"plasticky" Neumanns?

[thecheapseats]

can I get some extra "plasticky" on mine please?...

 

[Digby]

Not true. One day our trolls will show us the X-Factor, to our lasting shame.

Someone isn't a troll purely for having a different point of view.

There are plenty of people on this forum that haven't put out papers, haven't added to the science, and do not fully understand what they are espousing, yet they are "defenders of the faith", so to speak. It may not be a faith on the whole, but it is a faith for them as an individual, as they do not understand its workings, so they have to take things as read.

My argument is not one made from a position of claiming to know much at all about audio science - it is a purely logical one, in that we shouldn't dispel things just because they come from a subjective, rather than objective observation. I am not claiming that the subjective is in and of itself true, but that it has the potential to represent something that can be understood by the science, and should not just be blanket dismissed.

There is a narrowness of mind to certain commentators here where they will not even accept the possibility of subjective observations having some kind of validity. What is scientific about such a position? I think they misunderstand what science really is.

 

[fineMen]

So, what is it that would cause this? I'm sure this is a measurable phenomenon.

Lack of irregularities that give a speaker some character? I changed back from my recently purchased set of KEF R3s. Lots of character with the other commercial ones despite virtually (by DSP) identical frequency response. Many people think they like some music, but after looking deeper into it using a more clear speaker, it isn't that shiny anymore. It was anyway used to make the speakers sing, not having "it" in itself.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Not true. One day our trolls will show us the X-Factor, to our lasting shame.

View attachment 283893

… and who knows if we live to see it, let alone our grandkids.

 

[fpitas]

… and who knows if we live to see it, let alone our grandkids.

Now that Snake Oil companies have hired top scientists, it's just a matter of time.

 

[ahofer]

I forgot, it is pointless to use nuance on the internet. I'm sorry for trying.

What nuance was that?

 

[bodhi]

Not true. One day our trolls will show us the X-Factor, to our lasting shame.

View attachment 283893

I would be content if they would stop playing stupid with this "oh, science can't tell everything"-argument and go with the aforementioned "I just WANT to believe and there is nothing that can convince me to change my opinion".

 

[fpitas]

I would be content if they would stop playing stupid with this "oh, science can't tell everything"-argument and go with the aforementioned "I just WANT to believe and there is nothing that can convince me to change my opinion".

Yeah. I'm not sure I care what they think they hear. As long as we aren't called upon to research it. Somehow, it always heads that way.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Someone isn't a troll purely for having a different point of view.

There are plenty of people on this forum that haven't put out papers, haven't added to the science, and do not fully understand what they are espousing, yet they are "defenders of the faith", so to speak. It may not be a faith on the whole, but it is a faith for them as an individual, as they do not understand its workings, so they have to take things as read.

My argument is not one made from a position of claiming to know much at all about audio science - it is a purely logical one, in that we shouldn't dispel things just because they come from a subjective, rather than objective observation. I am not claiming that the subjective is in and of itself true, but that it has the potential to represent something that can be understood by the science, and should not just be blanket dismissed.

There is a narrowness of mind to certain commentators here where they will not even accept the possibility of subjective observations having some kind of validity. What is scientific about such a position? I think they misunderstand what science really is.

Unless you generate some statistical analysis and some standard criteria (here no one even knows how to define „plasticky“) let alone some control, yes there is absolutely no science whatsoever behind random internet quotes.

I bet you if I go into one of those forums claiming xyz sound like „fill in the blanks“, within a day I will have people agreeing with me and claiming to have heard the same. Does that make it worthwhile studying? I don’t think so because it is completely made up and my wrong claim plays on psychology and not on an observable phenomenon. (again look at all the nonsense eg flat earth which is claimed on the internet ).

 

[thecheapseats]

...yes there is absolutely no science whatsoever behind random internet quotes...

is baiting a hook on the internet, science? - if so, "plasticky" is very real...

 

[thecheapseats]

I'm growing very fond of it - and it's fun to say... ... ... "plasticky" "plasticky" "plasticky"... .see?...

 

[goat76]

Come on people, it’s mostly about taste. Some people like a particular speaker while someone else doesn't, and even if the description of why they don't like the speaker isn’t scientifically approved, it doesn't mean it must be something they imagine. Maybe just lack of words to better describe what it is they don't like.

 

[Digby]

Unless you generate some statistical analysis and some standard criteria (here no one even knows how to define „plasticky“) let alone some control, yes there is absolutely no science whatsoever behind random internet quotes.

I didn't say there was science behind it, more so it could be the beginning of an understanding. I don't know how plasticky is less of an acceptable term than boomy or tizzy, purely because it is new to the lexicon?

Does boomy mean something and could it mean the same/very similar things across individuals? Does it translate to a bump at x frequency range. This stuff doesn't take too much imagining.

I think it would be helpful if people appended their first language to their profile because, without wanting to be rude, it is often a waste of time debating with someone whose first language isn't English, purely for misunderstandings alone. I wouldn't go onto a German forum and try to do so with my faltering German. There must be quite a difference in culture, as I wouldn't argue with someone in their language about topics of any depth, unless I knew my understanding was practically that of a native. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to clarify their point, if you are not entirely sure.

Secondly, could it be a few of you are too anxious to go into battle? Have you heard of the concept of a thought experiment, also known as 'thinking out loud'. No serious science is going to be done within forum posts alone, so why not use it to bat ideas off each other in a, hopefully, convivial way?

Why make what could be interesting like wading through treacle?

 

[Sancus]

This is what I was trying to sus out the entire time. There's nothing in any spins or auxiliary data I've seen that would indicate this, but it's a recurring subjective experience across multiple unrelated groups. All I want to know is what I should even look for in measurements.

Instead I was shouted down, which I gotta say, didn't love that.

To directly answer your question, it's not possible to know what the word means because it has no meaning in this context.

The only parts of the quotes you posted that are any use are the parts saying something about the mids/highs they don't like. That doesn't leave much to go on. It's possible they find the Neumanns slightly too bass forward for some reason. Also possible something is going on in the crossover region that they are not used to. Neumann has uncommonly good crossovers, really.

It would be helpful to find out what exactly these people are comparing to and prefer. Without any comparison it's impossible to anchor the statements to any real attributes.

If they're going purely on auditory memory with no comparison within at least a few minutes, then it's even harder to take it seriously. Humans simply do not make accurate statements about small sound details without a recent comparison, no matter how good at listening they might consider themselves.

Come on people, it’s mostly about taste. Some people like a particular speaker while someone else doesn't, and even if the description of why they don't like the speaker isn’t scientifically approved, it doesn't mean it must be something they imagine. Maybe just lack of words to better describe what it is they don't like.

This paragraph makes sense if you're talking about random audiophiles. For professionals, relying on taste that you can't even communicate is indefensible.

One of the biggest differences between a good professional and a mediocre one in pretty much every technical job is the ability to communicate challenging and complex details clearly.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Is that a theory or a fact?

Compression settings are not only functions of volume, but just as importantly time. What measurements are required to determine which speakers can best articulate the audible differences between a 10ms attack setting and a 5ms attack setting?

Totally a question. Hence the question mark. Another question: Differences in time will affect the envelope (attack, decay, sustain, release) of the sound, thus the frequency. Thus changes it the timing of compression settings are frequency changes, so if two different speakers are neutral in their FR they will sound the same for given compression settings?

Honestly, when I see people talking about these things, the first thing that strikes me is that they are not taking their own variability into account. Our senses are not infallible, quite the opposite, perception changes all the time based on our changing physiology and psychology at the moment. I find it is very useful to first assume that me and my hearing are the problem. I have mixed things that sounded amazing, come back later and found they sounded terrible. Looking at the current sound on the compression curve along with how the music is being represented in the waveform graph of the compressor and what the limiter is doing, usually susses it out very quickly. The measurements are far better than my ears, especially at the end of a session when I have been listening to the same thing over and over. And while I finalize the mix based on listening that is always verified via the data the compressor is telling me.

 

[Digby]

For professionals, relying on taste that you can't even communicate is indefensible.

Your argument is against the subjective language used, that it is too loose, not that they cannot communicate. Studio engineers use a lot of loose language that has meaning between engineers. Where is the failure here, that it is too ill-defined? Perhaps on ASR it is too ill-defined, but it seems to get the job done well enough in that arena. The context matters.

These terms may have significant meaning that translates across individuals. You pooh-pooh them because instead of saying something like a '2db peak centred around 2khz', they instead might say nasally or forward. Will anyone argue against the idea that a 'forward' speaker is one that either has, or is perceived as having, an excess of frequencies in the midrange...if no, then isn't forward an adequate enough descriptor?

 

[bodhi]

I think it would be helpful if people appended their first language to their profile because, without wanting to be rude, it is often a waste of time debating with someone whose first language isn't English, purely for misunderstandings alone. I wouldn't go onto a German forum and try to do so with my faltering German. There must be quite a difference in culture, as I wouldn't argue with someone in their language about topics of any depth, unless I knew my understanding was practically that of a native. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to clarify their point, if you are not entirely sure.

Yeah, that must be it. Your arguments would make perfect sense to native speaker.

Let's just forget that most professionals today have to work daily in English dealing with multinational companies and teams, from manufacturing, software development to actual science without English as their native language. No, these pursuits are much more easy to deal with than discussing peoples subjective experiences about loudspeakers. I mean it's not like we are dealing with universal, well defined concepts in audio science forum.

 

[goat76]

This paragraph makes sense if you're talking about random audiophiles. For professionals, relying on taste that you can't even communicate is indefensible.

One of the biggest differences between a good professional and a mediocre one in pretty much every technical job is the ability to communicate challenging and complex details clearly.

I have heard professionals describe sound aspects in many various ways to each other, and sometimes that's perfectly fine as long as they understand what is described. It's not always: "There's not enough energy in the 200 Hz region in the program material", instead it can be: "This song lacks body, let me beef it up captain!" or something like that.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Your argument is against the subjective language used, that it is too loose, not that they cannot communicate. Studio engineers use a lot of loose language that has meaning between engineers. Where is the failure here, that it is too ill-defined? Perhaps on ASR it is too ill-defined, but it seems to get the job done well enough in that arena. The context matters.

These terms may have significant meaning that translates across individuals. You pooh-pooh them because instead of saying something like a '2db peak centred around 2khz', they instead might say nasally or forward. Will anyone argue against the idea that a 'forward' speaker is one that either has, or is perceived as having, an excess of frequencies in the midrange...if no, then isn't forward an adequate enough descriptor?

Have you asked these people what they mean by plasticky? Getting them to define the term would be a useful first step. Also, how can their be an excess of frequencies?

 

[jhaider]

These are all on discord servers. Let me dig it up.

It looks like those are a bunch of comparisons to loudspeakers designed to…shall we say looser tolerances of on axis FR flatness and dispersion evenness. Amphion, ATC, PMC, and so on.

One can easily see how someone who uses and likes such devices would find fault with one that behaves differently, and maybe reach for language to describe the perceived faults.

using expensive professional near-field studio monitors to listen to the background music while sitting on a computer is a real snake oil.

Huh?