Resolve's B&K 5128 Headphone Target - you can try the EQ's.....

[Robbo99999]

You don't call a meeting first and then figure out the agenda later. I have stated what needs to happen: a proper research project as done by Harman. I have seen no receptivity to that. If they do want to do it, then the blueprint is there in Harman papers and if they have questions, they can ask Sean.

I have also asked them to refrain from publishing results on 5128 until these issues are sorted out and we don't create confusion in the market. I already see people posting mix of 5128 and 711 here. It is a mess and getting worse. Again, no receptivity on this either.


None of this is an issue with respect to what I am asking above. You could be my best friend doing what they are doing and my response would be the same.

The agenda is already figured out (mentioned in my previous post), it would be to discuss their plans for the project and to also air/clear the motivations & grievances side that has been brought up on both sides - of course if you all want to talk face to face then you make the agenda more detailed or change parts of it, I'm saying how I'm seeing it regarding what's transpired in this thread.

In response to your last sentence, you intimate that your attitude (combative) is not affecting your own mind & perceptions although I'd bet in truth it probably is, but it's certainly affecting all your readership who see you as an authoritative example and therefore will on mass (average) adopt a similar combative attitude - which actually clouds the reality of the debate and doesn't lead people to the truth, instead it becomes an emotional battle, which is not really what ASR stands for yes.

(the attitudes that are displayed will not only just affect what happens in this thread but over the whole site & community, to some extent)

 

[Guess it]

They are trying to get the 5128 to a point where there is a valid target curve for it - they could discuss their rough (or detailed) plans with you face to face & in a non-recorded fashion so neither they nor you (in terms of your reaction to those plans) have to commit to airing initial plans or non-complete plans. You've also been bringing up aspects related to "motivation" and "motive" surrounding their work, which is more than just factual scientific debate but is by definition related to people's character & personal motivations - so it wouldn't remain a sterile scientific discussion, hence the benefit of the non-recorded face to face. It could also help to alleviate any associated personal tensions or misunderstandings.

Are you trying to insinuate that discussions about ethics in science should be held in private where defusal is easy and accountability is difficult? Someone sure learned the scientific method from popper. I'm guessing that we wouldn't want discussion about gerrymandering in our sterile politics either (he is the father of the modern two party system and his ideas are taught as fundamental science, very clean)? Sterile society is ripe for infection no? Or is that the open society.
Pretending that science should be sterile and uninvolved from business incentives is a lovely idea (which popper made a name for abusing) but as it seems we live in a world where a business can rely on science for sales and we are on a forum for discussion of science as related to the industry of reproducing sound right?

 

[Robbo99999]

Are you trying to insinuate that discussions about ethics in science should be held in private where defusal is easy and accountability is difficult? Someone sure learned the scientific method from popper. I'm guessing that we wouldn't want discussion about gerrymandering in our sterile politics either (he is the father of the modern two party system and taught as fundamental science, very clean)? Sterile society is ripe for infection no? Or is that the open society.
Pretending that science should be sterile and uninvolved from business incentives is a lovely idea (which popper made a name for abusing) but as it seems we live in a world where a business can rely on science for sales and we are on a forum for discussion of science as related to the industry of reproducing sound right?

(You're obviously not a people person then, even less so than me!) It's important for some things to be discussed privately (& face to face), it doesn't mean everything has to be done in private, and it doesn't mean everything has to be done in public.

 

[Guess it]

(You're obviously not a people person then, even less so than me!)

I'm an honest person not concerned with personability. I'm not sure I've heard your rationale?

 

[Guess it]

@Chocomel Heisenberg was far more notable for abusing science, good reference! I believe he claimed that nukes could be used to blackmail the world so he would secure the funding to prove his scientific view which was more nationalist trying to suck up to a different kind of elite than popper. Scientists are always in a context? Even a high school science teacher. That's why pretending it's sterile and smiling is evil?

 

[Robbo99999]

I'm an honest person not concerned with personability. I'm not sure I've heard your rationale?

(Please don't just quote part of my post as it takes it out of context, read the rest of it).

 

[Guess it]

(Please don't just quote part of my post as it takes it out of context, read the rest of it).

I responded before you edited it to make it look like I did that. Funny.

 

[amirm]

Let's move on folks....

 

[GaryH]

Ah, what the hay, I'm in this thread still (but no promises about replying further) - in the spirit of intellectual charity

Real intellectual honesty is what we need from you. Instead as usual we get your standard modus operandi:

Same old song and dance from you where you take comments apart, word by word, to object, only after changing the context to something irrelevant to the subject matter, or the actual statement.

I present the impact of volume size on transfer level with a constant displacement probe:
View attachment 297715
from Brüel & Rasmussen's seminal text on ear sims. As you can see, volume itself changes the overall level rather than the frequency response at low frequencies

We're not talking only about low frequencies though are we. As that shows, treble is significantly affected. There's also this issue as mentioned in that paper that affects the accuracy of geometrically (but not thermally) anatomical couplers as in the 5128:

when an insert earphone is mounted in the human ear, the air in the ear will have a temperature of approx. 35°C and a correspondingly higher sound velocity, whereas in the artificial ear used in the laboratory the air would have a room temperature of approx. 21°C and a correspondingly lower sound velocity. This affects the resonance frequencies. The problem can be solved either by heating the artificial ear to approx. 35°C when in use, or by making all the dimensions in the artificial ear 2,5% smaller than the dimensions that are calculated from the measurements of the real ear.

(Yes it's a small effect, ~250 Hz difference from the above figures if my calculations are correct, but not completely insignificant, especially for an exorbitantly priced rig that's promising state of the art accuracy.) Even disregarding all this, the bigger picture you've ignored and failed to address is, as I said in my previous post, a non-random subset of nearly 30% of the original subject sample was excluded from the impedance calculation. You have no idea how this post-hoc exclusion will have skewed the latter, due to potential commonalities (which are likely due to their common failure to allow for reliable measurement) in the excluded sample, not only limited to canal volume. This all invalidates the impedance calculation as an accurate determination of average human ear acoustic impedance, and so in turn invalidates the claim of 5128's impedance accuracy to humans. I'm pretty sure you're well aware of this, but sunk cost ($41,000 to be precise) fallacy and/or other motivations are preventing you from admitting it.

And the real big picture that you have (once again) ignored and failed to address is laid out in this post. The Harman target satisfies the preference of the vast majority of listeners in blind tests, even in the subset who may prefer a bit less bass, who still rate it highly and headphones that approximately follow it. As a de facto standard, it's more than good enough, and EQ or basic bass / treble controls can be used to make minor adjustments to taste / per recording if users feel the need. We don't need another target (or even worse multiple targets as you're planning), that will only mislead users and perpetuate the circle of confusion, and certainly not hypothetical target(s) like yours with zero direct valid preference evidence for them. What you're offering with the 5128 is an oversold, half-baked, empirically unverified solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[GaryH]

I made a similar point to a Hps.com associate in a private discord, his responce was that I "made it about race".

You can't have meaningful conversations when one side has no apprehension to intellectual dishonesty.

Yet another major issue being swept under the carpet by headphones.com. A bunch of (mostly) white guys preaching how their superior rig modeled on...a bunch of (mostly) white guys is anatomically correct, and shutting down or ignoring the obvious issues with this claim? Not a good look. In fact, it's highly problematic. Oh and the subjects used in the impedance calculation for the 5128 ear canal paper are also skewed to male too, which casts doubt on the 'significant' difference in the bass between this calculated impedance and that of the 711 when you consider this difference between male and female subjects for the former:

Of course any whataboutist arguments against 711 couplers for not being anatomically accurate are a false equivalence, because unlike the 5128, no-one is claiming they are in the first place. And what really matters is whether the rig can facilitate accurate headphone virtualization and a target with demonstrable correlation with average preference, and Harman's research has shown the 711 can and has done with high effectiveness, whereas 5128 proponents have nothing of the sort.

 

[GaryH]

A meta-comment: whenever a (typically non-scientist) proponent of fringe or empirically unverified hypotheses lacking any direct valid evidence for their claims proposes a face to face 'debate', alarm bells should immediately start ringing. This article explains why. Key quotes:

Because they cannot convince actual scientists and experts in the fields whose science they deny or in which they embrace pseudoscience with evidence and science, science deniers tend to look to the public for validation. Hence, they portray science as being decided more by a democratic process than scientific evidence that eventually persuades other scientists. That is why they appear to believe that science is decided in public debates and view the quite proper reluctance among scientists like myself and skeptics to engage cranks in such spectacles as “cowardice”. It is not, but cranks continue to labor under the delusion that science is somehow decided in such forums, which are a variant of a sort of argumentum ad populum, in which something is argued to be true because it is popular or, in a debate, an argument is thought to be closer to the truth because it is more popular; i.e., it sways more people than the opposing argument.

Science doesn’t work that way. It is decided on evidence presented at scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journals, where the real scientific debate plays out until it is temporarily settled and scientists come to a provisional consensus. That provisional consensus, of course, is always subject to change as new observations, data, and experimental results come to light, but it takes observations, data, and experimental results to change the consensus, not “live public debates”. Such “live public debates” are meant for one thing and one thing only: To sway public opinion to a viewpoint not supported by science, in the process elevating pseudoscience or the unproven to the same plane as the scientific consensus as a scientifically viable “alternative”.

Entertaining it might have been, but public debates of this sort, with their emphasis on rhetoric over substance and the ease with which one can Gish Gallop, are rarely particularly informative. They can serve as entertainment. They can serve as propaganda. Most often they serve as both. But they are seldom a good way to effectively communicate science over pseudoscience

From the same author:

Body language and tone have nothing to do with facts, science, and argument

someone who’s not a great public speaker (as in many scientists) might show nervousness and discomfort more over confrontation, even when in the right, than a smooth charismatic debater

What often happens with the former here is that they may feel inclined to (even subconsciously) water down their correct position, or feel reluctant to challenge their interlocutor's false claims, to avoid face to face confrontation, a natural inclination for many. And we've seen exactly that transpire recently with Crinacle's (who might as well be a headphones.com employee with their sponsorship of him and him frequently shilledbilled on their channel) 'interview' of Dr Sean Olive, in which the popular 'charismatic' YouTuber has the utter gall of not only denigrating an expert acoustic scientist's published research to his face, but Gish gallops him with the confidently-incorrect insistence on blatant misinformation about said research, misinformation headphones.com happily posted on their channel that still hasn't been corrected (and has been rehashed on his own channel with fresh clickbait for those precious YouTube views/likes/subscribes, again without correction, even after being informed of and admitting the erroneous statements). Of course Sean, as a true Canadian, is overly polite and bemusedly tolerates this nonsense without challenging so as to avoid conflict and not embarrass his hosts, who really should have done due research before poo-pooing his. What headphones.com and Crinacle get out of this exchange is an elevation of perceived legitimacy in the naive eyes of their followers for having such an esteemed guest, and simultaneously an erosion of trust in Harman's science from these same followers who blindly believe this misinformation, both acting to further the popularity of their alternative-facts frequency response targets, that lack any of the scientifically controlled blind preference evidence behind them that went into Harman's target.

This is the question that should always be asked, what does the proponent of a face to face 'debate' get out of it? And why are they so insistent on this when a transparent public forum allows for discussion perfectly well, with the benefits of facilitating backing up arguments with hyperlinked cited sources, quotes, graphs and data for all to see and cross-reference? Regardless, unless headphones.com and their affiliates ever provide any valid empirical preference data to back up their hypotheses and conjectures about the superiority of the 5128 as a whole measurement system in practical use (including leakage propensity etc.) as supposedly a better representation of human perception (which is not the same thing as the coupler being an accurate representation of average ear canals and their acoustic impedance, and as we've seen even that is doubtful), there really is no debate to be had.

 

[crinacle]

Don't f***ing drag me into this.

 

[Robbo99999]

A meta-comment: whenever a (usually non-scientist) proponent of fringe or empirically unverified hypotheses proposes a face to face 'debate', alarm bells should immediately start ringing. This article explains why. Key quotes:



From the same author:


And what often happens with the former here is that they may feel inclined to (even subconsciously) water down their correct position, or feel reluctant to challenge their interlocutor's false claims, to avoid face to face confrontation, a natural inclination for many. And we've seen exactly that transpire recently with Crinacle's (who's might as well be a headphones.com employee with their sponsorship of him and him frequently shilledbilled on their channel) 'interview' of Dr Sean Olive, in which the popular 'charismatic' YouTuber has the utter gall of not only denigrating an expert acoustic scientist's published research to his face, but Gish gallops him with the confidently-incorrect insistence on blatant misinformation about said research, misinformation headphones.com happily posted on their channel that still hasn't been corrected (and has been rehashed on his own channel with fresh clickbait for those precious YouTube views/likes/subscribes, again without correction, even after being informed of and admitting the erroneous statements). Of course Sean, as a true Canadian, is overly polite and bemusedly tolerates this nonsense without challenging so as to avoid conflict and not embarrass his hosts, who really should have done due research before poo-pooing his. What headphones.com and Crinacle get out of this exchange is an elevation of perceived legitimacy in the naive eyes of their followers for having such an esteemed guest, and simultaneously an erosion of trust in Harman's science from these same followers who blindly believe this misinformation, both acting to further the popularity of their alternative-facts frequency response targets, that lack any of the scientifically controlled blind preference evidence behind them that went into Harman's target.

And this is the question that should always be asked, what does the proponent of a face to face 'debate' get out of it? And why are they so insistent on this when a transparent public forum allows for discussion perfectly well, with the benefits of facilitating backing up arguments with hyperlinked cited sources, quotes, graphs and data for all to see and cross-reference? Regardless, unless headphones.com and their affiliates ever provide any valid empirical preference data to back up their hypotheses and conjectures about the superiority of the 5128 as a whole measurement system being supposedly a better representation of human perception (which is not the same thing as the coupler being an accurate representation of average ear canals and their acoustic impedance, and as we've seen even that is doubtful), there really is no debate to be had.

Except I was proposing a face to face non-recorded meeting, that way there is no public railroading - it would just be about "clearing the air" and truly understanding people's positions & motivations, as well as perhaps part of it being a discussion on what the scope & approach of the project would be. (I think I do remember briefly seeing a Crinacle / Sean Olive interview on Youtube recently, and it did make me feel uncomfortable, it felt like Sean Olive was agreeing to something that wasn't explained to him clearly (around 22min mark now I've looked at it again), and it felt like he had doubts about whether he really understood the point Crinacle was trying to make, he did look uncomfortable (Sean Olive), it felt a bit wrong that interview.) No, but anyway, the meeting I was suggesting was a non-recorded meeting that would just be between themselves: Amir and Resolve & Co.

 

[solderdude]

An observation...

Geez.... put a few 'scientists' in one room and one can be sure they won't agree on everything because all of them are convinced of their own knowledge and look at it from slightly different angles and have different experiences.

Ego's often get in the way of civilized discussions. This thread starts to look like a bitch-fight or politics with (packaged, or out in the open) awkward accusations.
If only .... the boys could continue to play and come up with a real and valid target without kind of demanding Amirs input.

 

[Robbo99999]

An observation...

Geez.... put a few 'scientists' in one room and one can be sure they won't agree on everything because all of them are convinced of their own knowledge and look at it from slightly different angles and have different experiences.

Ego's often get in the way of civilized discussions. This thread starts to look like a bitch-fight or politics with (packaged, or out in the open) awkward accusations.
If only .... the boys could continue to play and come up with a real and valid target without kind of demanding Amirs input.

That last sentence is an interesting way of looking at it (and probably how it will pan out), but I suppose it matters to them what the community thinks of their work.

 

[solderdude]

Is Amir's opinion/input/co-operation needed or even essential to bring this to a good end ?
Da boys also have industry standard fixture at hand after all.

I would agree with Amir that it is fine to play with a 5128, if only to try to get something good out of it.
Not for the sake of the 'promise' the 5128 brings (more realistic acoustic path simulation) or its price though (a hefty investment).
Before publishing you need a 'finished' product when showing it to the world, maybe update 'the community' with an update/progress.
Granted... the Harman target also got revised over the years so obviously it isn't as cut and dry as it (the research) seems.

I think it is even fine to include 'the headphone community' with some tonal balance questions to get some feedback in a broader context. Just not based on 'not yet set' targets.

I do wish them success but am not impressed with the 'current preliminary' target. (talking about the 8kHz crap that needs to be corrected waaayyy better)

 

[Robbo99999]

Is Amir's opinion/input/co-operation needed or even essential to bring this to a good end ?
Da boys also have industry standard fixture at hand after all.

I would agree with Amir that it is fine to play with a 5128, if only to try to get something good out of it.
Not for the sake of the 'promise' the 5128 brings (more realistic acoustic path simulation) or its price though (a hefty investment).
Before publishing you need a 'finished' product when showing it to the world, maybe update 'the community' with an update/progress.
Granted... the Harman target also got revised over the years so obviously it isn't as cut and dry as it (the research) seems.

I think it is even fine to include 'the headphone community' with some tonal balance questions to get some feedback in a broader context. Just not based on 'not yet set' targets.

I do wish them success but am not impressed with the 'current preliminary' target. (talking about the 8kHz crap that needs to be corrected waaayyy better)

I agree with all that, except Amir doesn't think it's "fine", and I don't currently have an opinion on the 8kHz peak in 5128.

 

[_thelaughingman]

And what often happens with the former here is that they may feel inclined to (even subconsciously) water down their correct position, or feel reluctant to challenge their interlocutor's false claims, to avoid face to face confrontation, a natural inclination for many. And we've seen exactly that transpire recently with Crinacle's (who's might as well be a headphones.com employee with their sponsorship of him and him frequently shilledbilled on their channel) 'interview' of Dr Sean Olive, in which the popular 'charismatic' YouTuber has the utter gall of not only denigrating an expert acoustic scientist's published research to his face, but Gish gallops him with the confidently-incorrect insistence on blatant misinformation about said research, misinformation headphones.com happily posted on their channel that still hasn't been corrected (and has been rehashed on his own channel with fresh clickbait for those precious YouTube views/likes/subscribes, again without correction, even after being informed of and admitting the erroneous statements). Of course Sean, as a true Canadian, is overly polite and bemusedly tolerates this nonsense without challenging so as to avoid conflict and not embarrass his hosts, who really should have done due research before poo-pooing his. What headphones.com and Crinacle get out of this exchange is an elevation of perceived legitimacy in the naive eyes of their followers for having such an esteemed guest, and simultaneously an erosion of trust in Harman's science from these same followers who blindly believe this misinformation, both acting to further the popularity of their alternative-facts frequency response targets, that lack any of the scientifically controlled blind preference evidence behind them that went into Harman's target.

I watched that video and came away from it a bit perturbed that some genuine and well accepted research of Harman was being bashed as "preference" more so than being a standard. Whatever is to be monetarily gained by touting of 5128's superior capabilities is still to be seen, IMHO shilling an incomplete and fallible "new" standard based on 5128's unverified capabilities is not going to further audio science.

 

[Robbo99999]

I watched that video and came away from it a bit perturbed that some genuine and well accepted research of Harman was being bashed as "preference" more so than being a standard. Whatever is to be monetarily gained by touting of 5128's superior capabilities is still to be seen, IMHO shilling an incomplete and fallible "new" standard based on 5128's unverified capabilities is not going to further audio science.

Yeah, didn't like the Crinacle part of the interview (didn't see the beginning bit with Andrew apart from he was very personable with Sean in the short opening section I saw) - no way can that video be used as justification & "proof" of any 5128 target, it was only a conversation afterall without any provable preference data being involved, so shouldn't be used as means of justifying any sort of target on 5128 - as the content of the video simply doesn't prove or justify any target on 5128, that would actually require research/studies/preference studies. I'd agree that was a poor & somewhat manipulative vid. But still, they've not got to the end of their 5128 journey yet, so the way I see it they don't have a target yet.

 

[solderdude]

I would agree with Amir that it is fine to play with a 5128, if only to try to get something good out of it.

I agree with all that, except Amir doesn't think it's "fine"

Nothing wrong with playing. Or even posting raw measurements with necessary caveats.