Why do we purchase loudspeakers based off of research done at NRC/Harman without conducting unsighted listening tests for ourselves?

[LDKTA]

Is anyone here familiar with Scott Wheeler? This is his question.

I am not sure he believes the research at NRC/Harman was/is of scientific nature -- Yet he claims to not object to or disagree with the research -- although he's previously professed his issues with the research. His circular reasoning begets circular arguments. To no end, can you have a reasonable conversation with this person. He enjoys calling out both objectivists and subjectivists while at the same time, he is a die hard objectivist and die hard objectivist. A part of me used to believe he was a troll and I once referred to him as a nihilist based on our prior conversations but I can see now that he is dead serious.

So the question for us "self proclaimed objectivists" -- his words -- How can we know which loudspeakers we prefer without personally taking part in blind comparisons to substantiate our preference? Is this practical? Is this realistic?

Lastly, this is his proposal to properly testing each loudspeaker to determine a preference: "The difference for me would be setting both speakers up as they are supposed to be used with room treatments that suit each individual design."

Thoughts?

 

[RayDunzl]

Why do we purchase loudspeakers based off of research done at NRC/Harman without conducting unsighted listening tests for ourselves?

Point and Click.

Boom. Done.

Wait for doorbell.

 

[BillG]

I'm not about to audition every speaker I might be interested at home, as I've neither the time nor will to do so. So, I rely on measurements done by industry professionals with solid engineering backgrounds, and their very informed opinions, if I don't have the opportunity to audition a particular speaker at home for myself.

As for my subjective preferences, if I start with a well designed speaker, and the measurements will tell me if it is, applying some DSP will take care of that just fine. That method has worked well in the decades I've used it now.

As for Scott Wheeler, who is he, and why would I consider listening to his advice? I've never heard of him...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Don't know Scott Wheeler.

Before the research was done, I think most people in the loudspeaker field would have thought flat power response was the ultimate goal.

What the NRC/Harman found was not quite that though not terribly far off. Flat on axis response, and gently sloping off axis response without large peaks or dips (a gentle directivity in other words). So conceptually the results aren't odd in any way to make us think they are wrong. Further research over time showed large groups of people, trained and untrained as test listeners rated most highly the same characteristics. The research also quantified how close to perfect one needed to be before it starts bothering listeners. It is close to a power amp designer thinking an amp that in no way alters the signal is sure to be the one preferred and finding in blind listening tests that is the case.

What is sometimes not noticed is Harman has also shown if not blinded we don't choose the best sounding speaker. In open tests, some very colored speakers with odd responses would get chosen when the test subjects could see what the speaker was in each instance. Our knowledge, the visual appearance, the reputation etc all could over-power the sound quality the speaker put out, and cause an inferior speaker to be preferred. I doubt if that bias due to appearance etc goes away.

Now in any case, it is possible one has some unusual preference for what kind of sound they prefer in a speaker. But Harman's research makes that if not unlikely at least unusual. So rarely would a purchase without testing your own preference be unsatisfactory.

As a long time audiophile, who once auditioned everything personally, it actually is pretty nice not to have to do that. I would sometimes purchase things sight unseen 2nd hand. If I liked it, kept it. If not, I sold it to recover the money. Much nicer to look at specs, look at features, maybe see the unit in person, and know what you are getting ahead of time. I don't know if speakers are quite there yet, but closer. As BillG said, the differences can probably be tuned into your preference with some DSP.

Whoever Wheeler is maybe he is just trying to keep things individualized. Like high end bicycles. The prestigious thing is to have a frame custom made to fit. Think the same as a tailor made suite made just for your body. Yet nearly all the top custom frame makers will tell you at least 95% of the people can be properly fitted with off the rack frames of the proper size and a few adjustments.

 

[LDKTA]

Very interesting! He was actually apart of this forum at one point in time... Same circular arguments.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...can-you-trust-your-ears-by-tom-nousaine.1669/
Towards the end. This explains everything.

 

[RayDunzl]

One of these?

Scott Wheeler may refer to:

• Scott Wheeler (composer) (born 1952), American concert-music composer.
• Scott Wheeler (makeup artist), American special makeup effects artist.
• Scott Wheeler (politician) (born 1965), Republican politician in Vermont.
• Scott Wheeler (reporter) (born 1963), an American investigative reporter.

 

[tmtomh]

I encountered him on the Steve Hoffman forums and found him doctrinaire, contradictory, and very difficult to deal with as the OP has described. I bear him no ill will and am not interested in ad hominem attacks. I would only say that I don't think his comments and views are necessarily the most productive jumping-off points for a discussion of an issue.

 

[LeftCoastTim]

Is anyone here familiar with Scott Wheeler? This is his question.

Thoughts?

Would you get medication or surgery that wasn’t tried on you first?

Why would you trust tests done on other people?

Clearly this is a vacuous argument made by snake oil salesmen or someone trying to confuse. Or are confused themselves.

 

[Ron Texas]

How are you planning to blind test loudspeakers that aren't even available for sighted testing in your area?

 

[LDKTA]

How are you planning to blind test loudspeakers that aren't even available for sighted testing in your area?

Exactly. It is unrealistic and impractical. Not to mention, this isn't an easy task to be done properly. I'm not sure if I could post screenshots here but it would be great for some more context. I did post the thread I found him on here though and it is very clear that he doesn't find the research done at NRC/Harman to be scientific and his issues lie there.

 

[amirm]

How can we know which loudspeakers we prefer without personally taking part in blind comparisons to substantiate our preference?

I have taken the test twice at Harman and both my vote and most of the others in the audience matched the research. One person voted differently in the second session. Poor guy was a new Harman employee and picked the non-Harman speaker as better. Harman folks were cool about it though so it ended well.

So as far as I am concerned, the research applies to most of us.

Many others have taken the test and their outcome matches as well:

As you see, the ranking of the speakers do not change no matter which group took the test.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Exactly. It is unrealistic and impractical. Not to mention, this isn't an easy task to be done properly. I'm not sure if I could post screenshots here but it would be great for some more context. I did post the thread I found him on here though and it is very clear that he doesn't find the research done at NRC/Harman to be scientific and his issues lie there.

He isn't alone in that. I think Cosmik has similar misgivings about it. Can you point to some other more direct writing by Mr. Wheeler. I'm not familiar with him. Or maybe relay what his misgivings were.

And I'd ask, do you have any ideas how to scientifically approach loudspeaker performance goals? Not as a challenge. Just wondering if you have any interesting thoughts about it.

Bit of a side comment: I've seen Jim Thiel speak many times. He was trying to be oriented like an engineer or scientist. He had two overwhelming goals in mind. Flat precise low variation on axis frequency response, and 1st order crossovers as in acoustically 1st order. His speakers were well made with complex compensation to achieve true 1st order cross overs acoustically, and flat on axis. I think on axis they even passed a good squarewave and step response. They were a difficult load for amps and always brightly tinged if not set up with lots of care. We now know from the work at Harman that such 1st order crossovers with their big dips and peaks off axis are likely to sound compromised and bright. Exactly what the Thiels did sound like. If Jim Thiel had paid attention to humans disregard for phase at higher frequencies and used 24 db crossovers his speakers would have been much better. Instead he was blinded by flat FR combined with good phase response on axis.

Also this is an interesting read about visiting Harman facilities by Kal Rubinson who posts here regularly.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-harman-international

 

[RayDunzl]

Can you point to some other more direct writing by Mr. Wheeler.

This? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?search/1026094/

 

[Wombat]

This? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?search/1026094/

Link not working here.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?search/1026094/

Your link isn't working, but the earlier one took me to the 1st page of a 1000+ post thread of 58 pages.

Looking a bit was it Analog Scott??? Looks as if his posts were expunged.

 

[pwjazz]

I have taken the test twice at Harman and both my vote and most of the others in the audience matched the research. One person voted differently in the second session. Poor guy was a new Harman employee and picked the non-Harman speaker as better. Harman folks were cool about it though so it ended well.

So as far as I am concerned, the research applies to most of us.

Many others have taken the test and their outcome matches as well:

As you see, the ranking of the speakers do not change no matter which group took the test.

P and I actually do trade blows. It's also interesting that the Harman trained listeners are by far the most critical yet find P and I equally good.

 

[LDKTA]

He isn't alone in that. I think Cosmik has similar misgivings about it. Can you point to some other more direct writing by Mr. Wheeler. I'm not familiar with him. Or maybe relay what his misgivings were.

And I'd ask, do you have any ideas how to scientifically approach loudspeaker performance goals? Not as a challenge. Just wondering if you have any interesting thoughts about it.

Bit of a side comment: I've seen Jim Thiel speak many times. He was trying to be oriented like an engineer or scientist. He had two overwhelming goals in mind. Flat precise low variation on axis frequency response, and 1st order crossovers as in acoustically 1st order. His speakers were well made with complex compensation to achieve true 1st order cross overs acoustically, and flat on axis. I think on axis they even passed a good squarewave and step response. They were a difficult load for amps and always brightly tinged if not set up with lots of care. We now know from the work at Harman that such 1st order crossovers with their big dips and peaks off axis are likely to sound compromised and bright. Exactly what the Thiels did sound like. If Jim Thiel had paid attention to humans disregard for phase at higher frequencies and used 24 db crossovers his speakers would have been much better. Instead he was blinded by flat FR combined with good phase response on axis.

Also this is an interesting read about visiting Harman facilities by Kal Rubinson who posts here regularly.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-harman-international

"Pointing out your absurd assertion that *YOU* don't need to use bias controls when forming subjective opinions about sound quality of speakers is no different than cable believers saying the same thing about cables is a reality check not a circular argument. It is absolutely on topic anytime anyone makes that absurd claim. Bias effects are ALWAYS in play not just when audiophiles are listening for differences in cables. This was one of the major issues Toole brought up when it comes to his work on speaker design. That even with things like speakers which undoubtedly have substantial, huge differences in sound quality that preferences would be substantially affected by sighted bias. So you DONT get to claim a personal exemption to that rule. You are not above being human like everyone else. So the FACT is you know preferences no better than those folks claiming huge differences in cable sound. FACT. Your personal preferences are no more valid than theirs." -- Scott

All I said was that I didn't have to do a blind comparison to substantiate my claim of preferring a neutral loudspeaker over one that wasn't. I will go through the post in this group that he commented on and share screenshots. The excerpt from above was from a Facebook group. Apparently, he "can't form a reliable opinion about" one loudspeaker versus another for preference "without doing bias controlled comparisons."

I've owned nothing but compromised loudspeaker designs with my latest being the B&W 805 D3s -- which I sold for the JBL 708Ps. I used to purchase speakers based off of "just listening." I also take notes on every single demonstration I get with loudspeakers properly setup... Ironically, the best loudspeakers on that list all measured very well. Is this just a coincidence? I don't believe so. This was before I knew anything about Floyd Toole or Sean Olive and the research conducted at NRC/Harman. The first pair of loudspeakers I ever listen to were a pair of Wilson's... I wasn't impressed and I had no idea how much they'd cost BNIB... Until I asked. It was that day that I became skeptical of more expensive equals better.

 

[LDKTA]

Your link isn't working, but the earlier one took me to the 1st page of a 1000+ post thread of 58 pages.

Looking a bit was it Analog Scott??? Looks as if his posts were expunged.

Yes, it is Analog Scott. Interestingly enough, I can still see them.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...can-you-trust-your-ears-by-tom-nousaine.1669/

 

[LDKTA]

This? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?search/1026094/

Yes. That's it.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...can-you-trust-your-ears-by-tom-nousaine.1669/

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, it is Analog Scott. Interestingly enough, I can still see them.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...can-you-trust-your-ears-by-tom-nousaine.1669/

Ray helped me figure it out. I had old Scott on my ignore list. So I was seeing nothing by him in the thread or in searches. Having looked at a couple he is back on ignore.