The Audiophile Myths and delusions thread

[wiyosaya]

Audioholics is a pretty good place, IMHO, that dispels a lot of myths.

Here's a pretty good article on why audio amplifiers can sound different.
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/audio-amplifiers-sound

I just went through a speaker upgrade. I did audition the speakers I was considering, and I found a set that sounded good to me - and even my wife can hear the difference between the new and the old speakers (the old ones were 20+ years old - technology progresses).

That said, I agree that audio is a personal taste. Some people like speakers that I don't and vice versa.

One thing that I have found in the past is that a cable can matter for DVI. In any cable, one has to deal with wire resistance. If that resistance is too high, the signal transmitted over it will not be strong enough even if it is a digital signal. In the DVI instance, I had a 9' cable with a high wire gauge where the picture had sparkles in it. I bought a cable 9' cable that had a lower wire gauge and the problems disappeared. The same can apply for HDMI. However, that does not mean that one has to pay a lot of money for a cable that has a lower wire gauge, thus less internal resistance and lower loss. I have found it sometimes difficult to get the specs on the wire gauge used in the cable, though.

On the audio end, if the cable is of sufficient wire gauge to transmit the signal with minimal loss, the audio coming out of such an HDMI cable will sound no different than any other cable of any cost that meets the same basic specifications when it is in the same system. But you all already know that.

The audio/video shop that I deal with most of the time is one where they don't offer much, if any BS - I value that, and they know that they get my business because of that.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I believe that, back in the analog days, sure, yes, hardware made a difference.

Honestly I think that is why a lot of audiophiles love analog stuff- like vinyl or tube amplifiers. When its analog every possible wire or connection is a chance for improvement and snootiness. Vinyl isn't growing because it sounds better than a CD (it doesn't, it can't), Vinyl is growing because it re-enforces the old audiophile fantasy. Hipsters LOVE any group that acts snooty, and the whole audiophile analog love was a perfect vehicle for that.

One of the things that cracks me up IRL is the people I know who specifically buy budget hardware (like the $59 Bluray player instead of the $259 Bluray player), but then insist on getting the $79 Monster Cable HDMI cord for it

Sometimes people just don't know, or they still cling to assumptions from an analog era. In those cases a little knowledge goes a long way. And I can't blame a store like Bestbuy for preying on people that lack knowledge, as they would be out of business without 99% margin HDMI cables. Every one of those people give back the margin I rob when I make them pricematch Amazon and then give me rewards on top.

With that said, I think sometimes people who are audiophiles go out of their way to avoid knowledge. I am a videophile myself and not an audiophile, but I do interact with audiophiles when it comes to how to handle the audio streams that come with content. The two things that amaze me are:

1. How many "audiophiles" I know with expensive equipment ($thousands) for listening to music, but that only have a soundbar or something hooked to the TV that they watch for hours a week.

2. How many audiophiles don't keep up with digital forms of audio content, and don't know the benefits of say DTS-HD vs DTS. Even worse are the ones who don't trust ANY fancy digital bitstreaming, and they pitch a fit that a certain piece of equipment only allows HDMI out instead of some sort of discrete output for each channel. It's like welcome to the 21st century fellas.

And yet we don't skip a beat when dropping $80 on a fancy laptop tote bag

That isn't fair Kaido, because:

1. $80 is cheaper by magnitudes than any "fashion" purse my wife has ever owned and

2. We nerds don't buy the $80 tote bag because the colors make us feel good. We get it because it has all these awesome pockets for wires, and a place for your battery bank, plus it is normally $100 and we got it on sale for the $80.

Compare that to fashion where form is WAY more important than function, and where something being on sale is a bad thing because that means no one wants it. Honestly I feel fashion and technology are on the opposite ends of first world human hobbies. Very rarely do they meet, at best we see it in the gamer who adds fancy lights to his rig or the fashionistas that tolerate an ugly looking Apple Watch (despite having a $100 custom band they added to it) for the functionality it adds to their life.

I know I personally can't understand the fashion world one bit, any time I am purposefully paying huge margins on stuff the emotion of feeling ripped off is much greater than any positive emotions I feel about a product. In fact it's the opposite- I always like a product more that I got a great deal on and I know the seller got minimal margins on. In their rejection of that philosophy I feel audiophiles and fashionistas are a lot alike, at least from my (biased) perspective.

 

[wiyosaya]

As I see it, the thing with Bose is that they have a massive marketing engine to support.

It used to be the case, and I suspect it still is today, for what you might pay for one of Bose' subwoofer/satellite "cube" systems, shopping around a bit used to reveal that for the money you would spend on the Bose system, you could find a system that sounds much better for a similar price from a company like, say, Paradigm (yes, I own Paradigm - just speakers, not the company ). Paradigm, though, does not have a marketing engine that they have to support. From Paradigm for the same price, one could get speakers that are larger and physically more able to reproduce sound in general. Unless the competing speakers are crap, I would be willing to say that in many to most cases, a listener could tell the difference between systems of a similar price from Bose and a decent speaker manufacturer in a blind test. Some people might still prefer the Bose sound.

So goes the argument from people that don't like Bose.

 

[DigDog]

sigh .. i have to deal with this kind of shit on an almost daily basis.

on a blind test, audiophiles could not distinguish between a connection with a high quality monster cable (think about a grand worth of gold coated cable) .. and a coat hanger.

 

[master_shake_]

http://www.coconut-audio.com/index.html

if it weren't for audiophiles then who would buy a 2500 dollar sata cable or a 45000 dollar 1.5 meter power cable.

it's like they're allergic to money or something.

 

[Deders]

OH OH! I got one! Headphone burn in! While the headphones might undergo slight physical changes and may result in very slight sonic differences, you would be really hard pressed to tell the difference. Most of the time, its simply YOUR BRAIN adjusting to the new sound of new headphones and what was at first different becomes normal to your brain. The same thing sometimes happens to me when I buy a new PC game. The graphics are so confusing to my eyes sometimes and I can't make out the details, but then the BRAIN adjusts to the new graphics engine and things start to make sense visually.

It really does depend on the headphones in question. The Sony MDR-EX series of IEM's really do pop after several hours of burn in. The difference is very obvious. The bass becomes fuller and tighter, the stereo image expands. It can also take a while for certain harsh frequencies to settle down (around 7KHz in my MDR-EX700's). I guess it depends on the kind of driver and the material used.

I've tested myself with the one good ear of my previous earphones compared to the other ear from the identical new ones. I usually give them a quick listen, and then leave them playing for 12 hours or so to be sure I haven't received one of the many cheap copies that are about.

I know what you mean about your ears taking a while to get used to different equipment. I sometimes mention this in the vinyl vs digital debate. It can be very subjective to what you are used to. But in my case I am already used to the characteristics of this series of earphones.

On a slightly different subject I'm sure my newest sub has benefited from burn in. It can handle sounds from movies much better without needing a 90Hz low pass filter any more.

 

[thesmokingman]

One thing though, I can't do without my remastered FLAC recordings. Some recordings are really improved by the remastering.

 

[JeffMD]

The FANTASTIC VIDEO of proof of how CD specs is just right for us: https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell

I saw this when he first put it up and loved it. I have never once desired 96k or 24bit sound because of it.

 

[RampantAndroid]

nwavguy - the guy who took a DIY amp design, bought one pre-built, removed parts from the amp because "they make no difference!" and then tested it, saying it was inferior. Nwavguy got banned from a bunch of forums for being overly combative...and in the end, all his bashing of other designs ended up being a build up to "see, all those other people are morons, look at this design I came up with!" I refuse to buy an O2/ODAC combo, because I refuse to endorse his douchbaggery.

Personally, I'd look at a Schiit Magni + Modi combo - similar price, a company with support, etc.

Regarding the TekSyndicate video - they're not exactly technical, nor would I ever reference them. They talk about things like amps making things "louder" - you can have amps at unity gain (for example, with really sensitive IEMs, you might want to run a DAC that outputs 2Vpp through an amp at unity gain). They also seem to say flac is worthless without actually going into things like the source material. The inherent problem with just comparing FLAC vs MP3 compression is that source matters so much - what was the source sample rate? Bit depth? Is the source mostly the same amplitude throughout, or is there a fair amount of differences in amplitude/is there a large range? It's where you have more range that an MP3 will really show its limitations even at 320k. Now, you probably won't hear these without a great pair of headphones, an amp and a good DAC (or a good speaker setup) and as a result you may not care about FLAC, but to say that FLAC is just placebo effect is...well, wrong.

sigh .. i have to deal with this kind of shit on an almost daily basis.

on a blind test, audiophiles could not distinguish between a connection with a high quality monster cable (think about a grand worth of gold coated cable) .. and a coat hanger.

Beyond wanting the contact surfaces to be gold so it won't oxidize, people who go nuts about the cable choices are nuts. Especially HDMI/digital transport cables - unless you're dealing with I2S where wire lengths make a difference....a cable is a cable is a cable. It either transports the digital signal or it does not.

 

[Kaido]

That isn't fair Kaido, because:

1. $80 is cheaper by magnitudes than any "fashion" purse my wife has ever owned and

2. We nerds don't buy the $80 tote bag because the colors make us feel good. We get it because it has all these awesome pockets for wires, and a place for your battery bank, plus it is normally $100 and we got it on sale for the $80.

Compare that to fashion where form is WAY more important than function, and where something being on sale is a bad thing because that means no one wants it. Honestly I feel fashion and technology are on the opposite ends of first world human hobbies. Very rarely do they meet, at best we see it in the gamer who adds fancy lights to his rig or the fashionistas that tolerate an ugly looking Apple Watch (despite having a $100 custom band they added to it) for the functionality it adds to their life.

I know I personally can't understand the fashion world one bit, any time I am purposefully paying huge margins on stuff the emotion of feeling ripped off is much greater than any positive emotions I feel about a product. In fact it's the opposite- I always like a product more that I got a great deal on and I know the seller got minimal margins on. In their rejection of that philosophy I feel audiophiles and fashionistas are a lot alike, at least from my (biased) perspective.

Haha, true enough! And I think, stereotypically speaking, that men go after functionality (what features does it have?), whereas women go after emotion (how does this purse make me feel?). If manbags were acceptable, and if I had one as big as some of my wife's purses, I would have all kinds of crap in there - beef jerky, a gaming tablet & control pad, a big pair of headphones, and other goodies in that puppy. I'd probably tote my Gear VR around if I had the chance

 

[Kaido]

One thing though, I can't do without my remastered FLAC recordings. Some recordings are really improved by the remastering.

Yeah again, I think, barring snake oil stuff like fancy digital cables that have zero effect on sending digital bits over, that it boils down to a mix of things. Like, I think lossless audio is great, and on my previous 650 headphones, those recordings sounded absolutely amazing, but I personally really love the convenience of listening to Spotify or my MP3 collection or even a Youtube playlist (which is like a step above FM radio in terms of audio quality, lol). My 650's revealed the defects in the recording medium & bitrates and I sure didn't care for that at all! SACD's & DVD-Audio discs definitely sound amazing, but again, the convenience thing wins out for me...I want to enjoy the music, not dispute the perceived quality of the recording (which is fine if that's what you're into, because everybody needs a hobby!). I mean sure, if I could stream 100% of my music lossless, I'd totally do that. And there is stuff like Tidal, Qobuz, etc. that offer CD-quality streaming if you want that, and even more arcane places that offer FLAC & other formats at even higher resolutions. Assuming the listener in question doesn't think that digital recordings are the devil :biggrin:

One of the things that cracks me up is that, when you look at the workflow involved in making recordings, even the best microphones only cost a few grand, and yet some people won't hesitate to drop a hundred grand on speakers. For example, one of the mics I use on my film projects is a Sanken COS-11D, which is used on pretty much every film & TV show out there...and yet it 'only' costs $500. Even one of the most popular vocal mics for recording lyrics, the Neumann U87, is well under $4k, so you might spend $20,000 on a stereo setup to listen to audio recorded off a $3,500 microphone

 

[Kaido]

Unless the competing speakers are crap, I would be willing to say that in many to most cases, a listener could tell the difference between systems of a similar price from Bose and a decent speaker manufacturer in a blind test.

Yeah, and that's the thing - for most people, they need a side-by-side comparison to differentiate the incremental improvements between systems, and what does say about the audio world in perspective? Generally, most people's metrics are (1) is it clear enough that I can understand the lyrics? and (2) is it loud enough to fill the room? From there, you can start talking about audio quality, midbass punch & subwoofers, but for stuff like for office computers, I generally set people up with a simple Logitech 2.0 or 2.1 system like the LS21 & people are always like wow, I didn't know small cheap speakers could sound so good! Same with hooking up a $25 Lepai TA2020+ amp to pretty much any standard set of bookshelf speakers...sounds great!

I think cars are the biggest place to hear a difference in speaker sound quality. I can't remember which model, but a few cars ago, I had the worst-sound speakers ever. Just really really bad. Everything was muddy & it sounded like all of the instruments were in a blender. So that goes back to the clarity & volume thing...is it clear enough that you can understand the vocals & hear the individual instruments, and does it fill up the sound space you're listening to it in, or does it just sound like crap & then even worse when you crank it up?

 

[moonbogg]

You see? This is what I'm talking about! I am grateful for the advances we have made. My Pandora sounds the same after 500 plays as well, and I mostly just listen to Pandora.
Hell, last night I listened to Metallica's "One" on youtube with my new cans and it blew me the hell away. God that was awesome as all hell. When it comes to music I am very much a man of convenience as well. At least for me, common sources of music have truly become good enough.

Actually, I must add, I don't think I have heard any song 500 times in my entire life. Not even "happy birthday" and I hear that crap every time I go to a restaurant. 500 times? Get the hell out of here. Who hears their songs 500 times? (Crap, don't answer that!)

 

[Deders]

YouTube's Quality has got better now they use AAC as their audio codec. The worse sounding clips will either have been made before the last few years or have been encoded from an already poor source.

 

[wiyosaya]

Yeah, and that's the thing - for most people, they need a side-by-side comparison to differentiate the incremental improvements between systems, and what does say about the audio world in perspective? Generally, most people's metrics are (1) is it clear enough that I can understand the lyrics? and (2) is it loud enough to fill the room? From there, you can start talking about audio quality, midbass punch & subwoofers, but for stuff like for office computers, I generally set people up with a simple Logitech 2.0 or 2.1 system like the LS21 & people are always like wow, I didn't know small cheap speakers could sound so good! Same with hooking up a $25 Lepai TA2020+ amp to pretty much any standard set of bookshelf speakers...sounds great!

I think cars are the biggest place to hear a difference in speaker sound quality. I can't remember which model, but a few cars ago, I had the worst-sound speakers ever. Just really really bad. Everything was muddy & it sounded like all of the instruments were in a blender. So that goes back to the clarity & volume thing...is it clear enough that you can understand the vocals & hear the individual instruments, and does it fill up the sound space you're listening to it in, or does it just sound like crap & then even worse when you crank it up?

One of the things that cracks me up is a car with a massive subwoofer, then all you hear is everything that is loose in the car rattling.

Some people do not make a comparison when they are shopping for things like speakers. There's a mentality out there that whoever has the most is the best, whatever costs the most is best, and if I can afford it and it costs the most, then it must be the best - even though I never took the time to research it.

I'll add one thing to what poofyhairguy said in that at least some of us nerds don't have an unlimited budget, therefore, we (at least myself) look for what is also the best value in addition to all the other features it has. I could not possibly have gone out and paid what I did even though I got a free center channel speaker as part of a manufacturer's promotion without listening to what I bought first. When I bought my first set of speakers 20+ years ago, I listened to the speaker series I bought and one that was the next step up in price. What I found was that each sounded better on different CDs. Neither was a clear winner, so I bought what I thought was the best value - the less expensive series.

I would like to think that if I had that unlimited budget, I would still buy value rather than price. I know for sure that I would not be buying super-duper diamond coated cables because I already know too much about cables to be fooled with marketing blather that claims they sound so much better than ordinary coat hangers.

As I see it, there is an esoteric market out there that caters to those to whom cost is no object, and at least as I see it, this is where the a majority of myths come from. The rest of the myths come from over-inflated marketing claims that cater to those who don't have a lot of knowledge.

 

[moonbogg]

The most hilarious cable scam I have seen, and they are STILL for sale. These guys were confronted by the james randi foundation and called out on their BS, but they still sell them. I am afraid people buy them.

The review:

"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to be its PRAT. Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace—these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

The product:

http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm

The price:

3 foot pair - $2750
8 foot pair - $5250
12 foot pair - $7250

Well, to their credit, at least for that price you get a pear.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The most hilarious cable scam I have seen, and they are STILL for sale. These guys were confronted by the james randi foundation and called out on their BS, but they still sell them. I am afraid people buy them.

The review:

"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to be its PRAT. Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace—these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

The product:

http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm

The price:

3 foot pair - $2750
8 foot pair - $5250
12 foot pair - $7250

Well, to their credit, at least for that price you get a pear.

Well, I also like how they have a frequency response chart.

I mean, this site details how you might be able to create that chart, but also shows how it's absolute nonsense still.
http://www.ovnilab.com/articles/cables.shtml

 

[blackangst1]

Anything on this site is a myth: http://www.coconut-audio.com/

The "owner", Patrick82 as he's known on all the AV forums, has been banned from just about all of them. In fact, THIS thread here on Anandtech talks about it.

Spend some time on his site and read the very adjective-filled descriptions of his...uh...products.

The speaker wire thing...the power cable thing...the "do I need an amp or dont I" thing has been a never ending feud for decades. With rabid fanatics on each side.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

And yet how often are we seeing folks with displays that their own eyes can't resolve. Too funny.

 

[DigDog]

after berklee and my (loss making) business with jazz musicians, i went to study acoustics with one of the top acousticians of my country; we did it old school, measuring the walls with a tape measurer, calculating the resonances on pen and paper, had a 150 page workbook full of forumlas, and a collection of audio tapes explaining how it all worked.
not easy.

but it really did drive home the fact that it's science, it's not opinions. whatever you think is going on there, when you talk about audio, there's a reason for it.

obviously the reasons are plentiful, including materials exopanding because of heat derived from vibrations, air temperatures, electrical spikes, differences in impedance, amplitudes, human hearing, ambient factors ..

but when someone says a sound is "warm", you gotta punch them in the head. punch them. hard. in the head. (metaphorically)

unfortunately, we seem to have no interest, commercially, for accurate sound reproduction; maybe because technologies are just now surfacing that allow it, maybe because we don't give sound itself much importance, but we're dominated by the trend of making things sound good, regardless what kind of black magic you need to do that.

you know, i too was a victim of "extra bass" back in the 90s, i loved playing with my equalizer in the 80s, and when i first hear a correctly reproduced sound, i felt cheated.
i don't mind if commercial products do post processing on sound, as long as i can turn it off. however, if i'm building a studio, or a listening room, i want to go for as accurate as possible ... within my budget.

also, i really don't want to dedicate a large budget to music; because i feel that if there is a large budget, it should be spent on real, live music, not on reproductions. both because of the practical near-impossibility of accurately reproducing large scale amplitudes .. and because you really should dedicate more time to experiencing music being performed, rather than hiding in your hole with your £30k stereo.

 

[DigDog]

2/2

as for expensive audio equipment, i have strong doubts;
i'm more of a hi-end person than most hi-end people, and i struggle to believe that most expensive equipment is being used in a room which suits accurate reproduction. so when i see someone boasting a £15k record player, i'm thinking "are you going to use that in your living room"?

because of both diminishing returns, and the importance of having a dedicated listening room, once that is paid for, i find that most midrange systems perform just as well as any hi-end.

sure, when you want higher amplitudes, you need more power to your system for a higher dynamic range; but look at most modern, cheap systems, and you'll see that they effortlessly reproduce any dynamic at ridiculous, ear shattering voltages.
if anything, all these expensive hand-crafted machines tend to perform worse than most, specially at high voltages.

which is what gives them character. which is what makes the high-end people go crazy.

it makes them believe that the inaccurcies and idiosyncrasies of these machines are due to things which make the music better, instead of the opposite.

and that is why they have to use abstract terms, such as warmth, depth, color .. brilliance ... soundstage .... tightness .......


i've honestly, honestly stopped trying to argue with them.

They think that terms like "impedance" and "warmth" can be used in the same sentence; to me, it's lke someone trying to stick the word "soul" into a science paper.

let them rot.

 

[Deders]

and that is why they have to use abstract terms, such as warmth, depth, color .. brilliance ... soundstage .... tightness .......


i've honestly, honestly stopped trying to argue with them.

They think that terms like "impedance" and "warmth" can be used in the same sentence; to me, it's lke someone trying to stick the word "soul" into a science paper.

let them rot.

Not looking for an argument but I can help define those terms, at least how I see them. I studied music and recording for 6 years at both college and university, and there were acoustic modules so I appreciate and understand what you've said so far, but I expect you've gone into much more depth with acoustics aspects of sound.

A "warm" sound usually refers to a device with a sound signature that has more of a treble roll off than most. A lot of Sony equipment could be described as warm. I like it on their mp3 players, i have the option between this and full flat on my receiver, and on that i prefer full flat.

Some people prefer a bit more top end to make acoustic guitars and female vocals sparkle. I guess you could call this brilliance, not a term I've used myself, but a warm sounding device would not be the best option for this kind of music.

I would guess that colour refers to how a device renders the sound (for lack of a better word) so a sound from a device that doesn't reproduce a flat sound could be described as coloured.

The soundstage is how well a stereo (or surround for that matter) image is reproduced or projected. The sound field if you will. My current setup reproduced a much better stereo image than my previous setup which was practically non existent. If you've spoken to studio engineers about this kind of thing you will know what I mean. Some of the more talented engineers can use reverb and other effects to recreate an almost 3D image with just 2 speakers.

Many years ago I used to have a cheap sub, like you I loved the bass it gave me it but people who had heard better described it as fluffy. The opposite to this is tightness. The last 2 subs I've had were/are much tighter than the first one I had. I guess you could say there less distortion or other factors that make the sound less clear.

 

[moonbogg]

Damn. Nice one DigDog.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Not looking for an argument but I can help define those terms, at least how I see them. I studied music and recording for 6 years at both college and university, and there were acoustic modules so I appreciate and understand what you've said so far, but I expect you've gone into much more depth with acoustics aspects of sound.

A "warm" sound usually refers to a device with a sound signature that has more of a treble roll off than most. A lot of Sony equipment could be described as warm. I like it on their mp3 players, i have the option between this and full flat on my receiver, and on that i prefer full flat.

Some people prefer a bit more top end to make acoustic guitars and female vocals sparkle. I guess you could call this brilliance, not a term I've used myself, but a warm sounding device would not be the best option for this kind of music.

I would guess that colour refers to how a device renders the sound (for lack of a better word) so a sound from a device that doesn't reproduce a flat sound could be described as coloured.

The soundstage is how well a stereo (or surround for that matter) image is reproduced or projected. The sound field if you will. My current setup reproduced a much better stereo image than my previous setup which was practically non existent. If you've spoken to studio engineers about this kind of thing you will know what I mean. Some of the more talented engineers can use reverb and other effects to recreate an almost 3D image with just 2 speakers.

Many years ago I used to have a cheap sub, like you I loved the bass it gave me it but people who had heard better described it as fluffy. The opposite to this is tightness. The last 2 subs I've had were/are much tighter than the first one I had. I guess you could say there less distortion or other factors that make the sound less clear.

Deders really nails a lot of the terms pretty well. Some people do prefer a straight rendering of the sound as recorded. Some people prefer it to have more bass or more treble. Voice forward (sounding like you're closer to the singer) or less. I'm saddened that you've studied this kind of stuff and yet...don't really want to even try to understand it. A lot of people take this to an extreme, but a lot also do live in reality.

 

[Kaido]

you know, i too was a victim of "extra bass" back in the 90s, i loved playing with my equalizer in the 80s, and when i first hear a correctly reproduced sound, i felt cheated.

#1 - yup, and I still am that way! Crank up that bass! I like feeling the punch of the drums & bass guitar in music & movies. I just watched Jurassic World last night & it was awesome turning the sub up to "feel" the bass :thumbsup: And that's where it goes back to personal preference - some people want to replicate a studio-quality experience, which is fine, and others want the teenager-style make-your-body-vibrate experience. It's fine both ways & doesn't mean either one is bad, unlike what a lot of high-end audio posters & articles would try to lead you to believe.

#2 - yeah, that's another thing that bothered me about the 650's, they were TOO accurate. I didn't want to hear correctly reproduced sound, I wanted emotional sound that enveloped you. Like the difference between a 2.1 system with great bass & say cheap earbuds. I'm sure there's a lot of music out there that sounds great with a reference set of speakers or headphones, especially classical stuff & whatnot, but I mostly just listen to stuff on the radio & want some boom to it