Introspection and hyperbole control

[ddk]

Mod: everyone, please let's be nice to each other. If a thread is bothersome to read, please go to some other thread, listen to some music, etc. I know what makes me throw up in coffee (err, I am a tea drinker ), is our senior members going after each other.

I take the purpose of Ron's thread to be one of everyone being more moderate and as as a result getting along better. Shame would be having to close it because we can't ignore certain discussions from others.

If you need a suggestion of what to do than reading this thread, do what I have been doing: scan the ton of wonderful threads we have on people's favorite music, sample them and buy a few.

OK?

Why was comment on heavy handed moderation erased?

david

 

[amirm]

Why was comment on heavy handed moderation erased?

david

From our TOS: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1207-Terms-Of-Service

"2. Cordial participation is a key requisite of being a member in our forum. If in our opinion you are violating this rule, administrative action may be taken which may include termination of your membership and deletion of your posts with or without notice.

6. Please do not attempt to moderate the forum on your own. If you see objectionable posts, please report them. We will deal with them. Above all, focus on the topic being discussed, rather than the person discussing it.

8. Your forum administrators rule with a gentle hand. But should the occasion arise where we must take immediate and strong action, we will do so. In that case, our decisions are not subject to debate."

And no heavy handed moderation has taken place. A a general note was written to membership to act constructively and in line with the thread topic. Heavy handed would be personal sanctions.

Discuss the topics vigorously, but not each other.

 

[ddk]

From our TOS: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1207-Terms-Of-Service

"2. Cordial participation is a key requisite of being a member in our forum. If in our opinion you are violating this rule, administrative action may be taken which may include termination of your membership and deletion of your posts with or without notice.

6. Please do not attempt to moderate the forum on your own. If you see objectionable posts, please report them. We will deal with them. Above all, focus on the topic being discussed, rather than the person discussing it.

8. Your forum administrators rule with a gentle hand. But should the occasion arise where we must take immediate and strong action, we will do so. In that case, our decisions are not subject to debate."

And no heavy handed moderation has taken place. A a general note was written to membership to act constructively and in line with the thread topic. Heavy handed would be personal sanctions.

Discuss the topics vigorously, but not each other.

My post didn't break any of these rules to be erased, I only pointed out that we're not children here to be told to play nice. As adults we have the right to disagree and at times argue. The rules should be applied in context of adults and not children some conversations need to be direct, its nature of the beast. Just my 2 cents.

(Edit) Deleting posts is pretty heavy handed!

david

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Quote Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk View Post

Yes and in that case, I think the "hi" part of "hi fi" only refers to price. In terms of performance, that is the true "midfi," and the stuff that "high-end" audiophiles refer to as "midfi," and certainly pro audio, often kicks its soft, pampered, ridiculously priced booty.

Tim

An example of hyperbole without the introspection control

My apologies. In my frustration, I went too far.

Tim

 

[PeterA]

+1

Sorry Doc- I'm starting to tire of this forum. In addition to Tim's comment, we have people now posting that any system that isn't SS, Digital, DSP, and a corrected room is someone who loves distortion. We have forum members that presuppose they know more than the designers of the gear in the hobby we love. We have guys who only post measurements in any thread about a speaker or amplifier and the same guys rarely tell us if they have actually heard the piece in question. This forum is heading back to the ways of Audioreview.com back in 2000.

And I'm a guy who reads JAs measurements and they have some influence in my purchasing decisions. But apparently a spec sheet and a FR graph is all I need to buy hifi gear now. Who knew?

Keith, I have posted twice that I agree with your post, and both have been erased by moderators. If I simply type "+1" to your post above, and I am deleted but your post remains, I think I am being censored.

 

[amirm]

Keith, I have posted twice that I agree with your post, and both have been erased by moderators. If I simply type "+1" to your post above, and I am deleted but your post remains, I seem to be censored.

His post was before my request to the membership. Yours was after, totally disregarding what I asked. Not once but as you say three times. I will leave this one be so that we can move on. But please be on notice for wanting to continue to post off-topic remarks.

 

[Ron Resnick]

My apologies. In my frustration, I went too far.

Thank you, Tim.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you, Amir, for getting the thread back on track!

 

[microstrip]

We can not debate the need for introspection and hyperbole control without referring the role of the "small differences" in high-end. ( I hope our zealous moderator does not find I am out of topic of the OP intentions just because the subject is usually polemical )

The recent review of the Magico Q7 in The Absolute Sound is spot on time for our debate - "Magico Q7 mkII loudspeaker, small changes, big differences". Robert Hartley goes through the modifications carried in the speaker, analyzes how small they are in measurable terms (Quoting the review - Magico’s Alon Wolf assured me that the Mk II’s frequency response is identical to that of the original.) and how large the differences are in perceived sound quality.

The review analyzes in part the hyperbole -

(...) How could a mere midrange
diaphragm and tweeter replacement
have such a profound impact on how I
experienced music? There are, I believe,
three phenomena at work. (...)

(...) The third phenomenon is what
Meridian’s Bob Stuart calls “the increasing
importance of the smaller difference.” (...)

(...) I found myself experiencing
music in a different way through the
Mk II, with a much deeper connection
and appreciation for the artistry and
expression. (...)

How relevant and reliable are this type of comments in a review? Let us hope that the review becomes freely available soon - it could be a great contribution to this thread. It is a long review but needs to the read in full, the quoted small sentences as I transcribed can be misleading.

I was fortunate to listen to the Q7 mkII three days ago for a short time in the same room I have listened several times to the Q7 mk I , before receiving the TAS issue. I was never a big fan of the Q7, but my first reaction to Q7 mk II was that it was a completely different speaker.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I like tomelex's post a lot. It is in sympathy with my original post on this thread.

My first reaction is that I agree completely with 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10.

Only the person who listened to the original musical event in 1 can have at least a valid personal opinion in 5. If several people, who sat close together in 1, together evaluate the system under review in 5, then those several people can have at least valid personal opinions about how they compare what they heard in 1 to what they hear in 5.

My only quibble in 6 is that while we are still in the realm of subjective opinions, I suspect that among the several people who listen to the live event in 1, and who are evaluating the system in 5, there will be some agreement among some of them. In other words listeners likely will hear some of the same things as they compare the system in 5 to what they heard in 1. There may be two or three opinions about the sound qualified of the system in 5, but I doubt that each listener will have a unique, completely idiosyncratic opinion which is irreconcilable to the opinion of each of the other listeners.

So I still think there is a lot of merit in the subjective listening and describing of subtle sonic qualities we all do frequently. The fact that some of us can come to some common agreement means, to me, that the whole evaluation endeavor is worthwhile, fascinating and helpful.

I agree with tomalex's points and I feel they are consistent with what inspired me to write the original post. We have to be careful about treating our personal opinions and declarations as immutable facts (i.e., about pushing our opinions and declarations further than can be supported by the logic and the realities underlying the exercise).

 

[PeterA]

We can not debate the need for introspection and hyperbole control without referring the role of the "small differences" in high-end.

The recent review of the Magico Q7 in The Absolute Sound is spot on time for our debate - "Magico Q7 mkII loudspeaker, small changes, big differences". Robert Hartley goes through the modifications carried in the speaker, analyzes how small they are in measurable terms (Quoting the review - Magico’s Alon Wolf assured me that the Mk II’s frequency response is identical to that of the original.) and how large the differences are in perceived sound quality.

I was fortunate to listen to the Q7 mkII three days ago for a short time in the same room I have listened several times to the Q7 mk I , before receiving the TAS issue. I was never a big fan of the Q7, but my first reaction to Q7 mk II was that it was a completely different speaker.

Thanks for this microstip. If two speakers have identical frequency response, very small differences in measurable terms and nonetheless sound completely different, we are left asking questions long discussed in other WBF threads about audio science, objective/subjective, reviewers purpose, and certainly this thread about introspection and hyperbole. Why do these speakers sound so different? Measurements can't explain everything about how it sounds. We need prose to describe differences that measurements don't show, etc. Introspection is often valuable. Hyperbole is certainly tempting.

I think it depends on the magnitude of the audible differences and whether or not they are helpful in further conveying the intent of the composer, the skill of the musicians and the emotions of the music. If the differences between two components can not be easily measured but contribute in significant ways to the listener's enjoyment of the music and his ability to understand it more fully, then poetic prose is one way to convey that experience to the reader. In Harley's case, hyperbole may be a response to just how much better the MK II version is to the original, especially in the absence of significant measurable differences. He is excited about what he is hearing and is perhaps unable to provide an explanation, so he is left to describe the result with much enthusiasm.

In this particular case, absent actually listening to the speakers, the subjective review may be much more helpful to the potential buyer than looking at the measurements. I look forward to seeing the review in its entirety and to someday hearing the speaker.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Very well-stated, Peter.

If two speakers have identical frequency response, very small differences in measurable terms and nonetheless sound completely different, we are left asking questions . .

With our many Wilson experts here does someone know if the frequency response of the XLF with the soft dome tweeter is measurably different than the frequency response of the prior version with the metal dome tweeter?

I am one of those people who for years felt that the Wilson speakers sounded a bit bright, and for whom the soft dome tweeter has been a welcome revelation. I think the Alexias and the XLFs sound fantastic and not bright. So I wonder, apropos of Peter's post, if the new soft dome tweeter in fact measures differently than the prior tweeter or if the "speakers have identical frequency response, very small differences in measurable terms and nonetheless sound completely different"?

 

[PeterA]

I await the review that states, new model ,identical measurements ,sounds exactly like the old model !
You do have marketing departments over there?
Keith.

Keith, that is pretty funny. I think you may be waiting a long time. We do indeed have marketing departments here in the US. I do not know if Magico has its own dedicated marketing department or not, but they are certainly adept at promoting their brand. Audio forums, reviewers and heads of audio companies all participate in the marketing of products.

I presume that Alon Wolf would state if the measured performance of a design is clearly better than that of the model it replaces. This happened when the Mini II replaced the original Mini. Also when the Q5 was first introduced and measured better than the M5. But in this case of the Q7 and Q7 MK II, Wolf has not talked about improved measurements as far as I have seen.

Harley seems to have heard an improvement, is quite enthusiastic about the new design, and has used hyperbole in his description of the differences. Microstrip has heard both speakers and reported that the MK II is clearly better.

I think this is an example of measurements not telling the whole story, but that is a topic for a different thread. There is a lot of marketing going on in this very forum for brands that are less known. The internet is quite useful in this regard. Introspection and hyperbole control is the topic here. The OP describes the issues clearly, and in my opinion, they apply to forum members, formal reviewers and internet marketers alike. We are all susceptible to this if we value the subjective opinions of others and want to share our own.

Comments, regardless of how over the top they may seem, do serve to drive interest in a particular product. If that gets the audiophile to seek an audition for a potential purchase, they have served their purpose, and I don't see the harm. However, if after reading endless praise for something and then hearing it in one's system and being underwhelmed or even unable to notice a difference, then such comments have contributed to a bunch of wasted time and money.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thanks for this microstip. If two speakers have identical frequency response, very small differences in measurable terms and nonetheless sound completely different, we are left asking questions long discussed in other WBF threads about audio science, objective/subjective, reviewers purpose, and certainly this thread about introspection and hyperbole. Why do these speakers sound so different? Measurements can't explain everything about how it sounds. We need prose to describe differences that measurements don't show, etc. Introspection is often valuable. Hyperbole is certainly tempting.

I think this one is easy. There is much more to the sound of a speaker than it's frequency response, probably measured only on axis in an anechoic chamber. Explaining the differences people hear between electronics that measure similarly can be more of a challenge.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

From another thread on wbf and why your points resonate with me:

My views on audio reviewers



1. The goal of audio reproduction is to reproduce the original event heard by you at a particular place and time.

2.No reproduction methods today can do this because they can not reproduce the entirety of the soundfield at your ears as you experienced at the original event.

3.Therefore, with current technology we work with an extremely limited resolution facsimile of the original event.

4.The reproduced event as heard by some one else is not what you heard as no two people have the same hearing and ear/brain interface and emotional and physical make up.

5.Even if the recording is played over the same exact reproduction system including listening with the same speaker and or earphones or with your head in the same position, no other person can decide that a system is a better reproduction system without referencing it to another flawed (see 2, 3 and 4 above) system.

6.Any audio reviewers comments about a single component changed out in a system or an entire system reviewed with regards to what is best or most realistic simply applies to their opinion, and like taste in wine or any other human preference system, only reveals the preferences of the individual at that moment in time.

7.There are no rigorous, or otherwise, tests and certifications that prove that audio reviewers have any expertise in determining what is or is not a “better” component or system in regards to “better” resolution to the original event, and in fact they rate lower than audio retailers in the most simple tests given to date.

8.The technical obstacles related to the playback system as shown in 1 above and the extreme differences in the rooms and gear alone re-enforce my opinion that audio reviews are pretty much just so much entertainment value with little real world application.

9.Audio reviewers tend to say the same things over and over for all the gear they "review" and one only needs to look back over their years of reviews to find that out. Can each year really have a new and better gear in each category, based on memory or comparison of a component change out in an existing system....really...please.

10. Added Aug 2 of 2015. I wanted to add this as I failed to mention it. Audio reviewers claim to trust their ears, after all, that's what they imply you need to do. They almost all claim that it takes long term listening to hear the details and nuances that exist between components etc. They usually proclaim that short term listening does not allow you to tune into these nuances. However, the question I ask is, so after a week, or a month or whatever of listening, and now they "decide" or "hear" what is really going on, what led them to now believe their ears at that point in time? What biological element all the sudden "showed them the light" and why would they believe this as it seems to not occur at any regular time frame, just all the sudden like? If it is a gradual thing then what are their ears doing all along this time...are they adapting to the sound, or are they angrily just getting less and less tolerant of it, and how are they doing that?

Tom,

As you expect, I find some ambiguities and some disagreement ...

1. and 2. In 1 you refer to original event heard by you and in 2 you refer to sound-field or the event, two different thinks.

3. Assuming facsimile of 2, exact facsimile is not needed neither desirable. We need some aspects reproduced as close as possible to the original, others must be manipulated to overcome we are not assisting to a real event. It is the work of the recording and mastering engineers.

4. yes, it is why statistical analysis is needed to refer to a general preference and we must know the preferences of the reviewer.

5. No, our reference is not another system - it is created by our experience of sounds in real life.

6. IMHO a false and often repeated analogy. Preference of audio systems is not comparable to wine or other human preferences,,

7. Ambiguous reference to tests carried in conditions that do not allow for extrapolation the general audiophile needs.

8. Only if the review is poorly carried and written, we do not know how to read reviews or do not want to extract any think of use on it. One of the good things of a good review is that it can save our precious time - it will point us what to listen, making us a better and more efficient listener.

9. IMHO equipment is improving significantly - reviewers must refer what they feel. If you consider that differences are minimal between equipment generations - I know you are not alone in this aspect - I can see your point.

10. I have kept my ESL 63 - Quad 66-606 system - van den Hul cables - for the last 20 years and from time to time I assemble it and listen to it. Room, my hearing and musical preferences changed during this time, but the basic sound qualities are still the same.

 

[PeterA]

I think this one is easy. There is much more to the sound of a speaker than it's frequency response, probably measured only on axis in an anechoic chamber.

Tim

Tim, could you explain what you mean? These two speakers have the same cabinet and they have the same frequency response, according to the designer. The tweeter, midrange and crossover are different. I don't know about the rest of the measurements. Yet they sound completely different according to both Harley and microstrip. What do you think accounts for the difference in sound? Do you think one could tell how they sound different by looking at the measurements alone or do they need to be heard to understand how they sound?

This is a case where if I could not hear them side by side, I think reading some subjective prose would tell me more about the sound than a set of measurements would.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Tim, could you explain what you mean? These two speakers have the same cabinet and they have the same frequency response, according to the designer. The tweeter, midrange and crossover are different. I don't know about the rest of the measurements. Yet they sound completely different according to both Harley and microstrip. What do you think accounts for the difference in sound? Do you think one could tell how they sound different by looking at the measurements alone or do they need to be heard to understand how they sound?

This is a case where if I could not hear them side by side, I think reading some subjective prose would tell me more about the sound than a set of measurements would.

I had the same reaction as Tim. First, there is the question of how the frequency response was measured. Do the two speakers measure truly identically (or close enough to that) from every single axis in a multi dimensional frequency response measurement? I doubt it.

Second, as Tim, points out, frequency response is only one of many measurements that characterize the sound of a speaker. So, I know Harley dislikes measurements, but if he wishes to make a point, why not show us the measurements before waxing poetic about the sonic differences. Note that Harley did not say there were no measured differences, only frequency response, and we have no idea how the frequency response was actually measured.

 

[PeterA]

I had the same reaction as Tim. First, there is the question of how the frequency response was measured. Do the two speakers measure truly identically (or close enough to that) from every single axis in a multi dimensional frequency response measurement? I doubt it.

Second, as Tim, points out, frequency response is only one of many measurements that characterize the sound of a speaker. So, I know Harley dislikes measurements, but if he wishes to make a point, why not show us the measurements before waxing poetic about the sonic differences. Note that Harley did not say there were no measured differences, only frequency response, and we have no idea how the frequency response was actually measured.

I respect your view and Tim's about the measurements. I am just curious about what measurements there could be between such seemingly similar speakers that would explain why they sound so different. I do not know much about the various speaker measurements that are made. Perhaps it has a lot to do with crossover points possible with the new drivers and off axis dispersion. Perhaps the drivers are operating more in their ideal range and there is less distortion as a result. I presume these measurements can be and were made in this case.

What measurements are typically used to identify the different sounds of these two speakers? I had read that Wolf heard the new tweeter and was surprised by how good it sounded. That implies to me that he did not predict this by simply viewing the measurements beforehand.

This discussion may be drifting from the original intent of this thread, but, on the face of it, microstrip introduced this topic of the Magico speakers as measuring similarly, and thus Harley is left to describe the differences using hyperbole. I just got the issue of TAS, so I plan to read the review later today. There are no published photos of measurements in the article.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I do not know if we will ever have bright-line answers to these questions, but I am delighted that we are discussing these topics, and I think that being sensitive to these issues points us in the correct direction.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, could you explain what you mean? These two speakers have the same cabinet and they have the same frequency response, according to the designer. The tweeter, midrange and crossover are different. I don't know about the rest of the measurements. Yet they sound completely different according to both Harley and microstrip. What do you think accounts for the difference in sound? Do you think one could tell how they sound different by looking at the measurements alone or do they need to be heard to understand how they sound?

This is a case where if I could not hear them side by side, I think reading some subjective prose would tell me more about the sound than a set of measurements would.

To be honest, Peter, I don't know. But what i do know, now that you've told me, is that these two speakers have different mid and high frequency drivers and different crossovers, and it seems very unlikely that they would have identical measurements, even on axis in an anechoic chamber. Do you know any details about the measurements that were made?

Tim