Subjectivist’s rant debunked

[mdunjic]

MUSINGS: On the duplicity of hi-fi audio anti-measurers? The John DeVore example.

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[fpitas]

Goodness. Snake oil salesmen in audio?

/Thanks for the link

 

[mdunjic]

Goodness. Snake oil salesmen in audio?

/Thanks for the link

LoL indeed

 

[HarmonicTHD]

MUSINGS: On the duplicity of hi-fi audio anti-measurers? The John DeVore example.

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Archimago has been doing this for years. He is great.

 

[mdunjic]

Archimago has been doing this for years. He is great.

Very true

 

[Count Arthur]

Who might build a better ampifier, a profoundly deaf electronics engineer, or a virtuoso violinist with pitch perfect hearing - just a thought.

 

[ahofer]

Who might build a better ampifier, a profoundly deaf electronics engineer, or a virtuoso violinist with pitch perfect hearing - just a thought.

the engineer.

 

[Count Arthur]

I don't think a virtuoso violinist would have a clue about electrical engineering.

That was my point, it's entirely possible that an engineer could produce a good amplifier without ever hearing it, because it has one, measurable, job, to amplify the input signal without changing anything other than the amplitude.

 

[MKR]

MUSINGS: On the duplicity of hi-fi audio anti-measurers? The John DeVore example.

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

I follow Archimago, but hadn’t been to site for a while and missed this one. Good stuff, thanks for the link! I have no issue with Devore in principle, and have heard the O/96 on multiple occasions, and I can certainly understand why some would like them. I myself found some very pleasant qualities with the sound. Basically, they are in themselves part of the musical performance given the cabinet resonance issues, and that resonance can be pleasant, a bit like a stringed instrument. Main issue here is Devores rant, ugh .

Anyway, as a reviewer or owner of said speakers just don’t claim they are accurately reproducing the recording and we can get along just fine

 

[ahofer]

I follow Archimago, but hadn’t been to site for a while and missed this one. Good stuff, thanks for the link! I have no issue with Devore in principle, and have heard the O/96 on multiple occasions, and I can certainly understand why some would like them. I myself found some very pleasant qualities with the sound. Basically, they are in themselves part of the musical performance given the cabinet resonance issues, and that resonance can be pleasant, a bit like a stringed instrument. Main issue here is Devores rant, ugh .

Anyway, as a reviewer or owner of said speakers just don’t claim they are accurately reproducing the recording and we can get along just fine

Resonances, wildly uneven frequency response, and poor dispersion - the trifecta.

I bet they ARE warm. That looks like a badly implemented RIAA curve!

DeVore Fidelity Orangutan O/96 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the DeVore Fidelity Orangutan O/96's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield and spatially averaged room responses.

www.stereophile.com

 

[Anton D]

“I have never heard DeVore's speakers. Honestly, I am curious about how they sound.”

This hobby seems full of insurmountable obstacles.

 

[MKR]

Resonances, wildly uneven frequency response, and poor dispersion - the trifecta.

I bet they ARE warm. That looks like a badly implemented RIAA curve!

DeVore Fidelity Orangutan O/96 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the DeVore Fidelity Orangutan O/96's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield and spatially averaged room responses.

www.stereophile.com

Indeed ... I suppose the question to ask here is do you want your speakers to reproduce the recording, or be part of the recording. If the former, then Devore certainly not for you. If the latter, then I am sure you would love them.

 

[thegeton]

Who might build a better ampifier, a profoundly deaf electronics engineer, or a virtuoso violinist with pitch perfect hearing - just a thought.

As much as I like your question, I think we know that answer. The better question is this: Who might build a better speaker, a profoundly deaf electronic engineer, or a virtuoso violinist with pitch perfect hearing?

 

[fpitas]

Probably still the engineer. I've watched non-engineers try to design speakers. One of two things happens:

1) They become an engineer. Sometimes a good one.
2) Ignominious failure and tears

 

[mdunjic]

I don't think a virtuoso violinist would have a clue about electrical engineering.

I think that was the original point

 

[amirm]

The first thing Science says about audio is that the subjective listening John DeVore is doing is wrong. If he believes in science, that is the first thing he needs to dismiss as valid before worrying about science of measurements.

 

[amirm]

I put this comment under DeVore's video:

"The fist thing "science" says about audio is that your observations of sound in uncontrolled setting, with your eyes involved is wrong. That is easily proven and is part and parcel of human perception. So no matter what is wrong with science of measurement, you can be sure that the substitute cannot be the subjective experiences you promote. To wit, who says you made the right decision in having a worse frequency response in your speaker? You are the designer with who knows what hearing ability to determine that. The test would have been a blind, level matched one to determine if that correction was needed or not. You know, when only the sound is heard and evaluated. NOT knowing that one position of crossover switch says this and another says that. Just run that test. It should take just a few minutes. Invite a few audiophiles over, don't tell them what you are doing and run a trial 10 times and see if you get 9 times in favor of your preferred setting.

That is how we do audio science. Remember, if your brain can manufacture a band sitting in front of you from two speakers, it is quite capable of fooling you in other ways! As to measurements, we apply science of psychoacoustics to them. Then we can determine audibility. And measurements as far as what I perform at ASR, are a full suite, not one signal as you imply."

 

[voodooless]

I put this comment under DeVore's video:

"The fist thing "science" says about audio is that your observations of sound in uncontrolled setting, with your eyes involved is wrong. That is easily proven and is part and parcel of human perception. So no matter what is wrong with science of measurement, you can be sure that the substitute cannot be the subjective experiences you promote. To wit, who says you made the right decision in having a worse frequency response in your speaker? You are the designer with who knows what hearing ability to determine that. The test would have been a blind, level matched one to determine if that correction was needed or not. You know, when only the sound is heard and evaluated. NOT knowing that one position of crossover switch says this and another says that. Just run that test. It should take just a few minutes. Invite a few audiophiles over, don't tell them what you are doing and run a trial 10 times and see if you get 9 times in favor of your preferred setting.

That is how we do audio science. Remember, if your brain can manufacture a band sitting in front of you from two speakers, it is quite capable of fooling you in other ways! As to measurements, we apply science of psychoacoustics to them. Then we can determine audibility. And measurements as far as what I perform at ASR, are a full suite, not one signal as you imply."

I wonder how long it will be there..

 

[Waxx]

For me the Devore i know is the O93, and it's like he took a perfect good vintage speaker (the Dynaco A25) as example, used the wrong tweeter, the wrong cabinet and the wrong crossover to make a crap speaker and sell it way to expensive.

If you want that A25 in modern form, there is a kit by by Seas (who made the original A25 woofer and H087 tweeter) called the A26 with modern equivalents (A26RE4 woofer and TC35C002 tweeter) that you can build for less than 1.5K ... And it sounds way better than that Devore O93, i've helped a friend build it, and with using high quality birch ply, high quality crossover parts and so, the budget for the build was just over 1500€ and the build actually fairly easy to do.

 

[Anton D]

For me the Devore i know is the O93, and it's like he took a perfect good vintage speaker (the Dynaco A25) as example, used the wrong tweeter, the wrong cabinet and the wrong crossover to make a crap speaker and sell it way to expensive.

If you want that A25 in modern form, there is a kit by by Seas (who made the original A25 woofer and H087 tweeter) called the A26 with modern equivalents (A26RE4 woofer and TC35C002 tweeter) that you can build for less than 1.5K ... And it sounds way better than that Devore O93, i've helped a friend build it, and with using high quality birch ply, high quality crossover parts and so, the budget for the build was just over 1500€ and the build actually fairly easy to do.

That’s one those things I love about this hobby!