. Robert Harley’s recent Editor’s Letter touched on this, but I want to expand on it. Audiophiles seem confused about the prices of some gear these days. I’ve previously highlighted the uninformed pronouncements of audiophiles who “know” what products cost and “know” that expensive gear is a rip-off. I want to highlight two other elements of misunderstanding. Let me illustrate with this fabricated graph:

I think this illustrates how many people think about the value of audio gear. The chart shows system price on the bottom (X) axis and on the left (Y) axis it shows Quantitative Factor Quality. QFQ is a term I’ve invented for the elements of a hi-fi system than can be readily counted, like number of drivers, size of speaker, size of speaker drivers, amplifier power, MIPS of DSP processing, word length of DAC processing, diameter of cables, number of subwoofers, etc. The graph proposes that you can get about 80% of the maximum QFQ by spending up to around $20,000 and after that QFQ doesn’t go up much. And after about $50,000 system price, it barely rises at all.

Since there is no relationship I know of that linearly relates QFQ to sound quality and realism, the argument that spending on the flat part of the curve is stupid is similar to the argument about investing in expensive cars rather than expensive stereos. I just don’t buy it as relevant to what we should care about as music lovers.

I think a more useful way to understand the audio world is this:

This fabricated graph shows how realism changes with system price. As with the QFQ graph, you gain a lot going from $0 to $20,000 or so. As you progress, you add valuable qualitative elements like lower distortion, wider frequency range, dynamic capability, smoother polar radiation, etc. These are important because they affect the realism and your experience of listening to music, not because anyone in your social circle has any idea of these qualities in the abstract.

But notice a few differences from the QFQ graph. First is that at $20k, we’re only about 40% up the Y axis on the way to high realism, whereas we’re more like 80% up the QFQ axis. I think this means that audiophiles who seek to go beyond this spending level are searching for something real and attainable.

A problem illustrated here is that going above the $20k level means it takes more financial work to gain sound quality or realism. People on a budget might reasonably stop at about this spending level (or lower). But given how wonderful music is, it doesn’t seem insane to keeping pushing if you can. And, there is a certain pleasure and disciplinary benefit and intellectual challenge to moving up the flatter part of the curve. One reason I think some people view work on system refinement on the flat (middle) part of the curve as crazy is that progress isn’t guaranteed. You can spend more and get worse results. You have to then refine you understanding of how systems work to make positive progress. A lot of life is like that.

The other interesting thing about the chart is that the gains per dollar accelerate (or can accelerate) again at very high prices. This isn’t automatic, but it is possible. There is a certain point, in my experience, where a lot of the obvious distortions have been reduced and now each subsequent distortion reduction is more audible and more musically consequential. This helps explain why so many reviewers and dedicated audiophiles and OEMs are so fascinated with the “exotic” end of the spectrum. They’ve heard what can happen and it is beautiful.

Wanting to experience what artists had in mind seems like the opposite of crazy.

The post Philosophical Notes: Are Audiophiles Crazy? appeared first on The Absolute Sound.

World News

Factors that Influence Listeners’ Preferred Bass and Treble Levels in Headphones

Posted on by Dr. Sean Olive

Most people would agree that headphone purchase decisions are heavily influenced by the brand and styling (size,  weight, color, quality of  materials).   But what is considered stylish and fashionable  by me is not shared by my 15-year old daughter (this week donning purple hair), and vice versa. In other words, the perceived visual aesthetic  of the headphone  is really in the the eyes and mind of the beholder, and this can vary with age, gender, culture, and other demographic category. 

But what about sound quality?  To what extent does the consumer’s  age, gender, culture and prior listening experience influence their taste in headphone sound quality?  Is there a scientific basis for headphone manufacturers to design headphones that have different amounts of bass and treble aimed to satisfy the tastes of a targeted demographic group? 

To answer this question, we recently conducted a  study on factors that influence listeners’ preferred bass and treble balance in headphone sound reproduction. Using a method of adjustment a total of 249 listeners adjusted the relative treble and bass levels of a headphone that was first equalized at the eardrum reference point (DRP) to match the in-room steady-state response of a reference loudspeaker in a reference listening room. Listeners repeated the adjustment five times using three stereo music programs. The listeners included males and females from different age groups, listening experiences, and nationalities (Canada, USA, Germany and China).  The results provide evidence that the preferred bass and treble balances in headphones was influenced by several factors including program, and the listeners’ age, gender, and prior listening experience. The younger and less experienced listeners on average preferred more bass and treble in their headphones compared to the older, more experienced listeners. Female listeners on average preferred about 1 dB bass and 2 dB treble than their male counterparts. Listeners over 55 years preferred less bass and more treble than the younger listeners suggested that they were compensating for possible hearing loss that is associated with increased age.


We recently presented the results of this study at the 139th Audio Engineering Society Convention in New York City, October 29th-November 1, 2015. The paper is available for download in AES e-library. A PDF copy of the presentation can be found here. Or you can view an animated version of the presentation on Youtube.

World News

My Article on Headphone Sound Quality in 2014 LIS

Posted on by Dr. Sean Olive

The 2014 Loudspeaker Industry Sourcebook came out this week. In it, you can find an article I wrote called “Perceiving and Measuring Headphone Sound Quality: Do Listeners Agree on What Makes a Headphone Sound Good?”

The article is a summary of some recent published research we’ve conducted at Harman on the perception and measurement of headphone sound quality.

Together, these studies provide scientific evidence that when headphone brand, price, fashion, and celebrity endorsement are removed subjective evaluations, listeners generally agree on what makes a headphone sound good.

So far, this has been true regardless of users’ listening training, age, or culture.  The more preferred headphones tend to have a smooth, extended frequency response that approximates an accurate loudspeaker’s in-room response. This new target frequency response could provide the basis for a new and improved headphone target response. You can find more details on the research here.

World News

The Science and Marketing of Sound Quality

Posted on by Dr. Sean Olive

To my surprise, this morning an audio friend tweeted a link to an article I recently wrote for our company’s  internal newsletter  entitled, “The Science and Marketing of Sound Quality.”  My article can be found on a new Harman Innovation website  launched today that features articles on current and future disruptive technology that will impact consumers’ infotainment experiences. Check it out.

My article focuses on a longstanding pet peeve of mine (first mentioned in this blog posting): The lack of  perceptually meaningful loudspeaker and headphone specifications in our industry.  While consumer surveys repeatedly report sound quality to be a driving factor in their audio equipment purchases, consumers lack the necessary tools and information to identify the good sounding products from the duds.

This is particularly true for loudspeakers and headphones where the typical throw-away “10 Hz to 40 kHz” specification provided by the manufacturer is utterly useless. This specification only guarantees that the product makes sound, with no guarantee that the sound is good.  While the science exists today to accurately quantify and predict the perceived the sound quality of  loudspeakers (and hopefully, soon headphones), the audio industry continues to drag its heels into the 21st century,  and not routinely provide this information to consumers.

A rare exception is JBL Professional who provides comprehensive detailed measurements on studio/broadcast monitors like the new JBL M2 Master Reference shown below. Inspecting the measured frequency response curves shown  below, you can easily recognize the loudspeaker sounds exceptionally neutral and accurate based on the shape (flat, smooth, and extended)  Based on this set of measurements, we can predict how a listener would rate the sound quality of the loudspeaker in a controlled listening test, with 86% accuracy. The only pertinent information not shown in this graph is how loud the loudspeaker will play before producing audible distortion (trust me, this loudspeaker will play very loud! )

Perceptually meaningful loudspeaker specifications like these have been available for almost 30 years! Yet,  these specifications are currently not part of any professional and consumer loudspeaker standard. Such a standard would go a long way towards improving the quality and consistency of recorded and reproduced sound. Audio consumers want to hear the truth. We need to provide better information and audio specifications so they can find it.

JBL M2 Master Reference Monitor provides true reference sound quality that is clearly indicated by its technical measurements shown below. 
The spatially-averaged frequency response curves of the JBL M2  (from top to bottom) for the listening window (green), the first reflections (red), and the total radiated sound power.  At the bottom are shown directivity indices of the sound power (dotted blue) and first reflections (dotted red). These measurements tell us that the quality of the direct and reflected sounds produced by the loudspeaker will be very accurate and neutral over a relatively wide listening area.

World News

More Evidence that Kids (American and Japanese) Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction

Posted on by Dr. Sean Olive



Geoffrey Morrison, an audio writer at CNET and Sound & Vision has posted a nice summary  of my latest AES paper “Some New Evidence that Teenager and College Students May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction” presented at the recent  132nd AES Convention in Budapest, Hungary.


The paper is available for download here at the  AES E-library, and I have provided a YouTube video and a PDF of my presentation slides that summarize the main points of the research.


 The abstract of the paper reads as follows:


A group of 58  high school and college students with different expertise in sound evaluation participated in two separate controlled listening tests that measured their preference choices between music reproduced in (1) MP3 (128 kbp/s) and lossless CD-quality file formats, and (2) music reproduced through four different consumer loudspeakers. As a group, the students preferred the CD-quality reproduction in 70% of the trials and preferred music reproduced through the most accurate, neutral loudspeaker. Critical listening experience was a significant factor in the listeners’ performance and preferences. Together, these tests provide some new evidence that both teenagers and college students can discern and appreciate a better quality of reproduced sound when given the opportunity to directly compare it against lower quality options. 


The effects of culture and trained versus untrained listeners on loudspeaker preference are topics that have been discussed in previous postings on Audio Musings. To further shed some light on this topic, I also ran 149  native speaking Japanese college students through the same loudspeaker preference test along with 12 Harman trained listeners.  The graph below shows the mean loudspeaker preference ratings for these two groups of listeners along with the four different groups of high school and college students from Los Angeles.  



Not surprising, (at least to me) I found that the Japanese college students on average preferred the same accurate loudspeaker (A) as did the 58  Los Angeles students, and the trained Harman listening panel. The main differences among the different listening groups  were related to the effect of prior critical listening experience:  the more trained listeners simply rated the loudspeakers lower on the preference scale, and were more discriminating and consistent in their responses. This result is consistent with previous studies. The least preferred and least accurate loudspeaker (Loudspeaker D) generated the most variance in ratings among the different listening groups. This  was explained by its highly directional behavior combined with its inconsistent frequency response as you move from on-axis to off-axis seating positions. This meant that listeners sitting off-axis heard a much different (and apparently better quality) sound than those listeners  sitting on-axis.


 While the small sample size of listeners doesn’t allow us to make generalizations to larger populations, nonetheless it is reassuring  to find that  both the American and Japanese students, regardless of their critical listening experience, recognized good sound when they heard it, and preferred it to the lower quality options.


It would appear that the reason kids don’t own better sounding audio solutions has nothing to do with their supposed “deviant”  tastes in sound quality, but more do with  other factors  (e.g. price, convenience, portability, marketing, fashion) that have nothing to do with sound quality.  Music and audio companies should take notice that kids can indeed discriminate between good and bad sound, and prefer accurate sound, despite what the media has been falsely reporting for the last few years. With that out of the way, we should focus on figuring out how to sell sound quality to kids at affordable prices and form factors  they desire to own.


The research suggests that if we cannot figure out how to sell better sound to kids, we have no one to blame but ourselves. 

World News

Harman Debunks Youthful Music Myths

Posted on by Dr. Sean Olive

Robert Archer, a writer at CEPro magazine has written a nice article called “Harman Debunks Youthful Music Myths.” The article is based on an interview he did with me a couple of weeks ago, and summarizes some recent Harman research on Generation Y’s sound quality preferences for different digital music file formats (MP3 versus CD) and loudspeakers. The details of the preliminary research were first reported back in June in a blog posting, “Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction.”

The early results of that research suggest that today’s youth prefer higher quality music formats and accurate loudspeakers when given the opportunity to A/B them under controlled, double-blind listening conditions. While it is refreshing news that good sound is not lost on today’s youth, the challenge is to figure out how to market and sell it to them.
Unfortunately, good A/B audio demonstrations are becoming nearly extinct. Internet and Big Box store sales of audio equipment and music generally don’t provide such listening opportunities. In the end, consumer education, meaningful audio specifications and measurements that are indicative of a product’s true sound quality, and accurate, unbiased product reviews, will help consumers make more informed audio and music purchase decisions as they relate to sound quality. Until then, most consumers will never know for sure whether or not they’ve purchased something that is truly “good enough.”

Select your currency
EUR Euro
USD United States (US) dollar