• 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!

Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

Status
Not open for further replies.

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
How often does that sort of thing occur? And to the composite mix, so that the user's system can effect a genuine 'correction'? If, as is more likely, one of the sources in the recording has some undesirable frequency response anomalies (in your opinion), any accidental 'correction' with a non-neutral system or deliberate modification with tone controls, etc. will have unwanted side effects on everything else in the recording.

All this assumes that (a) a 'quirky' system's characteristics just happen to align with a recording's anomalies, or (b) that listeners have the time, inclination and ability to fiddle about with existing recordings in order to tailor them to their own tastes. Unlikely.

and that's the point, how do you even know what correction to apply?
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Nope, not what I am saying at all. No need to interpret what I said. Just take it verbatim. There's nothing cryptic or open to interpretation. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

I am not the only one on this forum who you claim doesn't get what you say. Can we all be wrong?

This game comes to mind: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/conversation-debate/
( It is all about the art of arguing rather than resolution).
PC statement: General comment only.
 
Last edited:

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
The research is clear, analogueScott doesn't want to believe it,. Oh well. Perhaps he should look at the Toole literature before continuing to argue here?

I think it should be said, though, that research on such a fickly subject as human perception (not to mention human preferences) is not super-clear. Statistical research - all research actually - has pitfalls. The ideal is to have numerous scholarly groups working on the same questions, employing different methodologies and different perspectives. That way, there's a bigger chance that methodological shortcomings will come to light, and the knowledge generated will be more reliable. The problem with "applied psychoacoustic research on sound reproduction" as a research discipline is that it's a small discipline, with comparably few researchers. You have Harman/Toole/Olive, and some guys in Germany and France, and a very few people elsewhere. This means that it's difficult to attempt to reproduce previous studies, and we can't really say that "the research is clear".

That being said, I think Toole has done immensive service to the audio community by bringing in his systematic perspectives. But I don't see it as the final word. Concerning multiple subwoofers/bass localization for example: Welti/Toole are "clear" that multiple subwoofers is the best approach. However, here are two British researchers who claim that the stereo image can be muddied when bass waves are not coming from the same direction as the higher frequencies: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...TIC_SPACES/links/5441120f0cf2e6f0c0f5714f.pdf

Are they right? Or are Welti and Toole right? I have no friggin idea. Intuitively, I'll tend to stick with Welti/Toole, as that research has been more encompassing, and also been reproduced to a certain degree. But there are audiophiles who swear that the ideal is to have full range bass coming from the same direction, if one has a room or bass traps which allows for that without creating modes which mess everything up. There is a possibility that they are right.
 
Last edited:

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
To my knowledge there is nothing that significantly contradicts the research or its methodology. Welcome to read anything that does. Still struggling to understand why some people find it such a surprising set of conclusions. Don't misinterpret my agreement with the Toole research as dismissing the possibility of other facts coming to light, I just dont buy into the audiophile nervosa of "theres stuff we don't know", which is just a neat way of justifying any particular dogma. Until compelling contradictory information comes along I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion that people prefer neutral measuring speakers.

Specifically regarding the multiple subs, I have just moved to 4 subs after years of a single one. I have subjectively noted major improvements in the bass, which are confirmed by measurement. FWIW, I have noted no detrimental effects to stereo image. In fact one thing I have always noted with non-centrally located single subs (ie not in between the two speakers) is a slight "phasiness" to the low frequencies. This is now gone. That is just my personal observation, I don't expect it to be taken as fact.

I will read your link in detail later, but it seems a bit nebulous at first glance;

The current project here has already stressed the fact that localization performance is dependent on room topology and source/listener location1,2. If all these variables are not addressed, then it is impossible to develop a robust conclusion, hence the focus on developing a generalized theory in this work.

It must be stressed that the recommendation for 1.8 uncorrupted wavelengths for accurate
localization requires further validation.

...mmmm...interesting but come back when you have figured it out guys :). However in the meantime multiple subs definitely solve known, measureable and audible problems.
 
Last edited:

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
Alan how are your subs physically arranged and how are you using them?
BW Keith
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Alan how are your subs physically arranged and how are you using them?
BW Keith
I haven't actually finished the set-up to its conclusion, however at the moment linearized by Acourate with close measurement then plonked one in each corner and finally corrected at listening position by Acourate. They are fed a mono sum of the L & R. XO is currently 60Hz but may change. Rear pair are actually 3dB lower than the front and have not actually been specifically time aligned beyond Acourates listening position correction., so there is work still to do.

Major 1st room modes are gone, other modes significantly reduced. Bass is tight, extended and varies very little around the room. Measurements even with this incomplete set-up:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../how-cheap-is-your-sub.1967/page-4#post-53735
 
Last edited:

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Your answer lacks the specificity to be of any use.
I'm describing an approach, a methodology, a way of thinking about getting results - so of course it's non-specific. Every particular system will have its own set of, highly specific, areas that need to be addressed, if the owner wants optimum sound from it.

And the starting point is to be able to listen in such a way that you can identify what the setup is getting wrong - you can't 'fix' something, if you can't even perceive that it's misbehaving. Brushing off a less than ideal listening experience with a "Of course, that was a lousy recording in the first place!!" means that the listener is miles from having the right attitude to be able to sort things ...
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
I am not the only one on this forum who you claim doesn't get what you say. Can we all be wrong?

This game comes to mind: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/conversation-debate/
( It is all about the art of arguing rather than resolution).
PC statement: General comment only.
In regards to my post about imaging you actually are the only one who has seemed to have misinterpreted what I said. And yes, all one of you can be wrong about the meaing of what I said in that post. I'm going to take my word about what I meant over your word about what I meant.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
I will admit that my mindreading skills are not infallible. :cool:
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
This is my sort of sound stage:

DOIJ_ToUMAAPjFB.jpg
 

Arnold Krueger

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
160
Likes
83
Ok so if someone produces a recording and in the production of that recording they put a 30 db boost in the trebble region and a 30 db boost in the mid base that recording will sound better over a neutral sound system than a sound system with a recessed trebble and mid bass? The assertion made that you are defending is "the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording." I doubt very much that his research shows that. But if it does it clearly is flawed. Any recording could be goosed in any way at the artists' discretion.


I see a humungous excluded middle argument, actually several chained together. If you are really serious about that, I'll explain and debunk. Really?
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
I see a humungous excluded middle argument, actually several chained together. If you are really serious about that, I'll explain and debunk. Really?
I'm not excluding the middle here. The assertion "the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording." is where the excluded middle lies. And again, I doubt very much that is actually what Toole's research shows given the enormous range of recordings out there. It would be one thing to assert that his research strongly suggests that most people prefer neutral playback systems overall even with a broad range of recordings. But the assertion I am objecting to is an absolute assertion that includes all recordings and all listeners without any exceptions. Nope not buying that assertion.
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
I will admit that my mindreading skills are not infallible. :cool:
A good reason to just stick to what people actually write and not try to read things into it that you might suspect they are "thinking."
 

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
It’s all getting a bit bogged down by various miscommunications with the mild irritation that can arise from these kinds of discussions tempering the thread a little to the negative side.

I see the usefulness of this thread is dwindling, I’d invite the protagonists to transfer to other areas of discussion
on the forum as this debate is serving no one.


From my POV @Analog Scott position is clear, maybe because he’s got analog in his name folks can’t understand him through the wow and flutter :D

Move on...

Thanks
Bias effects at work here? :)
 

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
To my knowledge there is nothing that significantly contradicts the research or its methodology. Welcome to read anything that does. Still struggling to understand why some people find it such a surprising set of conclusions. Don't misinterpret my agreement with the Toole research as dismissing the possibility of other facts coming to light, I just dont buy into the audiophile nervosa of "theres stuff we don't know", which is just a neat way of justifying any particular dogma. Until compelling contradictory information comes along I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion that people prefer neutral measuring speakers.

Specifically regarding the multiple subs, I have just moved to 4 subs after years of a single one. I have subjectively noted major improvements in the bass, which are confirmed by measurement. FWIW, I have noted no detrimental effects to stereo image. In fact one thing I have always noted with non-centrally located single subs (ie not in between the two speakers) is a slight "phasiness" to the low frequencies. This is now gone. That is just my personal observation, I don't expect it to be taken as fact.

I will read your link in detail later, but it seems a bit nebulous at first glance;

The current project here has already stressed the fact that localization performance is dependent on room topology and source/listener location1,2. If all these variables are not addressed, then it is impossible to develop a robust conclusion, hence the focus on developing a generalized theory in this work.

It must be stressed that the recommendation for 1.8 uncorrupted wavelengths for accurate
localization requires further validation.

...mmmm...interesting but come back when you have figured it out guys :). However in the meantime multiple subs definitely solve known, measureable and audible problems.

Good response. Very cool that it works out for you with four subs - results seem very impressive! I might try it out soon myself.

As for Toole, I don't think of this as "stuff we don't know". It is simply a question about the external validity of his experiments on preference - how far the results can be generalized beyond the experimental conditions. Some things, I would argue, is fairly obvious. Nobody likes a speaker that introduces lots of noise and hum at random places (but then again, some people like vinyl... ). It is highly unreasonable that anybody would like a speaker that has no output below 150 hz or above 3000 hz. Or where the frequency response is completely random. But if you assume a speaker A which has a relatively sloping frequency response, and a speaker B which has a softly rising frequency response? I feel fairly convinced that there are people out there who will prefer both of these speakers over a neutral one.

Furthermore, can we be sure that phase doesn't matter, like he has claimed? Are his experiments universally valid in that regard? How about the new phase coherent speakers, is that unnecessary complications?

Or his claim that first reflections are mostly beneficial, and that wide dispersion is the ideal - does this mean that Geoff Martin in B&O and Dutch&Dutch are way off when they aim for narrow dispersion in Beolab 50 and the 8c?

That said, I have still to read the new edition of his book. But I doubt that his findings on preferences is the final word :)
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
The research didn't find everyone universally preferred neutral, so of course there are some outliers. Someone earlier mentioned TVs. If I said to you that people preferred a neutral colour balance I doubt very much I would get challenged. Oh I'm sure some prefer a red tint, and some blue, but that would be missing the point.

So why all the objections with audio?

Can we be sure? There is always room for development of ideas and conclusions, just waiting for some compelling research to show different.
 
Last edited:

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
The research didn't find everyone universally preferred neutral, so of course there are some outliers. Someone earlier mention TVs.. If I said to you that people preferred a neutral colour balance I doubt very much I would get challenged. Oh I'm sure some prefer a red tint, and some blue, but that would be missing the point.

Can we be sure? There is always room for development of ideas and conclusions, just waiting for some compelling research to show different.

Ok, good point re:TVs. But it gets more interesting, perhaps, if we compare different screen technologies. I've always found that I prefer the LCD screen on the iPhone over the AMOLED screen in samsung phones (haven't tried the new iPhone though). Both of these screens are reasonably neutral. Differences are slight. Still, I have a very distinct preference in this regard. As do others - some prefer the AMOLED screens. Does it make sense to do blind testing of which screen technology people prefer? Perhaps. But whatever one finds, I'm pretty sure there will always be substantial minorities who have preferences which go in the other direction.
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
No one is arguing the variabilities of the recording part of the process. One of my criticisms is the lack of conformance to a standard for monitoring in studios.

Of course, it might be better if there would exist more standardization in the recording process, but you can´t break the problem/confusion if you just approach only the other end of the chain, means the listener/consumer situation.

However, randomly adding further distortions at replay does nothing to improve the situation, it exacerbates it. Whatever flavour you choose to add for one recording will be wrong for another.

You assert again two things as if it were facts, but in reality we don´t know. The point of exacerbation isn´t clearly a given as it depends on the the distortion already present in the recording. Remember the quite wildly varying response patterns in the mentioned study. If the consumer´s reproduction departs from the average/ideal in the same way as the production system did it surely would give better results.

Most people tend to buy records that deliver "good sound quality" if reproduced by their system, so the distortion might have been random in the beginning if likely isn´t anymore later.

Not to mention the Toole research shows that people still prefer playback neutral systems regardless of recording. Im not sure as to why this is contentious for some.

Could you cite a reference for that? I can´t remember that they did a formal study with recording quality as the independent variable.
Afair Tooles conclusion from the mentioned study of Mäkivirta/Anet were quite similar to mine.
Furthermore i thought we were discussing the concept of "fidelity" seperated from preference considerations.

Edit: changed the first paragraph for (hopefully) better explanation of my point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom