Frequency response is everything!?...

[Mike Lavigne]

I see comments like this in here a lot, just in different writing. Nobody who works seriously with audio, says that the listener is not important. There has been written heavily important books, about how we interpret sound. I would allow myself to say that we have come pretty far on this subject. So when a lot of people on this forum, claims that the objectivist are only looking at graphs, the at least give us an example of such a person. Otherwise it is just strawman argumentation, that only serves to confuse and ridicule those who (also) have a serious approach.

we don't pooh pooh data/measurements here, but generally we are not slaves to them either. they have a purpose to help us, but not define success in our system building. or prove points. they are beside the point. when we get hit with that, we pivot away. not worth the time to argue about. there are other forums for that. we do have a thread right now about FR curves, which is unusual for this forum.

my room designer and speaker designer both use data to produce good work, but recognize where the ears have to contribute too.

but mostly listeners have to listen to choose things and build systems by listening.

not all objectivists are created equal, but some are hardcore when they just can't get off their soapbox to expose all us silly audiofools.

i've not met any "serious" objectivist who has actually built a system by that approach. they typically are not serious listeners. when confronted by the request to show how they did objectively build a system, they disappear. some of them think everything is either broken or sounds the same. tons o' fun.

how can you accuse anyone of not being serious? unless you know them. i am very serious about my hifi and music.

 

[henrich3]

This has been well understood for 50 years or so, but let me have the honor of explaining it to you. If you have a flat measuring speaker in an anechoic room and put it in a normal living room, you will get the tilted response, pretty simple.

The norm is a 1 dB/octave, so 0 dB at 20 hz and -10 dB at 20 KHz. You have around 3 dB/oct. to 10 kHz, seems a bit heavy loaded in the bass.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._and_Calibration_of_Sound_Reproducing_Systems

 

[henrich3]

Ah,here's the rub. A certain group measures and comes to a conclusion. Another group listens and reacjs a different conclusion.
Who's right?

Do you have an example of that?

Objectivist reviewers of audio equipment listen and take measurements before reaching a conclusion. Subjectivist reviewers just listen. The ones that I've read anyway...

 

[schlager]

how can you accuse anyone of not being serious?

Where did I do that?

 

[schlager]

but mostly listeners have to listen to choose things and build systems by listening.

I call it hi-fi not my-fi. So from my point of view the audio signal reaching the listeners ears i SS, should resemble the recorded signal, as close as possible. Nothing more nothing less.

we don't pooh pooh data/measurements here

You can deduct a lot from an impulse response and it is not to see "how it sounds" but to get an understanding of "what is going on". I'm interested in finding out how things in the audio system, including the room, is responding to one another, to see where the problems are, so I can fix them. Some pay people to do it, I had to learn it myself and I'm at a point in my audio journey, where I can say with some confidence, that I'm pretty good at it.

The competence for analyzing measurements will lie at the "objectivist measuring folks". They have figured it out, categorized it, put word to it and made sure that this craft and knowledge, can be used to make even better products.

 

[racerxnet]

i've not met any "serious" objectivist who has actually built a system by that they typically are not serious listeners. when confronted by the request to show how they did objectively build a system, they disappear. some of them think everything is either broken or sounds the same. tons o' fun.

Are you saying that objectivists don't use their ears as well as the measurements when critiquing playback? Serious listener?? How would you know this if you are not present during the setup of a system? Mike, this approach may be why people disappear at WBF. There is no breathing room for alternate perspectives, and audio as a whole suffers. Granted, you are using a Apple app for measurement in another thread, but there is better software for free (REW). A calibrated UMic and a quick youtube can get someone started in understanding what the measurement means. Generally, it is known that most correction is done below 500hz and the results are a much better sound overall. Below 500hz and the room is in control, above that and the speaker is in control.



My take from the subjectivist side is that the opposite side has no critical listening skills, relies solely on measurements, cannot understand the intricacies of setup, is closed minded, WBF people are of a higher bar for reproduction, and anyone who may disagree is of lower caliber in knowledge and equipment. How sad to see that presentation. All of which could not be further from the truth. Sure not all questions of perception can be answered with science, but without it everything is a guess. Just my .02

REW room acoustics and audio device measurement and analysis software

REW is free software for room acoustic measurement, loudspeaker measurement and audio device measurement and analysis

www.roomeqwizard.com

Juice HiFi

Acourate - AudioVero

www.audiovero.de

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Where did I do that?

you did not. my bad, i had not noticed your (also) initially. i apologize.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I call it hi-fi not my-fi. So from my point of view the audio signal reaching the listeners ears i SS, should resemble the recorded signal, as close as possible. Nothing more nothing less.

agree completely. it's entirely what my system building efforts for 20 years have been based upon. get the room and system out of the way of the music. be true to the recording, that is the reference. eliminate distortion, have lots of headroom in your speakers and electronics. reduce resonance. reduce noise. optimize the power grid. best, lowest distortion sources. minimalist signal path. minimal parts count in the amps. no global feedback. build a room inside a room, shape it as an oval. and on and on. it all matters. focus on the native format of the underlying recording if possible.

You can deduct a lot from an impulse response and it is not to see "how it sounds" but to get an understanding of "what is going on". I'm interested in finding out how things in the audio system, including the room, is responding to one another, to see where the problems are, so I can fix them. Some pay people to do it, I had to learn it myself and I'm at a point in my audio journey, where I can say with some confidence, that I'm pretty good at it.

The competence for analyzing measurements will lie at the "objectivist measuring folks". They have figured it out, categorized it, put word to it and made sure that this craft and knowledge, can be used to make even better products.

i respect that sort of approach. and my system has had some of that analysis a few times (Gary Koh of Genesis Loudspeakers is a friend who did that for me) which has given me clues to make some changes. my speaker designer did some set-up work and gave me feedback. i'm not anti anything. but for my final room tuning that was all by ear.

 

[Gregadd]

Do you have an example of that?

Objectivist reviewers of audio equipment listen and take measurements before reaching a conclusion. Subjectivist reviewers just listen. The ones that I've read anyway...

It was a hypothetical. The rule is don't fight the hypothetical. You will get the right answer to the wrong question.
Would you care to answer the question as posed?
I will answer yours. Audio Xscience Review.

 

[the sound of Tao]

we don't pooh pooh data/measurements here, but generally we are not slaves to them either. they have a purpose to help us, but not define success in our system building. or prove points. they are beside the point. when we get hit with that, we pivot away. not worth the time to argue about. there are other forums for that. we do have a thread right now about FR curves, which is unusual for this forum.

my room designer and speaker designer both use data to produce good work, but recognize where the ears have to contribute too.

but mostly listeners have to listen to choose things and build systems by listening.

not all objectivists are created equal, but some are hardcore when they just can't get off their soapbox to expose all us silly audiofools.

i've not met any "serious" objectivist who has actually built a system by that approach. they typically are not serious listeners. when confronted by the request to show how they did objectively build a system, they disappear. some of them think everything is either broken or sounds the same. tons o' fun.

how can you accuse anyone of not being serious? unless you know them. i am very serious about my hifi and music.

Big +1… beautifully balanced response thanks Mike, for many of us this is a waaaay too familiar Groundhog’s Day kind of issue … still I much prefer my groundhog medium rare on mash with jus and a nice glass of Shiraz… just sayn.

 

[schlager]

i've not met any "serious" objectivist who has actually built a system by that approach. they typically are not serious listeners. when confronted by the request to show how they did objectively build a system

That claim is so far out, that it just need an additional comment. What you are actually saying is that the field of psychoacoustic (which objectivist rely heavily on) is hopelessly wrong and we should terminate further work! The experience of sound reproduction is incomprehensible and assailable.

If we have to touch reality for a moment, the method to create scientific verifiable statements about sound quality, is to use a (large) number of representative listeners, ask them about their experience and treat the answers statiscally. It's no problem to document a scientifically verifiable statement about "most listeners prefer loudspeakers with a flat (even) response on-axis and even power response". After that you can use that data fact and check to what degree that correlates with different technically measurable properties.

 

[henrich3]

It was a hypothetical. The rule is don't fight the hypothetical. You will get the right answer to the wrong question.
Would you care to answer the question as posed?
I will answer yours. Audio Xscience Review.

Ok, so here's an example of a speaker review on ASR (Magnepan LRS Speaker Review). Tons of measurement data there, but you can see that listening tests were also done before the author reached his conclusions.

Regarding your hypothetical where someone only measures and someone only listens, it's hard to say. I'm skeptical of sighted listening tests because of the problem of expectation bias. If the device under test was something simple like a cable, I would definitely preference the measurement-only folks. If the DUT was a speaker and the listen-only group was blinded, I would be inclined to trust their conclusions over what the measurement folks had to say.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I call it hi-fi not my-fi. So from my point of view the audio signal reaching the listeners ears i SS, should resemble the recorded signal, as close as possible. Nothing more nothing less.

I appreciate that you wrote this in terms of "my point of view."

On our distilled list of four primary objectives of high-end audio your view would conform to:

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played.

This doesn't happen to be my personal objective of the hobby, but it surely is a reasonable and understandable objective. In fact Karen Sumner reported that this was her objective when she first got involved in the hobby.

I also think that this objective gels most smoothly with the objectivist ethos.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Are you saying that objectivists don't use their ears as well as the measurements when critiquing playback? Serious listener?? How would you know this if you are not present during the setup of a system?

you chose not to quote my previous comment from the same post where i say "not all objectivists are created equal, but some are hardcore......"
so there certainly are objectivists who love music, and are listeners. but others main purpose is to annoy audiophiles and fix them. and those joyless folk are not serious system builders. they dwell on what their engineering prof said before they flunked out. and forgot that music should be fun first. and not everything sounds the same.

Mike, this approach may be why people disappear at WBF. There is no breathing room for alternate perspectives, and audio as a whole suffers.

no doubt even a music loving objectivist might get frustrated on WBF, not because hard core listeners are disrespectful, but because mostly we don't give a rats ass about the technical stuff. here and there we will dally in it, but it's not holding our attention. respectful objectivists are part of the community and it's all good. we have some serious techies here who can dance the dance, but not too many. peaceful coexistence is a good thing.

Granted, you are using a Apple app for measurement in another thread, but there is better software for free (REW). A calibrated UMic and a quick youtube can get someone started in understanding what the measurement means. Generally, it is known that most correction is done below 500hz and the results are a much better sound overall. Below 500hz and the room is in control, above that and the speaker is in control.

i only did the room FR curve cuz it was easy to do. no agenda to change anything or dig deeper. very happy as things are right now. i built my room, then spent 10 years getting it right, and i'm just enjoying it.

i do plan on doing more work in my separate Home Theater room, or rather i will let Trinnov dial into my 9.3.6 Dolby Atmos set-up and do their dsp thing there. maybe first i'll have Funk Audio set up my three subwoofers remotely. i have a calibrated mic ready for both of those events when i find the time.

My take from the subjectivist side is that the opposite side has no critical listening skills, relies solely on measurements, cannot understand the intricacies of setup, is closed minded, WBF people are of a higher bar for reproduction, and anyone who may disagree is of lower caliber in knowledge and equipment. How sad to see that presentation. All of which could not be further from the truth. Sure not all questions of perception can be answered with science, but without it everything is a guess. Just my .02

again, objectivists are not all the same. and not all are looked at and treated the same. if an objectivist has an agenda to change subjectivists, then that ain't gonna fly on WBF. but being an objectivist in and of itself is just not an issue. respect is a two way street. objectivists who basically respect listening opinions can be here forever. yet still do their thing.

we have had a few fly-by's from ASR trolls, they came in, dropped their bombs, and were shown the door figuratively. just having fun from their point of view. but that's about once every couple of years. alternate universe, area 51 type stuff.

this is all my own opinion. YMMV.

 

[schlager]

I can say with some confidence, that I'm pretty good at it.

Since it is very rare that we actually see any in-room measurements from peoples systems, please let me introduce you to mine. Just to be clear I find frequency response the most important, as sound is actually comprised of ....drum roll... frequency and time.

FR



IR


Step response

 

[PeterA]

I appreciate that you wrote this in terms of "my point of view."

On our distilled list of four primary objectives of high-end audio your view would conform to:

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played.

This doesn't happen to be my personal objective of the hobby, but it surely is a reasonable and understandable objective. In fact Karen Sumner reported that this was her objective when she first got involved in the hobby.

I also think that this objective gels most smoothly with the objectivist ethos.

In order to 2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl, or digital source being played, must one not first know what is on the media being played? How does one go about knowing that? Is lowering distortions enough to get there? How does listening help in the process?

 

[schlager]

How does one go about knowing that?

That's where measurements comes in

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Big +1… beautifully balanced response thanks Mike, for many of us this is a waaaay too familiar Groundhog’s Day kind of issue … still I much prefer my groundhog medium rare on mash with jus and a nice glass of Shiraz… just sayn.

thank you, Graham!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Since it is very rare that we actually see any in-room measurements from peoples systems, please let me introduce you to mine. Just to be clear I find frequency response the most important, as sound is actually comprised of ....drum roll... frequency and time.

FR

View attachment 106407

IR
View attachment 106408

Step response

View attachment 106409

These charts look fantastic!

How does the system sound on your favorite music?

What components does your system consist of?

 

[treitz3]

Yup, Mike. Cyclic activity. I guess we have to put up with the latest cycle, then they will fade once again and we can move on. It is what it is.

Tom