What Do Listeners Prefer for Small Room Acoustics?

[AJ Soundfield]

LOL, so much anger.

 

[amirm]

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.

Slippery as freshly caught fish. You talk a big talk about but when the time comes to deliver yourself, you keep asking the meaning of "the."

And yes, you do need to verify that there was a reason the world needed your speakers. Harman won't release a new speaker unless it beats its competition in double blind listening tests. Yet you sit here, crowding the world of speakers with yet another box, and yet another theory of why it should sound better. And the moment you are asked to produce some unbiased listening test results your answer becomes, "about what?"

You can't be a part-time vegetarian. You either believe in school of acoustics that Harman/Dr. Toole teach or not. Don't say you are following what they do but then bend the rules the moment it suits you and act like a total subjectivist. And then add insult to injury by throwing rocks at Ethan for the same thing???

Ethan and I disagree also on some acoustic topics but I see him putting in effort, testing ideas and documenting them. You need to do the same to catch up to him. Right now, you are way behind in having any personal experience with proper evaluation of acoustic concepts.

 

[amirm]

Ethan, Toole cites dozens of viable blind test results.

You are also confused about this. Vast majority of acoustic science test are done sighted. Nothing blind about them. I remember Dr. Toole actually defending the practice saying the outcome doesn't change.

Blind tests are necessary when sources of bias are strong such as which speaker is liked more or less. Testing for example for effects of side reflections in an anechoic chamber is not one of them. You can literally give the control to the listener to adjust the knob until they hear an effect. It is faster and more efficient to do that than worry about them being biased in some unkown regard.

Here is one of many such research published in the peer reviewed Journal of Acoustic Society of America (ASA): Spatial aspects of reproduced sound in small rooms
by So”ren Bech

"The threshold of detection of the reflection under investigation
was determined using the method of adjustment procedure.
The subject could switch between the standard and a
comparison sound field by means of two push buttons at any
time during the experiment.

[...]

The level of the reflection was controlled by the subject
by two other push buttons; one would increase the level and
the other decrease the level in steps of 0.5 dB.

[...]

The subjects were instructed to stop the experiment with
the reflection at a level where they could just discriminate
between the standard and the comparison stimulus, and such
that a 1 step reduction in level ~equal to 0.5 dB! caused the
difference to disappear."

See? This is fully self-administered test and nothing blind about it. The listener is trusted to to adjust a knob until he thinks he hears the reflection making a difference. He then locks this parameter. The data is trustworthy because the element of bias is not there.

And here is Dr. Toole referencing the very research in his book:

"In a large anechoic-chamber simulation of a room of
similar size, Bech (1998) investigated the audibility of
single reflections in the presence of 16 other reflections,
plus a simulated “reverberant” sound field beginning at
22 ms."

Clearly then non-blind tests are accepted here. No reason to lecture others on needing blind tests for everything. Please spend more time properly studying the field than throwing rocks at other people.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Slippery as freshly caught fish. You talk a big talk about but when the time comes to deliver yourself, you keep asking the meaning of "the."

Your dancing/blathering skills haven't diminished.
So no, you can't cite one single thing I need to blind test, it's just a Red Herring to divert from Ethans studiophile subjectivist claims contrary to Tooles citations.

You either believe in school of acoustics that Harman/Dr. Toole teach or not.

Right..and if you believe them, you apply them. No need to reinvent the wheel. No need to re-run JND for FR, blind tests to see if smooth on/off axis is preferred, etc, etc, etc.
If one claims/believes otherwise, then the onus is indeed on you to run tests to produce counter evidence.
Logic is something you will never grasp Amir, hence these diversions from Ethans "rebuttal" of Toole article aimed directly at him and believers like yourself.

Right now, you are way behind in having any personal experience with proper evaluation of acoustic concepts.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...stablishing-differences-10-volume-method.html
Comedy gold.

 

[amirm]

So no, you can't cite one single thing I need to blind test, it's just a Red Herring to divert from Ethans studiophile subjectivist claims contrary to Tooles citations.

You need to blind test your speakers about others in its price category to show that they do anything worthwhile. You are a subjectivist yourself when you only do sighted evaluation of your speakers.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Nothing blind about them. I remember Dr. Toole actually defending the practice saying the outcome doesn't change.

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.
- Dr Floyd Toole

Well, we have what you subjectively wanted to "remember" vs what (objectively) Dr Toole said.
We'll let the reading audience decide eh?

 

[amirm]

Right..and if you believe them, you apply them. No need to reinvent the wheel. No need to re-run JND for FR, blind tests to see if smooth on/off axis is preferred, etc, etc, etc.
If one claims/believes otherwise, then the onus is indeed on you to run tests to produce counter evidence.

There is no onus on us to figure out if your speakers are good or worthless. That's your job. And no, we are not talking about JND of anything. We are talking about a box you put together like countless other audiophiles who wake up one morning thinking that is a good idea.

You seem to be taking the position that Harman is wasting its time verifying the design of its speakers with blind listening prior to release. As I said, you are a part-time vegetarian when it comes to blind testing....

 

[amirm]

Well, we have what you subjectively wanted to "remember" vs what (objectively) Dr Toole said.
We'll let the reading audience decide eh?

Nothing subjective. I showed you exact quotes from peer-reviewed tests which was in turn directly quoted by Dr. Toole in his book. You simply are mistaken about how the world turns in acoustic research and psychoacoustics. It comes from narrow understanding and study of the topic.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

You need to blind test your speakers about others in its price category to show that they do anything worthwhile.

Ah, the dance intensity rises, the goalposts move. So now it's not vs "Revel", but "to show that they do anything worthwhile".
That would be a heck of an AES paper title!
"Blind evaluation of Soundfield speakers vs speaker X, to 'show that they do anything worthwhile' "

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Tooles latest article causes much drama for believers.....

 

[amirm]

Ah, the dance intensity rises, the goalposts move. So now it's not vs "Revel", but "to show that they do anything worthwhile".
That would be a heck of an AES paper title!
"Blind evaluation of Soundfield speakers vs speaker X, to 'show that they do anything worthwhile' "

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Tooles latest article causes much drama for believers.....

The only dancing I see is from you AJ, refusing to acknowledge that you sell products but don't follow proper bias controlled testing to see if they are performant. While at the same time having lapse of logic to go after Ethan for the same.

As I have explained, Ethan has taken the time to create and publish controlled tests. I see you having done none of that. Instead, you just bring rudeness and nastiness to the conversation. It is not proper.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

but don't follow proper bias controlled testing to see if they are performant.

Vs what claim? Amir, the claim that my speakers are "performant" vs speaker X.
The direct quote from me...and yes, please find X!!

As I have explained, Ethan has taken the time to create and publish controlled tests.

Zero controlled tests of anything that is a "rebuttal" to https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation

Here, I'll help again:

The preceding article addressed control of room resonances that exist at specific frequencies where reflections between and among room boundaries combine in a strongly constructive manner. The frequencies are determined by room size and geometry, and in rectangular rooms they are easily predicted. In normal domestic listening rooms it is unusual to have excessive general "reverberation" at low frequencies, which is what is involved with reflections at frequencies that do not contribute to room modes and the associated standing waves. This is because the room boundaries and furnishings generally provide sufficient scattering and absorption. Usually, the "booms" are the problem, not the uncorrelated reflections. Often reverberation times measured at low frequencies are the decays of a few under-damped room modes. This is not reverberation; this is ringing!

The notable exceptions to this generalization are rooms with very reflective, concrete or masonry floor and/or walls as I described earlier in the serious listening room I set up at the National Research Council of Canada. Lots of basement rooms, and masonry rooms in steamy climates have excessive reflectivity at low frequencies, and not surprisingly, very energetic room resonances. In high-humidity regions it is good to have alternatives to fibrous or fabric absorbers.

I see you having done none of that.

I make no contrary claim to Tooles paper, so no need. Burden of Proof. Logic 101, try it some time.

 

[amirm]

Vs what claim? Amir, the claim that my speakers are "performant" vs speaker X.
The direct quote from me...and yes, please find X!!

Here we go, from your web site:

"Our products reflect the philosophy that loudspeakers should strive to sound like the real thing. "

Loudspeakers sound like the real thing? Where is the test to back that? Have you done a blind live vs the sound from your speakers?

Sentence after that:

"Hi Fidelity" once meant exactly that. If you know what live acoustic music sounds like, you will appreciate our products."

Really? Who says? Nothing in a recording is about a live experience. It is all about what is in the recording. That is the purpose of high-fidelity. From Dr. Toole's book:

"The point of this story is that the program is a huge variable in the process
of sound reproduction and that sound reproduction (in the control room, home
studio, or mastering lab) is a factor in the creation of the program. This situation
is well described as a conundrum; it certainly is not a linear, stable, and
predictable process. So for the vast majority of recordings, the sound delivered
to our ears is a new experience."

Where would I read in Dr. Toole or any other researcher's work that the job of a loudspeaker is to reproduce the sound of a live experience as you state?

Next sentence:

"We do not believe compromise should be made because of size constraints, nor do we believe that an unlimited budget is required for exceptional performance."

Where is the data to back this? No size constraints? You can replicate the sound of any other speaker regardless of size?

Here is a graph from one of your speakers:

No labels. No mention of how the measurements were made. No mention of level of smoothing. Nothing. Just a graph.

Not a single listening test to back up these speakers that supposed to sound like live? And you say you have not made any claims?

You are not arguing with idiots here. Don't go where you own stance is so weak that a simple blow will make you fall.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

should strive to sound like the real thing. "
Loudspeakers sound like the real thing?

Amir, your rage has blinded you and seriously compromised your reading comprehension, which was poor to begin with!
The rest of that blathering follows.

Here is a graph from one of your speakers:

No labels. No mention of how the measurements were made. No mention of level of smoothing. Nothing. Just a graph.

1m, 1/6th octave, 0,20, 40 and 60 degrees off axis. See, you could have asked!
Nice, well controlled off axis, straight from all the blind research Harman has graciously provided to all. Well established science, no need to reinvent the wheel for subjectivist diversionists deflecting from spurious claims about treatments of room reflections.

You are not arguing with idiots here.

Well...
Ok, now here is a perfect example of something a subjectivist believer claims, that absolutely needs blind tests:
http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/MarkLevinsonNo53Amplifier.html

In comparison testing I have done, switching amplifiers using the classic class D configuration always sport incredible low frequency control and power. They beat out linear class AB amplifiers almost regardless of price. What they give up though is high frequency fidelity which I find somewhat harsh. The distortion is highly non-linear and challenging to spot but it is there. The Mark Levinson No 53 is the first switching amplifier I have heard which does not have this compromise. Its bass is amazingly authoritative: tight and powerful. Yet the rest of the response is absolutely neutral and pleasant.

If you have not heard these unique amplifiers, I highly encourage you to come into our showroom for a listen.

Wow
"Heard" this unique amplifier...in a room, system, speakers, etc, etc, etc. you've never been in or heard before. "Hear" the amp right through the system sound.
Nice!!

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Amir,

Out of curiosity, how does one reconcile this:

I should have been more clear. If you are running an ABX test the job is simple identification. Any volume difference there allows that identification whether there is quality difference or not. This is why level matching is stressed so much in forced choice tests like this.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...stablishing-differences-10-volume-method.html

I did not level match anything.

So you say Ethan does not need to produce blind test evidence, either his own or citations, counter anything Toole talks about here?:
https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation

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.
- Dr Floyd Toole

Nor would he have to level match anything???

 

[amirm]

Amir, your rage has blinded you and seriously compromised your reading comprehension, which was poor to begin with!
The rest of that blathering follows.

Language like this is why we don't have as many objectivists as we should. You do so much damage to the cause. Get asked tough questions and your answers become rude, obnoxious, and we get the best impersonation of a bully. Who would want to be associated with this incivility?

As you, Ethan also doesn't follow the bible of objectivity in acoustics. But at least he remains professional, polite, and importantly contributing. You do none of that.

In this forum, we are going to try to attract people to science and idea of having fun doing it. I need you to follow that or you are in the wrong forum AJ. This is not "obnoxious are us" forum.

 

[RayDunzl]

 

[AJ Soundfield]

As you, Ethan also doesn't follow the bible of objectivity in acoustics.

I don't follow any bible Amir. I do understand objectivity. Tooles article, the title of my thread, cites objective evidence for the arguement. Period.
Ethans response, as expected, was completely non-objective, with his subjective "personal experience" as a counter.
Your full support of his "personal experience" as an "expert", is also non-objective and anti-science. This is exactly why Andy H.G pokes a bit of fun at you. But you can't see it, for obvious reasons.

I need you to follow that or you are in the wrong forum AJ.

I adhere to objective audio science Amir, so I'm indeed on the wrong forum.
My "personal expert experience" trumping audio science as Toole presents here, like yours and Ethans, would have no place on an Audio Science forum.

 

[amirm]

I adhere to objective audio science Amir, so I'm indeed on the wrong forum.

No, you are obnoxious as heck and that is why you don't belong in this forum. As for objectivity, you carry the banner but clearly don't know what it means. Because the moment it all got real, i.e. your own products, you gave it a pass. We don't need posers and screaming mad self-claimed objectivists. Need people who are here to truly contribute, teach, learn, and have fun. I can't find any of those attributes in you. Never have in four different forums now. So if you think it is the forums that are the problem, you are not being objective there either. You just degrade the level of professionalism and there is nothing likable about that.

I mean how little common sense can you have to go after Ethan and call him a subjectivist??? Is it that you get bored and forget who is even on your side? And now you go after me, your host and another person trying to defend this flag that you so easily soil?

My "personal expert experience" trumping audio science as Toole presents here, like yours and Ethan's, would have no place on an Audio Science forum.

I will take Ethan's hands on experience a thousand times over yours which only comes from reading forums. You think you have any idea what it is do a double blind test without ever setting foot at that facility at Harman?

I like people to look forward to coming here rather than worrying about yet another bully born out of reading stuff online and wearing the flag of science. Members deserve more than that. Science deserves more than that.

So leave because you refuse to be social, professional, nice and informative. Don't treat us like idiots by saying it is because we are not about science.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Wow. This one ran off the rails, huh?

Tim

 

[AJ Soundfield]

As for objectivity, you carry the banner but clearly don't know what it means. Because the moment it all got real, i.e. your own products, you gave it a pass.

The Toole article is about room reflections and so called treatments, which Ethan sells. You bring my products into the argument as a Red Herring, Ad hominem and other assorted fallacies, because you can't argue against Toole when you hold the same position:
Perceptual Effects of Room Reflections
By Amir Majidime
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/perceptual-effects-of-room-reflections.13/
What sort of professionalism and objectivity do you display bringing red herrings/my speakers into room treatment discussions? Your sole purpose there is diversion.

Don't treat us like idiots by saying it is because we are not about science.

This is science: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/room-reflections-human-adaptation

"Expert" personal "experiences" rebutting it, is not.