Originally Posted by engifineer

So if these guys do it and they like the way it sounds better ....

Same as with many things...until you get educated and/or experienced into what is "better", you don't know the difference. For example, guys who think their lowered stiffly sprung because they cut their springs Civic handles "better". You and I know that's not correct, but they may not realize it. Or, a guy who builds his motor and gets, hypothetically, 60 more hp, but only above 6500rpm, who thinks that will be faster around a track than 40 more hp from 4000rpm up. The 60hp extra will "feel" faster by somebody who is uneducated/unexperienced, but it won't be faster. There is a lot more to "quality" sound reproduction than most people understand. For example, frequency response, flatness of freq response, distortion, soundstage, focus, signal to noise ratio, max output level, efficiency, dynamic range, low frequency damping, vibration of surrounding mounting structures, and more. Objectively, the only thing that will be "better" with installing speakers back there is "fill". You'll get more sound "around" you. But in every other respect, the sound quality will be worse. This part, as I'm sure you'll agree, is fact.


Now, does that mean that somebody won't "like" it. Of course not. Just like you said, people can "like" many things. But, if you train somebody, let them listen to quality sound reproduction and educate them on what to listen for, then they will most likely change their mind about it. Just like you. You have said you wouldn't mount speakers there..because you know the difference.


Once they are educated as to what is say, more accurate, then let the subjective aspects commence. No problem there.


They should be told by and "Expert" why they should think it sounds horrible so they wont like it any more?

Not sure if you mean me, but I didn't say I was an expert. I said I was an audiophile.

LOL that is funny. Like my "wine expert" friend who tried all night talking through all the science and such to try and convince my other friend they should not like the wine they were drinking because it was horrible .... and the fact they liked it was only because they were not expert enough to know they did not like it. Apparently THEY were the smarter one, since they were spending half the price and enjoying their wine more since they didnt have as "sophisticated" of a taste as he did

I don't think this analogy is quite the same. Wine taste is far more subjective. In fact, there are many objective aspects to it at all.

I love how self proclaimed audiophiles, food critics, etc get off on telling others they are wrong for liking something because it is just not "right" !!

An audiophile is "somebody who is enthusiastic about audio". What's wrong with proclaiming I like audio? You like cars, right? So, you are a "carophile". It doesn't imply you know more, or what you know is more important than someone else.



I agree the sound production will not be good. But if these two guys like the way their system sounds better this way, then you are the incorrect one by telling they they dont. They like it ... so they like it, period. And telling someone they only like something because they dont know enough to know they dont is humorous at best.

I'm glad you agree that sound reproduction will not be good. To try to be a little less judgemental this time, I didn't mean to imply they are wrong to "like" it, I mean, just like you said, "sound reproduction will not be good". My objective was to educate them, but I apologize that I came off to strong earlier.

I would not recommend that as a speaker placement. But if it sounds better to them then that is that. Who am I to tell them they are just not smart enough to know they dont like the way it sounds?

I'm glad you agree with me that it's not good speaker placement. And you're right in saying I shouldn't say they are "wrong". That's not good wording. But, there's nothing wrong with trying to educate and explain why they may like sound reproduction done in a different way. And, because you sound like you know what you are talking about in sound reproduction, you are exactly the type of person to try to educate them (I didn't say anything about them not being smart).

On something this subjective (And yes this IS subjective .. we are not talking about accurate representation of the sound, we are talking about their perception through their ears .. which is a bit different here) if you have to be trained on what issues to listen for to know the difference, then the difference does not matter. They apparently do not hear it, thus it does not matter to them.


This reasoning is contridictory. Ultimately it's subjective. But, that subjectivity should come after education and experience. Unfortunately, sound reproduction is a subject that lends itself to, it's difficult to figure out how to say this and express myself properly, large amounts of misunderstanding as to what sound "good", unless you know what to listen for. For example, it is common practice in the sales area to "trick" people into getting them to think something sound better to be able to sell them something that you can make more profit on. For example, a few years back, when you bought a TV or an audio system, you went to a store that sold that type of stuff. It was relatively easy to influence somebody's choice in what TV picture they like better by turning up the brightness and color temperature, but, it's a less accurate picuture. (come to think of it, same thing with high color temperature HID lights...people think they light up the road better and increase visibility, but we know that's not correct). Or, you can sell a different set of speakers to someone by simply increasing the volume by 2db to something they are listening to in an A/B comparison, or putting a hump in the bass frequency response at about 70Hz. But you and I know that that isn't "better". So, it's ok to educated the uniformed. That's not a bad thing.

If you know any experts on the taste of peanuts, please do not send them over to teach my why I should hate Jiff pnut butter ... I mean, I LOVE That stuff .. I would hate to learn why I am wrong and have to start hating the taste of it.

I like Skippy better, but that's only because Consumer Reports taste testers say it tastes better. (joke).

Originally Posted by davidc1

He "thinks" it sounds better, 'cause it sounds different. Louder, more fill. But better? No way. And you and I know it doesn't. He would have been better off replacing the front speakers (although he never mentioned anything about that).