Should we (I) get into speaker testing & measurement

[BDWoody]

You guys are getting angry. and I'm laughing over here. So who's actually in control? .

So, you've just defined yourself as a troll?

Good for you...although you aren't reading the angry thing very well...more annoyed, like at the annoying child who won't shut up at Thanksgiving when they think they have more to offer than they really do...

Pretentious and obnoxious is a charming combo...hope it keeps working for you.

Oh, and, I don't mean that in a bad way.

Have a nice day.

 

[March Audio]

@amirm
Could you get hold of the Klippel results for one or preferably two or three speakers, and do a review/write up as an example of what such testing shows us vs the kind of measurements we normally see?

Even if you aren't allowed to reveal the speaker it would be educational and generate some additional interest. It could be a measurement review of Mystery speaker A, Mystery speaker B and Mystery speaker C.

I like

 

[March Audio]

Sounds good. But you should really focus mostly on active speakers because for a true objectivist, that's the only choice. Owning a passive speaker just means you're still being sucked in by audiophile myths. And busting myths is what ASR is all about.

Whilst we know that active speakers can address many of the issues of passives, the simple fact is that the vast majority don't own actives. As such concentrating on them would be of little use to the wider ASR audience.

 

[BDWoody]

Whilst we know that active speakers can address many of the issues of passives, the simple fact is that the vast majority don't own actives. As such concentrating on them would be of little use to the wider ASR audience.

A few of us may even have a few nice amps sitting around looking for work.

 

[Audiocrusader]

Whilst we know that active speakers can address many of the issues of passives, the simple fact is that the vast majority don't own actives. As such concentrating on them would be of little use to the wider ASR audience.

Yeah you're right. And very few have the mental strength to allow change after decades of exposure to audiophilia. Self handicapping mental walls are hard to break down. Unfortunately it's a sad state of affairs in which the only cure is new blood.

 

[BillW]

Honestly, I really don't think that would be a better use of resources! I'll explain:

Customer Segments for Snake-Oil Products:

We all know there are many products out there, for which multiple published articles exist (written by competent scientists/engineers) debunking these products as bogus 'snake-oil'. Yet people still buy them.

Why? Among those who buy snake-oil or low-performance-per-dollar products despite the existence of credible evidence debunking them, there are a few important categories:

1. Those that buy them due to a priority on social value and/or aesthetic preference (fashionable items, popular items, aesthetic decorative value) overpowering interest in the actual functional performance of the product. The prevalence of this segment is due to personal value systems and priorities. Additional objective scientific material will not (alone) reduce the population of this category.​

​

2. Those that buy them due to (mistaken) belief in superior functional performance, where this belief is due to lack of awareness of the scientific stance on the product. The prevalence of this segment is due to persuasive marketing, and lack of education. Additional objective scientific material will not (alone) reduce the population of this category.​

​

3. Those that buy them due to (mistaken) belief in superior functional performance, where this belief is due to intentional rejection of the scientific stance on the product. The prevalence of this segment is due to stubborn opinions and willful science-denial. Additional objective scientific material will not (alone) reduce the population of this category.​

To those in segment (3), no amount of further scientific evidence is even remotely likely to change their opinion. They have already consumed a great deal of scientific evidence and theory but have chosen to dispute/reject it all anyway, simply because it disagrees with what they want to believe. There's a famous old quote that's very relevant here: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Conclusions:

Across all of the customer segments identified above for snake-oil products, I've explained why adding more scientific evidence to the pile would not significantly reduce their sales. In contrast, third-party scientific effort in the audiophile world will yield the greatest 'return on investment' (to consumers) if focused such that it most benefits those who are aware of and do not largely deny the value of the science on this topic. To this segment of 'informed objectivists', the greatest ROI is yielded by maximizing our ability to find the best sounding speaker at a given price point [1].

On the other hand: If your ultimate goal is to convince the extreme science-deniers of the audiophile world over to even the moderate science-accepting camp, this would not only be an extraordinarily difficult and potentially expensive task, but would have to be approached very differently than this site's current mission (as I understand it) of gathering objective scientific data on audiophile products. Such a goal would be much more of an educational outreach and de-radicalization mission, than a scientific one.

For example, you will not succeed in such a mission if you start with scientific measurements like SINAD or spinoramas. Those are only valuable to people who already believe in the scientific methods and theories underpinning them. Many subjectivists aren't even convinced in the value of most blind tests, so you'd have to start there. But even there, it's not clear that you'd even be able to make any progress here (no matter the amount of time, effort, and money invested in such an endeavor), due to the stubborn stance of many in this camp. Do you really want to go down that road?

In contrast, we do know that if the same effort was invested in generating high quality standardized measurements of a wide variety of speakers from an unbiased third party, the benefit to the audiophile community (and consumers of speakers in general) would be immense. This would be historically unprecedented, and IMO would offer more value and benefit to consumers than the sum total of all subjective reviews from audiophile journalism across history

[1] This is actually of the few points of nearly universal consensus in high quality audio: Per dollar invested in a sound system, speaker choice is the single largest influence and return on investment (where "returns" are in terms of the resulting sound quality). This is followed by room treatment and correction (equalization), followed by amplifiers and DACs, followed lastly by everything else.

I appreciate your thoughts on this. I agree completely that speakers are the largest influence on system performance. I disagree however with your premise about not being able to change people's minds with evidence. The entire advertising industry is built on exactly that. Right now there is an avalanche of marketing trying to convince people of magical thinking like some how audio changes the laws of physics or something. For example, on YouTube Paul McGowan tells all kinds of folktales with zero credible counter videos. When there is no credible push back the magical thinking gets normalized. I do understand your point of view but respectfully disagree.

Is there evidence to support that "high quality standardized measurements of a wide variety of speakers from an unbiased third party, the benefit to the audiophile community (and consumers of speakers in general) would be immense." I accept that the measurements are good and of sound science. But are we certain that ASR or Amir is considered an unbiased third party? It almost seems like your reason to reject testing Snake Oil products also negates this premise for the same reasons. Who will trust the results? Certainly not Audiophiles. So who exactly are these results for? Why would a manufacturer participate in such testing when their $2K speaker has a real possibility of being outclassed by a $400 speaker.

I believe Wombat may be right in that this a business proposal given the money needed to make it a viable on-going project. One billionaire would make everything work but they are scarce when you need them. Perhaps a business case could be made for creating a new marketing standard like "Hi-Res", "MQA" or "Intel Inside" and license it to speaker manufacturers to generate revenue. Again why would they bother? Where are the sources of revenue? Subscriptions to a publication like Steve Guttenberg proposed maybe? That might work but a significant marketing budget would be needed even in the age of social media. Influencers need to be bribed etc. Publications even in web format need designers. Maybe an association with Consumer Reports since they do some speakers already ( low end stuff of course). Or CNet or something like that? Non audio-related advertising I think was proposed earlier.

Would the impact be "immense"? Does anyone have evidence as to the size of the potential market i.e. paying customers for this exact type of information? How much would people be willing to pay to find out which speaker tested better than another? Would liability insurance for lawsuits be needed?

I love a good project furthering the pursuit of science so one hand I'm all for this but on the other hand reality says more discovery needs to be taken on how to properly fund this operation.

Again thank-you for reading this far
Bill.

 

[echopraxia]

@BillW I think we actually are agreeing; I must not have explained well enough. I'm not at all saying that nobody's mind will be changed with evidence. What I am claiming is that the tiny minority of people who refuse to concede their belief that $10,000 audiophile speaker wires improve the sound of their speakers may be too far gone. Everyone else can be convinced, but for everyone else, the problem (in the case of, say, audiophile speaker cables or AC power cables) isn't really lack of evidence so much as lack of awareness/education.

 

[nhunt]

Did Amir say he wouldn’t measure active speakers? I don’t get what the fuss is about here. Maybe it should carry on in a different Active vs Passives thread (with some evidence based discussion )

 

[echopraxia]

Just look at posts by @Audiocrusader and the responses, and you will understand where it all comes from.

 

[March Audio]

Yeah you're right. And very few have the mental strength to allow change after decades of exposure to audiophilia. Self handicapping mental walls are hard to break down. Unfortunately it's a sad state of affairs in which the only cure is new blood.

Whilst I have some agreement with this, the forum isn't just about doing one thing. It looks at many aspect of audio reproduction even if it is sub optimal. Also, let's face it there are still very competent and good sounding passive speakers out there.

 

[BillW]

@BillW I think we actually are agreeing; I must not have explained well enough. I'm not at all saying that nobody's mind will be changed with evidence. What I am claiming is that the tiny minority of people who refuse to concede their belief that $10,000 audiophile speaker wires improve the sound of their speakers may be too far gone. Everyone else can be convinced, but for everyone else, the problem (in the case of, say, audiophile speaker cables or AC power cables) isn't really lack of evidence so much as lack of awareness/education.

Ah yes then you and I agree
Bill.

 

[echopraxia]

Yeah you're right. And very few have the mental strength to allow change after decades of exposure to audiophilia. Self handicapping mental walls are hard to break down. Unfortunately it's a sad state of affairs in which the only cure is new blood.

Whilst I have some agreement with this, the forum isn't just about doing one thing. It looks at many aspect of audio reproduction even if it is sub optimal. Also, let's face it there are still very competent and good sounding passive.

I'm not sure why @Audiocrusader feels it is necessary or productive to keep accusing people of having "handicapping mental walls", lacking "mental strength", and expressing how much he looks forward to boomers etc. to die and be replaced ("the only cure is new blood").

Interpreting his posts as generously as humanly possible, even then I don't see the justification: I don't see anyone here close-mindedly dismissing active speakers. But even if there were, that's still no excuse for bad behavior like this.

Statements like these lie somewhere on the spectrum spanning extreme rudeness and outright trolling. At the very least, they do not contribute to productive, civil, professional discussion.

 

[Audiocrusader]

Whilst I have some agreement with this, the forum isn't just about doing one thing. It looks at many aspect of audio reproduction even if it is sub optimal. Also, let's face it there are still very competent and good sounding passive.

Yeah why try to push the envelope, and achieve a higher standard excellence. And at the same time lower cost and clutter. I can see some potential for an active speaker only forum. No luddites allowed.

 

[Audiocrusader]

I'm not sure why @Audiocrusader feels it is necessary or productive to keep accusing people of being mentally handicapped, close-minded, and desperately overdue for being replaced by new blood (e.g. he has made it very clear he can't wait for boomers etc. to go away and die).

Interpreting his posts as generously as humanly possible, even then I don't see the justification: I don't see anyone here close-mindedly dismissing active speakers. But even if there were, that's still no excuse for bad behavior like this.

Statements like these lie somewhere on the spectrum spanning extreme rudeness and outright trolling. At the very least, they do not contribute to productive, civil, professional discussion.

It's called explaining the actual problem in accurate terms. If you don't feel that describes you, then you shouldn't be so defensive. People who have a high self esteem, and self confidence, would not get defensive when they hear talk of a mental issue that is more than well known in the scientific community. Once again I'll share this slide show. Watch it this time:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/belie...h-u9xsf8JUNMVWYmMDthoJv60mZE5SYd0LiRRtK_Efo3E

 

[echopraxia]

It's called explaining the actual problem in accurate terms. If you don't feel that describes you, then you shouldn't be so defensive. People who have a high self esteem, and self confidence, would not get defensive when they hear talk of a mental issue that is more than well known in the scientific community. Once again I'll share this slide show. Watch it this time:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/belie...h-u9xsf8JUNMVWYmMDthoJv60mZE5SYd0LiRRtK_Efo3E

I'm not getting defensive, I'm calling out bad behavior for what it is. You are a troll. You have no idea my age, nor should you need to know it, in order to determine who you send your insults towards.

There is no need to continuously insult an entire age class of people. It adds nothing productive to the discussion. If someone here is being close-minded, by all means let us discuss that. But these generalizations are counter-productive.

 

[amirm]

So you don't like my donation recommendation?

Did you already donate?

 

[Audiocrusader]

I'm not getting defensive, I'm calling out bad behavior for what it is. You are a troll. You have no idea my age, nor should you need to to determine who you send your insults towards.

One again you're assuming I was talking to you. At which point did I say your name? I'm talking about something that happens to all humans as they establish a core belief system and hang onto it for decades. Nobody is immune from this.

 

[Audiocrusader]

Did you already donate?

I was waiting to see if everyone was in?

 

[echopraxia]

One again you're assuming I was talking to you. At which point did I say your name? I'm talking about something that happens to all humans as they establish a core belief system and hang onto it for decades. Nobody is immune from this.

You replied directly to my comment, and included a quote of my post, which both includes my name and a direct link to my post itself.

I understand that you keep bringing up this psychological phenomena of humans. I don't see why it's appropriate or relevant here at this time.

 

[amirm]

I was waiting to see if everyone was in?

Why? I am not waiting for people to come up with $70K to get this system. If I get it, day one I will be writing the check. So every dollar donated now will help with that.