Column (audiophile) N7. Quality sound

After the release of the sixth issue of the column, dedicated to the definitions of the characteristics of sound quality, the forum was expressed opinion that has the right to life. Namely: sound quality and sound quality are two different concepts. As for the characteristics themselves, there is, in fact, no disagreement - there are generally accepted evaluation criteria, which differ only in the depth of analysis of the sound signature of sound reproducing devices. But there is no consensus about what kind of sound is considered high-quality.

Sometimes disputes arise between owners of expensive devices, each of which, it would seem, should produce such a sound for its price that there can be no complaints against it. But no, absolutely ideal players, headphones, amplifiers and speakers that everyone likes do not exist in nature. So from what side to approach the concept of "quality sound"? Again, after the last column was published, I received a beautiful letter, the contents of which, with the permission of the author, I am going to share with you.

Quality sound is when your favorite tracks sound nice.

High-quality sound is not necessarily the top Mark Levinson set, although it also sounds good, it can be JBL portable speakers powered by four AA, lying in the sand next to you on the seashore, it can be KOSS headphones in road to the sea, etc.

Quality sound offers a device applicable in this situation in these circumstances for adequate money. For example: you are lying on the beach, and you are surrounded by speakers the size of a sideboard, powered by terminals weighing 100 kg each, and you are warmed not only by the southern sun, but also by the light of audiophile lamps; or you invited three friends to watch the second transformers through one pair of studio headphones.

Among my surroundings, there were no people capable of distinguishing a good Yamaha kit from a bunch of Arcam and B&W, although the price differed exactly 4 times. But that doesn't mean there's no place on earth Mark Levinson #53, B&W nautilus, Clearaudio.

Ivan, I share your position almost entirely. There is one small problem - with the assessment of the adequacy of the options under consideration. Gradually, all people undergo a reassessment of values. Say, five years ago I could not imagine that in pursuit of high-quality sound in a portable device, the use of the Hifiman HM-801 would not seem something special to me. There are also much more "fancy" bundles, and this is just a portable sphere, let me remind you. Regarding the hundred-kilogram amplifiers, in my opinion, both the iPod Shuffle and the Hifiman HM-801 seem small, but in terms of sound quality, these two players are separated by a huge abyss.

Let's not forget that audio equipment is ultimately evaluated not by robots and advanced measuring systems, but by living people. The psychological mood can play a very important role, sometimes the sound of inexpensive headphones will seem tolerable, and it also happens that a lovingly selected set “does not sound”. This is also the reason for the relatively easy adaptation from expensive and high-quality links to simpler ones.

Of course, each person has his own boundaries in which he is ready to move. For some, this border is financial, and it replaces the qualitative scale. However, when listening to a large number of devices, there is a gradual transition to a qualitative scale. Yes, often a cheap device sounds worse than an expensive one. But, for example, a $400 iPod will lose miserably to a $150 Teclast T51.

Here we come to a simple question: who determines what "wins" and what "loses"? By what criteria? Once again, people determine. The criteria are different for everyone. But I must say that I know of isolated cases when people chose the iPod based not on the stereotypical prestige of the Apple brand or the appearance of the device, but on the sound characteristics. Those. we can draw an intermediate conclusion - according to these characteristics, Teclast T51 is ahead of iPod, Cowon, Sandisk Sansa.

In order not to try to draw conclusions for all music lovers, I will tell you what I personally appreciate in sound. First, it is resolution. It is tritely pleasant for me to feel that nothing escapes attention in a musical composition, and if I suddenly want to listen to a violin part, other instruments will not drown it out. Secondly, it is the naturalness of the sound.

I don't go to live concerts that often, which is probably not very correct - but let's at least look at voice reproduction. Not every audio system will be able to reproduce vocals naturally, without deliberately emphasizing sibilants, without mumbling, without deafness. Thirdly, the sound should be comfortable in general and not cause discomfort during prolonged listening.

Perhaps, these are the main requirements that I place on sound. In my opinion, it is better to do without listening to music if you do not have access to decent audio equipment. If the conversation is about the "noise background" - then of course, I am ready to use simple speakers, without turning them on loudly.

However, in addition to music, there are, for example, audiobooks and podcasts that can be listened to even on not the most "fancy" headphones and speakers.

By the way, about the musical material. Whatever wonderful speakers, headphones, players you have, you need to listen to something on them. And then sometimes interesting things happen when, it would seem, not the most successful composition “catches” something, and you want to listen to it over and over again. The problem of subjective perception? Perhaps this is not such a big problem. Rather, it is a nice feature.

In general, there are a lot of options, and it is impossible to sort through all of them. Let me remind you of the Monster Cable advertising slogan: "Life is too short to listen to bad headphones." Here, in my opinion, something should be added.

The first point - "good" headphones - it does not have to be something more expensive than a thousand rubles. You choose, not marketers.

Second moment - listen to the music that you like. Wherever you like it. On what you like. And if you are willing to spend money and time searching for the best options, most likely, the process itself will bring satisfaction. And if in the end the very combination of sound-reproducing devices is found, on which your favorite music will play even better than on the ones available now, then that's great.

Personally, discovering new nuances in seemingly familiar compositions, I understand what the money was given for and what time was spent on. Perhaps you have your own criteria. Follow them.

Column (audiophile) N7. Quality sound

After the release of the sixth issue of the column, dedicated to the definitions of the characteristics of sound quality, the forum was expressed opinion that has the right to life. Namely: sound quality and sound quality are two different concepts. As for the characteristics themselves, there is, in fact, no disagreement - there are generally accepted evaluation criteria, which differ only in the depth of analysis of the sound signature of sound reproducing devices. But there is no consensus about what kind of sound is considered high-quality.

Sometimes disputes arise between owners of expensive devices, each of which, it would seem, should produce such a sound for its price that there can be no complaints against it. But no, absolutely ideal players, headphones, amplifiers and speakers that everyone likes do not exist in nature. So from what side to approach the concept of "quality sound"? Again, after the last column was published, I received a beautiful letter, the contents of which, with the permission of the author, I am going to share with you.

Quality sound is when your favorite tracks sound nice.

High-quality sound is not necessarily the top Mark Levinson set, although it also sounds good, it can be JBL portable speakers powered by four AA, lying in the sand next to you on the seashore, it can be KOSS headphones in road to the sea, etc.

Quality sound offers a device applicable in this situation in these circumstances for adequate money. For example: you are lying on the beach, and you are surrounded by speakers the size of a sideboard, powered by terminals weighing 100 kg each, and you are warmed not only by the southern sun, but also by the light of audiophile lamps; or you invited three friends to watch the second transformers through one pair of studio headphones.

Among my surroundings, there were no people capable of distinguishing a good Yamaha kit from a bunch of Arcam and B&W, although the price differed exactly 4 times. But that doesn't mean there's no place on earth Mark Levinson #53, B&W nautilus, Clearaudio.

Ivan, I share your position almost entirely. There is one small problem - with the assessment of the adequacy of the options under consideration. Gradually, all people undergo a reassessment of values. Say, five years ago I could not imagine that in pursuit of high-quality sound in a portable device, the use of the Hifiman HM-801 would not seem something special to me. There are also much more "fancy" bundles, and this is just a portable sphere, let me remind you. Regarding the hundred-kilogram amplifiers, in my opinion, both the iPod Shuffle and the Hifiman HM-801 seem small, but in terms of sound quality, these two players are separated by a huge abyss.

Let's not forget that audio equipment is ultimately evaluated not by robots and advanced measuring systems, but by living people. The psychological mood can play a very important role, sometimes the sound of inexpensive headphones will seem tolerable, and it also happens that a lovingly selected set “does not sound”. This is also the reason for the relatively easy adaptation from expensive and high-quality links to simpler ones.

Of course, each person has his own boundaries in which he is ready to move. For some, this border is financial, and it replaces the qualitative scale. However, when listening to a large number of devices, there is a gradual transition to a qualitative scale. Yes, often a cheap device sounds worse than an expensive one. But, for example, a $400 iPod will lose miserably to a $150 Teclast T51.

Here we come to a simple question: who determines what "wins" and what "loses"? By what criteria? Once again, people determine. The criteria are different for everyone. But I must say that I know of isolated cases when people chose the iPod based not on the stereotypical prestige of the Apple brand or the appearance of the device, but on the sound characteristics. Those. we can draw an intermediate conclusion - according to these characteristics, Teclast T51 is ahead of iPod, Cowon, Sandisk Sansa.

In order not to try to draw conclusions for all music lovers, I will tell you what I personally appreciate in sound. First, it is resolution. It is tritely pleasant for me to feel that nothing escapes attention in a musical composition, and if I suddenly want to listen to a violin part, other instruments will not drown it out. Secondly, it is the naturalness of the sound.

I don't go to live concerts that often, which is probably not very correct - but let's at least look at voice reproduction. Not every audio system will be able to reproduce vocals naturally, without deliberately emphasizing sibilants, without mumbling, without deafness. Thirdly, the sound should be comfortable in general and not cause discomfort during prolonged listening.

Perhaps, these are the main requirements that I place on sound. In my opinion, it is better to do without listening to music if you do not have access to decent audio equipment. If the conversation is about the "noise background" - then of course, I am ready to use simple speakers, without turning them on loudly.

However, in addition to music, there are, for example, audiobooks and podcasts that can be listened to even on not the most "fancy" headphones and speakers.

By the way, about the musical material. Whatever wonderful speakers, headphones, players you have, you need to listen to something on them. And then sometimes interesting things happen when, it would seem, not the most successful composition “catches” something, and you want to listen to it over and over again. The problem of subjective perception? Perhaps this is not such a big problem. Rather, it is a nice feature.

In general, there are a lot of options, and it is impossible to sort through all of them. Let me remind you of the Monster Cable advertising slogan: "Life is too short to listen to bad headphones." Here, in my opinion, something should be added.

The first point - "good" headphones - it does not have to be something more expensive than a thousand rubles. You choose, not marketers.

Second moment - listen to the music that you like. Wherever you like it. On what you like. And if you are willing to spend money and time on sorting out the best options - most likely, the process itself will bring satisfaction. And if in the end the very combination of sound-reproducing devices is found, on which your favorite music will play even better than on the ones available now, then that's great.

Personally, discovering new nuances in seemingly familiar compositions, I understand what the money was given for and what time was spent on. Perhaps you have your own criteria. Follow them.

Column (audiophile) N7. Quality sound

After the release of the sixth issue of the column, dedicated to the definitions of the characteristics of sound quality, the forum was expressed opinion that has the right to life. Namely: sound quality and sound quality are two different concepts. As for the characteristics themselves, there is, in fact, no disagreement - there are generally accepted evaluation criteria, which differ only in the depth of analysis of the sound signature of sound reproducing devices. But there is no consensus about what kind of sound is considered high-quality.

Sometimes disputes arise between owners of expensive devices, each of which, it would seem, should produce such a sound for its price that there can be no complaints against it. But no, absolutely ideal players, headphones, amplifiers and speakers that everyone likes do not exist in nature. So from what side to approach the concept of "quality sound"? Again, after the last column was published, I received a beautiful letter, the contents of which, with the permission of the author, I am going to share with you.

Quality sound is when your favorite tracks sound nice.

High-quality sound is not necessarily the top Mark Levinson set, although it also sounds good, it can be JBL portable speakers powered by four AA, lying in the sand next to you on the seashore, it can be KOSS headphones in road to the sea, etc.

Quality sound offers a device applicable in this situation in these circumstances for adequate money. For example: you are lying on the beach, and you are surrounded by speakers the size of a sideboard, powered by terminals weighing 100 kg each, and you are warmed not only by the southern sun, but also by the light of audiophile lamps; or you invited three friends to watch the second transformers through one pair of studio headphones.

Among my surroundings, there were no people capable of distinguishing a good Yamaha kit from a bunch of Arcam and B&W, although the price differed exactly 4 times. But that doesn't mean there's no place on earth Mark Levinson #53, B&W nautilus, Clearaudio.

Ivan, I share your position almost entirely. There is one small problem - with the assessment of the adequacy of the options under consideration. Gradually, all people undergo a reassessment of values. Say, five years ago I could not imagine that in pursuit of high-quality sound in a portable device, the use of the Hifiman HM-801 would not seem something special to me. There are also much more "fancy" bundles, and this is just a portable sphere, let me remind you. Regarding the hundred-kilogram amplifiers, in my opinion, both the iPod Shuffle and the Hifiman HM-801 seem small, but in terms of sound quality, these two players are separated by a huge abyss.

Let's not forget that audio equipment is ultimately evaluated not by robots and advanced measuring systems, but by living people. The psychological mood can play a very important role, sometimes the sound of inexpensive headphones will seem tolerable, and it also happens that a lovingly selected set “does not sound”. This is also the reason for the relatively easy adaptation from expensive and high-quality links to simpler ones.

Of course, each person has his own boundaries in which he is ready to move. For some, this border is financial, and it replaces the qualitative scale. However, when listening to a large number of devices, there is a gradual transition to a qualitative scale. Yes, often a cheap device sounds worse than an expensive one. But, for example, a $400 iPod will lose miserably to a $150 Teclast T51.

Here we come to a simple question: who determines what "wins" and what "loses"? By what criteria? Once again, people determine. The criteria are different for everyone. But I must say that I know of isolated cases when people chose the iPod based not on the stereotypical prestige of the Apple brand or the appearance of the device, but on the sound characteristics. Those. we can draw an intermediate conclusion - according to these characteristics, Teclast T51 is ahead of iPod, Cowon, Sandisk Sansa.

In order not to try to draw conclusions for all music lovers, I will tell you what I personally appreciate in sound. First, it is resolution. It is tritely pleasant for me to feel that nothing escapes attention in a musical composition, and if I suddenly want to listen to a violin part, other instruments will not drown it out. Secondly, it is the naturalness of the sound.

I don't go to live concerts that often, which is probably not very correct - but let's at least look at voice reproduction. Not every audio system will be able to reproduce vocals naturally, without deliberately emphasizing sibilants, without mumbling, without deafness. Thirdly, the sound should be comfortable in general and not cause discomfort during prolonged listening.

Perhaps, these are the main requirements that I place on sound. In my opinion, it is better to do without listening to music if you do not have access to decent audio equipment. If the conversation is about the "noise background" - then of course, I am ready to use simple speakers, without turning them on loudly.

However, in addition to music, there are, for example, audiobooks and podcasts that can be listened to even on not the most "fancy" headphones and speakers.

By the way, about the musical material. Whatever wonderful speakers, headphones, players you have, you need to listen to something on them. And then sometimes interesting things happen when, it would seem, not the most successful composition “catches” something, and you want to listen to it over and over again. The problem of subjective perception? Perhaps this is not such a big problem. Rather, it is a nice feature.

In general, there are a lot of options, and it is impossible to sort through all of them. Let me remind you of the Monster Cable advertising slogan: "Life is too short to listen to bad headphones." Here, in my opinion, something should be added.

The first point - "good" headphones - it does not have to be something more expensive than a thousand rubles. You choose, not marketers.

Second moment - listen to the music that you like. Wherever you like it. On what you like. And if you are willing to spend money and time on sorting out the best options - most likely, the process itself will bring satisfaction. And if in the end the very combination of sound-reproducing devices is found, on which your favorite music will play even better than on the ones available now, then that's great.

Personally, discovering new nuances in seemingly familiar compositions, I understand what the money was given for and what time was spent on. Perhaps you have your own criteria. Follow them.

Column (audiophile) N7. Quality sound

After the release of the sixth issue of the column, dedicated to the definitions of the characteristics of sound quality, the forum was expressed opinion that has the right to life. Namely: sound quality and sound quality are two different concepts. As for the characteristics themselves, there is, in fact, no disagreement - there are generally accepted evaluation criteria, which differ only in the depth of analysis of the sound signature of sound reproducing devices. But there is no consensus about what kind of sound is considered high-quality.

Sometimes disputes arise between owners of expensive devices, each of which, it would seem, should produce such a sound for its price that there can be no complaints against it. But no, absolutely ideal players, headphones, amplifiers and speakers that everyone likes do not exist in nature. So from what side to approach the concept of "quality sound"? Again, after the last column was published, I received a beautiful letter, the contents of which, with the permission of the author, I am going to share with you.

Quality sound is when your favorite tracks sound nice.

High-quality sound is not necessarily the top Mark Levinson set, although it also sounds good, it can be JBL portable speakers powered by four AA, lying in the sand next to you on the seashore, it can be KOSS headphones in road to the sea, etc.

Quality sound offers a device applicable in this situation in these circumstances for adequate money. For example: you are lying on the beach, and you are surrounded by speakers the size of a sideboard, powered by terminals weighing 100 kg each, and you are warmed not only by the southern sun, but also by the light of audiophile lamps; or you invited three friends to watch the second transformers through one pair of studio headphones.

Among my surroundings, there were no people capable of distinguishing a good Yamaha kit from a bunch of Arcam and B&W, although the price differed exactly 4 times. But that doesn't mean there's no place on earth Mark Levinson #53, B&W nautilus, Clearaudio.

Ivan, I share your position almost entirely. There is one small problem - with the assessment of the adequacy of the options under consideration. Gradually, all people undergo a reassessment of values. Say, five years ago I could not imagine that in pursuit of high-quality sound in a portable device, the use of the Hifiman HM-801 would not seem something special to me. There are also much more "fancy" bundles, and this is just a portable sphere, let me remind you. Regarding the hundred-kilogram amplifiers, in my opinion, both the iPod Shuffle and the Hifiman HM-801 seem small, but in terms of sound quality, these two players are separated by a huge abyss.

Let's not forget that audio equipment is ultimately evaluated not by robots and advanced measuring systems, but by living people. The psychological mood can play a very important role, sometimes the sound of inexpensive headphones will seem tolerable, and it also happens that a lovingly selected set “does not sound”. This is also the reason for the relatively easy adaptation from expensive and high-quality links to simpler ones.

Of course, each person has his own boundaries in which he is ready to move. For some, this border is financial, and it replaces the qualitative scale. However, when listening to a large number of devices, there is a gradual transition to a qualitative scale. Yes, often a cheap device sounds worse than an expensive one. But, for example, a $400 iPod will lose miserably to a $150 Teclast T51.

Here we come to a simple question: who determines what "wins" and what "loses"? By what criteria? Once again, people determine. The criteria are different for everyone. But I must say that I know of isolated cases when people chose the iPod based not on the stereotypical prestige of the Apple brand or the appearance of the device, but on the sound characteristics. Those. we can draw an intermediate conclusion - according to these characteristics, Teclast T51 is ahead of iPod, Cowon, Sandisk Sansa.

In order not to try to draw conclusions for all music lovers, I will tell you what I personally appreciate in sound. First, it is resolution. It is tritely pleasant for me to feel that nothing escapes attention in a musical composition, and if I suddenly want to listen to a violin part, other instruments will not drown it out. Secondly, it is the naturalness of the sound.

Not to try to draw conclusions for all music lovers, I'll tell you what I personally appreciate in sound. First, it is resolution. It is tritely pleasant for me to feel that nothing escapes attention in a musical composition, and if I suddenly want to listen to a violin part, other instruments will not drown it out. Secondly, it is the naturalness of the sound.

I don't go to live concerts that often, which is probably not very correct - but let's at least look at voice reproduction. Not every audio system will be able to reproduce vocals naturally, without deliberately emphasizing sibilants, without mumbling, without deafness. Thirdly, the sound should be comfortable in general and not cause discomfort during prolonged listening.

Perhaps, these are the main requirements that I place on sound. In my opinion, it is better to do without listening to music if you do not have access to decent audio equipment. If the conversation is about the “noise background”, then of course, I am ready to use simple speakers, without turning them on loudly.

However, in addition to music, there are, for example, audiobooks and podcasts that can be listened to even on not the most "fancy" headphones and speakers.

By the way, about the musical material. Whatever wonderful speakers, headphones, players you have, you need to listen to something on them. And here sometimes interesting things happen, when, it would seem, not the most successful composition “catches” something, and you want to listen to it again and again. The problem of subjective perception? Perhaps this is not such a big problem. Rather, it is a nice feature.

In general, there are a lot of options, and it is impossible to sort through all of them. Let me remind you of the Monster Cable advertising slogan: "Life is too short to listen to bad headphones." Here, in my opinion, something should be added.

The first point - "good" headphones - it does not have to be something more expensive than a thousand rubles. You choose, not marketers.

Second moment - listen to the music that you like. Wherever you like it. On what you like. And if you are willing to spend money and time on sorting out the best options - most likely, the process itself will bring satisfaction. And if in the end the very combination of sound-reproducing devices is found, on which your favorite music will play even better than on the ones available now, then that's great.

Personally, discovering new nuances in seemingly familiar compositions, I understand what the money was given for and what time was spent on. Perhaps you have your own criteria. Follow them.