Was this aimed at ASR?

[JeffS7444]

If you want to see what makes Stereophile tick, download their media kit.

Anyone here got the past 12 issues? Tell me who bought the back cover ad space as that is the most costly (I'm assuming it's cable makers).

Not slamming them for wanting to connect customers with advertisers as that's standard practice for print, radio, television and other forms of media. But it's too bad that Stereophile needs to rely so heavily on ad revenues from sellers of the very sorts of products it reviews.

 

[preload]

You can't eyeball statistics like that - you have to calculate whether the differences are statistically significant under the appropriate test.

That's kind of hard to do when the authors didn't provide any. I had actually typed in a comment about not having any error bars or p-values, but deleted it before posting - guess I should have included it.

The original paper doesn't include any statistical tests either and doesn't include the Japanese data on this slide.

 

[Thomas savage]

@amirm or @Thomas savage, can you make this a Poll or point me to that functionality.

Which one statement best describes your philosophy of audio reproduction:
- To hear recordings as if they were live events
- To hear recordings exactly as the producer intended
- To hear recordings in a way that gives me the most enjoyment
- To be able to shape the sound as I please or as a creative process

I'm fairly sure it's a option when you create a new thread .

Indeed it is , create new thread button, scroll down to bottom and you should see a ' create poll ' option.

 

[Racheski]

That's kind of hard to do when the authors didn't provide any. I had actually typed in a comment about not having any error bars or p-values, but deleted it before posting - guess I should have included it.

The original paper doesn't include any statistical tests either and doesn't include the Japanese data on this slide.

Really? Wow that’s surprising. Can you share a link?

 

[MediumRare]

I'm fairly sure it's a option when you create a new thread .

Indeed it is , create new thread button, scroll down to bottom and you should see a ' create poll ' option.

Thanks, I didn't see it hiding there at the bottom!

 

[preload]

Really? Wow that’s surprising. Can you share a link?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12206

Regardless, Harman's research is pretty clear that age, gender (possibly), country, and experience influence preferences around treble and bass quantities (see my previous post in this thread). Whether we want to argue that "people have the same loudspeaker preferences if they're allowed to change the tone controls for each one" vs. "variation in listener preferences for bass and treble quantities should also introduce variability in preferences for loudspeakers that have different intrinsic bass/treble response curves" is a matter of semantics.

 

[MediumRare]

It seems our discussion on this topic may be shaped by some basic philosophy of what capital-A "Audio" is all about. Let's see where we stand as a community. Please check out this poll:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...rom-your-audio-system-the-big-question.14741/

 

[SIY]

My son listens to a lot of modern Rap, gawd help me. Every time I use the car when he's finished with it, I play a podcast or my own music and it sounds horrendous, utterly boomy and muffled, and then I remember...oh yeah...check the EQ. Of course he has turned the bass up max.

Where did I go wrong?

Have you considered retroactive abortion?

 

[Absolute]

I quoted the parts I were referring to literally. The argumentation was first cheap, too obvious criticism which was given by Toole and Olive themselves (not quoted). Then he accuses people to be so and so, in order to derive counterarguments (offenses?) against that people (!!) (quoted).

( Known scheme in rhetoric )

He lies in saying that the other party lacks self-reflection despite the very fact that us guys exactly does that in using science to back-up the ideas - to the max!

Then he, to go full circle claims for his folks exactly that authority to do so, namely to judge without any objective back-up whatsoever.

This all was written by him with the background of earning money in this field using his "methods".

I won't tell in public what I actually think of him. You may imagine Yourself.

But please for the sake of a civilized discussion here, do not ignore my argumentation and take its content wrong by intent. Thank You so much!

I won't ignore your argumentation if you don't ignore mine

When I'm reading the article I don't see the bad intentions that you do. The author (I have no idea who that is or what he has written before) quotes some examples of condemnation and goes on to explain how that fits into his problem with conformists, or those who seeks to put everything and everyone in the same square box if you will. As far as I can read and logically comprehend, this argument has some merit.

I can't read from this article that the author is of the opinion that everyone who values measurements is a conformist with a narrow mindset, only that he has a problem with those that fits that description. You might know the author, his motive and his personal beliefs, but I don't. I can only read what was written, and I have no problem with the text.

Should we damn a speaker with so-so directivity when the aim of the design was to maximize dispersion? No, that would be narrow-minded and fit the description of a conformist. There's no support for the notion that better directivity will be better/more preferred than wider dispersion at the cost of directivity, so condemning one or the other on measurements alone would be the type of behavior the author implores to avoid.

I can follow the whole reasoning through the article and understand what and why the author writes what he does, even if I don't agree with him on a fundamental level. I can't read from this text alone that there's a misplaced hate towards all objectivists, only conformists. I can even support him on that even if I don't agree with him on a wider philosophical scale.

I don't have much sympathy for the victim-role he assumes on behalf of audio reviewers when measurements tells a story opposite of what the reviewer does. It is known that subjective impressions is riddled with errors - and audio reviewers more than anyone else, apparently. That's a fact he/they should invest some effort to fix, not complain about.

 

[mhardy6647]

Up to the 1980s everybody was able to use simple tone controls. For flawed recordings they are much better than not having them.

OTOH I'v seen enough amps where those tone controls were both set to max.

Well, that's not quite true.

source: https://blonder.com/ike/blonderTongue/BThistory.html

source: https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/I...-0034.pdf#search="blonder tongue audio baton"

1959.

Heck, I think Drew A. Kaplan ("DAK" was pushin' EQs before the calendar flipped from the "7" years to the "8" years.

Well, maybe the early eighties.

 

[richard12511]

Here is the issue. Jim Austin and other subjective reviewers provide assessments that are never scored to be correct. As far as I am concerned, they are random poetry.

JA does better with his measurements but even he has not stepped up to spinorama measurements. His near-field measurements of bass create artificial boost in that important region. And poor resolution of the graphs nearly damns the whole effort.

When there were no alternatives, they did OK. Now there is. And audiophiles are responding:

View attachment 73587

An opinion letter crying to go back to the old days when we didn't exist is not going to solve the above problem. Audiophiles as a category are highly inquisitive. They spend all day, every day trying to learn "what sounds better." They used to wait a month to read a few reviews in a print magazine. Now we are producing that in less than a week.

Stereophile still has a strong brand and history. It is not too late for them to figure out how they are going to be different and still provide value to all of us. Sitting there will just cause time to pass them by.

Admittedly, what we are doing starts with economics being tossed aside. Such is the case with open-source software. Figure it out Jim Austin. Complaining about it and trying to put us down is not going to work.

If you’re really not making money from this site, then thank you so much for doing this. I truly believe this site will make future loudspeakers better.

Actually, even if you are making money, still, thank you.

 

[pozz]

@pozz, are you sure about that? In the Harman study comparing blinded loudspeaker preferences across different listener groups, take a close look at the results for Loudspeaker C vs. Loudspeaker D (red boxed, below). As you can see,
Two groups slightly preferred Loudspeaker C over Loudspeaker D (U.S.? high school students and Japanese College students).
Whereas, 3 different groups strongly preferred Loudspeaker D over Loudspeaker C (Harman trained listeners, UC Irvine college students, and Cal Arts college students).
While I agree that overall, on average, loudspeaker preference rankings tend to be similar across age/gender/country/etc., Harman's own research shows that sometimes there ARE differences based on these groups/characteristics.

Let me present these data in a different way:
A > B = C > D <-- Harman Trained Listeners
A > B > C > D <-- UCI and LMU college students
A > B > D > C <-- High School Students
A > D > B > C <-- Japanese College Students (2011)

View attachment 73597




This comment makes me believe you are pretty familiar with the research in this area. I'm always interested in learning something new, and that's one of the reasons I'm here. Can you point me to any publications that would supersede the findings presented above, to support your statement that characteristics like age, gender, country of residence, etc. don't influence loudspeaker preference rankings?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12206

Regardless, Harman's research is pretty clear that age, gender (possibly), country, experience influence preferences around treble and bass quantities (see my previous post in this thread). Whether we want to argue that "people have the same loudspeaker preferences if they're allowed to change the tone controls for each one" vs. "variation in listener preferences for bass and treble quantities should also introduce variability in loudspeakers that have different intrinsic bass/treble response curves" is a matter of semantics.

It's surprising you would take your conclusions so far.

I'll quote you Toole's summary from his book.

I'm not sure what you expect from the results either. It's unlikely preferences would be clear for every loudspeaker without question. In fact, the results for loudspeaker D should be interpreted in a different way: inconsistency of judgment. There's likely some interaction of response and directivity, or poor construction, that frustrated opinions for everyone except trained listeners:

 

[preload]

It's surprising you would take your conclusions so far.

I'll quote you Toole's summary from his book.

View attachment 73647

I'm not sure what you expect from the results either. It's unlikely preferences would be clear for every loudspeaker without question. In fact, the results for loudspeaker D should be interpreted in a different way: inconsistency of judgment. There's likely some interaction of response and directivity, or poor construction, that frustrated opinions for everyone except trained listeners:
View attachment 73684

Not so fast, captain. A book is a tertiary source. I presented you with a primary source, a journal paper.

Also, I think you're confusing the variation in how loudspeaker D is perceived by different listener groups with the variation in how reliably trained vs no trained listeners can provide preference ratings.

And there is still no reconciliation with Harman's own research showing differences in treble and bass preferences across different ages, genders, country of residence, and listening experience.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

I think those of you feeling that this was aimed at ASR probably didn't read this...

https://www.soundstagesolo.com/inde...lrOZNpgszqZIoSDKKe42-3IXJ5eYb3pjvcuKc04xqKbdU


Ironically, that was sent to me by a manufacturer who told me that he feels like audio science is reaching "critical mass" (a good thing in his mind).


At any rate, I wouldn't be so narcissistic as to say that ASR is the driving force for that article being written. I'd say the big step forward in people becoming educated is the catalyst. There are other outlets doing their part to provide objective data. Even Stereophile provides data. Makes you wonder what the conversation was like between JA and the author (assuming there was one).

Alternatively, maybe this article was written as more of an experienced 'audiophile' ranting about the crowd that "knows just enough to be dangerous" and assuming that because a speaker doesn't meet a definition they just learned about it must be a terrible speaker. Get off my lawn, and whatnot.

Google reviews on speakers and equipment. ASR reviews always show up. Negative ASR reviews have a significant impact. Consumers shopping Best Buy have never heard of Revel, Anthem, etc. Even neophyte audiophiles will run into this site after a couple of days of research.

 

[amirm]

And there is still no reconciliation with Harman's own research showing differences in treble and bass preferences across different ages, genders, country of residence, and listening experience.

That test did not compensate for level change, nor did it test listeners over the longer term. A bright speaker sounds good for seconds or minutes but then gets tiring for example.

From the paper:

And other issues:

I have the Harman highest rated headphone and while at first blush it sounds very good, later listening proves to be too bass and high heavy (this is limited impression so don't run with it too much).

 

[b1daly]

I was going to make a similar comment in response to bobbooo's post.

There's a certain conceptual attraction to the division he would like to maintain, but in practice it's not so separable.

Like many people, I can enjoy music on all manner of playback systems, from my car stereo, our smart speaker, even my iphone's crappy speaker when there's nothing else. I can be carried away by all the essential parts of the music, the melody, the production etc. But what I don't get from a "lesser" playback system is the additional pleasure of the Sound Quality. The sensuousness of the sound itself. It's like when I'd go see live unamplified music, from Jazz, to guitar, to symphonic, the sound quality factor, the richness of the sound was like going from black and white (e.g. clock radio) to Technicolor, or from dial up internet speed to multi Terabyte speed. It truly added to the experience.

So I can enjoy music, usually in the background, on many devices, but to get me to actually sit down in front of a system to concentrate only on the music requires that it is somehow more rewarding to do so, and a great hi-fi system produces a higher quality, a greater sensuousness of sound, that rewards my attention and enhances the listening experience. After all, the reasons most of us here bought our particular gear, speakers anyway, had to do with how it changed the quality of the sound for our music listening.

So to that end: the nature of audio equipment, as b1daly, can not be divorced so easily from the emotion of listening. I've lost count of how many audio systems have left me just cold, uninterested in sitting more than minute to listen to the music (and I bet many who have been to audio shows have had the same experience). Where other systems practically cast a spell on me, and I want to listen all night long...to the same music that I could have walked away from on the uninvolving systems. I tend to look for systems that, for lack of better description, can produce an "organic warmth" - of the type I perceive when hearing real wood resonating, real flesh and blood humans speaking, that kid of thing. If I'm not hearing it through a system, I feel no desire to constrain my activity to sitting and listening...I can just wander off so the music is in the background.

I don’t consider myself an ‘audiophile’ per se because I don’t think there is ‘one true way’ that audio equipment should be.

If someone tells me they love their XYZ speakers, and I don’t, or if they measure ‘bad’ I see no reason to argue they are wrong.

Where one can say an opinion is ‘wrong’ is when double blind tests show the person cannot reliably pick the gear they claimed they preferred. Or when a manufacturer makes objective claims for performance that are not true.

The sort of nonsense audiophiles engage in is tiresome, but in the scheme of things it’s a harmless hobby


I am very picky though, and at this point in my life I can’t be bothered to listen to music for fun on systems I don’t like, it actually diminishes my enjoyment of the music. Often it is context based. If I’m working outside I can thoroughly enjoy music from a good portable system that wouldn’t be so great inside. Likewise with listening in the car.


Ironically I find modern studio monitors to provide an inferior subjective experience compared to some of my favorite ‘hi-if’ speakers.

I’ve been trying to understand what might account for this and have at best only a few loose hypotheses.

What I’m looking for is something akin to what you describe, a kind of visceral ‘presence’ with the music. My favorite brand of speakers are ADS from the 70s and 80s. I restore and collect them. What I find is that they do provide the experience I’m looking for, but have issues with their frequency response (just based on listening). Usually with EQ I can correct much of the issues.

The other day I had a pair of ADS L520 set up in my studio. The sound was incredible, I was transfixed for a spell. The biggest issues with these speakers are that they are ‘voiced’ a little bright. Recordings that have distortion in the high frequencies (which are many) can sound harsh. Unmastered, natural recordings sound amazing.

And they are acoustic suspension so they don’t have the same full bass presentation of a ported speaker of similar size. But with a sub they are phenomenal.

I feel like there is more than frequency response at play, it feels more like a ‘quickness’ of dynamic response of the drivers, coupled with slight resonance of the cabinet, but I can’t put my finger on it. It reminds me of how a really good guitar amp responds to the playing

 

[pozz]

Not so fast, captain. A book is a tertiary source. I presented you with a primary source, a journal paper.

Also, I think you're confusing the variation in how loudspeaker D is perceived by different listener groups with the variation in how reliably trained vs no trained listeners can provide preference ratings.

And there is still no reconciliation with Harman's own research showing differences in treble and bass preferences across different ages, genders, country of residence, and listening experience.

The paragraph preceding the conclusion I cited references that paper:

3.9 was the chart in my post above. The unreliability is a key factor. Despite it, when looking across four speakers, A to D, the overall downwards trend is clear when averaging the y-axis variance.

A repeat test done later with headphones, with the same variance:

 

[Racheski]

I have the Harman highest rated headphone and while at first blush it sounds very good, later listening proves to be too bass and high heavy (this is limited impression so don't run with it too much).

Is that the Ether or HD650, or something else?

 

[amirm]

Is that the Ether or HD650, or something else?

Neither. It is one of their own brands. It is very uncomfortable for me to wear so I don't do any testing with it (or use it for anything else for that matter).

 

[Inner Space]

I find modern studio monitors to provide an inferior subjective experience compared to some of my favorite ‘hi-if’ speakers ... What I’m looking for is something akin to what you describe, a kind of visceral ‘presence’ with the music.

Interesting, especially with the word "visceral" in there ... were the monitors in a studio control room? I share your opinion, and the more I learn about physical hearing, the more I realize we "hear" with more than just our ears. My conclusion was that the mixing console blocked off the far-field impact of bass and mid-bass on my body - on my viscera specifically - from the main monitors. No such issue at home, with two speakers, a chair, and nothing in the way. I think whole-body sound sensing is a big thing. I would love to learn more about it.