Negative show report posts... enough is enough.

[Rodney Gold]

The room is always the final determinant to aberrations in sound at the listening position .. all the electronics and even the speaker in anechoic will measure nicely , the room just mangles it big time and reduces all the nice bits to hash.
If you dont fix it at listening position, you are faced with compromise in just about ALL the "audiophile" attributes we listen for and no matter how expert you are, you wont hear what you are looking for cos of it being masked by the room effects

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Just picking up the violin analogy - Bonzo is right as he states both violins are correct.

However, the question as to whether the timbre was the correct one recorded in the studio is not what I am referring to. I am talking about the ability of the system to fool one into believing you are hearing a violin knowing variations. As a trombonist I can tell you that trombones timbre varies significantly from the old school rose brass Conn88h to a modern yellow brass Yamaha as an example. Both are right but if I listen to a recording of either, can I be tricked into believing that it sounds like a trombone at all or a way off facsimile.

 

[Al M.]

Just picking up the violin analogy - Bonzo is right as he states both violins are correct.

However, the question as to whether the timbre was the correct one recorded in the studio is not what I am referring to. I am talking about the ability of the system to fool one into believing you are hearing a violin knowing variations. As a trombonist I can tell you that trombones timbre varies significantly from the old school rose brass Conn88h to a modern yellow brass Yamaha as an example. Both are right but if I listen to a recording of either, can I be tricked into believing that it sounds like a trombone at all or a way off facsimile.

Precisely. it's the question of 'accuracy' vs. believability. There is no way to know how it sounded when it was recorded, and even the sound engineer cannot know if what he put on tape sounds precisely like the original. Microphones 'hear' differently than human ears (and even different microphones 'hear' differently), and the same studio monitor shows different real-life frequency curves at the listening position in different studio rooms around the world (this is well documented). So even if the engineer thinks upon playback through his chain, hey this sounds very much like I remember it to have been live, the actual recorded sound that is on tape may very well differ. Therefore the whole 'accuracy' thing is an illusion in my view, and what counts is believability. Does it sound like the real thing, or at least somewhat similar? And only intense experience with live music, sitting at varied distances in different halls, can give you that ability to judge.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Well unless its classical , just about every live event I go to is amplified anyway.my hifi sounds better than live

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Well unless its classical , just about every live event I go to is amplified anyway.my hifi sounds better than live

Part of what you have written is why I have always foubd it odd that some audiophiles invest so much to reproduce their mainstay genre of electronica / dance music. Anyway - that is another discussion.

 

[bonzo75]

Btw, in defence of what Amir was saying, I have been to the places of those who have set up MCH systems with Datasat dirac auro 3d. They never said a word about music, just about frequency response and bass control. The music in their rooms was among the best that I have heard, though they could care less and did not even pretend to be a judge of music, but these are complimentary skills and one needs to cross both

 

[Tony Lauck]

If that is true and I came to your house and either swap said power cable with garden variety IEC cable, or left your premium cable in place, and you sat down to play your music, you would be able to 100% tell if I had made that change or not if no clues are visible?

It is unreasonable to criticize a post which begins, "Everything helps,...." by requiring that each individual change be demonstrated with "100%" accuracy. It may be that the individual changes are imperceptible but add up to an easily perceptible change. Even if they do, the requirement of 100% accuracy is unreasonable, because it does not allow for dogs to bark, etc., as you have previously pointed out.

Sad to say, this post is an example of the unattractive and unpersuasive arguments often made by audio objectivists.

 

[Bill Hart]

Precisely. it's the question of 'accuracy' vs. believability. There is no way to know how it sounded when it was recorded, and even the sound engineer cannot know if what he put on tape sounds precisely like the original. Microphones 'hear' differently than human ears (and even different microphones 'hear' differently), and the same studio monitor shows different real-life frequency curves at the listening position in different studio rooms around the world (this is well documented). So even if the engineer thinks upon playback through his chain, hey this sounds very much like I remember it to have been live, the actual recorded sound that is on tape may very well differ. Therefore the whole 'accuracy' thing is an illusion in my view, and what counts is believability. Does it sound like the real thing, or at least somewhat similar? And only intense experience with live music, sitting at varied distances in different halls, can give you that ability to judge.

I had an interesting experience recently, listening to a pre-WWII transcription of a live performance that had been cut by sending the signal over a telephone line. The original transcription discs were noisy and thin sounding (aside from being close to 80 years old). The restoration specialist cleaned each disc, played them back through a partly vintage analog chain and dumped the signals into a large digital server to begin his work, which was painstaking. I heard a piece of the 'before' and 'after'- remarkable. Even with limited bandwidth, and lots of manipulation, the thing had dynamics, life, the kick drum moved air. Hardly 'purist,' but sounded lifelike.
I agree with you. It is one of the reasons I spend a lot of my time on the various pressings of records at this point, to find the "one(s)" that best deliver(s) the illusion.

 

[Joe Whip]

It is unreasonable to criticize a post which begins, "Everything helps,...." by requiring that each individual change be demonstrated with "100%" accuracy. It may be that the individual changes are imperceptible but add up to an easily perceptible change. Even if they do, the requirement of 100% accuracy is unreasonable, because it does not allow for dogs to bark, etc., as you have previously pointed out.

Sad to say, this post is an example of the unattractive and unpersuasive arguments often made by audio objectivists.

If this turns into yet another objectivist vs. subjectivist thread, it may be time to lock the baby down.

 

[mep]

If this turns into yet another objectivist vs. subjectivist thread, it may be time to lock the baby down.

This thread has done more wandering than Moses' 40 year jaunt in the desert.

 

[amirm]

It is unreasonable to criticize a post which begins, "Everything helps,...." by requiring that each individual change be demonstrated with "100%" accuracy.

How else would we test the statement that: "For example, RFI/EMI riding on the AC power has a noticeable signature, which is instantly recognizable when you have experienced it. " If it is instantly recognizable, what percentage of time would it be revealing in a controlled test when that was the only variable?

It may be that the individual changes are imperceptible but add up to an easily perceptible change. Even if they do, the requirement of 100% accuracy is unreasonable, because it does not allow for dogs to bark, etc., as you have previously pointed out.

Good one . But there is a difference. I won't say that the small differences that I was testing were instantly recognizable. I would tell you that these are very small differences and vast majority of people cannot hear them. That I could, was a testament to my training to listen critically. It is that training whose value is being questioned. Seeing how hardly anyone could duplicate my result of testing high resolution audio against CD, it reasons then that what I say about training in loudspeaker and room distortions is also valuable just the same.

Sad to say, this post is an example of the unattractive and unpersuasive arguments often made by audio objectivists.

How much of the subjectivists arguments should the other camp tolerate before they get sad? Or is only one camp allowed to have such negative feelings?

The topic is one that is scientific in nature. Through literally decades of testing and research, Harman has arrived at a methodology to train people to hear colorations and controlled listening tests to find out which loudspeaker creates a more real, enjoyable experience. You can't take the position that the counter to validity of both of these should be treated in a non-objective manner. If you are going to say these tests don't have value then you have to make an objective argument. The answer is not, well, my feelings are hurt because you are talking like an objectivists. That is the nature of this discussion.

You are opposing published, well accepted research which your speaker designer may very well be using just the same without telling you. How would you like me to argue back? Throw out everything I know about audio science and just tell you my opinion is that you are wrong? Well, I can do that too but I don't think we learn anything .

By the way, I have had this very argument in exactly the same nature with extreme objectivists. They don't understand the nature of these tests and research any more than subjectivists. To wit, they don't think we need blind tests for speaker testing even though they demand it in other audio testing. They are wrong there and get sad when I tell them that they are a part-time vegetarian when it comes to objectivity.

What advice do you have for me in this conversation? To accept at face value that when I show 30 db differences in colorations that the speaker+room bring, that somehow power cords are just as critical in nature and create similar timbral changes? I can't do that if you can't put forward any evidence that is independent of your opinion and views. Or else this is a free for all as everyone puts forward a different opinion of the same thing.

If I swap two premium power cords, you all hold the position that the sound changes, right? Can you tell me if it changes the same way for you and another person? If the answer is yes, how come you all don't have the same power cords? If it changes one way for you, and another way for someone else, then that is not a scientific basis to analyze. It is a random effect that can't be quantified and therefore I should ignore everything you all say about such things. My mind works in logical manner and if you want to have an argument with me, then I expect that bring forth this kind of logic.

I get that you have had X, Y and Z experiences leading you to certain opinions. I have no dispute about that whatsoever. That separates me from objectivists that sadden you because I don't jump in the middle of a conversation about cables and say you are out of your mind. I comment however, as gently as I can , when you try to tell me that changing said cables makes instantly recognizable changes and simply ask for some verification, as mildly as I can, that takes out your prior beliefs. If you have a better solution in how we can close this gap between us, I am all ears, pun intended .

 

[amirm]

If this turns into yet another objectivist vs. subjectivist thread, it may be time to lock the baby down.

Well, you can shoot me if it turns into that . As I just explained, I have this very same argument with both camps in audio. Neither wants to accept that there is real science in evaluating loudspeakers and rooms and that it is not a random, personal preference thing. So in that regard, I expect the discussion to be different and I think it has been.

This thread was motivated by someone making a brief listen of a system at a show and saying the system lacked warmth. Another person in the same subjectivity camp says he is completely wrong and is outraged by anyone making such comments. Do you all want to explore how we can tell which camp is right in such disagreements? Or do you think there is no rhyme and reason and both can be right and that we side with one or other based on how they talk?

I don't care how much you are in subjectivity camp. Surely some logical reasoning to get to the bottom of what the audio truth is, will be useful for all of us.

 

[Joe Whip]

While I am more objectivist than subjectivist, I do know that you can't convince one side or the other that your viewpoint is the right one. That is why I tend not to participate in those discussions anymore. Logic often plays no role in these discussions. It is more like religion or politics in that regard.

 

[amirm]

Let me show you why you want to inhale at least some amount of objectivity in this specific segment of audio, i.e. loudspeakers and rooms .

From a great paper published by Dr. Toole and Olive, "Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things," we have this interesting sample data:

Same system was tested blind and sighted. The only variable was the content being played. When testing sighted, the votes were identical no matter what was played (gray bars). When blind, the scores varied largely (white bars). Compare the score for SS to TC. I think we all agree that program material makes a difference in how it brings out differences in speakers (and the paper demonstrates that to be true). Yet, when we evaluate loudspeakers as we do at shows, we do it sighted. And with it, bring our biases that erase true, objective differences that exist when we can't see what we are listening to.

A person who owns and loves a loudspeaker then, would likely produce the faulty data in the sighted graph. And likewise, someone who does not, will do the same. The only way to get to the truth, is to take away that knowledge which cannot be done at audio shows.

Let's parse this in another dimension, literally. That is, what happens when we move speakers but keep everything else the same. Here is the outcome:

These are paired comparisons. So let's look at loudspeaker "D". In sighted testing, the scores for the same identical speaker was identical in both positions (gray bars). Yet, when we hide the identity of the loudspeakers, the scores now vary substantially (white bars). Same thing of the other speakers. We know objectively that changing position of a speaker makes big difference. We can measure that. And we can show that to 100% correlate with subjective listening. I am reminded as I type this the profound difference Mike found when he moves his listening position just 4 inches.

The enemy of hearing such differences is personal bias. Knowing what you are listening to, makes you a far less critical listener.

I hope data like this makes you consider how much our personal biases get in the way of proper analysis of what is being heard at a show. And that at least for a moment, consider that subjectivism does not serve us well. And it is that problem, that is at the root of the violent disagreement that created this thread.

 

[Tony Lauck]

How else would we test the statement that: "For example, RFI/EMI riding on the AC power has a noticeable signature, which is instantly recognizable when you have experienced it. " If it is instantly recognizable, what percentage of time would it be revealing in a controlled test when that was the only variable?


Good one . But there is a difference. I won't say that the small differences that I was testing were instantly recognizable. I would tell you that these are very small differences and vast majority of people cannot hear them. That I could, was a testament to my training to listen critically. It is that training whose value is being questioned. Seeing how hardly anyone could duplicate my result of testing high resolution audio against CD, it reasons then that what I say about training in loudspeaker and room distortions is also valuable just the same.


How much of the subjectivists arguments should the other camp tolerate before they get sad? Or is only one camp allowed to have such negative feelings?

The topic is one that is scientific in nature. Through literally decades of testing and research, Harman has arrived at a methodology to train people to hear colorations and controlled listening tests to find out which loudspeaker creates a more real, enjoyable experience. You can't take the position that the counter to validity of both of these should be treated in a non-objective manner. If you are going to say these tests don't have value then you have to make an objective argument. The answer is not, well, my feelings are hurt because you are talking like an objectivists. That is the nature of this discussion.

You are opposing published, well accepted research which your speaker designer may very well be using just the same without telling you. How would you like me to argue back? Throw out everything I know about audio science and just tell you my opinion is that you are wrong? Well, I can do that too but I don't think we learn anything .

By the way, I have had this very argument in exactly the same nature with extreme objectivists. They don't understand the nature of these tests and research any more than subjectivists. To wit, they don't think we need blind tests for speaker testing even though they demand it in other audio testing. They are wrong there and get sad when I tell them that they are a part-time vegetarian when it comes to objectivity.

What advice do you have for me in this conversation? To accept at face value that when I show 30 db differences in colorations that the speaker+room bring, that somehow power cords are just as critical in nature and create similar timbral changes? I can't do that if you can't put forward any evidence that is independent of your opinion and views. Or else this is a free for all as everyone puts forward a different opinion of the same thing.

If I swap two premium power cords, you all hold the position that the sound changes, right? Can you tell me if it changes the same way for you and another person? If the answer is yes, how come you all don't have the same power cords? If it changes one way for you, and another way for someone else, then that is not a scientific basis to analyze. It is a random effect that can't be quantified and therefore I should ignore everything you all say about such things. My mind works in logical manner and if you want to have an argument with me, then I expect that bring forth this kind of logic.

I get that you have had X, Y and Z experiences leading you to certain opinions. I have no dispute about that whatsoever. That separates me from objectivists that sadden you because I don't jump in the middle of a conversation about cables and say you are out of your mind. I comment however, as gently as I can , when you try to tell me that changing said cables makes instantly recognizable changes and simply ask for some verification, as mildly as I can, that takes out your prior beliefs. If you have a better solution in how we can close this gap between us, I am all ears, pun intended .

Harmon's speaker testing is a form of scientific marketing. Valuable if one is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling speakers.

There are no 30 dB errors on my system. More like 3 db today. There were huge errors, but I fixed them by addition of a subwoofer, followed by laborious speaker positioning and cross-over adjustments guided by measurements. Two remaining 9 dB peaks were knocked down by parametric equalization. I expected more even bass, particularly in plucked double bass, and I got it. What I did not expect was how the sound stage expanded beyond the room boundaries.

Cables interact with the components they interconnect. If they have audible effects it says more about these components than anything else. One of the "components" is the electrical environment in which the system operates, including power. Because of this interaction it is pointless to argue generalities about cables. I take the position that if cables matter something is wrong elsewhere, but it is certainly possible that cable changes (or even cable dress) may provide a more cost effective solution than replacing a major component.

 

[amirm]

Harmon's speaker testing is a form of scientific marketing. Valuable if one is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling speakers.

99% of what Harman uses there, came from when Dr. Toole, Olive, etc. were at Canadian National Research Council. That was a non-profit government funded group, aiming at advancing understanding of loudspeaker performance and acoustics in general. I can't link you to the research papers if you like. So it is not a Harman thing.

Dr. Toole did move to Harman about 20 years ago. But when he arrived, he faced significant resistance to his ideas of blind testing and such. The designers there were convinced they were right in the way they evaluated and designed loudspeakers. So he and Dr. Olive conducted a sequence of tests to convince them they were wrong which actually led to departure of some of these designers from the company.

Today, the motivation to continue that research has nothing to do with "selling speakers." That research is hugely expensive and is being funded by the automotive division of Harman that does a few billion dollars in revenue per year, making OEM audio/infotainment system for many cars. Harman systems are more expensive than what OEMs can buy from other companies so at all times they have to prove, through scientific process, why they do what they do. It is for that reason that they have three anechoic chambers each costing million dollar+.

As I mentioned, the data from their research is used by many loudspeaker designers even if they are not explicit about it. I have sat through their testing, saw my evaluation matching the outcome of their research, and forever changed my views in how I look at loudspeakers, room acoustics and personal preferences when it comes to both.

There are no 30 dB errors on my system. More like 3 db today. There were huge errors, but I fixed them by addition of a subwoofer, followed by laborious speaker positioning and cross-over adjustments guided by measurements. Two remaining 9 dB peaks were knocked down by parametric equalization. I expected more even bass, particularly in plucked double bass, and I got it. What I did not expect was how the sound stage expanded beyond the room boundaries.

Good for you but I don't see any of those techniques used at 99% of the rooms at shows.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Let me show you why you want to inhale at least some amount of objectivity in this specific segment of audio, i.e. loudspeakers and rooms .

From a great paper published by Dr. Toole and Olive, "Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things," we have this interesting sample data:

Same system was tested blind and sighted. The only variable was the content being played. When testing sighted, the votes were identical no matter what was played (gray bars). When blind, the scores varied largely (white bars). Compare the score for SS to TC. I think we all agree that program material makes a difference in how it brings out differences in speakers (and the paper demonstrates that to be true). Yet, when we evaluate loudspeakers as we do at shows, we do it sighted. And with it, bring our biases that erase true, objective differences that exist when we can't see what we are listening to.

A person who owns and loves a loudspeaker then, would likely produce the faulty data in the sighted graph. And likewise, someone who does not, will do the same. The only way to get to the truth, is to take away that knowledge which cannot be done at audio shows.

Let's parse this in another dimension, literally. That is, what happens when we move speakers but keep everything else the same. Here is the outcome:

These are paired comparisons. So let's look at loudspeaker "D". In sighted testing, the scores for the same identical speaker was identical in both positions (gray bars). Yet, when we hide the identity of the loudspeakers, the scores now vary substantially (white bars). Same thing of the other speakers. We know objectively that changing position of a speaker makes big difference. We can measure that. And we can show that to 100% correlate with subjective listening. I am reminded as I type this the profound difference Mike found when he moves his listening position just 4 inches.

The enemy of hearing such differences is personal bias. Knowing what you are listening to, makes you a far less critical listener.

I hope data like this makes you consider how much our personal biases get in the way of proper analysis of what is being heard at a show. And that at least for a moment, consider that subjectivism does not serve us well. And it is that problem, that is at the root of the violent disagreement that created this thread.

I mostly reject your approach.

you reference my profound effect of moving the listening position 4 inches. but you neglect to add that it was adding the fabric treatments (which was done from a subjective, sighted idea) that allowed sufficient detail to be clear that I could now appreciate the benefit of moving my listening position 4 inches. prior experiences of moving closer (unknowingly at the time) added to the reflective issue and so were deemed not preferable to my ears.

subjective, sighted listening and hours daily familiarity was 100% of my process.

I'm not rejecting measurements, only blind listening. from time to time measurements have helped to provide clues to macro issues. my speaker designer certainly used measurements to dial in the bass adjustments for my final room setup. but chasing ultimate levels of fine details requires extended listening. not blind testing. one man's listening bias is another man's ultimate familiarity with their own system......and as a result that same man's strong listening reference.

in my mind a listening reference is much more valuable than blind objectivity. neither are perfect though.

might blind listening serve some good purpose for specific situations. I suppose it could for some. YMMV.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Dr. Toole did move to Harman about 20 years ago. But when he arrived, he faced significant resistance to his ideas of blind testing and such. The designers there were convinced they were right in the way they evaluated and designed loudspeakers. So he and Dr. Olive conducted a sequence of tests to convince them they were wrong which actually led to departure of some of these designers from the company.

One could argue that this was possibly not the best course of action, especially if you were the brand manager of Infinity.

I suspect a more pragmatic course of action, one that incorporates blind testing as but one of many tools in the designer's arsenal, might be a more constructive approach to design. KEF learned this the hard way: it used to make loudspeakers where the designer didn't need to listen, and the customer didn't want to listen. Now it makes loudspeakers where the science and objective testing still remains vital, but the empirical observations of the listener outside the lab remain important in final voicing. As a consequence, KEF is now going through something of a Golden Age.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Amir, your patience is impressive, to say the least.

Tim

 

[amirm]

I mostly reject your approach.

you reference my profound effect of moving the listening position 4 inches. but you neglect to add that it was adding the fabric treatments (which was done from a subjective, sighted idea) that allowed sufficient detail to be clear that I could now appreciate the benefit of moving my listening position 4 inches. prior experiences of moving closer (unknowingly at the time) added to the reflective issue and so were deemed not preferable to my ears.

That 4 inch movement now may also be just as ineffective Mike. Or alternatively, it was effective just as much before as it is now. We simply don't know because your tests were sighted and therefore you mixed physics and your beliefs.

What we know with certainty is that as a subjectivist, you had believed in profound effect speaker positioning made to you. That is why I cited your experience, not that I know it be right or not.

subjective, sighted listening and hours daily familiarity was 100% of my process.

And why I must reject most of what you observe in that regard just the same .

I'm not rejecting measurements, only blind listening. from time to time measurements have helped to provide clues to macro issues. my speaker designer certainly used measurements to dial in the bass adjustments for my final room setup. but chasing ultimate levels of fine details requires extended listening. not blind testing. one man's listening bias is another man's ultimate familiarity with their own system......and as a result that same man's strong listening reference.

I don't know why we keep bringing up measurements when I have not breathed a word about it. Everything I have shared has been results of listening tests, and trusting what people say they hear at face value.

As to familiarity, it is the thing that corrupts the data Mike. It just does as I showed. Here is another data point:

These are the same highly experienced (not be confused with highly trained) listeners voting for fidelity of these speakers. Notice how in sighted testing, they found speaker G to sound a lot better than S. But in blind testing, the outcome reversed: speaker S did better than speaker G.

Here is the bit about the speakers:

"If we isolate the visual and political factors we have the following
possible scenario. It is easy to believe that loudspeakers "G' and "D" would be
viewed favorably because they were the most expensive, the largest, quite
attractive, and they were products of the company that employed the listeners.

Loudspeaker 'T" was slightly smaller, slightly less expensive, a prestige
product, but made by a competitor. Loudspeaker "S' was absolutely tiny,
relatively inexpensive, and plastic. It was a product of the host company, but
could anything that small and cheap be any good? Many listeners in the
sighted tests admitted afterwards that before the music even started they
believed that loudspeaker "S' would sound inferior, although they admitted its
strong performance surprised them."

We can see the influence of bias here. Speaker S, being a cheap plastic speaker in sighted tests did poorly. But in blind testing, it beat out the fancy high-end speaker.

Intuitively, as much as we dislike this, we need to accept that such influences do create the results that the controlled research shows. We can't continue to cling to the notion that our biases take back seat to system performance. It just isn't so or we would not be human, appreciating other things than what something sounds like.

in my mind a listening reference is much more valuable than blind objectivity. neither are perfect though.

might blind listening serve some good purpose for specific situations. I suppose it could for some. YMMV.

Until you sit through one, and have your current beliefs validated or disproved, you simply won't know. I am fortunate enough to have gone through that revelation. Few people are in this select group.