Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[amirm]

Hi Amir,

Can I ask you a question about your comments to David, above?

Of course you can .

I'm not an expert at anything, nor any particular sort of authority. I have no technical training, nor a degree in anything related to the hard sciences. You keep asserting your expertise and background, and seem to continue to be disparaging of those of us who cannot match your experience. It seems your patience is wearing thin with those of us who believe - for whatever reason - there may be things current research doesn't tell us (the unknown unknowns), and would rather just have discussions with peers you consider your equal.

But it seems kinda arrogant, dismissive and unwarranted. This is just an impression I'm getting. I could be wrong.

I very much apologize for that. Other than responding to John on my listening experiences at Microsoft, I avoid expressing my opinion as what is to be believed. I put forward research and references from others in everything I say. So much so that people are now getting tired of seeing my "graphs."

In this specific instance, we are not even talking about audio. We are talking about accusations of commercial motivation distorting the research. In this case, the issue becomes personal to me as Dr. Toole is my trusted mentor, teacher and professional colleague. So I stand up for him when accusations are not warranted. But even then, I was Ok with the accusation if we could move on to technical talk and I could not with David.

So my question is, on this forum - and in particular, this thread - is there room for people like myself who do not fully understand Harman's research, have questions about it, have indirectly-related experience in other fields, and are investigating a heuristic line of enquiry despite the fact we may have little else to offer?

You have every right and indeed my encouragement to question the research. I would be bored out of my mind if you did not do that . But please ask questions as you say. Don't assert with strong language things that a simple read of the research shows to be incorrect such as the reference to ABX tests by David. Please read this language and how he referred to Dr. Olive's blind tests. Are you not bothered with that if this was your work?

Of would you rather us just **** off?

'Cause that's the vibe and getting, and to be honest, part of the reason this forum is becoming less and less interesting to me.

If you look back at your poll results, 41% of us "Like participating in discussion of audio science even though (we) mostly rely on (our) ears." That's the majority. That's me. But I'm more and more getting the feeling that you'd prefer to keep company with those who ascribe to your own views, and take on only those whom you dignify worthy of your time.

Again, I could be wrong, but I think I may not be alone on this.

Looking forward to your response.

Cheers.

Again, I love your participations. And I apologize for the poor impression I left that caused you to post this. Continue to call me on it and ask for clarification anytime you see it.

 

[steve williams]

Hi Amir,

Can I ask you a question about your comments to David, above?

I'm not an expert at anything, nor any particular sort of authority. I have no technical training, nor a degree in anything related to the hard sciences. You keep asserting your expertise and background, and seem to continue to be disparaging of those of us who cannot match your experience. It seems your patience is wearing thin with those of us who believe - for whatever reason - there may be things current research doesn't tell us (the unknown unknowns), and would rather just have discussions with peers you consider your equal.

But it seems kinda arrogant, dismissive and unwarranted. This is just an impression I'm getting. I could be wrong.

So my question is, on this forum - and in particular, this thread - is there room for people like myself who do not fully understand Harman's research, have questions about it, have indirectly-related experience in other fields, and are investigating a heuristic line of enquiry despite the fact we may have little else to offer?

Of would you rather us just **** off?

'Cause that's the vibe and getting, and to be honest, part of the reason this forum is becoming less and less interesting to me.

If you look back at your poll results, 41% of us "Like participating in discussion of audio science even though (we) mostly rely on (our) ears." That's the majority. That's me. But I'm more and more getting the feeling that you'd prefer to keep company with those who ascribe to your own views, and take on only those whom you dignify worthy of your time.

Again, I could be wrong, but I think I may not be alone on this.

Looking forward to your response.

Cheers.

Unfortunately you aren't alone as these are the complaints that I am receiving.

This thread as I see it has devolved into at least 5-6 different discussions and after a multitude of posts has done nothing IMHO except to polarize members in the fashion that 853 guy has so eloquently verbalized. This was never the reason that WBF was formed and the poll about "how much science do we want to see"served only to inflame members more. Just my $0.02 as I and everyone else sees it from the sidelines

As Johnny Vinyl said,"if this is what it means to be an audiophile, I quit". Truly, if this is what we have to read every day to further the love of music then 853guy is spot on when he said...

'Cause that's the vibe and getting, and to be honest, part of the reason this forum is becoming less and less interesting to me.

 

[Tony Lauck]

"The 96dB Myth

Audiophiles may talk in terms of 96 to 120dB dynamic range, but they often fail to refer to any measurement standard, making the figures meaningless. Attempts to calculate the dynamic range of digital audio on the basis that 16 bits represents a ratio of 65000:1 or 96dB are invalidated by the fact that the full digital count represents the peak possible level, rather than the rms equivalent of the maximum possible sinewave, while the minimum count of one has little to do with the noise level, which depends on the type of dither (or noise-shaping) used. They also fail to take any account of weighting for subjective validity. "

I have long used the figure of 70 dB as a rule of thumb for the signal to noise ratio of 44/16 digital. After adding TPDF dither the "96" dB is reduced to about 90 dB. This needs to be further derated by the peak/average ratio. Before the loudness wars came about, the peak to average ratio (a.k.a. "crest factor") could be taken to be about 20 dB, but it does vary all over the place as a function of musical genre, recording production and measurement averaging windows. Thus 70 dB is just a guideline.

If weighed according to some curve one can better these numbers by noise shaping. Unfortunately, my experience has been that noise shaping at 44 kHz sampling rate usually increases the harshness of the resultant sound, i.e. IMO the un-shaped noise is preferable.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Unfortunately you aren't alone as these are the complaints that I am receiving.

This thread as I see it has devolved into at least 5-6 different discussions and after a multitude of posts has done nothing IMHO except to polarize members in the fashion that 853 guy has so eloquently verbalized. This was never the reason that WBF was formed and the poll about "how much science do we want to see"served only to inflame members more. Just my $0.02 as I and everyone else sees it from the sidelines

As Johnny Vinyl said,"if this is what it means to be an audiophile, I quit". Truly, if this is what we have to read every day to further the love of music then 853guy is spot on when he said...

Nobody is forced to read anything. But if they do read, and dismiss solid science with conjecture, they should expect to be answered. I don't understand how that is even remotely unacceptable or condescending. If one wants to believe what they hear and deny anything that contradicts that belief, they should just stay away from these threads. They are only polarizing because those who don't want to believe the available science can't seem to keep themselves from criticizing it, even when they clearly don't understand it. I, for one, have learned much from these threads. I hope they continue.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

Unfortunately you aren't alone as these are the complaints that I am receiving.

This thread as I see it has devolved into at least 5-6 different discussions and after a multitude of posts has done nothing IMHO except to polarize members in the fashion that 853 guy has so eloquently verbalized. This was never the reason that WBF was formed and the poll about "how much science do we want to see"served only to inflame members more. Just my $0.02 as I and everyone else sees it from the sidelines

As Johnny Vinyl said,"if this is what it means to be an audiophile, I quit". Truly, if this is what we have to read every day to further the love of music then 853guy is spot on when he said...

Steve, I am actually rather pleasantly surprised and somewhat satisfied with Amir's post preceding yours that even includes a twice expressed apology for the impressions that his tone makes.

I like Amir's graphs and have actually learned from some of his posts, which I am grateful for. So I clearly view Amir's posts, based on his expertise in the field, as useful. Yet I would suggest to Amir and others who seem to be so cock-sure about their science that they gain some humility. In my estimation, audio science is very much like biochemistry (my own field of scientific research) or any other field of science for that matter: we know an awful lot already, but that awful lot is just a tiny fraction of what yet is to be discovered. To pretend that audio science can explain or measure most of what is to be explained or measured is simply false, and a bunch of unwarranted hubris. As Ack pointed out, if audio science would really know that much, we could already more or less replicate a live event with recordings in our homes. While what we currently already have is certainly impressive and very much enjoyable -- otherwise we would not love our hobby! -- we are still more or less, depending on the type of music, far away from replicating the sound of live musical events. This shows that, as far as audio science has come, it is still severely lacking in its explanatory power -- just like any field of science. Again, some humility is called for.

 

[steve williams]

Nobody is forced to read anything. But if they do read, and dismiss solid science with conjecture, they should expect to be answered. I don't understand how that is even remotely unacceptable or condescending. If one wants to believe what they hear and deny anything that contradicts that belief, they should just stay away from these threads. They are only polarizing because those who don't want to believe the available science can't seem to keep themselves from criticizing it, even when they clearly don't understand it. I, for one, have learned much from these threads. I hope they continue.

Tim

Tim

it is not the available science that people are criticizing but rather as 853Guy states

it seems kinda arrogant, dismissive and unwarranted. This is just an impression I'm getting. I could be wrong.

This is the heart of the matter Tim. Too bad you can't see that

 

[Tony Lauck]

Nobody is forced to read anything. But if they do read, and dismiss solid science with conjecture, they should expect to be answered. I don't understand how that is even remotely unacceptable or condescending. If one wants to believe what they hear and deny anything that contradicts that belief, they should just stay away from these threads. They are only polarizing because those who don't want to believe the available science can't seem to keep themselves from criticizing it, even when they clearly don't understand it. I, for one, have learned much from these threads. I hope they continue.

Tim

Engineers are taught to come up with solutions that are "good enough". The goal is to construct useful artifacts, not to gain knowledge. Their education is geared to memorizing concepts and formulas and practicing the use of these concepts and formulas. The goal is to make a profit. (or for their employer to make a profit.)

Scientists are taught to question established knowledge and to try and devise experiments and theories to prove extant knowledge incomplete and incorrect. Unfortunately, certain branches of science have been compromised by commercial sponsorship and the centralized government funding has begun to corrupt the search for knowledge for its own sake.

In my opinion, there is very little audio that is "science". Most of it is "engineering". This can be seen from the names of relevant organizations, of which the AES is a prime example.

 

[ddk]

To a small boutique manufacturer, such a presentation may hope that a couple of retailers in the room sign a contract. To a company like Harman, it is reluctantly allowing their top research scientist to present an overview of their research methodology to a roomful of industry insiders. The hope, I suspect, is that those insiders will continue to believe that pretense and prestige will continue to sell more product than a better understanding of what drives consumer preference. So far so good...

You don't know what Harman does and how they do it or in this case who was in the audience. Marketing is fluid, and can work in reverse, in this video Dr. Toole is introduced as Consultant to Harman because the name has value.

YouTube videos? Please. Marketing, in Harman's league, is about message, reach and frequency. None of which are properly achieved in a YouTube video of research presentation. You seem to desperately want to believe this is hucksterism, not legitimate research. I'm sure no amount of reality is going to change your mind.
Tim

Are you saying that a research presentation can't be an effective marketing tool? That's not putting the research down and I never did that! My only comment was very specific to the multiple blind speaker tests as shown in this video and the pict that Amir put up with unveiled speakers. I did not dispute the results only that in this particular case the outcome was a given with the speaker selection, that's all I said!

Regarding YouTube, obviously Harman and their marketing value the medium differently from you, they have tens of channels with multiple videos for every division and product that they have. Here are just a tiny samplings starting with the M2 presented by their marketing man.

Another presentation by another senior marketing man

There are so many of them peppered all over the place for all kinds of audiences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJTi74WsjI4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQamlES2LA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8XU3Y4tbpM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6zgGgF3i-Q

and many, many more...

david

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Wow, you know the education system is failing when the masses don't know that engineering is science. Not mysticism or spiritualism. Science.
Shame so few people know what Universities teach.
Nikola Tesla, EE, ME...non-scientist

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I like Amir's graphs and have actually learned from some of his posts, which I am grateful for. So I clearly view Amir's posts, based on his expertise in the field, as useful. Yet I would suggest to Amir and others who seem to be so cock-sure about their science that they gain some humility. In my estimation, audio science is very much like biochemistry (my own field of scientific research) or any other field of science for that matter: we know an awful lot already, but that awful lot is just a tiny fraction of what yet is to be discovered. To pretend that audio science can explain or measure most of what is to be explained or measured is simply false, and a bunch of unwarranted hubris.

Amir's tone is what it is. I personally have gotten used to it and his tenaciousness about getting to the truth as he understands it. I also expect that he would agree that audio science does not know everything, except a tiny unknown fraction, just like all science everywhere else. I see no attempts by him to "pretend" anything to the contrary. That is an unwarranted inference on your part and on the part of many others over and over. Amir, if you agree, perhaps an acknowledgement of the obvious would make some feel better for a moment or two.

As I said myself many posts ago, of course audio science does not know Everything. I said that the very title of this thread was misleading and a setup. That has proven to be true as posters continue to want to bash audio science and Amir, the messenger, for not having all the answers to everything.

As Ack pointed out, if audio science would really know that much, we could already more or less replicate a live event with recordings in our homes. While what we currently already have is certainly impressive and very much enjoyable -- otherwise we would not love our hobby! -- we are still more or less, depending on the type of music, far away from replicating the sound of live musical events. This shows that, as far as audio science has come, it is still severely lacking in its explanatory power -- just like any field of science. Again, some humility is called for.

Again, an unwarranted and somewhat ridiculous inference about the state of audio science. Just because we do not know everything does not make a good argument that we do not know a lot. You and others are reading something into the discussion that is not there, and it is a gross distortion in my view, as you as a scientist should know.

I am sure a more diplomatic tone would make many feel better. But, that goes both ways. There have been constant attacks and counter assertions of some "truth", which is mere belief, by the naysayers. Explanations, evidence or proofs from the science itself have been glossed over, ignored or totally misunderstood in post after post. Both sides seem to be talking past each other as the decibel level rises.

Posing questions, rather than strong counter assertions that lack proof, might have been more diplomatic by the anti-science posters in order to better understand what audio science really is or what Amir or others are actually saying. The tone of many naysayers and what they think they know has not been the best either.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

This was never the reason that WBF was formed and the poll about "how much science do we want to see"served only to inflame members more. Just my $0.02 as I and everyone else sees it from the sidelines

Wait, this poll?? I just checked it out.
It says of your membership who voted, 18 people ignore or hate science.
90 people like participating in discussion of audio science, find its understanding critical or think it rules. 90 to 18.
I'm puzzled by your "you and everyone else" comment. Seems to be the opposite of the member poll you quoted.
I can see where the 18 who ignore or hate science feel absolutely compelled to participate in the thread about Science, but it seem that the majority who don't, aren't participating. Or am I looking at the wrong poll?

 

[NorthStar]

Enjoy the music everyone...live life to its fullest...have fun...be happy...look all around...we are seven billion (7.350) of us.

 

[ddk]

Your understanding is incorrect. In an ABX test, you have two known samples, A and B. You are then presented one of them at random ("X") and you are asked to tell whether it is A or B. All you are doing there is showing whether you can identify X as being A or B. If there is an audible difference to you between A and B, then you can identify X as being one of them. If not, you can't.

Loudspeakers are different sounding to everyone. Therefore if you put two of them in an ABX test, everyone would be able to guess what X is, confirming what we already know. That is the fact that they sound different. And at any rate, the results of ABX tests is binary. Either you could reliably identify X as A or B, or not.

Loudspeaker preference tests as run by Dr. Toole, Olive and crew are preference tests. They play each loudspeaker and ask the listener to score how good they think they are. The testing is double blind. But the mere fact that it is double blind in no way or shape makes it ABX.

Thanks for the clarification of the nuances of the terminology, so what is this correct technical term for this double blind testing? Keep in mind that this wasn't a five way test but their X against four others!

What makes me happy is if you are going to consider yourself an authority as to be able to criticize this work, to spend some time learning the science and properly reading and understanding the research so that I don't have to keep explaining the simplest concepts in this field as I had to do yet again above.

Technically, I criticized the particular test based on the picture that you put up, not the work, nor the results!

You don't have to be any kind authority, just a little experience is enough here. I highly recommend you spend some time getting hands on experience if you can't tell the outcome by just looking at that picture and why its flawed open to criticism. Its really very basic science!

Your experience is not of scientific nature. If it were, after asking you three times you would be sharing that with us. Sighted ad-hoc evaluation has been shown to mislead in this field. So believe in your experience and brain but please don't ask me to put any value on it. The research community does not. And so I am not either.

Leave the research community alone, you don't speak for them, this your opinion.

My lowly adhoc sighted evaluation and unscientific experience as you call it has provided me the knowledge that your lofty scientific research hasn't given you. Both basic science and ad hock sighted listening can tell you outcome when your speaker selection consist of this group.

- A top of the line wide dispersion theater speaker, efficient and an easy 4 or 8 ohm load, the JBL 800 Array which can easily driven with a SET amp.

- vs the middling ML, a difficult to drive narrow electrostatic, dipole speaker with multiple known flaws and a funky curve fed by a wimpy amp, set up in the middle of a large room, to the side of the of centrally positioned star of the show.

- vs the B&W, power hungry and an extremely difficult load fed by an inadequate amplifier. I don't about know how it rates as a mono speaker but I do know that its very setup sensitive and its dispersion abilities can't compete with a easy to locate wide dispersion theater horn designed for the task.

Is this obvious bias your understanding of the simplest concepts of research? In my unscientific world its called stacking the deck!

As for your approval or acceptance, I don't need it nor asked for it, you can stop waiving it over my head. What I asked for was to point out where I disputed Dr. Toole's research and his conclusions.

david

 

[BlueFox]

Just because we do not know everything does not make a good argument that we do not know a lot.

Really? If we do not know everything then how do we know if we "know a lot"? Couldn't we just be at the tip of the iceberg with audio science knowledge?

My personal feeling is that we now know enough to bumble and stumble our way into making good gear, but as we learn more, especially at the atomic level, and how to use that knowledge, then we will be hearing much, much better stereos. I might be wrong, and maybe this is as good as it gets, but, at this point, I very seriously doubt it.

 

[Al M.]

Again, an unwarranted and somewhat ridiculous inference about the state of audio science. Just because we do not know everything does not make a good argument that we do not know a lot.

(Emphasis added.)

Which is precisely what I said. Please re-read my post.

 

[amirm]

- vs the B&W, power hungry and an extremely difficult load fed by an inadequate amplifier.
Is this obvious bias your understanding of the simplest concepts of research? In my unscientific world its called stacking the deck!

As for your approval or acceptance, I don't need it nor asked for it, you can stop waiving it over my head. What I asked for was to point out where I disputed Dr. Toole's research and his conclusions.

david

I have quoted the very example of it (bolding mine). Please demonstrate how the amplifier was a) underpowered for the test in question and b) would have changed the rankings of loudspeakers as a result. Or explain why that is not a dispute of the research.

 

[amirm]

Amir's tone is what it is. I personally have gotten used to it and his tenaciousness about getting to the truth as he understands it. I also expect that he would agree that audio science does not know everything, except a tiny unknown fraction, just like all science everywhere else. I see no attempts by him to "pretend" anything to the contrary. That is an unwarranted inference on your part and on the part of many others over and over. Amir, if you agree, perhaps an acknowledgement of the obvious would make some feel better for a moment or two.

It is very true that we don't know everything about audio science or AES and ASA would close their doors and everyone would go home . There is continued research in many aspects of audio.

As you also clearly said, a ton is known and accepted as science by those organizations that audiophiles think are unknown. If they think they hear something, and science says it shouldn't be audible, it is the science that is wrong in their mind. In reality they also need to consider and strongly so, that their impression of what they heard may very well be wrong. To doubt the science but not the failings of our perceptions that can be so readily shown to be the caase, is not logical as Spock would say . May he rest in peace....

 

[AJ Soundfield]

fed by a wimpy amp

fed by an inadequate amplifier

David, since you obviously know what model (Proceed?) amp it was and it's capabilities, please share it with us, thanks. I don't recall seeing that info before.

cheers,

AJ

 

[DaveC]

Hi Amir,

Can I ask you a question about your comments to David, above?

I'm not an expert at anything, nor any particular sort of authority. I have no technical training, nor a degree in anything related to the hard sciences. You keep asserting your expertise and background, and seem to continue to be disparaging of those of us who cannot match your experience. It seems your patience is wearing thin with those of us who believe - for whatever reason - there may be things current research doesn't tell us (the unknown unknowns), and would rather just have discussions with peers you consider your equal.

But it seems kinda arrogant, dismissive and unwarranted. This is just an impression I'm getting. I could be wrong.

So my question is, on this forum - and in particular, this thread - is there room for people like myself who do not fully understand Harman's research, have questions about it, have indirectly-related experience in other fields, and are investigating a heuristic line of enquiry despite the fact we may have little else to offer?

Of would you rather us just **** off?

'Cause that's the vibe and getting, and to be honest, part of the reason this forum is becoming less and less interesting to me.

If you look back at your poll results, 41% of us "Like participating in discussion of audio science even though (we) mostly rely on (our) ears." That's the majority. That's me. But I'm more and more getting the feeling that you'd prefer to keep company with those who ascribe to your own views, and take on only those whom you dignify worthy of your time.

Again, I could be wrong, but I think I may not be alone on this.

Looking forward to your response.

Cheers.

I think Amir's responses are actually as reasonable as can be expected out of any human being. David has been making points and assumptions that are not based on fact, the misunderstanding of what an ABX test is is a perfect example. If you're going to make an argument shouldn't you have a clue about what you are saying? Take a minute to research it? How hard is it and how much time does it take to figure out exactly what ABX testing is?

 

[ddk]

Yes you do. If you are going to accuse research as being all of those things, then you better dot every i and cross every t. I would imagine you would expect that to happen if this was done to you. This is not it:

Where is my accusation of research? I questioned the methodology of a particular test, and not even its results. You continue to accuse but you haven't proven that I said any such thing.

The way I see it you're upset that somehow Dr. Toole could also do some marketing of his own, get over it Amir this is the real world and absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Here is the snapshot of the Youtube page at the start of the video:

We're discussing the content, not the snapshot.

No. You are the one not reading what I post. I said that *I* am tired of dealing with these pedantic non-technical posts where I have to go and spend time taking snapshots of Youtube pages just to demonstrate their wrongness. That if you want to cast doubt on motives of Dr. Toole and crew, let's assume the worst case of that and move on. Show where that commercial motivation has corrupted the research. After all, that is all we should care about because the lesson is not to go and buy Harman products but to believe in Harman research.

I don't see anything technical in your posts with me, only false accusations that I'm still waiting for you to back up with something that I actually said, but its not happening. I never said that commercial motivation corrupts research, it funds it, relies on it, benefits from it and can use it for marketing purposes too. I'm not being implying negative, its how it is. Dr. Harman has his ideas about his products and what you should do with them, I haven't suggested anything.

That you want a loudspeaker with good direct and indirect response. That you want a loudspeaker that is free of resonances. That specific measurements of loudspeakers highly correlate with listening preferences. If you can show how corporate motivation has led to these being incorrect statements, let's see you demonstrate that rather than hoping that the implication of commercial motive gets you there. You have done that three times so far. Let's hope the next post is technical.

Did I argue or disagree with of any of this? Even when I like certain speakers with resonant cabinets as I like certain dead ones. If you haven't noticed Harman is a commercial entity and has commercial interests and uses that research in various ways to generate income. There's no implication of anything, I made clear statements, this particular video has a marketing aspect to it and the particular blind speaker test that you unveiled is open to criticism. You're making up the rest as we're going along. Technical or not, I hope that at least in the next post you back up your accusations with facts.

david