Why aren't we bringing the equipment prices down with more published blind test demos?

[Oddball]

Yep that’s the one most people, me included use. There are apparently better ones but that is questionable in real life use for other reasons.

Then how many speakers or amps are staying within 1dB tolerance?

 

[Doodski]

Yep that’s the one most people, me included use. There are apparently better ones but that is questionable in real life use for other reasons.

Then how many speakers or amps are staying within 1dB tolerance?

Speakers we know are wildcards oftentimes. But with some of them they have incredibly good test results for being transducers. Where are you going with this?

 

[Sancus]

It can be but it goes sometimes overboard. I've noticed ASR has very bad reputation in certain places. Talking about snake oil cables etc. is fine but directly offending people who buy expensive hifi does not go down too well. I've had to explain to multiple people why they should even consider clicking a link to this forum. Yes, I'm being serious. This is a very good forum and many posts are amazing but from social perspective there's some work.

It's not clear to my why ASR having a bad reputation on "certain places" is a problem with ASR, or why it's ASR's job to change its language to appeal to such people? I would argue the opposite. If those people want to learn something they can change their attitudes. If not, who cares? ASR is hugely popular as it is. You can't please everyone.

If you find it offensive that a purchase you have made is considered snake oil by someone publishing tests on a website, that sounds like a you problem. If you believe they don't have a point, who cares? Why any emotional response? If you believe they do have a point, then you're just shooting the messenger, which is even worse. And yes, I've bought things that have been poorly reviewed on this site, both before and after the review. In some cases, the review had a point and I replaced the thing with something else. In other cases, I decided it was good enough for my purposes.

It's just gear.

 

[Oddball]

Speakers we know are wildcards oftentimes. But with some of them they have incredibly good test results for being transducers. Where are you going with this?

Some members claiming they can hear 1dB differences “easily” - would love to see that in a blind test so that we can confirm if the even golden ears really exist. Double blind humbling is really needed for those who think they are really so accurate and perceptive. But also great for others to learn audible thresholds of what matters and not.

Ultimately, more awareness will give people more direction and could ultimately affect the pricing of over-hyped gear.

 

[test1223]

are you sure of that ? i have the feeling that some of the best PA speakers would put some high end speakers on their knees
at a fraction of their cost 1/10 ? more ?

Some speakers certainly, but there are at least some high end speakers which are very expensive and very good. PA speakers have light weight cabinets and the drivers are built in a way which prioritizes high spl over sound quality and deep bass.

Which specific PA speakers do you think can compete with good high end speakers?

 

[whit]

Blind tests can miss clearly perceivable differences. With visual images, there's a well established experimental demonstration of "change blindness." Show someone a photograph. Show a brief screen of visual "noise." Then show them the same photograph, but with a substantial difference -- say a tree limb that took up 1/4 of the first image is now not there; or the engines of a jet centered in the photo are no longer on the wings. A majority of test subjects miss such large differences, and say the image has not changed. This despite that when the images are displayed side-by-side any normal person can see the large difference between them immediately; they aren't subtle or small.

Experimental psychology has well-established that humans are commonly change blind for visual experiences. Here we're making the assumption that we're not change blind for auditory experiences. That assumption needs to be backed up by experimentation. As far as I know, this hasn't been tested. Just assuming it is not good science. Far more of the brain is specialized in vision than in sound, so we might expect visual sensitivity to differences to more capable, not less, than auditory sensitivity to differences. If the "blind test" design is one sound sample, followed by a moment of silence, followed by a second sound sample, and people don't report a difference, it doesn't necessarily mean that their conscious experience isn't in fact different. It's not that we don't consciously see that tree limb, or those jet engines in the visual image they subsequently go missing from; it's just that we often don't notice the difference when what we're seeing has changed. Likewise, it may well turn out that we don't notice the difference when what we're hearing has changed -- but still that what we're consciously hearing in fact has, and in ways that will make a difference to our enjoyment of it.

A positive result from a bind test is truly significant; a negative result, though, should not be presumed to prove much, unless proper experiments can establish that in audition humans are not typically change blind, despite that we are in vision. I've seen some of the visual experiments; they're pretty embarrassing, since they show how we can miss so much, despite our faith in ourselves as observers.

 

[test1223]

Blind tests can miss clearly perceivable differences. With visual images, there's a well established experimental demonstration of "change blindness." Show someone a photograph. Show a brief screen of visual "noise." Then show them the same photograph, but with a substantial difference -- say a tree limb that took up 1/4 of the first image is now not there; or the engines of a jet centered in the photo are no longer on the wings. A majority of test subjects miss such large differences, and say the image has not changed. This despite that when the images are displayed side-by-side any normal person can see the large difference between them immediately; they aren't subtle or small.

Experimental psychology has well-established that humans are commonly change blind for visual experiences. Here we're making the assumption that we're not change blind for auditory experiences. That assumption needs to be backed up by experimentation. As far as I know, this hasn't been tested. Just assuming it is not good science. Far more of the brain is specialized in vision than in sound, so we might expect visual sensitivity to differences to more capable, not less, than auditory sensitivity to differences. If the "blind test" design is one sound sample, followed by a moment of silence, followed by a second sound sample, and people don't report a difference, it doesn't necessarily mean that their conscious experience isn't in fact different. It's not that we don't consciously see that tree limb, or those jet engines in the visual image they subsequently go missing from; it's just that we often don't notice the difference when what we're seeing has changed. Likewise, it may well turn out that we don't notice the difference when what we're hearing has changed -- but still that what we're consciously hearing in fact has, and in ways that will make a difference to our enjoyment of it.

A positive result from a bind test is truly significant; a negative result, though, should not be presumed to prove much, unless proper experiments can establish that in audition humans are not typically change blind, despite that we are in vision. I've seen some of the visual experiments; they're pretty embarrassing, since they show how we can miss so much, despite our faith in ourselves as observers.

The research of the auditory memory suggests rather the opposite. A fast repeatable switching of short parts is very important to detect the smallest possible changes (few seconds clips with no switching delay is very good). While there are no documented cases where very small differences can be detected with long time bild tests with long switching time (the typical hifi change equipment case sighted though).

A training to adapt to a certain error and a certain room acoustic is one real thing which is very important to gain the ability to detect small differences more successful.

 

[Doodski]

Some members claiming they can hear 1dB differences “easily” - would love to see that in a blind test so that we can confirm if the even golden ears really exist. Double blind humbling is really needed for those who think they are really so accurate and perceptive. But also great for others to learn audible thresholds of what matters and not.

I too think that's a excellent idea. Always good to have a real life double blind test and see what is reality.

 

[EJ3]

Being a person with 9 years experience selling audio gear before I became a electronic tech I can tell you how to grind on prices. Go in, select your gear and take your time doing that. Then walk out and see what happens. Return if required and do it again with the same salesperson... then make a offer or wait for a sales pitch regarding, "If I gave you a deal would you buy today?"

Kind of like buying a car, eh? (or anything else, really).
KEY POINT BUT: you have to be willing to walk away. That is the key.

 

[EJ3]

I too think that's a excellent idea. Always good to have a real life double blind test and see what is reality.

Many just need a hearing test to begin with. That would eliminate a lot of what they "think that they can hear".

 

[Oddball]

Many just need a hearing test to begin with. That would eliminate a lot of what they "think that they can hear".

Lol, great point. If 50+ members (like myself) still roll of the speakers in higher end frequencies as they used 20 years ago, they might want to re-check if still warranted. Lots has unfortunately changed over 20 years and some might need a boost instead. It is great to have a pretty REW graph, but how you "hear" that graph will obviously depend on a number of factors, most importantly one's hearing.

My 20 something year old son can still hear 15khz clearly from iPhone test, while I am unfortunately barely at 13khz, probably more likely 12.5khz. My youngest that is 8 can hear easily above 17khz. Not a scientific test, but still indicative. Older family and friends declined to participate on the basis that their hearing is immaculate

 

[Holmz]

Lol, great point. If 50+ members (like myself) still roll of the speakers in higher end frequencies as they used 20 years ago, they might want to re-check if still warranted. Lots has unfortunately changed over 20 years and some might need a boost instead. It is great to have a pretty REW graph, but how you "hear" that graph will obviously depend on a number of factors, most importantly one's hearing.

My 20 something year old son can still hear 15khz clearly from iPhone test, while I am unfortunately barely at 13khz, probably more likely 12.5khz. My youngest that is 8 can hear easily above 17khz. Not a scientific test, but still indicative. Older family and friends declined to participate on the basis that their hearing is immaculate

So you are saying that we should be turning up the EQ to make up for hearing loss?

I can picture the kids, the cats, the dogs, the rats and mice, all leaving the room along with the lady folk.
It would be like tuning a piano for each listener, and assuming that THEN, they will hear the same song.

 

[Oddball]

Just pointing out the issue, not to the solution.

 

[tw 2022]

I think high end audio is like high end anything, including jewelry. You pay for craftsmanship and attention to detail.

I have never been able to afford these kinds of things, except used, and sometimes in need of repair.

I am happy to let other people pay for the development of bleeding edge things. A few of them filtered down to me, second hand. But I don’t hear any difference between upscale consumer products and boutique products, and what I covet now is adequacy and convenience. I’m tired of the equipment game, and want to hear music.

well this is a breath of fresh air....perspective...

 

[Aaronb1138]

It's not clear to my why ASR having a bad reputation on "certain places" is a problem with ASR, or why it's ASR's job to change its language to appeal to such people? I would argue the opposite. If those people want to learn something they can change their attitudes. If not, who cares? ASR is hugely popular as it is. You can't please everyone.

If you find it offensive that a purchase you have made is considered snake oil by someone publishing tests on a website, that sounds like you a problem. If you believe they don't have a point, who cares? Why any emotional response? If you believe they do have a point, then you're just shooting the messenger, which is even worse. And yes, I've bought things that have been poorly reviewed on this site, both before and after the review. In some cases, the review had a point and I replaced the thing with something else. In other cases, I decided it was good enough for my purposes.

It's just gear.

Having a hated reputation IMO is clear signal to noise ratio that truth is being spoken to power. If you asked someone for a logical and scientific reason they wouldn't go to ASR, at best you get some hand waving about "Amir's bias" and "this vendor's numbers are different" or "but they don't test this metric".

On the flip side as infotisement, which is huge in the audio industry, has moved from magazines to YouTube, it's nice to see much more easily what shills the talking heads and most "reviewers" are. With magazines there were editors, peers, and longer lead times on content, so the pitchmen were much more polished and harder to catch. Now with YT, you can visually see how clearly FOS they are. And if comments are enabled, drop a few links to objective analysis on the topic for fun.

On the side of pricing, I'm definitely in the "we get cooler stuff cheaper than ever" crowd. That said, the market for Veblen goods / Veblen bads is also larger than ever as far as dumb consumers with dumb amounts of money to pour on either bad products that look shiny or good products that are marketed at price points outside of reason. The best that we considerate enthusiasts can do is to just ignore those products and champion good stuff from vendors offering a fair price and value exchange. And every now and again, stick one of the bads in the test rig, demonstrate it's a pile of poo, and move on.

 

[DBA ndreas]

Some speakers certainly, but there are at least some high end speakers which are very expensive and very good. PA speakers have light weight cabinets and the drivers are built in a way which prioritizes high spl over sound quality and deep bass.

Which specific PA speakers do you think can compete with good high end speakers?

KV2 Audio ESD range is an example for passive PA speakers that are outstanding. What makes them so good is the crossover design, which is much more than the typical basic solution and their top notch drivers. This allows them to be driven without external EQ. However you need a subwoofer (or 2 / 4 / 8)

 

[Oddball]

Sorry but not understanding why no external EQ required? Is this for all the rooms and preferences?

 

[test1223]

KV2 Audio ESD range is an example for passive PA speakers that are outstanding. What makes them so good is the crossover design, which is much more than the typical basic solution and their top notch drivers. This allows them to be driven without external EQ. However you need a subwoofer (or 2 / 4 / 8)

From my experience almost all PA loudspeaker cabinets are not heavy and stiff enough to operate without unwanted sound transmission. The typically sized 12" two way speakers from KV2 weights about 25kg which is a good thing for PA since one person can move such a speaker without any problem. A good "dead" cabinet with this size is much more heavy about 50 to 100kg is the typical weight of a similar sized high end speaker. The needed bracing and cabinet wall thickness leads to such a heavy weight. Therefore almost all PA speakers cabinets add an unwanted sound at least at higher spl.

This is only one aspect which indicates the compromises against good sound which almost all PA speakers have to deal with...

 

[GXAlan]

Hi thank you for the very kind and valuable advice
for high end prices i am reading

i have seen big towers asking 500k
are Meyer sound same expensive ? for same FR, SPL and distortion of course
i doubt

Great point. They are in the $10k/pair range which is where I saw your comment about 1/10th the price.

For sure, against the silly $100 and $500k speakers, getting pro level studio gear is the way to go. I believe Meyer Bluehorn’s are about $100K but that’s specifically for flagship mixing studios like those at Fox, etc.

The Meyer X40 is used with the Meyer Screen Array.

Blind tests can miss clearly perceivable differences. With visual images, there's a well established experimental demonstration of "change blindness."

+1 This is a very good point and I showed this WITH ABX verification in this thread where I could ABX the difference under blind testing on day 1 by relying purely on the generation of the ASMR tingle which vanished after the first day. That is, I could identify A and B because only one offered a back of the neck tingle. But the next day, it sort of vanished. Even if this was level matching issues, I could no longer identify the difference in levels.

Does DSD recording benefit Japanese traditional instruments?

Is DSD 11.2 MHz "required" for recording taiko drums and Japanese stringed instruments? https://www.phileweb.com/review/column/202303/29/2088.html Original article in Japanese "The powerful and deep ultra-low sound of Japanese taiko drums and the penetrating treble of Noukan and Hichiriki...

www.audiosciencereview.com

That said, there is a concept of effect size.

Even though I do believe that blind testing can cause small differences to vanish for the very reason you explain, BIG differences are resilient to change blindness.

In that manner, blind testing helps you identify differences that are large in effect size (adding a subwoofer, changing speakers, etc.) and those that are subtle.

Spend the money on speakers and the room. The rest is such a small difference that you should save your money and apply it toward the speaker / furniture / home remodeling budget.

 

[DBA ndreas]

Sorry but not understanding why no external EQ required? Is this for all the rooms and preferences?

This means the speaker has a quite linear frequency response on it’s own. Together with it’s controlled directivity only room mode EQ (Bass) might be needed. Typically PA speakers need a controller to work properly to save on the passive network inside the box.

The boxes are all braced and damped properly, no high end over engineering of course. Listen to them and you throw away some of the 100 kg speakers with toy drivers.