Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[uwotm8]

Do you flatter youreself that you are doing otherwise?

I'm trying to avoid cliche and am neither "pro" or "against" measurements (a whole idea of being against is dumb IMO).
However, I'm definitely against bland if not dumb statements based on really bad understanding of the very basics such as FR.
You can find that my irony comes out exactly in cases when something "not great not terrible" gets a lot of low quality negative comments.
So if one is OK posting generics "OMG FOSI KILLED MCINTOSH THIS TIME!!!11" why should I feel bad for being a bit sarcastic about that?

Absent that, temper your claims. Unless of course you have measurements to back them up

What (un)measurable did I claim actually?
I can't prove - by measurements! - importance of listening to pair of omni speakers instead of one to get proper spatial sound experience yet it's obvious.
A good example of thing that works only in pair is cinematic 3D glasses. Measuring color reproduction through one half/one eye can give you that - yet not 3D experience.
Kinda uncertain if I need measurements (and what exactly) to prove what Amir said about importance of subjective listening.

 

[krabapple]

I was of course refering to a general principle: absent blind comparison, temper your claims about 'heard' audio quality.

I don't give smallest damn about your omni speaker hobby horse. It's been rode hard an' put away wet on ASR before.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I totally understand that (that's why I wrote that first post in OPAL thread where I said that I appreciate Audioholics approach of testing).
Amir said, and not even once, that critical listening expertise does matter at least as much as measurements.
You can actually check it and see that my "trolling" is nothing but pointing caveats in some statements.
Marking speakers as bad due to FR deviations within classic +-3 dB just by graphs, not even trying to analize what's actually bumped/recessed, is a classic case of that. Such speakers are "in grey zone", they might be pleasant or not, and may and will fit or not some individual tastes.
Also, OPAL is sort of exotic project and evaluating is as a typical loudspeaker is arguable to me. Designer does not say that it's any kind of neutral of reference, that was not the idea. I think that should be kept in mind as well. And for me it's actually a no-go already, just by developer description
Speaking subjectively, I could easily get used to BBC dip etc I think, as far as classic Dynaudios have some type of it, but I radically hate speakers with recessed/hollow lower midrange, severe saw-FR/coloration and overall "bright" tilt. So, even it's a LOL OMG BAT SHAPE!!1 but upper bass and lower midrange has its place it's far from the worst for me personally.
To sum this up, I don't think the reviewer is wrong if he politely describes something like that as a specific product not for everyone. Same as Stereophile calls B&W FR tailored. I hate their tune, but a lot of people seem to like it.

1) I said that I appreciate Audioholics approach of testing.
We got that the first several hundred times you posted it. It's perfectly fine for you to have that opinion ... no one will disabuse you of that notion. But why hammer on it time after time? Is it because you think ASR should behave like Audioholics? Do you think your constant comparisons are going to force us to behave like Audioholics?

Good luck with that.

ASR has over 60,000 members. Not a single one of them is God handing down laws from on high. Not them, not me ... and not you.

If you really, truly think ASR should change and be more like Audioholics, send a private message to Amir and tell him that. I'm sure that after he's done paying all the bills out of his own pocket (Audioholics has ads ... ASR doesn't) he will give your suggestion the attention it deserves.

2) my "trolling" is nothing but pointing caveats in some statements.
It's easy to point out things with which you disagree. It's much more constructive to offer viable alternatives, building the framework up rather than just tearing it down. That way, you won't need to "generate tons of irony".

3) , I don't think the reviewer is wrong if he politely describes something like that as a specific product not for everyone.
It can be take that way, or it can be taken as I suggested before ... hedging his bets. After all, Audioholics has the same problem as Stereophile and every other entity that supports advertising: they can't afford to alienate their advertisers. I would describe it as being mealy-mouthed, but that's a bit too caustic.

I'll repeat: there are no ads here. No one here has to be mealy-mouthed, or too polite, or too timid, or whatever. We don't need to sneak an agenda beneath someone's radar. We can speak our mind, and if it's too disruptive the mods will ban us. Simple and effective.

 

[MAB]

I wonder why you're bluring some facts (which will not change whether I posted it or not) with personal preferences which I always mark as personal preferences.
And why you blur my opinion on test approach with what you're trying to put here as "my" opinion about whole idea of measurements.
Fact: preference score calculation is measurement based.
Fact: the very idea of it to predict subjective opinion (with arguable accuracy).
Then, not sure if fact or my interpretation: one of the goals (if not main) of Harman research was finding that "average listener" preference target curve; also finding corellations between measurements and subjective experience, and finding how much do measurable characteristics affect that/what matters much (unsurprisingly FR).

Now let me quote what I'm actually answering:

Wasn't that one of the goals? To predict that with a good chances. To design speakers that will be liked by the most of people and selling well as a result.

Somehow you're missing again and again that in case of omnipolars I'm appealing to the fact that listening to one will not allow you to hear their real spatial capabilities. I did not state that omnipolars can't be measured (but AFAIR John Atkinson stated that measuring even simplier things - MartinLogan ELS models - with traditional approach is incorrect). Still, all mono vs stereo talk in case of omnipolars was about listening only. Where you simply can't get that (hyper)realism using only one speaker, so you're missing their main feature if doing so. Can be worse for sure, just imagine if one judges such non-traditional design by measurements only, with no listening at all.


The thing what makes me smile more and more reading such is that what you call "snarking" mostly does not contradict - in essence - with what has been stated many times by a lot of experts who do not strive for polar assessments and prefer restraint.
Critical importance for subjective listening is among this.
If you count "hijacking" something like "I'd avoid buying this blindly" or "better double-check if you will like that switching from 1.5m height 3-way towers to 5" monitors with a sub" - well, as you wish.

P.S. Just curious if posting something generic "party approved" like "OMG that $100 D-class just blown out the water all hi-end amps" (yet it's barely on par with 20 y.o NAD 320 you could buy used fot the same money, get a lot of inputs etc) or, for example, "wow just realize how much money you saved not buying this" (mostly about the devices even a true audiophool will barely buy) is considered as creating good, needed content of a good quality, informative and useful.

You actually don't clearly differentiate your perception vs. measurements. I mean you can't even be bothered to figure out an appropriate thread to share your thoughts. Your thoughts are unoriginal, repeated ad infinitum, and display a lack of understanding and familiarity with the literature. And you still confuse perception of MBL with the ability to measure the actual sound field. It's pretty clear you followed none of what I or other's posted earlier. I hope you understand, you may think you are being original and innovative, but you are actually trolling..

It may not come as a surprise, you go onto ignore. If you have an original thought to add here, I will miss it. In your case, originality is exceedingly unlikely. At least I helped you get into the right thread.

 

[NTK]

How many times do we have to answer the same questions over and over again? Dr Toole, if you believe he is telling the truth, has said test using only one speaker is the most discriminating. Speakers that won in single speaker tests win the stereo tests too. He also pointed out that, outside of classical music recordings, many of the rest are largely mono-left, mono-right, and double mono phantom center. And for those mono speaker testing is directly applicable.

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/how-to-choose-a-loudspeaker-what-the-science-shows.3038828/page-6?post_id=57431444&nested_view=1&sortby=oldest#post-57431444

Also, know that Toole had Mirage M1's in his home for his personal use, which had ranked among the top speakers in his tests for a period of time (during the 1980's). So he is far from unfamiliar with omni-like speakers.

 

[rdenney]

Undeniably ' true ' , our brains work via a system reliant on all sorts of assumptions, narrowing of focus, learned norms etc. It kinda works , we are all still here .

It’s always amused me when folks would say they were ' objectivists ' pure objectivity and the human condition are not compatible or even remotely possible . It's just another call to authority imo .

Ah well .. , one can't be expert in all areas of life , one can find the smartest to be the dumbest and vice versa , depending on what part of their life's one looks at. Life's great contrasts .

Late hit, but I’m just catching up with this thread.

One problem is with the word “objectivity,” as if the left brain should always dominate the right. The problem is when the right brain refuses to learn anything from the left.

I’m not sure this is a failure of education. It is a failure of self-awareness and humility.

But I dare say most people who eschew data in their own proud assertions (see above) that they have never tested them when the pride was really at stake. This is the basis of my thought experiment stated here several times.

Imagine inviting over a person to whom you are hopelessly attracted, and hoping against hope that what you have to offer will be good enough not to disqualify you. The very situation introduces self-doubt—which seems to me the flip side of the geek coin to which most audio enthusiasts of whatever stripe are minted. (The truly self-assured don’t care what others think, which is in itself an attractive quality, I’m given to understand. But those aren’t the usual drive-by tormentors at ASR, even if they insist as much.) Another audio geek doesn’t count, unless their audio geek ranking far exceeds yours. They already know the ritual, and you are confident in your shared tribal connections. Pride is not at stake.

Now, you pull out that treasured Diana Krall album for the obligatory bragging about the sound system. And you request that the paramour-in-hope sit in that chair. You crank it up to just shy of ear-splitting, and then look for approval. You may supplement (self-destructively) the demonstration with unsolicited descriptiveness, as if colorful adjectives and adverbs can make up for colorless facts.

When the approval does not come, and it never does (unless the other person’s hopes are more ardent than your own, which should make it untrustworthy), you are suddenly confronted with how unimportant all your audio choices really are. In that moment, you get to hear your system with the other person’s ears—ears of a disdainful skeptic whose high opinion you (in that moment) crave. Every silly dependence on audio woo gets exposed as the midnight campfire ritual that it is.

True self-awareness is unnatural in a competitive world, but it is something we ought to learn from the role models of our youth. The world isn’t that perfect, which is sad but not unexpected.

I’m reminded of Dudley Moore showing off his boudoir to an adorably uncaring Goldie Hawn in Foul Play, with the phrase, “I’ve got it all.” We felt sorry for him—the creepy one—because there but for the grace of God, etc.

The problem is not a left-brain vs. right-brain war in which there must be a winner. The problem is that both sides are unwilling to be self-aware. Subjectivism is what it’s all about, which is why we conduct and insist on controlled preference testing—to validate our subjective responses as being real and not a phantom of self-delusion.

Rick “music is exciting when the music is exciting” Denney

 

[Jim Taylor]

The problem is not a left-brain vs. right-brain war in which there must be a winner. The problem is that both sides are unwilling to be self-aware. Subjectivism is what it’s all about, which is why we conduct and insist on controlled preference testing—to validate our subjective responses as being real and not a phantom of self-delusion.

How true! I believe that the people who use objectivity do so because they are aware - vitally aware - of the hold subjectivity has on the human mechanism. Only the matador truly understands the precarious nature of his position, and only those who seek to control emotion can eventually understand its long reach and grasping nature.

 

[krabapple]

Late hit, but I’m just catching up with this thread.

One problem is with the word “objectivity,” as if the left brain should always dominate the right. The problem is when the right brain refuses to learn anything from the left.

This particular left/right brain dichotomy, which dates to Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain from the woo woo 1970s, is more a poetic construct than actual science.

Right brain/left brain, right? - Harvard Health

...

www.health.harvard.edu

 

[uwotm8]

But why hammer on it time after time?

Because my opinion on good sides of that approach somehow leaded to my disagreement with the concept of measurements (makes me wonder how). That's why I'm marking how that all started.

Is it because you think ASR should behave like Audioholics? Do you think your constant comparisons are going to force us to behave like Audioholics?

Is there an option not to choose sides and get the best from all instead?
Unless it's a religion, why to even set the question in a way like ARE YOU WITH OR AGAINST US?

If you really, truly think ASR should change and be more like Audioholics

I never asked for that. However, with all honesty I think - and I wrote that in some reviews threads - that oftenly ASR approach is focused on proving that "things (don't) work as they should" while for me personally the funniest part is to find that exagerrated case, like in a Mythbusters, where you can blow up a house with hudreds of roach spray tubes - yet you will never do that with any normal amount of it. That's an illustration of how I'd test cables to possibly find that flawed and barely realistic case where they work.
Yet I found Alpha Audio test on youtube where was a very slight, less than 0.5 dB peak FR change.
BTW talking about "not sounding" amplifiers, here's fresh Musical Fidelity A1 tested at Stereophile:

0.5 dB is that border amount I can actually detect when playing with EQ fine tuning. 1 dB is a pretty common step in attenuation (my active Dynaudio had +-1 dB HF adjustment and that was very noticeable).

send a private message to Amir and tell him that. I'm sure that after he's done paying all the bills out of his own pocket (Audioholics has ads ... ASR doesn't) he will give your suggestion the attention it deserves

I overall have no questions to Amir and his approach.
He actually is listening to the community and a lot of measurement stuff have nicely improved, complex speaker load emulator appeared, as example.
At the same time I don't hesitate to ask him some questions and I do if I think it's correct.

It's much more constructive to offer viable alternatives

My viable alternative, 101th time (as you say) , is not to evaluate every speaker (and other devices) by one measure and to keep in mind that strong sides of some exotic designs may outweigh tonality caveats etc.

And your thoughts about advertising, hedging bets etc, well, at first I'd love to say that here on ASR there's absolutely no difference in subjective evaluation, of, well... not the best products from a "good companies" and "nice guys" and those what are considered "unfriendly" or "not nice" in whatever way.
But sometimes I note a bias. Not commercial, rather emotional.

The advertising tho, theoretically speaking, can exist not only in a form of banners and obvious press-release-like tests.
And can be not a bad thing at all if something good is advertised, not every ad is selling snake oil.
However, I'd reather will keep away from discussing that.
I know how it works and how much costs at a few well-known forums (not ASR!!!) for a manufacturer to simply have his "official" thread there.

I'm familiar with that, but again the whole testing was focused on different things and finding the best working model of evaluation, not finding the best speakers (!)
Listener will not get the idea of how exactly two omni speakers work in terms of spatial image, so will miss the very idea of that tech. I bet it will sound strange/worse that usual speaker - alone, in that case.

 

[NTK]

I'm familiar with that, but again the whole testing was focused on different things and finding the best working model of evaluation, not finding the best speakers (!)
Listener will not get the idea of how exactly two omni speakers work in terms of spatial image, so will miss the very idea of that tech. I bet it will sound strange/worse that usual speaker - alone, in that case.

What you said made no sense. Which speakers win these listening tests, both the mono and stereo ones? Not the best speakers?

 

[rdenney]

This particular left/right brain dichotomy, which dates to Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain from the woo woo 1970s, is more a poetic construct than actual science.

Right brain/left brain, right? - Harvard Health

...

www.health.harvard.edu

All models are false, but some are useful.

Rick “whose post wasn’t really about the sidedness of the brain” Denney

 

[uwotm8]

Which speakers win these listening tests, both the mono and stereo ones? Not the best speakers?

Which are the best speakers, highly directed flat FR point source with, precise and refined yet with a classic soundstage
or
spooky-realistic and holographic 3D (if not 4D) where you feel that you can actually touch every cymbal and give singer a hi-five yet have to deal with some non-critical tonal caveats?

For me the latter is unquestionable winner, it achieves different level of (un)realism.

 

[NTK]

Which are the best speakers, highly directed flat FR point source with, precise and refined yet with a classic soundstage
or
spooky-realistic and holographic 3D (if not 4D) where you feel that you can actually touch every cymbal and give singer a hi-five yet have to deal with some non-critical tonal caveats?

For me the latter is unquestionable winner, it achieves different level of (un)realism.

Your personal opinion applies only to you. It failed to stand up to science.

 

[uwotm8]

Your personal opinion applies only to you. It failed to stand up to science.

Sure. But what's your answer to the question above? What's the best?

 

[NTK]

Sure. But what's your answer to the question above? What's the best?

Those that rank among the highest in properly controlled double blinded tests.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Which are the best speakers, highly directed flat FR point source with, precise and refined yet with a classic soundstage
or
spooky-realistic and holographic 3D (if not 4D) where you feel that you can actually touch every cymbal and give singer a hi-five yet have to deal with some non-critical tonal caveats?

For me the latter is unquestionable winner, it achieves different level of (un)realism.

Kind of funny your description here. The MBLs are not the kind of speakers to excel at the latter. It is the former type that would. Although it is a false dichotomy you have constructed.

 

[Jim Taylor]

my opinion on good sides of that approach somehow leaded to my disagreement with the concept of measurements

Yet in the same post, you show measurements of the Musical Fidelity A1 to make your point.

Is there an option not to choose sides and get the best from all instead?
Unless it's a religion, why to even set the question in a way like ARE YOU WITH OR AGAINST US?

My question was asking about your agenda, not something else. But your next comment answered that. Thank you.

My viable alternative, 101th time (as you say) , is not to evaluate every speaker (and other devices) by one measure

They aren't. Amir (and other reviewers using tests and measurements) run the speakers through a whole range of tests, looking at many different characteristics. They show both strengths and weaknesses. Taken as a whole, the results are very useful.

One of the things I must point out is that I (personally) do not use tests and measurements to find the "best" choice. Instead, I use tests and measurements to identify the faulty items, and discard them.
Which brings us to your final point:

keep in mind that strong sides of some exotic designs may outweigh tonality caveats etc.

You have been told by many here that this is your personal opinion, and that your personal opinion is unique to you. Maybe you are the only person who feels that way, and maybe you're not. Regardless, it's not a point of logical contention with other people.
You do understand what "personal" and "unique" mean, don't you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know whether you would benefit from a better translation app or not. Perhaps you would. (You might try DeepL.) But that's not the only problem. Your thoughts seem scattered and disjoint. If the points you are trying to make seem logical and orderly on your end, I can assure you that they lose those characteristics by the time they arrive here.

So:
Put your thoughts in order.
Address one idea at a time.
When you wish to make a different point, separate by means of paragraphs.
Please don't try to justify your personal, emotion-based opinions. This is not the place for that. This is the place to bring proofs and data to support what you say. Arguing personal opinions is like wrestling a pig; you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

 

[uwotm8]

Yet in the same post, you show measurements of the Musical Fidelity A1 to make your point

Of course, because my "disagreement" with measurements (especially as a concept) was your claim
BTW the whole name of this thread is purposefully (yet ironically) dividing sides instead of using best of the data available, both subjective and objective.

Amir (and other reviewers using tests and measurements) run the speakers through a whole range of tests, looking at many different characteristics. They show both strengths and weaknesses. Taken as a whole, the results are very useful

You continue referring to Amir - implying I'm criticizing his reviews - but he actually avoids drawing bats and making bold claims, especially if there was no listening test performed.

Again, starting point of that discussion was some blaming of Audioholics reviewer being unfair because he dared to claim that judging particular speakers with flawed FR just by measurements is incomplete/incompetent. He definitely has a point.

You have been told by many here that this is your personal opinion

It's not that personal and that unique just by the look on the market and B&W place on it alone. I hope that mentioning B&W doesn't make one think that I like their special tuning yet I'm totally OK knowing a lot of people love it. Or something like ATC and PMC

If the idea that well executed omnipolar speakers can produce a whole different level of realistic illusion, while a) 2 speakers required b) special placement required c) their not perfect yet even (on a big scale FR) leaves you (me) without big complains while imaging is completely beyond box-like and just mind-blowing - is all nonsence then I can't help much. And yes, d) I don't claim that such exagerrated realism is a precise recreation of the recording which was recorded in typical way and mixed on common studio monitors.

 

[BDWoody]

The advertising tho, theoretically speaking, can exist not only in a form of banners and obvious press-release-like tests.
And can be not a bad thing at all if something good is advertised, not every ad is selling snake oil.

One of the other often overlooked advantages of the way our host runs this site without advertising is that your moderation team does not have to worry or even think about how to deal with advertisers or any kind of sponsor.

Just think about how that could change things.

Almost to the contrary, every member who is part of the industry is required to agree to and adhere to a much more restrictive set of rules than ordinary members. They don't have to donate or pay anything to be members here. If they choose to, they are labeled as Forum Donor like any other member. It is a privilege for them to have access to the members, and those that can't manage it don't stay.

I've chatted with mods on other audio fora to share a laugh once in a while, and hearing how much they are restricted in action based on advertising and sponsorships and whatever else made me appreciate what we all have here in a different way.

 

[uwotm8]

I admit that many sets of tests and measurements of speakers that I've seen are woefully inadequate. A truly exhaustive set of tests and measurements takes a long time, a lot of work and requires a great deal of understanding on the part of the person conducting the tests. That's money, and specifically, it's money that some entities are unwilling to spend.
But that doesn't justify saying that judging by tests and measurements is incomplete/ incompetent. Tests and measurements are a whole different language, and if you are to gain information from them, you need to learn to converse in that language. Just like learning any new language, that takes time and effort.

Yet Floyd Toole himself (among with other expert with scientific approach) admits the importance of listening test.

This is just a sober look at the current state of technical expertise and what it can and cannot give. It is strange to me to see attempts to deny the obvious, especially in the case when the authors of the research to which you and some less reserved participants refer directly, talk about the need for listening in addition to measurements. These things are integral and complement each other. But for some reason you interpret this as "heresy". While, I repeat, the authors themselves do not consider it possible to accurately assess "how it will sound to the end user's position" only by measurements. The rating system we are discussing is only capable of more or less accurately predicting the general dependence and whether a speaker is "more likely to be liked" or "more likely to be disliked". Moreover, the lower the score, the less clear it is how bad everything really is in a specific situation and for a specific listener (yes, ultimately the question of choice is subjective), and not in an ideal sphere from a vacuum.

If we put the question differently, namely, "whether it is possible to identify by measurements the speakers that will be an unmistakable choice" - the answer will be positive. But we must take into account that even in this case some listeners may be disappointed, suddenly realizing that the "flat" sound does not make them happy.

Another example of importance of personal taste is using tube amps which a lot of ASR members have and happily use knowing that it's flawed and how exactly. Yet it brings joy and somehow (how's that even possible!) digital emulation of tube-like distortion works same as "good" as emulating other speakers or headphones sound using EQ. My personal humble experience with a low-power tube amp ended up not liking it at all tho but somehow it didn't transform into screeching like "hhhaaaa that $30 tpa3116 amp is better than all that Manleys!" lol.

From the developer's perspective, measurements are the basis of basics, the foundation, the alpha and omega. But this is a tool, not an goal itself. The developer can quite consciously deviate from the generally accepted concept in one, several or even all parameters, if in his opinion this is necessary to obtain a certain specific result. In this case, his development may look bad being measured according to the templates for a standard case and not accoutning some of its specific.

I am against simplifying perception to such a level, when something like "walls should be flat, rooms should be rectangular, curved/angled/whatever-non-flat walls are bad and no one needs them" is declared. How should we deal with Gaudi, Zaha Hadid or Calatrava in this case? Apparently, in such a picture of the world there is no place for them, as well as for any dipoles and omnipolar speakers, which should be called a "weird speakers with a complete lack of directionality control".

Moreover, I think the analogy with stereo glasses is a good one. I am constantly told here that one half and one eye are enough to evaluate how it works. While the result will only be a drop in brightness and some distortion of the color balance (not to mention the obvious doubling of the image for non-working stereo glasses). But if you call this an adequate approach of testing in that particaular case - I don't feel that I need to argue.

Can such an approach, when all inconvenient factors are discarded as "incorrect", be considered scientific in principle? Once again, this is not about Floyd Toole, this only goes to the forum interpreters of his ideas.