PS Audio sent Erin their speaker??!!

[tmtomh]

I don't really believe he listens without every having seen a measurement (even if a measurement somewhere else before he measures).

In this review he talks about recesses in specific frequency ranges, listening to music.... that magically show up in his measurement.

There is no way someone can pick a small scoop in 500-700 Hz range by listening to music.

But apparently Erin can.

Well, then I guess I can say I don't believe you really watched the video before posting your comment, since Erin specifically says that he didn't notice the dip/scoop-out around 600Hz in his initial listening. He says it was only after looking at the "data," in other words his measurements, and going back and listening again after applying some EQ to boost that scooped-out area, did he hear the scoop-out. In other words, it was only after he corrected the small issue turned up by the measurements, and then compared the sound with and without the EQ in that range, that he was able to hear/perceive the small scoop.

So go watch the video again, specifically the 25 seconds from 9:20 to 9:45, and maybe brush up on your own listening-comprehension skills before accusing someone else of being a liar.

 

[Music1969]

I know a few studio engineers who would vehemently disagree with you.

For years I couldn’t tell the difference between 320kbps files and Lossless till a mate sat me down in his studio and educated me over what to listen out for by cuing up short 10 second loops of tracks and instantly switching between them, then listening over longer loops until finally I could listen to entire tracks and pretty much always choose correctly.

Would I be able to blindly identify a single 320kbps track if it magically popped up in shuffle on roon?, I doubt it unless it was badly encoded but if I heard two tracks back to back I’d like to think I still could identify the 320kbps version.

Double blind test?
If not, don't believe it

 

[amirm]

Dr. Toole has proven that in his research and I believe he goes into this sighted bias in his book as well.

Dr. Toole has said sighted tests are no good. This means Erin's listening tests are no good since they are sighted. So why do you say he has "proven" Erin's approach???

 

[Somafunk]

Double blind test?
If not, don't believe it

Ha…Ha , as they say here in Scotland to such a response - crack on yer sel’

 

[napilopez]

Dr. Toole has said sighted tests are no good. This means Erin's listening tests are no good since they are sighted. So why do you say he has "proven" Erin's approach???

Huh? I read @CleanSound as saying the opposite. That sighted listening will influence results.

 

[Music1969]

There is no evidence to support your accusations.

I'm not accusing him of being a liar or anything else.

Do you have evidence to support he has not seen measurements before listening?

I personally just don't believe but its not that important really.

The measurements matter more.

I'm sure we can all agree on that here....

 

[amirm]

When he said that he didn't really notice them in his initial listening but then when he did the measurements and went back and EQ'd them he was able to retroactively notice them, I thought that was quite honest and made a lot of sense.

Proving that my method of measuring first, then using EQ is far more revealing and correct way to evaluate a speaker's sound by ear. I listened to the rest of his video talking about imaging this and that before measurements which to me have zero value.

 

[CleanSound]

Dr. Toole has said sighted tests are no good. This means Erin's listening tests are no good since they are sighted. So why do you say he has "proven" Erin's approach???

I think read the comment in reverse. I thought I read seeing a speaker may change one's perception.

But I still would give credence to this statement, who is to say the reverse sight bias is not true, meaning seeing the data first and then you have bias as to how you subjectively hear the sound?

 

[amirm]

Huh? I read @CleanSound as saying the opposite. That sighted listening will influence results.

He was agreeing with the criticism that I look at the measurements and hence I am biased while Erin is presumably not. Dr. Toole has never said anything about my approach but clearly has said sighted listening tests are problematic.

 

[amirm]

But I still would give credence to this statement, who is to say the reverse sight bias is not true, meaning seeing the data first and then you have bias as to how you subjectively hear the sound?

I don't offer my listening tests as some kind of truth as others do with claims of listening without measuring. I state usually a sentence about the stock sound but then show corrections based on EQ which I perform blind if needed. Importantly, others with the same speaker can verify my EQ settings and hence, audible issues shown in the measurements. Again, they can perform the test fully blind.

As I have said repeatedly, my listening tests are in service of the measurements. I don't offer sighted listening tests as proof of anything by themselves. I don't believe there is a single reviewer that has the ability to provide anything remotely valid in sighted, listening tests. Really, Erin's intro was all word salad which could have been written by AI. I can't believe folks are praising that. Soundstage on Michael Jackson track is this and that? Really? You all throw out science this fast and run with such commentary?

Put 90% of your faith in the measurements. Another 10% in EQ I develop. And leave out the other 10% for personal preference, impact of room, etc. Pure, sighted evaluations would get 0% contribution from me.

 

[amirm]

Adding on, there are things that reliable and easy in listening tests. For example, playing a track with sub-bass and observing what the speaker does. Some don't play it. Others distort it a bit or a lot. This is easier to assess than THD measurements. Power handling is also pretty easy. If I turn up the volume and speaker makes noises, then story is told. These are observations that are valid sighted. Sadly you don't hear this from typical reviewers because they don't know to test for these things. Or don't want to say negative things.

 

[CleanSound]

I don't offer my listening tests as some kind of truth as others do with claims of listening without measuring.

I think you've mistakenly interpreted my comments as a criticism of your method.

I guess I am saying it doesn't matter if one does their subjective opinion before or after seeing the data. I can see possible bias in both. The only difference is that if before, you are really putting yourself to the test (but is it really a test given how much the room has to play into the equation), whether there is value is such subjective listening test or not is up to each individual to debate.

I personally do see value in subjective evaluation for loud speakers (either before or after seeing the data), as an example, I recently got the Ascend Sierra LX, they slam hard, and I don't think the data can tell you about the slam.

 

[napilopez]

He was agreeing with the criticism that I look at the measurements and hence I am biased while Erin is presumably not. Dr. Toole has never said anything about my approach but clearly has said sighted listening tests are problematic.

Oh I didn't read that as specific criticism about you though I guess I understand why you might see it that way. I guess I also made the same mistake of thinking the original comment was referring to seeing the speaker itself.

Personally, I've also experimented with both depending on convenience (when you measuring outside, you have to worry about things like the weather...) and ultimately found I don't really care that much what order they're done. Bias creeps in either way. So I've given up on fighting it and just embrace the bias these days, especislly now that I'm no longer reviewing. (I recognize you also try to point out potential biases in your listening tests).

That said, I do find value in each approach and it's why I'm glad there are more testers providing data than ever that bring different things to the table. Everyone has measurements and listening styles I consider useful and others I don't (I have a perhaps irrational disdain for polar maps/contour plots). As long as decent on and off axis data are there, I'm fine with the rest.

 

[CleanSound]

Oh I didn't read that as specific criticism about you

Who criticized @amirm method? And where did I agree with such criticism?

 

[tmtomh]

I'm not accusing him of being a liar or anything else.

Do you have evidence to support he has not seen measurements before listening?

I personally just don't believe but its not that important really.

The measurements matter more.

I'm sure we can all agree on that here....

If you personally don't believe he'd seen the measurements before listening, then you are indeed accusing him of being a liar.

And you called him a liar based on an inaccurate understanding of what he was even claiming - he never claimed he heard the 600Hz scoop-out before running measurements.

Goodness, it's just so hard for people on the internet to say they were wrong and take accountability for their words.

 

[MattHooper]

Really, Erin's intro was all word salad which could have been written by AI. I can't believe folks are praising that. Soundstage on Michael Jackson track is this and that? Really? You all throw out science this fast and run with such commentary?

Far from "word salad" I found Erin's descriptions gave me a nice sense of his subjective impressions of the sound, the strengths and weaknesses and general sonic character of a speaker. I think they are a valuable part of his reviews. And his impressions seemed to be pretty well corroborated with the measurements.

I value the speaker reviews here too. Though personally I prefer that if a reviewer is going to include subjective impressions it will be before knowing the measurements. Erin said, IIRC, he listens to get his subjective impressions before measuring, and he seems to have a very good ear given he often cites sonic issues that show up in the measurements afterwards. (Which also suggests to me sighted listening doesn't seem so across the board useless...)

 

[CleanSound]

Far from "word salad" I found Erin's descriptions gave me a nice sense of his subjective impressions of the sound, the strengths and weaknesses and general sonic character of a speaker. I think they are a valuable part of his reviews. And his impressions seemed to be pretty well corroborated with the measurements.

I value the speaker reviews here too. Though personally I prefer that if a reviewer is going to include subjective impressions it will be before knowing the measurements. Erin said, IIRC, he listens to get his subjective impressions before measuring, and he seems to have a very good ear given he often cites sonic issues that show up in the measurements afterwards. (Which also suggests to me sighted listening doesn't seem so across the board useless...)

I also want to add that I recently got a pair of Ascend Sierra LX and my subjective impression of them is that they have uncanny 3D imaging and mid bass punch and wide soundstage. None of that can be definitively illustrated by the measurements, at least not that I am aware of or accurately.

So yeah, I am going to double and triple down on my subjective impression of these LX and I will also take other people's subjective impression with a grain of salt.

 

[rynberg]

I also want to add that I recently got a pair of Ascend Sierra LX and my subjective impression of them is that they have uncanny 3D imaging and mid bass punch and wide soundstage. None of that can be definitively illustrated by the measurements, at least not that I am aware of or accurately.

So yeah, I am going to double and triple down on my subjective impression of these LX and I will also take other people's subjective impression with a grain of salt.

Wide soundstage and midbass punch are clearly able to be determined from the measurements...

 

[rynberg]

I personally don't think he would be as offended as his fangirls , at my comment....

If you didn't already prove yourself worth of ignoring, that post sealed the deal. Good grief.

 

[CleanSound]

Wide soundstage and midbass punch are clearly able to be determined from the measurements...

1) I said "or accurately'

2) Elaborate on what data you look at for mid bass punch. But first let me define punch, it's speed and instantaneous burst of bass where one can feel the sound wave hitting you.