Forum poll - How important is accurate music reproduction to you?

[chebby]

Most of the time number 4/3 but sometimes turning the subwoofer up loud and having a big ballsy bassy sound is good fun too which would put that into category 1/2

When I get a record player that'll have a colured sound (in a good way) so when I listen to that it'll be in category 1 or 2.

After the results ...

Put me down as a 4 please.

No meaningful interpretation of the results can happen when this is going on.

Even with more decisive voters there is still no proper conclusion possible given the wide variety of systems used by the '4' voters to achieve that 'accuracy'. (You had a few '4's who admitted they didn't know if their systems reflected their aspiration or not.)

I would conclude that some people think they have achieved 4.

Some desire 4 but don't know what it sounds like. (This is where the hi-fi industry 'lives' in this gap between desire and reality.)

Some changed their mind (or wanted to appear more 'purist' than they really were).

 

[MrReaper182]

I'll say 4. I like to hear the music the way is was intended to be heard, so no coloring for me.

 

[Native_bon]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

 

[Ajani]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

I think we need to differentiate between being accurate and sounding like live music. Though it's easy to think the two should be the same thing, they are not.

Accurate means the system is reproducing exactly what is on the recording. So if the CD etc is poorly mastered, excessively bright, etc etc etc then that is how the music should sound coming out of the HiFi system. This is generally what pro equipment is aimed at (in theory anyway).

Sounding live means that regardless of the quality of the recording, the HiFi system aims to sound like live music. Hence, if most of my recordings are bright, I'll buy a warmer HiFi system to compensate. If I find that having a large soundstage makes the music sound more like live music, I'll look for speakers that exaggerate the soundstage. If I believe that a lot of reflected sound mimics the concert hall experience, I'll look at plannars, etc.

So a lot of audiophiles really want their music to sound live. Which means compensating for the quality/lack of quality of the recordings.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual  wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

?

I think we need to differentiate between being accurate and sounding like live music. Though it's easy to think the two should be the same thing, they are not.

?

Accurate means the system is reproducing exactly what is on the recording. So if the CD etc is poorly mastered, excessively bright, etc etc etc then that is how the music should sound coming out of the HiFi system. This is generally what pro equipment is aimed at (in theory anyway).

?

Sounding live means that regardless of the quality of the recording, the HiFi system aims to sound like live music. Hence, if most of my recordings are bright, I'll buy a warmer HiFi system to compensate. If I find that having a large soundstage makes the music sound more like live music, I'll look for speakers that exaggerate the soundstage. If I believe that a lot of reflected sound mimics the concert hall experience, I'll look at plannars, etc.?

?

So a lot of audiophiles really want their music to sound live. Which means compensating for the quality/lack of quality of the recordings. 

Or you could by an AVamp with DSP modes that mimic all you have listed.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Odd topic.

I agree with the thought a system can only deliver what the source presents.

An acoustic guitar played with enthusiasm in a standard sized living room cannot be reproduced easily by your standard hifi.

It'd have to be pretty powerful to do so - accuracy is not something hifi really does.

 

[Native_bon]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

I think we need to differentiate between being accurate and sounding like live music. Though it's easy to think the two should be the same thing, they are not.

Accurate means the system is reproducing exactly what is on the recording. So if the CD etc is poorly mastered, excessively bright, etc etc etc then that is how the music should sound coming out of the HiFi system. This is generally what pro equipment is aimed at (in theory anyway).

Sounding live means that regardless of the quality of the recording, the HiFi system aims to sound like live music. Hence, if most of my recordings are bright, I'll buy a warmer HiFi system to compensate. If I find that having a large soundstage makes the music sound more like live music, I'll look for speakers that exaggerate the soundstage. If I believe that a lot of reflected sound mimics the concert hall experience, I'll look at plannars, etc.

So a lot of audiophiles really want their music to sound live. Which means compensating for the quality/lack of quality of the recordings.

I think its a fantasy world cause no one can reproducing exactly what is on the recording. There are to many variations for exactly to happen, close to, may be. If you want even close to, you have to have the exact situations were the music was made or played.

Secondly, you have to have a system that is virtually colour free & a zero reflective acoustic room.(bearing in mind if the music was made in those conditions) Two identical systems dwn to a T will sound very different in different rooms. So which one of the two systems are close to the original recording. There are just too many variables.

There are 3 kinds of variables: Independent, dependent & controlled. We not independent cause we live in a marketing world were we are influenced by just that. We depend on our situation and adapt accordingly to suit living conditions & in this process remove any posibility of being true to the original sound.

A controlled situation will be more ideal, but every situation has to be replicated in the listening environment. IMHO live music is not live. Most systems sound better than live music. Who are we kidding!!

 

[Ajani]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

I think we need to differentiate between being accurate and sounding like live music. Though it's easy to think the two should be the same thing, they are not.

Accurate means the system is reproducing exactly what is on the recording. So if the CD etc is poorly mastered, excessively bright, etc etc etc then that is how the music should sound coming out of the HiFi system. This is generally what pro equipment is aimed at (in theory anyway).

Sounding live means that regardless of the quality of the recording, the HiFi system aims to sound like live music. Hence, if most of my recordings are bright, I'll buy a warmer HiFi system to compensate. If I find that having a large soundstage makes the music sound more like live music, I'll look for speakers that exaggerate the soundstage. If I believe that a lot of reflected sound mimics the concert hall experience, I'll look at plannars, etc.

So a lot of audiophiles really want their music to sound live. Which means compensating for the quality/lack of quality of the recordings.

I think its a fantasy world cause no one can reproducing exactly what is on the recording. There are to many variations for exactly to happen, close to, may be. If you want even close to, you have to have the exact situations were the music was made or played.

Secondly, you have to have a system that is virtually colour free & a zero reflective acoustic room.(bearing in mind if the music was made in those conditions) Two identical systems dwn to a T will sound very different in different rooms. So which one of the two systems are close to the original recording. There are just too many variables.

There are 3 kinds of variables: Independent, dependent & controlled. We not independent cause we live in a marketing world were we are influenced by just that. We depend on our situation and adapt accordingly to suit living conditions & in this process remove any posibility of being true to the original sound.

A controlled situation will be more ideal, but every situation has to be replicated in the listening environment. IMHO live music is not live. Most systems sound better than live music. Who are we kidding!!

Yep. I agree. We can only aim for accuracy, but the reality is that we are far from it. Same with recreating the live sound.

I use measurements to determine whether products are aiming to be accurate. However, those measurements are done in an anechoic chamber, not my listening room. So ideally I'd have to either turn my listening room into an anechoic chamber or use DSP to try to obtain a similar result.

 

[Ajani]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

I think we need to differentiate between being accurate and sounding like live music. Though it's easy to think the two should be the same thing, they are not.

Accurate means the system is reproducing exactly what is on the recording. So if the CD etc is poorly mastered, excessively bright, etc etc etc then that is how the music should sound coming out of the HiFi system. This is generally what pro equipment is aimed at (in theory anyway).

Sounding live means that regardless of the quality of the recording, the HiFi system aims to sound like live music. Hence, if most of my recordings are bright, I'll buy a warmer HiFi system to compensate. If I find that having a large soundstage makes the music sound more like live music, I'll look for speakers that exaggerate the soundstage. If I believe that a lot of reflected sound mimics the concert hall experience, I'll look at plannars, etc.

So a lot of audiophiles really want their music to sound live. Which means compensating for the quality/lack of quality of the recordings.

Or you could by an AVamp with DSP modes that mimic all you have listed.

Sure, but the audiophiles who chase the Live Sound usually don't regard an AVamp with DSP as serious HiFi. So it'd be a real tough sell.

 

[Vladimir]

There is very very very little music recorded live with a band in a studio and with minimal production applied to it. Almost everything is mixed in bits with added effects that suck the life out of all the details and much of the information we hear and think of as presence and breathe of life coming out of the speakers is actually an added effect. Even imaging is dictated by panning, 3D, reverb and other effects. So unless you are strictly old recordings and classical music lover (even those are questionable), you should spare yourself the illusion that there is a band in front of you and that it needs to sound a certain way. Even the instruments don't have to sound like they should since they are augmented with, you guessed it, effects. Today with digital audio workstations (DAW) this is even more common. They don't even bother to add an analogue sound on a R2R tape, they just use a digital plugin that adds simulated distortion of that nature.

When you have an accurate system and you sit and listen, what you hear is not the band in front of you, you hear all the production and mixing flaws and the loudness compression. An accurate system deconstructs the illusion the producer tried to create. A euphonic system aids it, makes it even better. You see the band.

I grew up admiring Pink Floyd, how creative and insane they are, I ate up all the myths. Today I'm an adult and I saw Alan Parsons talk about how The Dark Side of the Moon was recorded and saw the boring disinterested face of Nick Mason, and I know the band went for a cup of coffee while the producer and his assistant created the steps panning from one side to the other. Maybe if you wait in front of a recording studio parking lot today you will see the engineers coming out to test their mixes in their cars, because that matters. High fidelity, not really.

Deconstructed. All the lovely illusion is now gone. Over rated and over paid musicians, over rated and over paid hi-fi, rubbish car and cheap earbuds sound quality. It’s all brilliant as long as you don’t think about it. Which reminds me of a very heated forum argument I read years ago about being an audiophile and the choice of music. Should you bother building a pricey and accurate hi-fi system if the music you are going to play on it is of poor sound quality or is overproduced?

We have musicians and professionals with studio and field audio engineering experience. Please let us know what you think is going on in hi-fi and the music industry.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual  wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

?

I think we need to differentiate between being accurate and sounding like live music. Though it's easy to think the two should be the same thing, they are not.

?

Accurate means the system is reproducing exactly what is on the recording. So if the CD etc is poorly mastered, excessively bright, etc etc etc then that is how the music should sound coming out of the HiFi system. This is generally what pro equipment is aimed at (in theory anyway).

?

Sounding live means that regardless of the quality of the recording, the HiFi system aims to sound like live music. Hence, if most of my recordings are bright, I'll buy a warmer HiFi system to compensate. If I find that having a large soundstage makes the music sound more like live music, I'll look for speakers that exaggerate the soundstage. If I believe that a lot of reflected sound mimics the concert hall experience, I'll look at plannars, etc.?

?

So a lot of audiophiles really want their music to sound live. Which means compensating for the quality/lack of quality of the recordings.?

Or you could by an AVamp with DSP modes that mimic all you have listed.

Sure, but the audiophiles who chase the Live Sound usually don't regard an AVamp with DSP as serious HiFi. So it'd be a real tough sell.

Serious hifi.....prrft!

Listen to Coltrane, Armstrong or Davis quartet in 'concert hall' mode on a decent AVamp - I swear by it.

 

[Ajani]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

I think we need to differentiate between being accurate and sounding like live music. Though it's easy to think the two should be the same thing, they are not.

Accurate means the system is reproducing exactly what is on the recording. So if the CD etc is poorly mastered, excessively bright, etc etc etc then that is how the music should sound coming out of the HiFi system. This is generally what pro equipment is aimed at (in theory anyway).

Sounding live means that regardless of the quality of the recording, the HiFi system aims to sound like live music. Hence, if most of my recordings are bright, I'll buy a warmer HiFi system to compensate. If I find that having a large soundstage makes the music sound more like live music, I'll look for speakers that exaggerate the soundstage. If I believe that a lot of reflected sound mimics the concert hall experience, I'll look at plannars, etc.

So a lot of audiophiles really want their music to sound live. Which means compensating for the quality/lack of quality of the recordings.

Or you could by an AVamp with DSP modes that mimic all you have listed.

Sure, but the audiophiles who chase the Live Sound usually don't regard an AVamp with DSP as serious HiFi. So it'd be a real tough sell.

Serious hifi.....prrft!

Listen to Coltrane, Armstrong or Davis quartet in 'concert hall' mode on a decent AVamp - I swear by it.

Yep, that's the prob... We judge with our eyes as much as our ears. So if some persons see a receiver, suddenly the music will make their ears bleed.

It reminds me of a high end (AKA really expensive) speaker company that would do demos at various HiFi shows. Only the speakers would be visible during the demo. Audiophiles would rave about how good the speakers sounded. And then be shocked out of their minds to discover that the electronics were a Parasound amp (costing less than 1K US dollars) and an iPod.

 

[Vladimir]

Again, some may say 4, but when actually compared to a 2, the 2 may sound more accurate. Sounding close to the original is all in the hearing ability of the listener or how the individual wants the system to sound or both. Again, a system can use excellent dynamics & timing to portray accuracy or believability without really being accurate. On the other hand a system could be very accuracy yet not believable.

To me most of the systems out there dnt sound real, most of them sound like what the Hifi world has set as the norm as suppose to the real world. That's just my opinion.

I think we need to differentiate between being accurate and sounding like live music. Though it's easy to think the two should be the same thing, they are not.

Accurate means the system is reproducing exactly what is on the recording. So if the CD etc is poorly mastered, excessively bright, etc etc etc then that is how the music should sound coming out of the HiFi system. This is generally what pro equipment is aimed at (in theory anyway).

Sounding live means that regardless of the quality of the recording, the HiFi system aims to sound like live music. Hence, if most of my recordings are bright, I'll buy a warmer HiFi system to compensate. If I find that having a large soundstage makes the music sound more like live music, I'll look for speakers that exaggerate the soundstage. If I believe that a lot of reflected sound mimics the concert hall experience, I'll look at plannars, etc.

So a lot of audiophiles really want their music to sound live. Which means compensating for the quality/lack of quality of the recordings.

Or you could by an AVamp with DSP modes that mimic all you have listed.

Sure, but the audiophiles who chase the Live Sound usually don't regard an AVamp with DSP as serious HiFi. So it'd be a real tough sell.

Serious hifi.....prrft!

Listen to Coltrane, Armstrong or Davis quartet in 'concert hall' mode on a decent AVamp - I swear by it.

Yep, that's the prob... We judge with our eyes as much as our ears. So if some persons see a receiver, suddenly the music will make their ears bleed.

It reminds me of a high end (AKA really expensive) speaker company that would do demos at various HiFi shows. Only the speakers would be visible during the demo. Audiophiles would rave about how good the speakers sounded. And then be shocked out of their minds to discover that the electronics were a Parasound amp (costing less than 1K US dollars) and an iPod.

The ventriloquist effect is one thing. Someone bleeding out of their ears from a perfectly good AVR is just marketing brainwashing. Pure prejudice* driven cognitive bias.

* "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

 

[Vladimir]

Explained here.

 

[Al ears]

3 going on 4.

How do you reconcile your answer with the use of a turntable?

Not too sure what that's meant to mean. Some of the best uncompressed classical recordings I have are on vinyl, my system plays them just nicely thank you.

I also have them on SACD and high res downloads.

This doesn't prevent me in considering the turntable as essential for some of my recordings.

You listen to whatever you like your way, and I will do similarly, it's a poll, not twenty questions!

 

[MajorFubar]

2. The combination of products I now use to listen to music are as good as I have ever owned or heard. I have heard nothing better (ie more accurate) to compare them against that would allow me to judge whether they are accurate or not. Though I know when I play a song featuring an instrument I am familiar with (such as piano or acoustic guitar) the sound from my HiFi is convincing enough to satisfy me, so it must be more accurate than inaccurate. But the most important factor by about a million miles is I enjoy listening to it. I believe my enjoyment is enhanced by the fact my HiFi sounds acceptably accurate and involving, but really I haven't got a clue whether it is. If this theoretical 'completely accurate' hifi even existed, it could even turn out I'd hate the sound and would sell it and instead buy something less accurate that I enjoy listening to.

 

[Al ears]

2. The combination of products I now use to listen to music are as good as I have ever owned or heard. I have heard nothing better (ie more accurate) to compare them against that would allow me to judge whether they are accurate or not. Though I know when I play a song featuring an instrument I am familiar with (such as piano or acoustic guitar) the sound from my HiFi is convincing enough to satisfy me, so it must be more accurate than inaccurate. But the most important factor by about a million miles is I enjoy listening to it. I think my enjoyment is largely driven by the fact it sounds clear and acceptably accurate, but really I haven't got a clue whether it is.

You might just have hit the nail on the head there. What's accurate. Does your system recreate it ? I know the violin and wife is a a very competent pianist. I also have bass guitarist friend and they can all verify to the sound my system creates in my listening room, but is it accurate to anyone else? Who knows, or frankly, cares?

 

[Infiniteloop]

3 going on 4.

How do you reconcile your answer with the use of a turntable?

Not too sure what that's meant to mean. Some of the best uncompressed classical recordings I have are on vinyl, my system plays them just nicely thank you.

I also have them on SACD and high res downloads.

This doesn't prevent me in considering the turntable as essential for some of my recordings.

You listen to whatever you like your way, and I will do similarly, it's a poll, not twenty questions!

I wasn't trying to be confrontational, I'm genuinely interested. I personally don't go looking for a totally accurate sound because I believe it's like chasing a rabbit down a hole. I have a Valve set-up and a Devialet set-up and very much enjoy both, so some might say that the question of accuracy doesn't mean much to me. What I look for is believability and enjoyment.

I'm interested because of things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxiLeQmb5k

For what it's worth I'm also considering a turntable purchase (postponed due to house move).

 

[Al ears]

3 going on 4.

How do you reconcile your answer with the use of a turntable?

Not too sure what that's meant to mean. Some of the best uncompressed classical recordings I have are on vinyl, my system plays them just nicely thank you.

I also have them on SACD and high res downloads.

This doesn't prevent me in considering the turntable as essential for some of my recordings.

You listen to whatever you like your way, and I will do similarly, it's a poll, not twenty questions!

I wasn't trying to be confrontational, I'm genuinely interested. I personally don't go looking for a totally accurate sound because I believe it's like chasing a rabbit down a hole. I have a Valve set-up and a Devialet set-up and very much enjoy both, so some might say that the question of accuracy doesn't mean much to me. What I look for is believability and enjoyment.

I'm interested because of things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxiLeQmb5k

For what it's worth I'm also considering a turntable purchase (postponed due to house move).

Forgive me, though it as a personal attack.

Amplification ultimately doesn't matter if your source is rubbish. Get this sorted and then it comes down to the recorded material itself. However, I might just be preaching to the converted here.

 

[iQ Speakers]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same. Put that into the equation & people may be picking different numbers but their systems sound the same or picking the same number & their system sounds very different!! Just thought I throw the spanner in the works *biggrin*

Very astute answer. Sound should be judged by enjoyment. Telling others how good it should be tempered with how good it is in relation to other similar priced or more expensive systems and how much exposure or experience you have of other systems.

In thast case Apple earbuds are high end because teenagers love them. Hormonal hurricane.

No *biggrin* because if every spotty teanager just tried a £25 set of Soundmagic E10's they would realize the error of there ways!

 

[lpv]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same. Put that into the equation & people may be picking different numbers but their systems sound the same or picking the same number & their system sounds very different!! Just thought I throw the spanner in the works *biggrin*

Very astute answer. Sound should be judged by enjoyment. Telling others how good it should be tempered with how good it is in relation to other similar priced or more expensive systems and how much exposure or experience you have of other systems.

In thast case Apple earbuds are high end because teenagers love them. Hormonal hurricane.

No *biggrin* because if every spotty teanager just tried a £25 set of Soundmagic E10's they would realize the error of there ways!

did you try gents latests apple earbuds that comes with an iphone?

 

[Vladimir]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same. Put that into the equation & people may be picking different numbers but their systems sound the same or picking the same number & their system sounds very different!! Just thought I throw the spanner in the works *biggrin*

Very astute answer. Sound should be judged by enjoyment. Telling others how good it should be tempered with how good it is in relation to other similar priced or more expensive systems and how much exposure or experience you have of other systems.

In thast case Apple earbuds are high end because teenagers love them. Hormonal hurricane.

No *biggrin* because if every spotty teanager just tried a £25 set of Soundmagic E10's they would realize the error of there ways!

did you try gents latests apple earbuds that comes with an iphone?

I haven't. Greatly improved?

 

[Jota180]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same.

And this is something that isn't normally taken into account, particularly when setting up AV systems. It's all very well using the mic for an auto set up, but that approach is creating accuracy with regards to levels, distances etc. But our hearing ranges are different, and even the balance between ears may be different - someone might be down 1 or 2dB in one ear over the other (thanks BRMC) so that negates the results of the auto set up. Discs that produce test tones and phase issues can be used to balance a system using your own hearing.

But that auto set up will tell you you have disfunctional hearing so that's not necessarily a bad thing as I imagine most folks wouldn't even realise their hearing isn't as good as they like to think it is!

You could do an auto set up, get a flat response then tweak it from there and see how much you have to change to get the sound you like or that works for you.

So you're saying you should trust some auto-set up algorithm to tell you that your hearing isn't much good and that you should be listening to the result anyway even if it sounds awful?

No. It will tell you your ears are goosed and you can tweak the sound to your hearts content afterwards but it would mean your career as an amateur HifI commentator would have to come to an abrupt end.

 

[lpv]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same. Put that into the equation & people may be picking different numbers but their systems sound the same or picking the same number & their system sounds very different!! Just thought I throw the spanner in the works *biggrin*

Very astute answer. Sound should be judged by enjoyment. Telling others how good it should be tempered with how good it is in relation to other similar priced or more expensive systems and how much exposure or experience you have of other systems.

In thast case Apple earbuds are high end because teenagers love them. Hormonal hurricane.

No *biggrin* because if every spotty teanager just tried a £25 set of Soundmagic E10's they would realize the error of there ways!

did you try gents latests apple earbuds that comes with an iphone?

I haven't. Greatly improved?

not much of a difference between these free apple earbuds and mentioned soundmagic E10's

 

[Infiniteloop]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same. Put that into the equation & people may be picking different numbers but their systems sound the same or picking the same number & their system sounds very different!! Just thought I throw the spanner in the works *biggrin*

Very astute answer. Sound should be judged by enjoyment. Telling others how good it should be tempered with how good it is in relation to other similar priced or more expensive systems and how much exposure or experience you have of other systems.

In thast case Apple earbuds are high end because teenagers love them. Hormonal hurricane.

No *biggrin* because if every spotty teanager just tried a £25 set of Soundmagic E10's they would realize the error of there ways!

did you try gents latests apple earbuds that comes with an iphone?

I haven't. Greatly improved?

Actually, the ones that came with my latest iPhone upgrade are pretty good. There's actually some bass, agreeable treble and clear midrange.