What Do Listeners Prefer for Small Room Acoustics?

[fas42]

But I'd also bet that given an ABX of phantom center vs. real center, they'd have no trouble differentiating between them. Scientifically speaking.

Tim

Tim, that's what blew my mind the first time I heard it - getting the central image to be rock solid. If there had been a full blown ABX conducted at that moment, for me - using multiple speakers to mimic the effect I was hearing, as the point of comparison - I would have 'failed'! But perhaps others would not have been "tricked" - something for the future to investigate ...

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan, one day I hope to take you up on this offer. In all of my years, I have never, ever, been deceived as you describe, even though I've heard people in the same room listening at the same time as me describe their impressions just as you have it stated. Plus, it'd be fun just to hang for an afternoon or evening, sipping on some fine spirits and listening to some fine tunes.

I'm almost always home. I'd love to have you over if you're ever in my area (western CT).

 

[Ethan Winer]

when I had my small actives in a near field set up, raising the direct to reflected sound ratio, the phantom center was pretty convincing.

The only way I can "turn on and off" a center speaker is to play stereo content and switch my receiver between stereo and Dolby ProLogic modes. But ProLogic changes the sound in other ways. So I'd have to create two parallel music mixes, carefully balancing all the elements to get equal energy from 2- and 3-channel setups. I have the facility to mix 5.1 channels, but that's more work than I'm willing to go through. I don't think it's needed anyway. I'm satisfied just to play something in normal stereo and let people choose if it sounds like the center speaker (which is visible) is playing.

--Ethan

 

[DonH56]

I had a friend visiting do exactly what Ethan described; walked over and stuck his ear next to the center to confirm it was off when I was playing a stereo CD. He couldn't believe how stable the image was. How? Treatment, testing, tweaking, and more treatment. Take away the room treatments and the sound becomes much more expansive due to all the room reflections. And, comb filter effects become very obvious, and the image and soundfield vary like crazy. I prefer my room deadened; ambience comes from the recording.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

As a confirmed Mch guy for both music and video, the contribution of the center channel may be seemingly subtle, because it does not expand the frontal "soundstage" in width (or height, of course), though I think it adds greater depth to the image in discrete 5.x among other virtues. Yes, mono playback sounds pretty decent in 2.0 phantom center mode, and stereo also sounds quite stable in 2.0. But, the center really does help to better "anchor" and define the image, IMHO.

I have not really tested this, but Erdo Groot, one of the excellent recording engineers for the superb Polyhymnia team specializing in discrete Mch, maintains that 1.0 via the center is also more tonally accurate vs. phantom 2.0 on mono material or with a soloist closer to center stage in discrete Mch. Speaker dispersion and the greater freedom from side wall reflections of the center may well be the reason. I think that is very much in line with Toole's opinion. Yes, definitely, for dialogue articulation on video material, the center is hugely important, but, for me, it adds to the musical listening experience as well.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, that's what blew my mind the first time I heard it - getting the central image to be rock solid. If there had been a full blown ABX conducted at that moment, for me - using multiple speakers to mimic the effect I was hearing, as the point of comparison - I would have 'failed'! But perhaps others would not have been "tricked" - something for the future to investigate ...

Funny thing about blind listening tests. You don't know if they'll make a difference until you listen blind.

Tim

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Funny thing about blind listening tests. You don't know if they'll make a difference until you listen blind.

Clearly subjectivist believers like Ethan and Don reject the mountain of objective blind test evidence Dr Toole et al presents, for their personal sighted, uncontrolled "experience".
"I heard it, I said so".
Ah well...

 

[amirm]

Clearly subjectivist believers like Ethan and Don reject the mountain of objective blind test evidence Dr Toole et al presents, for their personal sighted, uncontrolled "experience".
"I heard it, I said so".
Ah well...

Take it easy AJ. Ethan is not a subjectivists. Last I checked you don't do any blind acoustic tests either.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Take it easy AJ. Ethan is not a subjectivists. .

What is your term for those who reject reliable objective evidence in favor of their conflicting "personal experience"?

Last I checked you don't do any blind acoustic tests either.

For what conflicts with what objective evidence exactly Amir? What am I to blind test for specifically? Red Herrings?

 

[amirm]

What is your term for those who reject reliable objective evidence in favor of their conflicting "personal experience"?

He doesn't have personal experience. He has professional experience.

Earl Geddes also disagrees with Dr. Toole using the same professional experience.

Those aside, Ethan is a staunch objectivists in many areas of audio. Don't damn him with a wide brush when you know that already.

For what conflicts with what objective evidence exactly Amir? What am I to blind test for specifically? Red Herrings?

Oh, your "personal" experience flies but Ethan's doesn't? Why don't you put your speakers behind a curtain and compare it against another brand and tell us how it went?

 

[AJ Soundfield]

He doesn't have personal experience. He has "professional experience".

Right, just like those audiophile reviewers and audio shop salesmen. "Professional experience". Belief that makes them immune to bias. Hence the term "Studiophile" and all the studio belief nonsense that comes with that, as Toole explains and you subjectivists dismiss for "experience".
Toole cites the results of hundreds of people performing viable controlled blind tests, not "his" experience. Studiophile believers dismiss that because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, not the result of any blind tests. Of course there are sometimes pecuniary interests and motivations involved, just like with their audiophile "Professional" brethren.

Earl Geddes also disagrees with Dr. Toole using the same professional experience.

Illogical nonsense. If Earl disagrees, then he must cite the blind test data, not appeal to authority like you did.

Those aside, Ethan is a staunch objectivists in many areas of audio. Don't damn him with a wide brush when you know that already.

Sure, I said something like 90%. Which makes it awfully hypocritical to dismiss the 10% which happens to be the business one is in, bass "traps" and such nonsense for home living rooms.
Vs dedicated basement HTs, etc.

Oh, your "personal" experience flies but Ethan's doesn't?

It isn't posited as "evidence" against established perceptual science, by a "professional", as those devoid of logic would imply.

Why don't you put your speakers behind a curtain and compare it against another brand and tell us how it went?

Why don't you stop evading the question and state clearly what they are to be blind tested for, what conflicting science claim...or any specific claim whatsoever?
Ethans products/claims conflict with science and Toole takes exception with it enough to write yet another article: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation
The fact is listeners don't prefer iso-ward "treated" rooms for home listening like Ethan/Don suggest, they do. Based on their sighted biases, expectations and "personal experience".

I rarely participate in internet forums of any kind, but I do look in from time to time. Occasionally my name appears, along with expressions of what people think I believe about certain things. I make an effort to ensure that anything I write or say reflects the results of accurate measurements and double-blind tests done by me or someone else. These are not personal beliefs, but the responses of numerous listeners, which may or may not have included me; most did not. Some of the investigations I refer to in my book were done in as geographically disparate places as Japan and Germany, so even “culture” is embraced. I wrote the words, but the data being reported are as neutral and impersonal as possible.

Reflections within listening rooms are real and numerous. Some would argue that they all are problems to be eliminated. Others take a more philosophical view that they just provide information about the room, and the brain can figure it out. I’m somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards the latter. The science that has been done so far seems to be on my side.
-Dr Floyd Toole

He's not coming here either Amir, because of Ethan and his enablers, like you. Yes, I asked.

 

[amirm]

Right, just like those audiophile reviewers and audio shop salesmen.

Nope. Wrong again. Ethan runs and documents a lot of controlled tests to see if theories hold. I recall his tests of Audyssey EQ, measurements of different microphones, effect of material used in absorbers, etc. Neither audiophile reviewers, nor shop salespeople do this. Nor even people like yourself. I have yet to see you do an experiment to add value in the way Ethan does.

Like you, he doesn't do blind tests in acoustic products. I hope he does in the future but you don't get to call him subjectivist on that basis when you are guilty of the same.

I know Ethan. And I know you AJ. You won't win this battle with me. His nose is cleaner than yours by a mile.

 

[amirm]

He's not coming here either Amir, because of Ethan and his enablers, like you. Yes, I asked.

I appreciate you asking him but you should not have. Sounds like you were asking him to come and battle Ethan and that is of course something he will absolutely not do. No one in the industry wants to come to forums for that reason. When the forum has grown enough and there can be a proper atmosphere created where industry people can feel safe and helpful, I will ask him and I am hopeful he will honor us with his participation. Until then, please don't represent another industry person whom I know better than you. You do that with JJ all the time and it is not proper.

Focus on the topic of your own thread, and not on how you can settle a battle with Ethan. His opinion of audio is subject to criticism but so is yours. Instead of focusing on that friction and making it look like we go after industry people like Ethan in such a hostile manner, let your breath of knowledge make that point. Friendship, respect and frequent display of fun is what will attract industry people to come here.

 

[amirm]

Why don't you stop evading the question and state clearly what they are to be blind tested for, what conflicting science claim...or any specific claim whatsoever?

Show a blind test of your speaker against a couple of other speakers like Revels. I thought I asked this already.

Another battle you fought earlier was about bass being stereo. And something about cardioid bass. Again, two areas that could benefit from real, controlled testing of your own. If they are too hard for you to bother, then don't keep pounding on Ethan for the same.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I know Ethan. And I know you AJ. You won't win this battle with me. His nose is cleaner than yours by a mile.

LOL, thanks Amir. What AJ (and the Audioholics crew) fail to understand is that science advances when the same tests are repeated by others with the same results. Just because one or two tests conclude something, that doesn't mean it's true. I've asked several times how many people "prefer" early reflections and never got an answer. I asked the Audioholics guys as well and never got any answer. If "serious research by PhD types" was always correct, we wouldn't see failed articles like those from Oohashi and Kunchur that were later debunked.

For someone to call me a "subjectivist believer" shows utter ignorance about me and my body of work.

--Ethan

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Ethan runs and documents a lot of controlled tests to see if theories hold.

BS. Ethan doesn't do a single controlled listening test for any of his claims. Toole does and cites countless others.
Toole presents reliable audio science evidence, Ethan presents "his" believer "experience". You can dance all you want Amir those are the facts.

Like you, he doesn't do blind tests in acoustic products.

I don't sell acoustic pillows, he does. Nor do I make unscientific claims, have nonsense like this http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm on my website.
I'm not the one Toole is directly rebutting here:

I rarely participate in internet forums of any kind, but I do look in from time to time. Occasionally my name appears, along with expressions of what people think I believe about certain things. I make an effort to ensure that anything I write or say reflects the results of accurate measurements and double-blind tests done by me or someone else. These are not personal beliefs, but the responses of numerous listeners, which may or may not have included me; most did not. Some of the investigations I refer to in my book were done in as geographically disparate places as Japan and Germany, so even “culture” is embraced. I wrote the words, but the data being reported are as neutral and impersonal as possible.

Reflections within listening rooms are real and numerous. Some would argue that they all are problems to be eliminated. Others take a more philosophical view that they just provide information about the room, and the brain can figure it out. I’m somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards the latter. The science that has been done so far seems to be on my side.
-Dr Floyd Toole

I hope he does in the future but you don't get to call him subjectivist

Studiophile is what I call him et al.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I appreciate you asking him but you should not have.

I didn't ask him and you have no idea what we conversed about. He's way smarter than me, he knows better than to argue with believers on forums.
In typical illogical fashion, you have turned it into a battle of personalities instead of ideas, par for the course for a believer.
It's the science, not "Toole" that you and Ethan et al are in conflict with.

You do that with JJ all the time and it is not proper.

Spare me the sermon, JJ can reach me any time he wants, as he has before. I will continue to quote his science, no matter how little you know about it, or dismiss it.

Focus on the topic of your own thread, and not on how you can settle a battle with Ethan.

Your illogic betrays you again. I have no "battle" with Ethan. He, OTOH, is in battle with audio science.
Lest we forget your hypocrisy also: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/perceptual-effects-of-room-reflections.13/

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Show a blind test of your speaker against a couple of other speakers like Revels.

I make several. Which speaker? Which Revel? What claim? Please be very specific what conflicting audio science claim I have made about my speakers vs Revels, that needs to be blind tested for verification?
No more waffling, specifics.

Another battle you fought earlier was about bass being stereo.

Right: http://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2008/papers/p47.pdf

What part don't you understand? Where is you audio science evidence that conflicts with these findings?
What do I need to blind test?

And something about cardioid bass.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12401
What do I need to blind test? Be specific.
You bowl of spaghetti is running low and the wall is getting covered Amir.

 

[Ethan Winer]

LOL, so much anger.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

What AJ (and the Audioholics crew) fail to understand is that science advances when the same tests are repeated by others with the same results. Just because one or two tests conclude something, that doesn't mean it's true.

Ethan, Toole cites dozens of viable blind test results. Where are yours? On what basis do you make your claims?

For someone to call me a "subjectivist believer" shows utter ignorance about me and my body of work.
--Ethan

The blind tests of the population showing home listeners preferring your treatment subjective beliefs, can be found where?