• 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!

Those of you who believe measurements aren't the whole story, do you have a hypothesis why that is?

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,830
Maybe rather than only measuring kit we should be strengthening our psychoacoustic theories?

Regards Andrew

We are ... but it is beyond the average magazine reviewer. Amir / ASR looking at preference curves, etc. is already a big step up from most.
 

Andrew s

Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
69
Likes
127
We are ... but it is beyond the average magazine reviewer. Amir / ASR looking at preference curves, etc. is already a big step up from most.
Agreed but only if the preference curves have some validity. I also wonder how stable they are with time and or different generations of listener.
 

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,830
Agreed but only if the preference curves have some validity. I also wonder how stable they are with time and or different generations of listener.

If we could have consensus in the industry, from recording to playback, we would just set the optimum playback response in room as flat, and then adjust the recording so that we have optimal preference on playback (on average). Of course we would also have an optimum direct/reflected ratio, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The preference curves have heavy influence from the music played to create them which has heavy influence from the people and environment used to create that music. There is little interest in improving the situation, but advanced surround may improve the situation out of necessity of making it work properly.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
Yes it was good on the few occasions it worked. I was very glad to trade it back in for an SME. Of course I am a big digital fan but in keeping with my theories can’t bear to part with my old Thorens/SME combo.
Mine was pretty reliable as long as I kept to a regimen of cleaning the pins and removing any film from the surface of the mercury. My real problem was (is?) that I cannot keep my hands off stuff and tried to make unwise and un correctable modifications.
Yup. Moved to an SME III with Shure and Ortofon integrated wands which I still have. As for Thorens but that's in parts, too. :facepalm:
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,216
Likes
24,178
But of no value.
Well, from my perspective, besides the dishonor to (love him or hate him) a true titan of the history of hifi (Dr. Sidney Harman), it suggests - to me - a sloppiness that works against any attempt to deliver an engaging and convincing message.
I didn't make my living as an academic (well... I guess I do nowadays, in retirement, at least partially, as an adjunct professor) but I take responsible scholarship rather seriously.

PS, Yes, I mistyped it, too. But I fixed it.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,211
Likes
7,589
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Well, from my perspective, besides the dishonor to (love him or hate him) a true titan of the history of hifi (Dr. Sidney Harman), it suggests - to me - a sloppiness that works against any attempt to deliver an engaging and convincing message.
I didn't make my living as an academic (well... I guess I do nowadays, in retirement, at least partially, as an adjunct professor) but I take responsible scholarship rather seriously.

PS, Yes, I mistyped it, too. But I fixed it.
And when I saw the correct spelling in the quote followed by misspelling in the text, the credibility of the rest of the post tanked [as far as I'm concerned].
 

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,830
Here's my take: if you're going to lecture us on your revelation that The Referenced Authority Has Gotten This Wrong in a particular way, you ought to try to get the simple stuff right, like spelling of the name of the referenced authority.

Pedantic: "Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details,"

You have corrected a small and insignificant error (which was a typo or auto correction) while showing no insight or analysis into what I wrote. The Referenced authority ONLY published, based on a very small sample set what the preferred in-room response was with MUSIC. However, what the referenced authority did not clearly state, and what other are missing, possibly due to lack of knowledge or experience, is that these reference curves DO NOT represent the preferred in-room response for an audio system, BUT the in-room response for an audio system playing a limited subset of recorded music, music that is influenced, flawed, and subject to people, equipment and processes of the creation of said music. Your need to highlight spelling of a company name does not advance the discussion nor act in any way as a refutation of what I wrote. The simple reality is what I wrote is absolutely true, the reference curves are often thrown around without an understand of what they mean, and that leads to erroneous conclusions and potentially erroneous design decisions, especially as @Andrew s noted, when time, and demographics is taken into account, both of the test subjects, but more importantly, those that created the music and even the demographic relationship between those that created the music and the test subjects.

With respect to other things I noted, I stand by them as well and invite a critical discussion and analysis.
 

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,830
Well, from my perspective, besides the dishonor to (love him or hate him) a true titan of the history of hifi (Dr. Sidney Harman), it suggests - to me - a sloppiness that works against any attempt to deliver an engaging and convincing message.
I didn't make my living as an academic (well... I guess I do nowadays, in retirement, at least partially, as an adjunct professor) but I take responsible scholarship rather seriously.

PS, Yes, I mistyped it, too. But I fixed it.

I did make my living as an academic, and in industry, and given the vast differences in specific language abilities due to it being a much smaller world, it is fortunate that I concentrate more on what people say, and not small irrelevant mistakes. Dr. Harman (Ph. D. Education) was not responsible for the the preferred in-room response, that was referenced back to Todd Welti and Sean Olive, and later referenced by Toole. These tests were with a small number of subjects (the headphone test was more extensive). That you assign my "insult" (no correction and clarification) to Harman is more sloppy than a simple misspelling. May I suggest less pedantic and more more on topic?
 

MaxBuck

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,515
Likes
2,117
Location
SoCal, Baby!
Pedantic: "Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details,"

You have corrected a small and insignificant error (which was a typo or auto correction) while showing no insight or analysis into what I wrote. The Referenced authority ONLY published, based on a very small sample set what the preferred in-room response was with MUSIC. However, what the referenced authority did not clearly state, and what other are missing, possibly due to lack of knowledge or experience, is that these reference curves DO NOT represent the preferred in-room response for an audio system, BUT the in-room response for an audio system playing a limited subset of recorded music, music that is influenced, flawed, and subject to people, equipment and processes of the creation of said music. Your need to highlight spelling of a company name does not advance the discussion nor act in any way as a refutation of what I wrote. The simple reality is what I wrote is absolutely true, the reference curves are often thrown around without an understand of what they mean, and that leads to erroneous conclusions and potentially erroneous design decisions, especially as @Andrew s noted, when time, and demographics is taken into account, both of the test subjects, but more importantly, those that created the music and even the demographic relationship between those that created the music and the test subjects.

With respect to other things I noted, I stand by them as well and invite a critical discussion and analysis.
I'd say engaging in long, frustrated rants over people making an accurate correction of one's errors might also qualify as pedantic, but what do I know?
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,211
Likes
7,589
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I did make my living as an academic, and in industry, and given the vast differences in specific language abilities due to it being a much smaller world, it is fortunate that I concentrate more on what people say, and not small irrelevant mistakes. Dr. Harman (Ph. D. Education) was not responsible for the the preferred in-room response, that was referenced back to Todd Welti and Sean Olive, and later referenced by Toole. These tests were with a small number of subjects (the headphone test was more extensive). That you assign my "insult" (no correction and clarification) to Harman is more sloppy than a simple misspelling. May I suggest less pedantic and more more on topic?
Sure: what are speakers used for?
Listening to music.
Are those recordings going to demonstrate the subjective impressions and decisions of the various audio engineers and producers of that music?
Of course.
But that makes no difference, as those are among the recordings that will be played back on those speakers.

The Harman curves are about preference, not perfection, making your impressions just as subjective as anyone else's.
And ultimately pedantic.
"Harman" is a huge company with its fingers in all sorts of pies, one of those names anybody paying attention can't miss.
 

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,830
Sure: what are speakers used for?
Listening to music.
Are those recordings going to demonstrate the subjective impressions and decisions of the various audio engineers and producers of that music?
Of course.
But that makes no difference, as those are among the recordings that will be played back on those speakers.

The Harman curves are about preference, not perfection, making your impressions just as subjective as anyone else's.

There is nothing "subjective" about what I wrote at all and your statement is just arguing for arguments sake. The curves are widely presented as a "reference" for how a speaker should behave in room, but without the very necessary caveats of what they actually represent. IF you actually went back to my original post, you will note it was specifically making a response to Duke w.r.t. his statement that there was no basis for why the curves are the way they are. I consider Duke quite knowledgeable, but that he would make this statement (no offence Duke) is more indicative of how this curve is inaccurately presented and accurately used than Duke's knowledge. When you make the correlation that the curve is highly dependent on the music which is highly dependent on the people, equipment and processes used, then that provides significant insight into why aspects of the curve are likely to be what they are. As suggested by someone else, there is no guarantee that these curves will even survive time nor demographics. Preference curves change with time (and demographics) even for reproduction. In North America, a warmer white artificial light is considered more "natural" versus Asia, even though arguably a cooler white light can provide overall better color perception.
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
IF you actually went back to my original post, you will note it was specifically making a response to Duke w.r.t. his statement that there was no basis for why the curves are the way they are. [emphasis Duke's]


But that's not what I said:

Here are a few areas where loudspeaker measurements are arguably not as predictive as we might hope...

Harman's subjectively-preferred steady-state in-room response curves, whether blind-generated by trained listeners or untrained listeners or both or based on extensive loudspeaker preference data, are all non-flat (and non-constant-slope) and counter-intuitive.


And in a subsequent post:

Here are the steady-state in-room response curves from Toole's book:

View attachment 144914

It is not clear to me that ANY of these curves are intuitive.


Neither of my statements about those curves is equivalent to the statement you attributed to me, namely "there was no basis for why the curves are the way they are."
 

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,830
But that's not what I said:




And in a subsequent post:




Neither of my statements about those curves is equivalent to the statement you attributed to me, namely "there was no basis for why the curves are the way they are."

Sorry Duke, my totally incorrect paraphrasing. Working off 3 hours sleep kills the memory. My goal was only to loop back (hate that phrase) to why I made the statement w.r.t. in room response preference curves for speakers and you stating they are not intuitive. I find them very intuitive, but they are rarely (almost never) presented together with what they represent and they are used as an absolute when they are anything but.
 

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,656
Likes
5,819
Location
US East
...
The curves are widely presented as a "reference" for how a speaker should behave in room, but without the very necessary caveats of what they actually represent.
...
If people think that, then they have mistaken. Here is the link to a post on AVSForum by Dr Toole which he provided some clarifications.
https://www.avsforum.com/threads/of...theater-thread.2515137/page-168#post-57820394

I will quote parts of it here.

... It is nothing more than the steady-state room curve that results from measuring any of several forward-firing loudspeakers that have been awarded very high ratings in double-blind listening tests. ...
... The simple fact is that a steady-state room curve is not accurately descriptive of sound quality ...
... The Harman curve is not a "target" in the sense that any flawed loudspeaker can be equalized to match it and superb sound will be the reward. ...
... Remember, the Harman curve relates to conventional forward-firing loudspeaker designs. Legitimate reasons for differences are different loudspeaker directivities - omni, dipoles, etc. - or rooms that are elaborately acoustically treated, or both. ...
 

Raindog123

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,599
Likes
3,554
Location
Melbourne, FL, USA
So, after 11 pages (and trying to put “teaching others manners” aside)…

Do measurements tell the whole story or do they not? :)
 
Last edited:

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
My goal was only to loop back (hate that phrase) to why I made the statement w.r.t. in room response preference curves for speakers and you stating they are not intuitive. I find them very intuitive...

Thanks for clarifying.

What I meant by "not intuitive" is this: It is not intuitive to me that in-room response curves with THOSE SPECIFIC shapes would be preferred by listeners. I understand the implications of narrowing directivity as we go up in frequency, but those curves are more complicated that what can be explained by narrowing directivity alone.

For instance, all of the listener-generated in-room preference curves include a dip at about 8 kHz, followed by a rise at about 12 kHz. Why is that? I'm not expecting you to answer - it's a rhetorical question, pointing out an example of what I consider to be "non-intuitive-ness".
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom