• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

Status
Not open for further replies.

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
For instance, I just finished EQing some bass rumble out of a track that was obscuring dialogue and other sounds. No measurements needed, I could hear the bass sticking out, could hear the muffling effect on the track, could easily hear the difference after EQ. Can I presume you would not call these perceptions "useless?"
My work, and the work of countless people in sound, would be impossible if that were the case.

Useless in the context of reviews of audio components for consumers. Indeed, the fact that the bass is sticking out in one reviewers system/room with a given component is unlikely to tell you something useful for another user. Again, this is because the sighted observation includes both a real signal and many fairly random and uninvestigated additions (room effects, biases, mood, hearing, etc.).

Imagine, reductio, that each subjective review was derived from a true signal plus a randomly selected frequency suppression/enhancement curve. Would that be useful? That's more or less what these sighted reviews are.

Now you can quibble about mostly useless or totally useless (allowing the idea there *may* be some shared tastes). But everyone, subjective and ASR objective, agrees you have to hear speakers, preferably in your own room, to determine if they suit your preference in situ. That doesn't make reviews sound very useful compared to measurements. At least there, if the spins show a badly non-linear response, we are pretty safe scratching them off our addition list.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Ok, thanks.

So as I understand it, you are not taking the "extreme" view that sighted impressions are worthless, at least for the individual.

But you edge towards the idea it is "useless" to gain information about speakers from the subjective impressions reported by other people (e.g. audio reviewers, presumably other audiophiles...)

Useless in the context of reviews of audio components for consumers. Indeed, the fact that the bass is sticking out in one reviewers system/room with a given component is unlikely to tell you something useful for another user. Again, this is because the sighted observation includes both a real signal and many fairly random and uninvestigated additions (room effects, biases, mood, hearing, etc.).

Imagine, reductio, that each subjective review was derived from a true signal plus a randomly selected frequency suppression/enhancement curve. Would that be useful? That's more or less what these sighted reviews are.

Of course I take your point, we all know speakers will sound different to one degree or another in different rooms, and to degrees, to different listeners. Nonetheless I think you are exaggerating that problem insofar as you imply it's so insurmountable as to be "useless."

Now you can quibble about mostly useless or totally useless (allowing the idea there *may* be some shared tastes).

I wouldn't call audiophiles swapping impressions of speakers (reviewers included) even "mostly useless." I know it can be quite useful - I've been guided by the reports of other audiophiles and reviewers to plenty of products that I loved. Of course you can approach using other people's impressions in a way that, yeah, they'll be useless. But you can also be more careful in collating impressions about gear. For instance, when I see someone describing the sound of a speaker I notice whether they are good at putting subjective impressions in to words, do their descriptions of speakers I've heard match my own impressions? Do they seem to care about and listen for the things that I care about? Etc. When there is a decent amount of "subjective data" available that seems to have lots of arrows pointing in the right direction - "that sounds just what I'm looking for!" - I've rarely been shocked or disappointed when I heard the gear in question.

And it goes both ways. I've lost count of the number of audiophiles who told me my descriptions of speakers matched their own impressions "that's just what I heard!" In fact just recently, again, on another forum a member who owned Harbeth Super HL5plus speakers had the opportunity to buy used Joseph Audio Perspective speakers and was asking if anyone had heard both. As it happened, I owned both speakers! So I wrote a detailed description comparing the sound of each. That member bought the Joseph speakers and reported afterwards that everything I wrote about their sonic differences/characteristics was "spot on." His own lengthy description comparing the two speakers once he had the Josephs matched my own experience with them perfectly. Similarly, someone else just bought the Joseph Speakers based on my writing about them, and was thrilled - sounded just as I'd described them.

And one reason, I submit, that careful sonic descriptions/impressions can be useful is they can convey what aren't always obvious from the measurements.
Certainly any audible characteristic WILL be in the measurements, but given all the different picky sonic characteristics many audiophiles are interested in, unless an individual has a good technical grasp of speaker measurements, if not LOTS of personal experience correlating all the different variations in speaker measurements to the subjective character, then the short hand sonic descriptions can actually do the job "better" in many such cases. The measurements don't have something written in them "And It Sounds Like This!" That's where, in so many cases in life, intersubjective information comes in handy - another subjective listener can explain "It Sounds Like THIS."

And a problem is that when you DO have people who have the technical chops to read and correlate measurements to predict the sound, that person doesn't necessarily share the taste or personal criteria of another audiophile reader, and may gloss over characteristics that the reader would care more about. Or the technically inclined person may not have great facility translating the measurements into subjective correlates, or in to language, or may simply be less interested in doing so. In other words: The very engineer-oriented types who are in position to understand the measurements are often the ones who view subjective descriptions with suspicion and so won't put much in to such descriptions of "How It Sounds"! So...you don't get much actual subjective detail. (That's one thing valuable about John Atkinson - he has the technical chops, and also seeks to correlate them with sonic descriptions of the subjective effects).

So for example, the Devore O/96 speakers that I really love. The Devore speakers have critiqued on ASR before, and in the comment section for the Stereophile Devore O/96 review some clearly technically knowledgeable folks just tore them apart for their purported deviations from "best practices" as they saw it for speaker design. And yet NONE of the technical information they used for their arguments gave me any hint that this could be a speaker I might actually like!
Rather, it was carefully reading a whole bunch of different reviews of those speakers, noting that there were some constant themes about the characteristic of the sound being described, that are just the type of characteristics I value. And upon hearing them...yup!...the descriptions were right. They were doing all the things described, and I loved the sound. (Again, this has been the case for numerous speakers I've really loved).

There are far more audiophiles who have made satisfying purchases based on swapping gear impressions or on reviews than your reply suggests would be the case. Even Steve Guttenberg, not that I'm a huge fan, has his youtube comments often filled with people thankful for his reviews, which led them to products they are thrilled with.

And that also speaks to the idea that people hearing speakers in different rooms becomes some insurmountable challenge for exchanging sonic descriptions.
For one thing, audiophiles (and reviewers) tend to experiment a lot with speaker placement to optimize the sound of whatever speaker they buy. Very often this will be part of the description - "found they sounded bloated too easily unless far out from the back wall" or "could be placed pretty close to the back wall without bass bloat" etc. Yes, there is a level of "noise" when talking about the same speaker heard in different rooms. But if a reviewer is careful, and especially if numerous reviews or audiophile reports tend to converge, that can be informative. Are most able to get a similar sound, or not? If they are, that tells you something too.

As I've often said, a tool is only useful if you use it. Many here dismiss the usefulness of subjective uncontrolled reports even for speakers, and that's fine for any individual. But it doesn't mean others can't find that form of information significantly useful.
 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
And at the same time, certainly you would agree that there are components that sound identical under a properly controlled DBT, yet have DIFFERENT measurements. At the end of the day, what matters more - the fact that a large, properly controlled DBT was not able to discern differences between components, or the fact that you can measure a difference? Would you agree that the components, in fact, sound indistinguishable to listeners based on the DBT, or would you further argue that the measurements show a difference, and therefore, they can't possibly sound the same (thereby disregarding the results of that that awful "subjective" DBT that involves human subjects?)
Sure that's possible, if the differences in the attribute being measured are both under audibly detectable levels.

The faith is strong in you.
That is true. OTOH I'm fully open to being proven wrong. Surely we would learn something quite valuable from the evidence. ;)
 

LugsyTL47

Member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
26
Likes
34
There is no room for, fact based evidence and scientific measurements, in SALES endeavors. Unless said science/engineering strongly supports the SALES pitch. SALES and Truth represent the polar opposite extremes in which a SALES pitch can function to motivate readers into Buyers. Not believers. Feelings, Emotions, Desires, Imagination and Dreams are what they Sell. This should not surprise anyone who has been a member of ASR for more than a week. ;)
“There is no room for, fact based evidence and scientific measurements, in SALES endeavors”.
As a sales professional for 30+ years, your statement is frankly wrong.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
“There is no room for, fact based evidence and scientific measurements, in SALES endeavors”.
As a sales professional for 30+ years, your statement is frankly wrong.
Maybe you missed the wink ?
 

antcollinet

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
7,408
Likes
12,291
Location
UK/Cheshire
OK thanks well perhaps others can look at the tunetots review. Like I said I spent 60 secs looking for an example. It wasn't an exhaustive search of the entire forum, and to be honest, if nobody believes me, that's fine. But the next time you see someone bashing a speaker based on its measurements, think back to what I wrote earlier.
Again you are misrepresenting your straw man, and i note you have ignored my post above pointing this out.

Your accusation that was contested wasnt that people will state a speaker is bad based on measurements, but that others saying they like the speaker anyway are accused of having defective hearing or of being a moron. And that periodically.

if you are unable to point to a few such posts, then you should apologise for the misrepresentation.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
Again you are misrepresenting your straw man, and i note you have ignored my post above pointing this out.
Actually, I was trying to give you an out, but if you insist (and honestly, this took another 120 secs of searching, you could have easily done this too):

Thread: B&W 800D4 series
Richard12511
: "I'm honestly thinking they may have some internal listening data that leads them towards their current target curve. The bigger problem with the previous gen(imo) is the inconsistent directivity. That's the main area I want to see improved."
Tonygeno responds: "Clearly their current target curve isn't aimed at people with lots of experience listening to live, unamplified music in a real space (concert hall). I wonder to whom they are appealing."
Neroldnerdith responds: "Their target curve is aimed at those with high frequency hearing loss and plenty of money to spend."
Ti33er responds: "I agree with the above …that 10Khz peak IS AUDIBLE, even off-axis! It’s aimed at older rich Gentlesquires that have hearing up to around that frequency"

Thread: B&W 804 D4 review and measurements by Stereophile:
kairos
: "Read Atkinson's review yesterday and it just confirmed the difference between measurements and what a piece of gear actually sounds like in a system/room."
changer responds: "please, no. above transition frequency, perception is dominated by direct sound. anechoic measurements describe this well, especially when combined with off-axis spin data. B&W didn’t create these speakers with the magical mystery room in mind that every other manufacturer has missed out at, but with elderly men that are partially deaf in HF."
kairos: "So the consensus on this site is if a dude likes the way a speaker sounds despite some aspects of its measurements being poor he must be an old dolt, lol...Oh, but I forgot, since the measurements have revealed the speakers in question as flawed, everyone here but old hard-of-hearing farts like myself and Atkinson (sorry John!) knows better. Nobody needs to actually LISTEN to them to decide if they like them. Wow."

P.S. I don't necessarily agree that, in my previous example, the responder was using the word "crap" to refer to the measurements and not the sound quality or overall impression of the speaker, but I can see how it might be interpreted differently. The examples above should be much clearer.
if you are unable to point to a few such posts, then you should apologise for the misrepresentation.
I'll wait patiently for my apology from you. Thank you.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
OK, I'll bite, so is the Benchmark DAC 1 USB transparent or not, based on measurements? Because per your predefined criteria using measurement thresholds, is is not transparent. Or do you just make up the measurements thresholds each time?
@tonycollinet I note you have ignored my post above.
 
Last edited:

antcollinet

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
7,408
Likes
12,291
Location
UK/Cheshire
Actually, I was trying to give you an out, but if you insist (and honestly, this took another 120 secs of searching, you could have easily done this too):

Thread: B&W 800D4 series
Richard12511
: "I'm honestly thinking they may have some internal listening data that leads them towards their current target curve. The bigger problem with the previous gen(imo) is the inconsistent directivity. That's the main area I want to see improved."
Tonygeno responds: "Clearly their current target curve isn't aimed at people with lots of experience listening to live, unamplified music in a real space (concert hall). I wonder to whom they are appealing."
Neroldnerdith responds: "Their target curve is aimed at those with high frequency hearing loss and plenty of money to spend."
Ti33er responds: "I agree with the above …that 10Khz peak IS AUDIBLE, even off-axis! It’s aimed at older rich Gentlesquires that have hearing up to around that frequency"

Thread: B&W 804 D4 review and measurements by Stereophile:
kairos
: "Read Atkinson's review yesterday and it just confirmed the difference between measurements and what a piece of gear actually sounds like in a system/room."
changer responds: "please, no. above transition frequency, perception is dominated by direct sound. anechoic measurements describe this well, especially when combined with off-axis spin data. B&W didn’t create these speakers with the magical mystery room in mind that every other manufacturer has missed out at, but with elderly men that are partially deaf in HF."
kairos: "So the consensus on this site is if a dude likes the way a speaker sounds despite some aspects of its measurements being poor he must be an old dolt, lol...Oh, but I forgot, since the measurements have revealed the speakers in question as flawed, everyone here but old hard-of-hearing farts like myself and Atkinson (sorry John!) knows better. Nobody needs to actually LISTEN to them to decide if they like them. Wow."

P.S. I don't necessarily agree that, in my previous example, the responder was using the word "crap" to refer to the measurements and not the sound quality or overall impression of the speaker, but I can see how it might be interpreted differently. The examples above should be much clearer.

I'll wait patiently for my apology from you. Thank you.
Again - you have failed to demonstrate your accusation. Nowhere in that thread has an individual who claimed to like a bad measuring speaker been accused of defective hearing - nor of being moronic.
 

antcollinet

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
7,408
Likes
12,291
Location
UK/Cheshire
OK, I'll bite, so is the Benchmark DAC 1 USB transparent or not, based on measurements? Because per your predefined criteria using measurement thresholds, is is not transparent. Or do you just make up the measurements thresholds each time?

I have repeatedly stated the basis, and linked to the standards we use for defining something as transparent. So once again your question there is a straw man thinly veiled.

I find your debate style as bad faith at best - trollish at worst. Congratulations, you've managed to become one of a very tiny number of people to make it to my ignore list.
 
Last edited:

dorakeg

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2022
Messages
326
Likes
187
Science is involved in all enjoyment, musical and otherwise. Whether based in FR, biochemical reactions of endorphins in the brain, THC content of gummy bears or the "nature" of bias. We don't smile, without measurable science somewhere in the chain of events... IMHO.

I have to say I do not exactly agree with your statement. I do agree that science can explain the mechanisms and biochemical reactions ongoing in the brain.

However, science alone cannot explain nor predict how a person will respond to a stimulation.

Let's say you tell the same joke to 1000 person. Some will laugh, some will not understand your joke, see don't find it funny, some might find it offensive etc. We are extremely complex beings and there are just way too many factors that affect how we will respond to a joke.
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia

Research into comedy…
 

DavidEdwinAston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
753
Likes
566
I believe something needs to be clarified. This is an open public forum. No one is vetted, and no one can control what others say. You don't control what I say, and I can't control what you say. Not only that, but you're not held responsible for what I say nor am I held responsible for what you say .... or anyone else says.

That's the nature of the internet. Generally, free speech abounds. Demands can be made regarding propriety, but only a ban can stop the posters from cussing, denigrating others, displaying demeaning behavior and arguing simply for the sake of arguing. You can't prevent things like that. Amir can't, the mods can't ..... no one can. Either they're thrown out, or they are told to tone it down, which they (usually) do.

We would all hope that members display a certain degree of decorum, but some have ideas of "decorum" that are different than others. You might have a poor opinion of them, but then again they might have a poor opinion of you. You never know.

Looking back, it seems that the most acrimonious disagreements arise not from reliance on measurements, but instead from an impression that one poster displays opinions that are negative regarding another poster's cherished favorite. That starts the chicken fight, and the general demeanor devolves from there. It just proves that no place on the web is free from puerile behavior.

Unfortunately, that's the price of free speech. :)

Jim
Terrific post Jim
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,088
Likes
7,544
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
However, science alone cannot explain nor predict how a person will respond to a stimulation.

Science can explain it perfectly fine. The prediction is the only problem.

But it doesn't really matter. If a specific sound wave hits your ear, it hits your ear. Your mood or preconceived notions might alter how you respond to the stimulation, but it has no way of changing the sound wave itself. No matter how complex you are as a person, you will always have a baseline criterion for sound wave alterations that are guaranteed to trigger a certain response in you personally. Some alterations will give different responses in different people, but a lot of them will give the same response in practically anyone.

I bet I can predict how you will respond to hearing an amp clipping brutally, or a standing wave that makes all your furniture resonate :)
 

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,632
Likes
2,751
Science can explain it perfectly fine. The prediction is the only problem.

But it doesn't really matter. If a specific sound wave hits your ear, it hits your ear. Your mood or preconceived notions might alter how you respond to the stimulation, but it has no way of changing the sound wave itself. No matter how complex you are as a person, you will always have a baseline criterion for sound wave alterations that are guaranteed to trigger a certain response in you personally. Some alterations will give different responses in different people, but a lot of them will give the same response in practically anyone.

I bet I can predict how you will respond to hearing an amp clipping brutally, or a standing wave that makes all your furniture resonate :)
Rumbling in the room? YES!!! :D At least for peaks here and there, it is awesome.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
Would we?
What do you think?


I bet I can predict how you will respond to hearing an amp clipping brutally, or a standing wave that makes all your furniture resonate
There are a few outsiders that think their car stereo making every panel on the car buzz and rattle sounds good. LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom