Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

[tuga]

No. Dr Olive conducted a large study of trained vs untrained, and concluded, “In terms of rank order, the loudspeaker preferences of the untrained listeners (highlighted in red) are essentially the same as those of the trained listeners (highlighted in blue).”.
View attachment 173547
If you look at the graph, notice that the error bars (vertical lines through each dot) are approx the same size for trained and untrained listeners, so the variation is not bigger for untrained.

Toole is no experimental lightweight, and in his book comments on these tests of person-to-person consistency, so I am happy to reiterate his high-level points:

• The 13 speaker and 70 speaker test results are both "impressive" in their high correlations and high statistical significance
• They mean that, quote, listeners themselves are highly stable "measuring instruments"
• Quote, technical excellence turns out to be a high correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional gratification
• Trained or untrained, interested or disinterested, humans with goodish hearing all tend to rank speakers in the same preference order, but training makes it faster
• It means that the ideas that we all hear differently and prefer differently, are myths.

cheers

If the assessment was performed in mono, with some of the listeners sitting off-axis, and the speakers inadequately positioned then in my opinion the data is not really representative of a listeners' preferences...

 

[Newman]

We have been over this concern of yours. Your comments imply that researchers were not aware that listening in mono would not be transferable to stereo, or that they were aware, but failed to check whether it would be transferable or not. However, you have no evidence of that is the case, and I don’t think they are a stupid as you are implying. Toole explains that listening in mono gave by far the most discerning ability to discriminate between the loudspeakers, and listening in stereo did not change the listener rankings of the loudspeakers at all, but greatly diminished the ability to distinguish between them and their performance.

We have been over this.

 

[Geert]

If preference would be a complete personal thing, than how can capable sound engineers and especially mastering engineers perform a successful job? (With successful I don't mean always 100% perfect, because also they are subject to the circle of confusion and need to deal with things like acoustics).

 

[Momotaro]

Yes, fully agreed. What sound real and what sounds pleasant to your ears may be quite different. Its entirely up to individual. Not everyone likes neutral sound. And then, what is recorded may not be what you like. Thats why there is EQ and tone controls.

I'm not partial to classical, chamber, jazz, or live recordings of acoustic instruments. For the music I do like, there's no "real" really. I could crash the studio and listen to the assembly process (jk obvs). Flat (or curved: I like B&K 1974) measured response at the listening zone is a good start. Beyond that, for electronic and related sub-genres with synthetic/amplified/processed instruments, complex studio assembly, etc I derive pleasure from artificial soundstage and specific imaging—and of course from the sounds and rythms themselves—but have limited practical interest in non-existent venue acoustics or related envelopment. In practice, I have to listen (to the amp>cable>speaker>room system) be informed by measurements* and proceed via trial and error.

*we don't appear to have a standard suite for soundstage and imaging—I'm open to suggestions—useful general measurements include FR at listening zone, distortion at listening levels, in-room decay spectrum and group delay

 

[DSJR]

In the old 80's 'Choice speaker tests, it was mentioned that some of the listening team who sat sligghtly off axis weren't always served well by some speaker designs (most tests were done 'blind' I believe, but no idea how acoustically transparent the 'curtain' was).

I've come full circle on this thread topic. Fifty years ago as a keen teen where 'HiFi' was concerned, I lapped up Hi Fi Sound magazine where all the electronics were measured (quite thoroughly I remember) and the more technical aspects of speakers were investigated (polar diagrams etc.). In th elate 70's onwards, measurements were chucked away as suspect measuring amps with designed-in character/distortion all but took over the UK industry and a then equally suspect source was used - who cares, it *sounded good* to the hippies and tail end boomers/post hippies buying into it and as it was my career and 'life' for many years, I can't really knock it... These days, I can't trust just my ears at all as they vary daily (Rhinitis and Tinnitus are sonic killers a lot of the time) and I seem to understand measurements rather better these days, enough to roughly approximate what measures well to truthful 'sound quality.' Trying to 'educate' arch subjectivists lost in placebo, 'eye-fi' effects and psychoacoustics is fruitless I've discovered. My issue is crap speaker dispersion in the lower kHz region which kills it for me in a heavily damped room.

 

[Geert]

In the old 80's 'Choice speaker tests, it was mentioned that some of the listening team who sat sligghtly off axis weren't always served well by some speaker designs.

If sitting slightly off axis is a disadvantage depends on the speakers. But anyway, if it is kind of any issue and preference tests would be redone giving everyone the opportunity to sit in the ideal spot and hear the same thing, than I expect the outcome would be preference would correlate even stronger.

 

[Killingbeans]

I am sure you are aware of spatial effects. Eg. the sound of an instrument playing appear to come from a region between the 2 speakers instead of from the cones (imaging). So, is there any measurement we can do to test which speakers are better or worse in this (other than listening)

Pretty sure what you are calling "spatial effects" is normally known as imaging? And it's essentially just a complex phase difference between what is being picked up by each of your ears?

I would imagine that if you take the dispersion pattern of a specific speaker and use it to run a software simulation of a specific room with specific interior decoration and a specific speaker placement, you'd be able to get values for certain variables that will be determining for the perception of imaging?

Do you personally think we have uncovered everything in audio? The meausrements performed can explain everything a person is hearing?? I doubt so.

When talking about electrical signals, then yes. There's not much more to go looking for. Acoustics is a different beast. Not because it holds mysterious secrets, but because it's sensitive to so many things that are hard to account for in an acoustically controlled environment.

So, why not spend more time and effort in this area instead of commenting on other forums/users?

Why not both?

Many pple here keep talking about live unamplified sound being the golden standard

I'm not one of them

 

[SIY]

I don’t think they are a stupid as you are implying. Toole explains that listening in mono gave by far the most discerning ability to discriminate between the loudspeakers, and listening in stereo did not change the listener rankings of the loudspeakers at all, but greatly diminished the ability to distinguish between them and their performance.

We have been over this.

It's not stupid, quite the opposite, but it's limited. For the sorts of speakers representing the majority of what's sold, it's certainly valid. But for speakers deliberately designed for stereo that have deliberately tailored asymmetric polar responses (think Ken Kantor's designs as an example), this is likely not a good way to evaluate them- you're throwing away their major design feature.

Admittedly, this is a minority of speakers, but still, the limitations of the simplification should be acknowledged.

 

[dshreter]

Again, I think you are chasing this idea without having read Toole. It has been investigated and the result is not what you (repeatedly) say.

The crux isn’t if they are different or rudely varying. The crux is if you will rely on measurement or the judgment of your own listening to make this selection.

At the end of the day you decide on a speaker to buy, and you could determine it by ear or microphone. That the answers correlate is a separate matter.

 

[Geert]

The crux is if you will rely on measurement or the judgment of your own listening to make this selection.

For me when I go by the measurements it turns out to sound close to fine, so no 'or' for me. That to me it's the expected outcome, as the objective of measurements is to validate if a design meets certain criteria that are commonly accepted to define good/prefered sound. Of course I still like to listen to double check before pulling the trigger. When I ignore measurements, I tend to find out I missed issues when listening when it's to late.

 

[ahofer]

Regarding accuracy vs preference:

This is another weakness of mine. In all honesty, it would bug me to own equipment that deviated too far from measured accuracy. I’ve been able to reconcile myself to speakers that don’t, for the money, get as close to the Toole Ideal as they might. But speakers remain a subjective and multi-variable problem and I can still tell myself, for instance, that lower directivity in the “BBC Dip” zone might actually test well or work with my room reflections…

If I somehow liked the sound of really badly measuring equipment, it would just bug me that it was in my system, and perhaps bias me negatively against it over time. That’s not rational, but there we are.

And then there’s the Loudness control vs amplitude of live vs playback conundrum.

 

[nurmdog]

I have been working in IT for 40 years and spent much of that working with voice and video in the Enterprise. I have spent time with voice quality measurement (phone calls and video conferencing) of objective and subjective types both. I have spent quite a bit of time logically testing systems of all sorts, as well as less objective testing of systems. I have been building speakers, on and off, for 20 years.

I want to say I am an objectivist of some sort, but I have to admit I often like what I think sounds good to my ear. The interesting thing, to me, is that most that I have heard and like from the store, at a friends house, or in my own home, tends to get good marks from this web site! I think I have to go neutral, and here is why.
I trust my ear about as much as I trust good scientific reviews.
The two (my ear and the reviews) are often very similar.

EDIT:
Although, I did research online and came to a short of speakers I wanted. I went to Best Buy and listened to everything they had in the Magnolia area. I was about to leave when the sales associate mentioned he has some KEF R3 speakers he just setup on the side of the room in a quick hap hazard manner. I listened. I was amazed. I closed my eyes and listened to it from about 6 feet up to 15 feet away. I moved side to side. It sounded so damn good with Marantz or Denon AVRs powering them. The field was awesome. I had to admit, to my ear the tweeter rolled off a little more than it "should", but I still loved the tweeter, despite my dislike of 1" tweeters. I found a local Hi Fi shop that sold me a pair brand new in Walnut at 15% off. I took them home and listened the @#$%! out of them. A few years later and I still like them more than any speaker I have heard that cost less than about $5k. At at later date I saw the ASR Review of them and felt vindicated.

 

[Chrispy]

Ha! I've seen that affliction before

We are all at our own point in our journey and in no way would I want to argue you "shouldn't" cringe at this point at subjective descriptions of sound. That's a psychological reaction one either carries on with or doesn't.

But I'd say that on a practical level it does seem very odd to me. It seems essentially a reaction against subjective description of experience....but only in the case of describing sound (in particular, audio systems). Do you cringe just as much when people describe a sunset as "beautiful?" or give any number of descriptions about music, or movies, or food, or any other experience from the senses? Where do you draw the line against using words to describe subjective experience (and all our experience is subjective)?

Again...I understand the psychological reaction, but in a more practical, rational view, does it make sense to you?

As I've mentioned many times before, my job working in pro sound for movies would be impossible if we were to reject the worth of subjective description and communication about "how things sound." So I often find this allergy around here pretty weird and sort of insular.

Curious, do you guys in the studio situation actually constantly change out hardware to see what "sounds best"?

 

[sergeauckland]

Curious, do you guys in the studio situation actually constantly change out hardware to see what "sounds best"?

No, never. In the studios I've been involved with, stuff is changed when it gets unreliable, or to provide additional facilities that the previous items didn't have. In any event, the old stuff is still kept, hardly ever is anything that works thrown away.
Occasionally, something is bought because clients ask for it, or it becomes fashion, but there has to be a commercial imperative to do so.

I would expect any piece of studio pro equipment to have a 20 year life, live sound equipment gets more abuse, so perhaps 10 years.

S.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Curious, do you guys in the studio situation actually constantly change out hardware to see what "sounds best"?

They will use neutral sounding studio monitoring and will listen to what’s been laid down. If you look at photos or videos of recordings being made, they are listening and adjusting the recorded sound as they prefer it to be. All the equipment they use will have been rigorously measured and tested when being built and installed. The final judgement on what they think the recording should sound like is based on what they hear. So regardless of how well your domestic equipment is measured and tested you will only hear a subjective take on the music or home cinema you listen too.

 

[ahofer]

he interesting thing, to me, is that most gear I have heard in a store, at a friends house, or in my own home, that I like, tends to get good marks from this web site!

And, indeed, that's what the research basically suggests, right? In the main, people like flat frequency response, low distortion, etc. I guess one question would be whether you prefer the *incredibly* low SINAD stuff over the broader variety of below threshold stuff.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Again, I think you are chasing this idea without having read Toole. It has been investigated and the result is not what you (repeatedly) say.

I don't think Toole nor Olive are saying that the most neutral sound is always prefred. Perhaps they are saying that it is surprisingly often that it is prefered. I certainly want creators of content to use neutral speakers.
Anyway I'd like to see them run these tests again someday with better controls for what aspects of sound are generating the scores.

Look at the variation in bass preference. Yikes.

Not to mention many folks prefer some bass & trebble boost at lower volumes. Likely due to how we percive these ranges at lower vs high volumes. So perceived neutrality is likely SPL dependent.

Actually I have yet to read of any study that was testing this using contemporary technologies. Such as using the exact same speaker with different PEQ applied so the only major variation was level of frequency neutrality. This is something some of us can do at home using a speaker that responds well to EQ. Much easier than speaker swapping.
I did a very informal version of this with my GF and need to do more. I will say in this test she actually prefered a less neutral sound to the PEQ'd toward neutral sound of the Polk T50.
We also compared two speakers with the same Harman score and one was prefred dramatically more than the other, not even close. (The H score was the same but they did measure very differently in some ways)
In any case as a hobbyist I am no expert. I would love to be involved in a well conducted series of tests run by experts.

Anyway after exploring a huge number of speakers over the last couple years and making a few designs myself I have to say I was surprised at how much variation there was in personal enjoyment of the various speakers. While most sounded good enough to qualify as nice speakers some just caused me to want to listen more, to eat the music up.
I was also surprise at how slight tweaks really changed my level of listening enjoyment over longer sessions and yet in shorter sessions those tweaks might go unnoticed.(small frequency adjustments on my DIY attempts and slight variations of xover points, plus room EQ really changed the game - not talking about power cables, tube connectors or such type of "tweaks")

They will use neutral sounding studio monitoring and will listen to what’s been laid down. If you look at photos or videos of recordings being made, they are listening and adjusting the recorded sound as they prefer it to be. All the equipment they use will have been rigorously measured and tested when being built and installed. The final judgement on what they think the recording should sound like is based on what they hear. So regardless of how well your domestic equipment is measured and tested you will only hear a subjective take on the music or home cinema you listen too.

Kudos to the ones using netral speakers yet many studios it would seem are actually not using neutral speakers nor anything even close to SOTA speakers.
So you have that subjective cut made on speakers that would not measure well in the 1st place.

You simply can not remove subjectivity.
Producers and studio people are artists.

 

[ahofer]

et many studios it would seem are actually not using neutral speakers nor anything even close to SOTA speakers.
So you have that subjective cut made on speakers that would not measure well in the 1st place.

You simply can not remove subjectivity.

While this is true, it seems to be nearly useless, right? Unless the studios are all using the same equipment, the effect of non-standard speakers is non-stationary. So we're back to reproducing whatever is on the recording as faithfully as possible and EQing to taste, rather than trying to build in some fixed adaptation through equipment. That appears to be what you suggest in the post above this remark, so perhaps we are in agreement.

 

[Geert]

Kudos to the ones using netral speakers yet many studios it would seem are actually not using neutral speakers nor anything even close to SOTA speakers.

Don't know where you get this. Most studio's in Europe have been using Genelecs or Neumanns or something comparable for more than 20 years. And than there's still the mastering phase, where they go to great lengths to build a SOTA setup.

 

[ahofer]

Don't know where you get this. Most studio's in Europe have been using Genelecs or Neumanns or something comparable for more than 20 years. And than there's still the mastering phase, where they go to great lengths to build a SOTA setup.

There's a whole thread here (can't find it - damn search) showing studios with B&W and other not-so-flat FR speakers.