• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Was this aimed at ASR?

CtheArgie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
509
Likes
773
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
Economists. So many jokes. "First, assume we have a can opener." It's a long joke so the punch line will have to suffice.

Anyway, I wrote my thesis disproving (at least I thought) what an economist had won a Nobel prize for. When I discussed my finding with him his only retort was, "You're still young. You'll see later." (He refused to even engage with me in a discussion.)

Anyway, humans are neither rational nor irrational, they are individual. But no one will pay an economist to point that out.

Economists leave a deserted island by assuming a boat....

Given the US state of politics, irrationality seems to fit the bill better. Did you read K and T?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,529
Location
Seattle Area
@amirm, then "preference" may not necessarily mean "accurate". Especially if you are missing an "active control". "Good in your opinion" or "liked" is subjective. The method just systematized subjectivity.
All listening tests are subjective. What else would it be? Again, none of us ever have a control when we evaluate speakers. We can't look for it in controlled testing when it never exists in reality.

Fortunately we all seem to have a sense of what is right or this hobby would not exist!
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,497
Thank you.



I agree with Floyd Toole's summing up about what defines a good-sounding loudpeaker - or a loudspeaker that will be preferred by most listeners. See the conclusions in my 1991 article on loudspeaker measurements at https://www.stereophile.com/content/ja-loudspeaker-measurements-page-3 . So I have problems when I encounter loudpeakers like the Volti Razz - https://www.stereophile.com/content/volti-audio-razz-loudspeaker - or the Rethm Maarga - https://www.stereophile.com/content/rethm-maarga-loudspeaker - where the designer could have made a loudspeaker that adhere to the Toole model but deliberately didn't. I ask myself what they gained by sacrificing tonal accuracy and well-controlled dispersion. Sensitivity? Low distortion? In both these cases, whatever the designer was aiming for, for me the price was too high.

Sometimes the answer is that they wanted their designs to sound very different from the norm and "different" can always be perceived as "better." But more often, the designer wants a sound that to his ears and with his choice of music sounds right in his room with his associated equipment. This is what Stereophile's founder, the late Gordon Holt, used to call "my-fi" rather than "hi-fi."

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Well-said. Thank you - and I didn't realize you were a member here. Cool!
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,497
All listening tests are subjective. What else would it be? Again, none of us ever have a control when we evaluate speakers. We can't look for it in controlled testing when it never exists in reality.

Fortunately we all seem to have a sense of what is right or this hobby would not exist!

If folks read more than one or two of @amirm 's speaker reviews, they will inevitably come across one where in the "subjective listening test" section he says something like, "Based on how it measured I thought it would sound like XYZ to me, but surprisingly it didn't."

So Amir clearly labels these sections of his reviews as "subjective"; he is totally transparent about how he listens to the speaker (a single speaker in mono; near-field or far-field, depending on the speaker, etc); he repeatedly reminds readers of his personal preference (he enjoys a slight bump in the bass); he clearly relates his listening impressions to the measurements; and he is completely up-front about situations when his subjective listening impression doesn't match what the measurements would have led him to expect subjectively. He even says if he listens before or after doing the measurements.

What more can anyone reasonably ask from him? The only thing he could do differently is not listen at all and not report any listening impressions. I guess that's an option, but why bother when readers can just skip that clearly marked section of each review if they don't want to look at that part?
 

CtheArgie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
509
Likes
773
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
If folks read more than one or two of @amirm 's speaker reviews, they will inevitably come across one where in the "subjective listening test" section he says something like, "Based on how it measured I thought it would sound like XYZ to me, but surprisingly it didn't."

So Amir clearly labels these sections of his reviews as "subjective"; he is totally transparent about how he listens to the speaker (a single speaker in mono; near-field or far-field, depending on the speaker, etc); he repeatedly reminds readers of his personal preference (he enjoys a slight bump in the bass); he clearly relates his listening impressions to the measurements; and he is completely up-front about situations when his subjective listening impression doesn't match what the measurements would have led him to expect subjectively. He even says if he listens before or after doing the measurements.

What more can anyone reasonably ask from him? The only thing he could do differently is not listen at all and not report any listening impressions. I guess that's an option, but why bother when readers can just skip that clearly marked section of each review if they don't want to look at that part?

My point is that the Harman curve, the one used to compare the tested speaker is reached by subjective impressions. By "liking" a type of sound and not by an accurate representation of the original.

As I said, I accept this for amplified music, but not when comparing to live instruments in a live place playing unamplified.

I also completely understand that setting up that as a reference is not easy.

But let's be clear, the Harman curve is a subjectively reached consensus.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,529
Location
Seattle Area
But let's be clear, the Harman curve is a subjectively reached consensus.
As it happens, that curve is a flat line when it comes to on-axis. That bodes well for its correctness.

Now if you mean target response curve, yes, that is subjective and to taste. This is why in Room EQ I always suggest listening.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
@amirm, then "preference" may not necessarily mean "accurate". Especially if you are missing an "active control". "Good in your opinion" or "liked" is subjective. The method just systematized subjectivity.

I guess it depends on the person, but for me, "preference" is far more important than "accuracy". It just so happened that they came out to be the same, but I'm glad they tested for preference, and not accuracy.
 

CtheArgie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
509
Likes
773
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
As it happens, that curve is a flat line when it comes to on-axis. That bodes well for its correctness.

Now if you mean target response curve, yes, that is subjective and to taste. This is why in Room EQ I always suggest listening.

@amirm, again, I have no problem accepting this as a reference. I actually think it is extremely helpful to have it as a reference. This is an independent issue of accuracy to live unamplified music, but I don't think there is a practical way of doing this (to date).

And, no, preference is not more important than accuracy. But we don't know how to reach it. I thought this was ASR and not a subjective site. We can still have opinions about the science though.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
@amirm, again, I have no problem accepting this as a reference. I actually think it is extremely helpful to have it as a reference. This is an independent issue of accuracy to live unamplified music, but I don't think there is a practical way of doing this (to date).

And, no, preference is not more important than accuracy. But we don't know how to reach it. I thought this was ASR and not a subjective site. We can still have opinions about the science though.

If there were a less accurate(to live unamplified music) speaker that is preferred 100% of the time against a 100% accurate speaker, then I see no reason to want the more accurate speaker. Speaking recreationally, where the goal is to maximize pleasure, why listen to the real thing when you can listen to something that's better than the real thing?

That's why preference is more important than accuracy, to me. Luckily, Toole's research showed that they both converge towards the same, and I've never seen any research that suggest the conclusions don't hold for classical music. In fact, they tested classical music in their studies, and people still had the same preferences.
 

CtheArgie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
509
Likes
773
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
If there were a less accurate(to live unamplified music) speaker that is preferred 100% of the time against a 100% accurate speaker, then I see no reason to want the more accurate speaker. Speaking recreationally, where the goal is to maximize pleasure, why listen to the real thing when you can listen to something that's better than the real thing?

That's why preference is more important than accuracy, to me. Luckily, Toole's research showed that they both converge towards the same, and I've never seen any research that suggest the conclusions don't hold for classical music. In fact, they tested classical music in their studies, and people still had the same preferences.

So, Richard, you are stating that you would prefer a less accurate speaker. No worries, it is fine. But then, you can follow that logic to a less accurate amplifier, a less accurate DAC, etc. See what happens when you prefer the subjective route?

You either take accuracy in all aspects of the chain or you don't. With speakers, it is very tricky. I totally get it.

Regarding classical music, I am willing to accept that the final version that the conductor listened to and approved is the "closest" version to live music. And for those conductors at the mastering site, I would rather they listen and approve through a Harman set up monitor system. This reduces variance. But as someone mentioned above, I don't know the "utility" of the different aspects that Toole measured.
 

SimpleTheater

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 6, 2019
Messages
927
Likes
1,789
Location
Woodstock, NY
We are not a "business" yet I watch how we are doing on constant basis. And make strategies to improve.
I think a lot of us are incredulous when we see a sinking ship with no one at the helm. Stereophile is like Kodak. The world was going digital but they were making most of their revenues from film. By the time they tried to switch gears the world had passed them by. Stereophile needs badly to make the following changes if they’re ever to get me to subscribe again.
1) Learn how to call out a bad product. End a review with “Not worth a listen”
2) Do some ‘print only” comparisons $350 Yamaha A-S301 vs $8k Krell K-300i ABX Shootout. Make it available online after 3 months, to drive up the value of the print edition (or kill print and put some reviews behind a paid firewall)
3) Review at least two sub $1k components per issue.
4) Each issue should have some article on room improvement, and it shouldn’t always be about a boutique wall panel, sometimes about Owens Corning 703 or Knauf R-13.
5) Have some real fun. ‘How I made turntable isolators out of Bondo and rubber glue.’
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,529
Location
Seattle Area
I thought this was ASR and not a subjective site.
Oh, we 100% believe in subjectivity (listening). We just want it to be controlled to remove bias. There is no point in audio science if it doesn't result in good subjective experience.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,794
Location
NYC
Regarding classical music, I am willing to accept that the final version that the conductor listened to and approved is the "closest" version to live music.
I am not sure I want someone who stands on the podium making a final determination of the sound (as opposed to the music/performance) unless the microphone arrangement is such as to present the sound from that perspective.

Also, Google up stories about George Szell and his influence on the recordings of his performances. General feeling is that he contributed to their mediocrity and that modern remastering has revealed that they should have.
 

MediumRare

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 17, 2019
Messages
1,949
Likes
2,275
Location
Chicago
So, Richard, you are stating that you would prefer a less accurate speaker. No worries, it is fine. But then, you can follow that logic to a less accurate amplifier, a less accurate DAC, etc. See what happens when you prefer the subjective route?

You either take accuracy in all aspects of the chain or you don't. With speakers, it is very tricky. I totally get it.
Sorry, let me try to clarify: Objectivity is how you measure what you desire subjectively.

Example: I prefer red apples (subjective). My vendor's colorimeter is set up to mimic the physiology of the human eye and measures how close to my ideal red this particular apple is (objective). So when some douchebag tells me his green apple is red I don't have to take his word for it, I can ask for the colorimeter score. Does that make more sense?

[edited to be less douchey]
 
Last edited:

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
So, Richard, you are stating that you would prefer a less accurate speaker. No worries, it is fine. But then, you can follow that logic to a less accurate amplifier, a less accurate DAC, etc. See what happens when you prefer the subjective route?

Yes, actually. If it were true that I preferred a less accurate amp, a less accurate DAC, etc., then yes, I would rather listen to that than the more accurate chain. It comes closer to satisfying the goal, which is to maximize pleasure.

Fortunately, we don't really have to worry about that with electronics, as 99% of them are 100%(audibly) accurate, and I don't care enough to spend money testing my preference for the few that aren't. If electronics were as all over the place as speakers, then getting a great sounding system might be a total crap shoot.

For loudspeakers, though, they can be different enough where - for some - it might be worth it to explore less accurate options in pursuit of maximizing preference. Not for me, though. Other than maybe dispersion width, I'll be making my purchasing decisions based 100% on both accuracy and preference, as Toole's science says they are one in the same, even for classical. I'll trust that I'm normal. It's too expensive to try and find out if I'm not.

Again Toole/Olive's science tested for preference, but the test showed that the most preferred loudspeakers were the ones that were the most accurate. You've put forth the hypothesis that these studies don't apply to classical music, and you've come up with some reasons why that might be true, but I don't see any real evidence to support that it IS true. Remember, they tested with classical music, and the trends were the same.

What you're saying might be true, but you need to show that it is, in my opinion.
 

North_Sky

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
2,741
Likes
1,553
Location
Kha Nada
I could see Stereophile and ASR joining forces together, for a more advanced audio hi-fi stereo world, @ the service of art moderne.
 

CtheArgie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
509
Likes
773
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
Yes, actually. If it were true that I preferred a less accurate amp, a less accurate DAC, etc., then yes, I would rather listen to that than the more accurate chain. It comes closer to satisfying the goal, which is to maximize pleasure.

Fortunately, we don't really have to worry about that with electronics, as 99% of them are 100%(audibly) accurate, and I don't care enough to spend money testing my preference for the few that aren't. If electronics were as all over the place as speakers, then getting a great sounding system might be a total crap shoot.

For loudspeakers, though, they can be different enough where - for some - it might be worth it to explore less accurate options in pursuit of maximizing preference. Not for me, though. Other than maybe dispersion width, I'll be making my purchasing decisions based 100% on both accuracy and preference, as Toole's science says they are one in the same, even for classical. I'll trust that I'm normal. It's too expensive to try and find out if I'm not.

Again Toole/Olive's science tested for preference, but the test showed that the most preferred loudspeakers were the ones that were the most accurate. You've put forth the hypothesis that these studies don't apply to classical music, and you've come up with some reasons why that might be true, but I don't see any real evidence to support that it IS true. Remember, they tested with classical music, and the trends were the same.

What you're saying might be true, but you need to show that it is, in my opinion.

Please, show me the evidence that they are more accurate. I granted that they are preferred. I have never seen the reference for accuracy to the source.
 

CtheArgie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
509
Likes
773
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
I am not sure I want someone who stands on the podium making a final determination of the sound (as opposed to the music/performance) unless the microphone arrangement is such as to present the sound from that perspective.

Also, Google up stories about George Szell and his influence on the recordings of his performances. General feeling is that he contributed to their mediocrity and that modern remastering has revealed that they should have.

The moment I wrote that paragraph, I started regretting it.

It came to my mind from a discussion I had at the Hollywood Bowl with the sound engineer. Our season seats are very close to his little bunker. We think the amplified sound at the HB is pretty good, specially when Dudamel conducts. Once, I walked down to the engineer and complimented him on the sound I was getting from my seat close behind him, and through the conversation, he told me that Dudamel sometimes stands in front of him listening to the orchestra rehearsing and discusses the sound balance with the engineer. It seems Dudamel is quite fickle with how he wants his orchestra to sound from the audience.

Interestingly, I find the amplified sound of HB better balanced than the unamplified sound at Disney Hall. I think that concert hall's acoustics are problematic (from where we seat).
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,593
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I am not sure I want someone who stands on the podium making a final determination of the sound (as opposed to the music/performance) unless the microphone arrangement is such as to present the sound from that perspective.

Also, Google up stories about George Szell and his influence on the recordings of his performances. General feeling is that he contributed to their mediocrity and that modern remastering has revealed that they should have.
I remember reading that Szell had Acoustic Research model 3 speakers under his couch? The current issues of the Szell/Cleveland recordings are fine, a lot of the LP issues were screechy. Of course, the very worst example is Toscanini, with the "Conductor's Perspective" producing a desiccated X-ray of the NBC orchestra's sound.
 
Top Bottom