Can't we all just get along?

[dominikz]

And to the WAF, odd-shaped room, bad acoustics, and so on. What do the good measurement speakers do about those things?
(I mean, why do you bring up things like that?)

Actually, reading Toole's book you would find that consistent sound quality delivery under various acoustic conditions was one of the motivations for the NRC and subsequent Harman research on loudspeakers; as it was considered impractical for many consumers to turn residential spaces into acoustically treated listening rooms.

Conclusion of this research is that flat on-axis and uniform off-axis response in a loudspeaker resulted in increased preference under diverse listening conditions (compared to loudspeakers that don't exhibit such behavior) - which is why it is considered that a good spinorama translates to a 'good loudspeaker' (at least to most listeners, under equivalent, level-matched, and double-blind conditions). I.e. a 'good spin' makes a loudspeaker more likely to sound good to various people listening in various acoustical environments compared to a loudspeaker with a 'bad spin'.

That of course does not in any case mean that all loudspeakers with a 'good spin' sound the same, nor that any such loudspeaker satisfies every individual requirement.
Trivial examples of this are different SPL and LF extension capabilities of different loudspeakers (with otherwise 'good spins').

 

[mj30250]

I think there's value to be had in sighted subjective impressions, particularly when the reviewer in question can correlate them to measurements. Of course, it's a sliding scale. From most valuable to least valuable subjective listening, IMHO:

1) Controlled double blind listening
2) Casual, but reasonably well-controlled blind listening through, say, inviting over some friends, handing them blindfolds (and possibly cocktails), with reasonable means to control the process (this is of course subject to changes in position based on specifics)
3) Subjective listening, followed by objective measurements, and then correlating the two (as Erin does)
4) Objective measurements, followed by subjective listening, and then correlating the two (as Amir does)
5) Magazine / YouTube reviewer who listens subjectively and then correlates to someone else's measurements (as Stereophile sometimes does)
6) Magazine / YouTube reviewer who listens subjectively, and...oh, here's the MFG's spec sheet - check out that power handling!
7) Random internet poster (hey!)

Basically, the more bias that can be removed, and the more consistency that can be added, the better.

In the case of Amir's subjective commentary, he certainly maintains a large enough portfolio of reviews from which one can establish some obvious patterns in his "tastes" and how they relate to his objective data, which can be helpful to an observer regardless of whether they find themselves largely in agreement with his impressions, or whether they largely don't.

Yeah sure it'd be just dandy if Amir were swept off to Harman's labs and blindfolded ahead of each speaker measurement, but I don't see it as an all or nothing prospect, particularly as I don't believe that we fully understand everything there is to understand about the correlation of measurements to what sounds good to us. Example: vertical dispersion. How much is good? How much is bad? Why? How exactly does it effect our perceptions, particularly while on-axis? To my knowledge, this has yet to be settled.

 

[markus]

what sounds good to us

"Sounds good" is the recording/mixing engineer's job. A speaker just needs to "work right". What exactly that means in terms of performance is not sufficiently well defined. Not enough psychoacoustic research completed.

 

[Mart68]

I think there's value to be had in sighted subjective impressions, particularly when the reviewer in question can correlate them to measurements. Of course, it's a sliding scale. From most valuable to least valuable subjective listening, IMHO:

1) Controlled double blind listening
2) Casual, but reasonably well-controlled blind listening through, say, inviting over some friends, handing them blindfolds (and possibly cocktails), with reasonable means to control the process (this is of course subject to changes in position based on specifics)
3) Subjective listening, followed by objective measurements, and then correlating the two (as Erin does)
4) Objective measurements, followed by subjective listening, and then correlating the two (as Amir does)
5) Magazine / YouTube reviewer who listens subjectively and then correlates to someone else's measurements (as Stereophile sometimes does)
6) Magazine / YouTube reviewer who listens subjectively, and...oh, here's the MFG's spec sheet - check out that power handling!
7) Random internet poster (hey!)

Basically, the more bias that can be removed, the better.

In the case of Amir's subjective commentary, he certainly maintains a large enough portfolio of reviews from which one can establish some obvious patterns in his "tastes" and how they relate to his objective data, which can be helpful to an observer regardless of whether they find themselves largely in agreement with his impressions, or whether they largely don't.

Yeah sure it'd be just dandy if Amir were swept off to Harman's labs and blindfolded ahead of each speaker measurement, but I don't see it as an all or nothing prospect, particularly as I don't believe that we fully understand everything there is to understand about the correlation of measurements to what sounds good to us. Example: vertical dispersion. How much is good? How much is bad? Why? How exactly does it effect our perceptions, particularly while on-axis? To my knowledge, this has yet to be settled.

Good post but frankly I'd swap 6 and 7 around. There's at least a chance the forum poster knows what he is talking about.

 

[goat76]

"Sounds good" is the recording/mixing engineer's job. A speaker just needs to "work good". What exactly that means in terms of performance is admittedly largely unknown. Not enough psychoacoustic research completed.

Marcus, can I ask you what speakers you have, and if you have read any subjective reviews of them? If you have, didn't they describe them as you hear them, or was the general idea of how they sounded to the reviewer completely off from how you would describe the sound?

 

[mj30250]

"Sounds good" is the recording/mixing engineer's job. A speaker just needs to "work good". What exactly that means in terms of performance is admittedly largely unknown. Not enough psychoacoustic research completed.

I don't disagree with any of this, but presumably, one who attempts to seek out a speaker that "works good" has already sought out material that "sounds good". I figure that marrying the two is exactly what the vast majority of us are here for. I mean I'm sure hearing a perfectly smooth frequency sweep is not without its charms, but it's not exactly my #1 Friday night activity.

Good post but frankly I'd swap 6 and 7 around. There's at least a chance the forum poster knows what he is talking about.

Those two are certainly subject to flip-flopping.

 

[markus]

Marcus, can I ask you what speakers you have, and if you have read any subjective reviews of them? If you have, didn't they describe them as you hear them, or was the general idea of how they sounded to the reviewer completely off from how you would describe the sound?

I've stopped reading subjective reviews a long time ago. The same time I started building my own speakers I buy commercially available speakers from time to time because I'm interested in how they work or when it would be too much hassle to build a similar one my own.

 

[markus]

I don't disagree with any of this, but presumably, one who attempts to seek out a speaker that "works good" has already sought out material that "sounds good". I figure that marrying the two is exactly what the vast majority of us are here for. I mean I'm sure hearing a perfectly smooth frequency sweep is not without its charms, but it's not exactly my #1 Friday night activity.

It's like trying to get your favorite pizza when you can't control the order nor ingredients, just the pizza oven. Somewhat an exercise in futility. And of course you have to pay for all of it. Maybe that's why real audiophiles are always so grumpy

 

[Mr. E. Guy]

As well as having a good (or acceptable) space or room would it also be nice to know a subjective reviewer's hearing acuity? I'm 54 and my hearing is severely rolled off in the upper frequencies. If a younger reviewer tells me a speaker is too bright I tend to ignore it but this may be totally wrong.

The problem with that approach is the person with the working ears can hear if a speaker is too bright but the older you get the less likely that is to be the case. By the time you pass 75 years old, chances are about 50/50 you have what is medically defined as age-related hearing loss: presbycusis.

Paging Michael Fremer... https://prabook.com/web/michael_alan.fremer/3546433

I don't disagree with any of this, but presumably, one who attempts to seek out a speaker that "works good" has already sought out material that "sounds good". I figure that marrying the two is exactly what the vast majority of us are here for. I mean I'm sure hearing a perfectly smooth frequency sweep is not without its charms, but it's not exactly my #1 Friday night activity.

Those two are certainly subject to flip-flopping.

Your list is missing 8) Salesperson who during demo says the speakers they are trying to sell you sound so good it's what they have at home

 

[mj30250]

Your list is missing 8) Salesperson who during demo says the speakers they are trying to sell you sound so good it's what they have at home

Wrong.

Each of the items on the list are intended to provide at least some level of value.

 

[MattHooper]

Such a listening test has zero value

Disagree. Other people's (sighted) evaluations of loudspeakers have often had value for me, and have led me to some wonderful listening experiences and purchases. Likewise, over the years I've been told by plenty of people that my descriptions of loudspeakers were helpful in their own speaker search/purchases.

I suggest keeping some context and don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "the good." We never get "absolute certainty" so confidence levels always come in gradations. Exchanging listening impressions of speakers may have "zero value" if you are looking for scientific levels of certainty. That doesn't entail they are therefore in all cases "useless."

 

[markus]

Disagree. Other people's (sighted) evaluations of loudspeakers have often had value for me, and have led me to some wonderful listening experiences and purchases. Likewise, over the years I've been told by plenty of people that my descriptions of loudspeakers were helpful in their own speaker search/purchases.

I suggest keeping some context and don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "the good." We never get "absolute certainty" so confidence levels always come in gradations. Exchanging listening impressions of speakers may have "zero value" if you are looking for scientific levels of certainty. That doesn't entail they are therefore in all cases "useless."

Has nothing to do with perfectionism but with predictability and repeatability. Not sure why some here seem to be surprised when someone is demanding that actual scientific principles are applied on a site named "Audio Science Review".

 

[voodooless]

Not sure why some here seem to be surprised when someone is demanding that actual scientific principles are applied on a site named "Audio Science Review".

I don’t think anyone is surprised. On the other hand, we’re not a scientific journal. We like to see a few reviews per week, not a few per year at best

 

[tomtoo]

Has nothing to do with perfectionism but with predictability and repeatability. Not sure why some here seem to be surprised when someone is demanding that actual scientific principles are applied on a site named "Audio Science Review".

I dont get your problem. You get your meassurements. The subjective part you not have to read.

 

[rdenney]

Markus is making the distinction between descriptions of what people prefer in their own settings versus descriptions offered to be prescriptive for others, in spite of their (probably different) settings. We always make the distinction between the information that we amass to help ourselves make a decision versus the process that can be generally recommended to others.

As for me, I looked at the NRC Spin-O-Rama tests of my speakers, their power handling and ability to produce high listening levels, their bass extension, and their price and form factor. Those things could be determined by testing or inspection.

But I also looked at subjective reviews. Those whose review made no reference to measurements got the appropriate consideration (very little or none, even when I agree with them, unless they bring out something that was specifically not tested, like, say, maximum SPL at a given distortion). Those whose reviews were backed up by measurements, or at least validated at some level by measurements, got more consideration. If any of them had complained about some well-identified fault that might not have shown up in a spin, I would have avoided the choice--that was my main interest in those reviews. The spin doesn't look at everything, as evidenced by the NRC also providing tests of speaker linearity at high listening levels in addition to measurements of frequency response at various radiation angles. Likewise, measurements that looked bad would have disqualified the choice before even reading the reviews.

This is not a war between subjective reviews and objective measurements. This is a war between the idea that objective measurements are important, particularly when coupled to a model that is validated by controlled subjective testing, versus the idea that objective measurements or subjective measurement controls are irrelevant for whatever reason. We keep hearing that objective measurements are irrelevant, and that position must be opposed consistently.

Rick "the term 'science' is grossly overused in this discussion" Denney

 

[goat76]

I bring them up for what I consider to be a good reason. They are the vast majority of instances.

Although I can't find it now, earlier in this thread (or perhaps another thread) someone posted that they were discussing listening only in rooms that perform well, or possibly were treated well. That's rare. The vast majority of people looking to buy (or assess) audio equipment are stuck with exactly what I mentioned; bad acoustics, odd-shaped rooms or the necessity of dealing with their significant other. Those people come here looking to gain knowledge, to get a leg up on buying an audio system that they will enjoy and that will be what they consider a good investment for the money they spend. Wouldn't you say that includes good imaging? These people aren't specialists and they aren't high rollers, but they deserve every bit of help and/or info that we can provide them.

When I answer you or you answer me, we're actually talking to thousands of people. Jim

Now I wish I said, "good enough rooms that will not mask the characteristics of the speakers", instead of "well-treated".

Remember that we are discussing reviewers and their listening environment, do you wish they had a "worst-case scenario" listening room?
I think it's better if they are able to actually hear what they are reviewing.

 

[DanielT]

If I follow a experienced, professional chef who publishes his recipes and then I cook those dishes myself and agree with him on his, or her, subjective impression of taste, that's just fine.. ...This one was good. Next it's good, tastes good, third and so on.

However. One of those weird cousins (that we all have one or more of) who yawns about some new incredible dish he , or she created..well .. I take that with a pinch of salt .... and pepper .. .or I do not cook it myself at all. Bad taste and yapping only.

Edit:
After testing some of them a few times. Incidentally, this is not strange. We all know if your friends' tastes match your own.

 

[Axo1989]

Other scientists in other discipline could see this as follows.

1. The perception of music has been proven to be a highly subjective experience.

2. Preference ratings have been shown to be highly correlated with subjective experience.

3. In this study, we show that sighted listening significantly increases preference rating.

Our results demonstrate that, in order to maximize the quality of our subjective experience, any listening session should be sighted. The impact of speaker overall appearance and finish therefore deserves further study.

Limitations: we acknowledge that the cost of the speaker, not examined here, also seems to contribute to the preference rating. Whether this effect can be confirmed and is independent of the speaker's appearance would probably deserves a separate study as well.

I laughed, but it's a great point.

When I see that graph, or the other one showing single speaker versus pair, I often wonder at the perverse interpretation usually given here. Being a scientist in another discipline and all.

My guess is that Calvinists and purity-ring wearers are suspicious of pleasure-seeking, and seek virtue in self-abnegation.

 

[DanielT]

Your list is missing 8) Salesperson who during demo says the speakers they are trying to sell you sound so good it's what they have at home

Most people here at ASR have probably already seen this clip, but for the rest of you. This is a classic:

Edit:
If I remember correctly, he gets scolded by his boss when he, the first part of the video, is a little too honest to then change the sales tactics to sell the young guy the fat big ones.

By the way? How do you know when Danny is online?

That's when the slightest criticism is erased in the comment section in his Youtube videos.
It can be constructive, objective and respectful criticis. It will be deleted. I've seen it myself. For those who do not believe what I just said. Try commenting yourself. You will see what happens.

 

[MattHooper]

Has nothing to do with perfectionism but with predictability and repeatability.

Yes, that was my point. You are seeking a scientific level of reliability.


Remember that you were responding to how someone else spoke of his value for adding sighted listening impressions, and correlating it with his own experience with some of the speakers reviewed. Goat76 felt he'd find value in that. I infer he was not talking about scientific level of inquiry and reliability.

But you responded that such (sighted) listening tests would have ZERO value.

Which is a false dichotomy. The options aren't "scientific confidence" vs "ZERO value." Another option is "less reliable, but still capable of being of value." Just like we go through the day exchanging unscientifically vetted exchanges of subjective information, which actually works to navigate teh world nonetheless. Exchanging sighted listening impressions of speakers can have value. Not a scientific level of certainty, but not "useless."

Not sure why some here seem to be surprised when someone is demanding that actual scientific principles are applied on a site named "Audio Science Review".

No problem with that at all (though almost no one hear can actually supply such scientific evidence with respect to their direct experience).

The problem is when you suggest non-scientific exchanges as being of "Zero Value."

If you'd said instead that Goat76's appeal to sighted listening tests would be "less reliable than controlled listening tests" there would be little to object to. Except that's now how you responded. You responded by claiming such reports would have 'zero value.'

Cheers.