Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm not Ethan, but I don't know what it means when people say "musicality," therefore it would be impossible for me to decide whether or not I believe in it. I suspect that what it means is highly variable, depending on what the user of the term considers pleasant. I do believe in pleasant.

P

 

[Gregadd]

I'm not Ethan, but I don't know what it means when people say "musicality," therefore it would be impossible for me to decide whether or not I believe in it. I suspect that what it means is highly variable, depending on what the user of the term considers pleasant. I do believe in pleasant.

P

So you are not coming over to our side?

 

[Ethan Winer]

Calling people silly is not productive.

Agreed. Though there's a difference between calling a term silly and saying that about the person using the term. Which I did not do.

Was that you or someone else who included a busted amplifier in a DBT test? To me that is jerking someones chain.

Not me, that was JJ in my AES Audio myths video. I have done some trickery in the past, but only to make a point after people simply refused to understand that their own hearing is not as reliable as they think.

Do you not know what it means or do you claim it is non-existent?

Both. Well, I suppose "musical" can be used as a synonym for pleasing. So if that's all someone means, that's fine with me. But most of the time I see that term used as a description that is supposed to convey something beyond "I like the sound."

Dr. Sean Olive uses what he claims is a scientific method to test for what? Listener preference.

Sure, but that's very different from what I'm interested in testing, which is raw audio fidelity. Again, I don't know how many other ways to say this. I am very clear about the difference between what people prefer and what constitutes accuracy and fidelity. I'm interested in knowing why people prefer the sound of distortion, as one example, but that's not the same as assessing fidelity, which is what I usually address.

please tell me what measurement I would look at to tell me what my speakers imaging characteristics are. To be as clear as possible - imaging means the spatial relationship between the musicians.

This is simple frequency response, and especially the difference in frequency response between the left and right speakers. It's also a function of the speaker's on-axis versus off-axis response. But it's still entirely frequency response. When all comb filter-inducing reflections are eliminated, or at least reduced to 15 dB or softer compared to the direct sound, imaging will be accurate and faithful to whatever directional cues and ambience are present in the recording itself.

telling me iIm biased or "in love with distortion" really does not help me any.

Where did I ever say or even imply that?

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So you are not coming over to our side?

As much as I'd love to have those desktop electrostatics, driven by mini tube monoblocks sitting on my file cabinet, if you're ever likely to tell me that your Martin Logans are more musical than Quads, and expect me to understand what you mean by that, no I won't be coming over. I've reached the age where sudden rushes of total confusion don't bode well.

P

 

[amirm]

This is simple frequency response, and especially the difference in frequency response between the left and right speakers. It's also a function of the speaker's on-axis versus off-axis response.

So if I provided these measures to you about a speaker, you would be able to tell me how it sounds and its relative quality to another with a different set of graphs? Put another way you would not need to listen to the speakers. Right?

 

[Ethan Winer]

So if I provided these measures to you about a speaker, you would be able to tell me how it sounds and its relative quality to another with a different set of graphs? Put another way you would not need to listen to the speakers. Right?

Maybe. Probably. But speaker frequency response is more than just what is measured on-axis. So that would require a pretty comprehensive set of data. Further, all I mentioned in my post you quoted was speaker imaging. "How a speaker sounds" also includes distortion at various SPL levels.

I'll put it back on you: What aspect of how a speaker sounds do you believe cannot be represented using measurement data?

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

1. It's not easy to divorce someone from their actions.
2. I stand corrected. We'll call it trickery.
3. I'm working on the definition. I can see now that I need to address not only definition by its' validity. I am troubled how you can doubt something when you do not what it is.
4.Sure, but that's very different from what I'm interested in testing, which is raw audio fidelity. Again, I don't know how many other ways to say this. I am very clear about the difference between what people prefer and what constitutes accuracy and fidelity. I'm interested in knowing why people prefer the sound of distortion, as one example, but that's not the same as assessing fidelity, which is what I usually address.
You are not the final arbiter of what I hear. You say in your post that you have not accused me of being biased or in "love with distortion." Yet you say people "prefer distortion. " It's just a matter of semantics. Furthermore although you don't mention it here your opinions on sight bias expectation, and ego bias(the need for validation of ones purchase decision i)s well known. How do you know people prefer distortion? Tests have shown people find certain types of distortion less objectionable. Or they find some types completely objectionable. I think that you adhere so closely to your measurements and say this must be what people should listen to and everything else must be wrong. You address fidelity? Fidelity to what? Music or measurements?
5.This is simple frequency response, and especially the difference in frequency response between the left and right speakers. It's also a function of the speaker's on-axis versus off-axis response. But it's still entirely frequency response. When all comb filter-inducing reflections are eliminated, or at least reduced to 15 dB or softer compared to the direct sound, imaging will be accurate and faithful to whatever directional cues and ambiance are present in the recording itself.
I use no room treatment. My speaker is the Martin Logan CLS. I get very good imaging. In all candor nothing in that explanation would help me choose a speakers that images well or one that images. Over the years I have witnessed a dramatic improvement in speaker imaging. As you point out there have been making speakers with flat frequency response for long time. Room treatment is nothing new either. Given my lack of room treatment and the Martin Logan frequency response curve what specific measurements account for its imaging characteristics? CLS measurement are available in the Stereophile Archive.
6. Where did I ever say or even imply that?
See#4.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Is the test in discussion the one in which some participants "preferred" an amp that wasn't functioning? If so, I'll leave whether or not it was fair to those who were embarrassed by choosing an amp that never played to those who were embarrassed. Was it unfair to the test? Absolutely not. It was not much different than an A/B X, in which X is either A or B, not a third option. Trickery? The scientific method under different circumstances.

P

 

[Ethan Winer]

I am troubled how you can doubt something when you do not what it is.

I'm pretty well on top of everything that occurs within gear that affects audio fidelity. So I'll wait for your definition to comment further.

You say in your post that you have not accused me of being biased or in "love with distortion." Yet you say people "prefer distortion. " It's just a matter of semantics.

It's well known that some people do indeed like the sound of some types of distortion. Of course it depends entirely on the nature of the distortion, how much, and its frequency spectrum. Heck, I like that effect sometimes too, as explained in this article from more than four years ago:

Gaining an Edge - with Subtle Distortion

your opinions on sight bias expectation, and ego bias(the need for validation of ones purchase decision i)s well known.

Are you denying that these biases exist among the general public?

How do you know people prefer distortion? Tests have shown people find certain types of distortion less objectionable. Or they find some types completely objectionable.

Of course, but if you read my various posts you'll see I was very clear saying things such as, "It depends on the recording, instrumentation, and nature of the distortion." As for how I know that some people like some types of distortion, that's evident by the popularity of tube gear, analog tape, and LP records. It's easy to show that those two mediums are technically inferior to digital recording, yet some people prefer them anyway. What other logical conclusion could we come to?

you adhere so closely to your measurements and say this must be what people should listen to and everything else must be wrong.

Where did I say that? Please point me to a specific post. I'm usually very careful to say "some people prefer" and "I prefer" rather than try to claim my preferences are superior. When discussing raw fidelity I may make absolute statements, but that's not the same as telling people that what they like is wrong.

You address fidelity? Fidelity to what? Music or measurements?

Fidelity to the original source as captured by the microphones.

Given my lack of room treatment and the Martin Logan frequency response curve what specific measurements account for its imaging characteristics? CLS measurement are available in the Stereophile Archive.

You point me to a link and then I'll have a basis for comment. I don't own dipole type speakers, but I understand they have less need for absorption at the reflection points. So their good imaging is probably as simple as not creating strong damaging reflections in the first place compared to other, broader dispersion speakers. Look, I don't claim to know everything, and I'm not a loudspeaker expert. But I am certain that whatever it is you are hearing as good imaging has a simple and logical explanation that can be understood using the four basic parameters that define audio fidelity.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

you ... say this must be what people should listen to and everything else must be wrong.

I go out of my way not to offend people, but I understand some people are offended anyway. A good parallel would be homeopathy, which (I hope) we can all agree is based entirely on placebo effect. So what do you tell someone who insists their tinnitus got better after taking Quiet Relief which the seller admits is homeopathic? I see no difference between that and, say, people who report better sound after raising their speaker wires on cable elevators. If I tell them it's placebo effect they get angry, even though it's clearly the truth.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

I think I said everything probably coukd be measured, it just has not been done yet. I don't see any additional proof of anything above. Could you please take a look at these graphs of the Aerial 20vt If you could point out if there is anything there that would tell me about the speakers imaging characteristics. If so, point it out, and tell us what it means. http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/aerial_acoustics_20t_v2_loudspeaker/index5.html
Of course that's a personal request.

Wishing you well.
gregadd

 

[Gregadd]

I go out of my way not to offend people, but I understand some people are offended anyway. A good parallel would be homeopathy, which (I hope) we can all agree is based entirely on placebo effect. So what do you tell someone who insists their tinnitus got better after taking Quiet Relief which the seller admits is homeopathic? I see no difference between that and, say, people who report better sound after raising their speaker wires on cable elevators. If I tell them it's placebo effect they get angry, even though it's clearly the truth.

--Ethan

I assure you I am not offended and I hope the feeling is mutual. You are a formidable advocate for your position. It's difficult enough debating you on the subject of audio. I have no intention to expand it to the field of homeopathic medicine.

 

[terryj]

Calling my speakers shouty was a joke. As I said above, normally I'd use the type of terms P. Ponk did when describing his headphones.

For some reason I don't quite understand, you have to watch these jokes at times ethan.

I knew you were describing them using terms others wanted (the 'is that better' or somesuch was the final giveaway..not that it was needed). Ah, a bit like the joke on GS that backfired??

Maybe make it more clear next time.

There's a popular "audio book" course for budding mix engineers that trains people to recognize frequency ranges. Anyone who's played with an equalizer can do the same thing. You quickly learn what a 1 KHz cut sound like, and the difference between boosting 100 Hz versus 200 Hz. It's not always easy to nail frequencies exactly by ear, but you can get a broad sense of the different ranges. So from my perspective, that makes more sense when describing the sound of loudspeakers or other devices that are typically not flat.

There is a free program on the net called rezone (pretty sure that's it). If people are truly interested in learning maybe give it a go? All it does is, randomly, install boosts or cuts in a pink noise signal, which you can play over any device out of the computer.

Those cuts and boosts vary in magnitude, frequency and Q, and your task is to learn over time where it is all happening. Then you check your answer. Once you have that down pat, you can have it do it to music too.

Anyway, free and fun, and very educational.

One thing I learned was that when most people (well me, but I think most) blame the tweeter... 'the tweeter was bright' (this of course depends on the crossover points etc etc)...well it is not the treble frequencies...it was always the mid!! (sub 3k, usually quite less than 3k).

JFYI.

I think I said everything probably coukd be measured, it just has not been done yet. I don't see any additional proof of anything above. Could you please take a look at these graphs of the Aerial 20vt If you could point out if there is anything there that would tell me about the speakers imaging characteristics. If so, point it out, and tell us what it means. http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/aerial_acoustics_20t_v2_loudspeaker/index5.html
Of course that's a personal request.

Wishing you well.
gregadd

Maybe read what ethan writes??

I simply glanced at it, so it is possible I missed it if it is there, but ethan (I'm quite sure) does not talk about imaging being a product of a speakers FR per se....but how accurately the pair match.

I did not see (it could be there if I sat and read every single word??) any sort of comparison between left and right. I saw a 'generic' FR graph of the speaker.

Ok, so how exactly does the (single) measured speaker vary from any other taken off the production line at any given time? there are tolerances in components. It is a three way (passive I presume, did not look at the slopes used) so now we have all those tolerances in all those components in multiple crossovers, drivers will and do vary. They have to, it's just the nature of the beast.

I've asked this a few times in a few threads, no answer as yet.

So I'll ask you directly, if that's ok??

You are clear that you feel current measurements are inadequate (simplified but hopefully complete enough in essence, sorry if I have misrepresented you).

My question is simple, HOW do you know they are inadequate?? It seems to be simply a mantra unthinkingly chanted.

You mentioned sean earlier, have you gone to his lab and received any sort of introduction into the process, found out how and why perceptions can be misled, have you gone to a lab, watched measurements take place, then listened to see how each MAY correlate to our perception??

I mean I know you probably haven't gone to seans, but I mean how did you find out that the current measurements are not enough?

To say what we have are inadequate you MUST have found out they are inadequate.

How did you (and all the others that constantly repeat it) FIND OUT that they are inadequate.

 

[RUR]

There is a free program on the net called rezone (pretty sure that's it). If people are truly interested in learning maybe give it a go? All it does is, randomly, install boosts or cuts in a pink noise signal, which you can play over any device out of the computer.

Those cuts and boosts vary in magnitude, frequency and Q, and your task is to learn over time where it is all happening. Then you check your answer. Once you have that down pat, you can have it do it to music too.

Anyway, free and fun, and very educational.

Terry, AFAIK Harman still plans to release free, computer-based "How to Listen" training software, which Sean describes in his blog here. If you scroll down to the comments, they had hoped for a May release, and I know of no more current status.

If I wasn't such a lazy cuss, I'd wrangle an invite to their training facility, which is only about an hour away from me.

 

[terryj]

Terry, AFAIK Harman still plans to release free, computer-based "How to Listen" training software, which Sean describes in his blog here. If you scroll down to the comments, they had hoped for a May release, and I know of no more current status.

If I wasn't such a lazy cuss, I'd wrangle an invite to their training facility, which is only about an hour away from me.

aww man, you should be shot!

If sean would have me, I'd be in like a rat up a drain pipe.

In fact, if I were over there 'somewhere' I'd be trying to organise a group excursion if you will. It amuses me that audiopohiles will all agree to meet at the next CES or RMAF, a big do ya know?

See the latest bling creation, maybe catch an industry presentation (you know the sort, one where they have 'finally' found the new mesaurement technique where, at last, all those vast improvements *we* have been hearing with expensive power cords are actually true...sigh...) yet suggest they experience-for themselves-an insight into the mental aspect of the hobby..meh.

they'd rather argue about it all from behind a keyboard, make broad sweeping statements how they know that science does not have the answers in audio (just 'we do' ya know??)

It is not limited to the usual audiophile BTW. I remember starting a thread on diy about it. 'We all know our diy creations are the best and slaughter store bought manufactured items...but honestly, how would we go when we DO audition them...BLIND...at seans 'place' behind the screen, labelled 'speaker C'...against the commercial opposition?'

Got much the same result which staggered me a bit to be honest. 'I don't need to, I know mine are better'. I mean WTF? Or more amusing 'I don't need to, because everyone who has heard mine say they are the best'!!!

So the simple desire to learn, or to know, is less being absent from audiophiles but more of a general human condition.

Man, do people not want to learn or to know for it's own sake?? THAT'S what I don't get!!

What greater pleasure in life than finding out something new??? Man I love it. The 'well blow me down! whoda thunk that??'

 

[Steve williams]

Be careful if you go Ken as you might not like what you hear or should I say don't hear

 

[RUR]

Had my hearing tested last year, so I'm already sadly aware of what I don't hear. :-(

Sanjay and a group of AVS boyz arranged a group training session and had a hell of a good time. Ended up at one of the Harman guys' house, listening 'till midnight. Sounded like fun, actually.

 

[Gregadd]

How do I know? By listening my friend. For decades to live music and hi fi equipment. As for what measurements effect imaging. I'm still waiting for Ethan, you ,or anybody to give my a specific example of how to look look at a specific measurement and predict how that speaker will image. I will not be embarrassed at all. I'll put it to immediate use.

 

[Gregadd]

BTW if you went to Harmon you would be listening in mono to a test tone or 15 second music clip.

 

[Ron Party]

Ken, if you arrange it, I'll come down and I'll drag Steve with me.