Some More Evidence that Kids (American and Japanese) Prefer Good Sound

[amirm]

I do not beleive I have heard any of the speakers posted in the OP. However Dr. Olive concedes the results of his test cannot be applied to the genral population . Indeed the combined population of of th U.S. and Japan is about 450 millilon. The 18-24 dmographic (where most of college students in the U.S. would fall) is around 27 million. I think the size of the test group was in the low 200's. If we include high school students of U.S.and H.S. studenta and college students of Japan the population would be even larger. The sample is too small.

I just used an online calculator and degree of error is 7% for a sample size of 200. Did you get a different number?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I do not beleive I have heard any of the speakers posted in the OP. However Dr. Olive concedes the results of his test cannot be applied to the genral population . Indeed the combined population of of th U.S. and Japan is about 450 millilon. The 18-24 dmographic (where most of college students in the U.S. would fall) is around 27 million. I think the size of the test group was in the low 200's. If we include high school students of U.S.and H.S. studenta and college students of Japan the population would be even larger. The sample is too small.
I realize you want to declare victory. Not yet.Some More Evidence that Kids (American and Japanese) Prefer Good Sound

"While the small sample size of listeners in this test does not allow us to make generalizations to larger populations, nonetheless it is reassuring to find that both American and Japanese students, regardless of their critical listening experience, recognized good sound when they heard it, and preferred it to the lower quality options"

I was referring back to the other Harman studies, with much larger, more diverse sample groups, many more samples and many more studies, going back to the 80s in Canada, that very firmly demonstrate that broad sections of the market, including very sophisticated listeners, prefer the same loudspeaker characteristics these students seem to have preferred.

I have no need to declare "victory" over anything. The evidence speaks for itself. I am merely answering a call for the reconciliation of good science with weak anecdotal information. My apologies for the ML remark. It was unnecessary.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I just used an online calculator and degree of error is 7% for a sample size of 200. Did you get a different number?

The confidence interval calculations assume you have a genuine random sample of the relevant population. If your sample is not truly random, you cannot rely on the intervals. Non-random samples usually result from some flaw in the sampling procedure.

In order to use a small number the group would have to be random. (There are other ways) A random sample is one in which every item in the population is equally likely to be chosen. With random sampling there also needs to be some sort of random generating process used to select each item.

UNDERSTAND STATISTICS BY ALAN GRAHAM P.137

Amir and Tim : Dr. Olive appears to concede his findings have no application to the general population. See above. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

200 out 27 million.

I think you forgot your smiley. Here:

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I don't have any problem with it at all. I think capital A Audiophiles are among the last people who should trust their ears. I think thousands of them, all present company excepted, of course, prefer exactly what they're expected to prefer, until you turn out the lights, at which point Martin Logans are soundly beaten by cheap midfi Infinity's according to the numbers and the ears.

Tim

Say what you like about ML. Your criticism of ML is nor more decisive than your ealier praise. We all must trust our ears they are the final arbiter.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Just for the record, my earlier praise was of their "budget" speakers that use traditional cones and Heil Air Motion Transformers in a bipolar arrangement, not of the hybrids. I really did like those. I wonder how they would fare in the HK study?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I just used an online calculator and degree of error is 7% for a sample size of 200. Did you get a different number?

6.93 smile

 

[Gregadd]

Just thinking out louid. Arguing against this study is akin to a politician arguing against a tax cut in an aelction year. You knoow it's the wrong thing to do, but going agaomst a tax cut is like political suicide. The same constituents who want the tax cut also want that new 100 million dollar high school.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Amir and Tim : Dr. Olive appears to concede his findings have no application to the general population. See above. Do you agree or disagree?

Which study? The one that's the subject of this thread? Of course. And if you can ignore the fact that its findings are essentially the same as dozens of other studies, constituting many hundreds of samples over a few decades, I'm sure you'll find comfort in that.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Which study? The one that's the subject of this thread? Of course. And if you can ignore the fact that its findings are essentially the same as dozens of other studies, constituting many hundreds of samples over a few decades, I'm sure you'll find comfort in that.

Tim

From the original OP: While the small sample size of listeners in this test does not allow us to make generalizations to larger populations, nonetheless it is reassuring to find that both American and Japanese students, regardless of their critical listening experience, recognized good sound when they heard it, and preferred it to the lower quality options.

It appears i am not the only one indulging my ignorance.

I'm sure you'll find comfort in that.

On the contrary, the appearent disparity between percieved sound and measurements leaves me (and others) profoundly perplexed. Until that disparity is resolved I'll continue to rely on my ears.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

From the original OP: While the small sample size of listeners in this test does not allow us to make generalizations to larger populations, nonetheless it is reassuring to find that both American and Japanese students, regardless of their critical listening experience, recognized good sound when they heard it, and preferred it to the lower quality options.

It appears i am not the only onbne indulging my ignorance.



On the contrary, the appearent disparity between percieved sound and measurements leaves me (and others) profoundly perplexed. Until that disparity is resolved I'll continue to rely on my ears.

Just this one study then. And something about onbne ignorance.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Just this one study then. And something about onbne ignorance.

Tim

Thanks for catching the typo. It should have read "only one,"

This argument was made long before i entered audio. In fact the failure to align measurements with percived sound led to the birth of the high end.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thanks for catching the typo. It should have read "only one,"

Happens to me every time I try to write from my iPad.

This argument was made long before i entered audio. In fact the failure to align measurements with percived sound led to the birth of the high end.

That, after the data presented on this board in the last few weeks, you can still say there is a failure to align measurements with perceived sound is stunning but serves this discussion well. The denial of science by those whose subjective choices are not supported by the data does not precede my involvement in audio. I remember well when it began. And you're absolutely right. It was the beginning of the transition, for many, from high-fidelity to high-end. Thankfully high-performance, high-fidelity audio continues to develop inspite of it.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

And you're absolutely right. It was the beginning of the transition, for many, from high-fidelity to high-end. Thankfully high-performance, high-fidelity audio continues to develop inspite of it.

It's always nice to be right. if only if that was the point i was trying to prove. JGH left High Fidelity( I hope that was the magazine?) magazine not so much to create the high end but because of his inability to point out that a certain product lacked high fidelity. I do not know whether that lack of fidelity was confirmed by measurements. I do beleive it was audible.The bottom line was loss of advertising revenue trumped truth.
The method of evauating audio equipment changed.
Submit your product to me and I will evaluate it without fear of loss advertising revenue. I only accept money from subscribers. Once the faults were exposed two cottages industries emerged-high end reviewers and manufacturers. There then emerged a sort of push-pull of describing faults and manufacturing sollutions. Like any industry mixed motives produced mixed results. IMO profit is always the utimate corruptor. It was exposed that transsitors and didgital was serioulsy flawed because high enders refused tp ignore what they heard.

Finally IMO here is what is stunning. After all these years we cannot even agree that the absolute sound should be our goal. That is the recreation of real instruments in real space. Thankfully at least for now we have a choice. Ultimately the question is whether the high end is to fragmented and small to survive.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Finally IMO here is what is stunning. After all these years we cannot even agree that the absolute sound should be our goal. That is the recreation of real instruments in real space.

Sure we can agree on that. It is a wonderful goal. We're about as close to that as my Panasonic plasma is to the holodeck on the Starship Enterprise, so in my lifetime I think I'll go for faithful reproduction of the recording, but it's a really nice goal. Where it becomes downright painful, hard to watch, is when you see guys so self-deluded that they not only think it's within their reach, but that if they can only optimize their synergy, they can exceed the recording.

Right. And if I can just get the right HDMI cable between my Bluray player and my plasma, 3D is going to reach out and touch me. And the earth is the center of the universe.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

It's always nice to be right. if only if that was the point i was trying to prove. JGH left High Fidelity( I hope that was the magazine?) magazine not so much to create the high end but because of his inability to point out that a certain product lacked high fidelity. I do not know whether that lack of fidelity was confirmed by measurements. I do beleive it was audible.The bottom line was loss of advertising revenue trumped truth.
The method of evauating audio equipment changed.
Submit your product to me and I will evaluate it without fear of loss advertising revenue. I only accept money from subscribers. Once the faults were exposed two cottages industries emerged-high end reviewers and manufacturers. There then emerged a sort of push-pull of describing faults and manufacturing sollutions. Like any industry mixed motives produced mixed results. IMO profit is always the utimate corruptor. It was exposed that transsitors and didgital was serioulsy flawed because high enders refused tp ignore what they heard.

Finally IMO here is what is stunning. After all these years we cannot even agree that the absolute sound should be our goal. That is the recreation of real instruments in real space. Thankfully at least for now we have a choice. Ultimately the question is whether the high end is to fragmented and small to survive.

This was a little from an interview with JGH did some some years ago. Should shed light on the subject

http://www.herronaudio.com/images/Measurements.pdf

 

[microstrip]

(...) The denial of science by those whose subjective choices are not supported by the data does not precede my involvement in audio. I remember well when it began. (...)
Tim

Tim,

Are you really so old? One of my books about phonographs and gramophones reports on debates about the subjective properties of horns made with brass and different types of woods, such as mahogany and oak, in gramophone sound quality. As far as I know none of these debates were supported with scientific data or blind tests.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Are you really so old? One of my books about phonographs and gramophones reports on debates about the subjective properties of horns made with brass and different types of woods, such as mahogany and oak, in gramophone sound quality. As far as I know none of these debates were supported with scientific data or blind tests.

I'm pretty old.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---Like over eighty?

 

[MilkMan]

---Like over eighty?

Oh, the audacity!