Hi Guys!


I'm a complete newb here. I'm getting in this world, and started to read a lot about all these.

I have a set up decent headphones, and was trying to improve my rig, but get some doubts:


- when i first was trying to find some pieces, I was strongly advised to get the Apogee Mini DAC. However, after some reading I got a lot of doubts

- A lot of people talk about blind tests, and double blind tests, and they all say (like in matrixhifi.com) that decent cheap equipments have SQ equivalent to high end ones, and it does not pay the extra $$ at all.



Is this true in your opinion?


(i'm sorry if I'm getting to a recurring theme or smt like that, but I tried to search this before and couldnt get straight answers...)



Thanks!

In my opinion you should spend as much as you can afford on speakers and/or headphones, but on everything else you quickly get into diminishing returns, i.e. spending a lot more may only give a slight improvement. Good analog and digital electronics doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.

And please don't double post.

What he said.

If you don't feel comfortable investing in high end equipment, don't. There's a lot of people that are fine with mid-range (what I would consider ~$90 - $150) gear. I would take a trip down to a brick and motor audio store (the closest thing I know of is J&R where I live) and test out some higher end headphones or speaker setups with your music of choice. If you can't hear the difference, then you know your cut off point (unless you have any insecurities - then by all means spend as much as you want!).

Once you get into the magical audiophile realm, the only thing you're gaining are minor increases in quality that most people wouldn't even notice or care about.

What should really matter: Music -> Equipment -> Wallet

What's also noteworthy... many people are happy with old equipment. Buy once, be happy until it breaks.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=53404

Personally speaking, as it's mainly music that is coming out of my speakers as of yet I'm not in need of any surround equipment. I totally missed that development around the year 2000 and onwards. I use the on-board stereo sound of my PC, a 5 year old (at least 20 or older year-old stereo technology) amplifier and some 30 year old retail AKAI speakers, fixed with custom mid-low drivers 10 years ago due to foam detoriation of the original ones... and you know what? I can't complain! The stuff just works, and it's the one electronic setup I was the least worried about all the time.

My advice, buy something that has decent specs, is not cheapest, and that is not too fancy looking or has too many knobs, you'll appreciate it that you forget about that the amp and speakers even exist over the years.

EDIT: about blind testing with audio equipment in hope of proofing something - that's for people who listen to Pink Floyd records over and over again... you can waste a lot of time for something that is quite obvious. What I mean is, that as soon as you change the music you listen to, what difference does it makes if your equipement is $1000 or $10.000 worth? Most music sounds really bad but some is quite good. The music you listen to (hopefully) changes every 38-78 minutes all the time, so you won't even notice the placebo effects that the $9000 bucks are causing to your conscience because the difference in quality of the music is much greater than any theoretical or placebo quality difference of your equipment.


Those people have found the holy grail.

Nope. I think systems need to be balanced. Buy the best gear you can afford (price isn't ALWAYS an indicator for quality.)

Maybe it is a magnepan thing, but I had to spend about $7k to get electronics that got he most out of my $500 speakers. Sure, you could run them on less and I did, but getting a good front end and amp really brought out their virtues.

Here is an example of someone who made an upgrade. The double blind crowd would advise that such a pairing was crazy, but this poster had a much different result:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MUG/messages/105731.html

That said, you should audition as much gear in your room as you can. Not everyone can hear the same, and you may be able to hear differences that warrant the expenditures. maybe not, but you won't know until you hear for yourself.

Pdq is right; speakers have always been the weakest link in the chain. (The second weakest link, the pick-up cartridge, has ceased to be a problem for most of us.) All the electronics have to do is provide linear amplification without introducing audible noise. As this is not particularly difficult it follows that decent quality needn't cost you an arm or a leg. (I can't recommend any particular makes or models because I've never tried anything 'off the shelf'. I built all my own stuff twenty years ago.)

Speakers and, to a lesser extent, phones remain a problem. They are of necessity both analogue and mechanical. It's not particularly easy to make a speaker whose cone accurately follows the waveform being fed into its coil. On top of that there's the coupling between the cone and the air itself to consider and the question of how to deal with the sound from the back of the thing. Take a look at an orchestra. The double bass is big for a reason - as are the bassoon, the tuba and the bass drum. It's hard to generate low frequencies from small sources. Back in the fifties a woofer just had to be 12" (some would say 18") if it was going to be any good and speaker cabinets were massive feats of engineering. By the eighties when I built my own speakers you could get good bass from an 8" cone as long as you put it in a really solid box. I expect things have got even better since then but the laws of physics remain the same.

There are a lot of people out there who are easily fobbed off with poor speakers - and easily fooled by the phenomenon of pseudo bass. Consequently, there are a lot of very poor quality speakers on the market. Good ones will not come cheap but, unless you're prepared to build your own, it'll be money well spent.

PS: If somebody asks my opinion of a speaker I put my chest up to it rather than my ear. At normal listening volume the bass drum should be felt in the rib cage. Anything that fails this test isn't worth considering.

You should invest more in the analog part of your equipment. Because digital is always the same.

...And please be aware that there is lots of stupidity/scam in the hi fi world. So ABX things whenever you can to make really informed decisions.

eBay is a good place to buy and try equipment. Many years ago I bought a Denon AVR-1801 HT receiver and was not satisfied with the sound for music. I then tried many used integrated amps paired with the Denon until I found what I liked. This gave me the opportunity to try the equpment in my own listening environment. I would sell the amps I didn't like and many times made my money back. But as many here have already said, don't scrimp on the speakers.

sorry about that!

I didnt know what would be the best place to post this thread...




thanks for the answer!

well, the thing is, I used to ear my headphones through my onboard music soundcard, but I started to upgrade my phones, as I considered them to be the weakness (i had PX100 at that time).

I bought then Alessandro Music Series One.

After those I bought Audio Technica ES7, Grado SR325, Beyerdynamic DT880 and AKG K701.

Then, I tried to plug my laptop onboard soundcard to my receiver (via TOS LINK) - and I have to say I liked what I heard! no more hiss, clear sound..

now, my receiver is a Sony QS series my dad has at home. So, I started to think if I could improve that sound with some better gear, and started to read about that.


Someone told be to get Apogee Mini DAC to process my laptop music -> decent amp -> (HPhones)



but then I also read it all was bulshit, and as I said, that I wouldnt be able to listen any changes, say from my Sony QS towards some xK$ stuff...


my point is that I really dont have where to ABX equipment, because where I live there are no such stores with abundance... so I thought you could give me a hand


but I understand that at this level it becomes strongly personal, right?

It's not always as featureful, but I've found that pro audio equipment has superb high sound quality for a much lower price. I wouldn't trade my Mackie HR824's (~US$1600/pair) for even the most elite of audiophile speakers. Just have to find something with XLR outputs to drive them

I feel you on this also. I have a lot of Pro/Studio equipment, and been satisfied for years.
Only make sense to use what the Pros use...IMHO.

Just keep in mind with speakers that a LOT depends on your listening environment! Speakers systems can sound radically different in your home than in the store. Radically different. They can also sound very different in different placements in your home. So don't buy speakers from any place where you can't take them home to experiment, and return them without a restocking fee.

Another tip - when you go to the store for a listening test bring your own program material - examples of music YOU listen to, not whatever they have lying around the store.

Another tip - the frequency response of the human ear varies with loudness - this is why audio gear has a "loudness control" - so beware of an audio salesman trick: louder music will "sound" like it has better bass and treble, so they tend to turn the volume up on the gear they're trying to sell you. Always A-B speakers at the same volume.

OT: I love this - "I would take a trip down to a brick and motor audio store ". Is this a " 'scuse me while I kiss this guy" moment? I see where you get "brick and motor" but it's "brick and mortar".

Indeed. Weakest link in an audio system is usually the ROOM, then the speakers, then everything else runs a distant third.

I'm not sure I would use the term "weakness".

The room is the most complex variable.. ALL rooms, except for carefully-designed anechoic chambers, or pure outdoors, will have standing waves at certain frequencies which will inevitably create peaks and valleys in the bass (<300 Hz). A different room will have peaks and valleys at different frequencies. By measuring the dimensions of the room you can make a pretty good guess where they will be, using the handy F=1130/2*d formula.

Likwise the materials in the furniture, walls, drapery, and other factors affect how much high-frequency absorption you get, hence how bright or dull it sounds, as well as how much sound reflection you get, which is also affected by where you listen from.

Some audiophile purists object to equalizers but the fact is that virtually every room has such an extreme sonic "personality" that there just isn't any other practical way to get flat frequency response so that you are hearing exactly what it is that the recording or audio engineer intended you to hear. I'm always amused when I hear people fretting over an amplifier that has +/- 0.5 dB frequency responce, 20Hz-20KHz, blissfully unconcerned that their particular speaker system in their particular room can't even maintain 6dB of flatness between two adjacent octaves.

The problem is that corrcting this is a tedious process involving an audio signal generator and a calibrated microphone AND a good equalizer (unless you have a lot of freedom to rearrange furniture and put up anechoic panels).

Oh, damnit. Buy the speakers you like, cable them with fat speaker cables of cheap kind (fat ones with a lot of tiny little strings), and connect them to amp which has enough inputs for your other equipment.

Amps are amps, if they "lack bass", there's that BASS knob there.

In reading through this thread, I realize how hard it is to find the right balance, especially when you are starting out.

I think it helps if you can hear what you are buying, especially speakers. And not in a mass market mid fi shop, but in a quiet, high end shop setting or in a friend's home. Many audiophile shops have lower priced gear that is no more expensive that what's in the big retailers but often sounds better and is of higher build quality. As others have said, bring your own music.

You should also listen to gear that is both less and much more expensive than your price point. It will give you a sense of what's possible, where the diminishing returns are and if the pieces you selected really do sound better than the lesser models.

Later, after you have purchased your first set-up and have a good sense of its strengths and weaknesses, think about upgrading select components with used high-end gear. The stuff is generally well cared for, with very long or lifetime warranties and sells for a fraction of the new price. A good shop will even check it out for a nominal fee. Many sell trade-in gear. Most of my gear is >10 yrs old, was purchased used and sounds fantastic. (subjectively speaking ;-)

It's not really so tedious these days with many modern receivers offering effective roomEQ options. Audyssey is the best option and available in Denon and Onkyo equipment amongst other options.


No offense, but I can't think of too much mid-fi equipment going for $90-150 outside of things like the AT440MLa cartridge. As a general rule, mid-fi begins closer to $1000. Below that is strictly entry-level. Not bad, but not generally considered mid-fi. Anything $150 or below is definitely an entry-level/low-fi option.

An important piece of hardware that most people ignore is the equlizer. The equalizer allows you to fine tune your system's sound to your room, and/or your ears, and/or your taste!

IME Unless it's parametric, and you use very little, eq tends to introduce as many problems as is supposedly fixes. Better speakers & more careful placement, and perhaps a rug or two tend to be more effective at "fixing" sound than graphic equalizers.

Of course it it works for you, who's to say...

Software equalizers are very accurate if you are using a computer as a source.

I agree completely on loading your money first into speakers/headphones.

I would suggest a computer as source to an m-audio usb outboard d/a converter to a good quality basic amp such as a nad or denon.

Excellent to near world class sound for about 4 grand.

I agree, they are accurate in the frequency bands they cover, but graphic equalizers are a bit like using a sledge hammer to cut a melon. Not very effective and it leaves a mess.

Most rooms are either too live on the top end (ringing, slap echo) or have bass issues (muddy, boomy, not enough) . Equalizers don't really help, they just mask the problem. Better to spend the time tweaking the speaker placement, shifting a rug or adding/moving a bookcase.

Of course for those times when you want to rattle the windows, there's nothing like having a lot of eq. :-)

I agree with you too that a pc with an outboard dac makes an excellent source. Then you can just spend relatively small amount on an amp and speakers.

Don't forget guys: the pros use eq's in the studio!

Bad eq's sound bad but good eq's sound good.

My M-Audio Fast Track Pro has balanced TRS outputs, which I use to drive the XLR inputs on my Mackie HR624's.

Indeed they do. (I assume you mean a recording studio here.) Pro's use all sorts of stuff to get the results they want and what comes out may bear little resemblence to the original.

But what exactly is 'the original'? Not so long ago, I recall some well known music producer (wish I could remember which one) on TV telling us that he would never want anybody to hear any of his artists play live. The studio was where it all happened. Now I happen to disagree with him there but maybe his comments say more about his artists than his methods. Perhaps their live efforts would sound absolutely awful! The point is that while die-hard audiophiles worry about frequency response, the producer of 'the original' has already warped it to suit his own taste.

Now some might say that what comes out of the studio is the original and we should aim to reproduce it as faithfully as possible but here we have another snag, one which I stumbled upon while trying to replace a damaged track on a compilation CD. The track was Unchained Melody so I had plenty of other compilations to choose from but which one to use? They all sounded subtly different! It would appear that as each CD was mastered the frequency response was tweaked. So which one is the true 'original? I'm still trying to figure it out.

My personal thoughts on this:

First of all, determine your listening room conditions like size, reflectivity etc. Choose your speakers accordingly then ... especially when it comes to general size and bass potential (in general, small rooms' standing bass waves are of higher frequency and might just interfere to a higher extend with larger speakers).

Secondly, Speakers and amps should match electrically ... to accurately perform dynamic steps in music at higher volumes, the amp should feed the speaker what it needs without clipping the power output (which is what actually kills chassis coils) ... the speaker efficiency will be a measure for its wattage needs.

Using an EQ (preferably 4 or more full parametric Bands) could help you deal with problematic frequencies in your room (resonances) and some poorly mastered music.

In general, there is no price tag that leads to good music reproduction ... speakers and headphones must be chosen by listening ... amps are generally being chosen by the amount of required inputs, the needed features (goes for CD players as well) and the power output after the speakers have been determined.

Whether Audyssey is 'the best' is of course an opinion (rivals include the TACT system) but it's safe to say that most rooms could benefit from some good digital room correction. Most authorities I've consulted, though, suggest that digital room correction be applied as a last step *AFTER* physical room treatments.



But in terms of the audibility of its function as an amplifier, there's nothing particularly 'low-fi' about a $500 Yamaha AVR verses a $1000 model.



The 'original' is the two-track master tape. But the original LP/45 -- the one that was the 'original' to the consumer -- might have (and probably did) sound different from that, because original masters were rarely transcribed 'flat' to vinyl.

Honest mistake.


I was considering the sharp turn in audio quality with the price differences. It's like getting a cheap pair of earbuds and going to a pair or IEMs. Yes, there is a lot of equipment that can cost a lot of money, but the OP hadn't exactly mentioned a price range.

It depends on what you call sound quality.
In blind tests with matched output level, CD Players and transistor amplifiers (not tube amplifiers) all sound the same, with casual exceptions, like a portable CD players that plays too fast, or an amplifier that catches electromagnetic interferences.

But according to your sensitivity, you may hear some differences between them (other than volume differences). Some people hear very big ones. They don't come from the player or the amplifier themselves, but from the listener's mind.

Some people hear them, some don't, but no one can recognize reliably the source that is playing when it is hidden.
It means that people hearing sonic differences only hear them when they believe that they are listening to something special. For example, in blind tests, some people believe that they are listening to a given source, while it is actually the other one that is playing. At this time, the listener really hears the sound that he believes he is listening to.

This is true for CD players, DVD players, transistor amplifiers, interconnects, S/Pdif cables, power cords, stands, DACs, preamplifiers, CD drives...
This is not true for speakers, because their frequency response is not linear. They have an objective sound quality that can be recongnized in blind tests.
Speaker cables may have an objective sound quality if they are quite long. Choose some basic ones between 2.5 and 6 mm2, with the two conductors close enough from each other (avoid the ones with specially spaced ones, their inductance is too high).

That is true. The only difference in sound I've ever heard is when I changed speakers. And I'd rather invest in solid sounding speakers that give the sound I like, than in cables, amps, preamps... bucks invested vs. difference in sound isn't obvious, at least to me, and I doubt that it is really that audible to anyone. 2x60W Yamaha amp is way enough for me.

Personally, I once recognized an amp change ... switching from a cheap low-power receiver to a solid amp really boosted my speaker's performance.

This was due to the fact that my speakers were - electrically speaking - very demanding and the cheap receiver's output stage simply couldn't drive them properly due to the rather complicated impedance/phase response ... the solid amp I replaced the receiver with had no problems maintaining a proper power output even at a load of 1 ohm and phase disalignment of 60 degrees.

This greatly improved the speaker's bass response at volume levels above room loudness ... beneath room loudness, there indeed was no huge difference between both setups.

My "solution" is to abandon this idea of there being an "original". Forget about this idea of hunting for some magic "as it was intended"-mythos and just shoot for what YOU like. However, there is a criteria which we all know - something of which i dont even know if it can be explained with formulas and the like..... when a freq band is overamplified, we all notice that. It seems to feel "unnatural". So, there DOES seem to be some kind of "reference point" between our ears - it may shift a bit between people, but it does seem to be there. The question then is just what you are aiming for.... do you prefer music to sound flat? Spectacular? Something in between? Something entirely different? Thats the main question imho. Flat speakers give you a good foundation to work on - so, i would say that even if you prefer non-flat sound, still get speakers which are flat, and then tailor the sound to your liking. Its always easier to "destroy" things rather than "repair" them - especially in audio.

- Lyx

.
Well new-cat, you’ve certainly come to the right place! I’ve been to 100+ A/V forums over the years and read more malarkey than I care to admit: the answers that you are getting here are right on the money – and no one at Hydrogen Audio will regale you with mythology about cables / wooden blocks under amplifiers etc.

1) Blow most of your money on great speakers - check out Paradigm / Polk and Klipsch to name but a few – for a great ‘Bang For The Buck’.

2) Unless you are buying under-engineered crap like Lloyds / Candle / Emerson, don’t fret the amplifier / CD player thing. Any of the big names that you’ve heard of such as Pioneer / JVC / Technics etc., are more than sufficient to reproduce a great acoustic event. With regards to the amplifier: pop for at least 100+ watts per channel if possible - simply to avoid clipping when you get the urge to kick out the jams... we all get the "Crank It!" bug once in a while!

3) Tweak your room first and formost. Google for “Room Acoustics” or such and read your heart out.

4) Get great-quality source material, be it LP / CD / PC-based files or whatever.

Put er’ together, crank it up and shake a leg!

Andrew D.

www.cdnav.com

.

Up to a point this is true, but just as there IS such a thing as an educated palate in wine tasting, there are educated ears in listening. For decades I've been listening to lots of live classical, folk, and jazz - all of which tend to be played acoustically, so I know what the instruments sound like, and what the range of differences between individual instruments sound like - not all cellos sound the same f'rinstance. So I listwen for a natural sound in those genre's.

Many speaker systems with subwoofers have weird, peaky, or exaggerated low-frequency response. Just the other day I was listening to a string quartet on such a system and it sounded fine for the violin and viola, but when the cello started playing it sounded like a #@%$*! double-bass!

On the other hand, for rock, alternative, electronic, house-mix/trance/techno music there is no reference standard. An artist like Moby sits in his one-man studio and lays down track after track using all kinds of sampling and layering and synthesis - your guess is as good as mine what it's "supposed" to sound like, so just go by what you prefer. Many times you don't even know what the original instruments were.

Also, while live music may be the reference standard for a piano quintet, live rock music is often designed for sheer loudness regardless of how much clipping or THD you have or whether you can understand the lyrics. Many people like the studio versions of rock and roll bands better because they have a cleaner sound; other people prefer the live versions because of the energy level or because it reminds them of their last rock concert, regardless of the sound quality.

Sure. That's easy for you to say.

Our whole downstairs is one huge, open-concept U-shaped space alnog with some open alcoves and bays, surrounding a central solarium. The entire south side of it is glass, for passive solar heating. The space has two interior balconies - both in the middle facing outward. ALL the ceilings are slanted, ranging in height from 9 feet to 24 feet, and the ceilings over the balconey sections go even higher. One side of the "U" has a large wood-burning stove, the other side has a full Steinway grand where we host chamber music players (my wife is a pianist). The upshot is that not only is the room very "live", but there is NO reasonable stereo speaker placement where both speakers will "face" the same size/shape/volume/material space. It's a wicked-cool space to own and live in (and I also use it as a photo studio (see pnArt.com) but it's maddening for any kind of media.

We spent last Sunday afternoon trying to figure out if there is ANY place we could put a 42" flat-panel TV if we bought one (we don't watch TV now). You'd think with a space that big it would be easy. We couldn't come up with any place where we could put a TV where we could put a couch or loveseat across from it to watch.

I love the description of your living space, but for listening to music perhaps you should consider earphones.

I would consider trading it for a pair of Adam A7s though

I definitely recommend anyone to listen to Adam A7 monitors when you get the chance. Well it sounds better than Mackie HR624s that I tried, not sure about 824s but some people say they are the same.

Are you saying there aren't any differences between the sound of e.g. solid state amps that can be heard by people or just that there are at most little differences recognized by only few people?

I'm asking because sometimes I've heard not huge but really obvious differences between some cheap amplifiers in the sub $1000 range. I haven't done any ABX tests but at least subjectively the differences seemed to be very apparent although small. I have to admit that above approx. $1000 (for a solid state 2 channel integrated amp) the differences I sometimes hear are so tiny and subtle that even without having performed an ABX test I'm very suspicious about them.

Replying to the first post:

I think you should really go and listen for yourself, and then you'll know at what price level you are still hearing differences that matter to you and - which is a completely different issue - what equipment is worth its price to you. For example, speakers that cost $25000 are definitely a lot better than a pair for $500, but - in my opinion - not nearly 50 times better. You'll very quickly run into diminishing returns with all sorts of audio equipment, it's really only up to your preferences, hearing ability and budget where to draw the line.

Also there can be quite big differences between products of different manufacturers at similar price levels so you should listen to as many as you can to be able to make an informed decision about where to best spend your money. You should try at least some good (not necessarily expensive) hifi systems (look for specialized stores) and some professional audio equipment.

My experience is in line with many of those who voiced their opinion in this topic. I've listened to stereo systems up to ~ $60000 (my budget is considerably lower than that, I just wanted to know what's "out there") and ended up buying much more expensive speakers and less expensive electronics than I originally wanted. I've spent ~ 85% of my audio budget on a pair of professional studio monitors which I found to be much better sounding than domestic speakers of similar (or even higher) price. I'd suggest you check out ATC and PMC along with the other names mentioned before, they make some really fine products that are good value for the money. It's a quite subjective matter whether you like their sound or not but it'd be a mistake not to audition them once.

Ok. I'll volunteer to solve your audio problems by offering to exchange apartments with you. You can get my 60 square meter flat which has a nice small square-shaped room, to which you'll have absolutely no problems fitting a nice hi-fi set and a 42" flat-panel TV to. Actually, I'll throw in the hi-fi and the flat TV for free! Naturally I'll be keeping the Steinway though

I don't know. We planned to test this in France with members of Chaud7's forum, but the room we were going to use have never been available.

What I can say is that most of the differences heard don't exit, or come from a difference in the volume setting.

There is a number of sites/publications that review inexpensive yet decent equipment. goodsound.com is one of them. affordableaudio.org is another.

What I've seen/heard is this: (this applies to solid state ONLY)

In most low fi, off the shelf stuff (Sony, Denon, Onkyo) stuff, it all sounds pretty good and pretty much the same when driving the same low fi OTS speakers when levels are matched.

When you go up to mid fi - Adcom, Bryston, Rotel, and mid fi speakers - Polk, Celestion, Mission, Vandersteens, then the Amplifiers again are very simliar. Compared to the low end gear you may get a little tighter deeper bass, and a bit clearer transients with classical music, but that's mostly better caps and power supplies. You may also experience a lower noise floor from better grounding, power supplies and/or components.

HOWEVER not all amps in this range do well with all mid fi speakers. The problem is that to get specific sounds, some speaker designs are harder to drive than others: the speakers may have very low impedance, very low sensitivity or wildly varying impedance over a give frequency range. (or all 3) Some amps are better able to handle these specific issues, and thus may sound better with a given speaker at matched level that others.
In other words: Amp 1 & 2 may sound the same with Speaker A, but somewhat different with speaker B


At the high end - Krell amps, B&W speakers, etc, the speakers become so demanding that while many amps may sound ok, only a few will sound really great with a given speaker.

So yes, with most gear, most amps sound the same. As you pay more money, the speakers get more demanding and not all combos are equal.

I dunno - I've never been to a Moby concert - he's been to my area twice in the last few years and sold out both times before I could get tix, but that dude does a LOT of his album work in the studio, by which I really mean his Manhatten home studio. I hear he gives a good concert but I also hear it's nothing like what you hear on "18" and "Play" - much more rock-and-roll, not so techno.

Can anyone confirm any of this?

There's also the larger philosophical question of whether we WANT music to sound live - many rock concerts are so loud and distorted you can hardly understand the lyrics if you don't already know them. Classical concerts usually have people coughing, sneezing, or crinkling something during quiet solos.