Well, I would agree that a cheap Raspberry Pi can be the heart of a truly great music system with a few budget-priced additions: excellent power (check out Ian Canada), audio-focused operating system (I use AudioLinux), DSP for room correction and crosstalk cancellation (homeaudiofidelity.com is outstanding) and an optimized local network (Diretta protocol for me, and the judicious use of filters which could include a DIY ferrite choke cable and/or a $50 Cisco Catalyst or industrial Korenix M12 switch from eBay).
I don’t know how my Pi4-based streaming source compares to current audiophile favorites costing tens of thousand$$ from companies like Aurender, Grimm, Innuos and Taiko, but I’m constantly wowed by the spectacular performance of today’s affordable components and software.
LOL. That was my point in describing this room. It’s not my main listening room. I enjoy music, even if the reproduction is not perfect in every room of the house. This is about having reasonable expectations for each space and situation.
We moved onto this house a few weeks ago, so there’s still a lot of work in progress. However, I’m in the process of setting up another room that’s 16 ft x 20 ft with a 9 ft ceiling. It will be fairly heavily treated (working on a plan with GIK Acoustics) with a target reverberation time of ~300ms (+/- 25ms) from 300 Hz to 10 kHz. I have a pair of Legacy Audio Focus XD towers in that room, and I’ll use Acourate from AudroVero to build FIR filters for digital room correction. My expectations for the listening experience in this dedicated room are higher than the reflective family room, but I’m sure I’ll enjoy both spaces for what they are.
My source for the Focus XD system will continue to be a Raspberry Pi 4 running AudioLinux and powered by an Allo Shanti LPS. Unless I find something I like better, I’ll continue to use my Gustard X18 DAC and Topping Pre90 analog preamp. Compared to the loudspeakers and room treatments, the electronics are of insignificant cost yet they can deliver reference quality sound reproduction. Thanks to the power and leverage of network audio, I don’t feel compelled to spend more.
I spent $1000 on room treatment panels for my listening room. Money well spent, I think. This includes 7 panels from GIK Acoustics and 3 DIY bass traps.
We built up our surround system primarily for home theater. Music came from OPPO disc players and cable music channels. No radio tuner or streaming. Eventually we added Roku and then Pandora. Thought that was great until we found Roon.
Then we (I) got the upgrade virus. New speakers, subs, exaSound S88 for multichannel PCM/DSD playback, coleman 7.1 sw to connect the OPPO and S88 7.1 analog outputs to the inputs on the Denon AVR, plus 3 of the required expensive DB25 audio RCA snakes, and a NAD M28 7 channel amplifier. That was it for equipment and all in the pursuit of good quality surround sound. Then we (I) decided we needed to remodel and soundproof our living room. That was it.
Then it all got replaced by $190.00 headphone setup designed for Stereo single sided hearing. At least for me. The family can still enjoy the rest of it.
Yes, my system could be better. But it would likely cost me $25,000 in new speakers and electronics to achieve “better.” My wife would not be happy, and honestly, neither would I.
I am at the point where “good enough” is just fine, thanks.
Nailing the Harman curve is always a recipe for outright disaster in terms of sound quality, regardless if it is created by IEM, headphones or capable loudspeakers. The curve is just a side-effect of significant flaws of loudspeakers and room reverb adding up.
It is good for only one thing: quick recognition who has zero understanding of acoustic and no talent to do listening tests therefore seeing the Harman curve as a reference or target curve. Hi-fi as a hobby is not for everyone, maybe gardening or collecting stamps would be a better match in this case.
Came to similar conclusions as you. Performance quality of contemporary audio gear is fantastic. Low cost digital audio and analog amplification at levels of fidelity well beyond the range of human hearing, Parametric equalization within the streaming channel. DIY room EQ. It really is terrific. If I were starting in today’s world then I’d go straight into powered speakers for that experience.
If anecdotes do not suffice, we do not have to speak about the Harman curve as it was just a side-effect of multiple flaws while producing anecdotes on behalf of one speaker manufacturer.
It is outright ridiculous that with speakers in a room kinked tonality would be perceived by listeners as ´more natural´ compared to a balanced soundfield. It should be obvious to anyone who has experience with listening tests that this is indicative of an experimental design flaw (or multiple in this case).
It was not about brilliant but about being decent and showing a minimum of skepticism towards an overly easy recipe for redemption.
Certainly true, and no-one says that your perception is right or wrong. It is your personal subjective impression, others might come to the same conclusion with products not matching any target curve.
I am far from being on a crusade, just have some professional experience with the attempt to generate ´reference curves for headphones´ (which failed miserably and have never been published) and trying to point out that in general target curves for solely amplitude response are not a good idea. And loudspeakers I have mentioned because this was how the ´Harman target curve´ thing started. Headphone curves were developed later and they do not work either, for different reason.
I am aware of several papers as the aforementioned project was around the same time these had been published and I have read a lot by Dr. Olive.
Seemingly most of people have not noticed details of the listening test parameters, otherwise they would have risen serious doubts about the recordings being used, the majority of participants being colleagues of the initiator of the test(=manufacturer of one test sample), the differences between male and female participants or the fact that not headphones with specific FR characteristics have been compared to one another but FR curves on one and the same pair of headphones.
I am not doubting the results, but they are valid only for the given experiment, i.e. Dr. Olive has proven that a certain FR curve on a given pair of reference headphones tends to be preferred by a majority of listeners over measured curves from other models while roughly one third of the group prefers drastically different curves with variations in FR of 8dB tolerance. Not what I would call a precise result or a reason to take the result as a target curve.
Funnily, not many questions have been asked regarding the material used. My experience is you can reverse almost any listening test result focussing on tonal balance if you choose (pop, rock, electronic) recordings which either show an extreme bass-heavy or a bass-deprived mix.
Years later, Dr. Olive himself was explaining why the results should not be taken as a target curve or base for evaluation, particularly a precise one (which I consider to be only one aspect why the whole idea is flawed, but at least he admits this one thing):
As a casual critic of much audiophoolery, I have to admit this is one of the better critiques of measurement orthodoxy I’ve encountered. That being said, a smooth response with low distortion leaves open the door for personal EQ preferences. Apple Music on iOS/iPadOS also provides tuned EQ profiles for different genres of music (I’m sure others do, too).
Thanks for sharing the link. Reading the article it seems that the Harman curve is a very good indicator since most listeners (65%) prefer the curve. Others may want more or less bass/treble and that’s pretty easy to EQ provided that other aspects of the headphone like distortion, impedance, etc. are well managed. I don’t see anything in the article to suggest that the whole idea is flawed. The folks associated with the Headphone Show are doing a good job taking the Harman curve idea forward with additional testing and results showing where the curve needs improvement or where it’s application isn’t ideal. I’m thankful that I’m in the 65% arena. That’s helped tremendously to cut through the reviewer ■■ and get to a set of headphones that work great for me. Couple that with Oratory’s work on PEQ curves and that’s added a lot of enjoyment to my listening. For me I continue to see great improvements and I cheer on the progress.
