The ASR "objectivists tribe" ;) has to read the Keynotes at the AES160th by Lars Risbo

[Mr. Widget]

You canna change the laws of physics. The problem you have is not that there is insufficient DSP to solve it.

Exactly my point.
There are many here who seem to think that DSP can solve everything and that room modes and bass response is the biggest issue out there.

Then in the subjective camp, someone would probably suggest changing the cables.

 

[Buckchester]

Exactly my point.
There are many here who seem to think that DSP can solve everything and that room modes and bass response is the biggest issue out there.

Then in the subjective camp, someone would probably suggest changing the cables.

There’s little point to changing the cables if…YOU AIN’T GONNA LIFT THEM!

 

[krabapple]

Exactly my point.
There are many here who seem to think that DSP can solve everything and that room modes and bass response is the biggest issue out there.

According to Toole/Olive research, bass quality accounts for about a third of preference for speaker sound. I expect that would carry over to rooms too. So it's a big issue -- maybe the single biggest from among the contenders?

Anyone who thinks 'room EQ' DSP will fix, e.g., flutter echo, is in for a shock. AVR marketing is guilty for part of that, though not the DSP makers themselves.

 

[Duke]

According to Toole/Olive research, bass quality accounts for about a third of preference for speaker sound. I expect that would carry over to rooms too. So it's a big issue -- maybe the single biggest from among the contenders?

Yes!

My recollection is that, from the study where they tested for whether loudspeaker preference rankings changed from one room to another, when they analyzed the scoring for all the rooms together, the room itself (rather than the loudspeaker!) was the dominant factor. But it was the difference in the bass response - i.e. the difference in the speaker/room interaction in the bass region - that determined which rooms generated the highest scores!

Imo one implication is this: If we can significantly improve the speaker/room interaction in the bass region without spending too much money (like without going to the expense of buying a bigger house with a better room), that could be money well spent.

 

[Timcognito]

Two things so help me out, I just got Tooles book.
1) Fact: Evolution is not goal directed
2) Question:Temporal changes made my magnet motor non linear behavior can not be quantified measured a few inches in front of a speaker?

 

[Salt]

Two things so help me out, I just got Tooles book.
1) Fact: Evolution is not goal directed
2) Question:Temporal changes made my magnet motor non linear behavior can not be quantified measured a few inches in front of a speaker?

2) or directly in front of the transducer ...

 

[Paul7777x]

Yes!

My recollection is that, from the study where they tested for whether loudspeaker preference rankings changed from one room to another, when they analyzed the scoring for all the rooms together, the room itself (rather than the loudspeaker!) was the dominant factor. But it was the difference in the bass response - i.e. the difference in the speaker/room interaction in the bass region - that determined which rooms generated the highest scores!

Imo one implication is this: If we can significantly improve the speaker/room interaction in the bass region without spending too much money (like without going to the expense of buying a bigger house with a better room), that could be money well spent.

This should be lesson 101 for any hifi person.

It matters not at all how magnificently linear the majority of the FR is if you have room induced horrible bass peaks.

And to the nearest approximation every room does. There are rooms big enough for this to be minimal, but vanishingly few.

The ‘energy’ in any hump between 20 and, say 300Hz will swamp the rest of the FR. The only variable being by how much.

And as I’m pretty sure everyone here knows, a 10dB hump or two, or three is not at all unlikely in any given room between those frequencies.

I’ve had (worst case personally) a 21dB peak at 70Hz and 12dB at 120Hz. This was the left speaker. The right had similar but not quite as large.

Clearly that is massively interfering with the sound I can expect from the speaker. Ruining it in fact.

Obviously once fixed (with a DDRC24 at the time) the music was as hugely improved as you’d expect.

I’ve no doubt there are very many distortions affecting everyone’s music.

But the first, foremost and most obviously destructive is the mess that virtually every room makes with the bass response of any and all uncorrected speakers (and or subs).

 

[Sernyl]

Yes, but it takes properly controlled tests (blind, level matched) before it can be established “something is heard”.

Of course.
Aren't some been done already ?

 

[pablolie]

Exactly my point.
There are many here who seem to think that DSP can solve everything and that room modes and bass response is the biggest issue out there.

Then in the subjective camp, someone would probably suggest changing the cables.

I am not sure there are "many" here that present that view, because they'd also get "objectivist-rationalist" fire.

Personally, I minimize the use of EQ a lot. If I have to overuse it, it's a definite proof that I chose equipment extremely poorly.

BTW I very much doubt anybody-anywhere is 100% objectivist or rationalist. EVERY hobby is irrational. And believing that some magic stone on your equipment improves things is no worse than believing the latest 124dB DAC will improve things over your old, obsolete 114dB DAC... As is thinking a 1dB change over a very limited frequency range will make things sound "terrible".

We are all a cocktail of subjectivism/objectivism, albeit to varying degrees. I'd regard myself as 20/80.

 

[krabapple]

I am not sure there are "many" here that present that view, because they'd also get "objectivist-rationalist" fire.

Personally, I minimize the use of EQ a lot. If I have to overuse it, it's a definite proof that I chose equipment extremely poorly.

You can have the best equipment in the world, and alas the room will still intrude.

Having the best system means optimizing all aspects including the room's effects. That could involve 'a lot' of EQ.

And as Dr. Toole noted, sometimes just a simple bass or treble 'tone control' is the very thing to deal with the vagaries of the recorded sound itself.

 

[Mort]

Of course.
Aren't some been done already ?

Yes, but not nearly enough data was acquired. It would take many more to eliminate all the variables.

Unfortunately, no one anywhere has a economic incentive to pay for these expensive studies.

Maybe when @amirm makes his billions off Ascilab, he will divert resources to pure, primary, audio science.

 

[Sal1950]

I am not sure there are "many" here that present that view, because they'd also get "objectivist-rationalist" fire.

True, I don't believe there are many here that would take that extreme position. It's just another comment made in an attempt to devalue the objectivist community.
Right up there with the "all amps & DACs sound the same" with no caveat on design choices.

 

[pablolie]

You can have the best equipment in the world, and alas the room will still intrude.

Having the best system means optimizing all aspects including the room's effects. That could involve 'a lot' of EQ.

And as Dr. Toole noted, sometimes just a simple bass or treble 'tone control' is the very thing to deal with the vagaries of the recorded sound itself.

Well, EQ equipment was very popular in the 80s, every halfway ambitioned system seemed to have one, so nothing new under the sun. I had a Technics one with like 20 sliders or so, mostly used to decrease human voice frequencies so we could karaoke (the EQ box had two microphone inputs). At that age, many parties were celebrated that way at my place!

Doing it based on hopefully accurate measurements is what is awesomely new. And of course I have done it, but I didn't adjust it the way Dirac wanted entirely because I wanted to preserve the "character" of my system, not slavishly bow over. The measurements confirmed my listening impressions and allowed me to do sub adjustments (volume, position). An "ideal neutral system" is not my preference, although I am probably >85% there.

 

[Madlop26]

I read the speech; it was rather disappointing. It contained multiple misleading assertions, but the final advice was fine—dogmatism is not good in any field. However, if you do good science, the absence of dogmatism is a given; What is frustrating is the attempt to level objectivism vs subjectivism, using historical disagreement between bright men of science! This is NOT correct. A closer comparison would be the opinion between astrophysics and astrologist.

 

[pablolie]

I read the speech; it was rather disappointing. It contained multiple misleading assertions, but the final advice was fine—dogmatism is not good in any field. However, if you do good science, the absence of dogmatism is a given; What is frustrating is the attempt to level objectivism vs subjectivism, using historical disagreement between bright men of science! This is NOT correct. A closer comparison would be the opinion between astrophysics and astrologist.

I also thought it was just OK. he threw in too many "famous quotes" that were completely unrelated to the topic, and there were clear leaps in logic. was one of those speeches that start with "look how smart and educated i am" and then goes into "buy my sh*t because i am that smart and my stuff must be better" with questionable bridges between the two.

I attend hundreds of such key notes in my field and it is a very common thing.

 

[Timcognito]

Forget about Lars and learn the science

Nonlinear Distortion

Nonlinear Distortion

www.klippel.de

 

[MattHooper]

Noise is NOT distortion.

They are totally different characteristics caused by radically different physical mechanisms.

Whether we’re talking about noise or distortion, both would be measurable right?

This is a red herring with regards to the point of the post you had responded to, which was about how to characterize the perceptual aspects of the artefact /phenomenon being proposed.

 

[MattHooper]

Yes!

My recollection is that, from the study where they tested for whether loudspeaker preference rankings changed from one room to another, when they analyzed the scoring for all the rooms together, the room itself (rather than the loudspeaker!) was the dominant factor. But it was the difference in the bass response - i.e. the difference in the speaker/room interaction in the bass region - that determined which rooms generated the highest scores!

Imo one implication is this: If we can significantly improve the speaker/room interaction in the bass region without spending too much money (like without going to the expense of buying a bigger house with a better room), that could be money well spent.

I can’t remember if I read that myself, but… I’m presuming the loudspeaker is used had significant low frequency extension? Maybe down to 40 Hz or more?

I wonder what the results would’ve been like with a smaller stand mounted speakers that didn’t go too low. I suppose we can speculate that if it was a variety of standard mounted mini monitor speakers that didn’t go below the Schroeder frequency the results might have evened out? And if so, I wonder how far below that frequency speakers could perform before you get really strong room dominant effects dominating the scores.
I don’t know it’s all above my pay grade.

 

[Sal1950]

I attend hundreds of such key notes in my field and it is a very common thing.

Of course, usually the main key note is $ LOL
My unfortunate listening room has windows all along the left wall and the right is fully open floor plan'd to the kitchen and dinning area Little to nothing DRC can do to help the imaging issues that causes.
My main attack plan was to cover all the windows with 2" acoustic panels to make that side as dead as possible.

 

[kemmler3D]

Not as in the measurable harmonic type.
But if audible and not a part of the original source signal, then it is a distortion of it's reproduction.

Distortion is (depending on how you look at it) defined as any change to the signal OTHER than noise. In a colloquial sense you could call noise distortion, but in a technical / engineering sense they're two exclusive categories.