Marching Onward re: distortion

[More Dynamics Please]

It's inescapable that certain behavior by vendors/manufacturers on any forum can come across as guerilla marketing, especially when there's a new product to promote.

 

[Shazb0t]

Why not better, then please read that goldmine of research objective data and jump over the listening test if its a problem Amir can't do 100% right blind listening sessions each second or third day and still have a life, that said it sometimes sound like some persons want acoustic objective curves to be cut out be >100% predictable transfererable how sound is really percieved into real life, that is not the case real world and myself is happy Amir doesnt lie himself into each review to get anechoic spinorama and score data match his opinion of whatever percieved acoustics.

Why would you even quote me when your response is so out of context? I was clearly referring to how certain types of emotional responses or behaviors can make this forum look more like a "cult of personality" rather than promoting scientific discussion. I wasn't referring to the objective measurements or review approach at all. What you're talking about has no connection to what I posted.

 

[Robin L]

Jeez, people still complaining about the subjective portion of the reviews when they are getting LITERALLY a thousand bucks a pop state-of-the-art measurements. Only on the internet can a Pink Panther figurine rile people up so. Both the objective and subjective components of the review have been framed as works in progress from the start and indeed Amir's goal of learning to hear the measurements better after the fact have also been made clear. That DSP-friendliness seems to be increasingly valued is just a part of this unfolding.

Seriously, stupid-good parametric equalization is now available as freeware. It's the 21st century, flying cars are just around the corner. Get with the program.

 

[March Audio]

I feel that Alan's comments and intentions seem to have been misconstrued here. The confrontational tone of the discussion certainly hasn't helped, although IMO Alan is not alone there.

Most importantly, I believe he honestly does not see this speaker as a competitor to his own. So I don't think his comments in this thread were designed to bash a competitor, and I don't think it's fair to characterise them as such.

Having said that, @March Audio, although I sympathise with your position in this case (and personally I don't believe there should be subjective commentaries mixed up with objective data on ASR at all), I think trying to criticise someone's approach to arriving at their own sighted subjective opinion is always going to be fraught, and is best avoided (if for no other reason than pragmatism).

As others have said, the objective data @amirm produces are invaluable and unrivalled. If reading someone’s sighted subjective opinions is the cost of admission to those objective data, it’s one I’m willing to pay (and it helps that the someone in question is an experienced listener with a generally healthy understanding of what they can and can't expect of their ears).

Anyway, for my 2c, in an ideal world ASR would not venture into sighted subjective opinions in the first place. These threads get swamped by discussions of Amir's sighted listening impressions, which are (by miles) the weakest data point presented in the reviews! I'd really prefer this were avoided, but you can't have everything...

They werent intended to comment on the speaker, they were entirely criticisms of the methodologies involved in the speaker testing.

I totally agree that the technical testing is invaluable.

I also totally agree that the sighted is not for all the obvious reasons that Amir would cite to you himself if it werent him making the subjective comments.

 

[March Audio]

That was kind of how I saw it as well, although I have to say the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot - Alan thinks speakers should be rated on an absolute scale without EQ, and Amir..well, I’m not exactly sure where he stands on pre- and post-EQ, but he is emphasizing value for money and assuming widespread availability of simple EQ tools. Are we there yet..? My kids are sort of into audio (my eldest just invested in Genelecs and my middle guy has KEFs), but aren’t ready to buy Roon.

I’ve benefited from the expertise of both and sort of hate to see them going at it. Alan is one of the few vendors who doesn’t preach pure nonsense to move product, and his products are pretty reasonably priced. If you think Alan is anti-EQ, you should go over to the Harbeth Forum and find his description of setting up an exhibit room.

Full disclosure, I have one of his amps, but I am running EQ in Roon and my (RME) DAC before the signal gets there. I will say that my experiments with room EQ so far have not been life-changing.

I actually mentioned this earlier. You need two things to put a speakers performance into perspective. An absolute rating and one where it is rated against its price and competition in its market segment.

The idea that the use of EQ is widespread amongst the wider community is false. As is the idea expressed by some that after EQ the speaker requiring correction will be just as good as a "better" (not meaning expensive) speaker. Does this Adam sound as good as say the Revel F326 reviewed earlier? There is more to it than just flat on axis and power response.

 

[TimVG]

The idea that the use of EQ is widespread amongst the wider community is false.

I'm willing to bet it's quite a bit higher among the part of the community that appreciates measurements.

 

[March Audio]

I'm willing to bet it's quite a bit higher among the part of the community that appreciates measurements.

Oh agreed but the ASR user base is much broader than that.

 

[andreasmaaan]

They werent intended to comment on the speaker, they were entirely criticisms of the methodologies involved in the speaker testing.

I appreciate that. But in criticising the methodology, you did in fact criticise the speaker. TBH, at the time it didn't occur to me that your new status as a speaker manufacturer might make this problematic, and I appreciate that it didn't occur to you either. But in hindsight, I think others are right that manufacturers should try to refrain from commenting on "competing" (in the broadest possible sense) products on the forum.

Anyway, you know what my opinion is on the subjective component of these threads. Hence my advice to just sidestep the subjective comments completely, and discuss the measurements...

 

[ctrl]

March Audio said: The idea that the use of EQ is widespread amongst the wider community is false.

I'm willing to bet it's quite a bit higher among the part of the community that appreciates measurements.

Yep, we are in a bubble.

A "normal" consumer might use these speakers with a simple Bluetooth adapter to listen to music via smartphone or notebook - don't see that the normal consumer installs additional apps on the notebook and smartphone to set one or more filters - this is far beyond the capabilities of normal consumers.

The headphone purchase of our daughter (13) went as follows: Choice between Sony, JBL and a cheap noname. Synchronized with the smartphone via Bluetooth, listened to all headphones for a short time and chose the Noname product because it sounds best without any further action.

Among my (non audiophiles) acquaintances there is no one who uses software equalizers and filters to improve the sound of their loudspeakers - if it is included in the product, such as equalizers in LED TV, things look different.

 

[March Audio]

I appreciate that. But in criticising the methodology, you did in fact criticise the speaker. TBH, at the time it didn't occur to me that your new status as a speaker manufacturer might make this problematic, and I appreciate that it didn't occur to you either. But in hindsight, I think others are right that manufacturers should try to refrain from commenting on "competing" (in the broadest possible sense) products on the forum.

Anyway, you know what my opinion is on the subjective component of these threads. Hence my advice to just sidestep the subjective comments completely, and discuss the measurements...

I dont have an issue with this, however there needs to be a mechanism by which comments can be made regarding tests results and methodology in a generic sense....and without getting attacked for doing so.

 

[March Audio]

The point is not how widely measured EQ is currently being used. The point is that measured EQ should be more widely used and that ASR has become a leading voice in demonstrating its effectiveness in improving speaker performance which in turn promotes more widespread acceptance and use.

I actually agree with this, but it really is a technical barrier for many.

 

[amirm]

I dont have an issue with this, however there needs to be a mechanism by which comments can be made regarding tests results and methodology in a generic sense....and without getting attacked for doing so.

There is. You need to start a discussion thread and not start it here:

I have to raise another point about these speaker reviews in general. That is regarding the usefulness, relevance and validity of equalising the response.

You have an issue "in general?" That belongs in a new thread, unrelated to any speaker produced from another company in competition to yours.

Before starting such threads, be absolutely sure you are not hashing arguments that have been made across countless threads. Once you revisit those as in "I heard all the answer but i don't agree and want to have my own fight about them" then be prepared for harsh responses back. My time is not free to have the same repeat argument with 20 people in a row. Nor do I have patience for people carrying the same torch from thread to thread.

Finally we have a dedicated thread for speaker testing complaints: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...aint-thread-about-speaker-measurements.11139/

This is the intro in it:

There seems to be never ending set of protest posts, complains, personal insults, etc. regarding speaker measurements in the review thread. That is not what those threads are about. They are making it difficult for people who just want to read a review about a speaker to follow through. Seemingly the same argument is also dragged from on review thread into another.

So while arguments are allowed to some extent in review threads, be on guard that the responses you get may not be kind to you starting it such.

 

[amirm]

I actually agree with this, but it really is a technical barrier for many.

So? They can ask questions and we help them just as well as we help them buy a product. It is our job to state the best method for sound reproduction in a room. I used to only worry about effect of the room on speaker. But after testing 110 speakers and applying EQ to them all, I can tell you that almost all benefit from equalization. And such benefit is immediate, significant and absolutely necessary. Fortunately equalization is also dirt cheap or even free. So adoption should be very quick.

 

[March Audio]

There is. You need to start a discussion thread and not start it here:

You have an issue "in general?" That belongs in a new thread, unrelated to any speaker produced from another company in competition to yours.

Before starting such threads, be absolutely sure you are not hashing arguments that have been made across countless threads. Once you revisit those as in "I heard all the answer but i don't agree and want to have my own fight about them" then be prepared for harsh responses back. My time is not free to have the same repeat argument with 20 people in a row. Nor do I have patience for people carrying the same torch from thread to thread.

Finally we have a dedicated thread for speaker testing complaints: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...aint-thread-about-speaker-measurements.11139/

This is the intro in it:


So while arguments are allowed to some extent in review threads, be on guard that the responses you get may not be kind to you starting it such.

As you know the comments I made were not related to the speaker.

What if you need to refer to specific data to make a point? How can that be "unrelated" to the product?

Re-hashing old arguments may be perfectly valid. It doesnt mean there was a satisfactory conclusion when it was spoken about previously. If you have to repeat the argument 20 times in a row the perhaps its time to re-consider your position? Just a suggestion

 

[March Audio]

So? They can ask questions and we help them just as well as we help them buy a product. It is our job to state the best method for sound reproduction in a room. I used to only worry about effect of the room on speaker. But after testing 110 speakers and applying EQ to them all, I can tell you that almost all benefit from equalization. And such benefit is immediate, significant and absolutely necessary. Fortunately equalization is also dirt cheap or even free. So adoption should be very quick.

You have a misunderstanding of the wider audio community in that case. As @ctrl said you are in a bubble. Is this site just for the part of the audio community that is willing to take on the more technical aspects? I hope not. That will limit its audience. Most people wont ever consider using EQ let alone know how to, or how to apply it to their specific speaker which you havent tested.

So putting such emphasis on EQ for "rescuing" speakers is inappropriate.

 

[amirm]

Re-hashing old arguments may perfectly valid. It doesnt mean there was a satisfactory conclusion when it was spoken about previously. If you have to repeat the argument 20 times in a row the perhaps its time to re-consider your position? Just a suggestion

No. You are not accountable to the entire membership and 10X larger who visit but don't register. Or the success of the forum. I am. A handful of people complaining -- regardless of how forceful -- does not amount to much in larger context. Arguments need to have merit and be convincing to me. If they are not, then you get to see the hand.

Remember, I touch and feel every one of these products. You do not. I am in a position that you are not. I know whether something is lost in the measurements to characterize a device or not.

All that said, plenty of arguments made constructively and informatively have led to changes and adoption of new tests and approaches. Speaker tests I do now are far from what I did at the start. So the door is open but the bar is very high to make changes.

 

[amirm]

As you know the comments I made were not related to the speaker.

I know no such thing. You were putting down the speaker left and right and for good measure, you figured you put me down as well. Ah the "speaker sounds thin and bright." Isn't this the kiss of death for any speaker, to be thin and bright?

It is these kind of logic famished arguments that causes me to not put merit in your arguments. With straight face to tell us black is white.

 

[March Audio]

I know no such thing. You were putting down the speaker left and right and for good measure, you figured you put me down as well. Ah the "speaker sounds thin and bright." Isn't this the kiss of death for any speaker, to be thin and bright?

It is these kind of logic famished arguments that causes me to not put merit in your arguments. With straight face to tell us black is white.

No. I was criticising *your* assessment which didnt tally with the data. Please take that on board.

10% distortion is not "nicely controlled" as you claimed. Lets remember you also called it bright so dont make out I was saying anything inaccurate.

You need to read your posts laced with put downs against myself. Two other members have commented in this thread about how you attacked me, so dont go there.

Black is white? What like you have just done?

 

[March Audio]

No. You are not accountable to the entire membership and 10X larger who visit but don't register. Or the success of the forum. I am. A handful of people complaining -- regardless of how forceful -- does not amount to much in larger context. Arguments need to have merit and be convincing to me. If they are not, then you get to see the hand.

Remember, I touch and feel every one of these products. You do not. I am in a position that you are not. I know whether something is lost in the measurements to characterize a device or not.

All that said, plenty of arguments made constructively and informatively have led to changes and adoption of new tests and approaches. Speaker tests I do now are far from what I did at the start. So the door is open but the bar is very high to make changes.

So you are right regardless. OK.

 

[amirm]

So you are right regardless. OK.

No. A CEO of a company is not always right. But he is accountable for the direction he sets for the company. That is me. I will make mistakes but if I am more right than wrong, this place will continue to prosper. And prosper it has with over 1.5 million visitors a month. The wide reach of the data in turn encourages me to keep investing in systems and processes to do better.

Maybe you think I can do what you do in your job better and if I just challenge you forcefully, berate you with empty arguments like what I am responding to, you will agree and listen to me instead. But again, that is not me. Mind your own business and make sure your posts are technical in nature and not telling me what to do.