Speaker (and for that matter, electronics) Preferences

[Mike Lavigne]

So we don't like the science. And we don't like what listeners say what they like. What is left to go by ?

the science is just fine. it's simply not the point in and of itself of what i believe is being pursued. scientific proof of performance is not what is important. but if science helps then fine. i use science (measurements) in some aspects of my system set-up. but choosing gear i use my ears in extended listening to potential gear. so i'm not anti-science. i'm pro enjoyment.

the goal of assembling a system is enjoyment of art. not proving something scientifically.....at least for me personally.

so we visit these friends systems where we can listen and decide which approach seems to take us further into the art consistently........that moves us and involves us in the music. like Myles said, we know the answer.

what else is important?

i realize this is not attractive to some who need to scratch the techie/measure then listen itch. knock yourself out, measure your brains out.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

so we visit these friends systems where we can listen and decide which approach seems to take us further into the art consistently........that moves us and involves us in the music. like Myles said, we know the answer.

I think that if we put you and and a few others in that room at Harman and ran a blind listening test with another set of speakers, what you think you know would be blown away. I think two, very simple conclusions of this research: 1) That comprehensive on and off-axis FR measurements correlate directly to listener preference, and 2) That preference, among trained and untrained listeners, did not favor a respected Audiophile brand, are incredibly threatening to the Audiophile ethos. I think that's why discussion of this simple study is dominating this board. It has taken over multiple threads not because it is so difficult to understand or explain, but because it is so difficult to deny. And every attempt at doing so has been answered by more research and careful design.

Would your own choices perform as badly as the MLs did? No need to consider that possibility because you already know the answer. And anyone who thinks differently is a techie, focused on the delivery system, out of touch with the art. Uh huh...

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) So we don't like the science. And we don't like what listeners say what they like. What is left to go by ?

Amir,

Interesting dilemma. But IMHO both premises are false. No one (at less me and I suppose many others) is questioning science. We are questioning the application of science to a particular situation, in which we have no prove that science has been able to completely deal with all the issues of the problem.

As much as I respect Harman experiments and contributions to science, the mixing of subjects that is present in the threads of this forum does not help any clarification of science. And IMHO most of it is due to the marketing exploitation of the results of the scientific work. Scientists do not need to know the price or brand of the speakers used in their experiments and do not choose an example of a brand that they already know that measures particularly poor in their tests and is connoted with high-end to expose summaries. And they would not mix the success of very interesting experience about compressed music with speaker tests, unless they would want represent the results of this preference with different types of speakers - perhaps they did it, but decided to focus the last part of the presentation in the speaker preference.

Repeating myself, as expected this debate is almost a monologue between Goliath and David of audio science, but this time Goliath will surely win. Sean Olive has more knowledge in his little finger about audio science that all the other members participating in this debate together, as they are just audio lovers and experienced users, having essentially empirical knowledge and sometimes having spent some free time reading the good authors . In scientific debates, there is usually more opponents than proponents, and the merit of the proponents is also created by the quality of the opponents. You already referred that competitors are free to come but they prefer not to do it. It can be an interesting (and noisy) thread to debate why it happens.

Accepting that all the divergence is just due to sighted listening bias and/or expectation bias is a poor presentation of science merits. I hope that this forum manages to do better.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I think that if we put you and and a few others in that room at Harman and ran a blind listening test with another set of speakers, what you think you know would be blown away.

i very strongly think not.

i own Revel speakers. they have been in my Home Theatre room for 12 years. nice speakers. over the years i've heard different models of Revel speakers many times. i always enjoy them for their neutral approach. however, they don't rock my world. so whatever Mr. Vokes is doing with his design approach, it has not resulted in anything earth shaking. there is no compelling reason to investigate that process.

i've done lots of blind listening to speakers in a controled environment. every other year our local club has a speaker building contest, and for the last 12 years i've been a judge in these contests. 3 or 4 of us listen for 3-4 hours to 12-15 sets of speakers behind a curtain and rate them in various catagories. i'm told statisitically that my perceptions are consistent as are the other regular judges (Bruce Brown and sometimes Gary Koh). which tells me that i have some ability to listen objectively. the first year i judged in this contest at the end they threw in the club speakers, Ariel 7B's, as a 'ringer' to test the judges. i called them blinded as the club speakers.

i'm sure many serious listeners i know could do the same. a speaker building contest involves mostly but not always large differences between speakers which are mostly easy to hear and describe. and the trick is having a solid reference in your mind of something you have confidence in that is pretty close to right. as i listened to those speakers i compared them each in my mind's eye, to my speakers in my system as a reference and my notes and ratings reflected how i felt they stacked up.

I think two, very simple conclusions of this research: 1) That comprehensive on and off-axis FR measurements correlate directly to listener preference, and 2) That preference, among trained and untrained listeners, did not favor a respected Audiophile brand, are incredibly threatening to the Audiophile ethos. I think that's why discussion of this simple study is dominating this board. It has taken over multiple threads not because it is so difficult to understand or explain, but because it is so difficult to deny. And every attempt at doing so has been answered by more research and careful design.

Would your own choices perform as badly as the MLs did? No need to consider that possibility because you already know the answer. And anyone who thinks differently is a techie, focused on the delivery system, out of touch with the art. Uh huh...

Tim

i have respect for the methodology that Harmon uses. i'm not saying it is without merit. where did i say that? but that does not mean i choose that way for myself or that if i choose to not go that way my opinions are not valid.

maybe someday if Harmon builds a speaker that is clearly better than the competition than i will pay attention to their approach. but until that point i'll leave it up to you guys to worship at the Harmon altar.

 

[FrantzM]

HI

I haven't read all the posts in the thread. I do find it however curious how an essentially technological endeavor, that of reproducing music is made to be something it simply can't be. Let's make it very simple. The very equipment you use is produced by science. Manufuactrers may find a pragmatic way to make something palatable to you ... If it repeatably make it palatable to a group of people.. It can be approached by science. Pure and simple. That busines of stating that science can't explain why we like or dislike something is almost naive. It can.
Our perceptions can be analyzed by Science, heck they are analyzed by Science we know that most of those who frequent the WBF can't hear much above 16 KHz ... That is a provable statement. We know a lot but not all . We are able to research and find out why we prefer such and such components and that can be approached scientifically. We also know the power of our biases, we know scientifically. Psychology is a Science. Every day people in Marketing use the tools of Science to modify our behaviors, screw our perceptions , fool our ears, nose and other senses to buy things and yet .. in Audio some of us maintain that we can't be fooled by sight or that we should believe our ears ...
That business of bashing Science is getting old ... The irony s that the very medium carrying these thoughts is a Technological construct: The Internet

 

[Mike Lavigne]

HI

I haven't read all the posts in the thread. I do find it however curious how an essentially technological endeavor, that of reproducing music is made to be something it simply can't be. Let's make it very simple. The very equipment you use is produced by science. Manufuactrers may find a pragmatic way to make something palatable to you ... If it repeatably make it palatable to a group of people.. It can be approached by science. Pure and simple. That busines of stating that science can't explain why we like or dislike something is almost naive. It can.
Our perceptions can be analyzed by Science, heck they are analyzed by Science we know that most of those who frequent the WBF can't hear much above 16 KHz ... That is a provable statement. We know a lot but not all . We are able to research and find out why we prefer such and such components and that can be approached scientifically. We also know the power of our biases, we know scientifically. Psychology is a Science. Every day people in Marketing use the tools of Science to modify our behaviors, screw our perceptions , fool our ears, nose and other senses to buy things and yet .. in Audio some of us maintain that we can't be fooled by sight or that we should believe our ears ...
That business of bashing Science is getting old ... The irony s that the very medium carrying these thoughts is a Technological construct: The Internet

who is bashing science? not me. science is used for every product and every piece of media.

but the purpose of science is to further the art, but not to define it. that is an exclusively human right.

so the final arbitur of correctness is our perceptions. not science.

 

[KeithR]

This thread sucks, I'm sorry.

All this forum is becoming is a calmer objectivist vs subjectivist forum with a lot of emoticons to hide peoples true feelings.

I thought we left AVSForum for a reason---guess not. I'm going to take a few weeks off from coming here as we don't discuss music and cool gear--it's all about damn measurements or lack thereof that is most important here. If you want to set up a "whats best measurement" forum, this is what it would look like. Look at the threads and where the most responses are. Some people may try and phrase it differently or creatively, but let's call a spade a spade.

Let's face it---guys like Tim are never going to be persuaded against his viewpoint and nor is an audiophile like Myles. When can folks just move on-- it never ends. Audio to my mind is about enjoying the music.

Regards,

KeithR

 

[Mike Lavigne]

This thread sucks, I'm sorry.

All this forum is becoming is a calmer objectivist vs subjectivist forum with a lot of emoticons to hide peoples true feelings.

I thought we left AVSForum for a reason---guess not. I'm going to take a few weeks off from coming here as we don't discuss music and cool gear--it's all about damn measurements or lack thereof that is most important here. If you want to set up a "whats best measurement" forum, this is what it would look like. Look at the threads and where the most responses are. Some people may try and phrase it differently or creatively, but let's call a spade a spade.

Let's face it---guys like Tim are never going to be persuaded against his viewpoint and nor is an audiophile like Myles. When can folks just move on-- it never ends. Audio to my mind is about enjoying the music.

Regards,

KeithR

look at what's a sticky at the top of this forum page. that says it all about who is running the place.

agendas.

you want to read about high end gear. not on this forum you won't.

 

[microstrip]

HI

I haven't read all the posts in the thread. I do find it however curious how an essentially technological endeavor, that of reproducing music is made to be something it simply can't be. Let's make it very simple. The very equipment you use is produced by science. Manufuactrers may find a pragmatic way to make something palatable to you ... If it repeatably make it palatable to a group of people.. It can be approached by science. Pure and simple. That busines of stating that science can't explain why we like or dislike something is almost naive. It can.
Our perceptions can be analyzed by Science, heck they are analyzed by Science we know that most of those who frequent the WBF can't hear much above 16 KHz ... That is a provable statement. We know a lot but not all . We are able to research and find out why we prefer such and such components and that can be approached scientifically. We also know the power of our biases, we know scientifically. Psychology is a Science. Every day people in Marketing use the tools of Science to modify our behaviors, screw our perceptions , fool our ears, nose and other senses to buy things and yet .. in Audio some of us maintain that we can't be fooled by sight or that we should believe our ears ...
That business of bashing Science is getting old ... The irony s that the very medium carrying these thoughts is a Technological construct: The Internet

Frantz,

God bless the scientists! Maybe sometime they will be able to prove that McDonald's chicken tastes better than organic bread bread farm chicken ...

More seriously, IMHO in your love to simplification you are mixing science and technology. See the subject "Science, engineering and technology" in the entry Technology of Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology

And if you enter the subject of perception and psychology you will find that it is a developing scientific field where there are more questions than answers.

 

[amirm]

look at what's a sticky at the top of this forum page. that says it all about who is running the place.

agendas.

you want to read about high end gear. not on this forum you won't.

Come on Mike. Suggestion was made to make the other thread sticky. I came out and said that action could not be taken by me given my activity in that discussion. The decision to make it sticky was made by Steve then with no input whatsoever from me. If you are saying Steve has this agenda, let's hear it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Come on Mike. Suggestion was made to make the other thread sticky. I came out and said that action could not be taken by me given my activity in that discussion. The decision to make it sticky was made by Steve then with no input whatsoever from me. If you are saying Steve has this agenda, let's hear it.

"why do audiophiles fear measurements" has been at the top of this forum for a year or two. every time i look at the General Forum i wanna puke.

why has that been there? it's like the definition of the culture here. and i don't care for it. but all the techies are attracted like bees to honey.

sure, the Preference thread has been there for a few weeks. i'm not talking about that.

 

[audioarcher]

Is there a link to exactly how Harmon is performing the tests?

I assume that they are using the same equipment and room? Then just swap out different speakers?

If so then what if the competitors speaker was designed to work better with a different amp than is used in Harmons test? Also if they position the competitors speaker in the same place as their own who is to say that is the best position for both speakers in that room?

If my assumptions are correct then that test seems very flawed. The ultimate test is in your own room with your own gear and ears of course.

Sean

 

[amirm]

This thread sucks, I'm sorry.

All this forum is becoming is a calmer objectivist vs subjectivist forum with a lot of emoticons to hide peoples true feelings.

I thought we left AVSForum for a reason---guess not. I'm going to take a few weeks off from coming here as we don't discuss music and cool gear--it's all about damn measurements or lack thereof that is most important here. If you want to set up a "whats best measurement" forum, this is what it would look like. Look at the threads and where the most responses are. Some people may try and phrase it differently or creatively, but let's call a spade a spade.

Let's face it---guys like Tim are never going to be persuaded against his viewpoint and nor is an audiophile like Myles. When can folks just move on-- it never ends. Audio to my mind is about enjoying the music.

Regards,

KeithR

We created this forum with one goal in mind: keep it professional and not personal. There is no goal to advance one idea about audio or the other. We are not gods of audio to have figured out this dispute better than any other.

The professional conduct is what sets us apart from other forums. I know, I still hang out at AVS and get called names in every post when I try to defend a high quality bar for audio reproduction. In that sense, I think you are being very unfair to the community we have created and how much we have accomplished. No other forum has managed to pull off what we have done. It was not easy and continues to be hard given this exchange but we should all celebrate how far we have come.

You say we are about measurements. That is not what got us here. Mark created a thread asking what we prefer. I post *data* that involved listening tests of people like us to see what we prefer. There was no measurement in that. It was a listening test. Analysis was then made to see if that agrees with anything good in measurements. And it did for the most part. But the focus of the discussion was the listening test and what we prefer.

I didn't create this thread, nor Tim. Myles did. So the assumption is that people like these debates. If they don't, they should not create them.

Discussion of science has been part and parcel of this forum from start. My partner Steve comes from the subjective side and I come from the other. We both can meet in the middle, acknowledging our differences yet striving to learn. Likewise, our moderators are split along this ideology. We have two parties in America with different points of views. I am not seeing people wanting to give up their citizenship although I know some are close to that .

Really, let's not take these things personally. We always have debate threads. They are great for getting new information on the table. If they bother you, there are plenty of places here where we are not debating. Why not go and create a topic you like right now? That is the right solution and not saying you will quit unless we censor one point of view.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Mike, perhaps I should not have used your post as a launching pad for my own. I may have mistakenly placed you in a crowd that doesn't believe measurement can predict sound, that accuracy was not really preferred by the listeners Harman study and that something is horribly wrong with the study because it revealed such profound weaknesses in the Martin Logans.

Perhaps you're a guy with the confidence to accept all of that and still prefer something different, remaining happy with his choices even if they seem to be objectively inferior and not preferred by the majority when uninfluenced by look, price and logo.

look at what's a sticky at the top of this forum page. that says it all about who is running the place.

agendas.

you want to read about high end gear. not on this forum you won't.

Perhaps not.

I'm a little tired of this one, frankly. Someone yesterday made a comment to the effect that the poor subjectivists here were being beat up. The internet audiophile community is up to its ears with boardsfull of psychotically aggressive, combative Audiophiles who will take your head off at the suggestion that a modest product could compete with an Audiophile brand. There are a couple of them where referencing actual evidence of performance is quarrantined or banned.

Go there if you cannot stand to have your opinions challenged by actual evidence. Tell them the people you know and the equipment you own and have owned, and most importantly, the money you'vce spent, and you will be treated as a demigod. Here, there is a bit of balance. We have people who listen to what they like based on whatever they hear and don't care how it performs in testing as long as they still like it. We have people who believe in the science and engineering of audio and reference it as a resource for purchasing, or for just furthering their knowledge. And we have people who make their choices purely subjectively, but are oddly compelled to insist that their choices are somehow objectively superior, violently denying any evidence to the contrary.

All are welcome to express their points of view and all the rest are welcome to challenge them. You want a place where you won't be challenged? Hell, I can recommend some places where you will be honored as a leader of men, just for the money you've spent. Want a list?

Tim

 

[JasonI]

Myles, I'm unable to answer your original question because I haven't gone through many iterations of gear. The concept of initial impressions is an interesting one, especially since we have the opportunity for many more initial impressions than long lasting exposures. We spend a few hours in a store or at a show and experience a large variety of gear and combinations thereof, then we come home and have maybe five different systems with which we have long term exposure, including our phones and laptops. I can speak to my experience in shops and shows and I can say that for me the environment is extremely important during subjective evaluation.

At RMAF a few years ago I was able to listen to a top of the line Linn system in a huge room by myself for about an hour. It was a memorable experience, and at the time I rated that system the best at the show. In hindsight I'm certain the environment had as much to do with it as the quality of the system. I was relaxed and happy and alone and all of the components were in working order. As I moved from crowded room to crowded room only a few other systems stood out, for environmental reasons as much as their performance. The dCS/Wilson room was fascinating because before then I hadn't experienced a $100k system, but regardless of cost I couldn't say it performed any better or worse than any of the other well presented systems at the show. There were other systems that were memorable for more than their sound. The giant speakers from Acapella, Apogee, McIntosh, and even Tyler Acoustics were impressive for their shear size. They were so imposing that they actually took attention away from listening. I guess my point is that first impressions are as much about admiring the craftsmanship and artful execution of a design as they are about listening.

One half of the Linn system.

The other best in show system is the exception to everything I stated above. It was in a tightly packed room with the ugliest speaker known to man. I can't explain why it was the exception. I was extremely impressed with this Ayre / Vandersteen setup.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Is there a link to exactly how Harmon is performing the tests?

I assume that they are using the same equipment and room? Then just swap out different speakers?

If so then what if the competitors speaker was designed to work better with a different amp than is used in Harmons test? Also if they position the competitors speaker in the same place as their own who is to say that is the best position for both speakers in that room?

If my assumptions are correct then that test seems very flawed. The ultimate test is in your own room with your own gear and ears of course.

Sean

At this point, I think there are 3 threads talking about the Harman research. I believe the most comprehensive one is the "Preference" thread that has a sticky on it at the top of the General Audio forum. All of those issues have been addressed and all of those questions are answered there.

Tim

 

[amirm]

"why do audiophiles fear measurements" has been at the top of this forum for a year or two. every time i look at the General Forum i wanna puke.

Oh, I thought you were talking about Mark's thread. I don't recall participating and making the decision on that thread. I agree that title is inflammatory. Let me discuss it with the team and decide what to do about it.

why has that been there? it's like the definition of the culture here. and i don't care for it. but all the techies are attracted like bees to honey.

Trust me, the techies have as much beef with the forum and its management as you do . We take a position in the middle and take damage from both sides.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Trust me, the techies have as much beef with the forum and its management as you do . We take a position in the middle and take damage from both sides.

This is true enough. The Harman issue has brought the objectivists out in strength. There have been times when the balance was pushed hard in the other direction, and I've felt the board was losing its path, and have said so. The pendulum swings.

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, perhaps I should not have used your post as a launching pad for my own. I may have mistakenly placed you in a crowd that doesn't believe measurement can predict sound, that accuracy was not really preferred by the listeners Harman study and that something is horribly wrong with the study because it revealed such profound weaknesses in the Martin Logans.

Perhaps you're a guy with the confidence to accept all of that and still prefer something different, remaining happy with his choices even if they seem to be objectively inferior and not preferred by the majority when uninfluenced by look, price and logo.

please find where i said that i am happy with objectively inferior choices. i simply select another approach for my decisions. when that 'better approach' you speak about results in a demonstratably better product to my ears, i'll be looking at that approach much more carefully. the proof is in the percieved performance.

Perhaps not.

I'm a little tired of this one, frankly. Someone yesterday made a comment to the effect that the poor subjectivists here were being beat up. The internet audiophile community is up to its ears with boardsfull of psychotically aggressive, combative Audiophiles who will take your head off at the suggestion that a modest product could compete with an Audiophile brand. There are a couple of them where referencing actual evidence of performance is quarrantined or banned.

Go there if you cannot stand to have your opinions challenged by actual evidence. Tell them the people you know and the equipment you own and have owned, and most importantly, the money you'vce spent, and you will be treated as a demigod. Here, there is a bit of balance. We have people who listen to what they like based on whatever they hear and don't care how it performs in testing as long as they still like it. We have people who believe in the science and engineering of audio and reference it as a resource for purchasing, or for just furthering their knowledge. And we have people who make their choices purely subjectively, but are oddly compelled to insist that their choices are somehow objectively superior, violently denying any evidence to the contrary.

All are welcome to express their points of view and all the rest are welcome to challenge them. You want a place where you won't be challenged? Hell, I can recommend some places where you will be honored as a leader of men, just for the money you've spent. Want a list?

Tim

are you sure you got it all out? any other shots you want to take?

"sticks and stones..." and all that.

 

[JackD201]

Some people hear something and think it's magic, some people see a chart and think they know the truth. Fact of the matter is nobody has all the answers.

I propose we file this under unfinished business.