It’s All a Preference

[Robh3606]

Hello Gregadd

The poster referenced me to the study involving the Japaenese and American students as proof there was an adequate sample. I think I demonstrated that was not true.In order to make generalizations you must have a scientific sample.

The poster was me and I alluded to the other studies in my post. Any scientist is going to say a sample of 300 or so is not a representative sample. What's the population now 7.033 billion??

Quoting myself

It's not just him but Toole as well and they have been doing these tests over a good number of years. I can see one test not being enough but repeated tests having the same conclusion does carry a bit more weight.

So I would say that one study is not definitive but the point is it's been repeated many times over a couple of decades by different people and the results are the same. That certainly puts a different spin on things.

Rob

 

[amirm]

Tim that's the problem I have. I could deconstruct Seans' study. This is my point and be very careful, How does Sean extrapollate the results of his study to the general public? That is, how did he choose the test subjects. Did he hire them? Did he take anyone who showed up? Addiutonally how did he chose the speakers to be tested? You have to be very careful how you go about that. How is that his speaker was the most "accurate?" Did he design a unique product. Maybe you do not know these things. Perhgaps AMIR can help us. He purchased the paper.

"The selection of 70 loudspeakers was based on the
competitive samples purchased for performance
benchmarking tests performed for each new JBL,
Infinity and Revel model.
The price range of samples varied from $100 to
$25,000 per pair and includes models from 22
different brands from 7 different countries: United
States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany,
Denmark and Japan. The loudspeakers included
designs that incorporated horns and more traditional
designs configured as 1-way to 4-ways. Some used
waveguides, while others did not. The sample also
included four professional 2-way active models
referred to as “near-field” monitors. The vast
majority of the speakers were forward-facing driver
designs, with one electrostatic dipole sample.

5.2 Listening Tests
The preference ratings for the 70 loudspeakers were
based on a total of 19 listening tests conducted over
the course of 15 months. All of the tests were
performed under identical double-blind listening
conditions, as described in Part One (see section 3).
Controlled variables common to all 19 tests include
listening room, program material, loudspeaker and
listener location, playback level, experimental
procedure and loudness normalization between
speakers.

The preference ratings in one of the tests are based on
the mean preferences of 268 listeners (12 trained and
256 untrained) reported in [24]. All other tests were
done using trained listeners.

[...]

9 CONCLUSIONS
A new model has been developed that accurately
predicts preference ratings of loudspeakers based on
their anechoic measured frequency response. Our
model produced near-perfect correlation (r = 0.995)
with measured preferences based on a sample of 13
loudspeakers reported in Part One. Our generalized
model produced a correlation of 0.86 using a
sample of 70 loudspeakers evaluated in 19 listening
tests. Higher correlations may be possible as we
improve the accuracy and resolution of our subjective
measurements,which is a current limiting factor.
The independent variables that predict loudspeaker
preference rating include measures of the amplitude
deviations in the on-axis response, the predicted-inroom
response and the low frequency response."

Having sat through the same tests twice and (blindly) voting in agreement with the above data/conclusion, I say the total picture is quite compelling.

 

[terryj]

In my case & most of those I know, preference is based on an audio reproduction that is closer to the sound of real instruments. Those who play an instrument, especially un-amplified, and have developed a sensitivity to the subtle differences between types/models of that instrument, usually use this as their reference point for their "preference". So, in my experience, most people that I know, have a reference (no measurements needed)!

I want to pick up this and run with it a bit. It is not really directed at you john, just a what if.

I see this type of thing a LOT actually, 'I want a system to sound like real instruments'. I can't quite wrap my head around it if I am honest.

For starters, let's go in the reverse direction, how bad does a system have to be before you say 'urrgh, those guitars don't sound like guitars'??? I mean, it has to be pretty horrendous no? So taking that just a little bit further, I suspect what we are 'listening for' is not so much 'how real is that guitar', but rather incidental things like 'space, decay and reverb' etc etc. I mean, a guitar can sound real on the clock radio right? It does not sound very much like a trombone.

Anyways, that was a bit of a sidetrack to what I want to investigate. I suspect that there is a recording or set of recordings that are used for evaluations such as these. "it is a recording that allows us to test whether the system makes the instruments sound real' type of thing.

How real is the recording? I guess things like the exotic labels with direct to mic stuff could be without any sort of processing whatsoever, but apart from those...Seriously, how many of us here actually know what sort of processing goes on in most recordings? We can assume all we want, but do we know?

I have wondered about this idly at times, but it has begun to become more real lately due to changing interests...been getting into music, music theory and have rediscovered the piano from the teen years..moan all we want about the net but in this case at least it has opened a whole new world for me just goes to show that what we learn (back in the 70's) was limited by what the teacher taught. Moving on, it has led to the music creation side of things and one thing which has stood out is just how much processing really goes on in music.

"we need this to sit in the mix, and as the drums already occupy this part of the spectrum we need to cut back these frequencies here'' sort of stuff. Again, maybe the exotic audiophile recordings are immune to a degree, but apart from those I'd hazard that most, the vast majority, have a lot more processing than we suspect.

But it still sounds like a guitar right?!

Heck, maybe it is only me that ponders these things, but seriously I doubt any of it is as clear cut as we imagine. And in my experience few really want to find out about this stuff! I remember setting up with an audio engineer a walk thru of the entire process, recording the musos and then heading into the mastering suite and observing the procedure...reckon I could get the numbers? All the whinging audiophiles on the forum complaining about how bad modern recordings are..did not hear a peep from them. They'd rather sit behind the keyboard and complain. We only needed six or so to make it happen.

We got the numbers tho..all objectivists, go figure.

 

[JackD201]

Funny. I think you are both right.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This is where I cross over the line and become an objectivist for a bit. The sound of real instruments? Please. More people probably know the sound of an acoustic guitar than any other real, unprocessed instrument. So let's assume you have a recording with acoustic guitars on it, and it is a beautiful recording, simply done, with no processing at all (which recording is that?). How well do you know the sound of an acoustic guitar? Because I can tell you that the difference between the sound of a mahogany-bodied, Adirondack spruce-topped Gibson Jumbo and a rosewood-bodied, sitka spruce-topped Taylor (I have them here) makes the differences between electronic components we obsess over here seem like nothing. Its much more on the order of the differences between speakers. Do you have encyclopedic knowledge of real instruments in all their design and material (and aging) variations, plus the most remarkable auditory memory on record? Then sure, use "real instruments" as you reference. Otherwise it is a completely impractical standard.

When you get into trying to reference your recording reproduction system to real music, there are so many variables and typically so many unknowns that any conclusions you reach are useless. Just say you like the sound and be done with it; that's much closer to the truth. Or take the old-school path; seek high fidelity of the output signal to the input signal, with whatever measurements and knowledge you have available. It can't be any less reliable than referencing "real instruments." Know what you can know and do what you can do to ensure that the end of your signal chain is as close to the beginning as you can afford. Then choose your color at the transducers. It can't be avoided there, anyway. And now I've gone full circle; I'm a skeptical subjectivist again.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Terry, how many time have you heard cymbals on a playback system sound like rain on a tin roof or applause the same?
For those who play electric guitar (substitute any instrument here) & know the difference in sound between the various models of guitar - if they know what guitar was used in a track & they can tell the difference between it & a different model used on another track then they have a more revealing system than one which masks these differences.

I don't see the difficulty?

Edit: You can always have a doubt about the recording until you find a playback that reveals the "realistic" sound of cymbals or applause or ..... then you have your reference recordings!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You don't see the difficulty because you're dealing in the broadest strokes. And by the way, depending on the amp and its controls I can blur the line between a Les Paul and a Strat easily. You may be able to differentiate them on very clean settings, but that's about it.

Guitarists have been praising Jimmy Page's Les Paul tone on Stairway to Heaven for decades. He used a Telecaster. By the time you drive it through a Marshall stack at very high gain, it's pretty hard to tell.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---I'm with Tim; I play guitars, including electric ones, and I use several pedals (effects).
And I tell you; you can truly go where no one has ever gone before!
...And if you can tell the strings I'm using, the pick, and the guitar's brand, even the amp, BRAVO!

 

[jkeny]

---I'm with Tim; I play guitars, including electric ones, and I use several pedals (effects).
And I tell you; you can truly go where no one has ever gone before!
...And if you can tell the strings I'm using, the pick, and the guitar's brand, even the amp, BRAVO!

Don't be so silly as to pick on one instrument (electrified) & then say that it is a distorted sound to start with - choose Piano, double bass, whatever, the point is the same - people use different references to judge the accuracy of their playback system.

Instead you guys pick at the electric guitar example & ignore everything else said - it's the selective argumentation that is constantly now being used on this forum now. If the goal of discussions on this forum is to progress some understanding of matters, you guys certainly do a good job of disrupting & hampering that goal. If you instead have decided that the point of this forum is for arguments & obfuscation then you are doing a wonderful job, Congratulations!

I came to this forum because it had some great contributions from Amir, DonH & others - there was real knowledge being transmitted. I'm afraid that it has now descended into the usual point scoring exercise that bedecks most other forums & it's a shame to see it happening. On the Objectivists thread Treitz aid this "folks either reading this thread or responding to this thread to report any Terms of Service violations to the management team." I'm afraid this is not the problem any more it would seem -people getting annoyed & blowing is just a symptom of a deeper problem, I feel - that problem being exactly what is being demonstrated here & on other threads - an unwillingness to discuss the topic, rather an attempt at ambushing every point being made & distracting from the main thrust of the topic.

 

[NorthStar]

---John, you are way too easily "shakable" from your foundations.
I think you have to relax more and see all the points expressed, and not just your own view.

* Musical instruments, and music come in all forms, and not everyone is listening to "accurate" instruments.
Heavy Metal music for example is big in some people; much bigger than Classical Orchestral music.

EVERYTHING has to be considered. ...You see... :b

Furthermore, to say that some of us are "disrupting" the flow from this site is pure "bananas".
You're a good guy, but you also need to expand your horizons, I think.

See, preference is a choice, and the choice we all make in music listening is 'tres' individualistic.
There is much more to music reference than just acoustical music instruments, and venues.

Some sound systems worth in excess of two million dollars!
Others about two thousand dollars.
At the end it's all relative; the room and the listener's taste are big part of the equation.
...And the real time spent in listening and improving. ..And that includes the art of taking that time.

This hobby of ours is in constant motion, and there is simply no absolute definition other than our own.
Everything we know so far is only a glimpse into the future. IMO
...And we all know about the money audio business...
So we got to be awared and prudent to not bifurcate of our own serious goal in life: BE HAPPY! :b

P.S. Any typos?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Don't be so silly as to pick on one instrument (electrified) & then say that it is a distorted sound to start with - choose Piano, double bass, whatever, the point is the same - people use different references to judge the accuracy of their playback system.

Instead you guys pick at the electric guitar example & ignore everything else said - it's the selective argumentation that is constantly now being used on this forum now. If the goal of discussions on this forum is to progress some understanding of matters, you guys certainly do a good job of disrupting & hampering that goal. If you instead have decided that the point of this forum is for arguments & obfuscation then you are doing a wonderful job, Congratulations!

I came to this forum because it had some great contributions from Amir, DonH & others - there was real knowledge being transmitted. I'm afraid that it has now descended into the usual point scoring exercise that bedecks most other forums & it's a shame to see it happening. On the Objectivists thread Treitz aid this "folks either reading this thread or responding to this thread to report any Terms of Service violations to the management team." I'm afraid this is not the problem any more it would seem -people getting annoyed & blowing is just a symptom of a deeper problem, I feel - that problem being exactly what is being demonstrated here & on other threads - an unwillingness to discuss the topic, rather an attempt at ambushing every point being made & distracting from the main thrust of the topic.

You picked the electric guitar example, John. I gave you two acoustic guitars and I gave you two examples, from my own collection that sound very different. As differently from each other as a set of Altec Horns sound from Martin Logans. Choose piano...which piano? Choose double bass...what double bass? They can sound as radically different from one another as acoustic guitars. The point is that real instruments, as a reference for audio system accuracy, are impractical. To use them on the nuanced level required to judge the fidelity of a playback system, as I said before, would take encyclopedic knowledge of the sound or real instruments, a remarkable auditory memory and a sizeable collection of simple, natural recordings that does not exist. Symponic music is even worse; dozens of different instruments, all with different sonic signatures to have memorized, and all the halls they are being played in. The human voice would be a much more practical reference, but to be useful, you'd have to know that voice personally and very well, and you'd have to have very high quality unadulterated recordings of it. And, of course, that would only give you a reference for the frequency range of that voice. But for that range, it would be a hell of a reference. But, to bring us back to the point, that's how well you'd have to know the sound of a particular guitar to use it as a good reference for playback fidelity: Like you know your wife's voice. Change guitars? All bets are off. The "real instrument reference" is a fantasy.

I'll let your personal remarks regarding disrupting, hampering and obfuscation pass, because clearly you hadn't read and understood the points being made, and had evidently forgotten the points you'd made yourself, when you started throwing those stones.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

... Symponic music is even worse; ...

Tim

-----"Symphonic", with an 'h' before the 'o' Tim.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

-----"Symphonic", with an 'h' before the 'o' Tim.

Thank you sir, but I think I'll leave it uncorrected. Leaving the impression of perfection is such a burden....

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---No sweat; that typo was simply a 'phony' one! ...And had to mention it.

* Just pronounce 'symponic'; you'll hear what I mean. :b

 

[Raffles]

In my case, I don't trust my own ear/brain combination when it comes to subtle differences - I've fooled myself on several occasions! And I also find that even with an unchanging system, my perception of its sound varies from day to day. After a particularly satisfying (long and loud) listening session, I know that it just won't sound the same to me for the next couple of days. I would have to live with a system for quite a long time to understand its foibles, and even then, I probably couldn't be sure. Hence the value of measurements.

I'm glad we're still at the point, though, where there are non-subtle improvements to be had: active crossovers vs. passive; room correction; multi-channel vs. stereo and nonlinear speaker correction (possibly). In my own mind, I'm satisfied that amplifiers are pretty much where they need to be, digital is great and 44.1kHz/16 is all you need. A truly linear, powerful system is a joy, and it's the speaker/DSP combination where the gains are going to be made.

 

[amirm]

I think it is given that we don't know what the musical presentation sounded like when it was recorded. No microphone can capture the experience you would have if you were there.

It is also a given to some extent that we have some kind of barometer of what is right. If an amp clips, we know it even without a reference. We can attach a better sense of realism if a note decays nicely into silence as opposed to abruptly ending, if we were comparing two versions of the presentation.

So there is probably merit to both points of view. We are remarkably good at judging good sound without a reference. While having our hands tied behind our backs not knowing "what was there."

 

[jkeny]

[/ignore Tim, I'll break my promise here & reply to you directly this once.
You said I was on your ignore list & asked me to do the same with you which I have done. I see that you have directly posted to me a couple of times. Can you follow through on your original request & put me on ignore please & don't answer my posts - I have not answered any of yours! Thanks your adherence to your suggestion would be much appreciated! Back on ignore [ignore

Northstar, I said "Those who play an instrument, especially un-amplified, and have developed a sensitivity to the subtle differences between types/models of that instrument, usually use this as their reference point for their "preference". I also said "Terry, how many time have you heard cymbals on a playback system sound like rain on a tin roof or applause the same?" I later mentioned electric guitar! If you want to solely focus on the electric guitar & miss the point completely, I can only assume that it is intentional &my points about the thread derailment stands!

 

[NorthStar]

---In reply to Raffles' post from the previous page...

Some amplifiers have no life; no soundstage, no imaging, no depth, no micro details.

EVERYTHING is important, even MONEY well spent.

Measurements in relation to our hearing and pleasantness; yes in that sense that's where it counts. ...And in comparison with others (measurements and listening tests).

And you mentioned a very good point: Important to be fully relaxed and not extend for too long our listening sessions.
And like you also said; from one day to the next a lot of things happen. ...Our listening disposition, the temperature, our emotional state, and all that kind of jazz.

* Did you know that most Turntables (99%) need to be warmed up to sound their best?

 

[jkeny]

I think it is given that we don't know what the musical presentation sounded like when it was recorded. No microphone can capture the experience you would have if you were there.

Sure!

It is also a given to some extent that we have some kind of barometer of what is right. If an amp clips, we know it even without a reference. We can attach a better sense of realism if a note decays nicely into silence as opposed to abruptly ending, if we were comparing two versions of the presentation.

Yes, Amir & it's these sort of low level details that bring a "realism" to the replay. it seems that the subtle details are one of the main factors in this differentiation. I'm sure everyone has also experienced light cymbal brushing that sounds more like an electronic hiss than a real instrument. Listen to the well recorded Herbie Hancock Joni Letters title track for this. Applause is also another one that often can sound unnatural. In both of these instances it's the inner texture that seems to be missing

-snip-[/QUOTE]

Edit: It's actually the 1st track Court & Spark

 

[Gregadd]

A standard is not gauged by the ability to match it. Just as you can say how far reproduction is from the real instruments in real space, I can say how close we are.
I repeat it is not an arbitrary preference. Yes I may be weird but I listen to live music on a regular basis. Not concerts exclusively but also musicians. I might stop at the subway station and pause to hear a musicain, or listen in church. Sometimes my nephew will play the sax or keyboard. No I don't have perfect pitch, but I can gauge it pretty close.

Now if you take someone like Harry Pearson or Michael Fremer, it's thier profession. The have forgotten more about music reproduction than most us will ever know. The give "advice" on what they hear. That's "advice" not gospel. Take it for what it's worth.