-
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!
What does John Heisz get wrong in his latest video about speaker measurements?
- Thread starter Deanxxx
- Start date
Why shouldn't he be dismissed? Why should a youtuber be assigned respect without basis?
I wouldn't bother with Darko, Guttenburg or Z-reviews either....not a lot of good content there.
defo?
Rather you explain "defo" than like the post
Just means definitely.Rather you explain "defo" than like the post
How do you get "defo" from definitely? I'm old....
2:52 > what he explains earlier to some length is that he doesn't understand the correlation between subjective impression and objective soundfield; insofar he simply ignores the work of Dr. Toole on this topic; never mind, DIRAC with the preference (pun intended) for the grand total soundfield as opposed to direct sound does so likewise ;-) ... and some folks on this board also ...
I agree with him on the preference score aka rating. It is a common, for me incomprehensable, glitch in human reasoning to take it as a pedicator for your personal pleasure. Won't reiterate my musings, only that the preference score just addresses the manufacturer of the speaker in question. It is decidedly (pun intended) not meant to be relevant for any individual due to its statistical nature.
And then I stopped watching. Dr. Toole clearly stated on this board several times that the reverberant soundfield is of lesser interest. And naturally so, since, as Mr. Heisz correctly mentions, every room is different. Dr. Toole says, that the human hearing gets around the individual room in short time and will accept the virtual room of the recording as real. The direct sound is relevant.
But--Dr. Toole investigated the case with single speakers, not stereo**. This is a bigger issue than all of you (to my knowledge) acknowledge. Most people, lieterally all I personally know, do not the least care about sitting right in the sweet spot. And rightfully so. It is inconvenient, and earlier than you can think the stereo gets a burdon, distracting from the music. Because the contemporary rendition of stereo is basically flawed to the max ... my hearing doesn't accpet it for longer than a minute, it hurts!
So, if logically being somewhere else than the stereo dictates you to situate your ears, the tables are turned. In this most common situation the reverberant soundfield is prime. It needs to wash away the misleading directional cues from the two speakers and replace it with envelopment ... to be continued not
**due to Amir's comment, read: Dr. Toole's based the correlation of frequency response versus individual preference on single speaker auditions, while stereo seems to blur the picture.
I agree with him on the preference score aka rating. It is a common, for me incomprehensable, glitch in human reasoning to take it as a pedicator for your personal pleasure. Won't reiterate my musings, only that the preference score just addresses the manufacturer of the speaker in question. It is decidedly (pun intended) not meant to be relevant for any individual due to its statistical nature.
And then I stopped watching. Dr. Toole clearly stated on this board several times that the reverberant soundfield is of lesser interest. And naturally so, since, as Mr. Heisz correctly mentions, every room is different. Dr. Toole says, that the human hearing gets around the individual room in short time and will accept the virtual room of the recording as real. The direct sound is relevant.
But--Dr. Toole investigated the case with single speakers, not stereo**. This is a bigger issue than all of you (to my knowledge) acknowledge. Most people, lieterally all I personally know, do not the least care about sitting right in the sweet spot. And rightfully so. It is inconvenient, and earlier than you can think the stereo gets a burdon, distracting from the music. Because the contemporary rendition of stereo is basically flawed to the max ... my hearing doesn't accpet it for longer than a minute, it hurts!
So, if logically being somewhere else than the stereo dictates you to situate your ears, the tables are turned. In this most common situation the reverberant soundfield is prime. It needs to wash away the misleading directional cues from the two speakers and replace it with envelopment ... to be continued not
**due to Amir's comment, read: Dr. Toole's based the correlation of frequency response versus individual preference on single speaker auditions, while stereo seems to blur the picture.
Last edited:
What??? Everyone I know tries their darndest to sit in the sweet spot for 2 channel listening. And even if they can't, they sure wish they did.
Admittedly, there is one guy who would sit on spot in the stereo triangle. But he's into DIY and I feel that he's mostly validating the quality of his builds when sitting straight. Other, really, they don't care. And some might not even know about the said requirement.
I've seen presentations of speakers where presumably knowledgeable folks would happily sit in a wide row from left to right and still are under the indisputable impression that their verdict on the speakers will be valid.
(on Dr. Toole investigating mono, but not stereo)
Agreed, but with stereo he says the significance of his findings was not that easily reproduced. My conclusion was that regarding the correlation of measurement and individual impression the single speaker case is more relevant, the stereo case not so much.
Nothing wrong in the video. Sound IS subjective. With measured loudspeaker data of various kind nobody can tell how it really sounds. Even if the data is some kind of similar between two different speakers - they can sound different. There are indeed many fine factors which are not counted in the measurments. Of course a speaker should have quite a f-linearity and low THD. But this is not all and therefore sound differences exist.
- Joined
- May 8, 2022
- Messages
- 457
- Likes
- 597
Please name one speaker that measured poorly and sounded really good. Another way : which would you rather have, the Neumann KH150 or the Sony SSCS5? Rest assured, Amir is not wasting his time. His measurement set a standard that we can be confident in.
Please be so good as to name three.
Of course sound is subjective. But there is good and solid general agreement in this hobby of what sounds good and what sounds bad.
He doesn't seem to understand the importance of measurements from a design perspective. He does glance over the issue of the community creating their own purity test for how a speaker "should" measure as if there is only one way a speaker should be designed, but then misses the opportunity to expand on it.
I really wish Amir and/or Erin could get some of these designers to do an interview where they talk about the measurement results and how their design goals and limitations impacted them. IMO thats the big missing link here.
Also, his example Elac looked to measure pretty decent in room to me except for the expected low end which needs EQ anyway.
I really wish Amir and/or Erin could get some of these designers to do an interview where they talk about the measurement results and how their design goals and limitations impacted them. IMO thats the big missing link here.
Also, his example Elac looked to measure pretty decent in room to me except for the expected low end which needs EQ anyway.
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,846
So the more eloquent designer has designed the better speaker?
None sense - one doesn’t need the anecdotes of a designer in any engineered product I know off. The product either passes or not regardless of the babble of the designer.
Yes it might be entertaining but adds nothing to the facts.
Similar threads
