I cannot trust the Harman speaker preference score

[sarumbear]

The topic has already been beaten to death and shown to be a misguided "hot take".

What further data do you have to counter the controlled testing data, explanations, and caveats put forth by the authors of the peer reviewed and published research to suggest the topic of whether the preference score, derived from spinorama research statistical modeling correlation, is "meaningless" and needs to be further explored?

What’s the point of using a thread that’s not related to the topic though? Why do we have separate threads otherwise?

 

[fineMen]

As the OP of the thread may I ask what has this to do with the topic?

Sorry, edited the post You didn't like too much. But, @Kvalsvoll has a point in saying that stereo, and room-envelopment is another dimension, which isn't considered in calculating "the score". He develops quite narrow directivity speakers for a reason, he says, and strongly proposes delicate room treatment.
If his effort is justified, the score doesn't tell it all, hence could be doubted.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

This thread first discussed, if "the score" can be trusted. You added an interesting aspect. Reflections have to be considered as detrimental for the sound stage realism. The score doesn't take the width of the dispersion pattern into consideration. If I get You right, the score doesn't tell it all, hence shall not be taken as a final verdict.

You reintroduce the argument with mentioning the room affecting time domain, decay and tonal balance--the main concern of the score, conclusively. You then advertise a closer listening position, which naturally would mute the reflections relatively.

This is a side-move, me thinks. I don't want to analyse its persuasive strength. I would rather like to come back to Your sound-stage argument. This could be valid, indeed. The score relies on mono listening tests, and there should be doubt if it was applicable for stereo in the first place!

I lately expressed my expectation, that reverberation in contemporary recordings is either recorded separately, or is generated synthetically, and in either case added to close-proximity, individual recordings of the solo instruments. Other, additional techniques might apply.

Now, if the reverberation isn't stereo in itself? The reverberation, as said recorded separately or synthesised, is basically mono, added without further ado to both stereo channels without differentiation. What then about the time relation of in-room reflections to the direct sound? And by which means would these affect the plausibility of the stereo imaging?

I personally argue, that reverberation, by our all hearing, isn't evaluated for directional cues. Experiment: close an ear and try, blindfolded, to orient Yourself confined in a room. Possible - proven! The notorious two-ear technology isn't needed to get the picture. Maybe it is just the significant burst of the early and late arrivals, a timely, but not directional pattern of reflections, that portrays the room.

When reverb is diffuse sound from decaying sound energy inside a room, it has no direction, and thus it is not possible to hear directional cues. We hear it as sound coming from all around us. And then it turns out, that decay in a small room is similar, after the initial very early reflections, there is no direction, I just recently showed measurements from a small treated room that confirms this.

Testing one single speaker in mono has advantages, and surprisingly, perhaps, will reveal even spatial qualities. The experience is not the same as listening to stereo speakers, but for speaker evaluation I agree with those who claim this is a usable approach. One just needs to be aware of its shortcomings.

Radiation pattern is the most important property for sound character of a speaker. The typical hifi-type with dome + small mid-woofer has a softening character, while constant-directivity horns have a sharper presentation with more clarity. Generally speaking. Set aside which of those are better and preferred, the difference must be reflected in a score number system that is meant to provide meaningful information about the sound from a speaker.

How reverb - or more correctly, decaying sound - from the room affects imaging, depends on early reflection level, initial decay level drop, decay profile, and how all that changes across the frequency range. Very early reflections changes the location of images due the phase shift of the direct sound, and adds confusing secondary sound sources. Later decay masks the decay of the direct sound.

When sound decay from the room is kept below a certain level, it seems that imaging, or presentation of both instruments and recording space, is no longer affected. Instead, this sound contribution from the room may help to build both envelopment all around the room, and solid images up front.

A speaker with more controlled pattern can improve initial level drop, but it will not change the rate of decay in the room. The room will always stay the same.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Sorry, edited the post You didn't like too much. But, @Kvalsvoll has a point in saying that stereo, and room-envelopment is another dimension, which isn't considered in calculating "the score". He develops quite narrow directivity speakers for a reason, he says, and strongly proposes delicate room treatment.
If his effort is justified, the score doesn't tell it all, hence could be doubted.

With stereo, it is possible to create enveloping sound that seems to fill the room around the listener. While projecting precise images of instruments up front. This is not possible with one mono speaker. But it is still justified to use a single mono speaker for testing.

Part of the goal is (was..) to make a speaker that works perfect in any room, so no room treatment is necessary. If I had been a politician instead of an engineer, I would have had better success, because then it would be possible to impose a ban on room reflections. Following the laws of physics, it was possible to improve sound reproduction in most spaces, but impossible to get anywhere close to the performance that a properly treated room provides.

 

[abdo123]

Do tell how one speaker could make music notes float around you in 3D?

Listen to Vibeology.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Listen to Vibeology.

From Paula Abdul?

I disconnected right jack of my headphones and listen to just left side of my headphones, 3d effect gone.

; )

 

[abdo123]

From Paula Abdul?

I disconnected right jack of my headphones and listen to just left side of my headphones, 3d effect gone.

; )

The effect is more pronounced on Speakers, you would hear some vocals right on top of your shoulders.

 

[Pdxwayne]

The effect is more pronounced on Speakers, you would hear some vocals right on top of your shoulders.

Using which speaker? Right or left?

 

[abdo123]

Using which speaker? Right or left?

Both, sometimes it’s left sometimes it’s right.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Both, sometimes it’s left sometimes it’s right.

Hmm, are you asking me to check if single speaker can do 3d effect, or just generally want me to experience 3d effect with two speakers?

 

[abdo123]

Hmm, are you asking me to check if single speaker can do 3d effect, or just generally want me to experience 3d effect with two speakers?

Why not both? The song is nice.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Why not both? The song is nice.

You were responding to "Do tell how one speaker could make music notes float around you in 3D?", so not quite sure what you wanted me to do.
: )

It is fun with both headphones and speakers, in stereo.

: )

 

[fineMen]

How reverb - or more correctly, decaying sound - from the room affects imaging, depends on early reflection level, initial decay level drop, decay profile, and how all that changes across the frequency range. Very early reflections changes the location of images due the phase shift of the direct sound, and adds confusing secondary sound sources. Later decay masks the decay of the direct sound.

I use horns myself, but with the addition of a specialised dispersion device. I still wonder how one would translate directional cues in the reverberation from the on-site recording situation to a listening situation at home. A miracle, me thinks. May be stereo has much more to deliver than we ever thought.

But, I cannot follow Your herein presented argumentation, which for sure is my fault.

 

[Multicore]

Do tell how one speaker could make music notes float around you in 3D?

No. The technical answer to that is easy enough to find and I don't care enough to deliver it to you because, my point is that seeking to experience such special effects is a perversion of music.

 

[Multicore]

As to "sensibly made" recordings I'm not sure what that would even mean.

For example, you can put an ensemble in a known-good acoustic space and carefully position two carefully-chosen microphones to record them. Its is clear from the recorded evidence that recordings made like this can work.

 

[Multicore]

What are you doing in a forum like this, then?

I am looking for good value in equipment that can reproduce a very wide range of musical experiences without imposing itself on me. I think ASR has a lot to offer in the get-out-of-my-musical-pleasure department.

 

[Multicore]

Do you think we need to "read books in public groups?"

No. Reading and writing are more often than not private activities.

 

[Multicore]

You on the other hand, based on a personal dislike for stereo it seems, would prefer everyone's choices be limited to mono. That seems more tyranical than a marketplace offering choice.

Hardly, since stereo won the war, my opinion is powerless. It is nothing. It's just a buch of words that cost nothing and you can easily ignore. But we all have to deal with stereo because it is the standard that governs the commercial world. That's real power.

 

[Pdxwayne]

No. The technical answer to that is easy enough to find and I don't care enough to deliver it to you because, my point is that seeking to experience such special effects is a perversion of music.

So, to hear a section of strings on far left and another section of double bass on far right, is perversion? You seems like just a poor guy who can't appreciate spices of life....I will ignore you going forward. Bye bye!

 

[Kvalsvoll]

I use horns myself, but with the addition of a specialised dispersion device. I still wonder how one would translate directional cues in the reverberation from the on-site recording situation to a listening situation at home. A miracle, me thinks. May be stereo has much more to deliver than we ever thought.

But, I cannot follow Your herein presented argumentation, which for sure is my fault, fallen out of the role to teach engineers ... no bad feelings, please.

I wrote:
"How reverb - or more correctly, decaying sound - from the room affects imaging, depends on early reflection level, initial decay level drop, decay profile, and how all that changes across the frequency range. Very early reflections changes the location of images due the phase shift of the direct sound, and adds confusing secondary sound sources. Later decay masks the decay of the direct sound. "

The sentence here really can not explain how this works in a way that is possible to understand, this is a far more complex subject. And parts of this may not even be fully understood yet. Just to present only my own view on the subject, would require several pages of text. So I do not think you are to be blamed, if the text does not make sense.

It should be possible to measure something that can show what is going on. Recordings of the same instruments, going from dry to very reverberant, and then measure the direction of the sound field in each case. But this is wandering far off the subject for this thread.