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

[ddk]

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

Buy one and find out AJ! Weren't you the scientific brain who was telling Ron about the mismatch between the Manley's and the Neolith without any info?

david

 

[ack]

I also think this argumentative conversation between ddk and amir should conclude. FWIW, I have also questioned the Harman "research" in the past, and it's merely an opinion or interpretation of what is presented, not an expert opinion - we just see flaws and that's it. Amir seems to be very supportive of Toole, and there isn't much else to discuss on this. I think it's clear we will remain deeply divided, and that should be the end of it. In internet forums, I think it's more than enough to make a point once or twice, beyond that the conversation will likely heat up and lead nowhere.

 

[PeterA]

PeterA: "Does audio science really explain everything about how something sounds?"

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.

After 1159 posts, we read this in post #1160. I appreciate your response to my question, Amir. Thank you.

I respect Fitzcaraldo215's previous advice and understand the point he is making, "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."

So rather than continue to share my observations which I realize that I can not support, I would like to ask two questions:

1. What do Amir and others think that audio science can not yet explain?

2. In what areas is the research continuing and what do the researchers hope to learn?

I have often read that people do not think that we will ever be able to reproduce the sound of actual acoustic instruments or music in our homes through an audio system. I do not know whether or not that is the case. But, if this is in fact the case, why will we not some day be able to do it?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Buy one and find out AJ!

No need to shout. One what? What model?
Look, if you don't actually know, no shame in admitting so. I'm just curious how you know it couldn't drive those speakers.

Weren't you the scientific brain who was telling Ron about the mismatch between the Manley's and the Neolith without any info?

No. Seems your rage has caused you to constantly misread. I suggested to Ron that he get as much info as possible, such as the Neoliths actual impedance/phase, so see if there might be a mismatch. Prior to making an expensive audio purchase.
The logical, rational reasoned thing to do, as opposed to throwing a dart at the board. Blinfolded. On a $80k wager.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim

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



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

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Steve. There is a rush to dismiss and discredit the available science (and engineering if we're drawing that line) every time it shows up here, except in the rare occasion that it supports the existing audiophile conventional wisdom. Too bad you can't see that.

Tim

 

[ddk]

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?

I didn't get facts wrong, I got the terminology partially wrong, ABX testing is double blind isn't it? I'm looking to learn, what's the correct terminology here Dave?

My argument was that a particular video has a marketing side to it, something that I'm familiar enough with and if you're interested you can find out about my background, companies and patents. The only other point I brought was regarding the choice of speakers in "a" particular double blind whatever you call it test. Do your own research, bring the said speakers in house and you'll understand why I made those comments. If you need charts & graphs, go to the manufacturer, it would be self evident. You ought to research your comment about what I said first.

david

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Amir seems to be very supportive of Toole, and there isn't much else to discuss on this.

He also seems to be the only one who has actually gone through the experience.
So the heavy criticism on an audiophile forum is bizarre, given the mantra that one must experience something for themselves, to render any judgement, or even be worthy of comment. I know I've seen that card played innumerable times myself. I believe the term is "Firsthand experience".
Hmmmm...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Are you saying that a research presentation can't be an effective marketing tool?

For a company the size of Harman? Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. They take far too much effort to reach far to small an audience. But they're cheap, they're hip, and even large companies can't be talked out of spending too many resources on them.

Tim

 

[ddk]

No need to shout. One what? What model?
Look, if you don't actually know, no shame in admitting so. I'm just curious how you know it couldn't drive those speakers.


No. Seems your rage has caused you to constantly misread. I suggested to Ron that he get as much info as possible, such as the Neoliths actual impedance/phase, so see if there might be a mismatch. Prior to making an expensive audio purchase.
The logical, rational reasoned thing to do, as opposed to throwing a dart at the board. Blinfolded. On a $80k wager.

cheers,

AJ

You won't have any doubts if you check with Dr. Olive and spare me the wise ass cracks. Then check th actual impedance/power issues to your hearts content against the said speakers. If you're saying that I'm flat out wrong about it come out with it openly.

david

 

[AJ Soundfield]

PeterA: "Does audio science really explain everything about how something sounds?"
After 1159 posts, we read this in post #1160. I appreciate your response to my question. Thank you.

Great news for you Peter. Now that's it been answered, can you explain to me how these unexplained sounds end up being designed, engineered and manufactured into the products you claim emit them?
TIA.

 

[jkeny]

Maybe, at this point the discussion should be turned on its head for a fresh look (& simply to get out of the rut that it is currently in)
The rephrasing of the question could be "What does audio science NOT explain about what we hear?"
Please leave the whole "preferences" thing out of this as that's a given - we all know that is a personal choice & not amenable to explanation by this particular "science"

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

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.

Yes, of course. What we know may just be the tip of the iceberg, metaphorically. That might indeed be small in meaningless, hypothetical percentage terms, since the amount we can eventually know is presumably infinite, unlike an iceberg. But, I think the question is best answered instead by looking at what we do do know, which is considerable, in spite of all we do not know.

I think for some in this thread it has been trying to understand some small very portions of what we do know. The philosophical question of what we do not know is really not germane to that nor does it tarnish the audio science that we have. Like all science, we will learn more and know more over time. We might even find that what we learn in some areas might overturn, improve upon or refine what we think we know today. But, philosophical ponderings like this are really irrelevant to this thread which is trying to deal with the knowns and the evidence for them.

You are right not to be pessimistic about the future of audio. It is not today, never has been and never will be capped at "as good as it gets".

Yes, there is a certain amount of stumbling and bumbling involved in the discovery of new scientific knowledge, less after it has been thoroughly proven and peer reviewed so that it can confidently be put to use. But, if you want to talk about stumbling and bumbling, how do we make useful progress from uncontrolled individual listener anecdotes about better sound in their specific rooms with their specific components and their specific choices of recordings?

 

[Tony Lauck]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Steve. There is a rush to dismiss and discredit the available science (and engineering if we're drawing that line) every time it shows up here, except in the rare occasion that it supports the existing audiophile conventional wisdom. Too bad you can't see that.

I don't believe anyone here is discrediting the value and relevance of scientific results where these are used in context. However, it is entirely appropriate to discredit "scientific results" which consist of crazy extrapolations of known results. And especially remarks that everything is known or measurable, something that no real scientist would ever say.

Engineers who started out with the goal of becoming scientists and ended up doing engineering to support their families probably don't make such remarks either, as they know (from personal experience) what it is they they don't know. I suspect the problem comes from marginal engineers who came up the path from technician level and never got a sufficiently broad education.

 

[Tony Lauck]

For a company the size of Harman? Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. They take far too much effort to reach far to small an audience. But they're cheap, they're hip, and even large companies can't be talked out of spending too many resources on them.

Tim

I don't know what kind of marketing you did, but from my experience (doing technical sales support, marketing and engineering in a computer company) I know that technical marketing to OEM customers is done differently from marketing to end users and that professional meetings are an effective way of gaining credibility with technical decision makers.

In the case of Harmon their research may not do much to help hi-end speaker sales, but I would not be in the least surprised if their industry technical reputation helped and continues to help with their OEM automobile speaker business.

 

[PeterA]

I also think this argumentative conversation between ddk and amir should conclude. FWIW, I have also questioned the Harman "research" in the past, and it's merely an opinion or interpretation of what is presented, not an expert opinion - we just see flaws and that's it. Amir seems to be very supportive of Toole, and there isn't much else to discuss on this. I think it's clear we will remain deeply divided, and that should be the end of it. In internet forums, I think it's more than enough to make a point once or twice, beyond that the conversation will likely heat up and lead nowhere.

I am reading this exchange and noticing the stark contrast in their approaches. It makes me reflect about what each has written about his own approach to the audio hobby. The approaches appear to be vastly different.

Many have read with much interest Steve's very enthusiastic "One Amigo" thread about his visit to hear David's system. The fabulous turntable collection, anchored by the ultra rare American Sound table, those vintage horn speakers, the current Lamm tube amplifiers, and the great analog music collection. This must surely represent one of the best examples of what audio science has achieved, and I am sure, many people would love to hear this system.

Contrast that to Amir's approach and the description of his system and digital music collection. With the expertise of Harman research and the serious personal journey upon which Amir embarked to better understand audio science and his own abilities to identify through rigorous testing methods the most accurate, pleasing and "musical" components available, Amir's system must also represent one of the best examples of what audio science has achieved, and I am sure, many people would also love to hear this system.

Beyond the obvious analog/digital and vintage/contemporary differences, I think it would be fascinating to hear some well recorded and very familiar music on both systems and listen to how they differ in their approaches to music reproduction. Imagine being able to do both unsighted, quick listening tests and also longer term sighted listening. It would be an audiophile's dream.

Could we, with any degree of accuracy, determine which system more closely reproduces both what is on the original recording and also which sounds more like a real acoustic musical event? Would they be equally enjoyable in the long term? And could we, by listening to these two systems, better understand what audio science can explain about sound?

 

[Al M.]

I don't believe anyone here is discrediting the value and relevance of scientific results where these are used in context. However, it is entirely appropriate to discredit "scientific results" which consist of crazy extrapolations of known results. And especially remarks that everything is known or measurable, something that no real scientist would ever say.

Engineers who started out with the goal of becoming scientists and ended up doing engineering to support their families probably don't make such remarks either, as they know (from personal experience) what it is they they don't know. I suspect the problem comes from marginal engineers who came up the path from technician level and never got a sufficiently broad education.

Ouch. I didn't want to be as blunt, but you said it exactly as it is. The overconfidence in audio science, claiming that we know most of what there is to be known or measured, and dismissing subjective listening experiences as if they don't exist, is troubling.

I'll bring up the example of jitter again that I mentioned before:
Digital engineers had no clue about the severity of the phenomenon of jitter before people were complaining about digital 'harshness' and 'fatigue', a subjective perception. Now of course we know that jitter is an objective, measurable phenomenon (while it is well audible at extremely low levels! *)), and that it is one of the fundamental problems in digital audio -- and digital audio has made great progress over the last three decades precisely because, among others, it has addressed this issue to a serious extent.

This example alone should make us cautious about overconfidence in the dismissal of subjective experiences as not real because they cannot (yet) be measured or are judged as 'too insignificant' on the measuring bench. Again, some humility on the part of audio engineers and scientists would be appropriate.

_________________________

*) as one paper by John Siau from Benchmark Audio claims, and I have heard similar elsewhere:

"The timing accuracy required to guarantee inaudibility is rather surprising. Jitter must be reduced to about +/? 20 psec (+/? 20 trillionths of a second) to absolutely guarantee that it will never exceed the threshold of hearing at reasonably loud listening levels."

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

PeterA: "Does audio science really explain everything about how something sounds?"



After 1159 posts, we read this in post #1160. I appreciate your response to my question, Amir. Thank you.

I respect Fitzcaraldo215's previous advice and understand the point he is making, "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."

So rather than continue to share my observations which I realize that I can not support, I would like to ask two questions:

1. What do Amir and others think that audio science can not yet explain?

2. In what areas is the research continuing and what do the researchers hope to learn?

I have often read that people do not think that we will ever be able to reproduce the sound of actual acoustic instruments or music in our homes through an audio system. I do not know whether or not that is the case. But, if this is in fact the case, why will we not some day be able to do it?

Good questions, Peter. Maybe that would be a perfect opportunity to shift focus to a new thread devoted to that?

 

[853guy]

For a company the size of Harman? Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. They take far too much effort to reach far to small an audience. But they're cheap, they're hip, and even large companies can't be talked out of spending too many resources on them.

Tim

Tim,

Harman International is a publicly-listed company. Everything they do is for one purpose, and one purpose only.

“I’m very pleased to report that earlier this morning we released very strong results for the fourth quarter and full year. Net sales increased 28% in the quarter to $1.7 billion, excluding the impact of foreign exchange. Our Infotainment, Lifestyle, and Professional divisions each reported double-digit growth and as you are aware, we just added the Services division to our structure during the quarter. Our performance from the top line resulted in a strong bottom line…

We finished the quarter with $187 million in EBITDA, an improvement of 22% compared to the prior year and earnings per share of $1.37, an improvement of 10%. This represents our ninth consecutive quarter of top and bottom line growth. This also caps a banner year for HARMAN; revenue, EBITDA, and EPS all reached record highs. We hit $6.2 billion in revenue, an increase of 22% excluding foreign exchange, EBITDA improved 26% to $699 million, and we grew EPS by 29% to $5.71…

During the quarter, HARMAN launched a new scalable Infotainment platform in Japan for Suzuki. It's worth pointing out the significances of this achievement, because it is a first-time a non-Asian supplier has delivered an infotainment solution designed specifically for the Japanese market.

In addition, HARMAN secured new business with Deere & Company to design a new infotainment system for their John Deere farm equipment. The Deere award is HARMAN's second win in the commercial infotainment market, following our previously announced award with MAN/Scania.

Finally, we were awarded follow-on business from Chinese automaker, Guangzhou Automotive, a joint-venture partner of FIAT Chrysler Automobiles.

During the quarter, HARMAN secured new car audio awards from BMW, Daimler, KIA and Lexus among others. We have also won a competitive branded audio award for one of the largest North American automakers. The company's Car Audio solutions continued to expand across car lines globally.

Our branded solutions that launched during the quarter include a HARMAN car and audio system for the Maserati Ghibli and Quattroporte vehicles, also featuring HARMAN's Clari-Fi sound restoration technology. Our new Bowers & Wilkins branded system for the BMW 7 Series, Revel audio, and Ford's new Lincoln Continental and Infinity surround sound in Hyundai Santa Fe, featuring our Quantum Logic signal processing technology.

On June 1, we completed the acquisition of the Bang & Olufsen Automotive audio business. And in June also, Audi launched their new A4 featuring Bang & Olufsen branded audio-system.

Now turning to the Professional division, which is highlighted on slide nine of the investor presentation. Despite continued currency headwinds and sluggish growth in Europe and Emerging Markets, we grew revenue in the quarter, both sequentially and year-over-year.

With the completion of our acquisition of Symphony Teleca, we formed our Services division and their results are highlighted on slide 10 of the investor presentation. Our Services division targets customers seeking solutions at the intersection of cloud, mobility, and analytics. During the quarter, we added several new customers ranging from Morgan Stanley to GoDaddy.com. In addition, we secured repeat business form several existing customers including Mazda, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, and BlackBerry.

Another highlight of the quarter, Microsoft named HARMAN, the 2015 IoT Partner of the Year. This award acknowledges HARMAN's competence across connected car, connected home, and connected enterprise. We are one of the largest cloud partners of Microsoft and continues to develop innovative software solutions for large enterprises and independent software vendors across the globe.

Despite challenging economic environments in Brazil, Russia and India, recent headwinds in China, we still surpassed the $1 billion mark in revenues for the first time in our BRIC markets. This is a huge deal for us, and by-far the biggest deal anybody could think of. China now contributes nearly $700 million to the top line, which is nearly 10% of our company's revenue, very soon. This is 64% CAGR over the last six years.

We completed three major acquisitions during this fiscal year. We've been talking about building a Services division for some time now. We began to diversify our portfolio back in July 2013, with the launch of Automotive Services.

In summary, fiscal year 2015 was an outstanding year for HARMAN. And if we look back over the last two years, the results are even more impressive. We added $2 billion in revenue, a growth of over 40%. We grew our EBITDA nearly 70%, adding $300 million of incremental EBITDA and during these last two years, we've grown our earnings per share by 86%. We look forward to continuing this momentum in fiscal year 2016.”

Dinesh C. Paliwal, Earnings call Q4 2015 (Edited from full transcript)

Here's the major direct shareholders:



Here's the top institutional holders:



Information from Q4 2014 13F filings from SEC, reveal 380 institutional investors and hedge funds had shares of Harman International Industries Inc. In the last quarter, the firm had 92.58% institutional ownership.

By the way, after the publishing of a report filled with U.S. Security and Exchange Commission, the President (Lifestyle Div) of Harman International Industries Inc, Michael Mauser, made a sale in the open market by unloading 9,167 shares at the average stock price which was $126.3 of the company worth $1,157,517 USD.

Around the same time, Dinesh Paliwal, Chairman – President and CEO of Harman International Industries Inc., made a sale of 34,470 shares of the firm having a total value of $4,400,143 U.S Dollars at an average $127.7 per each share. Apparently, the trade raised a few eyebrows, as Mr. Dinesh at the moment has in hand 137,423 shares, accounting for 0.20% of Harman International Industries Inc’s stock market capitalization.

Just some facts, for your opinions.

P.S. Probably won't surprise you that nowhere in this call with Dinesh Palatal and Sandra Rowland (EVP/CFO) were the names, Toole, or Olive mentioned once - they are small cogs by comparison. Neither was the word "science". It is not a science-driven company, it is a share-holder driven company.

 

[PeterA]

Good questions, Peter. Maybe that would be a perfect opportunity to shift focus to a new thread devoted to that?

Do you really want me to start another thread? Perhaps my threads have driven away and frustrated enough members already.

 

[thedudeabides]

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.

IMHO, you are absolutely correct.