Is Jay talking about Amir?

[Jim Matthews]

I’m running my rig with some loudness only for psychoacoustic compensation. BTW; my sweet spot:

View attachment 140631

Domestic tranquility has a new mascot.

The universal fragrance is "open a window!"

 

[redshift]

I turned off half way through his first straw man.

However I'd disagree strongly with the previous poster, all that matters is that listener likes the sound, how that is arrived at, by measurement of or sheer luck, is moot. The pragmatic amongst us will take a measurement lead approach, others may like to feel like they've had their hand held by their dealer as they undertook a fantastical voyage of discovery leading ulimately to a beautiful climax where they opened their wallet, most likely, for whatever the dealer had in stock...

It's just hifi

If you don’t like the sound of a well-measuring far-field Hifi rig. Try changing to another record.

If it measures well in the room it sounds good by default. It is simply not possible to compensate for a flawed actuator. If it audibly distorts the signal - it is bad.

If you like some coloration in the sound. Well, turn and twist on the tone controls since they are there for a reason. A bit of DSP/EQ effects for that “warmth” and slight “echo” perhaps? The possibilities with modern electronics is basically endless. It is not as if you will “lose” any information with a competent DSP.

Just don’t try to compensate away the room, that will surely ruin the experience. You see; the room plus the speakers is a system in objective reality that your brain implicitly “solves” as you listen.

Perhaps slap on some psychoacoustic compensation such as loudness if that is your thing. It surely works for me.

 

[redshift]

Domestic tranquility has a new mascot.

The universal fragrance is "open a window!"

Cute; huh? Mmm, doge much Hifi…

 

[jae]

I am not judging the person nor what else he does and has done. I am merely reacting to the video itself.
And no he isn't questioning properly conducted measurements. Nor does he give examples.

It is just a video addressing that speaker measurements have to be done properly. You can do this in various ways. There are good and less good and improper ways.

He indeed isn't explaining why measurements don't matter to him because he says properly made measurements matter. He also says that (obviously for acoustical measurements) they don't tell the whole story. Certainly not to the general public and measurements made by the general public say nothing unless those are accompanied with essential info.

Why should he show a blind test in a video that broadly addresses why measurements matter and that on the web you can find good and poor ones.

I have not looked at his many other videos and frankly I don't care because I don't watch any (watched Amir's and a few others to see what they say)
Only adressing this particular video about this particular subject where he tries to convey this isn't an easy task.

The comment regarding blind testing was just in regards to previous videos of his, some that have been posted here. I just found it amusing that one who claims to have studied and researched neuroscience would shrug off the veracity of blind testing or not participate in a proper one with the claims he has made. Blinded experimentation is the bread-and-butter of research in studies of the brain and cognition, and it is this very discipline that pioneered this type of testing methodology in other scientific fields in the first place- its use psychoacoustics included. I wonder if he ever told his neuroscience professors that we don't know enough about how the human brain works so he was going to conveniently dismiss a measurement in a paper with no justification. Or that he was going to conveniently dismiss a common metric in his field because a peer had used poor metrological methods in the past causing them to make ignorant conclusions.

Having watched the video in a relative vacuum, I think your overall opinion on it is relatively fair and there is not much to say there. The title of the video is "... Hi-Fi Measurements that SHOULD Matter to you !". I suppose titles of videos can be like titles of books, but at the end of the day he still failed to explain what measurements should matter to me or even his target audience. Even if he happened to be correct about a particular measurement (of the quality thereof) not mattering, or mattering very little compared to another with respect to a certain goal, a broken clock is still right twice a day. One mustn't use a broken clock to tell time.

 

[redshift]

The comment regarding blind testing was just in regards to previous videos of his, some that have been posted here. I just found it amusing that one who claims to have studied and researched neuroscience would shrug off the veracity of blind testing or not participate in a proper one with the claims he has made. Blinded experimentation is the bread-and-butter of research in studies of the brain and cognition, and it is this very discipline that pioneered this type of testing methodology in other scientific fields in the first place- its use psychoacoustics included. I wonder if he ever told his neuroscience professors that we don't know enough about how the human brain works so he was going to conveniently dismiss a measurement in a paper with no justification. Or that he was going to conveniently dismiss a common metric in his field because a peer had used poor metrological methods in the past causing them to make ignorant conclusions.

Having watched the video in a relative vacuum, I think your overall opinion on it is relatively fair and there is not much to say there. The title of the video is "... Hi-Fi Measurements that SHOULD Matter to you !". I suppose titles of videos can be like titles of books, but at the end of the day he still failed to explain what measurements should matter to me or even his target audience. Even if he happened to be correct about a particular measurement (of the quality thereof) not mattering, or mattering very little compared to another with respect to a certain goal, a broken clock is still right twice a day. One mustn't use a broken clock to tell time.

There is no need for Blind/ABX testing for components that isn’t affected by the circumstances in any significant manner. Such as cables and well-measuring amps and DAC’s. Speakers however; can they even be properly ABX’d in a meaningful way since the sound is significantly affected by the room in which the speakers are actuating.

 

[solderdude]

I’d say that measurements is all that matters in the room in which the speakers are placed, however not only the direct path, add in the first, second and third reflection. After all, the hearing and biological DSP seem fully capable of doing some pretty sophisticated 3D-mapping, EQ:ing and spatiotemporal correction seemingly effortless and by default.
IMO.

That's exactly what he says as well.

 

[solderdude]

Having watched the video in a relative vacuum, I think your overall opinion on it is relatively fair and there is not much to say there.

That was my point. I'm not going to watch his other videos though. I had a look of what videos he made and the titles alone did not inspire me to watch any of them. This particular one (one needs to watch the whole video and not just the first minutes) doesn't have much misinformation in it.
I would agree with some of the comments that it also doesn't help in understanding the role of measurements nor what measurements mean.
When you start looking with this idea in mind (explaining about measurements) one will be sorely disappointed.
No idea if he talks rubbish in other vids.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Is this guy ever gonna settle on a hairstyle?

 

[headshake]

Is this guy ever gonna settle on a hairstyle?

You know he spent more time thinking about how he looks in the video than the content. He just needs to zoom in on random objects in his room and he can be like Darko.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I guess all the subjectivists reviewers are going to post stuff like this as they feel their turf is threatened. Completely information-free video showing such shallow knowledge of audio research, measurements, or even what some of us are doing. I had watched some of Jay's videos in the past. It is clear he hasn't read a single review here, watch any of my videos or look at my background or he would change his tune.

I used to be really active in the car audio world. One of the things that just completely burned me out on the hobby, was that as time wore on, there were more and more neophytes making YouTube videos.

For instance, in 2005, most of the people participating on car audio forums were largely involved to achieve good sound, and the knowledge level was generally high, IMHO.

But by 2015-ish, a ton of the "experts" were doing YouTube videos, and many of the videos were just repackaging information that was just blatantly wrong. I think a big part of the problem is that YT videos are monetized, so people making videos have an incentive to make the videos provocative or controversial.

Basically, a hundred motivated neophytes making YouTube videos can easily drown out the information of experts. I can't even count the times I've seen someone on a car audio forum provide expert, well-thought-out information, and they just get shouted down by dozens of people who "learned their stuff" from YouTube.

 

[richard12511]

Most run much longer because some people like to hear themselves ramble and assume that others will be equally impressed.

I’m the opposite; I can’t stand hearing myself on camera.

 

[Flaesh]

I wish we'd stop talking about youtubers who do this, it's so boring.

Very nice idea!

 

[raif71]

I’m the opposite; I can’t stand hearing myself on camera.

I used not to like hearing myself too but over the years it got fine. You need the burn in time.

 

[amirm]

Not necessarily. This depends on room, speaker concept, how listening setup i.e. speakers and listener locations are adjusted and of course personal tolerance; how high peaks sound unnatural and bass notes too difficult to follow. For example EQ at any frequency has not been mandatory in our house, but possible locations for traditional boxed speakers are quite limited.

Nope. Post the measurements of said room and then we can talk.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Are we talking about the same video ?

The video was not about an opinion of a product nor its sound. There was no technical info presented.
He also did not say science is an opinion and values measurements. He questions how people interpret measurements and how the measurements come about.

Now I watched all of this, and what I see here is an attempt to justify and give credibility to this yt-channel as a review site, by trying to tell the story that any measurements not done by a (large) manufacturer can not be trusted, and claims that even if the measurements are valid, those measurements do not say anything about the sound of the product that could be useful for a customer.

Both statements are wrong.

The Danish magazine High Fidelity did measurements of speakers using a combination of near-field and gating some 40 years ago. They showed useful information about the performance of the speakers tested. Today, there are several reviewers that do quite accurate measurements of speakers, and some of them now use instrumentation (like the klippel - that Amir uses) that is capable of giving more accurate and more extensive information than those typical measurements performed in an anechoic chamber.

You do not measure a subwoofer by elevating it 100ft (30m) up into the air - as suggested in the video. On data-bass there is an extensive database of measured subwoofers, and a description of how those measurements are performed. Before that, there was one from Finland, who measured many subwoofers, and now there are several reviewers and review sites that does similar tests. Those tests give useful information to customers, because they tell how low a subwoofer can play, and how loud it can do that. This is information that most customers will be able to take advantage of, the technical knowledge required to understand this is well within reach for a typical enthusiast.

The speaker measurements of the type that are presented on this site - performed using the Klippel - presents lots of information about the sound of a speaker - including how it will "sound in your room." They can also give a good indication to whether a speaker design is flawed.

Interpretation of speaker measurements can be difficult, it requires knowledge. But that does not mean those measurements are of no value.

How to interpret speaker measurements, and what the most ideal response looks like, is still debated. But to have any meaningful contribution to that debate, it is necessary to first understand the basics - how measurements are done, what the mean.

In the video, it is claimed that audio as science is lagging far behind other areas. For some parts of the audio world, that may be true. For me, and many others, we see significant progress - we now have sonically transparent amplification and signal processing at very reasonable cost, there has been some quite interesting advancements in loudspeaker technology in later years, we know how to fix room acoustics. This, combined, gives a potential for very significant improvements in sound quality.

 

[Jim Matthews]

Is this guy ever gonna settle on a hairstyle?

Man still has his hair.

This is unforgivable.

 

[solderdude]

Now I watched all of this, and what I see here is an attempt to justify and give credibility to this yt-channel as a review site, by trying to tell the story that any measurements not done by a (large) manufacturer can not be trusted, and claims that even if the measurements are valid, those measurements do not say anything about the sound of the product that could be useful for a customer.

Both statements are wrong.

The Danish magazine High Fidelity did measurements of speakers using a combination of near-field and gating some 40 years ago. They showed useful information about the performance of the speakers tested. Today, there are several reviewers that do quite accurate measurements of speakers, and some of them now use instrumentation (like the klippel - that Amir uses) that is capable of giving more accurate and more extensive information than those typical measurements performed in an anechoic chamber.

You do not measure a subwoofer by elevating it 100ft (30m) up into the air - as suggested in the video. On data-bass there is an extensive database of measured subwoofers, and a description of how those measurements are performed. Before that, there was one from Finland, who measured many subwoofers, and now there are several reviewers and review sites that does similar tests. Those tests give useful information to customers, because they tell how low a subwoofer can play, and how loud it can do that. This is information that most customers will be able to take advantage of, the technical knowledge required to understand this is well within reach for a typical enthusiast.

The speaker measurements of the type that are presented on this site - performed using the Klippel - presents lots of information about the sound of a speaker - including how it will "sound in your room." They can also give a good indication to whether a speaker design is flawed.

Interpretation of speaker measurements can be difficult, it requires knowledge. But that does not mean those measurements are of no value.

How to interpret speaker measurements, and what the most ideal response looks like, is still debated. But to have any meaningful contribution to that debate, it is necessary to first understand the basics - how measurements are done, what the mean.

In the video, it is claimed that audio as science is lagging far behind other areas. For some parts of the audio world, that may be true. For me, and many others, we see significant progress - we now have sonically transparent amplification and signal processing at very reasonable cost, there has been some quite interesting advancements in loudspeaker technology in later years, we know how to fix room acoustics. This, combined, gives a potential for very significant improvements in sound quality.

Nowhere did he mention Klippel is not accurate nor other methods.
As mentioned, electronics were not discussed here.
He also said room acoustics were paramount and need to be measured in the actual room and positioning was paramount and that one should measure this.
On top of that, you being a speaker manufacturer, expects you to understand measurements and do proper ones and use that to improve performance. He also states that besides measurement one should also listen to speakers. I assume you do as well.
What he is on about is that the general public does not know how to interpret all of these measurements and what the consequences are in their rooms.

As said... I looked at the video as is not at his YT channel.

 

[amirm]

That was my point. I'm not going to watch his other videos though.

I have watched a few of them as I research other products I am testing. In that context, I am pretty confident he has zero use for measurements. In this video, he attempts to elevate measurements to something that only likes of NRC, Paradigm, Apex can do and so you should ignore anything from the rest of us. Not once does he acknowledge that professionally done measurements exist online that are actually superior to all the examples he gave by those companies. I am pretty sure he is aware of us and is attempting to downplay who or what we are.

While the general argument he makes is true -- that anyone can put together any measurement -- in the specific he is totally wrong and he knows it. He wouldn't do this video if it were not for the rise and popularity of what we are doing. He is feeling pressure so as with all the other youtubers put together another video why folks shouldn't trust what we do. Why? Because we must be sticking a mic at 1 meter in front of a speaker and calling it done.

At best, it is not a researched opinion to elevate the likes of Paradigm as knowing what they are doing and ignoring us and tons of research work done by Harman. At worst, and that is my opinion of what he is trying to do, is mislead the reader into thinking unless they see measurements by some brand/name, they should ignore it. Why? Because Jay wants you to.

His general thesis is wrong anyway. Your doctor doesn't run 1000 tests to determine what is wrong with you. Yet he is able to make pretty accurate predictions based on some measurements and his experience. Jay on the other hand makes the new mythical argument that if you haven't measured everything, then by definition your conclusions can be wrong. And that the odds of that is just the same as a subjectivist opinion. This if of course totally bogus argument but is one that I am starting to see from new youtubers.

Net, net, you are being extremely generous to him with your summary. He does not mean it that way at all.

 

[solderdude]

In that light things do look different.
I could kind of see this as similar to the Goldenone story on the MQA bit. That article seems to be well founded on most aspects. Yet, all the other crap he spewed was suspect and highly not scientific. He does not seem to be able to interpret his own AP555 measurements correctly and is highly subjective. Haven't heard back from his attempt to do a level matched test he was going to do anyway and would fail IMHO.

I am sure he is aware of ASR and won't agree with hard measurements objectivism. Still I have to agree with him that while measurements do tell the technical competence the border as to where specific measurements start to become audible under specific conditions is still fuzzy and that the general public does not understand measurements fully.

I also agree that testing has to be done properly. No reason to believe Klippel for instance isn't a good method.
In that aspect for instance one could easily deduce that only anechoic chamber measurements are the only proper ones. Which they aren't.
So yes, it is a 'general' message with lots of things left out or not explained.
And he probably has an agenda (his YT channel).
It may well be an example of why I don't watch those videos.

Informative videos do exist. The problem is (take McGowan) that for non technical folks it is impossible to tell where the reality ends and the nonsense starts. Although ...the moment he says ... weeelllll.. one should stop watching immediatly. Some truths mixed with fantasy.

In that light I do find Jay's video about this particular topic (disregarding the other ones) not complete nonsense and somewhat informative that people should be wary of 'measurements' as well as 'subjective reviews'.

I am convinced the vast majority of music enthusiasts and casual listeners will not understand measurements anyway. This will be better for the average ASR reader though. They won't be watching Jay's channel I assume.

The post about the cable measurements from the guy using a mic, not understanding what measurements actually show and then conclude that cables sound different based on flawed measurements is one of those things where measurements (in this case speaker cable and acoustic measurements) is one of those things that shows how wrong 'measurements' can be yet are presented as evidence.

It is a complex subject for sure.

 

[redshift]

I’ll go out on a limb to state that all measurements are valid as long as the measurement gear and circumstances is provided.

Ideally posted on objectivist forums where they can be scrutinized by the usual suspects.