Although I have not read nearly all the posts in all the relevant threads, this seems to me to be a key point usually misinterpreted by the "pure subjectitivist" (I don't even know if that is accurate) apologists; the test wasn't really designed (or interpreted) to determine a "best" speaker but rather to help establish speaker characteristics that were preferred by most listeners.
WBF: How Much Science Talk Do You Want to See?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Although I have not read nearly all the posts in all the relevant threads, this seems to me to be a key point usually misinterpreted by the "pure subjectitivist" (I don't even know if that is accurate) apologists; the test wasn't really designed (or interpreted) to determine a "best" speaker but rather to help establish speaker characteristics that were preferred by most listeners.
I would listen to what PeterA is saying. You and Steve may not be used to me coming out with such fortitude, but he has, numerous times in fact as he pointed out regarding his Transparent Audio cables - I just have not posted the same caustic comments on WBF, that's all. It is true that I don't do it often, unless I perceive something to be quite out of line and so off the wall - like a test involving just one loudspeaker of each pair, when the subject is "stereo" or so I thought; no need to discuss this further.
It's important to always stick to the content of the posts and the point of discussion, I will only post regarding things I have quite an intimate experience with, and when I said "stuff the research" I meant "you Harman, stuff the research" - you don't own the research, they do. In addition, I happen to be listening to panels AND dynamic speakers for my entire audio life (my TV speakers are those I made 30 years ago or more using KEF drivers and a custom crossover - and they still sound fabulous; and my second system elsewhere uses Monitor Audio - see this thread http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4047-Ready-for-some-memorabilia and I will make sure I post pictures of both sets of speakers in a few days, and keep in mind before the Monitor Audio I had those Magnepans MGIIIa's I am referring to, until 5 years ago). For some weird reason, I like keeping that second system frozen in the '80s so to speak (save for the speakers), if not for any other reason but to gauge the advancements since then. I may, in fact, be the only one I know of who's doing this - talking about being the "exception" in that Harman "research".
So don't be afraid to tell me I am full of it, but it may make for a very interesting discussion, and we must always stick to the point, not the poster - PeterA has debated me oh so much... BTW, I am no fool to ever threaten quitting over these things, and when I did that once - over at the MartinLoganOwners site - it was done privately to the admin and over political reasons, and I mean real politics and the whole gun debate.
Finally, to inject some fun and food for thought [and I can't really resist at this point]: those Transparent speaker cables sport an inductor, which, according to Transparent, start to roll off at ~1.3Mhz in order to reduce noise; but think about this: most solid state amplifiers (like PeterA's) - and excluding unfiltered designs like Spectral's - use an output inductor for stability, which according to magazines' measurements (and really, by pure design need of SS ampls) roll off frequency steeply around 100-300kHz. So I would ask those who buy into the Transparent "research", what does an inductor like that in a cable box buy you in that context of said solid state amplifiers, when the amps themselves roll off much sooner. Start a thread if you want to debate on this.
That's a correct assessment of the test's objective. The interesting part is that preference aligned with measured accuracy so dramatically.
Tim
I find it interesting and a little surprising that as I type this note the poll is 29 in the "science" camp wherein it is critical or the only thing, and an equal number (29) in various "more ears" categories.
What is the total WBF membership? Are 58 responses statistically significant?
What is the total WBF membership? Are 58 responses statistically significant?
All this talk of science is interesting and a bit funny considering the usual questions that are presented as science based.
When a subjective person/reviewer makes a statement like "this is the best speaker I have ever heard, the first "science" question is generally of the sighted bias and DBTing type. I am of the opinion that sighted and DBT are apples and oranges and the results cannot be compared with each other. Each "test" has totally different variable and since our senses are inter-related there is no way to normalize any data. Who's to say that cutting off your vision is not in some way interfering with your brain processing your hearing?? You are essentially looking at two different experiments that are looking for 2 different outcomes.
All the discussion about test methodologies and sighted listening, while sometimes entertaining, are to me somewhat useless. It's not even that opinions are entrenched and you aren't changing anyone's mind, it's apples and oranges. Both sides seem to be giving each other instructions to peel their respective fruits (blindfolded of course) as they would peel their own, which as you might expect doesn't work too well.
When a subjective person/reviewer makes a statement like "this is the best speaker I have ever heard, the first "science" question is generally of the sighted bias and DBTing type. I am of the opinion that sighted and DBT are apples and oranges and the results cannot be compared with each other. Each "test" has totally different variable and since our senses are inter-related there is no way to normalize any data. Who's to say that cutting off your vision is not in some way interfering with your brain processing your hearing?? You are essentially looking at two different experiments that are looking for 2 different outcomes.
All the discussion about test methodologies and sighted listening, while sometimes entertaining, are to me somewhat useless. It's not even that opinions are entrenched and you aren't changing anyone's mind, it's apples and oranges. Both sides seem to be giving each other instructions to peel their respective fruits (blindfolded of course) as they would peel their own, which as you might expect doesn't work too well.
Ack questions Harmon's methodology - amps, single speaker, room, etc - and does not think it is a fair assessment of the quality of the ML speakers based on his many years of listening to and personal measurements of the speakers. So he devalues that data. I see his point. He is very pro science from what I can tell. And as such he is in a strong position to question the validity of these tests, especially when it comes to the ML speakers.
Amir does not seem to address this point while he responds to most other comments and comes across to me, at least, as a bit defensive regarding Harmon and its testing method and results. He is quick to question the subjective point of view and strongly defends the objective point of view.
We all have our biases, but I would just like to see a bit more balance and even tone from the site's co- founder and moderator. I guess others noticed this and felt even stronger, so they left the forum.
Amir does not seem to address this point while he responds to most other comments and comes across to me, at least, as a bit defensive regarding Harmon and its testing method and results. He is quick to question the subjective point of view and strongly defends the objective point of view.
We all have our biases, but I would just like to see a bit more balance and even tone from the site's co- founder and moderator. I guess others noticed this and felt even stronger, so they left the forum.
I take a bit defensive if that is all I come across as.
Ultimately, when I have my science hat on, I have no choice but to walk on that road. I don't know how to simultaneously mix the two. BTW, some of the questions have been answered like harman only doing mono test. They are not and ironically I wrote that as a response to you: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...rs-and-Reality&p=325341&viewfull=1#post325341We bring balance in different ways. For me, I am an equal opportunity debater.
I debate both camps equally. Last year for example, I continually fought the objectivists. This is one such, heavily debated and crosslinked from other forum threads where I take on the notion that high-resolution audio has no merit: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...that-higher-resolution-audio-sounds-different. I not only argued the point, but also conducted experiments and demonstrated in double blind tests that there can be similar differences. I argued the same point on Hydrogenaudio forum where as you know, they are so about DBTs that you can get banned for talking about measurements or sighted tests! There, I came within an inch of being banned. Same on AVS. Indeed, most people know me these days outside of WBF as the guy who takes on the objectivists! Another example of that is this summary on amplifier differences: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ests-*did*-show-amplifiers-to-sound-differentBesides, this discussion is not really about subjectivists vs objectivists. I have had the exact heated debates with both camps on Harman/NRC research. So there is nothing political going on here. Whatever you hate, is just me.
My experience and observations with Amir's debates are that he argues either side fairly equally, maybe a little more objective, but whichever side he takes he gives 110% with great passion, dogged determination, and myriad of research, references, and experiments to back up his argument. I'm glad I didn't have to face him on my HS debating team...
Personally I think Steve and Amir make a good team. I am sure I have been as frustrated and annoyed by my perception of a subjectivist bias as others have been at the (my) objectivist viewpoint. WBF has attracted a lot of very experienced and highly-regarded proponents of both sides as well as a number more middle of the road'ists.
All IMO, natch - Don
Personally I think Steve and Amir make a good team. I am sure I have been as frustrated and annoyed by my perception of a subjectivist bias as others have been at the (my) objectivist viewpoint. WBF has attracted a lot of very experienced and highly-regarded proponents of both sides as well as a number more middle of the road'ists.
All IMO, natch - Don
Hi PeterA--you're one of the many regulars here I really enjoy reading. This is to address your comment about Amirm's tone at times in relation to his role as a moderator.
I'm the senior moderator on a staff of seven for an official (team-owned) NFL site with a membership > 80,000, and within its multiple forums there is a great deal of contentiousness and volatility.
FWIW to WBF, our policy (hardly unique) is that any moderator is entitled to express their opinions on anything under discussion with every bit the same degree of freedom and passion as any member, for they (mods/staff) are members, too. They just get to add some real work and extra grief to their participation.
The moderator role is separate from their opinions/positions/views as members on any topic. Most of our staff are perpetually and highly critical of the team's coaches/owner/certain players, for instance. When they do handle any discourse that becomes problem enough to merit attention, it does not necessarily have to be with kid's gloves, though they are tasked with being able to detach enough to be fair and objective in applying mod actions without the it being tied to any actual view taken on any matter. It must be based on the specific conduct (how the comments were expressed) that violates forum rules and guidelines. This also allows moderators to suggest corrections in behavior before any action taken, pointing to the rules/policies involved, as an option to just banning someone. That gives the member a choice to then do as they see fit, cooperate or defy, and take the consequences if there are any.
You guys know your turf here far better than I do, and this is meant only with good intentions. My apologies if this reads too obvious and/or adds nothing of merit---wouldn't be my first time.
I'm the senior moderator on a staff of seven for an official (team-owned) NFL site with a membership > 80,000, and within its multiple forums there is a great deal of contentiousness and volatility.
FWIW to WBF, our policy (hardly unique) is that any moderator is entitled to express their opinions on anything under discussion with every bit the same degree of freedom and passion as any member, for they (mods/staff) are members, too. They just get to add some real work and extra grief to their participation.
The moderator role is separate from their opinions/positions/views as members on any topic. Most of our staff are perpetually and highly critical of the team's coaches/owner/certain players, for instance. When they do handle any discourse that becomes problem enough to merit attention, it does not necessarily have to be with kid's gloves, though they are tasked with being able to detach enough to be fair and objective in applying mod actions without the it being tied to any actual view taken on any matter. It must be based on the specific conduct (how the comments were expressed) that violates forum rules and guidelines. This also allows moderators to suggest corrections in behavior before any action taken, pointing to the rules/policies involved, as an option to just banning someone. That gives the member a choice to then do as they see fit, cooperate or defy, and take the consequences if there are any.
You guys know your turf here far better than I do, and this is meant only with good intentions. My apologies if this reads too obvious and/or adds nothing of merit---wouldn't be my first time.
Last edited:
I voted for "I am all about audio science. I listen but the science rules." because while I've been an avid music fan all my life, listening more than tweaking, I've always had a fascination for the gear and the science behind it.
The last 15 years have completely proven to me the incredible value of deepening ones knowledge about the science of acoustics, electronics, and psychoacoustics. My system has been in the same room with the same set of speakers (minus the center, which changed in 2006 to my custom design) based on MartinLogans (monoliths/sequels/custom) in a room custom designed to house them.
Over the years, I converted the Monoliths to full active crossover and bi-amped, replaced their woofer with one more frequency-appropriate (60Hz-315Hz), replaced the panels, designed and installed an Infinite Baffle subwoofer, designed and built a custom center channel ESL using an SL3 panel and a line-array of mid-bass drivers and in an incredible journey, that is still not over, evolved the room acoustic treatments to use over 45 commercial products plus multiple custom designed solutions. On top of all that, have had an ever evolving suite of room correction solutions, culminating in the current Audyssey Pro (on the Denon AVP-A1HD preamp) and Dirac Live (on the JRiver powered HTPC).
One cannot 'listen' ones way to a system like that, it requires science and measurements, lots and lots of measurements, both electronic and acoustical. It requires acquiring the knowledge to understand these measurements and deploy solutions based on them. Of course, in the end, one does listen to the results and often, based on the listening, will go back in and re-measure or tweak, but always trying to understand the 'why' behind it.
The result is one of the best systems I've ever heard and according to all who've heard it, the best or one of in their experience as well.
I enjoy reading how others have gone down similar roads trying to get the most out of their systems at the budgets they have set for themselves. I do not get much from threads that wax poetic about a piece of gear with no fundamental scientific context. It's a nice data point that a piece of gear aligns with one or more individuals preference, but since I can't hear it on the forum, more information about why it performs the way it does would be helpful to me.
The most valuable threads to me are those that explore the boundaries of current audio science, so new innovations like MQA, power-amp topologies like DDFA, immersive audio (e.g. Atmos) and of course the many advances in acoustics and room correction. That's the path to a future with better products, better in-room performance and higher quality musical experiences as a result.
The last 15 years have completely proven to me the incredible value of deepening ones knowledge about the science of acoustics, electronics, and psychoacoustics. My system has been in the same room with the same set of speakers (minus the center, which changed in 2006 to my custom design) based on MartinLogans (monoliths/sequels/custom) in a room custom designed to house them.
Over the years, I converted the Monoliths to full active crossover and bi-amped, replaced their woofer with one more frequency-appropriate (60Hz-315Hz), replaced the panels, designed and installed an Infinite Baffle subwoofer, designed and built a custom center channel ESL using an SL3 panel and a line-array of mid-bass drivers and in an incredible journey, that is still not over, evolved the room acoustic treatments to use over 45 commercial products plus multiple custom designed solutions. On top of all that, have had an ever evolving suite of room correction solutions, culminating in the current Audyssey Pro (on the Denon AVP-A1HD preamp) and Dirac Live (on the JRiver powered HTPC).
One cannot 'listen' ones way to a system like that, it requires science and measurements, lots and lots of measurements, both electronic and acoustical. It requires acquiring the knowledge to understand these measurements and deploy solutions based on them. Of course, in the end, one does listen to the results and often, based on the listening, will go back in and re-measure or tweak, but always trying to understand the 'why' behind it.
The result is one of the best systems I've ever heard and according to all who've heard it, the best or one of in their experience as well.
I enjoy reading how others have gone down similar roads trying to get the most out of their systems at the budgets they have set for themselves. I do not get much from threads that wax poetic about a piece of gear with no fundamental scientific context. It's a nice data point that a piece of gear aligns with one or more individuals preference, but since I can't hear it on the forum, more information about why it performs the way it does would be helpful to me.
The most valuable threads to me are those that explore the boundaries of current audio science, so new innovations like MQA, power-amp topologies like DDFA, immersive audio (e.g. Atmos) and of course the many advances in acoustics and room correction. That's the path to a future with better products, better in-room performance and higher quality musical experiences as a result.
I also read Camus in French in my youth - should we debate stereo under the perspective of the absurd as displayed in Le Mythe de Sisyphe? Every improvement is only showing us that we will never be able to reach perfection?
It is much deeper than that. This misleading separation of subjective (unreliable, non-precise, poetic) and objective (reliable, unique and scientific) blocks any fruitful scientific debate about stereo. It ignores that objective is built on the analysis of the subjective and it is just this connection that is at the origin of our different views.
We just debate "what Toole said" and "what people say about Toole". IMHO the important think would be debating how Toole reached is conclusions.
So we've moved from a simple poll, to try to find the range of readership's level of interest in science, to debating the credibility of Amir and Toole? Lovely...
Amir is more than capable to take his own defense but I find the "misleading " inappropriate even disingenuous. THis eems to happen a lot when one runs out of arguments.
Was about to post the same.
It is great to know should this gig not work out, I have a potential as an NFL forum moderator.FWIW to WBF, our policy (hardly unique) is that any moderator is entitled to express their opinions on anything under discussion with every bit the same degree of freedom and passion as any member, for they (mods/staff) are members, too. They just get to add some real work and extra grief to their participation.
Thanks so much for joining us and sharing your views as a fellow moderator. The point you post about is really the question facing us. Do members like to see me, as a co-founder, take a less active role in discussions related to my core expertise and passion: audio science? The few departing members have put their resignation at my feet in that regard. And have declared that I have changed the course of the forum. There is a call from a few valuable members of the forum for me now to reverse that feeling by posting less, and taking less of a position against subjectivism.
Again, please forgive me for being direct but I have spent a lifetime on forums in the last decade or so, protecting the rights of subjectivists to speak their peace about audio. Indeed, WBF was created because the high-end audiophiles could not on AVS Forum discuss anything among themselves without a couple of troublemakers stopping them, ridiculing them, and demanding "proof." A revolt occurred and a mass exodus. I see Frantz posting so I know he knows this history. We all went to a forum that one of the dissenting members created. That forum blew up because the decisions the owner made ironically in telling Steve and I what we could or could not post. Steve and I then talked and decided that a forum was needed where people were free of intimidation to speak their peace, regardless of their views of audio. That, and having a broader charter so that we could not only talk about audio, but also ice cream.
So what does the membership want? A version of me that speaks as dapla says? Or a censored one? One that can't defend one point of view in audio with vigor as to come across being against one camp in audio? I don't know what to do if that is the answer as I wouldn't be able to call our own forum home anymore. But I like to hear it anyway.
Frantz,
I fail too see why such opinion irritates you. Toole addressed this question in his excellent book. Please read it.
Amir, I wouldn't want you or Don or any others to stop posting your thoughts & knowledge & research links etc. on this forum - it's what makes it an interesting forum - a balance between subjective viewpoints & technical discussion without either viewpoint becoming too strident. This balance is the difficult position to achieve & some will feel that, at times, the balance has shifted one way or another - however, this is usually temporary. But, anybody who resigns as a result of this probably doesn't understand the shifting nature of this balance & maybe their own viewpoint is too far to one side or other of the fulcrum to see it objectively & to actively try to maintain this equilibrium?
