Evidence-based Speaker Designs

[Krunok]

Average doesn't mean dumb or not very bright. If looking at a quantified metric for anything the absolute values are as important and in many ways more meaningful than the distribution. The concept of IQ is quite a limited one IMO. Similarly using educational attainment as a proxy for brightness /dumbness is deeply flawed. These days dumb appears to be a synonym for "has a different opinion".

As I said, average is simply average, not very dumb, not very bright. Not highly educated but also not poorly educated. I'm sure marketing strategists use much more than those 2 parameters when aiming to sell crappy products to average Joe but I'm not an expert in that field.

 

[Blumlein 88]

By statisitical definition of average average Joe has average IQ. He is neither very bright nor very dumb, simply average. I would expect IQ to have Gaussian distribution among population. It would be interesting to know SDEV..

I think the standard deviation for IQ is about 15 points.

You'd expect average Joe of average IQ to make popular averagely good things not schiit. Or I would expect that.

Education attainment has something like a .60-.70 correlation coefficient with IQ. Always outliers anyway you look at something however.

 

[Krunok]

You'd expect average Joe of average IQ to make popular averagely good things not schiit. Or I would expect that.

That is a reasonable expectation indeed, but not confirmed by my life experince so far. Btw, if that would be the case wouldn't we have less folks not believeing that we have been on the Moon but believeing that Earth is flat instead? Not to mention avoiding vaccination of the children etc.

 

[Cosmik]

I don't know why people are dismissive of 'argumentum ad populum'. Surely it's the listening test advocate's wet dream: a massive sample size; subjects not being influenced by the knowledge they are taking part in an experiment; products being tested in the environment in which they are going to be used; subjects confirming their true preferences with hard cash.

Sure there may be some distorting factors like marketing, but no different from the psychological pressures that any scientific test subject is under (e.g. wishing to please the tester, saying they prefer the product they think they should like, etc.).

It is the basis of the entire science of economics after all: the rational actor.

I am being devil's advocate of course: I think that all preference-based evidence is unscientific because by definition it is subjective, but I just wonder why people would be dismissive of one subjective 'test' but think that another is hard science. Just because it uses the language of science and maybe people put white coats on doesn't make a test scientific. If it were so, science could produce the next hit record, but as we have seen, it fails totally.

The human being is a moving target, with preferences that change all the time. Only the very basest biological mechanisms are fixed; the conscious brain being modified by the environment, and modifying itself constantly. The listening test subject may already have audiophile Stockholm Syndrome, and introductory verbiage at the start of the paper doesn't make that go away.

N.B. I am not saying that there is not truth, nor genuine timeless preference; just that it cant be ascertained scientifically. Audio must be engineered, based on logical criteria - and that is what happens: listening tests just oscillate around central core engineering principles, like linearity and flatness of frequency response. Those characteristics weren't arrived at by listening: someone realised what an audio system was supposed to do and drew it out on paper.

 

[Krunok]

I don't know why people are dismissive of 'argumentum ad populum'. Surely it's the listening test advocate's wet dream: a massive sample size; subjects not being influenced by the knowledge they are taking part in an experiment; products being tested in the environment in which they are going to be used; subjects confirming their true preferences with hard cash.

Sure there may be some distorting factors like marketing, but no different from the psychological pressures that any scientific test subject is under (e.g. wishing to please the tester, saying they prefer the product they think they should like, etc.).

It is the basis of the entire science of economics after all: the rational actor.

I am being devil's advocate of course: I think that all preference-based evidence is unscientific because by definition it is subjective, but I just wonder why people would be dismissive of one subjective 'test' but think that another is hard science. Just because it uses the language of science and maybe people put white coats on doesn't make a test scientific. If it were so, science could produce the next hit record, but as we have seen, it fails totally.

The human being is a moving target, with preferences that change all the time. Only the very basest biological mechanisms are fixed; the conscious brain being modified by the environment, and modifying itself constantly. The listening test subject may already have audiophile Stockholm Syndrome, and introductory verbiage at the start of the paper doesn't make that go away.

N.B. I am not saying that there is not truth, nor genuine timeless preference; just that it cant be ascertained scientifically. Audio must be engineered, based on logical criteria - and that is what happens: listening tests just oscillate around central core engineering principles, like linearity and flatness of frequency response. Those characteristics weren't arrived at by listening: someone realised what an audio system was supposed to do and drew it out on paper.

Average Joe doesn't care much for science and its principles. He has some vague idea about it without any deep understanding in any field as he is not an expert in any field. He's reading about scientific stuff on web portals/magazines written mostly by journalists that doesn't understand the stuff they writing about as well. And so you end up with so many flat earthers, parents not vaccinating their kids etc..

Consider average forum member here. Are his interests scientific, aiming for deeper understanding? Or he simply wants to know if he will get a better sound if he replaces his desktop DAC with another desktop DAC? Oh yes, and why is that damn DX3 Pro clicking so much?

Just check the number of replies on the threads and you will get a good idea what is of most interest to average Joe on this forum.

 

[Blumlein 88]

That is a reasonable expectation indeed, but not confirmed by my life experince so far. Btw, if that would be the case wouldn't we have less folks not believeing that we have been on the Moon but believeing that Earth is flat instead? Not to mention avoiding vaccination of the children etc.

Cherry picking and letting the squeaky wheels get an inordinate amount of your attention. As I said outliers in every area you care to look.

For an average Joe I'd think of the Toyota Camry. One of the most popular cars. One of the tops for reliability. Basic quality. It isn't the prettiest, or best performing though it is okay. Everything OK. Average Joes know it is okay. And you'd have to call that a pretty solid average good car for an average person not wanting anything more than transportation.

Should I mention the average IQ relative to educational attainment has dropped 5-7 points the last generation?

I've run into a few people who doubt the moon landing. Never one who thought the earth was flat. Know a couple anti-vaxxers (one because they have an autistic child). I don't think such people are as prevalent as they might seem in the media.

I do think science is advancing much faster and people in various fields cope by becoming ever more specialized in narrower niches of expertise. Those average people, who generally aren't highly educated in science see this and are having an even tougher time keeping up in any sense. So not surprising a few will get taken in by cultish things. There have always been a 5% or so loony quacks about, they were politely over-looked in the past when it was not so easy to get some kind of publicity in a sense on various things on the internet.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Consider average forum member here. Are his interests scientific, aiming for deeper understanding? Or he simply wants to know if he will get a better sound if he replaces his desktop DAC with another desktop DAC? Oh yes, and why is that damn DX3 Pro clicking so much?

Just check the number of replies on the threads and you will get a good idea what is of most interest to average Joe on this forum.

Oh in reply to the above questions. For myself the answers are yes, yes and I would like to stop that clicking. I don't see anything wrong with that.

My biggest complaint, and it isn't even a complaint more an observation, is we have large number of people who are more headphone oriented. Partly from circumstance and partly from that being where growth in hifi is now. I'm an older guy who prefers loudspeakers and only uses headphones when you have to use them. But there is plenty overlap for both niches to be well served here. And we can learn from each other. Science can be of service in both endeavors.

 

[Krunok]

For an average Joe I'd think of the Toyota Camry.

Oh no, I won't let you slip away with a nice car analogy this time!

How about this.. tell me why are Khardasians so rich? What quality goods are they selling to average Joe? And why is he buying all that schiit if he's not so dumb? Obviously average Joe is a huge consumer of Khardasians..

 

[Krunok]

I would like to stop that clicking. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I was not referring to clicking itself but at the fact that there are hundreds of posts on such a simple fact that DAC relay is clicking. Although everything that needed to be said was said on first few pages average Joe is keeping lamenting about clicking even now as we speak. And I really cannot understand why. I mean, what is more left to say about the topic of clicking...?

And you definitely don't strike me as an average Joe so your answers about forum interests of average Joe don't count.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Oh no, I won't let you slip away with a nice car analogy this time!

How about this.. tell me why are Khardasians so rich? What quality goods are they selling to average Joe? And why is he buying all that schiit if he's not so dumb? Obviously average Joe is a huge consumer of Khardasians..

You are conflating two things that don't go together. The Khardasians are rich and popular with average people. BZZZZT wrong. Most average people like maybe 90% despise the Khardasians and wonder the same thing. But 10% is plenty to make some outrageous media personality get plenty of attention, fame and money. I've no idea what they sell or if they sell anything.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I was not referring to clicking itself but at the fact there are hundreds of posts on such a simple fact that DAC relay is clicking. Although everything that needed to be said was said on first few pages average Joe is keeping lamenting about clicking even now as we speak. And I really cannot understand why. I mean, what is more left to say about the topic of clicking...?

And you definitely don't strike me as an average Joe so your answers about forum interests of average Joe don't count.

Sorry, I assumed without having followed the issue the clicking was some signal coming thru the DAC. I take it the clicking is from a relay click. Yes, I see those kinds of thread where you wonder how it has 200 responses instead of only three. Don't know what to say. I sometimes feel like I post to much when I see I've posted nearly 5000 times in 700 days.

And whether I'm an average Joe or not I know and interact with such people. Relatives, friends and acquaintances.

 

[Krunok]

Most average people like maybe 90% despise the Khardasians and wonder the same thing. But 10% is plenty to make some outrageous media personality get plenty of attention, fame and money. I've no idea what they sell or if they sell anything.

Are you sure about that 90%? Or is it 90% of the people you know?

They have to sell something to be rich and obviously average Joe is buying. I also still haven't figured exactly what it is but that hardly matters to Khardasians or to average Joe, the bussines goes on and on.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Agree with a lot of what you say @Cosmik but I have to take issue with this one:

Sure there may be some distorting factors like marketing, but no different from the psychological pressures that any scientific test subject is under (e.g. wishing to please the tester, saying they prefer the product they think they should like, etc.).

This very much depends on the test. Do it blind and the subject doesn't know which product they are listening to. Do it double blind and the subject can't seek to please the tester even if they would otherwise wish to do so.

Or even better, don't test products, use DSP to test variables.

 

[Krunok]

And whether I'm an average Joe or not I know and interact with such people. Relatives, friends and acquaintances.

If you are not average Joe than average member of your social circle (relatives, friends and acquaintances) also is not.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If you are not average Joe than average member of your social circle (relatives, friends and acquaintances) also is not.

You are correct, but some of them are. Those are the ones I am referring to here.

 

[Krunok]

Btw, isn't this royal hype about what dress is Meghan Markle wearing today basically the same line of bussines as Khardasians? Of course, due to the "tradition", which simply means royal family is longer in bussines than Khardasians, a style has evolved to an arguably more sophisticated level, but isn't that basically still the same LOB which average Joe and Jane are buying?

 

[Biblob]

Btw, isn't this royal hype about what dress is Meghan Markle wearing today basically the same line of bussines as Khardasians? Of course, due to the "tradition", which simply means royal family is longer in bussines than Khardasians, a style has evolved to an arguably more sophisticated level, but isn't that basically still the same LOB which average Joe and Jane are buying?

I think you can generalize this under "drama-soaps". I think it might have to do with intrinsic jealousy or desire to be able to have what the rich have. First, one stays for controversy and gets hooked on the drama for it's entertainment.

Isn't this why most people watch tv?

 

[Cosmik]

Agree with a lot of what you say @Cosmik but I have to take issue with this one:



This very much depends on the test. Do it blind and the subject doesn't know which product they are listening to. Do it double blind and the subject can't seek to please the tester even if they would otherwise wish to do so.

Or even better, don't test products, use DSP to test variables.

What I mean is: supposing there are two headphones: some Sennheiser and some Beats. Reputedly (-I've never heard them) the listener may prefer the Beats, but because they know they are being tested for their preferences for 'hi-fi' (if they have just driven to Harman headquarters, say) they may feel they should prefer the Sennheiser anyway. True test blindness would be difficult to achieve.

 

[Krunok]

Sorry, I assumed without having followed the issue the clicking was some signal coming thru the DAC. I take it the clicking is from a relay click. Yes, I see those kinds of thread where you wonder how it has 200 responses instead of only three. Don't know what to say.

And how about this - it seems to me that roughly 95% of the posts are DAC related. But why? I believe that untrained listener would hardly notice any difference in SQ between the best and the worst DAC on Amirs list of measured devices. Hell, maybe even the trained listener would have a very hard time to notice any difference, which is no miracle as todays tecchnology has solved a DAC problem some years ago so these days they can be made cheap and of such quality which was considered high end only 10 years ago. So, why does average Joe on this forum keep doodling about DACs???

 

[Blumlein 88]

And how about this - it seems to me that roughly 95% of the posts are DAC related. But why? I believe that untrained listener would hardly notice any difference in SQ between the best and the worst DAC on Amirs list of measured devices. Hell, maybe ven the traind listenr would have a very hard time to notice any difference, which s no miracle as todays tecchnology has solved a DAC problem some yeaars ago so these days they can be made cheap and of such quality which was considered high end only 10 years ago. So, why does average Joe on this forum keep doodling about DACs???

I've wondered the same thing. Modern DACs are far and away the best performing part of the whole reproduction chain. I put up 8th generation ad/da copies that people couldn't pick vs originals using two bits of gear that cost about $350 each.

I think it is the same reason Amir tests so many DACs. They are small, easily shipped, have a very defined role, and that makes trying them out easy. Swapping out big amplifiers is much more trouble than DACs as is shipping them around and measuring them. Speakers are even worse. Heaphones are easy of course.

Clearly transducers whether phones or speakers are where really big differences lie and worth considering. At least for this forum Amir isn't even in a position to test those meaningfully.

So I don't have a good answer for your question on that. I would say it doesn't seem to be just an average Joe problem.