Steve Guttenberg - Audiophiliac

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I’m just amused and astounded by the contortions folks go through to justify abandoning basic controls so they can play make believe.

It's hilarious!

 

[tomtoo]

Of course. So what? We're talking about guys on youtube reviewing expensive audio gear making claims that they can now "hear deeper into the mix" than ever before! If they can't hear that magic depth in a blind test its utter BS.

If they can hear deeper into the mix?? Ok they should tell what mikes was used, what mixing console, what effects. If they can do that, i say ok you are a genius.


Edit says:But Iam have the fear that many of that YT audiophiles not even could tell you if the guitarist plays a strat or a tele.

 

[DonH56]

You can't handwave away the most basic controls.

If you can hear it without peeking, you can hear it. If you can't hear it without peaking, you can't hear it. It's not complicated.

Nope. I disagree. Because the brain doesnt work like a computer. Watching a live band playing is entirely differently different from just hearing it. If music is all about listening, why even bother to go concerts?

I am failing to grasp the relevance to SIY's statement, unless you are saying that you cannot tell the difference between a live band and a recording without peaking (seeing). And if "music is all about listening", why would that not include live and recorded music? Don't you listen to both, or do you just go to concerts to watch? I am very confused...

 

[mhardy6647]

"theres no way anyone would have a taste like this."

You'd be wrong, then.

Zu audio sells quite a lot of speakers to an enthusiastic customer base. Just a couple days ago I was reading some Zu speaker owners who still swoon over their speakers, having owned them for years, so they seem to be enjoying fairly long term satisfaction.

Horses for courses...

But the Zu products, like Klipsch loudspeakers (or any loudspeakers with a distinctive "house" sound) are highly polarizing among "audiophiles".
de gustibus non est disputandum

 

[smallricey]

LOL. What are you talking about? Those avg Joes you mention also claim they CAN hear differences when they listen to gear today and compare it to their memory of gear they listened to days or weeks ago!

? I still don't get your point. We are agreeing that avg Joe's youtuber reviews are garbage.
But you are not refuting blind tests done by avg joes are also garbage based on your own assessment.
Again, what are you actually trying to convey in your post here? Just keep repeating avg Joe's review is garbage to make yourself feel better?

I find it amusing that, a thread found on this site dug deep into the blind test flaws yet there are some who wants to pick and choose "scientific method" lol

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

? I still don't get your point. We are agreeing that avg Joe's youtuber reviews are garbage.
But you are not refuting blind tests done by avg joes are also garbage based on your own assessment.
Again, what are you actually trying to convey in your post here? Just keep repeating avg Joe's review is garbage to make yourself feel better?

I find it amusing that, a thread found on this site dug deep into the blind test flaws yet there are some who wants to pick and choose "scientific method" lol

Borderline trolling now my friend. I'm going to gracefully decline to engage any further.

 

[tomtoo]

But the Zu products, like Klipsch loudspeakers (or any loudspeakers with a distinctive "house" sound) are highly polarizing among "audiophiles".
de gustibus non est disputandum

View attachment 74479
View attachment 74480

No you cant discuss about taste. But you can discuss about the meaning of hifi.

 

[Hephaestus]

But the Zu products, like Klipsch loudspeakers (or any loudspeakers with a distinctive "house" sound) are highly polarizing among "audiophiles".
de gustibus non est disputandum

View attachment 74479
View attachment 74480

Super Bearcat from 30´s is sooo much more elegant than this! Sorry for the off topic

 

[MattHooper]

But the Zu products, like Klipsch loudspeakers (or any loudspeakers with a distinctive "house" sound) are highly polarizing among "audiophiles".
de gustibus non est disputandum

View attachment 74479
View attachment 74480

Yup!

I assume you agree with my point?

 

[MattHooper]

(I'm not defending other posters arguments in this thread, just making a point...)

If humans cannot remember a sound played 30 seconds ago...then I'm even less interested in various reviewers thoughts on a speaker they just listened to compared to one they last heard 6 months ago. lol

But how far do you think you can carry that point?

Let's first stipulate that the ability to quick-switch sources under blinded conditions is the gold standard, the best and most reliable method of discerning if there even IS a difference in sound, let along comparing two sounds. Granted.

Now lets talk about the extent to which it makes sense to completely reject sighted evaluations of speakers, even of the type made by subjective reviewers.

It's true that the more subtle the sound difference we are talking about, the shorter our audible memory. I do sound design, and if I play you a dialogue track at 65 dB and months later you come back and I play it at 64dB, we can not expect you to identify the level difference after such a long time.

But if the dialogue I'm playing is your mother's voice speaking, surely you will be able to recognize that voice when you come back several months later, right? If your mom hadn't called you for 6 months, you wouldn't ask the next time she phoned "who is this?" We DO have a pretty good memory for sounds in practical terms, so long as the sonic signature is distinct enough. That's why our hearing system/memory is reliable enough in the first place. (Once you hear a tiger roar, you wouldn't survive for too long with tigers as a predator if you couldn't remember the characteristics of a Tiger roar).

So, yes quick switching may be necessary to reliably identify subtle sound characteristics. But, no, it does not seem necessary to identify and remember larger sound characteristics.

The question then is where do loudspeakers fit within this continuum?

We know that loudspeakers can produce pretty gross sonic differences, easily identifiable under blind conditions. And the sonic profile of a speaker - it's dispersion, frequency response, distortion profile etc - amounts to causing many speakers to have their own "voice" as it were, their own sonic characteristics. If you have lived with a certain speaker for a while, paying close attention to that sonic profile, is it that implausible
that you could, if not perfectly, generally retain some memory of what that speaker sounded like?

My son took one of our cars when he went to school, so it was gone for about a year. When I drove it again for the first time and put on a podcast and music, I immediately recognized it sounded like *shit* compared to when I used the audio system before. It was muffled an boomy and that was, I know, NOT how this system sounded when I used it. Sure enough, checking the EQ, my rap-loving son had pushed the bass way up. As soon as I re-set the bass controls, it sounded as I remembered.

Our sonic memory is not wholly unreliable. If it was...it wouldn't be doing work for us.

Similarly, if you lived with a Revel speaker for quite a while, concentrated on the character and identified "this speaker is smooth throughout the audio band" you've essentially apprehended it's sonic profile.

If you sold the Revel and months later put a Zu speaker in your system, with it's clearly audible and idiosyncratic frequency response/distortion profile, do you think it's implausible you would recognize real differences between the Revel and Zu speaker - that the Zu sounds different, and some of the ways it sounds different?

Again: clearly I'm not arguing for the perfect reliability of sighted impressions and subjective reviews. Blind testing/quick switching remains the gold standard for having high levels of confidence and removing variables. The question is how far can we take the skepticism in regard to sighted and subjective reports of loudspeakers? It surely can't be total skepticism, because total skepticism about our ability to identify sounds reliably without blind testing would run in to deep problems in explaining the actual real-world success of our auditory perception in navigating the world all day long.

 

[mhardy6647]

Yup!

I assume you agree with my point?

Well, I neither agree or disagree really.
There are a lot of loudspeakers that sound OK enough to get a pass with many more-or-less serious listeners.
Then again, there are loudspeakers with characteristics that are so idiosyncratic that they are love 'em or hate 'em products.

Heritage Klipsch
Zu
"classic" JBL and Altec monitors and/or theater loudspeakers
Cerwin-Vega!

Just to pick a few not-at-all random examples.

Super Bearcat from 30´s is sooo much more elegant than this! Sorry for the off topic

The real Bearcat of the early days ('teens) of automobilia was exceeding cool. I remember building a model of one a long, long time ago

 

[Thomas savage]

When you dip into a thread , read some and wish you hadn't.

I feel someone's stolen my life a little here .

 

[Wes]

If humans cannot remember a sound played 30 seconds ago...then I'm even less interested in various reviewers thoughts on a speaker they just listened to compared to one they last heard 6 months ago. lol

...

the important thing is for them to hear a speaker during the critical period

that way they will imprint on it and recall it forever

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

(I'm not defending other posters arguments in this thread, just making a point...)



But how far do you think you can carry that point?

Let's first stipulate that the ability to quick-switch sources under blinded conditions is the gold standard, the best and most reliable method of discerning if there even IS a difference in sound, let along comparing two sounds. Granted.

Now lets talk about the extent to which it makes sense to completely reject sighted evaluations of speakers, even of the type made by subjective reviewers.

It's true that the more subtle the sound difference we are talking about, the shorter our audible memory. I do sound design, and if I play you a dialogue track at 65 dB and months later you come back and I play it at 64dB, we can not expect you to identify the level difference after such a long time.

But if the dialogue I'm playing is your mother's voice speaking, surely you will be able to recognize that voice when you come back several months later, right? If your mom hadn't called you for 6 months, you wouldn't ask the next time she phoned "who is this?" We DO have a pretty good memory for sounds in practical terms, so long as the sonic signature is distinct enough. That's why our hearing system/memory is reliable enough in the first place. (Once you hear a tiger roar, you wouldn't survive for too long with tigers as a predator if you couldn't remember the characteristics of a Tiger roar).

So, yes quick switching may be necessary to reliably identify subtle sound characteristics. But, no, it does not seem necessary to identify and remember larger sound characteristics.

The question then is where do loudspeakers fit within this continuum?

We know that loudspeakers can produce pretty gross sonic differences, easily identifiable under blind conditions. And the sonic profile of a speaker - it's dispersion, frequency response, distortion profile etc - amounts to causing many speakers to have their own "voice" as it were, their own sonic characteristics. If you have lived with a certain speaker for a while, paying close attention to that sonic profile, is it that implausible
that you could, if not perfectly, generally retain some memory of what that speaker sounded like?

My son took one of our cars when he went to school, so it was gone for about a year. When I drove it again for the first time and put on a podcast and music, I immediately recognized it sounded like *shit* compared to when I used the audio system before. It was muffled an boomy and that was, I know, NOT how this system sounded when I used it. Sure enough, checking the EQ, my rap-loving son had pushed the bass way up. As soon as I re-set the bass controls, it sounded as I remembered.

Our sonic memory is not wholly unreliable. If it was...it wouldn't be doing work for us.

Similarly, if you lived with a Revel speaker for quite a while, concentrated on the character and identified "this speaker is smooth throughout the audio band" you've essentially apprehended it's sonic profile.

If you sold the Revel and months later put a Zu speaker in your system, with it's clearly audible and idiosyncratic frequency response/distortion profile, do you think it's implausible you would recognize real differences between the Revel and Zu speaker - that the Zu sounds different, and some of the ways it sounds different?

Again: clearly I'm not arguing for the perfect reliability of sighted impressions and subjective reviews. Blind testing/quick switching remains the gold standard for having high levels of confidence and removing variables. The question is how far can we take the skepticism in regard to sighted and subjective reports of loudspeakers? It surely can't be total skepticism, because total skepticism about our ability to identify sounds reliably without blind testing would run in to deep problems in explaining the actual real-world success of our auditory perception in navigating the world all day long.

Let's be clear here, speakers don't all sound the same. By no means do I think one wouldn't be able to distinguish between two different sets of speakers (other components are a different matter) in a blind test even assuming good volume matching (which is of course fundamental.) My problem with the subjective reviews is this - when Steve G or Darko or whatever wax philosophic about whatever new bling is on the test bed, they are making a qualitative assessment. When Steve says this new speaker has a "juiciness" and a "zing" and that it brings "new life" to music, he's saying "this here speaker is one you should maybe consider if you want to buy a new set of speakers."

That's all well and good. However, my belief is that most of what this comes down to is the momentary pleasure of hearing a new thing. It's happened to me so many times over the years...every new piece of gear I add to my system invariably brings new life to my music! I hear stuff I've never heard before. It's all so amazing! Then, after a few days I settle down and realize it really isn't true...all that new stuff I thought was there had always been there. In order for the reviews to mean anything to me (and I'm talking about me here, not anyone else) I really need to see the reviewers preferences put to the test. I want to see that side by side blind comparison where they choose the speaker they find the most pleasing in real time. Because I think more often than not, they'd find the new bling isn't really all that amazing.

Now, doing things like that would be a total pita. They'd really need an assistant to set it all up for them and I know it's not going to happen so I'm just going to continue to not pay much attention to their listening impressions. No great loss really...

 

[smallricey]

Borderline trolling now my friend. I'm going to gracefully decline to engage any further.

I thought you are the troll, since you just keep going off the tangent avoiding answer the question lol. But hey, to agree to disagree.

 

[smallricey]

(I'm not defending other posters arguments in this thread, just making a point...)



But how far do you think you can carry that point?

Let's first stipulate that the ability to quick-switch sources under blinded conditions is the gold standard, the best and most reliable method of discerning if there even IS a difference in sound, let along comparing two sounds. Granted.

Now lets talk about the extent to which it makes sense to completely reject sighted evaluations of speakers, even of the type made by subjective reviewers.

It's true that the more subtle the sound difference we are talking about, the shorter our audible memory. I do sound design, and if I play you a dialogue track at 65 dB and months later you come back and I play it at 64dB, we can not expect you to identify the level difference after such a long time.

But if the dialogue I'm playing is your mother's voice speaking, surely you will be able to recognize that voice when you come back several months later, right? If your mom hadn't called you for 6 months, you wouldn't ask the next time she phoned "who is this?" We DO have a pretty good memory for sounds in practical terms, so long as the sonic signature is distinct enough. That's why our hearing system/memory is reliable enough in the first place. (Once you hear a tiger roar, you wouldn't survive for too long with tigers as a predator if you couldn't remember the characteristics of a Tiger roar).

So, yes quick switching may be necessary to reliably identify subtle sound characteristics. But, no, it does not seem necessary to identify and remember larger sound characteristics.

The question then is where do loudspeakers fit within this continuum?

We know that loudspeakers can produce pretty gross sonic differences, easily identifiable under blind conditions. And the sonic profile of a speaker - it's dispersion, frequency response, distortion profile etc - amounts to causing many speakers to have their own "voice" as it were, their own sonic characteristics. If you have lived with a certain speaker for a while, paying close attention to that sonic profile, is it that implausible
that you could, if not perfectly, generally retain some memory of what that speaker sounded like?

My son took one of our cars when he went to school, so it was gone for about a year. When I drove it again for the first time and put on a podcast and music, I immediately recognized it sounded like *shit* compared to when I used the audio system before. It was muffled an boomy and that was, I know, NOT how this system sounded when I used it. Sure enough, checking the EQ, my rap-loving son had pushed the bass way up. As soon as I re-set the bass controls, it sounded as I remembered.

Our sonic memory is not wholly unreliable. If it was...it wouldn't be doing work for us.

Similarly, if you lived with a Revel speaker for quite a while, concentrated on the character and identified "this speaker is smooth throughout the audio band" you've essentially apprehended it's sonic profile.

If you sold the Revel and months later put a Zu speaker in your system, with it's clearly audible and idiosyncratic frequency response/distortion profile, do you think it's implausible you would recognize real differences between the Revel and Zu speaker - that the Zu sounds different, and some of the ways it sounds different?

Again: clearly I'm not arguing for the perfect reliability of sighted impressions and subjective reviews. Blind testing/quick switching remains the gold standard for having high levels of confidence and removing variables. The question is how far can we take the skepticism in regard to sighted and subjective reports of loudspeakers? It surely can't be total skepticism, because total skepticism about our ability to identify sounds reliably without blind testing would run in to deep problems in explaining the actual real-world success of our auditory perception in navigating the world all day long.

I think the point is that are you able to distinguish you mom's voice 3 days ago vs a week ago?
As we know we all sound so slightly different when we talk too much or haven't drink enough water or maybe a bit nasal.
But no, they are all your mom's voice, you most likely can't remember which days your mom's voice is particular dry.

Same with the Revel speaker analogy, are you able to distinguish bass turn up by 1 point vs 5 point? Probably,
What about 0 to 1 point. Maybe you will know something is different but cannot "test it" correctly during a test setting.

Again, How far can you take to say that blind test is the absolute conclusive evidence if our sound memory is unreliable as the study shows.
Now, I'm fully advocating that a lot of arcane audiophile equipment are snake oil.
However, if you really want to dig into accuracy of the absolute testing, then I think this is the effect that needs to be taken into consideration.

Oh I have done A/B test, there's no difference.
OK, are you an avg Joe or trained? How was the test setup
Are you able to mitigate the "sound memory" effect? What did you do to mitigate it, etc.

Apparently, some people choose to use sarcasm to avoid the question when their "religion" is being tested.

 

[SIY]

Keep waving your hands. The analogies are only getting worse.

Some of us trust our ears. If you don’t and have to peek, then by all means, feel free to believe nonsense rather than admit that maybe... you can’t hear it and you were mistaken. Not everyone has that level of intellectual honesty.

 

[MattHooper]

Let's be clear here, speakers don't all sound the same. By no means do I think one wouldn't be able to distinguish between two different sets of speakers (other components are a different matter) in a blind test even assuming good volume matching (which is of course fundamental.) My problem with the subjective reviews is this - when Steve G or Darko or whatever wax philosophic about whatever new bling is on the test bed, they are making a qualitative assessment. When Steve says this new speaker has a "juiciness" and a "zing" and that it brings "new life" to music, he's saying "this here speaker is one you should maybe consider if you want to buy a new set of speakers."

That's all well and good. However, my belief is that most of what this comes down to is the momentary pleasure of hearing a new thing. It's happened to me so many times over the years...every new piece of gear I add to my system invariably brings new life to my music! I hear stuff I've never heard before. It's all so amazing! Then, after a few days I settle down and realize it really isn't true...all that new stuff I thought was there had always been there. In order for the reviews to mean anything to me (and I'm talking about me here, not anyone else) I really need to see the reviewers preferences put to the test. I want to see that side by side blind comparison where they choose the speaker they find the most pleasing in real time. Because I think more often than not, they'd find the new bling isn't really all that amazing.

Now, doing things like that would be a total pita. They'd really need an assistant to set it all up for them and I know it's not going to happen so I'm just going to continue to not pay much attention to their listening impressions. No great loss really...

Seems to be a slightly different point than the one I was addressing. But...fair enough.

 

[MattHooper]

I think the point is that are you able to distinguish you mom's voice 3 days ago vs a week ago?
As we know we all sound so slightly different when we talk too much or haven't drink enough water or maybe a bit nasal.
But no, they are all your mom's voice, you most likely can't remember which days your mom's voice is particular dry.

Same with the Revel speaker analogy, are you able to distinguish bass turn up by 1 point vs 5 point? Probably,
What about 0 to 1 point. Maybe you will know something is different but cannot "test it" correctly during a test setting.

Again, How far can you take to say that blind test is the absolute conclusive evidence if our sound memory is unreliable as the study shows.
Now, I'm fully advocating that a lot of arcane audiophile equipment are snake oil.
However, if you really want to dig into accuracy of the absolute testing, then I think this is the effect that needs to be taken into consideration.

Oh I have done A/B test, there's no difference.
OK, are you an avg Joe or trained? How was the test setup
Are you able to mitigate the "sound memory" effect? What did you do to mitigate it, etc.

Apparently, some people choose to use sarcasm to avoid the question when their "religion" is being tested.

Maybe I'm particulary obtuse today, but I can't understand that post (and don't know if it's agreeing or disagreeing with mine).

 

[DonH56]

I think the point is that are you able to distinguish you mom's voice 3 days ago vs a week ago?
As we know we all sound so slightly different when we talk too much or haven't drink enough water or maybe a bit nasal.
But no, they are all your mom's voice, you most likely can't remember which days your mom's voice is particular dry.

Same with the Revel speaker analogy, are you able to distinguish bass turn up by 1 point vs 5 point? Probably,
What about 0 to 1 point. Maybe you will know something is different but cannot "test it" correctly during a test setting.

Again, How far can you take to say that blind test is the absolute conclusive evidence if our sound memory is unreliable as the study shows.
Now, I'm fully advocating that a lot of arcane audiophile equipment are snake oil.
However, if you really want to dig into accuracy of the absolute testing, then I think this is the effect that needs to be taken into consideration.

Oh I have done A/B test, there's no difference.
OK, are you an avg Joe or trained? How was the test setup
Are you able to mitigate the "sound memory" effect? What did you do to mitigate it, etc.

Apparently, some people choose to use sarcasm to avoid the question when their "religion" is being tested.

https://smile.amazon.com/Sound-Repr...eywords=toole+acoustics&qid=1595383418&sr=8-1