NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOURSE ON ASR

[StevenEleven]

To me I would say we refine established science because we have found a theory that has better predictive power. It can take just one paper (or book) or one public demonstration.

I’ve cited to the streetlight effect myself in this forum. My solution was to test speakers and headphones. @amirm (independent of my musings I’m sure) is looking into that.

As to what’s important, independent of difficulty—safety issues when they come up, disseminating accurate and educational knowledge, influencing against harmful profit-driven distortions in the marketplace, and achieving better audio by hitting the weakest links in the chain, two of which are speakers and headphones.

Another area where we could become stronger is people highly expert in the recording to mixing to mastering side of the chain. Without them, we are missing out on a lot of useful, fascinating, interesting and fun content and perspective. Audio is largely the act of consuming the fruits of their efforts (and even more so the efforts of the musicians themselves).

Edited for brevity, aimed at no one in particular, hopefully responsive to the discussion at hand, my two cents, IMHO, & etc.

 

[svart-hvitt]

The statement: "This suggests that the perceived influence of directivity is dependent on both position and room type” is not proved. We now know that bass performance accounts for about 30% of the factor weighting in subjective evaluations. Changing locations dramatically changes this aspect of what is heard. This is why we do positional substitution evaluations.

I would add that in my earlier response, I failed to note that one of the two tests was done at the Canadian taxpayers expense (at the NRCC) and the second at Harman's expense. There is no commercial bias, as keeps on being implied.

Having no strings attached is an enviable position. I think it must be a big incentive for attracting young, talented researchers to Harman.

In previous posts I asked ASR members who have read your book and/or know audio science to use science to evaluate two excellent Harman speakers, Salón and M2. They have similar specifications but reportedly different sound. I assume you know both speakers very well and the measurements that accompany the speakers.

Interestingly, it seems like people have difficulty «putting it all together» in practical situations. Nothing new that there’s a sense of a gap between theory and practice, but good theory is practical, right?

I am a big fan of the case method and believe people learn faster, more and deeper when they apply science in a practical case.

So I wondered, based on science, which is the better speaker? Which science would you use to evaluate these two speakers? Which measurements would you put more emphasis on? Is it possible to make a list of points to go through to evaluate speakers, and how would you suggest weighting those points?

 

[Kvalsvoll]

@Kvalsvoll criticised me for using the concept of “middle way” in a setting where science is celebrated. But isn’t the Ellison quote just above a reminder that there is a trade-off between Importance and Hardness, that Ideas and Data are two factors that need balancing, i.e. finding a middle way?

Audio is a science which combines multiple research fields; physics, psychoacoustics, psychology, neurology and more. Isn’t such a multi-disciplinar field a place where ideas are even more important than in a narrower field, like say mathematics or “pure” physics? Do people on ASR welcome input from other fields, or is such input better omitted?

Toole’s 568 pages long book is also a reminder, isn’t it, that legacy research brings you only so far, but not further as speakers start to reach a consensus on the “old” consensus factors like “flat” and “smooth”? Are we in need of new ideas to design, measure and describe speakers that go beyond “good”? Will we ever be able to describe say Salon and M2 in ways that make meaning to people and let us decide which speaker is the best for a majority of users and use cases?

Don't put too much into that; I was just trying to point out how one single post could be viewed by others.

While I do not agree with everyone on this forum, I have found that it is possible to discuss and present ideas, but be prepared to prove claims and statements by presenting evidence to be taken seriously. Sometimes that can be difficult, may have to put too much effort in it to make it worth while. Then you will not convince others that you are right, but for me, I am fine with that. Such as @amir - he does not agree on my views on room acoustics, but he does not throw me out of the forum for that, and I am sure he and others will read and comment and object if I should choose to write more on that subject.

If you have experienced something that goes against some established theory, you could try to describe the situation where you experienced this, what you think you heard, and then simply ask if someone can explain what you hear.

As for the case of 2 relatively well designed speakers and being able to tell how they sound different from measurements alone - that is difficult. Part from showing that the speaker works, the measurements that are usually presented does not say much, and even experts do not agrre on how they should look. Yes, flat on-axis. smooth both on and off, but after that, there are different opinions.

Measurements are much more important in the development phase. But here we do a lot of different measurements and analysis together with simulations. We have a requirement specc that defines how it shold end up, and try as best we can to achieve that goal. If we do a good job, it is the requirements that actually defines the sound.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Having no strings attached is an enviable position. I think it must be a big incentive for attracting young, talented researchers to Harman.

In previous posts I asked ASR members who have read your book and/or know audio science to use science to evaluate two excellent Harman speakers, Salón and M2. They have similar specifications but reportedly different sound. I assume you know both speakers very well and the measurements that accompany the speakers.

Interestingly, it seems like people have difficulty «putting it all together» in practical situations. Nothing new that there’s a sense of a gap between theory and practice, but good theory is practical, right?

I am a big fan of the case method and believe people learn faster, more and deeper when they apply science in a practical case.

So I wondered, based on science, which is the better speaker? Which science would you use to evaluate these two speakers? Which measurements would you put more emphasis on? Is it possible to make a list of points to go through to evaluate speakers, and how would you suggest weighting those points?

Salon2 vs M2 - which is the better speaker? It depends . . .

I double-blind listening tests speakers this good (and there are others that qualify) tend to end up in statistical ties when being evaluated only on sound quality at foreground listening levels. The variations in program material interacting with the residual differences between the loudspeakers cause one or the others to be favored at different times. Remember that humans can hear low-Q frequency response variations of one dB for less for broadband, spectrally dense, sounds. Listening with pink noise it is improbable that two loudspeakers will sound exactly the same. However, with music things are less certain.

In terms of listening window frequency responses (from the spinorama) the M2 wins handily because it has dedicated electronics with anechoic EQ. The Salon2 is less smooth, but the fluctuations are at or below the known thresholds of detection for resonances. Of course it too could be anechoically equalized and this is done in some available processors.

This statement does not include frequency-dependent directivity differences which have a significant influence on sound quality, most especially the spatial aspect of sound quality. Now we are in more complicated territory because the room boundaries are involved, including distances to the walls, floor, ceiling (and the listener!), the acoustical properties of these surfaces, the nature of the program - how much poorly correlated information is in both channels, and finally the expectations/preferences of the listener. Some like pinpoint localizations, others like more spacious presentations, and all of it depends on the musical genre and what is judged to be appropriate.

Figure 10.15 in the 3rd edition shows the directivity of some live sources and of three very different loudspeakers. One is a large cinema system (very directional), the middle one is the JBL Pro M2 monitor speaker (moderately directional) and the bottom one is a cone and dome domestic system like the Salon2. If the on-axis frequency responses of all of these speakers were absolutely identical - and with anechoic EQ we can get dangerously close - all three will sound "different" in normally reflective listening spaces. Is one better or worse?

As I discuss at several points in my book, audio professionals tend to prefer being in a dominant direct sound field. Whether this is fashion, habituated preference, hearing loss consequences, or something else we may never know. Consumers/audiophiles more often prefer to have some amount of reflected sound arriving at the listening position. We know that this is likely to be most pleasant if the direct and reflected sounds have something spectrally in common - hence the need to look at off-axis performance in anechoic measurements.

All that said, these are linear distortions, and there are other factors than can bear on our opinions. Power compression is one, and non-linear distortion another. Sadly, as I have explained before in mulitple threads, non-linear distortion is something that needs more research before we have widely accepted quantifiable metrics that reliably correlate with listener opinions. In practice, quality domestic and monitor loudspeakers are unlikely to exhibit audible problems of this kind, but the small speakers currently flooding the marketplace are much more susceptible.

So, which is the better speaker? I chose the Revel Salon2 for its visual aesthetics knowing that sound quality was not an issue, and both can play louder than I find enjoyable or should prudently be exposed to. The directivity difference is irrelevant because I mostly listen to multichannel originals or upmixed stereo. That's a personal opinion, not a scientific, quantified analysis. If you want one - knock yourself out

 

[Ron Texas]

Right now I am listening to a pair of JBL LSR305 MKII's with a ML sub I bought on sale filling in the bass. These are so good it should be embarassing to a lot of other speaker manufacturers and owners. Only $300 and they throw in the amplifiers for free, LOL.

 

[restorer-john]

audio professionals tend to prefer being in a dominant direct sound field. Whether this is fashion, habituated preference, hearing loss consequences, or something else we may never know. Consumers/audiophiles more often prefer to have some amount of reflected sound arriving at the listening position.

Perhaps it is just really simple.

Professional want to hear exactly what they are recording or producing with little or no contribution from anything else.
Consumers want to fill the space with sound and music.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Perhaps it is just really simple.

Professional want to hear exactly what they are recording or producing with little or no contribution from anything else.
Consumers want to fill the space with sound and music.

Except that it has been found that mastering engineers tend to prefer wide dispersion, and many professionals prefer wide dispersion loudspeakers for recreational listening. In another test, when presented with differing levels of early reflections recording engineers quickly adapted to the circumstances and got on with the job. So-o-o, maybe it isn't really simple.
It is discussed in a few places in my book.

 

[Xulonn]

So I wondered, based on science, which is the better speaker?

For all of the many thousands of words you have written here recently expressing your interest in science and demanding adherence to scientific rigor, I truly cannot believe that you would ask such a naive question that cannot be answered without qualifications.

"Better"? Better in what way? Better at what?

Your question is as silly and unscientific as asking "based on science, which is better - a Mercedes or a Lexus?"

I see no evidence - scientific or otherwise - that suggests that the type of blind testing research that Floyd and other audio scientists and engineers do is for the purpose of determining "which is better," but primarily for logical objectives such as:

• Can differences be heard?
• What sonic signatures do different people prefer?

The other idea you have obsessed about in recent days is "can measurements predict what speakers will sound like - or people will hear - in the rooms in their home (typically living rooms)" and the answer is - for all practical reasons - no. There is a nearly infinite variety of acoustic environments presented by rooms and their contents and decor (size, shape, hardness and rigidity of walls, what kind of and how much furniture is present, carpeting, draperies, curtains, windows, blinds, etc.). Cultural and economic factors can also influence perceptions and preferences.

What Floyd's research shows about sonic preferences in sterile, pure testing environments with typical non-audio influences left outside the door, can be altered upon leaving that environment by exposure to advertising and marketing, speaker appearance (as in the case of Floyd himself), mood, and many other factors. Harman research may show what people prefer in a test environment, but I question whether or not it can predict what the test participants will buy the next time they purchase expensive loudspeakers as time goes on.

 

[Ron Party]

Salon2 vs M2 - which is the better speaker? It depends . . .

I double-blind listening tests speakers this good (and there are others that qualify) tend to end up in statistical ties when being evaluated only on sound quality at foreground listening levels. The variations in program material interacting with the residual differences between the loudspeakers cause one or the others to be favored at different times. Remember that humans can hear low-Q frequency response variations of one dB for less for broadband, spectrally dense, sounds. Listening with pink noise it is improbable that two loudspeakers will sound exactly the same. However, with music things are less certain.

In terms of listening window frequency responses (from the spinorama) the M2 wins handily because it has dedicated electronics with anechoic EQ. The Salon2 is less smooth, but the fluctuations are at or below the known thresholds of detection for resonances. Of course it too could be anechoically equalized and this is done in some available processors.

This statement does not include frequency-dependent directivity differences which have a significant influence on sound quality, most especially the spatial aspect of sound quality. Now we are in more complicated territory because the room boundaries are involved, including distances to the walls, floor, ceiling (and the listener!), the acoustical properties of these surfaces, the nature of the program - how much poorly correlated information is in both channels, and finally the expectations/preferences of the listener. Some like pinpoint localizations, others like more spacious presentations, and all of it depends on the musical genre and what is judged to be appropriate.

Figure 10.15 in the 3rd edition shows the directivity of some live sources and of three very different loudspeakers. One is a large cinema system (very directional), the middle one is the JBL Pro M2 monitor speaker (moderately directional) and the bottom one is a cone and dome domestic system like the Salon2. If the on-axis frequency responses of all of these speakers were absolutely identical - and with anechoic EQ we can get dangerously close - all three will sound "different" in normally reflective listening spaces. Is one better or worse?

As I discuss at several points in my book, audio professionals tend to prefer being in a dominant direct sound field. Whether this is fashion, habituated preference, hearing loss consequences, or something else we may never know. Consumers/audiophiles more often prefer to have some amount of reflected sound arriving at the listening position. We know that this is likely to be most pleasant if the direct and reflected sounds have something spectrally in common - hence the need to look at off-axis performance in anechoic measurements.

All that said, these are linear distortions, and there are other factors than can bear on our opinions. Power compression is one, and non-linear distortion another. Sadly, as I have explained before in mulitple threads, non-linear distortion is something that needs more research before we have widely accepted quantifiable metrics that reliably correlate with listener opinions. In practice, quality domestic and monitor loudspeakers are unlikely to exhibit audible problems of this kind, but the small speakers currently flooding the marketplace are much more susceptible.

So, which is the better speaker? I chose the Revel Salon2 for its visual aesthetics knowing that sound quality was not an issue, and both can play louder than I find enjoyable or should prudently be exposed to. The directivity difference is irrelevant because I mostly listen to multichannel originals or upmixed stereo. That's a personal opinion, not a scientific, quantified analysis. If you want one - knock yourself out

Very informative. Rather than just hitting the like button, I just wanted to be more personal about it. Floyd, thank you for taking the time to type out such a detailed response.

 

[March Audio]

For all of the many thousands of words you have written here recently expressing your interest in science and demanding adherence to scientific rigor, I truly cannot believe that you would ask such a naive question that cannot be answered without qualifications.

"Better"? Better in what way? Better at what?

Your question is as silly and unscientific as asking "based on science, which is better - a Mercedes or a Lexus?"

I see no evidence - scientific or otherwise - that suggests that the type of blind testing research that Floyd and other audio scientists and engineers do is for the purpose of determining "which is better," but primarily for logical objectives such as:

• Can differences be heard?
• What sonic signatures do different people prefer?

The other idea you have obsessed about in recent days is "can measurements predict what speakers will sound like - or people will hear - in the rooms in their home (typically living rooms)" and the answer is - for all practical reasons - no. There is a nearly infinite variety of acoustic environments presented by rooms and their contents and decor (size, shape, hardness and rigidity of walls, what kind of and how much furniture is present, carpeting, draperies, curtains, windows, blinds, etc.). Cultural and economic factors can also influence perceptions and preferences.

What Floyd's research shows about sonic preferences in sterile, pure testing environments with typical non-audio influences left outside the door, can be altered upon leaving that environment by exposure to advertising and marketing, speaker appearance (as in the case of Floyd himself), mood, and many other factors. Harman research may show what people prefer in a test environment, but I question whether or not it can predict what the test participants will buy the next time they purchase expensive loudspeakers as time goes on.

Indeed. As I said in the other thread, there appears to be an almost will full misrepresentation of tge science and research performed. It's that or a lack of understanding.

 

[pkane]

Indeed. As I said in the other thread, there appears to be an almost will full misrepresentation of tge science and research performed. It's that or a lack of understanding.

I think it’s the need to prove to oneself that their understanding is the correct one and to reject at all costs anything that threatens that understanding. A self-defense mechanism to protect an addictive illusion.

ASR is often in contradiction to the intuitive, commonly held beliefs of many audiophiles and therefore elicits almost a religious fervor reaction to protect said beliefs. Of course, a similar overreaction exists on the other side, as well.

 

[Wombat]

Some of these 'in-depth' musings could be better applied to this unresolved mystery:

Fluff and Lint

 

[svart-hvitt]

For all of the many thousands of words you have written here recently expressing your interest in science and demanding adherence to scientific rigor, I truly cannot believe that you would ask such a naive question that cannot be answered without qualifications.

"Better"? Better in what way? Better at what?

Your question is as silly and unscientific as asking "based on science, which is better - a Mercedes or a Lexus?"

I see no evidence - scientific or otherwise - that suggests that the type of blind testing research that Floyd and other audio scientists and engineers do is for the purpose of determining "which is better," but primarily for logical objectives such as:

• Can differences be heard?
• What sonic signatures do different people prefer?

The other idea you have obsessed about in recent days is "can measurements predict what speakers will sound like - or people will hear - in the rooms in their home (typically living rooms)" and the answer is - for all practical reasons - no. There is a nearly infinite variety of acoustic environments presented by rooms and their contents and decor (size, shape, hardness and rigidity of walls, what kind of and how much furniture is present, carpeting, draperies, curtains, windows, blinds, etc.). Cultural and economic factors can also influence perceptions and preferences.

What Floyd's research shows about sonic preferences in sterile, pure testing environments with typical non-audio influences left outside the door, can be altered upon leaving that environment by exposure to advertising and marketing, speaker appearance (as in the case of Floyd himself), mood, and many other factors. Harman research may show what people prefer in a test environment, but I question whether or not it can predict what the test participants will buy the next time they purchase expensive loudspeakers as time goes on.

@Xulonn , you wrote:

«Your question is as silly and unscientific as asking "based on science, which is better - a Mercedes or a Lexus?».

My question to @Floyd Toole was intentionally naive and straight. I think less skilled and less competent people, like myself, can learn a lot by observing a master in action performing even the simplest acts. In the olden days, this principle was obvious when a master had his apprentices. How would the young learn the skills of the old if the old weren’t willing to do even the simplest and naive things for the younger to observe?

As I am getting older too, I find more and more things of the utmost simplicity to be of the highest value. What is the better food; the Neopolitan pizza of Naples based Da Michele - where a pizza costs 6-8 Euros - or the €€€€€ dishes of Monte Carlo’s Louis XV?

Or what about the steps of a ballet dancer? Looks simple, right, until you try it yourself.

I asked the same naive question regarding two excellent speakers - Salón vs M2 - to ASR members, but nobody were able to make the same short-review as @Floyd Toole . Isn’t this just another example that answering naive questions can be difficult? Somebody said, «explain it so even a child understands».

The fact that «competent» people cannot answer naive questions is not an exceptional observation.

Akerlof (2019) wrote:

«Furthermore, the emphasis on Hardness is likely at the expense of Importance. A survey of economics graduate students by Colander and Klamer (1987, Table 4, p.100) thus found that only 3 percent of economists thought it "very important" for their success to "have a thorough knowledge of the economy"...»

In other words, we have PhD economists who can very little about the economy. Is it provoking to ask if there are audio engineers who can very little about practical sound reproduction?

In answering the question, @Floyd Toole even showed the mark of a phronimos. A phronimos is a person who masters a field in a practical way, not only the techne part but also the ethical dimension. It takes a phronimos to answer my naive question and provoking opening post in the way @Floyd Toole just did.

 

[Cosmik]

What tells you most? The measurements of a speaker, extensive listening tests, or simply a photograph of it?

I think that the most perspicacious audiophile will look at a small two-way bass reflex mini-monitor and know pretty well exactly how it's going to sound. They'll look at a slim floorstander and know that it's going to sound very similar. And they will look at a larger, wider, sealed three-way speaker and, assuming its design has not been messed up, be able to predict how it will sound. For example, they'll know that it can go louder without signs of stress - something that the measurements don't normally convey. They'll know that it's going to sound warmer because of the baffle width.

Spin-o-rama measurements would tell you that the larger speaker has different directivity characteristics (and not just in terms of smoothness) from the smaller speakers. And even if it is less 'smooth' it may still sound better because of where the baffle step lies. (People seem to be accepting that off-axis frequency response should be smooth, but no one seems to worry about how deep its deviation from flat is, and over what frequency range..?).

 

[svart-hvitt]

What tells you most? The measurements of a speaker, extensive listening tests, or simply a photograph of it?

I think that the most perspicacious audiophile will look at a small two-way bass reflex mini-monitor and know pretty well exactly how it's going to sound. They'll look at a slim floorstander and know that it's going to sound very similar. And they will look at a larger, wider, sealed three-way speaker and, assuming its design has not been messed up, be able to predict how it will sound. For example, they'll know that it can go louder without signs of stress - something that the measurements don't normally convey. They'll know that it's going to sound warmer because of the baffle width.

Spin-o-rama measurements would tell you that the larger speaker has different directivity characteristics (and not just in terms of smoothness) from the smaller speakers. And even if it is less 'smooth' it may still sound better because of where the baffle step lies. (People seem to be accepting that off-axis frequency response should be smooth, but no one seems to worry about how deep its deviation from flat is, and over what frequency range..?).

You were in previous post asking about Idea. One of the most outspoken Idea engineers I know, is John Watkinson. In his «catalogue of shortcomings» he describes what’s wrong with «legacy speakers» (when I use the word «legacy», it’s inspired by Watkinson who points out that we accept legacy design because we don’t question the underlying Idea of that design).

Your point on bass-reflex is mirrored in Watkinson’s writings. On the other hand, Watkinson is a proponent of the point source Idea, while you’re not.

The big difference between Idea and Vox populi is that Vox populi may be conservative, leading people to refine legacy designs while not having the courage or Idea to jump off the path and follow another way of doing things.

It’s a shame nobody on ASR has contacted Watkinson for an audition of his speaker design (http://www.legendloudspeakers.com/). I wonder how it sounds.

Source:
https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/...chnology-part-15-a-catalogue-of-shortcomings#

 

[Cosmik]

Watkinson is a proponent of the point source Idea, while you’re not.

I would prefer a point source speaker - it would obviously be better than the alternative if all else was equal. Luckily, with the standard vertical line of drivers the drivers get smaller as the wavelength decreases towards the top, so it's not too far off anyway.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I would prefer a point source speaker - it would obviously be better than the alternative if all else was equal. Luckily, with the standard vertical line of drivers the drivers get smaller as the wavelength decreases towards the top, so it's not too far off anyway.

There are, as you know, producers of coaxial speakers and drivers out there, but the Idea doesn’t seem to convince everyone. I think the point source Idea is pretty convincing, though, and coaxial seems to be a good compromise to make that Idea real. Could the status quo of speaker design be a reflection of Hard winning over Importance, Revisions over Idea?

Ellison (2002):

«The other basic observation I make about the static model is that a continuum of social norms are possible. If the community agrees that quality is very important, then authors will spend most of their time developing main ideas. If r-quality is very important, then authors spend very little time on ideas and focus on revisions. Nothing in the model prevents either extreme or something in the middle from being part of an eqthlibrium. Differences in social norms provide another potential explanation for differences across fields or over time».

 

[Cosmik]

There are, as you know, producers of coaxial speakers and drivers out there, but the Idea doesn’t seem to convince everyone. I think the point source Idea is pretty convincing, though, and coaxial seems to be a good compromise to make that Idea real. Could the status quo of speaker design be a reflection of Hard winning over Importance, Revisions over Idea?

Ellison (2002):

«The other basic observation I make about the static model is that a continuum of social norms are possible. If the community agrees that quality is very important, then authors will spend most of their time developing main ideas. If r-quality is very important, then authors spend very little time on ideas and focus on revisions. Nothing in the model prevents either extreme or something in the middle from being part of an eqthlibrium. Differences in social norms provide another potential explanation for differences across fields or over time».

I guess I should be looking at KEF Uni-Q drivers or similar.

The thing here, though, is that I don't think anyone is recommending a listening test to establish whether a point source is preferred by audiophiles: it is accepted as theoretically preferable without any need - something that also applies to the whole speaker or any part thereof, I would say. If someone did pursue the scientific approach, they would be straying into a minefield of spurious factors. If listeners say they prefer the non-point source, is that because:

• the practical implementation in this instance has undesirable side effects? (e.g. limited power handling, diffraction effects, etc.)
• audiophiles are accustomed to the sound of the non-point source?
• different EQ? (which is inevitable at some positions in the room even if trying to avoid it - it's one of the reasons for a point source in the first place)
• the choice of music was not representative?
• the speaker positioning was not optimal for both systems?
• Etc.

A listening test would have to be very specific and really only concerned with whether known deviations from perfection were acceptable, rather than whether point source is preferred to non-point source.

 

[Xulonn]

It’s a shame nobody on ASR has contacted Watkinson for an audition of his speaker design (http://www.legendloudspeakers.com/). I wonder how it sounds.

Mr Watkinson awaits your call...

I'm quite sure that you would like them very much and sing their praises after sighted listening - the purely subjective and unscientific path.

However, if you would chose to audition them based on the very scientific principles you espouse, the only way to do so would be to use the same principles as Harman - double blind and level matched.

And although he may be a respected expert in digital audio signal processing, I saw no objective evidence or level-matched double-blind testing that confirms his speculations, even though those speculations are based on science. The term loudspeaker is defined by the dictionary as "an apparatus that converts electrical impulses into sound," and Watkinson's attempt to enhance his aura of imagined superiority by calling his loudspeakers "sound reproducers" is a ridiculous joke. As are his gross generalization about loudspeakers and his silly attempts to lump all current and past loudspeaker designs into a single category.

I'm sorry, S-V, but any speculation that has not been verified by science-based methods - e.g. level-matched double blind testing - is subject to serious questioning. Especially when we know how many claims in audio, and not just those made by snake-oil vendors, have been proven false by objective examination and measurement. The objective methods developed by Floyd Toole and his contemporaries - and now used by Harman - are the only methods that would convince me of the veracity of Watkinson's ideas about oudspeakers.

I await your link to reports on objective testing of Watkinson's loud speakers. (Perhaps a Harman style comparison of Watkinson's speakers vs Linkwitz' design would be interesting - both designers claimed to have solved the dispersion and directivity issues of "traditional" loudspeakers.)

Apologies for my negative attitude towards Mr. Watkinson, but I tend to react that way to large egos - especially with respect to very smart people who wander outside their scientific and engineering specialties and pronounce absolutes without verification (or "proof" as many without a science background would say). Any "single solution" to complex problems with a nearly infinite set of possible conditions (recorded music and listening environments) is bound to fail.

p.s. Certainly, no one should contact Watkinson for advice about website design - his is one of the most unartistic, cluttered pieces of graphic web-page garbage that I have ever seen.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Mr Watkinson awaits your call...

I'm quite sure that you would like them very much and sing their praises after sighted listening - the purely subjective and unscientific path.

However, if you would chose to audition them based on the very scientific principles you espouse, the only way to do so would be to use the same principles as Harman - double blind and level matched.

And although he may be a respected expert in digital audio signal processing, I saw no objective evidence or level-matched double-blind testing that confirms his speculations, even though those speculations are based on science. The term loudspeaker is defined by the dictionary as "an apparatus that converts electrical impulses into sound," and Watkinson's attempt to enhance his aura of imagined superiority by calling his loudspeakers "sound reproducers" is a ridiculous joke. As are his gross generalization about loudspeakers and his silly attempts to lump all current and past loudspeaker designs into a single category.

I'm sorry, S-V, but any speculation that has not been verified by science-based methods - e.g. level-matched double blind testing - is subject to serious questioning. Especially when we know how many claims in audio, and not just those made by snake-oil vendors, have been proven false by objective examination and measurement. The objective methods developed by Floyd Toole and his contemporaries - and now used by Harman - are the only methods that would convince me of the veracity of Watkinson's ideas about oudspeakers.

I await your link to reports on objective testing of Watkinson's loud speakers. (Perhaps a Harman style comparison of Watkinson's speakers vs Linkwitz' design would be interesting - both designers claimed to have solved the dispersion and directivity issues of "traditional" loudspeakers.)

Apologies for my negative attitude towards Mr. Watkinson, but I tend to react that way to large egos - especially with respect to very smart people who wander outside their scientific and engineering specialties and pronounce absolutes without verification (or "proof" as many without a science background would say). Any "single solution" to complex problems with a nearly infinite set of possible conditions (recorded music and listening environments) is bound to fail.

p.s. Certainly, no one should contact Watkinson for advice about website design - his is one of the most unartistic, cluttered pieces of graphic web-page garbage that I have ever seen.

Watkinson, who you ridicule, is an AES Fellow and previously director at Celtic Audio, a «loudspeaker monitor specialist»:

http://www.fast-and-wide.com/faw-news/fast-news/1681-tsl-acquires-celtic-audio

PS: It’s obvious you like to discuss «the man», not his «Idea».