Can't we all just get along?

[DanielT]

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...

Hm, when I think about it. DIY? Some upward-pointing speaker elements and some balls .... Maybe it would be fun to test, or not? What do I know.

You get your balls to the speaker elements such as Accept, almost, sang. He he.

 

[Sokel]

such as Accept, almost, sang. He he.

My nephew is teasing me that Accept is steeling classical music with the Metal heart

Bad boy.

 

[markus]

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?

Generally, yes and exactly the reason why we haven't made much progress in audio. The tools are there but they aren't used to their full extent. The Kantor interview linked earlier is a testimony to that fact.
Sure, very experienced and trained listeners exist and their opinions can be better but it depends on so many factors which again makes it hit and miss. My position is if we want to have anything objective coming out of listening tests they need to adhere to strict blind testing protocols.

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?

Is that what I suggested? I don't think so.

 

[goat76]

Define "well-treated HiFi listening room". How large is the room? How much absorption? Diffusion? Listener and speaker are how far from the walls? Is EQ allowed? What type of room correction optimization strategy is applied?

A well-treated room is a room that will not mask the speaker's characteristics, the reviewer must be able to hear the speakers he is reviewing.

The size of the room must be suited to the speakers that are being reviewed. A room size of 3x3m will probably not be suited for a pair of JBL 4367.

How much absorption is needed is up to the reviewer's listening room, and the particular problems that need to be solved to make it a suitable environment for critical listening. The same thing goes for diffusion, but it's not normally as important as absorption.

How far from the walls the speakers need to be placed is up to that particular pair of speakers, you can't have the same fixed position for different speakers. Many manufacturers have instructions on how far their speakers should be placed from the walls to perform the best, that is often a good starting point but the reviewer needs to take good care of finetuning the positions of the speakers to their listening environment.

The same goes for the listening position, it can't be a fixed position and will change depending on where the speakers need to be positioned in the room. An equilateral triangle is usually a good place to be seated, which will in most cases give the reviewer the full width of the stereo field. To minimize the room reflections vs the direct sound ratio, a tighter listening triangle can be used if the room is somewhat problematic.

EQ can be used to address particular room problems but should not be applied to alter the main sound of the speakers. It can't be expected that everyone else has an EQ in their sound system.


All the above things are of course equally as important as the reviewer's knowledge of how to read and interpret the measurements of the speakers he/she is reviewing and presenting. That should go without saying.

 

[Mr. E. Guy]

The problem is Danny believes in ghosts and goblins and other magical things, so even seeing his face makes me feel like I'm about to get scammed

 

[DudleyDuoflush]

As well as having a good (or acceptable) space or room would it also be nice to know a subjective reviewer's hearing acuity? I'm 54 and my hearing is severely rolled off in the upper frequencies. If a younger reviewer tells me a speaker is too bright I tend to ignore it but this may be totally wrong.

 

[PierreV]

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.

Other scientists in other discipline could see this as follows.

1. The perception of music has been proven to be a highly subjective experience.

2. Preference ratings have been shown to be highly correlated with subjective experience.

3. In this study, we show that sighted listening significantly increases preference rating.

Our results demonstrate that, in order to maximize the quality of our subjective experience, any listening session should be sighted. The impact of speaker overall appearance and finish therefore deserves further study.

Limitations: we acknowledge that the cost of the speaker, not examined here, also seems to contribute to the preference rating. Whether this effect can be confirmed and is independent of the speaker's appearance would probably deserves a separate study as well.

 

[markus]

A well-treated room is a room that will not mask the speaker's characteristics, the reviewer must be able to hear the speakers he is reviewing.

The size of the room must be suited to the speakers that are being reviewed. A room size of 3x3m will probably not be suited for a pair of JBL 4367.

How much absorption is needed is up to the reviewer's listening room, and the particular problems that need to be solved to make it a suitable environment for critical listening. The same thing goes for diffusion, but it's not normally as important as absorption.

How far from the walls the speakers need to be placed is up to that particular pair of speakers, you can't have the same fixed position for different speakers. Many manufacturers have instructions on how far their speakers should be placed from the walls to perform the best, that is often a good starting point but the reviewer needs to take good care of finetuning the positions of the speakers to their listening environment.

The same goes for the listening position, it can't be a fixed position and will change depending on where the speakers need to be positioned in the room. An equilateral triangle is usually a good place to be seated, which will in most cases give the reviewer the full width of the stereo field. To minimize the room reflections vs the direct sound ratio, a tighter listening triangle can be used if the room is somewhat problematic.

EQ can be used to address particular room problems but should not be applied to alter the main sound of the speakers. It can't be expected that everyone else has an EQ in their sound system.


All the above things are of course equally as important as the reviewer's knowledge of how to read and interpret the measurements of the speakers he/she is reviewing and presenting. That should go without saying.

While a ton could be said about the above (maybe in another thread?) you basically agree that putting a speaker in a room and writing a subjective review or even just evaluating how those speakers image is not very useful Quite contrary to your original post.

 

[abdo123]

Generally, yes and exactly the reason why we haven't made much progress in audio. The tools are there but they aren't used to their full extent. The Kantor interview linked earlier is a testimony to that fact.
Sure, very experienced and trained listeners exist and their opinions can be better but it depends on so many factors which again makes it hit and miss. My position is if we want to have anything objective coming out of listening tests they need to adhere to strict blind testing protocols.

Is that what I suggested? I don't think so.

Then how do you make purchase decisions?

 

[markus]

As well as having a good (or acceptable) space or room would it also be nice to know a subjective reviewer's hearing acuity? I'm 54 and my hearing is severely rolled off in the upper frequencies. If a younger reviewer tells me a speaker is too bright I tend to ignore it but this may be totally wrong.

Thanks for bringing that up. Hearing loss is a major factor which is completely ignored by many. I would go as far as demanding that anybody over 30 needs to prove his hearing is "normal" (in audiologist terms, which still can be pretty bad) when doing any listening tests and writing about it publicly. A lot of "trusted" subjective reviewers certainly would not qualify.

 

[markus]

Then how do you make purchase decisions?

Why do you keep asking? I'm just describing that we currently can't make purchasing decisions solely on an objective basis simply because the information is not available to us.

 

[Mart68]

Then how do you make purchase decisions?

From the measurements - we know from the research how a good speaker that is going to give long-term satisfaction will measure. There's no need to repeat the process yourself.

 

[BoredErica]

I just look at measurements and how pretty the speaker looks. That's how I buy speakers. That's why I even came to ASR.

 

[goat76]

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.

It doesn't need to be perfect. Even if the measurements of a speaker aren't perfect I still get a fairly good indication of how they measure. The same goes for the listening section of a review, I still get a fairly good indication of how the speakers sound in a stereo setup. No matter how good the measurements look or if the review listening report indicates that I might like the way they sound, I still need to have a listen to them myself to be sure I like them.

The best way to hear them is of course in my own listening room, but the reason for that is more to be sure they are suited size-wise and if how they need to be positioned in my room to perform well, how that works in my environment. But the main characteristics of the speakers and how they image will not change from one room to another.

A more in-depth listening report of how a pair of speakers sounds will not in any way be a substitute for the measurements, just a better complement to the review.

 

[markus]

I just look at measurements and how pretty the speaker looks. That's how I buy speakers. That's why I even came to ASR.

Can't blame you for that. The Olive data shows that looks can make a speaker sound better. Placebo is real. It just doesn't work the same all the time nor on anyone.

 

[markus]

It doesn't need to be perfect. Even if the measurements of a speaker aren't perfect I still get a fairly good indication of how they measure. The same goes for the listening section of a review, I still get a fairly good indication of how the speakers sound in a stereo setup. No matter how good the measurements look or if the review listening report indicates that I might like the way they sound, I still need to have a listen to them myself to be sure I like them.

The best way to hear them is of course in my own listening room, but the reason for that is more to be sure they are suited size-wise and if how they need to be positioned in my room to perform well, how that works in my environment. But the main characteristics of the speakers and how they image will not change from one room to another.

A more in-depth listening report of how a pair of speakers sounds will not in any way be a substitute for the measurements, just a better complement to the review.

Guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

[rdenney]

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

If you can't conduct blind tests yourself, then there are two strategies:

1. Buy speakers that scored well for a majority of people in other properly controlled tests (which requires blind testing). This assumes your preferences are consistent with the majority, which should be the case for "consumers".

2. Construct a model of measured performance based on the preferences that emerged from blind testing. Then, conduct tests of speakers using measurements to place them in that model. The consumer then chooses based on the measurements. Again, this assumes one's preferences align with the majority, but it provides much more insight into the reasons why a speaker might be more suitable in a given situation.

The model has been constructed, primarily describing speakers that have relatively flat and horizontal on-axis frequency response, AND flat (but not necessarily horizontal) off-axis frequency response. That keeps the reflected sound in a real room tonally consistent with the direct sound, which, according to the model, improves preference scores. That's the point of the Spin-O-Rama. The Klippel is just a means of conducting a Spin-O-Rama without an anechoic chamber, but spins in anechoic chambers achieve the same end.

The "in-room response" with its slight downward tilt is the sum of the flat, horizontal on-axis performance and the flat but tilted off-axis performance. This was the outcome that sounded best in controlled testing, and it closely mimics the sound of live music in a real performance space (vis a vis a recording studio).

Rick "who does appreciate the opinions of those who have tried lots of speakers, but only in the context of, and validated by, testing that verifies model performance" Denney

 

[goat76]

While a ton could be said about the above (maybe in another thread?) you basically agree that putting a speaker in a room and writing a subjective review or even just evaluating how those speakers image is not very useful Quite contrary to your original post.

Nope, wrong conclusion. This is just you trying to discredit the things I say and in your own mind probably bending it to your liking.

 

[DanielT]

It doesn't need to be perfect. Even if the measurements of a speaker aren't perfect I still get a fairly good indication of how they measure. The same goes for the listening section of a review, I still get a fairly good indication of how the speakers sound in a stereo setup. No matter how good the measurements look or if the review listening report indicates that I might like the way they sound, I still need to have a listen to them myself to be sure I like them.

The best way to hear them is of course in my own listening room, but the reason for that is more to be sure they are suited size-wise and if how they need to be positioned in my room to perform well, how that works in my environment. But the main characteristics of the speakers and how they image will not change from one room to another.

A more in-depth listening report of how a pair of speakers sounds will not in any way be a substitute for the measurements, just a better complement to the review.

But this with room and speakers ...

 

[goat76]

Are you talking about the listening sections of reviews in the popular mags? Or are you talking about the listening reviews in pro mags and recording mags? The listening reviews in the pro mags and recording mags are of some (if somewhat limited) value, I admit. The listening sections in the popular mags are, IMO, more useless than used toilet paper.



"The main characteristics" is a pretty broad brush, and I can see that as true. But imaging not changing? Imaging can be ruined by changing the distance and angle of the speakers to the listener and each other, and the distance of the speakers to boundaries. Admittedly, you will have to be injudicious, but many people find themselves in exactly that position because of either WAF or odd-shaped rooms. So listening experiences that they had at a dealer or at a friend's house become useless and irrelevant.

Everything that you're saying runs counter to my experiences and, as far as I know, the experiences of everyone I talk with. Jim

p.s. - IME, the least change in imaging characteristics, room to room, occurs with speakers that are highly directional. However, they have problems of their own.

No particular review. If I for any reason find a speaker interesting I scan every corner of the internet for information about that speaker, I look at measurements and I read every single review I come by. I put much weight on real users' experiences, especially the users who have had the speakers and changed to other speakers because they didn't like them for some particular reason.

At this point with the collection of all this information, I will have a pretty good idea of the characteristics of the speakers. If many people point out something I know I don't like, then I'm aware of this when I have a listen to the speakers myself, maybe it bothers me, maybe it doesn't?

Most of the time I can easily hear the same characteristics many others have reported on. Things like "laid back sounding", "forward sounding", "deep soundstage", "wide soundstage", "highly dynamic" etc. Those general characteristics of the speaker will never turn into something else and completely change just by putting them in another room.

I don't know how you do it, do you read Amir's measurements and based on just that order the speakers?
Maybe you do, but I suspect most people read up and gather as much information as they can before they go out there and actually listen to the speakers, and maybe after that decide on a home demo or buy them on the spot.


And to the WAF, odd-shaped room, bad acoustics, and so on. What do the good measurement speakers do about those things?
(I mean, why do you bring up things like that?)