PS Audio sent Erin their speaker??!!

[ta240]

......
If measurements tell me a speaker is totally flat, you want me to go and pontificate without that knowledge that what I heard was too bright? And then show the measurements indicating otherwise? To what end?
.....

It would seem the fear of saying you hear one thing and then measuring another would be that measurements would matter less. If you are shopping for a kidney dialysis machine then by all means only go off of measurements but if you listen to a speaker and hear one thing until the measurements tell you to listen for another, what is the benefit of the measurements? Because in the end all that truly matters is what is heard.

Note that when I do listening tests, I initially don't have the measurements in front of me. I use my laptop for listening and the files are elsewhere. I listen for a bit and give you the "stock impression." But then I look and re-evaluate what i thought. If test hypothesis with EQ development. I perform that testing blind if needed. I am fully connecting listening tests to measurements this way. This is the only sane way to give proper subjective data.

And when I watch Password on TV I pretend I don't know what the word is as I try to guess it along with the contestant. Yet I still end up shouting at the TV, "Their clue was 'First' and you guessed 'Second'? Obviously it the correct word was 'Last'". It just isn't possible to unknow something that fast.

If an expert, trained listener can't hear a defect then does it matter that it is there? And even more importantly does it matter to the point of the bashing of the product that then ensues? Especially bashing where in an actual double blind test it would be unlikely that anyone would be able to pick out the product with the issue.
I kind of get the quest for technical perfection, but beyond the audible level it makes as much sense to me as being able to brag that your car can go 236 MPH. Sure it is an impressive engineering feat, but to do that takes a 3 mile long straight closed course, making it completely irrelevant. And in the real world it makes that car no better than one that can reach 200 MPH in the same time as the faster one.

The real world doesn't seem to be addressed enough in the reviews. I'm reminded of the Paradigm streamer that I bought because of the decent test on here that then made a popping sound between each song. There was no way to not hear that because the room was always quiet when it hit. I didn't need a measurement to tell me that was there and clearly no measurement said it was there. It was dismissed as just a small quirk from an otherwise great piece of equipment...

 

[dfuller]

IMD is almost always scales with harmonic distortion

Not always. The number of ways a system has effects that a lot - on average, a 3 way system will have much less IMD than a 2 way system, and a 2 way traditional design will have substantially less than a 2 way coaxial design.

Note that when I do listening tests, I initially don't have the measurements in front of me. I use my laptop for listening and the files are elsewhere. I listen for a bit and give you the "stock impression." But then I look and re-evaluate what i thought. If test hypothesis with EQ development. I perform that testing blind if needed. I am fully connecting listening tests to measurements this way. This is the only sane way to give proper subjective data.

From what I understand, this is exactly the same thing Erin does.

In other words, we're arguing over nothing.

 

[hmt]

Because he is a narcissist that takes personal offense in being wrong. The while thread speaks volume of the toxicity of this forum at times. Erin does nice reviews, provides objective data and just tries to correlate what he hears to the data. Whoever has a problem with that doesnt follow science - he is just toxic.

 

[Shadrach]

Ok. It seems you leapt to assuming Erin was a "subjective reviewer" on which the thread was based, whereas most would consider his reviews a beacon of objectivity in the audio reviewing realm, given he employs the best speaker measuring device available, and emphasizes analysis of the measurements.




Depends on what you mean. Do I prefer to hear a speaker before buying it so ensure I like the sound? Definitely.

Do I think my ears are more accurate than measurements, or that our ears are a gold standard for understanding the performance of equipment, or that my perception can't be in error?

Certainly not.

So I don't know where that leaves me with your personal definition of subjectivist, but hopefully that clears something up.



If I wrote an opinion about you, that you took to be possibly misleading, would it be of no concern to you?

If I wrote an opinion about you, that you took to be possibly misleading, would it be of no concern to you?

I'd think that most are hear to exchange opinions, see what other people think too. So it's natural to wonder what someone means, especially since you seemed to be writing an opinion about me (among others).

No biggie. Cheers.

It's unfortunate that being a subjectivist has become something to be frowned upon in some circles of the audio world. When it comes to what I like to listen to I'm extremly subjective as I think many are. I don't mean any denigration in the use of the word. It's just the term that has come about in the audio world without an adequate definition. It means something rather different in other circles.
I have a well measuring system that I've put some time and effort into adjusting to my taste. I really enjoy it, but it is far from the often sought after flat response. I find much of what you write interesting but our views on the value of the subjective review are very different.

If I wrote an opinion about you, that you took to be possibly misleading, would it be of no concern to you?

No, not really to be honest. It happens all the time here on ASR through implication more often than not. It's the internet. When I've had enough I hit the off button and it all goes away.

 

[CleanSound]

Because he is a narcissist that takes personal offense in being wrong.

he is just toxic.

Whoa, who exactly are you referring to?

 

[JSmith]

Because he is a narcissist that takes personal offense in being wrong.

Strange you choose to use the same description Erin did when he went on a rant last year... which I do note he apologised for and took down.

The while thread speaks volume of the toxicity of this forum at times.

Only your post is toxic.

Erin does nice reviews, provides objective data and just tries to correlate what he hears to the data.

I don't believe anyone has said otherwise?

The discussion is simply regarding his method of review. That is constructive criticism, not a personal attack. Your post is a personal attack and completely uncalled for.


JSmith

 

[amirm]

Erin does nice reviews, provides objective data and just tries to correlate what he hears to the data.

You mean justify it after the fact as to look right? That is the very point I made.

Whoever has a problem with that doesnt follow science - he is just toxic.

The heck you are talking about? Subjective testing must be done in mono based on "science." Room effects need to be constant between speakers which is impossible to do with a pair of speakers. Room EQ must be deployed carefully to not penalize speakers due to room modes. There is nothing remotely scientific about putting two speakers in a room and playing Michael Jackson.

Casual, ad-hoc, listening tests need to be an appendix to a set of measurements. Reverse the equation and claim validity of your purely non-scientific listening and you have lost the plot with respect to what is science, and what is not.

 

[MattHooper]

It would seem the fear of saying you hear one thing and then measuring another would be that measurements would matter less. If you are shopping for a kidney dialysis machine then by all means only go off of measurements but if you listen to a speaker and hear one thing until the measurements tell you to listen for another, what is the benefit of the measurements? Because in the end all that truly matters is what is heard.

If an expert, trained listener can't hear a defect then does it matter that it is there? And even more importantly does it matter to the point of the bashing of the product that then ensues? Especially bashing where in an actual double blind test it would be unlikely that anyone would be able to pick out the product with the issue.

Exactly.

This is why listening reports can be helpful. It helps build an idea of how significant various measurement issues are in real use.

As I've said, it's one thing to rate speakers only in terms of how they measure up to a desired curve. That's easy. You can say "if it has these measurements,
it's generally going to sound good." Or "will generally have this sonic character.."

It's another thing to be able to characterize the huge variety that do not sync up to that curve. The sound of a loudspeakers is complex - you can have to many different deviations, dips, peaks, compensations or not in off axis directivity, distortion levels - you can't always know exactly how all the variables in every speaker will add up in terms of the overall sound from the measurements.

That's why even well trained people can be surprised still "Turned out that dip or peak or resonance wasn't as obvious as it looked, across a range of musical selections."

I appreciate John Atkinson comments on this as well, when he identifies what look like troubling resonances or frequency deviations...his comments about hearing them on certain material, but he may point out the issue was not being obvious most of the time, which can help put the measurements in context. Same with Erin's comments when he reviews speakers. (And Amir...whenever he chooses to do so).

 

[HairyEars]

- His statement about the floor bounce reduction due to placement of the woofers, I believe has merit here, but I would have to hear the speaker vs other more traditional tower speakers to fully believe that it makes an audible effect as I personally never listen for it when auditioning speakers.

Pleas educate me.

Genelec advises to raise their monitors from the floor:
"Monitors should always be aimed towards the listening position. The higher the monitor is from the floor, the lower is the reflection induced frequency response irregularities. However, half room height placement should be avoided, as at low frequencies the ceiling is typically also a reflective surface."

That statement seems diametrically oppose to the idea of floor bounce reduction due to low placement of the woofer.
Which one is true?

The answer has practical implications to me: if I place my Genelec mains vertically, the distance to the floor is mere 16cm. Horizontal placement increases that distance to 53cm, but introduces other complications in my setup.

 

[Kevin1956]

Just some random thoughts/questions of a layman hobbyist, triggered by the comments in this post, and similar comments on many other speaker review related posts:

Science says sighted testing is always biased, but when testing speakers, seeing objective measurements first and then doing sighted subjective listening isn’t?

Science says to listen to a single speaker in mono to make a subjective judgement as to it’s sound quality, even though the speaker will never be used in such a manner?

Science says that listening to a pair of the same speakers in a stereo configuration in an actual listening room to determine subjective sound quality, as they are marketed to be used, is wrong, as room effects and sound dispersion patterns will cause that speaker to sound significantly different and/or hide flaws? Which will vary from room to room? If doing this type of listening will hide the flaws of one speaker, might it not uncover the strengths of another?

Were the trained listeners used to help determine this science trained by the testers? If so, doesn’t that introduce a bias into the testing?

 

[Music1969]

Still deflecting. He didn't say he could hear the 600Hz scoop-out, which is the basis upon which you accused him of lying. Why can't you be an adult and just admit you were mistaken?

Ah so you u watched the KEF LS50 Meta review and agree with me?

Would you like another example of magically hearing 2dB scoops?

... In a normal room with room acoustics issues and you have no idea how speakers measure in that room

Good grief indeed

 

[MaxBuck]

View attachment 357753

View attachment 357755

View attachment 357756

View attachment 357757

View attachment 357759

View attachment 357760

View attachment 357761

View attachment 357762


JSmith

Not great, Bob.

 

[nerdemoji]

Science says to listen to a single speaker in mono to make a subjective judgement as to it’s sound quality, even though the speaker will never be used in such a manner?

yes, because it is easier to pick out differences in them according to that study amirm posted.

Science says that listening to a pair of the same speakers in a stereo configuration in an actual listening room to determine subjective sound quality, as they are marketed to be used, is wrong, as room effects and sound dispersion patterns will cause that speaker to sound significantly different and/or hide flaws? Which will vary from room to room?

Yes, the room adds effects to the overall sound that you hear. That doesn't mean we cannot determine subjective sound quality, just that the bass response will vary a lot between different listening rooms.

If doing this type of listening will hide the flaws of one speaker, might it not uncover the strengths of another?

It doesn't really hide flaws or uncover strengths... it means that the bass region is effected by the size, shape, and damping of the room and therefore makes the tonality of the bass region different from room to room

 

[nerdemoji]

on that note, Erin is about to release his review of a speaker from a company that is the complete opposite of PS Audio

The KEF Blade 2 Meta

 

[JSmith]

KEF Blade 2 Meta

Measurements for speaker KEF Blade 2 Meta

www.spinorama.org

Measurements for speaker KEF Blade 2 Meta

www.spinorama.org

JSmith

 

[Hemi-Demon]

I can't imagine how tiring it must be for Amir to constantly have to explain repeatedly explain why he measures first, listens in mono and offers up minimal subjective opinions relative to only his listening space. Maybe we need a ASR FAQ with links to specific posts, threads and papers so people can stop all this bickering and false comparative questions, just for the sake of.

Why do ASR members run to post the latest link to Erin's reviews on another person's forum, looking for fights over a difference in methodology that won't change. It's a tad disingenuous to provide traffic to a person that always seems to slight Amir, in his videos, every chance he gets. Amir is one patient host to keep allowing it.

If this was Head-Fi, whew they would have banned half this thread.

Erin has more than enough subscribers, more than enough paid patreon members. Enjoy it, use his site as a resource, but why not keep the comments on his YouTube page. He doesn't even post on ASR anymore.

I appreciate Erin's site, but he has become the standard for receiving some pretty high end products, direct from manufacturers. At some point bias, corporate relationships have to influence all these sighted reviews, but I guess that is up to the members that are giving him such grace.

 

[napilopez]

And he can hear 2dB scoop at 2kHz , in his listening room (not even nearfield)

And nobody sees how this speaker measures inside his listening room, where he places them and where he sits

I'm staying out of the other parts of this debate now because it's gone way off the rails, but once I'm going to argue the point that two ears and a brain can be very good at picking out the sound a speaker "through" a room above the transition frequency.

In-room measurements can be very useful, but they are not a fully reliable indicator of what we hear, even with averaging. Especially since averaging as casually performed by people online isn't usually done the rather specific way it was done in various Harman studies to at least correlate to a PIR based on anechoic data.

This is, frankly the entire point of using anechoic data to judge a speaker, and what motivated much of the research we talk about here so often: anechoic data on and off-axis data correlates more closely with what is heard in the room than in-room measurements alone.

An in-room measurement can be very useful, but it doesn't take precedence over anechoic data. If a speaker has a 5dB dip in the anechoic data but it doesn't show up in room, it does not mean the dip is no longer audible to the listener.

 

[napilopez]

I can't imagine how tiring it must be for Amir to constantly have to explain repeatedly explain why he measures first, listens in mono and offers up minimal subjective opinions relative to only his listening space. Maybe we need a ASR FAQ with links to specific posts, threads and papers so people can stop all this bickering and false comparative questions, just for the sake of.

I agree he shouldn't have to explain this every time. This should be stickied. Whether or not you agree with Amir on that is an entirely different matter but I definitely agree about listening in mono.

Why do ASR members run to post the latest link to Erin's reviews on another person's forum, looking for fights over a difference in methodology that won't change. It's a tad disingenuous to provide traffic to a person that always seems to slight Amir, in his videos, every chance he gets. Amir is one patient host to keep allowing it.

Oh come on, no one is posting Erin's reviews in bad faith. They just post them for the data. Despite these silly arguments we get into, ASR is still the best place to discuss spinorama measurements online.

 

[Music1969]

This is, frankly the entire point of using anechoic data to judge a speaker, and what motivated much of the research we talk about here so often: anechoic data on and off-axis data correlates more closely with what is heard in the room than in-room measurements alone.

Of course - my original posts said I love the Klippel data Erin provides

Great for our community

His subjective impressions, I don't believe he can hear a 2kHz scoop listening to music in a normal room, with room acoustics issues - all before seeing the simulated anechoic data

 

[MattHooper]

Why do ASR members run to post the latest link to Erin's reviews on another person's forum, looking for fights over a difference in methodology that won't change.

I don't see why there has to be any 'fights' over his methodology in the first place. I don't think the aggro is coming from those who enjoyed the review.

And I think it's pretty clear a PS Audio speaker being put through the Klippel is of interest to a number of ASR members. We've had direct discussions here with the designer of the speaker. Yes it's too bad Amir didn't get this speaker to measure, but if it was measured elsewhere it merits discussion here. The loudspeakers Amir can get hold of is greatly restricted relative to the amount out there. Reviews from around the web of different loudspeakers, especially those with measurements, are constantly cited here.