Blind Listening Test Results (N=4) : Revel F206 vs Ascend Sierra RAAL Towers

[Feanor]

That would also be my guess, i.e., that what the study concluded, at most, is that there is high likelihood that the trained listeners will notice the same things and prefer the same speakers as listeners who haven't had the training. But it does seem to me that some people were suggesting that the conclusion of the study goes beyond that. We'll never know exactly what they intended because to their way of thinking there's nothing wrong with simply pointing to some study and asserting without any elaboration that what another person had written is in contradiction with the conclusion of the study.

I think it's pretty clear that Olive's application for trained listeners is practical speaker design & evaluation, NOT "science". With regards to the latter I tend to agree that 'trained' can't be assured to give identical results to 'random' under all circumstances.

But personally as an experienced, (not necessarily "trained"), listener, I'd just as soon try a speaker deemed excellent by trained listeners as by average joes.

 

[Feanor]

Then the onus is on you {@Feanor} to define precisely what "dynamic contrast" is. So find two or more amplifiers that have different "dynamic contrasts", have a panel of listeners at a level matched double blind test to confirm that they can all agree on the one that has the better "dynamic contrast", and the one that is poorer. If we can't find an explanation using results from existing measurement methods, then we can talk about new measurements.

Sorry, it seems a bit off-topic but I did start a thread on this subject (whose link I can't find off-hand).

Just today read an audiophile subjective review that praised a particular amplifier, ending with this remark, "This is also a highly dynamic amplifier which tracks voltage fluctuations very tightly to peel out of the surrounding thicket momentary spikes like percussion hits and bass accents in high relief. In fact, high relief is a perfectly suitable all-around abbreviation to summarize the amplifier X's very linear sonics."

Perhaps that puts it in (quasi-)technical terms.

I was assured by some respondents that standard amplifier tests would reveal the accuracy of voltage tracking, though I'm still not sure which measurements are most relevant. (There was also the implication that I imagining difference in "dynamic contrast" because I hadn't matched volumes to within 0.1 dB.)

 

[GelbeMusik]

Check out my new translator!

Anecdote number 31, long: I took a listening test. The question was whether I personally would like the wide sound field as recommended by Toole. For this purpose I set up a pair of dedicated wide dispersion loudspeakers (DIY). The objectively measurable parameters were sharply optimized.

The stereo panorama was by far less sensitive to head movements. On the other hand there is more clarity, and finally a stronger impression of loudness and dynamics with the 'econowave' design.

Result: I stick with the contrary 'econowave' construction.

Listening tests are useful. But only if they address parameters that go beyond the Toole / Olive evaluation model. Otherwise the evaluation model should be valid after all. After all, it is designed to replace the usual listening test?

Those who perform listening tests doubt the Toole / Olive evaluation model.

 

[Feanor]

Check out my new translator!

Anecdote number 31, long: I took a listening test. The question was whether I personally would like the wide sound field as recommended by Toole. For this purpose I set up a pair of dedicated wide dispersion loudspeakers (DIY). The objectively measurable parameters were sharply optimized.

The stereo panorama was by far less sensitive to head movements. On the other hand there is more clarity, and finally a stronger impression of loudness and dynamics with the 'econowave' design.

Result: I stick with the contrary 'econowave' construction.

Listening tests are useful. But only if they address parameters that go beyond the Toole / Olive evaluation model. Otherwise the evaluation model should be valid after all. After all, it is designed to replace the usual listening test?

Those who perform listening tests doubt the Toole / Olive evaluation model.

What's "econowave"? Does it mean something like controlled dispersion?

In fairness to Toole & Olive I'd say they advocate uniform dispersion rather than wide dispersion per se.

But then I agree that the relevance of various psycho-acoustic testing now popular is doubtful.

 

[GelbeMusik]

"Econowave", lookout for Zilch econowave de luxe.

Well, all these questions were ignited by the choice of the test program. I was listening to the 2015 remaster of "Fast Car." I hear a difference. I love the old version (kind of, in comparison)! They also took away the last acoustic / musical attraction. The throaty, the sharpness of the voice.

Seriously, can such a synthetic concoction qualify for a test, as Harman recommends? Even by selecting music that is thoroughly trivial, the listener can be directed to certain parameters that he should judge. This is all mumbo jumbo!

The problem is, as already mentioned, the difference. If I am asked to detect a discoloration in white noise, yes or no, fine! But an aesthetic judgement like "preference", Harman can't really expect me to do that. Not on that basis.

"Hidden parameters" - social scientists are working on that very thing. Statistics can't bridge the huge gaps in the Toole / Olive test. They would have had to take human / cultural science on board. And vice versa, you know that the measurement itself influences the result: quantum mechanics.

But I don't want to reject this approach. Standards and objective parameters, I want to have them too.


Good tool:

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[Asinus]

People are making too much fuss about the "trained" part. The training is this app:
https://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/
basically you learn how to differentiate gain differences in frequency bands or tell how much reverb there is in the mix. Furthermore the training is not done on the experiment speakers or even in the same room, it is normally done on headphones or your own space.

"Trained listeners" achieve a minimum score in the app beforehand, and to achieve that score you have to consistently identify the gain/reverb changes performed on the same track on the same setup.

 

[m_g_s_g]

But there is no way (as far as I know) you can perform room correction through a Sonos Amp while retaining all these convenient features.

I have connected a RPi4 with HifiBerry Digi+Pro (*) and Volumio (and the brutefir plug-in) to Sonos Amp’s digital input using a spare Sonos HDMI ARC-to-Toslink adapter. For critical listening, I use Volumio (it works as Spotify Connect enabled device as well). For background/whole house audio/family use, the Sonos ecosystem is still in place. I’ve found Sonos auto input switch feature to work quite well.

I’m happy for now with this setup.

(*) I was ready to buy the more expensive Hifiberry DAC+ DSP model, but found an much cheaper Open box Digi+ Pro.

 

[CoolHandDuke]

I recently purchased the 2EX, but was considering moving to the towers instead. The towers would offer huge sensitivity and a dedicated midrange, but am I giving up a lot by not having the Excel woofer?

 

[Shazb0t]

I recently purchased the 2EX, but was considering moving to the towers instead. The towers would offer huge sensitivity and a dedicated midrange, but am I giving up a lot by not having the Excel woofer?

I don't think so. The distortion and frequency response measurement of the towers is pretty good. The midrange has a bit of a distortion spike at the crossover points, but nothing major.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...coustics-horizon-center-speaker-review.15199/

 

[CoolHandDuke]

I don't think so. The distortion and frequency response measurement of the towers is pretty good. The midrange has a bit of a distortion spike at the crossover points, but nothing major.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...coustics-horizon-center-speaker-review.15199/

Thanks. I love the Sierras and am pleased with Ascend in general.

 

[GK368]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks for posting. Does anyone know where Revel and Ascend source their drivers from?
Thanks!