Can't we all just get along?

[markus]

That was one of his early attempts and it was a pretty great speaker. The stuff he did at NHT refined and simplified those ideas, and he added in some very clever ideas for bass control in speakers like the 3.3 (which I used as the basis for my own speakers). Somewhere on-line, there's an interview he did with Audio Critic which is massively worth reading.

edit: Here it is.

Thanks for posting the link! Great interview. Also a bit sad that we're still somewhat stuck in the same situation he described 30 years ago. Even with the availability of object-based audio.

 

[Flak]

I agree, there is a need for both.

Nobody is taking measurements on a pair of speakers, it is always based on a single speaker.

Certain things in mono, single speaker are easier to pick up on when listening.

Final and overall presentation then as a pair in stereo.

Yes, nobody is taking measurements on a pair of speakers but it might be interesting:

Under the Hood of the Stereophonic System: Phantom Sources - Dirac

Is there any real physical sound experience that can be exactly replicated through a stereo system? Probably not. Why? Because the sound engineer who’s making the recording is limited to coding a complex three-dimensional sound field using only two channels, which are then played back from two...

www.dirac.com

 

[markus]

While I can generally agree with this, in many cases, it still has helpful information. As an example the review we're talking about. The severity of the midrange modulation could not be deduced from the measurements available. The video showing the issue was a very clear yet subjective indicator here, as was Amirm's description of the phenomenon. This speaker would never have made such a fuss if it were not for the subjective experience, which in itself is an interesting observation.

Now you could argue: well then we don't have enough measurements! And I would agree with that. Multitone measurements of speakers at 86 and 96dB would be very valuable (or possibly in this case 76dB as well) and would probably show the exact issue.

That's not the type of subjective listening evaluation I was alluding to. Sure you can hear major defects/limitations and then find what's causing them using measurements. That doesn't require controlled listening tests but a controlled listening test protocol would identify such defects earlier, simpler and more reliably.

 

[markus]

Yes, nobody is taking measurements on a pair of speakers but it might be interesting:

Under the Hood of the Stereophonic System: Phantom Sources - Dirac

Is there any real physical sound experience that can be exactly replicated through a stereo system? Probably not. Why? Because the sound engineer who’s making the recording is limited to coding a complex three-dimensional sound field using only two channels, which are then played back from two...

www.dirac.com

Man Flavio, you're not following along close enough Your little blog entry was linked just one page ago...
When do you post something that actually explains how Dirac Live actually improves stereo imaging? Afraid of copy cats?

 

[abdo123]

His room has nothing to do with mine. Both acoustically and otherwise.

What i was trying to say is that just because someone wasn’t listening in an anechoic chamber doesn’t mean their opinion doesn’t matter.

 

[Vacceo]

And there you have it. When I see for example Steve Guttenberg's listening room I know that anything he says based on his sighted listening evaluations has zero value to me.

Not just the room, which is crucial; also the source.

My system plays a lot of different elements: games, films, series, radio, podcasts... And a lot of Death Metal that no audio guru even knows how it sounds or should sound.

 

[markus]

What i was trying to say is that just because someone wasn’t listening in an anechoic chamber doesn’t mean their opinion doesn’t matter.

Opinions formed by listening in an anechoic chamber don't matter either if it's just a sighted listening test.

 

[abdo123]

Opinions formed by listening in an anechoic chamber don't matter either if it's just a sighted listening test.

Yes an environment so quiet that you can hear the blood flowing in your veins will definitely not improve your ability to hear speaker flaws .

I would rather have someone tuning their speakers by ear in an anechoic chamber than the pointless gated measurements Danny is sharing.

 

[TrevC]

Well then you're not a man of science, many aren't so that's not a problem per se. Mankind existed before we could even say "science". But any site with the term "science" in its name should adhere to scientific principles. Uncontrolled sighted listening evaluation is not one of them. It's quite the opposite.

I am a man of electronics which is why I'm here, but I tend to listen to loudspeakers rather than test them. Both listening and testing are required to evaluate a loudspeaker IMHO.

 

[Flak]

Man Flavio, you're not following along close enough Your little blog entry was linked just one page ago...
When do you post something that actually explains how Dirac Live actually improves stereo imaging? Afraid of copy cats?

My bad, I missed that it had been posted already... I apologize
phase matching of speaker pairs is one of the aspects that improve stereo imaging

 

[TrevC]

I would love to read a respectful response to Danny's statements and allegations from ASR. I'm not interested in a pissin' match from forum members.

Because Danny is sooo respectful himself?

 

[markus]

Yes an environment so quiet that you can hear the blood flowing in your veins will definitely not improve your ability to hear speaker flaws .

I would rather have someone tuning their speakers by ear in an anechoic chamber than the pointless gated measurements Danny is sharing.

The probem isn't noise floor, the problem is sighted listening which introduces bias. Again:

P.S. Gated measurements aren't "pointless". Like any measurement they can show something but they don't show everything.

 

[abdo123]

The probem isn't noise floor, the problem is sighted listening which introduces bias. Again:

So i guess you only form opinions on speakers you have by doing blind comparisions with 4 other different speakers? Man get out of here.

 

[markus]

I am a man of electronics which is why I'm here, but I tend to listen to loudspeakers rather than test them. Both listening and testing are required to evaluate a loudspeaker IMHO.

See slide above.

 

[markus]

So i guess you only form opinions on speakers you have by doing blind comparisions with 4 other different speakers? Man get out of here.

No, I do what everybody else does but this doesn't take away from the fact that sighted listening evaluations are rather worthless and the data presented by Olive undeniably shows why.

 

[abdo123]

No, I do what everybody else does but this doesn't take away from the fact that sighted listening evaluations are rather worthless and the data presented by Olive undeniably shows why.

Then of what value is your opinion to a consumer that will never be able to conduct blind listening evaluations anyway?

 

[DanielT]

The challenge, or if you want the fun, is to listen. How do you know if you like the sound in these omni-speakers, in your own listening room, with your own way of listening to music, (you may move a lot when you listen to music) with your own taste in music?
Maybe I would come to love them, .... or dislike them and think the sound is just "smeared". I have no idea because I have never heard any omni-speakers.

With that said, I would not even want to test them at home if they were measured poorly. Then there is like nothing I can do about that (other possibly EQa them).

Or these, certainly very expensive but apart from that how would they sound at home in my listening room? Would I like that sound? I do not know:

 

[markus]

Then of what value is your opinion to a consumer that will never be able to conduct blind listening evaluations anyway?

Exactly, my subjective opinion is irrelevant. Results from controlled listening tests are relevant. The consumer doesn't need to do any blind testing as he could trust the controlled testing done by someone adhering to strict blind testing protocols. That would eliminate a lot of guesswork, endless tweaking and wasted money.

 

[Sokel]

The challenge, or if you want the fun, is to listen. How do you know if you like the sound in these omni-speakers, in your own listening room, with your own way of listening to music, (you may move a lot when you listen to music) with your own taste in music?
Maybe I would come to love them, .... or dislike them and think the sound is just "smeared". I have no idea because I have never heard any omni-speakers.

With that said, I would not even want to test them at home if they were measured poorly. Then there is like nothing I can do about that (other possibly EQa them).

View attachment 215284
Or these, certainly very expensive but apart from that how would they sound at home in my listening room? Would I like that sound? I do not know:

View attachment 215285

As we talk about sighting,I would never put the Planets home with that big logo's,I confess I like nice things,what I see is important to me.
MBL on the other hand...

 

[abdo123]

Exactly, my subjective opinion is irrelevant. Results from controlled listening tests are relevant. The consumer doesn't need to do any blind testing as he could trust the controlled testing done by someone adhering to strict blind testing protocols. That would eliminate a lot of guesswork, endless tweaking and wasted money.

Literally no one on this planet is doing blind listening comparisons and sharing these results publicly, so are you saying that not a single subjective opinion about speakers is relevant?

Would you buy the LGK 2.0 because you don't trust amir's sighted listening and the measurements show the speaker to be usable?