WBF: How Much Science Talk Do You Want to See?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
While I pretty much rely on my hearing, I know that testing is also a vital part of my business. Many times my ears have been fooled into thinking something was there and it wasn't.
I'm not an EE and couldn't tell a resistor from a cap, I do want to learn more about this field. You're never too old to learn. I also have an open mind. Too many audiophiles dismiss something just because they are unfamiliar with it and have heard too many anecdotal stories. Just the other day, I contacted Nyal about trying some digital room correction, so I'm not totally against charts/graphs. It's only when those charts/graphs try to sell me something that's a problem!
I'm not an EE and couldn't tell a resistor from a cap, I do want to learn more about this field. You're never too old to learn. I also have an open mind. Too many audiophiles dismiss something just because they are unfamiliar with it and have heard too many anecdotal stories. Just the other day, I contacted Nyal about trying some digital room correction, so I'm not totally against charts/graphs. It's only when those charts/graphs try to sell me something that's a problem!
Excellent post Caelin. You are one of the members who better represents the high-end in this forum. IMHO your attitude that I can summarize as "Shunyata products are technically competent, they represent the best I can design and I am very happy if you want to appreciate and enjoy them in your systems" has helped a lot to keep the flame in WBF.
Thanks!
Last edited:
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
To comment on a recent post by Johnny Vinyl, as I have looked back over those threads IMO the only time that the science of speakers etc was ever discussed was as a result of the science being challenged. Short of this as Amir has pointed out we almost certainly would not have read about this but for the majority of us it really is about listening and telling others what we heard and what we heard different . TBH had it not been for this forum I would never have thought to go in the direction I did with respect to cables and line distribution from Shunyata as well as Stillpoints under my speakers and amps. These changes IMHO resulted in a huge improvement to my system. These were all due to subjective posts here. I also think that the science discussed recently that prompted much discussion was as a result of a former member's challenge to Amir about speakers as well as another member who rejected completely all notions of auditory testing and finally another member who stated that he was getting overwhelmed from members in the industry questioning him as to why he would stay and post at WBF. He decided that he was too a good member of the industry and henceforth was resigning immediately. As Amir says, the forum should be something for everyone if rules are followed but when a small group of members feel that because they cannot dictate what they want WBF to be and left.Threads such as these prompted huge numbers of views and traffic to our site and as a result it became apparent to many members that perhaps the science of it all was unappealing to some members and I am sure that this is the reason Amir is starting his poll.
We are in agreement on the vote, and your wish.
My concern is that I also value highly the word "participation" only present in 3. 4 looks too passive ...
I think both aspects of audio are critical. I get a lot of satisfaction from designing according to science and then my own ears. I think the best audio products are a result of both types of activities done with an open mind. Like most things, the extremes at either end don't make sense and there is a "middle way" that leads to the happiest results.
I have enjoyed the recent discussions and it's rare to find a forum where there can be these kinds of discussions and debates done in a civil manner with less ad-hominem attacks than are typical. There's no doubt that this doesn't leave any room for those on the extremes, and some have left... that is fine! I'm participating here because there are more folks here able to respect differing points of view and learn from the exchange of information and ideas. People at the extremes are not capable of enduring that kind of exchange and most forums have been taken over by one side or the other. I'm happy that is not the case here.
that leads to the happiest results. I have enjoyed the recent discussions and it's rare to find a forum where there can be these kinds of discussions and debates done in a civil manner with less ad-hominem attacks than are typical. There's no doubt that this doesn't leave any room for those on the extremes, and some have left... that is fine! I'm participating here because there are more folks here able to respect differing points of view and learn from the exchange of information and ideas. People at the extremes are not capable of enduring that kind of exchange and most forums have been taken over by one side or the other. I'm happy that is not the case here.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I think both aspects of audio are critical. I get a lot of satisfaction from designing according to science and then my own ears. I think the best audio products are a result of both types of activities done with an open mind. Like most things, the extremes at either end don't make sense and there is a "middle way"
I have enjoyed the recent discussions and it's rare to find a forum where there can be these kinds of discussions and debates done in a civil manner with less ad-hominem attacks than are typical. There's no doubt that this doesn't leave any room for those on the extremes, and some have left... that is fine! I'm participating here because there are more folks here able to respect differing points of view and learn from the exchange of information and ideas. People at the extremes are not capable of enduring that kind of exchange and most forums have been taken over by one side or the other. I'm happy that is not the case here.
Thanks for the positive feedback Dave. We appreciate it
I think there is some interest in more formal measurements from professionals to help us better understand what the component is doing and what our ears are hearing. I also think there is room for members to include basic room measurements of their systems in their system threads, but few of us seem willing or able to do that.
I would also welcome a database of user measurements or test results for things like turntable speed accuracy and consistency. I tried to start such a database here on WBF and over on Audiogon. Both threads failed to get more than one or two results beyond the ones that I provided with videos. Even a simple result from the KAB strobe test would be interesting to know for a variety of tables, but owners are reluctant to post results.
I would also like to see some discussion on just what measurements in general, and speaker measurements in particular, can not tell us. The recent discussions have focused on what measurements can tell us, but they are far from complete and there is much that we simply can not yet measure.
I would also welcome a more thorough discussion about what Atmasphere writes about how human hearing actually works. He writes that designers need to better understand this, and I am curious to learn more.
I had a reviewer visit me yesterday. I asked him about this topic. He said that he stated up front in his biography/background and introduction to his first review years ago that he does not measure equipment. There is just too much that measurements can not tell us. He said that the more than 500 concerts that he has attended recently form the basis for his reference when evaluating the sound of a component. We then discussed how speaker measurements, or measurements in general, do not tell us anything about resolution or micro and macro dynamics. Another audiophile in the discussion mentioned that they also tell us nothing about the degree of emotional connection with the music that a component can or can not provide.
So there is room for some more discussion about measurements and for their inclusion in more of these threads, and I would welcome that, but until the data can tell us more about performance, we must also rely heavily on our ears to reach a more complete understanding of a component or system.
I would also welcome a database of user measurements or test results for things like turntable speed accuracy and consistency. I tried to start such a database here on WBF and over on Audiogon. Both threads failed to get more than one or two results beyond the ones that I provided with videos. Even a simple result from the KAB strobe test would be interesting to know for a variety of tables, but owners are reluctant to post results.
I would also like to see some discussion on just what measurements in general, and speaker measurements in particular, can not tell us. The recent discussions have focused on what measurements can tell us, but they are far from complete and there is much that we simply can not yet measure.
I would also welcome a more thorough discussion about what Atmasphere writes about how human hearing actually works. He writes that designers need to better understand this, and I am curious to learn more.
I had a reviewer visit me yesterday. I asked him about this topic. He said that he stated up front in his biography/background and introduction to his first review years ago that he does not measure equipment. There is just too much that measurements can not tell us. He said that the more than 500 concerts that he has attended recently form the basis for his reference when evaluating the sound of a component. We then discussed how speaker measurements, or measurements in general, do not tell us anything about resolution or micro and macro dynamics. Another audiophile in the discussion mentioned that they also tell us nothing about the degree of emotional connection with the music that a component can or can not provide.
So there is room for some more discussion about measurements and for their inclusion in more of these threads, and I would welcome that, but until the data can tell us more about performance, we must also rely heavily on our ears to reach a more complete understanding of a component or system.
I selected option 2 where I usually ignore the discussions unless I come across a post where ones opinion is stated as a fact. I then may add my opinion but have no intention of staying involved.
I find this site has many knowledgeable individuals touching all aspects of our hobby. What I find frustrating are the threads that go on and on yet everyone knows you are not going to change the opinions of anyone.
I find this site has many knowledgeable individuals touching all aspects of our hobby. What I find frustrating are the threads that go on and on yet everyone knows you are not going to change the opinions of anyone.
Hi all--first post here and I am a peasant among royalty in terms of gear currently owned. In the past I would have fit somewhat better in that regard. I'm not going to do my profile in this post, but I want to let amirm know after finding this site a year ago and reading it regularly since, I joined to vote in this poll and add my two cents (which is about my audio budget these days).
I voted the pink line (no socially relevant pun intended) but could have fit in the yellow line. Those two groups represent the bulk of votes so far. I think that's encouraging, though in any matter, extreme positions provide a very useful--if oft contentious--dynamic that helps more intelligently and completely define what usually becomes a better-reasoned and more rationally/logically solid "middle ground" in so many matters.
Amirm, I have enjoyed reading you here and there over the years on various sites I'd occasionally visit. It's only this last few months that I have joined a couple audio sites. I love how you do things here. I love seeing so much science while also allowing so much latitude and respect for all kinds of views and experiences, preferably when decently expressed. I am a very "sciency" objective-oriented guy in general, but with a strong "subjectivist" (the terms are often unsatisfying) component.
It's fun to see so many names of people and companies and histories here that I am familiar with from the past when I worked in the field.
I don't expect to post much as I do not operate at the level of systems these days that most (or all) of you guys do, but my lifelong love for music and all that follows in its reproduction leads me to places like this, and on that level, I do belong.
The fact you're so motivated to keep growing and improving site-wise makes me smile. Developing and guiding a major internet message board is another thing I have some experience in, and wish you nothing but the greatest success. Hard stuff. Thanks to you and the other founders for the site, and thanks to all the really unique and impressive participants. This is a very educational and entertaining resource.
I voted the pink line (no socially relevant pun intended) but could have fit in the yellow line. Those two groups represent the bulk of votes so far. I think that's encouraging, though in any matter, extreme positions provide a very useful--if oft contentious--dynamic that helps more intelligently and completely define what usually becomes a better-reasoned and more rationally/logically solid "middle ground" in so many matters.
Amirm, I have enjoyed reading you here and there over the years on various sites I'd occasionally visit. It's only this last few months that I have joined a couple audio sites. I love how you do things here. I love seeing so much science while also allowing so much latitude and respect for all kinds of views and experiences, preferably when decently expressed. I am a very "sciency" objective-oriented guy in general, but with a strong "subjectivist" (the terms are often unsatisfying) component.
It's fun to see so many names of people and companies and histories here that I am familiar with from the past when I worked in the field.
I don't expect to post much as I do not operate at the level of systems these days that most (or all) of you guys do, but my lifelong love for music and all that follows in its reproduction leads me to places like this, and on that level, I do belong.
The fact you're so motivated to keep growing and improving site-wise makes me smile. Developing and guiding a major internet message board is another thing I have some experience in, and wish you nothing but the greatest success. Hard stuff. Thanks to you and the other founders for the site, and thanks to all the really unique and impressive participants. This is a very educational and entertaining resource.
For what is worth, I voted "I like participating in discussion of audio science even though I mostly rely on my ears". I read all kinds of technical articles, but to me, there is absolutely nothing like decades worth of listening experience and correlation with the real unamplified event. Every time I see strong discussions about digital/analog, measurements et al, I just shake my head... if only people were to sit down and listen extensively and expose themselves to multiple systems, they'd realize that perhaps we are just not always measuring the right thing, or that the theory perhaps isn't always right.
I have two very recent examples:
1) I've been modifying my bass drivers lately and that part of the crossover, and just emailed the local group that, by a simple lift of my rear driver by +0.1 ohms and drop of the front driver -0.4 ohms, I actually ended up getting better and more extended bass - however, the response measurements have stayed virtually identical, and I've been scratching my head. Obviously, I am not measuring something else I should.
2) The recent infamous "Harman research" discussion (which was also discussed here many years ago, as well), where the auditory experiment described therein is apparently blindly testing ONE LOUDSPEAKER per manufacturer, being driven by many-generations-behind Proceed amps. This is one of the most outrageous technical experiments I have even seen - just the sheer fact that it was a MONO test, and the mix of dynamic and panel speakers; and no one took me up on the question of: what would you think if loudspeaker reviewers today used Proceed amps, and to add to it, what if they evaluated only one speaker of the pair under review.
Having said this, I am actually thrilled that there are many manufacturers that put emphasis on science in their designs, but I know for a fact, all the ones I care to follow will always always tune by ear. I also find it impossible to advance the audio engineering arts without science and measurements - just plain impossible; however, it alone cannot do it all. As such, I welcome all such discussions at WBF, but take things with a grain of salt.
I have two very recent examples:
1) I've been modifying my bass drivers lately and that part of the crossover, and just emailed the local group that, by a simple lift of my rear driver by +0.1 ohms and drop of the front driver -0.4 ohms, I actually ended up getting better and more extended bass - however, the response measurements have stayed virtually identical, and I've been scratching my head. Obviously, I am not measuring something else I should.
2) The recent infamous "Harman research" discussion (which was also discussed here many years ago, as well), where the auditory experiment described therein is apparently blindly testing ONE LOUDSPEAKER per manufacturer, being driven by many-generations-behind Proceed amps. This is one of the most outrageous technical experiments I have even seen - just the sheer fact that it was a MONO test, and the mix of dynamic and panel speakers; and no one took me up on the question of: what would you think if loudspeaker reviewers today used Proceed amps, and to add to it, what if they evaluated only one speaker of the pair under review.
Having said this, I am actually thrilled that there are many manufacturers that put emphasis on science in their designs, but I know for a fact, all the ones I care to follow will always always tune by ear. I also find it impossible to advance the audio engineering arts without science and measurements - just plain impossible; however, it alone cannot do it all. As such, I welcome all such discussions at WBF, but take things with a grain of salt.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us and importantly voting. So that I am clear, you would be in favor of discussion of science even if it goes completely against your understanding of audio, and said science casts your favorite audio product in bad light? I ask because that is what discussion of audio science is liable to do at times if your decisions have not been based on it. When you say you like the discussion of audio science, want to make sure you really do
.
I would think such a reviewer might be paying attention to up to date research. That he might give a much more useful review vs the same old way reviewing has been and is being done. I really do think being able to switch from one speaker to the other quickly (whether stereo pairs or mono) while a chore to arrange is a simple way to get much better comparisons and contrast of differences. Listening to a set and sometime later another set diminishes the quality of info garnered considerably.
Knowing what a hurdle it is to sign up to a forum, I really, really appreciate you joining the forum to vote and express your opinion. Makes me think we need as a forum and group make people with more modest gear feel more welcoming to join us. Thank you for the kind words of course and vote of confidence
.One important aspect that is not covered by this poll is the separation between audio science and audio technology. Many reviews are filled with technological aspects of the equipment, but have no real audio science.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us and importantly voting. So that I am clear, you would be in favor of discussion of science even if it goes completely against your understanding of audio, and said science casts your favorite audio product in bad light? I ask because that is what discussion of audio science is liable to do at times if your decisions have not been based on it. When you say you like the discussion of audio science, want to make sure you really do
Yes, I "would be in favor of discussion of science even if it goes completely against your understanding of audio"; and yes, even if "science casts your favorite audio product in bad light". The sticky part, though, is what we call "science" as you put it, and how we all interpret the results. Let me remind everyone that no two manufacturers' products will sound the same, partly because they don't agree with each other on what the best approach is. Take this then to the next level, the consumer, and see if you can expect agreement... So, we may disagree, but I'd be happy to read what people have to share, IFF the door is open for subsequent subjective evaluation and discussion. Personally, I try to never lose sight of: is it real science, or just experimentation...
