- Thread Starter
- #21
I mean in comparisons of different speakers, neutral was most preferred. If something colored was more preferred, it would have been more preferred...right?
They were preferred to non-neutral speakers with other issues besides frequency response (such as directivity as Sean Olive states). Also, there is only a finite number of speakers that can be used in an experiment - the likelihood that a speaker matches up exactly with one's highest preference is near zero, but we still all have a general preference towards neutrality, thus the neutral speakers still won out. However, based on the results of the 2013 study, the hierarchy in preference is not just non-neutral < neutral, but non-neutral < neutral < neutral with user-adjusted bass/treble. It seems intuitive, but often subjective preferences are met with comments about expectation bias and invalidating the preference because it wasn't done under double-blind, scientifically rigorous conditions because preferences in sound have been already scientifically determined. The mere existence of a listener liking the results of his/her tone control adjustments more than dead-neutral shows it's not - preference is still ultimately subjective within the confines of a design being "well behaved."
I almost think adjustment of tone controls actually adds a biasing factor. People think they want a little more treble, so they twist the treble knob a bit and then "oh yeah, yeah that's more like it!"
Possible, but at this point, merely speculation and conjecture. I prefer to take the results of Sean Olive's paper at face value. In an experiment, how do we tell a subject to adjust something to his/her liking and actually know for sure they like it better? We just have to take their word for it.
I posted this as more than just a thought exercise to show that different people like different sound (within neutrality parameters). I wanted to argue that "preference rating" is a misnomer when it should really be called something else that's more accurate to what it is: a rating in how a design adheres to engineering principles that came from past Harman experiments from which some misleading conclusions can be drawn (that neutrality is the king of preferences, for example, when the 2013 Harman study shows this isn't really the case)
Last edited: